Classic Mechanics and Electromagnetism, conventionally taken as time-reversible, share the same concept of motion (either of mass or charge) as the basis of the time reversibility in their own fields. This paper focuses on the relationship between mobile geometry and motion reversibility. The goal is to extrapolate the conclusions to the quantum frame, where matter and radiation behave just as elementary mobiles. The possibility that the asymmetry of Time (Time’s arrow) is an effect of a fundamental quantum asymmetry of elementary particles, turns out to be a consequence of the discussion.
Classic Mechanics and Electromagnetism, conventionally taken as time-reversible, share the same concept of motion (either of mass or charge) as the basis of the time reversibility in their own fields. This paper focuses on the relationship between mobile geometry and motion reversibility. The goal is to extrapolate the conclusions to the quantum frame, where matter and radiation behave just as elementary mobiles. The possibility that the asymmetry of Time (Time’s arrow) is an effect of a fundamental quantum asymmetry of elementary particles, turns out to be a consequence of the discussion.
We show time reversal asymmetry in quantum mechanics by isolating a single, solitary hydrogen atom in a black body, deriving from it the diagonalized Hamiltonian matrix in continuous time, and using it to visualize the irreversibility of the emission and absorption of radiation. Graphic evidence in support of the model is obtained from experiments performed with the simplest quantum system, an electron cyclotron. The experimental evidence is used to obtain equations of motion to describe time asymmetry with respect to the energy-time conjugate variables in linear time which complement the time symmetric equations of motion in position-momentum coordinates given with respect to cyclical time. Theoretical arguments by Feynman and Einstein are shown to support time reversal asymmetry.
This is Part 1 of a four part paper, intended to redress some of the most fundamental confusions in the subject of physical time directionality, and represent the concepts accurately. There are widespread fallacies in the subject that need to be corrected in introductory courses for physics students and philosophers. Parts 1 and 2 are about quantum mechanics, Part 3 is about fundamental concepts, and Part 4 is about cosmology. We start in Part 1 by analysing the time reversal symmetry of quantum probability laws. Time reversal symmetry is defined as the property of invariance under the time reversal transformation, T: t -> -t. It is shown that quantum mechanics (classical or relativistic) is strongly time asymmetric in its probability laws. This contradicts the orthodox analysis, found throughout the conventional literature on physical time, which claims that quantum mechanics is time symmetric or reversible. This is widely claimed as settled scientific fact, and large philosophical and scientific conclusions are drawn from it. But it is an error. The fact is that while quantum mechanics is widely claimed to be reversible on the basis of two formal mathematical properties (that it does have), these properties do not represent invariance under the time reversal transformation. A recent experiment (Batalhao at alia, 2015) showing irreversibility of quantum thermodynamics is discussed as an illustration of this result. Most physicists remain unaware of the errors, decades after they were first demonstrated. Orthodox specialists in the philosophy of time who are aware of the error continue to refer to the ‘time symmetry’ or ‘reversibility’ of quantum mechanics anyway – and exploit the ambiguity to claim false implications about physical time reversal symmetry in nature. The excuse for perpetrating the confusion is that, since it is has now become customary to refer to the formal properties of quantum mechanics as ‘reversibility’ or ‘time reversal symmetry’, we should just keep referring to them by this name, even though they are not time reversal symmetry. This causes endless confusion, in attempts to explain the physical irreversibility of our universe, and in philosophical discussions of implications of physics for the nature of time. The failure of time reversal symmetry in quantum mechanics changes the interpretation of modern physics in a deep way. It changes the problem of explaining the real irreversibility found throughout nature.
The purpose -of this work is to discuss the symmetry, or lack of it, under reversal of motion in physical objects, states and processes. Considerations of such symmetry are made in both classical and quantum physics, notably in the problem of reconciling the assumed time-reversal symmetry of microscopic processes with the observed asymmetry of macroscopic processes. In the case of classical mechanics, a simple model of a free particle colliding with a series of almost stationary or stationary particles of smaller mass is introduced in order to show how a friction-like phenomenon can arise from processes all of which have symmetry under reversal of motion. It is maintained throughout that symmetry under reversal of motion is a property of all fundamental states and processes in nature.
Time asymmetry and irreversibility are signal features of our world. They are the reason of our aging and the basis for our belief that effects are preceded by causes. These features have many manifestations called arrows of time. In classical physics, some of these arrows are described by the increase of entropy or probability, and others by time‐asymmetric boundary conditions of time‐symmetric equations (e.g., Maxwell or Einstein). However, there is some controversy over whether probability or boundary conditions are more fundamental. For quantum systems, entropy increase is usually associated with the effects of an environment or measurement apparatus on a quantum system and is described by the von Neumann‐Liouville equation. But since the traditional (von Neumann) axioms of quantum mechanics do not allow time‐asymmetric boundary conditions for the dynamical differential equations (Schrödinger or Heisenberg), there is no quantum analogue of the radiation arrow of time. In this paper, we review consequences of a modification of a fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics. The new quantum theory is time asymmetric and accommodates an irreversible time evolution of isolated quantum systems.
Abstract Based on the hypothesis that the (non-reversible) arrow of time is intrinsic in any system, no matter how small, the consequences are discussed. Within the framework of local quantum physics it is shown how such a semi-group action of time can consistently be extended to that of the group of spacetime translations in Minkowski space. In presence of massless excitations, however, there arise ambiguities in the theoretical extensions of the time translations to the past. The corresponding loss of quantum information on states upon time is determined. Finally, it is explained how the description of operations in classical terms combined with constraints imposed by the arrow of time leads to a quantum theoretical framework. These results suggest that the arrow of time is fundamental in nature and not merely a consequence of statistical effects on which the Second Law is based.
It is brought forward that viable theories of the physical world that have no variable at all that can play the role of time, do not exist; some notion of time is one of the very first ingredients a candidate theory should possess. Almost by definition, time has an arrow. In contrast, time reversibility, or even the possibility to run the equations of motion backwards in time, is not at all a primary requirement. This means that the direction of the arrow of time may well be uniquely defined in the theory, even locally. It is explained that a rigorous definition of time, as well as a formulation of the causality and locality concepts, can only be given when one has a model for the physical phenomena described. The only viable causality condition is one that is symmetric under time reversal. We explain these statements in terms of the author’s favoured deterministic cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, also to be referred to as 'vector space analysis', and expand on these ideas. It is also summarised how our more rigorous causality condition affects Bell’s theorems. What distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is our fundamental inability to control the microscopic details of the initial state when phenomena are studied in the light of some theoretical model.