Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The Time Asymmetry of Quantum Mechanics and Concepts of Physical Directionality of Time. Part 1. T Asymmetry of Quantum Probability Laws.

Andrew Holster

Published Dec 1, 2017• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

The criterion for time symmetry of probabilistic theories and the reversibility of quantum mechanics

Andrew Holster

Physicists routinely claim that the fundamental laws of physics are 'time symmetric' or 'time reversal invariant' or 'reversible'. In particular, it is claimed that the theory of quantum mechanics is time symmetric. But it is shown in this paper that the orthodox analysis suffers from a fatal conceptual error, because the logical criterion for judging the time symmetry of probabilistic theories has been incorrectly formulated. The correct criterion requires symmetry between future-directed laws and past-directed laws. This criterion is formulated and proved in detail. The orthodox claim that quantum mechanics is reversible is re-evaluated. The property demonstrated in the orthodox analysis is shown to be quite distinct from time reversal invariance. The view of Satosi Watanabe that quantum mechanics is time asymmetric is verified, as well as his view that this feature does not merely show a de facto or 'contingent' asymmetry, as commonly supposed, but implies a genuine failure of time reversal invariance of the laws of quantum mechanics. The laws of quantum mechanics would be incompatible with a time-reversed version of our universe.

New Journal of Physics•Oct 9, 2003•8 citations

Time flow and reversibility in a probabilistic universe : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy at Massey University

Andrew Holster

A fundamental problem in understanding the nature of time is to explain its 'directionality'. The commonplace view is that this directionality is provided by the 'flow of time'. Unfortunately this concept of 'time flow', which seems to make perfect sense to us in our everyday lives, has resisted philosophical and scientific analysis so well that today it is widely regarded as having no place in the scientific account of the world. Instead, various alternative physical concepts of the directionality of time have been developed, principally the notions of the time reversibility of physical laws or theories, and of the time asymmetry of physical processes. It is frequently argued by philosophers of physics that the scientific account of the directionality of time must be framed entirely in terms of these physical notions. The thesis of the present work is that this conclusion has been reached far too hastily. It is argued that the concept of time flow is a legitimate physical concept, and furthermore, that time flow plays a real part in quantum theory. A number of conceptual investigations are necessary to support this argument. Firstly, it is necessary to give an analysis of what a physical theory of time flow might be like, and how it might be empirically established. This is given in Chapter One, which at the same time is an overview of the results of later chapters. It is found in Chapter One that the concept of physical time flow has an important connection with the concept of time reversibility, which makes it necessary to give an analysis of this notion. A detailed discussion of reversibility and time symmetry is given in Chapters Two to Five. Here it is demonstrated that the orthodox analysis of the reversibility of probabilistic theories is flawed. This conclusion allows it to be shown, in Chapter Six, that, contrary to current scientific belief, quantum theory is profoundly irreversible. This result, together with the argument of Chapter One, allows a strong prima facie case for an interpretation of quantum probabilities as involving time flow to be given. However, because of the traditional problems with the notion of time flow, for this interpretation to become respectable it needs to be demonstrated that it is possible to construct a formal model of a physical ontology in which time flow can be represented. This is undertaken in Chapter Seven. In Chapter Eight, various points about the role of probabilities in quantum theory are discussed. Finally, in Chapter Nine, the implications of relativity theory for the proposed theory of time flow are considered. It is found that relativity theory poses a serious problem for a physical theory of time flow, but the implications of relativity theory for the proposed interpretation of quantum probabilities is not clear because of deeper foundational problems with quantum theory.

•Jan 1, 1990•0 citations

Seeking for a Fundamental Quantum Arrow of Time: Time Reversal and the Symmetry-To-Reality Inference in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Cristian López

In this paper I shall shed some doubts on a widely-held claim: standard quantum mechanics is time-reversal invariant, and thereby, blind to the direction of time. Building bridges between physics and philosophy, I shall argue that such a claim features some puzzling assumptions that are frequently overlooked in the literature. In particular, I shall first argue that the claim involves some methodological and metaphysical commitments that should be evaluated more prudently from philosophy and from physics. Second, I shall point out that the common inference that goes from symmetry to metaphysical conclusions needs some correction and refinement to be acceptable for time symmetry and the debate around the arrow of time

Frontiers in Physics•Sep 19, 2018•4 citations

Time, decoherence, and ‘reversible’ measurements

Philip C. E. Stamp

Introduction In this chapter I attempt to review a few somewhat loosely connected themes, which figure in recent work by physicists on decoherence and irreversibility in quantum mechanics. The looseness is forced upon us by the subject – any proper discussion inevitably drags in questions about thermodynamic reversibility and the various arrows of time, about the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum measurement, about the nature of quantum coherence, and about the relationship between quantum and classical mechanics. There are inevitably many gaps in our understanding of these questions, both for the physicist and for the philosopher. Some philosophers may feel that the subject is too immature to be interesting to them – that it is not yet ripe for philosophical analysis. Indeed I have recently heard the opinion expressed that quantum mechanics in its entirety was still not amenable to such analysis – that if the physicists could not yet understand it, there was no point in philosophers trying! I hope this feeling is not too widespread amongst philosophers of science – I suspect that it may arise in part because the philosophical community (along with a good part of the scientific community) is unaware of some important advances that have been made in the last decade in understanding the physics of quantum processes at the macroscopic level, as well as the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. Much of the chapter is therefore unashamedly tutorial in nature; however, given the wide range of topics covered, I imagine that even physicists will find at least some of the material to be novel.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 24, 1995•6 citations

Time reversal symmetry and collapse models

Daniel Bedingham, O. J. E. Maroney

Collapse models are modifications of quantum theory where the wave function is treated as physically real and the collapse of the wave function is a physical process. This appears to introduce a time reversal asymmetry into the dynamics of the wave function since the collapses affect only the future state. This paper challenges this conclusion, showing that in three different examples of time asymmetries associated with collapse models, if the physically real part of the model can be reduced to the locations in space and time about which collapses occur, then such a model works both forward and backward in time, in each case satisfying the Born rule. Despite the apparent asymmetry of the collapse process, these models in fact have time reversal symmetry. Any physically observed time asymmetries that arise in such models are due to the asymmetric imposition of initial or final time boundary conditions, rather than from an inherent asymmetry in the dynamical law. This is the standard explanation of time asymmetric behaviour resulting from time symmetric laws.

arXiv:1502.06830•Feb 24, 2015•2 citations

Introduction To Quantum Relaxation Processes

Abraham Nitzan

The first question to ask about the phenomenon of relaxation is why it occurs at all. Both the Newton and the Schrödinger equations are symmetrical under time reversal: The Newton equation, dx/dt = v ; dv/dt = −∂V/∂x, implies that particles obeying this law of motion will retrace their trajectory back in time after changing the sign of both the time t and the particle velocities v. The Schrödinger equation, ∂ψ/∂t = −(i/.h) Ĥ ψ, implies that if (ψ (t) is a solution then ψ *(−t) is also one, so that observables which depend on |ψ|2 are symmetric in time. On the other hand, nature clearly evolves asymmetrically as asserted by the second law of thermodynamics. How does this asymmetry arise in a system that obeys temporal symmetry in its time evolution? Readers with background in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics have encountered the intuitive answer: Irreversibility in a system with many degrees of freedom is essentially a manifestation of the system “getting lost in phase space”:Asystem starts from a given state and evolves in time. If the number of accessible states is huge, the probability that the system will find its way back to the initial state in finite time is vanishingly small, so that an observer who monitors properties associated with the initial state will see an irreversible evolution. The question is how is this irreversible behavior manifested through the reversible equations of motion, and how does it show in the quantitative description of the time evolution. This chapter provides an introduction to this subject using the time-dependent Schrödinger equation as a starting point. Chapter 10 discusses more advanced aspects of this problem within the framework of the quantum Liouville equation and the density operator formalism.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 6, 2006•0 citations
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.
Physicists routinely claim that the fundamental laws of physics are 'time symmetric' or 'time reversal invariant' or 'reversible'. In particular, it is claimed that the theory of quantum mechanics is time symmetric. But it is shown in this paper that the orthodox analysis suffers from a fatal conceptual error, because the logical criterion for judging the time symmetry of probabilistic theories has been incorrectly formulated. The correct criterion requires symmetry between future-directed laws and past-directed laws. This criterion is formulated and proved in detail. The orthodox claim that quantum mechanics is reversible is re-evaluated. The property demonstrated in the orthodox analysis is shown to be quite distinct from time reversal invariance. The view of Satosi Watanabe that quantum mechanics is time asymmetric is verified, as well as his view that this feature does not merely show a de facto or 'contingent' asymmetry, as commonly supposed, but implies a genuine failure of time reversal invariance of the laws of quantum mechanics. The laws of quantum mechanics would be incompatible with a time-reversed version of our universe.
A fundamental problem in understanding the nature of time is to explain its 'directionality'. The commonplace view is that this directionality is provided by the 'flow of time'. Unfortunately this concept of 'time flow', which seems to make perfect sense to us in our everyday lives, has resisted philosophical and scientific analysis so well that today it is widely regarded as having no place in the scientific account of the world. Instead, various alternative physical concepts of the directionality of time have been developed, principally the notions of the time reversibility of physical laws or theories, and of the time asymmetry of physical processes. It is frequently argued by philosophers of physics that the scientific account of the directionality of time must be framed entirely in terms of these physical notions. The thesis of the present work is that this conclusion has been reached far too hastily. It is argued that the concept of time flow is a legitimate physical concept, and furthermore, that time flow plays a real part in quantum theory. A number of conceptual investigations are necessary to support this argument. Firstly, it is necessary to give an analysis of what a physical theory of time flow might be like, and how it might be empirically established. This is given in Chapter One, which at the same time is an overview of the results of later chapters. It is found in Chapter One that the concept of physical time flow has an important connection with the concept of time reversibility, which makes it necessary to give an analysis of this notion. A detailed discussion of reversibility and time symmetry is given in Chapters Two to Five. Here it is demonstrated that the orthodox analysis of the reversibility of probabilistic theories is flawed. This conclusion allows it to be shown, in Chapter Six, that, contrary to current scientific belief, quantum theory is profoundly irreversible. This result, together with the argument of Chapter One, allows a strong prima facie case for an interpretation of quantum probabilities as involving time flow to be given. However, because of the traditional problems with the notion of time flow, for this interpretation to become respectable it needs to be demonstrated that it is possible to construct a formal model of a physical ontology in which time flow can be represented. This is undertaken in Chapter Seven. In Chapter Eight, various points about the role of probabilities in quantum theory are discussed. Finally, in Chapter Nine, the implications of relativity theory for the proposed theory of time flow are considered. It is found that relativity theory poses a serious problem for a physical theory of time flow, but the implications of relativity theory for the proposed interpretation of quantum probabilities is not clear because of deeper foundational problems with quantum theory.
In this paper I shall shed some doubts on a widely-held claim: standard quantum mechanics is time-reversal invariant, and thereby, blind to the direction of time. Building bridges between physics and philosophy, I shall argue that such a claim features some puzzling assumptions that are frequently overlooked in the literature. In particular, I shall first argue that the claim involves some methodological and metaphysical commitments that should be evaluated more prudently from philosophy and from physics. Second, I shall point out that the common inference that goes from symmetry to metaphysical conclusions needs some correction and refinement to be acceptable for time symmetry and the debate around the arrow of time
Introduction In this chapter I attempt to review a few somewhat loosely connected themes, which figure in recent work by physicists on decoherence and irreversibility in quantum mechanics. The looseness is forced upon us by the subject – any proper discussion inevitably drags in questions about thermodynamic reversibility and the various arrows of time, about the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum measurement, about the nature of quantum coherence, and about the relationship between quantum and classical mechanics. There are inevitably many gaps in our understanding of these questions, both for the physicist and for the philosopher. Some philosophers may feel that the subject is too immature to be interesting to them – that it is not yet ripe for philosophical analysis. Indeed I have recently heard the opinion expressed that quantum mechanics in its entirety was still not amenable to such analysis – that if the physicists could not yet understand it, there was no point in philosophers trying! I hope this feeling is not too widespread amongst philosophers of science – I suspect that it may arise in part because the philosophical community (along with a good part of the scientific community) is unaware of some important advances that have been made in the last decade in understanding the physics of quantum processes at the macroscopic level, as well as the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. Much of the chapter is therefore unashamedly tutorial in nature; however, given the wide range of topics covered, I imagine that even physicists will find at least some of the material to be novel.
Collapse models are modifications of quantum theory where the wave function is treated as physically real and the collapse of the wave function is a physical process. This appears to introduce a time reversal asymmetry into the dynamics of the wave function since the collapses affect only the future state. This paper challenges this conclusion, showing that in three different examples of time asymmetries associated with collapse models, if the physically real part of the model can be reduced to the locations in space and time about which collapses occur, then such a model works both forward and backward in time, in each case satisfying the Born rule. Despite the apparent asymmetry of the collapse process, these models in fact have time reversal symmetry. Any physically observed time asymmetries that arise in such models are due to the asymmetric imposition of initial or final time boundary conditions, rather than from an inherent asymmetry in the dynamical law. This is the standard explanation of time asymmetric behaviour resulting from time symmetric laws.
The first question to ask about the phenomenon of relaxation is why it occurs at all. Both the Newton and the Schrödinger equations are symmetrical under time reversal: The Newton equation, dx/dt = v ; dv/dt = −∂V/∂x, implies that particles obeying this law of motion will retrace their trajectory back in time after changing the sign of both the time t and the particle velocities v. The Schrödinger equation, ∂ψ/∂t = −(i/.h) Ĥ ψ, implies that if (ψ (t) is a solution then ψ *(−t) is also one, so that observables which depend on |ψ|2 are symmetric in time. On the other hand, nature clearly evolves asymmetrically as asserted by the second law of thermodynamics. How does this asymmetry arise in a system that obeys temporal symmetry in its time evolution? Readers with background in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics have encountered the intuitive answer: Irreversibility in a system with many degrees of freedom is essentially a manifestation of the system “getting lost in phase space”:Asystem starts from a given state and evolves in time. If the number of accessible states is huge, the probability that the system will find its way back to the initial state in finite time is vanishingly small, so that an observer who monitors properties associated with the initial state will see an irreversible evolution. The question is how is this irreversible behavior manifested through the reversible equations of motion, and how does it show in the quantitative description of the time evolution. This chapter provides an introduction to this subject using the time-dependent Schrödinger equation as a starting point. Chapter 10 discusses more advanced aspects of this problem within the framework of the quantum Liouville equation and the density operator formalism.