- Featured in Physics
- Editors' Suggestion
- Access by Xinjiang University
Relation between the psychological and thermodynamic arrows of time
Phys. Rev. E 89, 052102 – Published 2 May, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.052102
Abstract
In this paper we lay out an argument that generically the psychological arrow of time should align with the thermodynamic arrow of time where that arrow is well defined. This argument applies to any physical system that can act as a memory, in the sense of preserving a record of the state of some other system. This result follows from two principles: the robustness of the thermodynamic arrow of time to small perturbations in the state, and the principle that a memory should not have to be fine-tuned to match the state of the system being recorded. This argument applies even if the memory system itself is completely reversible and nondissipative. We make the argument with a paradigmatic system, and then formulate it more broadly for any system that can be considered a memory. We illustrate these principles for a few other example systems and compare our criteria to earlier treatments of this problem.
Focus
Why We Can’t Remember the Future
The basic laws of physics don’t obviously prohibit it, but the criteria for a genuine “memory” do.
See more in Physics
Article Text
References (12)
- S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 32, 2489 (1985).
- S. W. Hawking, in The Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, edited by J. J. Halliwell (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 346–357.
- R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183 (1961).
- D. Wolpert, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 31, 743 (1992).
- J. B. Hartle, Am. J. Phys. 73, 101 (2005).
- L. S. Schulman, Entropy 7, 221 (2005).
- J. B. Hartle, arXiv:1301.2844 (2013).
- P. S. Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, translated by F. W. Truscott and F. L. Emory, 6th ed. (Dover, New York, 1951), p. 4. A similar though somewhat less eloquent statement was actually made 50 years earlier by the philosopher and Catholic priest Roger Boscovich; see Stephen G. Brush, The Kind of Motion We Call Heat, Vol. 2, p. 595 (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1986).
- C. H. Bennett, IBM J. Res. Dev. 32, 16 (1988).
- M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle,“Strong decoherence,” in Proceedings of the 4th Drexel Conference on Quantum Non-Integrability: The Quantum-Classical Correspondence, edited by D.-H. Feng and B.-L. Hu (International Press of Boston, Hong Kong, 1998).
- P. B. Price and R. M. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 217 (1962).
- L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080401 (2009).