Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2020 at 2:57 comment added ejang As pointed out by Philip's 2nd bullet point, all particles obey QM, which is T-asymmetric. So isn't this a fairly straightforward resolution to the paradox - that we simply state that "microscopic collisions are actually T-asymmetric"? What's wrong with this explanation?
Aug 2, 2016 at 17:41 comment added AGML I'm not sure it doesn't make sense to declare axioms in physics, although it does import some philosophical baggage. It's conceivable (and I think in practice this is the implicit position of most physicists, or at least theorists) that the laws of physics derive from some set of "natural" axioms, for example.
Jan 25, 2012 at 10:51 comment added propaganda actually I had already voted you up because: the second bullet looks a lot like a different interpretation of what I have in mind, and because it is a summary of what different directions the scientific community explores on the topic, which was part of the question
Jan 25, 2012 at 9:48 comment added Philip Gibbs - inactive Feel free to vote me down if you think the scientific community all agrees with your solution to this paradox.
Jan 25, 2012 at 9:04 comment added propaganda has the statistical mechanics relationship between microscopic variables (unknown to an entity within the system) and macroscopic variables (some of which form the "knowledge" of an entity in the system) been combined with Kripke semantics to explain the arrow of time?
Jan 25, 2012 at 9:00 comment added propaganda "It could be that the time asymmetry of the universe is driven by the laws of quantum mechanics through the measurement process which is time-asymmetric." it seems like time and knowledge of an entity embedded in the system (which performs and learns information) is getting towards an answer
Jan 25, 2012 at 8:54 history answered Philip Gibbs - inactive CC BY-SA 3.0