>Condensed Matter, abstract >cond-mat/0009139 > >From: L. S. Schulman >Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:25:59 GMT (86kb) > >A compromised arrow of time > >Authors: L. S. Schulman >Comments: For the proceedings of the conference, Equations aux Derivees >Partielles et Physique >Mathematique, in honor of J. Vaillant, Paris, June 2000. B. Gaveau et >al., editors >Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics > > The second law of thermodynamics - the usual statement of the arrow >of time - has > been called the most fundamental law of physics. It is thus >difficult to conceive that a > single dynamic system could contain subsystems, in significant >mutual contact, > possessing opposite thermodynamic arrows of time. By examining >cosmological > justification for the usual arrow it is found that a consistent way >to establish such > justification is by giving symmetric boundary conditions at two >(cosmologically remote) > times and seeking directional behavior in between. Once this has >been demonstrated, it > is seen that entropy increase can be reversed and that the usual >arrow is less totalitarian > than previously believed. In the same vein, other boundary >conditions, modeling shorter > periods in the evolution of the cosmos, can be found that allow the >simultaneous > existence of two thermodynamic arrows, notwithstanding moderate >interaction between > the systems possessing those arrows. Physical consequences of the >existence and > detection of opposite-arrow regions are also considered. > >Paper: Source (86kb), PostScript, or Other formats > >(N.B.: delivery types and potential problems)

The big problem with the idea of single direction time flow is that the concept virtually ignores the effects of periodicity in General Relativity, and General Relativity isn't exactly the most speculative concept around. In Philadelphia they say: "It isn't over until the fat lady sings...and on this matter of time I couldn't agree more. The nature of the universe, in fact almost demands thermodynamic reversibility. It just answers TOO many questions! Have you wondered why Stephen has been so persistent about the dual universe model? There are reasons galore, believe me! Regards, Sam Cox