Talk:Arrow of time
Add topic | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing Arrow of time and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
Minkowski stress
[edit]Displacement due to Minkowski stress is crucial. It is the answer to why there is an arrow of time.
In quantum field theory particles do not have an innate tendency to move towards a specific direction. It is a systemic phenomenon to be calculated; not an innate property.
Particles in Minkowski space are never ideal and point-like. Also moments in time - also known as different states of the evolution of a system - overlap and aren't strictly speparate. Each particle's probabilistic horizon of causality, is squished and pushed afar from some direction, and sucked towards a different direction.
Newton was wrong at the Planck level.
Fundamental particles don't have an innate tendency towards some direction.
Simply their wave functions are causally squished and pushed.
It's all about probabilities.
The stresses of Minkowski space causality exerted on wave functions - define the directivity of displacement of the different states of the evolution of a system, and we call that "arrow of time".
Hawking's assertion that because of Cosmol.Expansion, there more phase state available in the future half of any model
[edit]The title of the suggested thread in the cosmological section should include this. Its meaning is the way that irreversibility couples to expansion. (How can the word "irreversibility" fail to be in spell/checks "mind"? 74.123.17.233 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Left/right time
[edit]It is asserted in the article that in English, there exists no description of time that exists on a left/right axis.
I find this assertion to be false, and can provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
I have served in the US Navy for many years, and events have been fairly habitually described as moving “to the right” or “to the left” to describe doing things later or earlier, respectively.
I assume this has to do with the left-right writing convention of English and the orientation of Excel spreadsheets, in which schedules (using excel) are created with time blocks earlier being aligned to the left, and later being aligned to the right.
I’m not sure whether this is a navy colloquialism, or maybe newer slang, but it is fairly common among the people I have worked with. Jerrie atric (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)