MATTER | PHYSICS

The Mystery of Time’s Arrow

This simple model of the universe shows how one natural law points
toward order.
BY JULIAN BARBOUR

f FACEBOOK t T WIT TER

A
s conscious beings, we are constantly aware of the relentless march of time.
You can make an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet back into an
egg. Dropped glasses shatter and do not reassemble themselves. Above all, we
age and become decrepit; there is no return to youth.

But this is a great scientific mystery. There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature at the
fundamental microscopic level that distinguishes a direction of time. They are time-
symmetric. But the behavior of macroscopic objects around us is subject to the famous
second law of thermodynamics, according to which disorder (as measured by entropy)
always increases with time. This puts a direction, or arrow, of time into phenomena. The
classical studies by Maxwell and Boltzmann in the second half of the 19th century assumed
the existence of atoms and showed, on the basis of reasonable laws, that non-uniform
distributions of atoms would always have a tendency to be washed out into a state with a
uniform temperature distribution.

This initial work took no account of gravity. Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives
rise to “anti-thermodynamic” behavior: Under its influence, uniformly distributed matter
tends to break up into clusters. As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior
using an entropy-type concept. This is all the more puzzling because Einstein’s wonderful
theory of gravity—his general theory of relativity—does show that when black holes form
they do have thermodynamic properties and possess a colossal entropy. What no one has
been able to do is define gravitational entropy for the rest of the universe.

The most popular ideas, initiated by the great gravitational theorist Roger Penrose, attempt
to define this gravitational entropy for the rest of the universe in terms of the degree of
non-uniformity of the gravitational field. Cosmological observations indicate that the early
universe began in an exceptionally uniform state, which, if Penrose is right, corresponds to a
very low entropy. Since then entropy has greatly increased, above all through the formation
of black holes. But this in turn raises a question: Given time-symmetric laws and the fact
that high-entropy states are vastly more probable than low-entropy states, what explains
the exceptionally low entropy of the universe’s initial state?

Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives rise to

“anti-thermodynamic” behavior.
A common assumption among scientists today is simply that, for some as yet unknown,
possibly quantum-mechanical reason, the universe just did begin in such a state. This is the
“past hypothesis.” It invokes the fact that all standard explanations in physics involve both
laws and initial conditions: The outcome of any laboratory experiment is determined both
by laws and by the conditions under which it is started. The past hypothesis extends this
traditional way of thinking to the whole universe. It relies on law and on an initial condition.

But the reliance on an unexplained initial condition to explain two of the most striking
features of the universe—the growth of entropy around us alongside the steady growth of
structure in the universe at large—leaves Penrose and others like myself dissatisfied. What
drives scientists is the desire to explain and understand phenomena. We all want to emulate
the way Charles Darwin explained so much with just four words: evolution by natural
selection. In the case of time’s arrow, it is literally a matter of life and death, for we all march
together in the same direction from birth to the grave. What is it that puts such striking
order into the world?
 Also in Physics   
The Multiverse As Muse
By Jordana Cepelewicz
In his short story “The Garden of Forking Paths,” the
Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges describes a present
that can, at any moment, bifurcate into different futures—
an endless labyrinth of worlds. Taken together they form,
he writes, “an infinite series...READ MORE

My collaborators and I have hit upon a potential explanation that relies on law alone.1 We
came to it by chance, and it may or may not be correct. However, it has the merit of
showing how at least one time-symmetric law (gravity) always leads to an observed
unidirectional growth of structure.

The basis of our explanation lies in the simplest “toy” model one can make of the universe:
three equal-mass particles that interact in accordance with Newton’s law of universal
gravitation. The three particles move relative to each other, tracing out paths in infinite
space rather like three endless strands of spaghetti held in fixed mutual positions. Each
triplet of curves will have a different shape from any other. Under restrictions that are
reasonable if we are aiming to model the whole universe, virtually all path triplets described
by the particles will be of the kind shown in the Figure, “A toy model of the universe.”
A TOY MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE: The paths of three particles in space, considered together, provide a useful model for understanding
the nature of time. One particle comes from the bottom left, while another two are orbiting each other and coming from the top right.
There is a complicated interaction when they meet, as a result of which there may, as shown, be a swapping of partners. Then the single
particle flies off to the top left, while a new pair goes to the bottom right. The arrows correspond to one of the two possible choices for the
direction of progression in time. In the other choice (not pictured), each arrow is reversed.
Flavio Mercati & Julian Barbour

As indicated by the arrows in the Figure, we see one particle coming from the bottom left
while the other two particles are orbiting each other and coming from the top right. There
is a complicated interaction when they meet, as a result of which there may, as shown, be a
swapping of partners. Then the single particle flies off to the top left, while the new pair
goes to the bottom right. It may also happen that there is no swapping of partners.

In either case, the key point is that, because the underlying law does not distinguish a
direction of time, the arrows can be reversed and the story reads equally well in the
opposite direction. If one considers the complete solution, there is no way in which the law
that governs the process enables one to identify a beginning or end of the story. It is quite
impossible to say that time flows in one direction rather than the opposite.
However, there is an intriguing alternative to considering the complete solution in the
figure. Let’s start with what seems real. In any instant, three particles form a triangle. To say
it has a size, we would need a ruler. But that would be something extra, and we want to
model the universe by the three particles and nothing else. That just leaves us with the
shape of the triangle, which is determined by two angles. Since the shape changes
continuously and can be assumed never to repeat exactly, then if we were given all the
triangles we could lay them out unambiguously in one of two definite orders, each the
opposite of the other.

What now are instants of time? There is no clock in our model to tell them. All we have is
shapes. Since they are all different and can be arranged in a line, let’s call them the instants.
Since remote antiquity the changing shape of the moon has been used for dating purposes.
It still controls the Islamic calendar and the Christian and Jewish feast days. Taking the
shapes of the universe as instants makes it into the ultimate moon.

It is literally a matter of life and death, for we all march

together in the same direction from birth to the grave.
Having established the importance of shape, let us interpret the Figure in terms of how the
shape changes, starting with the central region where all three particles interact strongly.
Typically, this is a very irregular region, and the shapes change accordingly. It may be likened
to “primordial chaos.” Let’s arbitrarily call this central region the “beginning” of time.

Now consider the diagonal of the Figure in which the arrows are shown pointing away from
the “primordial chaos.” The line going up to the left represents a single particle, the twisted
“spaghetti” strands going down to the right represent a pair that settles ever more stably
into an orbiting pair. This pair serves as a periodic process that defines a clock. Each
successive “tick” occurs when one particle of the pair crosses the line joining the center of
mass of the particle to the third particle. That is when the universe is in the special shape of
three particles on a line. So our toy universe really is like the moon.

But now let’s think if there is any sense in which a direction, or orientation, of time can be
identified in the Figure. I pointed out that in our universe two opposite effects define the
same direction of time. The growth of disorder (entropy) in restricted regions, while
simultaneously the universe on the large scale is getting ever more richly structured as
galaxies, stars, and planetary systems form. Our model is far too simple to model the
growth of entropy, but it does model the growth of structure.

Indeed, one can regard the orbiting pair as a “galaxy,” the formation of which as it emerges
from the “primordial chaos” can be followed step by step in the Figure. Thus, if we restrict
attention to the considered diagonal and define the direction of time by the growth of
structure out of chaos, we obtain a story that, in its most basic features, models rather well
what cosmologists observe in the universe. It’s the story of a universe whose overall shape
changes in a unidirectional manner.

GENESIS OF THE BIG BANG: Primordial chaos, Julian Barbour writes, is a region in which all the particles are at the same point, from
which they emerge in a rather uniform distribution, which then becomes irregular before stable structures form. This is a promising model of
the Big Bang.
Birth of the Universe by Antoine Pesvner, 1933
© CNAC/MNAM/Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY

But there is of course the other diagonal, the one running from bottom left to top right. If
we reverse the arrows on it and again take the “primordial chaos” as the birth of time, we
get another “history of the universe,” different from the first but qualitatively of the same
kind. We have two quite different histories within one solution! This is all done with just
three particles. For reasons given in our paper, the same kind of thing happens if the
number of particles is increased arbitrarily. Remarkably, there is always a region of irregular
chaotic motion—a “primordial chaos”—from which two and only two effectively
independent paths emerge. Note that the simplest version of this model has three particles,
since a clock could not be defined with only two.
As god-like theoreticians, we can look at the Figure in its entirety and see that it defines no
overall direction of time. But any observer within the Figure’s universe will necessarily be in
one of the two parts I have called histories (one of the two diagonals). Restricted to it, they
would observe the key attributes that we associate with time: a division into past, present,
and future; clocks that measure time; and progressive growth of structure that defines an
arrow of time. They would therefore take the “primordial chaos” at the Figure’s center to
be a past that caused the ordered present.

It should be said that it is the nature of each history rather than the duplication of histories
that is important. Although the basic kind of behavior is not changed by adding particles, we
cannot expect Newton’s theory to model Einstein’s general relativity. However, it is
interesting that there are some very special solutions of the Newtonian theory that are
relatively good models for Einstein’s.

In these, the “primordial chaos” is not an irregular region but one in which all the particles
are at exactly the same point, from which they initially emerge in a rather uniform
distribution, which then becomes irregular before stable structures form. In this case, there
is just one diagonal, at the middle of which all the particles are at one point. This is a
promising model of the Big Bang of modern cosmology.
GOD-LIKE THEORETICIANS: Julian Barbour (above) explains the reliance on an unexplained initial condition to explain two of the most
striking features of the universe—the growth of entropy around us alongside the steady growth of structure in the universe at large—leaves
physicists like Roger Penrose and him dissatisfied.
Photo courtesy of Julian Barbour
The point I want to make is this: All solutions of the model exhibit unidirectional growth of
structure out of “chaos.” Very basic elements of the law mean that the growth cannot
reverse. The underlying reasons   are given in the paper by my collaborators and myself.
Moreover, if, as in cosmology, we define the direction of time by the growth of structure, all
solutions supply a direction of time even though they are generated by a law that, in itself,
does not distinguish a direction of time.

The three-particle toy model questions our instinctive notion of causality, according to
which something in the past causes what happens now. In the Figure, there is no past that
causes and explains any present. Causality does not work that way. Law is the only cause,
including the case of the special solutions with only one history. All solutions that obey the
law exist in a timeless eternity like paths in a landscape or valleys in a mountain range. It’s
wrong to read causality through time into the solutions. Paths simply are. However, they can
lead from less to more structured regions. The model proves that law alone, without any
special initial condition, may be sufficient to explain time’s arrow.

Now let’s return to our own universe, which exhibits unidirectional change. In the traditional
chronology, the early universe was vastly more uniform than today’s. Observations of the
microwave radiation that bathes the universe reveal random fluctuations in temperature
and mass density of only about one part in 10,000.

Taking this state as an initial condition, cosmologists can explain remarkably well how the
present universe with its incredibly rich structure and huge density contrasts came into
being. It is therefore very natural to say the microwave background existed before our
present universe and through a causal mechanism gave rise to it. It seems utterly bizarre to
say the present universe caused the microwave background. But, in the final analysis, this is
a conclusion based on instinct, not hard fact—and instinct has often hindered progress in
science.

This work is just a start. The fact that all this emerges already from the interaction of just
three particles is due to the beautiful simplicity of Newton’s law of gravity and certain
architectonic structures it possesses. Einstein’s general relativity has them too but is a much
richer theory, so we cannot say yet whether in that case law alone will suffice to create an
arrow of time without the crutch of a special initial condition. If it does, though, one of the
intuitions that most people, including many scientists, find very hard to shed—that time is
real and does flow—may well be an illusion.

Julian Barbour is an independent theoretical physicist who has devoted much research into
the nature of time. Since 2008, he has been a visiting professor in physics at the University
of Oxford.

Lead image (and detail): Birth of the Universe by Antoine Pevsner, 1933. ©
CNAC/MNAM/Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY

Reproduction, including downloading of Antoine Pevsner works is prohibited by copyright

laws and international conventions without the express written permission of Artists Rights
Society (ARS), New York.

Footnote

1. This article is based on a paper by Tim Koslowski, Flavio Mercati, and myself. Readers can
also view a talk by me, here. My thanks to Flavio for the use of his figure.

This article was originally published in our “Time” issue in January, 2014.

f FACEBOOK t T WIT TER

NEXT ARTICLE:
Why Your Brain Hates Slowpokes
Psychology:The high speed of society has jammed your internal clock.
BY CHELSEA WALD

9 Comments Nautilus 
1 Login

 Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

nonlin.org
− ⚑
11 days ago

"the famous second law of thermodynamics" is a law of nature as far as we can tell.
Therefore, you can't say "There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature ... that
distinguishes a direction of time". Besides, second law is NOT the only asymmetry in nature.

Laughable:
"Darwin explained so much with just four words: evolution by natural selection".

It's unclear how your toy model is at all relevant to entropy. Most likely yet another
perpetuum mobile attempt.
R l
2△ ▽ Reply

johnmerryman
− ⚑
12 days ago

Narrative and history are foundational to our minds and civilizations, but the cause is
activity turning future to past. Potential, actual, residual.
Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. What we measure as time, duration,
is this dynamic state, as events coalesce and dissolve. Future to past.
There is no dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, in order to
inform it. Aka, causality and conservation of energy.
The present is not so much a point between past and future, as it is the configuration of this
property called "energy." Its changing form is what creates time. As such, energy goes prior
to subsequent events, as these events go future to past. Our consciousness also goes past
to future, while the thoughts giving it form go future to past.
Different clocks can go at different rates, because they are separate actions. Think
metabolism, or frequencies.
Time is asymmetric because the action being measured is inertial. The earth only turns one
direction and doesn't easily switch to going the other.
Time is an effect, like temperature, pressure, color, etc. All equally foundational to life and
nature, just not defining the sequencing of thought.
Ideal gas laws could be used to correlate volume with temperature and pressure, but that
doesn't make them the 5th and 6th dimensions of space.
see more

1△ ▽ Reply

Lutz Barz
8 days ago
− ⚑

we were told that time is relative relatively. this means the frame of reference. a plant grows
at such a speed. a particle at a temperature moves at such a speed. a galaxy rotates at
such a speed. add all this together and you get the overall speed of the universe which is
what the universe does. of course human changes of consciousness appear to change the
time duration for an event remembered prior this change. like being on LSD. but it is
perception which changes. not the event of change being observed. still time is relative as
the great said
△ ▽ Reply

Extra Concerned Citizen > Lutz Barz

7 days ago
− ⚑

Doesn't the fact that every physical object has its own "frame of reference" mean that
there can be no such thing as "the
overall speed of the universe?" Asking for a friend.
△ ▽ Reply

Turil Cronburg
12 days ago
− ⚑

You say: "As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior using an entropy-type
concept."

But I bet you haven't asked everyone...

 (Because I have a pretty good idea, and that's better than "knowing" since knowing is more
of a religious thing, where you come to a conclusion and stop experimenting.

I see reality as modeled by Pascal's triangle. Pure deterministic randomness. Covering all
possible patterns of matter and energy (contraction/stability, and expansion/change). In a
fractal expansion where the amount of matter and energy stays the same, but it just keeps
getting split into more and more pieces, with an ever smaller "smallest thing". And each
individual is a single time-line universe, with everything branching out from the first state of
pure matter/contraction (a 0D point), to become pure energy (an infinity-D expanse), all
intertwined in the past, and some of it intertwined in the future, as well, as things expand
(divide) into parts, and then contract again with different parts, to form new things.
△ ▽ Reply

Bob Copeland
12 days ago
− ⚑

Our universe is based on “limits”. Calculus is the most famous example of approaching the
“limit” but not reaching it except as a closer & closer “fraction” of “success”. If our universe
started with the big bang then everything including time moves in one direction as a “limit”
which we see as fractions of a clock based on units of sixty (60). Consequently, everything
including us, reaches a “limit” until we can’t expand any more. As far as dark matter, dark
energy is concerned it is based on units of time similar to the quantum world. Dark matter,
dark energy is the intersection between the time unit for everything based quantum world &
our space based limited world for everything including us.
△ ▽ Reply

Frank
− ⚑
11 days ago

This is the first writing I have ever seen that discusses the observable fact that structure is
increasing, and that gravity causes the reverse of entropy. I have wondered for years why
this never seems to be discussed as stars are constantly taking gas and turning it into
increasingly complex matter. I know that sounds simple but this paper is the first time I
have seen this addressed in terms of "reverse entropy". I still believe that when we finally
understand the true nature of gravity we will unlock the secrets of time, faster than light
travel, etc.
△ ▽ Reply

Lutz Barz > Frank

− ⚑
8 days ago

h h h f h ll

ABOUT NAUTILUS FAQ

PRIME SUBSCRIBE

TERMS OF SERVICE CONTACT / WORK WITH US

AWARDS AND PRESS RSS

MEDIA KIT DONATE

NAUTILUS: SCIENCE CONNECTED

Nautilus is a different kind of science magazine. We deliver big-picture science by reporting on a single monthly topic
from multiple perspectives. Read a new chapter in the story every Thursday.

© 2019 NautilusThink Inc, All rights reserved. Matter, Biology, Numbers, Ideas, Culture, Connected