The Reality of Time and Change — Reimagining Physics Part 1
Physics has moved beyond classical mechanics, but its conceptual framework for imagining reality is still stuck in the 19th century. The logical implication of this is an essentially timeless universe, in which the future is already determined, and in which time and free will are merely illusions.
This is the first of a seven-part series on the reality of time and change based on my published article [1] and a preprint [2]. The series reimagines physics by providing a firm conceptual foundation, establishing the reality of time’s arrows. Time’s arrows include:
- The arrow of causality — causes always precede effects.
- The thermodynamic arrow — useful energy is irreversibly dissipated (and entropy is produced).
- The cosmological arrow — as space expands, it cools.
- The arrow of functional complexity — systems open to energy resources spontaneously self-organize dissipative structures.
Establishing the reality of time’s arrows unifies physics, thermodynamics, and the evolution of complexity within a single conceptual framework.
A new part is scheduled for publication every Sunday, between December 12, 2021 and January 16, 2022. The series’ parts are as follows:
The Reality of Time and Change — Reimagining Physics Part 1
Physics’ Timeless Universe — Reimagining Physics Part 2
A Thermocontextual Perspective — Reimagining Physics Part 3
What is Time? — Reimagining Physics Part 4
Wavefunction Collapse and Symmetry-Breaking— Reimagining Physics Part 5
Entanglement and Nonlocality — Reimagining Physics Part 6
The Arrow of Functional Complexity — Reimagining Physics Part 7
Background
Probably the most striking attribute of nature is its drive toward self-organized complexity [2,3]. Self-organization is seen in the patterns of cloud formations, in the wave-like ripples in sandbars, and most strikingly, in the structure, function, and evolution of living organisms and their ecosystems. As far back as I can remember, I wanted to understand why. Why do I, life, and the vast network of supporting systems exist? Thus began my quest to understand the fundamental principles that I knew had to exist to explain self-organization and the evolution of complexity.
I recognized early on that a physical explanation for self-organized complexity would require nothing less than a fundamental reimagination of physical reality. In a college chemistry class, when the professor introduced an upcoming section on thermodynamics, I anticipated learning thermodynamic principles that could explain why energy sustains life and its evolution. Instead, we learned that systems tend toward maximum entropy and disorder. I felt that something important and fundamental was missing in science.
When I started graduate school in 1977, I was intrigued to learn of Ilya Prigogine, who won the Nobel prize in chemistry that year for his work with self-organizing dissipative structures. Dissipative structures can be as simple as the spontaneous organization of water molecules from random jostling into coherent convective flows when heat is applied, or as complicated as life’s origin and evolution. I saw self-organized chemical and physical structures in the fossil volcanic system that I studied for my dissertation. Throughout my career in the geosciences, I recognized and studied self-organized dissipative systems.
I searched hard for the principles I knew must exist to explain the evolution of complexity. I quickly discovered that, despite well documented examples and vague explanations, there was no recognized principle of physics or thermodynamics to be found. Once I started working in industry and consulting, I continued my pursuit for answers on the sidelines, diving into thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations.
In semi-retirement, I gathered my thoughts and self-published a book, which was a valuable exercise, but predictably, it went nowhere. I had no network of physicist peers to bounce ideas around with, and it is difficult to stand out amongst the vast sea of claims of a new theory or interpretation of physics. I realized that the best way to get scholarly feedback was to submit articles to peer-reviewed physics journals. After passing the initial hurdle of having an article accepted for peer review, with each rejection, I received the prize of the peer reviewers’ comments. I have a debt of gratitude to these unnamed reviewers. With the rejections and the benefit of peer review comments, both positive and negative, I have refined my interpretation of physics to its current version of what I now call thermocontextuality, and which has been published in a special volume, “Time, Causality, and Entropy” [1].
Thermocontextuality is firmly founded on empirically validated assumptions and principles. It embraces fundamental irreversibility and randomness. It establishes the irreversible dissipation of energy and the self-organization of complexity as natural and fundamental processes. And as a bonus, it provides common-sense explanations for many of the vexing problems of quantum mechanics, typically brushed off as “quantum weirdness.”
In this Part 1 of Reimagining Physics, I provide brief overviews of the prevailing interpretations of physics and of the thermocontextual interpretation (TCI). Over the coming weeks, parts 2 to 7 will expand on the ideas introduced in this overview.
The State of Physics Today
Science, at its heart, is based on empirical evidence of observation and measurement. Three empirical facts that are readily observed are:
1. Total energy is conserved (First Law of Thermodynamics)
2. When an isolated system does work, its capacity to do work declines, even while its total energy is conserved (Second Law of Thermodynamics)
3. Given a sufficient source of external energy or resources, an open system spontaneously self-organizes dissipative structures.
The first empirical fact is the conservation of energy, formalized by the First Law of thermodynamics. It is empirically well established, and it is universally recognized as a fundamental law of physics.
The second empirical fact expresses the Second Law of thermodynamics. As originally conceived, the Second Law simply stated that usable energy is dissipated to ambient heat, which cannot be used for work. This is equivalent to its statement of increasing entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The Second Law explains why we have to refill our car’s fuel tank or recharge its battery. It explains why heat flows from high temperature to low temperature but never the reverse, and it explains why water freely flows downhill but never uphill. The Second Law is a well-established empirical principle. It accurately describes observations, even as physics does not recognize ambient heat, entropy, or the thermodynamic arrow of time as fundamental.
The third empirical fact, describing nature’s drive to self-organize, is also well-established by empirical observations. Self-organization can be as simple as the transition from conductive heat flow to convective heat flow. Self-organization also describes the evolution of life, which is sustained by the dissipation of sunlight, in compliance with the Second Law of thermodynamics. Self-organization is recognized in physical systems, from quantum to astronomical scales; in biology, from molecular to ecological scales; and in economic and social systems [3].
Despite these thoroughly validated empirical facts, however, physics describes the world at its most fundamental levels as reversible and time symmetrical. The modus operandi of physics is reductionism — the idea that a complex system can be understood by resolving it into fundamentally mechanical parts analyzed in isolation. The mechanical parts are reversible, so by extrapolation, the whole is likewise reversible. Physics acknowledges our perception time flowing toward the future, and it recognizes that causes precede effects, but the laws of physics do not distinguish between past and future. Physics acknowledges the Second Law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe increases, but it does not recognize entropy or the thermodynmamic arrow of time as fundamental. It acknowledges that systems open to energy sources can spontaneously self-organize complex structures, but it cannot offer any explanation of why.
Physics is widely viewed as the most fundamental of all sciences, and it profoundly influences how other sciences describe the world. Biology, for example, reduces the evolution of life to the selection of the fittest, which in essence simply states that the most reproductive reproduce the most. It thereby reduces natural selection to a self-fulfilling tautology, eliminating any role for goals or relative value in the selection process. Physics explicitly rejects values and goals from science.
Physics also affects how people perceive science generally. Physics’ failures to acknowledge the flow of time as fundamental, our free will to make choices, or any role for values and goals, are in stark contrast with our personal experiences. This dissonance between physics and our experiences likely contributes to the public’s widespread skepticism of science, in general, and to a sense of its irrelevance. This seriously undermines science at a time when we need sound science more than ever to address global-scale problems.
How We Got Here
Part 2 of this series describes the current state of physics and how we got here. Physics fails to recognize as fundamental the thermodynamic arrow of time or the arrow of functional complexity, despite abundant evidence. The reason for this is the classical mechanical assumption that a system’s physical state is noncontextual, meaning that it is independent of its surroundings. Relativity is explicit in stating this: there is no preferred reference frame and all reference frames are equally valid. Quantum mechanics recognizes that individual quantum measurements depend on the experimental framework, but it noncontextually defines the quantum state as a summation of observations across all possible experimental frameworks.
Prevailing interpretations of physics assume noncontextuality. A logical implication of this is a timeless universe, in which there is no fundamental distinction between past and future. Noncontextuality, however, is an unjustifiable assumption. It cannot be empirically justified because observations and measurements are, by definition, contextually defined with respect to an experimental setup that is external to the system.
Overview of Thermocontextuality
Part 3 introduces the Thermocontextual Interpretation (TCI). Wikipedia lists over a dozen “influential” quantum interpretations [4], but not one of them defines physical reality with respect to surroundings at a positive ambient temperature. This distinguishes the TCI from other interpretations of an idealized physic state. The TCI applies to the real world, in which systems are not in equilibrium, and they exist in the context of their surroundings at a positive absolute temperature. This is key to defininging entropy, exergy (work potential), and irreversible change as fundamental physical properties.
Part 4 addresses the nature of time. The time of mechanics is simply an index that specifies a mechanical system’s state at any particular instant of time. Part 4 extends the meaning of time to include thermodynamic time and reference time. Thermodynamic time measures a system’s irreversible dissipation of energy. Reference time is the time of relativity, as measured by an external clock. It is the time by which we measure velocities, establish the sequence of events, and distinguish causes from effects. Mechanical time, thermodynamic time, and reference time are equally real and fundamentally distinct components of time.
Parts 5 and 6 address some of the most difficult questions of quantum mechanics: measurement, wavefunction collapse, entanglement, and nonlocality. Existing explanations invoke untestable and untenable metaphysical implications, such as superposed live-dead cats [5], exponentially splitting universes [6], and “spooky” faster-than-light action at a distance [7]. By rejecting noncontextuality and accepting irreversibility, the TCI provides logical explanations, without untestable implications. Readers more interested in the evolution of complexity than the interpretation of quantum mechanics, however, can skip Parts 5 and 6 and jump directly to Part 7 on the evolution of complexity.
Part 7 introduces the Kelvin Selection Principle (KSP). I named the KSP for Lord Kelvin, who observed in an 1862 article [8] that systems tend to defer dissipation for work. His observation is empirical evidence that nature values work over dissipation. The idea was not compatible with classical mechanics, however, and it was ignored. But within the framework of thermocontextuality, it constitutes a general principle of natural selection, guiding the evolution of any system that is open to external energy resources.
The KSP leads to the two distinct arrows of physical evolution. When energy sources are abundant, individual systems or agents compete for a greater share of resource to support the work of its own growth and expansion. When finite resources prevent further expansion, agents tend to cooperate and to share the work of increasing and maintaining their interactions and functional complexity.
The TCI embraces values and goals. It recognizes the relative value of states, as measured by the potential for useful work. It recognizes the value of work and evolution over dissipation and decay and the goal of maximizing value. And it recognizes our ability to make free choices. By including thermocontextual properties of state, the TCI expands the scope of physics to include systems previously regarded as too high level or too complex for fundamental physical analysis. And it recognizes time’s irreversible arrows of causality, dissipation, and self-organization as fundamentally real.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——
[1] Time and Causality: A Thermocontextual Perspective, published in Time, Causality, and Entropy
[2] Section 4 of A Contextual Foundation for Mechanics, Thermodynamics, and Evolution v.5
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
[8] https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html
