PreprintCited by 27Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesPhilosophy and History of ScienceAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics

Cosmology, Time's Arrow, and That Old Double Standard

Open access
Price, Huw·1993·arXiv

Abstract

It is widely accepted that temporal asymmetry is largely a cosmological problem; the task of explaining temporal asymmetry reduces in the main to that of explaining an aspect of the condition of the early universe. However, cosmologists who discuss these issues often make mistakes similar to those that plagued nineteenth century discussions of the statistical foundations of thermodynamics. In particular, they are often guilty of applying temporal "double standards" of various kinds---e.g., in failing to recognise that certain statistical arguments apply with equal force in either temporal direction. This paper aims to clarify the issue as to what would count as adequate explanation of cosmological time asymmetry. A particular concern is the question whether it is possible to explain why entropy is low near the Big Bang without showing that it must also be low near a Big Crunch, in the event that the universe recollapses. I criticise some of the objections raised to this possibility, showing that these too often depend on a temporal double standard. I also discuss briefly some issues that arise if we take the view seriously. (Could we observe a time- reversing future, for example?)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/9310022

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Price notes that any definition of natural that purportedly applies to the early universe should apply to the late universe as well.

    “A similar point has been emphasized by Price, who notes that any definition of 'natural' that purportedly applies to the early universe should apply to the late universe as well [16].”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Price, H.
Corresponding author
Price, Huw
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
1993
Pages
66-94
OpenAlex
W1596893854
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Keywords
arrow of time, second law of thermodynamics, entropy, Ludwig Boltzmann, statistical mechanics, early universe, low-entropy initial condition, philosophy of cosmology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review