Re: [Phys-l] Arrow of Time Issue

[chuck britton <cvbritton@mac.com>]

At 9:27 PM -0600 3/7/12, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> I don't understand you.  Let me try to explain why in two ways:
>  	"If time is increasing" suggests that "time" is defined in such a
> way that it could be non increasing.  "Time" is not so defined.  We define
> "time" by findng a periodic phenomenum, and then counting periods.  The
> count always increases - by definition.  "If time is increasing" is
> logically like saying "if four is greater than three".  But four is
> defined as three plus one.  So the "if" in the statement is surplusage;
> there is no laternate possibility.  Same with "time".  We define it so
> that there is no alternate possibility.


Everybody can appreciate this down-to-earth explanation for the march of time.

But, didn't NASA teach us to count backwards?

On a more serious note - don't Feynman Diagrams include antiparticles 
moving backwards in time?

In Stat Mech isn't there some subtle connection between Time and 
Temperature - both of which can be negative?