Your second paragraph is simply incorrect: there is no known asymmetry in the laws of physics that might explain the arrow of time.
On the other hand, CP violation is one of the Sakharov conditions, and it’s not obviously absurd to suspect that the questions “why did the past have so little entropy” and “why does the present have so much more matter than antimatter” might be related to each other.
the questions “why did the past have so little entropy” and “why does the present have so much more matter than antimatter” might be related
Yeah, I wondered (idly—I don’t know enough physics for anything more to be worth while) about that too. I don’t suppose anyone reading this is a physicist who can say whether there’s anything nontrivial likely to be going on here?
His argument seems to be that since CP violation remains a reversible process, it cannot possibly explain why there is less entropy on one side of time than on the other.
[actually, maybe it isn’t that clear—he might just be saying that no one has shown any connection, not that there could not be one]
The bolded text in the article is ‘has absolutely nothing to do with that arrow of time’. This is accurately (if excessively tersely) summarizes the article; no hedging is necessary.
On the other hand, CP violation is one of the Sakharov conditions, and it’s not obviously absurd to suspect that the questions “why did the past have so little entropy” and “why does the present have so much more matter than antimatter” might be related to each other.
Yeah, I wondered (idly—I don’t know enough physics for anything more to be worth while) about that too. I don’t suppose anyone reading this is a physicist who can say whether there’s anything nontrivial likely to be going on here?
Here is Sean Carroll discussing at least a related question.
His argument seems to be that since CP violation remains a reversible process, it cannot possibly explain why there is less entropy on one side of time than on the other.
[actually, maybe it isn’t that clear—he might just be saying that no one has shown any connection, not that there could not be one]
The bolded text in the article is ‘has absolutely nothing to do with that arrow of time’. This is accurately (if excessively tersely) summarizes the article; no hedging is necessary.