Clinging to Dogma
Its difficult to tell the difference between clinging to science Dogma from well proven Science.
Consider Reversibility. It is widely accepted all physical transformations can happen in reverse.
Consider two particles self annihilating. The send of a shower of photons. Now, if that same shower of Photons travels in reverse directions to coincide exactly at the same time and space, one could see two particles created. So in the sense of could this happen if preconditions are met, it is reversible.
Bad Science TV point to the fact that it doesn't happen as a big mystery. Its not. It simply that particles bumping in to their anti particles happens constantly, but the odds photons all arrive at the same spot with the same right energy at precisely the same time is less likely than winning the lottery every day.
Its not physics, its chance, which determines what appears to be irreversible operations.
Something more common, Photosynthesis, could happen in reverse. What prevents it, is that plants have evolved to move the chemicals around to undo the conditions that make light shine out. Any plant that glows all night died out of starvation long ago.
|
Consider Irreversible Engines
In Thermodynamics, we have been taught, for decades, about irreversibility. When every other branch of physics talks about it being Universal. Humans have no problem in clinging to contradictory beliefs.
But you can draw no such parallels to Photosynthesis, or particle annihilation. The preconditions and post-conditions of all engine cycles are pretty close to identical. Nothing is changing the likely hood of a rare set of conditions. Its just heat and volume. Both heat and volume change on smooth curves.
If Carnot and Kelvin had the benefit of seeing where their discussion of hypothetical "irreversible" engines would lead, no doubt they would have been more clear.
The Theorems put forth regarding efficiency, "No irreversible engine can be more efficient", leads average people to assume the opposite is true, "all irreversible engines must be less efficient" instead of "All (irreversible or reversible) engines are equally efficient at converting heat to work." In fact, if there were a photosynthesis driven engine for example, that would be practically irreversible due to probability, but it still has to be the SAME efficiency.
Carnot and Kelvin both put forth the belief in Energy Conservation, but may or may not have grasped that means Energy really can't go away. Its a hard concept to grasp, when every day experience tells us the opposite. We "see" things come to a stop, cool off, stop shining.
|
