Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws

The key piece of data in Peeper's reply is that the laws of physics are time invariant. That means the laws are the same whether time runs backward or forward. One of the mysteries of modern physics is the cause of time's arrow. Why does time run forward and not backward, because there seems no physical imperative that it be so. There are many layman-level books that devote space to discussing such issues.Anyone who witnessed smashed pieces of porcelan suddenly coming to coming together into a pristine cup which then lept off the floor and up into their hand would likely consider it a supernatural event, I know I would, but there is nothing in the laws of physics as currently understood that disallows this.--Percy

So the ID creationist must debate/discuss science with, as Rush Limbaugh would say, "half our brains tied behind us," in that evolutionists are allowed to debate/discuss science which is "mysterious" and science of which there is "no physical imperative that it is so,", whereas we, the ID creationists are not allowed to share this advantage. For to to so would be nonsensical talk. Is that fair and balanced, Percy? But if time were reversed, how would this model be less scientific than Peeper's model?

There's a thread elsewhere for discussion of moderator issues, so I'll only comment here that there's no logic to saying that if there's something we don't know then we're free to ignore the things we do know. You are not free to disregard the known laws of physics simply because time's arrow is not represented in the equations. I was only reinforcing Peeper's comment about time reversal by providing a little more detail, not introducing a different model.My suggestion to you hasn't changed in over a year. Educate yourself on a topic before discussing it. Please don't allow this thread to be taken over by another discussion about whether you know what you're talking about.--Percy

The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists? But you did say that you would consider your "different model" as to be "supernatural," did you not?

Buz, perhaps a remedial reading course is in order.Percy said that if he say the cup come together in a time reversed dropping and breaking it would seem supernatural to him BUT it isn't automatically so since it doesn't seem to violate the time symmetric laws of physics.To be simpler: Percy was pointing out that even something that he might think was supernatural doesn't have to be.If you can't get the meaning out of what you read you are in even worse shape than I thought. This isn't the first time, not by a long shot, that you've had this problem.

Ned, you didn't answer my question. Would you suggest I edit/delete my last post and re-enter it in the moderation forum for a response?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-14-2004 11:11 AM

Buzz, the solution to your problems lies not in rhetorical arguments, nor in appeals to board administration, nor in protestations that you're making sense, but in education. If you stick to topics you know something about, or only enter topics about which you know little with the attitude that you might learn something, or study a topic you're unfamiliar with before entering a thread, then your problems will melt away.You're indignant because you believe you're making sense and are being singled out because no one has answers for your arguments. I know from long interaction with you that it isn't possible to change your mind on this. I'm sorry you feel unfairly treated, but you won't educate yourself, you won't listen to those more knowledgable than yourself, and you won't change. The only alternative open to moderators, who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping discussion focused and coherent, is to place limits on your participation when you become too persistent.Please do not edit any completed posts in substantial ways, and certainly do not delete a post's contents. If you have moderator issues, please take them to the Change in Moderation? thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

OK Percy, as you say.

If time reversed, wouldn't the whole kit and kaboodle be reversed? Wouldn't your thought processes would be reversed as well as the cup?I guess I'm asking, if time randomly reversed, then started going forward again, would we even notice?

For that matter, if time reversed itself and then stayed reversed, would we even notice that? Wouldn't our reversed thought processes just think of what was now the future as something we already experienced, and call it the past, and think of the past as something unknowable that we still called the future, and...Aw, crap, my head hurts. Thanks truckloads, Percy.

Let me venture into further misdeeds by highly recommending the book Time's Arrow, a work of fiction by Martin Amis in which Tod Friendly dies only to "awaken" and find time running backwards toward the horrors of his earlier life.--Percy

Cool, I'll check it out. At the moment, I'm blocking out the whole concept by assuming a reversed universe would just be like the Red Dwarf episode where time goes backward: easy to comprehend, with lots of dried semen jokes.

Peeper: You claim that time reversals do not create problems. I disagree. However, I am more than will to grant you that under a time reversal the second law of thermodynamics (among others) can be proven violated.This message has been edited by thgar, 12-15-2004 09:49 PM

I brought up the time reversal invariance of the fundamental laws because I thought it would help reinforce why the 2cnd law of thermodynamics could not be a rigorous law of nature, but only a statistical one. Unfortunately, probably through poor presentation, I feel I may have only muddled the issue. It is not that the 2cnd law can only be violated if someone were to build a magical machine which could reverse time.The time invariance of the fundamental laws shows that any process which proceeds in one direction can also proceed in the reverse direction. This is in direct contradiction to a rigorous adherence of the 2cnd law.A direct consequence of the time invariance of the laws of quantum mechanics is the principle of detailed balance which states that the transition probability for the transition
i->j is the same as the transition probability j->i.To quote the respected physicist Herbert Callen (Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics p. 468)The equal probabilities of permissible states for a closed system in equilibrium is a consequence of time reversal symmetry of the relevant quantum mechanical laws.This means that the time reversal symmetry of the fundamental laws leads directly to the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics, The Postulate of Equal a Priori Probability.The 2cnd law of thermodynamics can be derived from this postulate.Therefore, there is no time reversal problem.How does one then reconcile the time reversal asymmetry of the 2cnd law with the time reversal symmetry of the fundamental laws? By realizing that the 2cnd law is only statistically correct.Since it is only statistically correct, it means that it is possible for it to be violated (and yes I mean in the forward time direction type of way). I tried to give an example of this using the kinetic theory of gases, but you didn’t like it.When contemplating whether the universe must die a heat death at maximal entropy the physicist Kerson Haung stated (Statistical Mechanics p.19)Our universe is governed by molecular laws, whose invariance under time reversal denies the existence of any natural phenomenon that absolutely distinguishes between the past and future. The proper answer to the question we posed is no [about the heat death of the universe]. The reason is that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be a rigorous law of nature.

Your right I did not like your example. It breaks it by reversing the flow of time. However if we assume time reversals are not a problem, then of course we can break the law (and not simply this one but many). I admit that is outside my general experience in sciences. Quantum Mechanics is not my field.A question outside the scope of this topic does come to mind now. What about causality? Oh well prehaps another topic at another time. Thanks for your information....This message has been edited by thgar, 12-16-2004 07:10 PM