Home   Contents    Next Chapter

CHAPTER XVIII

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE REVERSIBILITY THEORY

        The reversibility theory of the universe, which has here been set forth, is only advanced as a mere speculation, as a possible hypothesis. There are many objections to the theory of the reversibility of the universe. All that is intended here is, not to prove this theory scientifically, or even to claim it as perfectly consistent with itself or with facts, but merely to indicate that there are, on the question of reversibility, other possible theories than the one at present generally accepted by physicists, and yet not more absurd or more inconsistent with facts. The theory of the second law of thermodynamics, as we have seen, leads to many absurdities, and we have seen a number of facts indicating the possibility of a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. Having examined all the facts and all the arguments that we have already marshalled on the side of this theory of the reversibly of the universe, we might as well examine a few facts mitigating against that theory in favor of the generally accepted theory of the universality of the second law of thermodynamics.

        In the first place, one essential point of the reversibility theory is the supposition that there are such things as reversals of the second law of thermodynamics, and that those reversals, in our section of the universe, constitute the phenomena known as life. This immediately involves the question: Does life really reverse the second law of  thermodynamics? We have no proof that it does, and it may indeed be considered extremely doubtful whether it does. If we look down the list of properties of the negative tendency, both in general and as the minority tendency, (excluding the name "life," wherever it occurs in that list), we will still find that nothing under our direct observation except life could come under that heading, so that, unless life is that reversal, there are certainly no reversals of the second law of thermodynamics within our observation. Now, among the characteristics of these reversals we find "super-elastic collisions" and "mechanical efficiency over 100%." These are very important distinguishing characteristics, and yet it is doubtful if we could find a single authenticated instance of a super-elastic collision occurring even in the case of living beings; and, if that is possible, it certainly is true that inelastic collisions are the more common phenomena with living as well as with lifeless bodies; which would not be true if life were a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. For instance, when we clap our hands together, it does not result in a larger rebound; in fact, the rebound is slight, and the applause, if kept up a long time, produces a distinct sensation of heat, the heat finally subsiding. Here we have an inelastic collision, molar motion resulting in heat, which finally runs down to a common level—exactly what we might expect under the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, there certainly are living phenomena which obey the second law of thermodynamics instead of reversing it.

        Furthermore, turning to chemical products, the final product of living forces is carbon dioxide, the most exothermic compound of carbon. Does not this, then, indicate a process of production of carbon dioxide by the oxidation of more complex or more endothermic carbon compounds, precisely as we might expect under the second law of thermodynamics, and precisely as we should not expect under its reversal? And the accompanying result is the liberation of a large amount of chemical energy, which might be used to explain the energy of life without having recourse to the reserve energy which the second law of thermodynamics says is unavailable. In fact, this process of the oxidation of carbon compounds to carbon dioxide is a process distinctly characteristic of the positive rather than of the negative tendency, thus indicating that life obeys the second law of thermodynamics instead or reversing it.

        In other words, it would seem as though our theory of the reversibility of the universe is based merely on a superficial resemblance of living phenomena to the theoretical appearance of a supposed "negative tendency." The actual proof that such a "negative tendency" is actually to be found is wanting and it seems, indeed, extremely doubtful whether it does exist.

        Further, in our theory of temporary stars as stars which are already in a heated condition, and with a nebula, but suddenly give out light on taking on the positive instead of the negative tendency, we may notice that we have depended on the peculiar observations of the "Nebula in Motion" in the case of Nova Persei 1902. It certainly is remarkable that, while temporary stars are seen about once a year or oftener, that such phenomena should leave been observed on only this one star. Thus a theory of the universe and of the evolution of stellar systems based on the observations of this star is one that is not likely to apply in general, because this star is an exceptional phenomenon. If the reversibility theory is correct, the phenomenon of the Nebula in Motion should be much more common than it really is.  

        Further, the theory of the reversibility of the universe supposes that life exists under all sorts of circumstances, even on such hot bodies as the sun. Certainly on the sun there is no possibility of anything of the sort that comes under the heading of life within our experience. If life exists on the sun, it must certainly be so different from anything that we are used to call life, that there could hardly be any points of resemblance. And similarly under many other circumstances such as complete absence of air, water, or both, as, for instance, on the moon. In short, as much as we can observe of life would rather seem to indicate that life, far from existing under all sorts of circumstances everywhere in the universe, is rather an extremely complex phenomenon that call only exist under very special circumstances.

        Furthermore, if we come to the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics is fundamentally based on a conceptual illusion, it would be just as logical to admit the same possibility for the other physical laws, in which case the theory of the reversibility of the universe would almost carry with it its own retaliation, since the reversible physical laws are the foundation of that theory. If observed facts can be explained in one case as a conceptual illusion, why not in another case?

Home   Contents    Next