Why Physics is non-reversible
I have long understood that the maths in calculations were reversible.When it was implied if not stated out loud that the physics the maths represent was also reversible, my intuition rebelled against this notion but I could never account for a reason it could not be so.
NOW I understand why it cannot be. Entropy, It must increase.
We might reverse Time itself, but Entropy will still have to increase.
Locally entropy may be reversed, but universally entropy will still increase.
Comments (12)
Reversible is not a formal word in maths, to my knowledge. with f(x) = 0 what is the meaning of reversible (pray tell). The function has no inverse, and I do not know what you or anyone else imagines is reversible about it.
You are just another semi-literate ranting troll, to me.
"Ah, sirrah, I pity your poor children wife and ailing father, thus bereft of income and nourishment, but for the good of all humanity, tongue, thumb and fingers all must go. From pity, but with strong doubt, I leave your eyes. Be grateful as the state governors should be too for small mercies!"
Have an excellent day........
Wrong.....The very word 'deem' is a Verb... Period. You have contradicted yourself with your very own written example. It only becomes intransitive when used with an object. Yes, you are correct in the example itself, yet when you added the (to be), you cleverly(?).... mistook the Verb and added the object which now warrants it intransitive. Perhaps if you are still confused, look it up in any respectable Modern English Dictionary to suppress any remaining doubt.
Now I will not even begin to waste my time on the second portion of your confusion on the Theories presented here, as they are so misdirected that I am confident you would certainly not appreciate my true thoughts coming from this 'noisy ignorant vessel,'.....I will however address your second response that was separate from your first...(I do find it a bit curious that I must have struck a few chords within you that you felt warranted a second response), but let me not get off topic again. I would not want that recycyled excuse used against me even once more. I find it to be intelligent, clever, and funny.....almost poetic. Perhaps you should try your hand at creative writing. You can forget about rules of grammar and the like, and let your creative side take over.....Upon my observations, you would fare well in this area. And no, I am not being sarcastic....I view the last response as your best yet.
I know some of us will never play well with others and that has to be accepted. I can also accept that I and others will make grammatical, syntactical and spelling errors. Annoying as they can be to ourselves and others let us attempt to only refer to them in cases where one needs a clarification for the sake of understanding what was actually attempted to be communicated.
@Candykid Hi and thanks for responding.
Entropy is indeed an advanced concept and neither you or I or likely anyone haunting these spaces could be considered professional or uniquely qualified to the task of deriving or explaining the concepts involved. That has rarely stopped or should stop anyone from engaging in the exercise. So i will ignore any present or future objections based on that premise.
On to the topic.
I might have framed my statement better for certain but I had put it down at all in the desire to remember the thought almost entirely for myself alone.
For clarification on my positions I am humbled to agree with
Laplace when he stated "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis"
in reference to a god or gods to His mathematics. I also take no heed to it either as it offers no actual explanatory power. I will accept no present or future objections to our
conjectures based on one either.
Intuition is as you say, true and as often or more often not true. Nonetheless, it is an important tool in our kit as it offers explanations in an absence of facts thus providing a
sense of direction on where we might seek facts for verification or elimination.
In relation to the original statement, It, itself was an intuition in an attempt to explain to myself what the Jr High school explanations of Physics we see in media often show.
Reversibility in time, when it is never what we see in the world. ie. Pieces of glass flying off the floor with a puddle of water to land on the table as a still glass of water.
In my intuition I was only taking entropy as a maxim at the expense of any other concept. While it may indeed be reversible, I and others more qualified to have a say find it most difficult to conceive how that would be possible. The very idea of a reversal of entropy always reminds me of my favorite Isaac Asimov short story among the very first of his fiction I had read at that time only having read his science works previously, "The Last Question".
( background musical accompaniment to writing this post:
@JimNastics
You did gather the meaning, so as I see it the use of "universally" was valid. I chose that in particular as an expedient of my rapid composition and its euphonious nature as opposed to a longer and more exact phrasing that it would seem was not actually needed. Universal with or without the modifier may apply to inanimate as well as animate totalities.
I myself along with my best friends when I was aged 10 to 12 conjectured and also wondered at the Big Bang, Big Crunch senario you describe. It does have an intuitive feeling of correctness about it, but later, on my own and further gaining of perspective and knowledge it not only seems unlikely but impossible given the accelerating nature of all the matter around us that we can see.
I will make another post in the coming hours to comment on the remainder I have not yet addressed. I am glad that most have been encouraged and entertained by my post as that too was also my intention in posting my conjecture as a statement.