Archimedes; or, the future of physicsWhyte, Lancelot Law
Philosophy
Archimedes; or, the future of physics
Whyte, Lancelot Law
Physics
But suppose that instead I had taken a film of a cup of tea as it was
cooling. One end of the film would show the steam above the cup and the
spoon changing in length as it changed in temperature. Passing along
the film these effects would grow less marked until the successive
photos showed no variation when the temperature of the tea was nearly
that of the surrounding air. It would be obvious which way to wind
this film, without using any subjective criterion supplied from memory
of the individual process which had been photographed. This process is
irreversible, but physics has hitherto assumed that all such processes
are merely the statistical result of a chaos of molecular motions each
of them perfectly reversible.
The assumption of reversibility seems to some physicists so fundamental
that they think there could be no science without it. But that is
a mere prejudice arising from the fact that Newton conceived one
particular way of giving mathematical formulation to the measurable
features of physical processes. By suggesting that all the laws of
nature might take a form similar to his law of gravitation, he made
the implicit assumption that all elementary processes were reversible.
Gravitational motions are so, at any rate within the accuracy of
Newton’s law, and as a consequence of the confirmation of his law
and the fact that it has been taken as a model for the whole system
of modern physical conceptions, the latter are only appropriate for
reversible processes.
Apparent irreversibility, such as the cooling of a cup of tea,
is attributed to statistical effects, and the second law of
thermodynamics, which asserts that temperatures tend to uniformity,
is treated as merely a statement of what is highly probable. This is
probably quite legitimate, but even where no statistical effect can
enter and the process is clearly irreversible physics usually adopts
any measure rather than assume that a fundamental elementary process
is irreversible.[2] We cannot be surprised at this, since if physics
once admitted that any elementary process was irreversible it would
have to give up the whole system of Newtonian conceptions. Matter,
force, energy, action, and wave properties are all unsuitable for the
treatment of irreversible effects since they all ultimately depend on
Newton’s reversible law.
An entirely new set of ideas is necessary for describing processes
which necessarily proceed in one direction, so that one particular
state of the system must precede another state. It appears conceivable
that an alternative set of conceptions to replace the Newtonian might
be established by demanding the irreversibility of all natural laws, as
well as the demands hitherto made by physics, i.e. the permanence of
matter and the conservation of energy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account