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?