Is it time to abandon The Second Law?

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: December 2, 2017

Experiment shows that arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one

The hot nucleus grew hotter while the cold nucleus grew colder. This observation did not violate the second law of thermodynamics, the group explains, because the second law assumes there are no correlations between particles.

Who would have guessed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was based on any assumption? See for comparison.
See: Quantized energy links olfaction from angstroms to ecosystems parts 1 and 2 on YouTube
The correlations link energy-dependent changes in electrons to ecosystems via the physiology of reproduction and biophysically constrained viral latency in all living genera.

Experimental verification of Landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics (2012)

Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone–controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation (2013)

Irreversibility and the Arrow of Time in a Quenched Quantum System (2015) reported as: Physicists confirm thermodynamic irreversibility in a quantum system
What changed their mind to make them reverse their claim from 2015 and correctly claim that the arrow of time is a relative concept?
See: Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception reported as: Odors Alter Subjective Time Experience

The sense of smell is like a time machine that links our experiences from the past to our behaviors throughout life.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pentcho Valev

Here is vigorous motion of water in an electric field, obviously able to produce work – e.g. by rotating a waterwheel:
“The Formation of the Floating Water Bridge including electric breakdowns”
“The water movement is bidirectional, i.e., it simultaneously flows in both directions.”
The work (rotating a waterwheel) will be done at the expense of what energy? The first hypothesis that comes to mind is:
At the expense of electric energy. The system is, essentially, an electric motor.
However close inspection would suggest that the hypothesis is untenable. Scientists use triply distilled water to reduce the conductivity and the electric current passing through the system to minimum. If, for some reason, the current is increased, the motion stops – the system cannot be an electric motor.
If the system is not an electric motor, then it is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind! Here arguments describing perpetual-motion machines as impossible, idiotic, etc. are irrelevant – the following conditional is valid:
IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT AN ELECTRIC MOTOR, then it is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind.
In other words, if the work is not done at the expense of electric energy, it is done at the expense of AMBIENT HEAT. No third source of energy is conceivable.
In the electric field between the plates of a capacitor, the same turbulent motion can be seen:
“Liquid Dielectric Capacitor”
Here work can be done by using the rising of the water – e.g. floating weights can be lifted. Again, the crucial question is:
The work (lifting floating weights) will be done at the expense of what energy?
Obviously “electric energy” is not the correct answer – the capacitor is not an electric motor. Then the only possible answer remains “ambient heat”. The system is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind!

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: