>all processes are reversible Is this the worst science meme?

>>8194110
>big crunch
/thread

>>8194110
>all processes are reversible
Whoever says this should kill themselves, then reverse the process.

>>8194110
I really don't think they meant physical processes

>>8194110
It means with complete information you could run the laws of physics in reverse and reconstruct an earlier state.

I called the universe a finite state machine earlier, and someone called me a moron. One day you'll all admit it, and then you'll become me and find yourself arguing against the fringe sorts saying otherwise, and then it'll all repeat again.

>>8194121
Burning paper isn't a physical process.

>>8194124
lol >>>/x/

>>8194137
No.

>>8194124
>heat death
/your argument

>>8194151
I'm not saying you physically make the universe run in reverse, I'm saying with the proper information manipulation (ie, computation) device, you could simulate it and reconstruct an earlier state.

Again, you aren't making the past, you're just viewing an approximation of it. Although I'm not all that convinced time really can move in both directions, and full reversibility even with complete information about a system.

File: CCzgaKNUkAEeX2Q.jpg (74KB, 1023x712px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1023x712px

>>8194110
reminder that Entropy is just a buzzword that butt hurt physicists created because the only proofs for the laws of thermodynamics were empirical.

>perform experiment in vacuum
>high MP camera records burning
>robot programmed to glue the millions of ashes together
You would be able to see most of the message
/thread

>>8194119
kek

>>8194110
In what context do mean reversible?

In thermodynamics, classically, there are reversible and irreversible processes. All real processes will have irreversibilities.

>>8194175
>put human in vacuum
>grind body to consistency of toothpaste
>robot programmed to glue pieces together \
you would be able to see most of the features on the body
/thread

File: 1467319145098.jpg (149KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 530x600px

>>8194202
Why wouldn't you just rewind the video?

>>8194161
Time travel is very easy, but it takes a lot to not change the timeline in a meaningful way. There are a few ways, some safer but more complex, others cheaper and easy to undo. Time travel can be undone as well, obviously.

I suspect it's more used as a last resource tool. Since robots know how to use it to murder our civilization, the technology was most likely developed with the help of robots as well with alien interference through psychic ray beams. Of course, you can't do anything about this.

>>8194110
Literally no reputable scientist ever said that.

>>8194201
There's no such thing as irreversible transformation.

>>8194234
That's the right answer, but it inhibits discussion.

>>8194161
You can reconstruct AN earlier state, but you can't reconstruct THE earlier state. Multiple states can lead to the same configuration, so the only way to get back to the correct configuration is if that correct information was stored somewhere, which, as far as science can deduce, is not the case.

>processes are not reversible
>there is no causation

>>8194202
No, you idiot. That's an entirely new process taking place right after that. Not reversing the original one.

>>8194110
who told you this?

>>8194594
it's from talk about black holes destroying information

>>8194137
Isn't it a chemical process? I was taught that a chemical reaction is a reaction that's irreversible.

>>8195003
Retards, both you and whoever taught you that.

how is a black hole reversible?

>>8194115
Observations of the continued expansion of the universe suggest the big crunch will not occur.

>>8194124
Ambiguous pasts and information smearing.

At large distances information is distorted into pure noise, making reconstruction impossible and effectively destroying information.

File: Cxjd7Xh.jpg (119KB, 500x519px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x519px

>>8194124
>It means with complete information you could run the laws of physics in reverse and reconstruct an earlier state.

We've known this was wrong since before Abe Lincoln was elected president

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#Thermodynamic_irreversibility
> Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>In other words, Laplace's demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics;
>however, Ulanowicz points out that many thermodynamic processes are irreversible, so that if thermodynamic quantities are taken to
>be purely physical then no such demon is possible
>as one could not reconstruct past positions and momenta from the current state.

>>8195003
>>8195066
I actually was taught that too. It's a way for teachers to explain to children the difference between chemical and physical changes to matter. It's incredibly dumbed down and I wish there was an easier way to explain it to kids without having to get balls deep into molecular and atomic theory when you're talking to a 10 year old.

>>8194491
look at what hes replying too.

>>8195195
The problem with it is that it's blatantly wrong and goes directly against the single most important concept in chemistry.