What is the anon highlighted in red even trying to say? I'd

File: iOS8-Shiny-Light-Flare-Bokeh-Color-Gradation-iPhone-6-plus-wallpaper-ilikewallpaper_com.jpg (530KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1080x1920px

>>8600725
What is the anon highlighted in red even trying to say?

Shameless self bump

>>8600725
kek
that thread and the previous responses are fucking retarded, and elementary level
https://warosu.org/g/thread/58478745

I think that anon is trying to say that if we had enough knowledge and power, we could create a seeting in which we can do what the inverse of some reaction does

As in
ch4 + h2o > co2 + 2h2o is the naturally occuring reaction
and if we were powerful enough we could find some way to reverse it as in
co2 + 2h2o > ch4 + h2o

He gives this argument to say that chemical reactions can be indeed reversible, contrary to what first anon said

Now the first definition of chemical reaction saying can't be reversed, is pretty shallow
That definition is usually given so brainlets can differentiate better
But whether or not a reaction can be perfectly inversed is another question, I don't know the answer either
I mean it seems possible that under the right circumstances products can again start a reaction, but is it always possible to get back to the original reactants? I don't know honestly

File: Alchemy is real.jpg (1MB, 1676x1451px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1676x1451px

It can be done

>>8600765
Thanks. I think I get most of what he's trying to say now.

>>8600765
I'm pretty sure you could perfectly reverse a reaction.

Like the formation of ammonia by H2/N2. Without any interference, some ammonia will decompose back. I imagine with certain temp and pressure you could make all of it do that.

>>8600789
Yeah that's what I thought at first too

But how do we know if the requirements are within the possible limits
I mean below absolute hot and above absolute zero, etc.

I mean I don't have the knowledge about it

Uh, isn't it obvious?
He's saying that the "rule of thumb" in which a chemical reaction is "irreversible" could be actually broken by advanced enough technology, such as manipulating matter at the quantum level.
Though the anon himself said so: he's not sure if that's possible in all cases.

His point is that "the rule of thumb" is but a vague description of what a chemical reaction is because it /would/ be possible to do that.

>>8600725
>chemical reaction is permanent and cannot be undone
Babby hasn't learned about equilibrium yet -- this definition of a chemical reaction is objectively wrong.

Time for a fucking lesson in catalysis, which is what OP wants to do: catalysis only goes downhill. You don't ever catalyze uphill reactions. Ever.

Why is this? Well, ultimately catalysis stabilizes a transition state such that the reaction barrier is lower and thereby the reaction is kinetically viable. Because of microscopic reversibility, a forward reaction and a backward reaction proceed through the same transition state. As a consequence: if your product is higher in energy than your starting material, the barrier will *always* be lower in energy and thereby you will either get the equilibrium mixture [if the energies are close] or you will get predominantly the thermodynamically-favored product.

Whatever "quantum" bullshit OP is talking about is fucking stupid, because even reactions that are better described by quantum descriptions can only go downhill. If uphill processes *do* occur, they are *always* coupled to other downhill chemical reactions such that the entire process is downhill. But you *never* catalyze a chemical reaction or a series of chemical reactions that is ultimately uphill.

>>8601133
But he also says locally