On 11 November 2014 10:32, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> LizR wrote: > >> OK, so are you saying that the formation of bound states like nucleons >> has no bearing on the existence of an AOT? >> > > It certainly doesn't play a role in the origin of the AoT. Formation of > bound states is just a routine physical process that follows conventional > dynamical laws, including the second law of thermodynamics. Since the > second law governs these processes, they are subject to an AoT. > > You appear to be assuming the AOT in order to explain something that emerged from a state in which there was no distinct AOT. The quark soup starts in a high energy, essentially time-reversible state (any nucleons that happen to form sill rapidly fall apart again) - how can the 2nd law apply at that point? The 2nd law is emergent, as I think we all agree, and we're trying to explain how it might have emerged from time-symmetric physics. The transition from a plasma in which free quarks are interacting in an essentially time symmetric manner to a cloud of nucleons looks like a step on the way to doing that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
