Is Equivelent Exchange In Effect Today?

[Sithdarth]

Here's the thing. Yes you can't really create matter or energy (well theoretically you could but that would also create a whole new universe and a big bang). The problem is that in FMA when you gave up something you were supposed to get something of exactly equal value. That doesn't happen. Entropy is gradually decreasing the useful energy available to us. Further, you can't actually get an amount of work out of a system that equals the energy input. Sure no energy was destroyed but it was lost doing absolutely useless things. Its as the three laws of thermodynamics state:

1) There is no such thing as a free lunch.(Energy can't be created or destroyed.)

2) You can't have your cake and eat it too.(Returning to a previous energy state is impossible because it requires an input of additional energy due to entropic loss.)

3) You can't leave the kitchen.(Even though the laws of thermodynamics cease to apply at absolute zero you can't ever get there.)

Basically no matter how clever you are when doing work you are never going to get out exactly what you put in. Further, you are always at all times hemorrhaging energy thats doing nothing useful and you can't prevent that. So in a very physical sense in terms of actually doing useful things there is no such thing as equivalent exchange.

[Mike McC]

Even in FMA, 'Equivalent Exchange' was shown to be bunk, as there was a required energy input, the source of which was revealed in the last few episodes. To convert anything, you need to put energy into the process that you probably won't get back in a useable form (it'll radiate off as heat, or something).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You can get energy creating itself through quantum vacuum fluctuations, it just can't exist very long.

I haven't seen FMA but do they get into the whole spiritual side of alchemy? Cause a lot of alchemy was about spiritually transforming the soul and the body as well as the material you are working on.

[Aerozord]

it is a law of physics that what you start with is what you end with, even if not all of it was what you want. Which has already been explained so I wont bother.

But I will argue that energy and matter must stay as such. There are theories that matter can become energy and vice versa, and judging by the fact solid 'matter' is just strong nuclear bonds (one of the four basic forms of energy) I tend to agree. In fact I say matter is really just a state of energy

[Althane]

It's the laws of the hard sciences and then some that you get exactly what you put out.

Look up chemical reactions, endothermic or exothermic, one takes heat, the other gives off (and if you don't know which one is which, you should seriously start reviewing your prefixes. =P). But the end result is that both sides of the equations are the same. Same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Now, just because you can't use some of the energy given off doesn't mean that it's not equal.

The reason that there's three laws of thermodynamics is so that you can say "You will always need to put more energy in than you will get out." (always, law three. More energy, law one. Get out, law two.)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Matter is energy, it's well proved.
And Althane you don't always have the same matter. It's common in nuclear exchanges to break up neutrons. And the energy of these reactions come from mass exchane.

And "you always need to put more energy in than you get out"? Hardly.
See quantum fluctuations, some exothermic reactions, nuclear reactions, some tunnelling.
It pays not to listen to Newton too much. He lived in a classical world.

[Sithdarth]

But I will argue that energy and matter must stay as such. There are theories that matter can become energy and vice versa, and judging by the fact solid 'matter' is just strong nuclear bonds (one of the four basic forms of energy) I tend to agree. In fact I say matter is really just a state of energy

Energy changes to matter every day in the upper atmosphere. Incoming high energy photons split apart into electrons and positrons then annihilate back into a high energy photon. Likewise in fission reactions, and the fusion ones in the sun, that happen every second the mass at the end is less than the mass at the beginning. Its converted into energy and its why so much energy can be emitted from such reactions.

it is a law of physics that what you start with is what you end with, even if not all of it was what you want. Which has already been explained so I wont bother.

My point was that in FMA the law of equivalent exchange stated you get a certain amount reward for an exactly equal amount of effort. In the alchemical sense it was supposed to mean that if you got all the matter together you needed and used the right array you'd get exactly what you wanted with no waste. It was later shown not to be the case in the series itself namely when trying to bring a human back. There was an extra cost and it was horribly disproportionate to what you got.
The Philosopher's stone was able to allow for you to bring a person back to life but it took thousands it not hundreds of thousands of human lives to make them. Not exactly a fair trade.

It's the laws of the hard sciences and then some that you get exactly what you put out.

Look up chemical reactions, endothermic or exothermic, one takes heat, the other gives off (and if you don't know which one is which, you should seriously start reviewing your prefixes. =P). But the end result is that both sides of the equations are the same. Same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Now, just because you can't use some of the energy given off doesn't mean that it's not equal.

Actually it isn't because you can't really be said to "get" the energy lost to entropy. It just sort of leaves the system in a way that can never be fully prevented and can never be used usefully. Even if you someone managed to completely isolate the system you still loose energy to entropy over time so you'll never get an amount of work out of the system equal to the energy you input.

Oh and chemical equations aren't really equal on both sides. Matter wise yes but energy wise they are never the same or the chemical reaction wouldn't have happened to begin with. Now chances are you are trying to get something useful from this chemical reaction. You want an end product that you can use or the process to do work itself. If some of the input energy is lost in an unpreventable and totally useless way it can't really be said you got back exactly what you put in. Namely you don't "have" the energy lost to entropy. You know where it went and how much of it left but its completely useless. You can't go and recover it and reuse it to do something its just gone forever.

And "you always need to put more energy in than you get out"? Hardly.
See quantum fluctuations, some exothermic reactions, nuclear reactions, some tunnelling.
It pays not to listen to Newton too much. He lived in a classical world.

All exothermic reactions follow the laws of thermodynamics. Namely the potential energy stored in the bonds cannot be fully accessed for useful work. You may end with more kinetic and thermal energy than you started with but there is an accompanying loss of potential energy. A loss that is always bigger than the amount of useful work you can do with the reaction. One must remember that when dealing with thermodynamics potential energy is more important than any other kind.

Its the same thing for nuclear reactions. Potential energy before the reaction is always more than total useful energy extracted. I can't remember the exact numbers but something like only 50% of the energy of a fission reaction is actually heat. The rest is essentially useless. Then you have to heat the water to drive the turbine each step reducing the efficiency further. You just can't past the laws of thermodynamics.

Quantum fluctuations don't break creation energy because they aren't around long enough. I know it sounds like a crappy argument but thats unavoidable. The fluctuations are around for such a short amount of time you can't do anything useful with them. Well you can potentially but it requires a black hole and even then its not creating energy you just use the fluctuations to steal mass from the black hole. Quantum tunneling doesn't really have any implications for thermodynamics. Sure it allows things the pass potential energy wells they shouldn't be able to pass. However, it doesn't have any effect on the potential (or kinetic0 energy of the particle and therefore no effect on its ability to do work.

[Althane]

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

Matter is energy, it's well proved.
And Althane you don't always have the same matter. It's common in nuclear exchanges to break up neutrons. And the energy of these reactions come from mass.

Okay, yeah, sorry about that one. Nuclear exchanges do change matter into energy, but for the most part, I figured we were talking on an elementary level.

And "you always need to put more energy in than you get out"? Hardly.
See quantum fluctuations, some exothermic reactions, nuclear reactions, some tunnelling.
It pays not to listen to Newton too much. He lived in a classical world.

As said in perfection by XKCD: "Fuck. That. Shit".

Quantum stuff is beyond most people, so I didn't think it would be important in a discussion.

Oh, and the reasons mentioned above work quite well too.

Clearly I'm making these debates on too low a level. <<

[it_landry]

ya know, this disscussion is going better then i would have expected... this is a fun thing to read... everone has made good points, i just hope they keep coming...

[Eman]

i think someone watches too much Full Metal Alchemist....