Karl Popper saw the source of change as differences in temperature. I argue that there is no source of change and explain energy changes as a natural phenomenon. I use the law of entropy and the conversion of thermal energy to refute Popper’s argument.
Have you ever seen a video shot using the time-lapse technique? Time-lapse is a technique in which the frame rate is set much lower than the rate at which change can be observed. When you watch a video shot with this technique, time seems to pass quickly. You can usually see flowers blooming and waning or the stars moving in a short period of time, and these videos make you think that everything in the world is so busy.
In reality, the world is constantly changing. Not only is technology advancing, but all matter is changing states. From the fingers tapping on the keyboard to the slowly rusting bicycle handlebars, nothing is static. Karl Popper, in his ‘ Conjectures and Dissertations,’ suggested that the source of this change is the difference in temperature. But is heat really the cause of change, and does it even exist? I don’t think there is a cause of change. In the following, I will analyze Popper’s discussion of the causes of change and then discuss why I disagree with his argument.
In ‘ Deduction and Refutation, Popper defines change as the transformation of things without them losing their identity. He also says, “The familiar changes that occur in our world are associated with differences in temperature. This hotness and coldness is the cause of steam and wind, and steam and wind are the drivers of almost all other changes.” However, he does not define why the differences in temperature occur, which creates the problem of infinite retroactivity for change.
I believe Popper had his reasons for coming to this conclusion. Before discussing those reasons, I will define change as what happens when energy changes its form. We can only then “recognize” that an object has changed. To understand this, we can simply observe the motion of a falling ball: a ball that is stationary in a high place has only potential energy, and as it falls to the ground, that energy changes to kinetic energy. Seeing this behavior, we say that the ball has changed position. After falling and bouncing back off the floor, the ball eventually stops. It has reached a state where it ‘appears’ that no change has occurred. In reality, the ball stops because of friction. The energy that the ball had was converted into heat energy by friction. That heat energy is dispersed in all directions to equalize the temperature of the surroundings. Since the heat energy generated by friction isn’t actually very large, the small amount of heat energy scattered in all directions doesn’t change the surrounding temperature much. Therefore, to our eyes, it looks like the energy is disappearing.
As another example, consider some chemical changes. All chemical reactions can be categorized into exothermic and endothermic reactions. If we observe the reaction of aluminum and hydrochloric acid, which is exothermic, hydrogen gas is produced, aluminum turns into aluminum oxide, and heat is released. If you observe this, it looks like the reaction occurs as heat escapes. In the case of endothermic reactions, the reaction appears to occur as heat enters. If we were to look for a visible reason for the change in the chemical state of an object, the most plausible answer would be the heat absorbed by the object. Of course, the enthalpy and free energy of the substance will also change after the end of the chemical reaction, but neither can be directly measured and observed. As in the two cases above, the end of the change, or the final appearance of energy, will most likely be heat energy. Since the last form of energy that we can observe is thermal energy, Popper would have said that the source of change is the difference in temperature.
Strictly speaking, however, not all change is caused by changes in thermal energy. Heat energy only ‘appears’ to be the end of the cycle of change. Heat energy also comes from other energies and is not actually the end of the cycle of energy change, so I think it is a bit of a leap and inappropriate to call it a driver of change. I would argue that energy changes its appearance as a matter of course and not because of any cause. This argument not only eliminates the problem of infinite retroactivity, but it also eliminates the question of the source of change. There are two reasons for this claim.
The first is the law of increasing entropy. Entropy is a physical quantity that describes the state of a system of matter in terms of heat and temperature, and is a measure of how close the state of the system is to disorder. The law of increasing entropy states that the increase in entropy of the universe is spontaneous. By “spontaneous” I mean that given enough time, it will happen on its own without any outside interference. I believe that an increase in disorder implies change, because for disorder to increase, some property of matter must change. Also, since a law is a hypothesis that people believe to be valid after many attempts to disprove it, the fact that the law of increasing entropy exists means that many people already take it for granted.
Another reason is that heat energy eventually turns into other energy. Of course, it’s very difficult to harness the thermal energy that is spread in the air. However, it can evaporate water from the air and create rain and clouds. This change in weather allows plants to grow, and eventually we feel that new chemical energy has been created. The source of the chemical energy produced by plants was, after all, scattered heat energy. For this reason, we believe that heat energy is not the last manifestation of the energy change cycle, nor is it the source of change. What we see is energy appearing in different forms.
As I said before, I disagree with Popper’s definition of the source of change as a difference in temperature. Of course, if we think about his reasons for doing so, we can see that he has some validity. But just because heat is the last form of energy we can observe, we cannot claim that it is the source of all change. Furthermore, I don’t think there is a source of change, so we shouldn’t even bother trying to find one; rather, the unchanging state is unnatural. If you think something isn’t changing, you should take a closer look to see if it really isn’t changing. If you do, you’ll find that it’s changing, even if it’s in subtle ways.
