In my previous message I used the expression "mythological science" and perhaps I must give some explanation. I have the impression that, for more than a century, the tendency in science has been to impose to Nature myths of the sort "It is impossible for the event X to occur". The event in question is usually difficult to test experimentally so theoretical investigation is the only possible one. However the negative form of the statement ("It is impossible...") makes the logical difficulties enormous, although this is not seen on the surface. For instance, one may try to connect the second law in the form "Entropy never decreases" with some of the Kelvin's versions, e.g. "No process is possible in which a system absorbs heat from a reservoir, completely converts it into work and returns to its initial state". Both are called second laws but the connection is obscure (in fact it does not exist). In addition, statements of this kind generate other myths - e.g. "There have been many attempts to overthrow the principle but all failed".

To give a somewhat different example, let me mention another myth: "Catalysts (enzymes) cannot shift the position of chemical equilibrium". This means that, if a chemical reaction is at equilibrium and we add a catalyst, the reaction will remain as it is - neither the forward nor the backward reaction will be favored by the catalyst. In other words, if the catalyst accelerates the forward reaction e.g. 97 times, it must accelerate the backward reaction 97 times as well. No experimental verification is reported in the literature, and yet the justification is always the same: "No violation of the principle has ever been detected". In fact, nearly all metabolic sequencies are unidirectional – perhaps shifting the original equilibrium and making the reaction unidirectional
is the main function of most enzymes.

Why are myths so persistent? Because they make scientists' lives easier. Consider the following principle: "No person can earn more money than he/she spends for food, cloths and shelter" and imagine that the experimental verification is difficult. What a nice and simple science would emerge - no bank accounts and other complications. Unfortunately analogous myths really operate in science.

Best regards,
Pentcho