Thermodynamics and Cosmology

[coldcreation]

I somehow missed this the first time through this thread. You miss the entire point of thermodynamics. The point of thermodynamics is that DETAILS ARE IRRELEVANT. Thermodynamics applies to anything in equilibrium, regardless of what physical processes brought it to equilibrium. Hence, (for instance) the boltzman factor can be used for ANY classical system, and works equally well for ideal gasses and solids. Similarly, the bose distribution works for any relevant system and works equally well for photons and oscillations in a crystal.

 

In other words, if you are using thermodynamics you are making the statement that "geometry and special properties" are irrelevant, and something universal can be extrapolated.

-Will

 

Perhaps you missed my point. What you write is true.

 

However, we were discussing entropy in the real world where it is observed the formation of stars and galaxies, not the dispersion (to the same extent) of gas and dust into a smooth background, as depicted in the box experiment.

 

In other words, the rudimantary picture drawn by the box experiment is insufficient for the broad understanding of what is entropy and how entropy manifests itself in this observable universe.

 

So the concept of entropy must be included into a greater picture that includes GR and QM if we are to understand its implications, not just for astrophysics and astronomy, but for cosmology.

 

 

CC

[modest]

Perhaps you missed my point. What you write is true.

 

However, we were discussing entropy in the real world where it is observed the formation of stars and galaxies, not the dispersion (to the same extent) of gas and dust into a smooth background, as depicted in the box experiment.

 

In other words, the rudimantary picture drawn by the box experiment is insufficient for the broad understanding of what is entropy and how entropy manifests itself in this observable universe.

 

So the concept of entropy must be included into a greater picture that includes GR and QM if we are to understand its implications, not just for astrophysics and astronomy, but for cosmology.

 

CC

 

So many times, you have painted the universe with the third law brush. Saying [by definition] that what is true for a perfect crystalline solid is true for the universe. Saying that when the universe approaches absolute zero that entropy approaches zero. This is not even true for carbon monoxide yet you assign it to the entire universe.

 

Someone else uses the example of a cooling, adiabatic, expanding gas and this is too simple a view for you?

 

Someone has taken your view of the third law, added expansion and a non-perfect structure, making the analogy more complete and a better reflection of all three laws. Now you say such a comparison is too “rudimentary”?

 

You just can't get away with saying this:

 

In other words, the rudimantary picture drawn by the box experiment is insufficient for the broad understanding of what is entropy and how entropy manifests itself in this observable universe.

 

After saying something like this:

 

Clearly, the universe according to the canonical-hot-big-bang-DE-CDM expansion hypothesis the universe is heading straight toward a state of absolute zero temperature (the big freeze) as time t tends to infinity, where entropy is equal to zero.

 

Entropy is a decreasing property in an expanding universe. It starts out rediculously high and tends to zero with time t.

 

You invalidate all of your own arguments.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

So many times, you have painted the universe with the third law brush. Saying [by definition] that what is true for a perfect crystalline solid is true for the universe. Saying that when the universe approaches absolute zero that entropy approaches zero. This is not even true for carbon monoxide yet you assign it to the entire universe.

 

Are there isolated exceptions and violations of physical laws? Yes there are, particularly when we devise experiments designed to test there limits of applicability. But those experiments by no means excludes the universal nature of the laws.

 

The consequences of the natural laws are much more universal and far-reaching than for the limited special cases represented by these vilations.

 

At the same time, I've never written that what is true for a perfect crystalline solid is true for the universe.

 

Yes, it has always struck me as extraordinarily obvious and logical that the laws of physics are universal. (That, on the other hand, is not the case in the mainstrean view, I know, where all the laws break down at some point).

 

 

 

Someone has taken your view of the third law, added expansion and a non-perfect structure, making the analogy more complete and a better reflection of all three laws. Now you say such a comparison is too “rudimentary”?

 

That is correct.

 

While the laws of thermodynamics are of utmost importance for the evolution of the universe, gravity and its consequences on the unfolding of events cannot be brushed aside, since it is likely responsible for the formation and dynamics of large-scale structures (and possibly small-scale structures as well).

 

The box experiment (to show entropy at work) is obviously lacking.

 

 

 

 

You just can't get away with saying this:

 

After saying something like this:

 

You invalidate all of your own arguments.

 

-modest

 

Entropy is responsible for much of the complexity and increased randomness observed today. This may sound fanciful for promoters of entropy as chaos or global disorder. After all entropy is often described with the example of a gas spreading from one side of a compartmentalized container (with a hole to allow gas to pass through) to fill the entire container. The diffused result is more randomly scattered than the original configuration. Yet this restricted view is too simplistic. It seems related, albeit from afar, to the expansion of the universe spreading out like a gas in a closed space. The facts are different.

 

What we observe in the universe is the condensation of clouds (composed of atoms, molecules, dust, etc.) to form stars. Where is the increase of entropy in this ubiquitous phenomenon? From a diffuse cloud in unstable equilibrium near the ground-state energy interactions due to Casimir forces and gravity lead to the formation of stars where atoms and molecules in a kinetic frenzy jump from the ground state to a higher energy levels. Atoms collide, bounce, interact with others. Even if we throw convection currents into the mix, entropy has increased: the second law of thermodynamics is not violated in the star-formation process.

 

 

In his Treatise on Thermodynamics (1945), Max Planck put in writing a propos the second law and the increase of entropy: “The gist of the second law has nothing to do with experiment; the law asserts briefly that there exists in nature a quantity which always changes in the same way in all natural processes.”

 

My arguments seem nothing less than validated. Is that not correct?

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

My arguments seem nothing less than validated. Is that not correct?

 

Your arguments can not be validated if they are in direct opposition. Did you miss that in my previous post? Let’s see…

 

Are there isolated exceptions and violations of physical laws? Yes there are, particularly when we devise experiments designed to test there limits of applicability. But those experiments by no means excludes the universal nature of the laws.

 

Here you are talking about the third law and noted violations in your interpretation of it. If this law in isolation works only on a perfect crystal (which is true) then it is tough to assign it to anything more complex than a perfect crystal. I pointed out carbon monoxide and someone else pointed out glass. You seem to say that these are irrelevant because the global nature of the third law is nevertheless true. Ok - let’s accept your argument. As the third law relates to our perfect crystal so it applies to the universe as a whole.

 

Then you make the exact opposite argument for an expanding gas or fluid. Can the laws of thermodynamics represented by an expanding and cooling gas represent the nature of entropy of the entire universe? You say no - it is too simple a comparison.

 

Yet the even more simple comparison of the third law in isolation that excludes pressure and volume work is fine with you.

 

You ignore the more complex model with more variables saying it is too simple and hold on the more simple model with less variables and know exceptions.

 

Here it gets really crazy: You point out apparent exceptions in both examples. The third law has its exceptions as I’ve just mentioned and the first and second law with condensation of clouds because of gravity. The exceptions to the third law you say should not exclude the universal application of the law. Yet gravity’s apparent exception to an expanding gas model reveals that it is too restricted and simplistic. It’s nearly schizophrenic. From one paragraph to the next you literally say that exceptions and violations should not prohibit us from extrapolating part of the thermodynamic laws to the universe as a whole then say that because there are exceptions to a different aspect of thermodynamics it should not be extrapolated to the universe as a whole.

 

Perhaps the reason you hold on to your application of the third law to the universe at large is because it gives you results that favor your view of the universe. And, perhaps you reject the more-complete application saying it is too simple because it does not agree with your view.

 

And yes - an expanding gas or fluid that is cooling and doing pressure volume work is a more complete model of thermodynamics than your isolated treatment of the third law.

 

Using exact opposite arguments to both support and at the same time reject something is very telling. It makes for good politicians and bad scientists.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Your arguments can not be validated if they are in direct opposition. Did you miss that in my previous post? Let’s see…

 

 

Clearly. I have not yet made myself perfectly clear.

 

I will attempt to do so upon returning from an evening out on the town.

 

For now let me make a couple of quick remark:

 

I believe the laws of physics are universal, despite brief, periodic and special-case-violations (such as entropy-decrease shown in an experiment recently).

 

 

If some of my statements have seemed contradictory perhaps it is because nature often presents a duality (e.g. particle, wave). So if there are ambiguities, they are everywhere present in nature.

 

Yet, Einstein believed that science could be a complete material and visual embodiment of the truth, that the state of a system may well be specified directly, freed from arbitrariness, and that only then could the invalidation of duality be finally realized. He never realized his dream but I am entirely convinced that he was correct. His goal is attainable.

 

As the title of this thread anounces, I make the claim that thermodynamics and cosmology are inextricably attached (as are all natural laws, fundamental constants along with GR and QM). I stand by that claim, can and will defend it.

 

For the mainstream, however, cosmology could only become ‘complete’ by overstepping the bounds of science and passing from the sphere of physics into that of Truth—the absolute unification of the subjective and the objective—just as the big bang had given way to new physics and then new philosophy before spirit could come to predominate. Such a move into the ‘sphere of spirit’ was possible for individuals, but it would mean the end of science.

 

Einstein had seen science in terms of these major polarities, and drafted a concept that he believed was to end in their unification, but had not been able to find out whether his ‘natural’ generalized law could stand up “against the facts of experience.” It may be surprising in this context that a consistent quantum theory of gravity remains one of the most (if not the most) important challenges to theoretical physicists. How this might be appreciated, and what it would mean to those involve, will be one of the main topics of Coldcreation: on ice for now.

 

So you see modest, things are really not as simple as we would hope. If it were that simple then cosmology would have been a true science long ago.

 

I will be back to clarify, as simply as possible, my position regarding thermodynamics and cosmology later.

 

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

As the title of this thread anounces, I make the claim that thermodynamics and cosmology are inextricably attached (as are all natural laws, fundamental constants along with GR and QM). I stand by that claim, can and will defend it.

 

No one is denying this- however I have argued (and perhaps modest, though I can only speak for myself) that your understanding of thermodynamics is, at best, outdated, at worst, mistaken. Quoting Planck, etc, all well and good- but thermodynamics has been further refined and developed.

-Will

[modest]

I believe the laws of physics are universal, despite brief, periodic and special-case-violations (such as entropy-decrease shown in an experiment recently).

 

Then you should have no problem applying the combined law of thermodynamics to the universe as a system rather than just the third law (i.e. an expanding and cooling isolated system does not describe a decrease in entropy) Perhaps you could withdraw your previous claim to this effect.

 

If some of my statements have seemed contradictory perhaps it is because nature often presents a duality (e.g. particle, wave). So if there are ambiguities, they are everywhere present in nature.

 

So, if you say something contradictory it’s because nature contradicts itself - WOW - I'm speechless

 

As the title of this thread anounces, I make the claim that thermodynamics and cosmology are inextricably attached (as are all natural laws, fundamental constants along with GR and QM). I stand by that claim, can and will defend it.

 

Why would you defend something that no one has debated?

 

For the mainstream, however, cosmology could only become ‘complete’ by overstepping the bounds of science and passing from the sphere of physics into that of Truth—the absolute unification of the subjective and the objective—just as the big bang had given way to new physics and then new philosophy before spirit could come to predominate. Such a move into the ‘sphere of spirit’ was possible for individuals, but it would mean the end of science.

 

Huh? I’m quite sure the entropy of the cosmos has nothing to do with a sphere of spirit. You can compare the big bang model with yoga or witchcraft or whatever you’re talking about all day long but this only serves to avoid the criticism that I and others have put to your reasoning.

 

So you see modest, things are really not as simple as we would hope. If it were that simple then cosmology would have been a true science long ago.

 

Well-made arguments have been posted to counter your claim that standard cosmology violates entropy. Such a claim is too simple. It is derived from a simplistic and incomplete application of thermodynamics. You are going to have to do better than “sphere of spirit” and “ambiguities are present everywhere in nature” and "things are really not as simple as we would hope" to defend your claim if indeed you still intend to defend it.

 

- modest

[coldcreation]

I will be back for comments on the above reposts. For now though, a follow-through of the CC concept:

 

From an infinite time in the past up to then (600 Gyr ago) must have seemed like a long time before something truly spectacular happened in an otherwise dark, seemingly lackluster place (the vacuum), but the point is that at some time in the future it would eventually happen, it was inevitable.

 

From something had to come something.

 

This was no free lunch, sorry. The tab was real, an irreducible aspect of force, of energy, of motion (zero-point fluctuations). Though the price paid for the transformation was more like an exchange rate from one currency to the other. Not from dollars to Euros, but from ground-energy to material particles causing entropy to increase, from one energy level (the lowest one) to the next (slightly higher), from a positive charge to a negative and visa versa if you wish, from a simple random shape (of low entropy) to one more coherent, uniform and complex (of higher entropy).

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

I will be back for comments on the above reposts. For now though, a follow-through of the CC concept:

 

From an infinite time in the past up to then (600 Gyr ago) must have seemed like a long time before something truly spectacular happened in an otherwise dark, seemingly lackluster place (the vacuum), but the point is that at some time in the future it would eventually happen, it was inevitable.

 

From something had to come something.

 

This was no free lunch, sorry. The tab was real, an irreducible aspect of force, of energy, of motion (zero-point fluctuations). Though the price paid for the transformation was more like an exchange rate from one currency to the other. Not from dollars to Euros, but from ground-energy to material particles causing entropy to increase, from one energy level (the lowest one) to the next (slightly higher), from a positive charge to a negative and visa versa if you wish, from a simple random shape (of low entropy) to one more coherent, uniform and complex (of higher entropy).

 

An empty universe filling itself with matter and energy would be a violation of every kind of conservation including the first law of thermodynamics.

[coldcreation]

An empty universe filling itself with matter and energy would be a violation of every kind of conservation including the first law of thermodynamics.

 

Au contraire.

 

An "empty" universe is everything but empty.

 

All that is need for this model to work are the laws of thermodynamics, the conservation laws, GR and QM. There is no need to complement the model with non-baryonic dark matter, dark (kooky) energy, false vacuums, roll-over transitions, extra dimensions, branes, BHs, SMBHs, wormholes, monopoles, or any other property, entity or event that drifts beyond physics.

 

So there is no violation of conservation laws or thermodynamics. The other elegant feature of the model is that GR needs not be stretched to infinity. The low velocity and low energy regime is sufficient for the needs of cosmology.

 

 

I believe a realistic chronological arrangement can be work out adequately provided we take into consideration commencing from a pragmatic estimate of the abundance of elements today and work backwards to a state and a time before which no stars existed. I am persuaded that the Hoyle and Burbidge calculation of 100 billion years [to create the observed abundance of elements and isotopes] did not take into consideration evolution, but assumed the constancy of the quantity of stars and galaxies in accordance with the quasi-steady state cosmology.

 

Providing a significant timescale reassessment, with the role of evolution playing out its part, we should enlarge our understanding of the universe itself. For example, we should be able to establish whether the creation of hydrogen continues in the cold environment of space or whether there was simply a phase transition in different regions of space (that could have lasted billions of years) in which cryogenic creation transpired.

 

 

Cool.

 

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

One diagnostic weakness of a crackpot is recruitment of selective support from obsolete and discredited literature.

 

Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Message-ID: [email protected]

 

"As Jacobson showed in 1995, the mere imposition of the Bekenstein bound in conjunction with the laws of thermodynamics implies general relativity."

 

1995 is more recent than 1958. Note that while alive Eddington crushed the career of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar - 1983 Physics Nobel Prize - because Eddington could not comprehend the mathematics of black holes. Eddington also demanded a steady-state universe that is mathematically impossible and empirical crap. Eddington was grievously incorrect on both counts by simple observation.

 

A steady state universe is particulary egregious for trivial reasons. Work out the average time an infinitely sharp pencil, balanced perfectly upright, will take to fall. Consider a pendulum of length 1 and mass 1. Specify the orientation by the angle, x(t), measured from the position with the bob vertically below the suspension point. The potential energy is

 

V = g * (1-cosx) = 2g * (sin(x/2))^2

 

Set the initial conditions

 

x(0) = 0, x'(0) = 2g

 

The energy

 

E = 1/2 (x')^2 + 2g * (sin (x/2))^2

dx/dt = sqrt (4g (1 - (sin (x/2))^2)

 

Then

              /               1                 
dt = sqrt(   __________________  )   dx
                 4g(1-(sin(x/2))^2      /

The integral of dx from x = 0 to x = a diverges as a--> pi.

 

What does this say about the pencil balanced on its point? About any steady state condition located at a maximum or saddlepoint rather than at a true minimum?

 

You are correct as far as I can tell but what if tomorrow someone found something that holds the pencil up even maybe keeps it growing? While crack pots are everywhere really new things do get discovered and they over turn all the old. I think we are about due for a turn over. The "Pile is too big" and to many allowences for things that cannot be easily explaned are coming to light. Science is almost as bad as religion in holding on to old dogma in the face of change. It might be long odds that a change is going to happen but what are the odds my basset hound would pull me out of bed when his natural inclination is to sleep 22/7 eat and chase possums the rest of the time. but two days ago he pulled me out of bed and showed me a huge natural gas leak that was occuring in my hot water heater. I was almost over come from the fumes before I could get my wife and the rest of my hounds who were asleep like the dead. but that one dog who sleeps with me every night, willingly and with determination warned me about a danger he could not have any possible knowlege of. what are the odds of that. he is just two years old and for a basset that is still a puppy and usually so stubborn they appear dumb as a stump.

 

Michael

[modest]

An empty universe filling itself with matter and energy would be a violation of every kind of conservation including the first law of thermodynamics.

Au contraire.

 

An "empty" universe is everything but empty.

 

All that is need for this model to work are the laws of thermodynamics, the conservation laws, GR and QM. There is no need to complement the model with non-baryonic dark matter, dark (kooky) energy, false vacuums, roll-over transitions, extra dimensions, branes, BHs, SMBHs, wormholes, monopoles, or any other property, entity or event that drifts beyond physics.

 

So there is no violation of conservation laws or thermodynamics. The other elegant feature of the model is that GR needs not be stretched to infinity. The low velocity and low energy regime is sufficient for the needs of cosmology.

 

 

I believe a realistic chronological arrangement can be work out adequately provided we take into consideration commencing from a pragmatic estimate of the abundance of elements today and work backwards to a state and a time before which no stars existed. I am persuaded that the Hoyle and Burbidge calculation of 100 billion years [to create the observed abundance of elements and isotopes] did not take into consideration evolution, but assumed the constancy of the quantity of stars and galaxies in accordance with the quasi-steady state cosmology.

 

Providing a significant timescale reassessment, with the role of evolution playing out its part, we should enlarge our understanding of the universe itself. For example, we should be able to establish whether the creation of hydrogen continues in the cold environment of space or whether there was simply a phase transition in different regions of space (that could have lasted billions of years) in which cryogenic creation transpired.

 

 

Cool.

 

CC

 

Can you explain this? I mean, there is no explanation here. You just say that conservation isn't violated. Where does the energy come from that creates all the fermions and hadrons and bosons? What was this mysterious energy doing before it was available to the universe? Why is it a process that we can't observe or describe with physics today?

 

Also, was the universe curved before it got filled up with matter and radiation or is it curved now? Or, does matter not curve space-time?

[coldcreation]

You are correct as far as I can tell but what if tomorrow someone found something that holds the pencil up even maybe keeps it growing? While crack pots are everywhere really new things do get discovered and they over turn all the old. I think we are about due for a turn over. The "Pile is too big" and to many allowences for things that cannot be easily explaned are coming to light. Science is almost as bad as religion in holding on to old dogma in the face of change. It might be long odds that a change is going to happen but what are the odds my basset hound would pull me out of bed when his natural inclination is to sleep 22/7 eat and chase possums the rest of the time. but two days ago he pulled me out of bed and showed me a huge natural gas leak that was occuring in my hot water heater....

Michael

 

Wow, Moontanman, is that a true story? If so, I'm glad everyone made it out alive.

 

You are correct. There is something inherent in nature that allows equilibrium to be maintained.

 

Fred Hoyle pointed out the problem with great lucidity:

 

“This picture…generalizes…the big-bang view of the Universe' date=' in which the entire Universe originates like the pencil balanced on its point. The balancing must be ultrafine. The density range in the cloud from the first moment contemplated in the theory…until the present is so vast that the pencil has to be balanced to an accuracy of about I part in 10 (60th). Written out in full; 1 part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. How is this incredible balance achieved? There is no answer from the big-bang supporters, except with the implication of divine adjustment.” (Fred Hoyle 1994, 1997, p. 402)[/quote']

 

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

Wow, Moontanman, is that a true story? If so, I'm glad everyone made it out alive.

 

You are correct. There is something inherent in nature that allows equilibrium to be maintained.

 

Fred Hoyle pointed out the problem with great lucidity:

 

 

 

 

 

CC

 

 

Yes that is a true story, if not for my dog I would be scattered over several city blocks right now.

 

Michael

[HydrogenBond]

In chemistry there is what is called Gibb's free energy which is sort of a combination of entropy and enthalpy. Enthalpy is the energy contained within matter which tries to lower, using the four forces of nature. When entropy increases it will absorb energy, when enthalpy decreases (natural direction of enthalpy) it will release energy. This connection implies that enthalpy can lower entropy since the loss of energy is counter productive to the energy needs of entropy. The four forces of nature cause energy to be released as matter combines, lowering entropy as the matter forms more orderred arrangements.

 

If you look at the universe, the expansion implies entropy increasing at the universe scale. But at the scale of galaxies, stars and planets, these are all examples of the entropy lowering due to enthalpy potential. Say we start with the BB, for the sake of argument, the entropy may have reached a max very early, due to the heat and chaotic particle soup. But once the substructure started to move toward the direction of H, entropy began to fall. The further movement to nebula and galaxies, stars etc., was enthalpy taking control over the entropy. There is still entropy in the universe, but the net entropy is continuing to decrease.

 

For example, say we start with a cloud of hydrogen gas. This is the state of maximum entropy. We add gravity, the volume decreases reducing the degrees of freedom and entropy. Once we fuse H into higher atoms, what were once free roaming hydrogen, are now contain and moving slower. As atoms grow, the inner electrons are now tightly held and therefore more contained than they were on the original free roaming H. Then we form chemicals with these atoms, this now lowers the entropy of the atoms. These will then form liquid and solids at higher temperatures that would have been needed to contain all the (free energy) entropy in free roaming H. What started out with maximum entropy is losing entropy to enthapy.

 

Even with the universe expanding, this entropy is only a fraction of the free energy within the universe. Net entropy is being lowered by the free energy within the enthalpy, giving off energy. This energy is feeding the residual entropy. Once the easy enthalpy is used up, and the universal energy output lowers, even this residual entropy is doomed. It can not keep gaining entropy without energy. But enthalpy does not need energy. Its job it to get rid of energy. The last step will be enthalpy geting rid of the energy within this remaining entropy.

 

For example, say we form a diamond. The defects are sources of entropy but typically these will be less than the perfection (minimal entropy) due to the affect of enthalpy trying to minimize the energy. In the end, a blackhole will get rid of these entropy defects by compressing all the caron atoms to where there is no entropy left. There is no entropy left when matter is compressed to a point. At the same time, the blackhole is cheap with its energy output, starving external entropy. The residual entropy when staved of energy, will stop in its tracks. The tractor beam of gravity enthalpy will then reel it back in, to lower the free energy.

[modest]

Hello HydrogenBond,

 

I think your view of entropy and enthalpy are very interesting. My views are a bit different. Tell me what you think...

 

In chemistry there is what is called Gibb's free energy which is sort of a combination of entropy and enthalpy. Enthalpy is the energy contained within matter which tries to lower, using the four forces of nature.

 

While enthalpy is the measure of a change in energy it cannot be defined as energy itself. It is impossible to measure enthalpy directly because there is no universal scale or reference. It is not an absolute value for reference and cannot be used as a standard to compare two (or more) systems. All enthalpy is change in enthalpy.

 

When entropy increases it will absorb energy, when enthalpy decreases (natural direction of enthalpy) it will release energy.

 

Neither entropy nor enthalpy can absorb or release energy. When entropy increases for a closed system you would say energy has moved from a hotter to a colder part of the system. Rather than absorbing or storing up energy, an increase in entropy represents a drop in the available energy that can do work.

 

This connection implies that enthalpy can lower entropy since the loss of energy is counter productive to the energy needs of entropy.

 

If I understand what you're saying, I would disagree. A spontaneous process will lower enthalpy and raise entropy.

 

The four forces of nature cause energy to be released as matter combines, lowering entropy as the matter forms more orderred arrangements.

 

A good example would be hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water. This is an exothermic and spontaneous reaction. Its enthalpy change will be negative as this is a favored reaction. The entropy of the hydrogen and oxygen will decrease but the entropy of the surroundings will increase as heat is dispersed. Overall we can say that total entropy has increased. But, perhaps you are referring to the entropy of the matter only and not the system. Hummm...

 

If you look at the universe, the expansion implies entropy increasing at the universe scale.

 

Oh yes, we are on the same page here :)

 

But at the scale of galaxies, stars and planets, these are all examples of the entropy lowering due to enthalpy potential. Say we start with the BB, for the sake of argument, the entropy may have reached a max very early, due to the heat and chaotic particle soup. But once the substructure started to move toward the direction of H, entropy began to fall. The further movement to nebula and galaxies, stars etc., was enthalpy taking control over the entropy. There is still entropy in the universe, but the net entropy is continuing to decrease.

 

For example, say we start with a cloud of hydrogen gas. This is the state of maximum entropy. We add gravity, the volume decreases reducing the degrees of freedom and entropy. Once we fuse H into higher atoms, what were once free roaming hydrogen, are now contain and moving slower. As atoms grow, the inner electrons are now tightly held and therefore more contained than they were on the original free roaming H. Then we form chemicals with these atoms, this now lowers the entropy of the atoms. These will then form liquid and solids at higher temperatures that would have been needed to contain all the (free energy) entropy in free roaming H. What started out with maximum entropy is losing entropy to enthapy.

 

No, I wouldn't say the net entropy is decreasing because of stars and galaxies. It's like the example of H and O2 making water, only here it is because of gravity. As these structures combine they create tremendous heat. That heat is radiated into the system and the overall entropy change is positive despite a local increase. I'm also still not convinced that a local entropy change is caused by enthalpy or that enthalpy can lower entropy. I say this because enthalpy has a smaller scope. In fact, enthalpy can be defined using entropy - so if anything, it could be said that entropy helps define or guide the enthalpy of a substance. As a system changes its enthalpy and its Gibbs energy change because of entropy (IMHO).

 

Even with the universe expanding, this entropy is only a fraction of the free energy within the universe.

 

I would not normally look at entropy as a form or source of energy - but rather as rules for what energy can and can't do. If you are saying that more and more energy changes and work done in the universe will be less represented by an increased entropy then I would completely disagree. The second law of thermodynamics has entropy increasing with time and I think it's fundamental to our universe and will be long after we're gone.

 

Net entropy is being lowered by the free energy within the enthalpy, giving off energy. This energy is feeding the residual entropy. Once the easy enthalpy is used up, and the universal energy output lowers, even this residual entropy is doomed. It can not keep gaining entropy without energy. But enthalpy does not need energy. Its job it to get rid of energy. The last step will be enthalpy geting rid of the energy within this remaining entropy.

 

For example, say we form a diamond. The defects are sources of entropy but typically these will be less than the perfection (minimal entropy) due to the affect of enthalpy trying to minimize the energy. In the end, a blackhole will get rid of these entropy defects by compressing all the caron atoms to where there is no entropy left. There is no entropy left when matter is compressed to a point. At the same time, the blackhole is cheap with its energy output, starving external entropy. The residual entropy when staved of energy, will stop in its tracks. The tractor beam of gravity enthalpy will then reel it back in, to lower the free energy.

 

I really don’t know how to approach the topic of the entropy of a black hole. I have heard different claims. I attended a lecture where Roger Penrose claimed it represented a maximum of entropy. He had a nice drawing and everything. But, I'm not so convinced. If hawking radiation is real then I guess a black hole would have enthalpy. But, if the only properties of a BH are mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum then a measure of entropy might be unobtainable - or maybe it's just complicated and I'm not getting it - sounds like it could be a great topic for discussion on a new thread.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

What is a Black Hole?

 

A compacted ultra dense degenerate matter?

 

We see normal matter being sucked into this dense matter.

 

What is it made from?

 

Some think it is made from Neutrons, maybe Quarks and maybe from the theoretical preon particles. Some compacted cores have enough mass to create EM/G fields so stong that EM radiation is unable to escape. This maybe true to an extent and so the naming of the black hole.

 

Regarless of what its made from. It is made from Plasma and one of its properties is the ability to form jets. We notice these in many star bodies.

To expalain how jets are formed, one needs to research Z-pinch dynamics.

The Z-pinch is able to accelerate degenerate matter at close to the speed of light out of the core.

 

There are many who think that black holes are the end of all processes. I consider it as a phase in a recycling process.

 

Thats my opinion. Since we are unable to look into a so called black hole.