Thermodynamics and Cosmology

[coldcreation]

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.

 

I've written this before: There are very good reasons why spacetime singularities should not exist in nature. It must be noted that after having realized the fact that black holes were incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics, Bardeen, Carter and Hawking co-borrowed or appropriated a concept that was much more than suggestive. The result would be called the ‘four laws of black hole mechanics.’

 

These laws are stated almost precisely in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics, but with surface gravity in the place of temperature, and entropy replaced by ‘area.’ Aside from switching the words around, there is a fundamental difference between the two sets of laws: The laws of thermodynamics are based on empirical facts, while the ‘laws of BH dynamics’ are based on extrapolations, conjecture, mathematical aberrations.

 

It’s a simple idea and easy to do. Take out some key elements and replace them with other convenient words. The maximum available work for the minimum required energy. Surprisingly, no one had ever thought of it before.

 

It’s probably unnecessary to reiterate that the results of thermodynamics are not dependent on the validity of any particular theory or model that describes matter in terms of ultimate particles or waves. The equivalent cannot be said of black hole mechanics.

 

That is why black holes are off-topic.

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello CC

 

 

What are you trying to say???????

[coldcreation]

Hello CC

 

 

What are you trying to say???????

 

Let me answer your question, Pluto, with a question:

 

What have black holes got to do with thermodynamics and cosmology?

 

If your answer can somehow tie BHs in with the topic of this thread, then please feel free to expound. If not, then BHs are off-topic.

 

 

 

:ebomb: :eight: :evil: :moon: :bat: :shrug:

 

 

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

Pluto he doesn't believe in black holes even though the math says they do exist. You see BH's get in the way of his steady state universe.

[coldcreation]

Pluto he doesn't believe in black holes even though the math says they do exist. You see BH's get in the way of his steady state universe.

 

Whether BHs exist or not is irrelevant for this thread, unless they can be tied into cosmology and thermodynamics.

 

Whether BHs exist or not make no difference for a cosmology that is stationary, non-expanding.

 

However, if indeed BHs are an artifact of GR, i.e., if they exist only as mathematical fabrications, and not in the real world, then that make things quite difficult for the standard model. Since the mother of all singularities (the big bang itself), too, would be an artifact, a mathimatical anomality that arrizes when GR is pushed to the limits of its potential. Nothing guaranties that nature would allow such a thing to exsit. Einstein was well aware of this. Neutron stars may well be the ultimate density allowable, a threshold of compactness that cannot by any physical means be surpassed.

 

In other words, BHs mean nothing to a steady state cosmology, but they mean everything to one that begins as a singularity.

 

True, I do not believe in mathematical aberrations. I am a pragmatist, and empiricist.

 

 

Nothing personal.

 

 

I :shrug: BHs

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

To begin with a black hole with a singularity I cannot see it to exist.

 

A compacted degenerated matter made from neutrons may develope EM/G fields able to prevent EMR from escaping. The size of the neutron core is open for discussion.

 

IF and only if the Neutrons under extreme conditions are able to be broken down to quarks and than broken down to the theoretical preonparticles you may get compaction to 10^18 to 10^35. I read that somewhere.

 

As for the Big Bang, theoretically it occurred everywhere at the same time. Meaning that the theoretical singularities occured everywhere at the same time.

 

What formed the singularities?

 

Without using ad hoc ideas.

[modest]

Hello All

 

What is a Black Hole?

 

Whether BHs exist or not is irrelevant for this thread, unless they can be tied into cosmology and thermodynamics.

 

Whether BHs exist or not make no difference for a cosmology that is stationary, non-expanding.

 

CC

 

For what it's worth: black holes have a lot to do with thermodynamics. If they swallow up energy and information never to give it back then they are a thermodynamic nightmare. There are a lot of people both trying to make a case against BHs based on this and trying to find a way around it.

 

This is the case in any cosmological model that includes black holes.

 

"Entropy" is mentioned 24 times on wiki's black hole page :phones:

 

and look...

 

Wiki has its own Black hole thermodynamics page

[coldcreation]

For what it's worth: black holes have a lot to do with thermodynamics. If they swallow up energy and information never to give it back then they are a thermodynamic nightmare. There are a lot of people both trying to make a case against BHs based on this and trying to find a way around it.

 

This is the case in any cosmological model that includes black holes.

 

"Entropy" is mentioned 24 times on wiki's black hole page :eek_big:

 

Wiki has its own Black hole thermodynamics page

 

That may be so, however, on the Wiki page The Laws of Thermodynamics black holes are not mentioned at all.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello CC

 

The compacted ultra dense plasma matter(UDPM) that some people call Black holes is the subject of Thermodynamics and Cosmology.

 

The neucelon (UDPM) similar to any compacted cores have properties of plasma. One interesting property is the Z-Pinch process that is responsible for the creation of jets.

 

We see this in the evolution of galaxy formation and the relationship with the size and activity of the neucleon.

 

Spirals have a less massive neucleon compared to elliptical.

 

The matter around spiral galaxies spirals into the centre neucleon. This neucleon fattens up until the spiral compacts and the neucelon activates the jet process ejecting matter thousands of light years from the core of the neucleon, reforming the galaxy into an ellitical form and in time the neucleon settles and the galaxy reforms into a spiral.

 

In some galaxies the external spiral shape forms a ring and the internal reforms an elliptical form caused by the neucleon activity via ejecting matter from the core.

 

The jets although eject matter from the core. Some Infalling matter is caught in the turbulence and is ejected away from the core.

 

 

Z-pinch dynamics

 

z-pinch dynamics

[wigglieverse]

After reading through this thread I get the distinct impression that there are different definitions of 'entropy' all over the place.

Isn't entropy a measurement? If it is, why should anyone think that measuring it means it must exist (ontologically)? We measure all sorts of things that don't have a real existence, and we do this to 'explain' the world.

Weight for example, is a projection our mind makes because of mass and gravity. We can do something with a bit of matter, but what can we do with a measurement except remember it?

This is also why time is something we 'imagine' to explain the dispersal and movement all around us. But it's a measurement. If it was a 'real' thing we would need to take our clocks and watches to a "time-filling station" when they used up their store of "time-stuff".

Entropy seems to be a measurement that confuses all sorts of people. But it's 'just' a measure of mass dispersal, which we attribute to energy, which we otherwise call heat.

 

Can anyone tell me what Shannon entropy is and why it looks like the thermodynamic version (like it's an equivalent or something)? How about von Neumann entropy?

[modest]

That may be so, however, on the Wiki page The Laws of Thermodynamics black holes are not mentioned at all.

 

 

CC

 

No - but it is mentioned 3 times on the regular thermodynamics page and 6 times on their entropy page

 

Wiki aside, wouldn't you say that BHs are the larget area of study in thermodynamics of astrophysics right now?

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

... What I have said is "any change in an infinite universe over infinite years would become infinite change" ...

 

Either no cosmological value changes over time or the ones that do approach zero or infinity. What we are saying is how can your SSU be timeless and evolve - that doesn't work. You have to have either no-change or a starting point.

 

Do you see why an infinite time-scale doesn't work with a universe that has changing cosmological values?

 

The idea that there is either a starting point (a beginning) or no change (evolution) is an interesting one. Though I must say that I disagree. Generally when confronted with two options there is also a third that manages to infiltrate, and often a four (e.g., light is a wave, or a particle, neither, or both).

 

I disagree with the no-change or a starting point concept. Hitherto, I argue that the universe can remain stationary (its radius not changing as a function of time) and contain properties or constituents that do change (evolve or transform) with time, and without the break-down of physics at some time t.

 

In a general statement, we could write, then:

 

The universe is dynamic, evolving and stationary in accordance with the natural laws?as guiding principles in the treatment of cosmology.

 

What emerges is that we live in a highly stable, non-expanding dynamic universe, one in which evolution is vastly different than generally assumed.

 

The constituents are perceived as embedded in a stationary four-dimensional continuous manifold where there is no spatiotemporal boundary condition (the extent of the vacuum is infinite, it does not end or begin, spacetime is a continuum).

 

The two possible models [static (non-expanding) and variable radius (expanding)] can be carefully studied in order to determine which more closely corresponds to the universe in which we live.

 

 

A note on terms:

 

A static universe is not expanding or contracting, but fluctuating about equilibrium. The term static is often erroneously perceived as the opposite of dynamic. Obviously, planets, stars and galaxies are moving in systems where gravitational interactions are inevitable. Cosmologists often compare dynamic world models with static models in a way that makes the latter a boring place. It is a fact that a static universe is also a dynamic universe. ‘Dynamic’ in modern cosmology refers to the changing radius, or size, of the universe.

 

In a stationary universe 'dynamic' refers to motion, transformations or change in the properties and constituents contained in the universe.

 

It is not because a model is static that it is not evolving (changing in time). Very often cosmologists, astronomers and physicists speak of a static universe as opposed to an evolutionary universe, meaning that an evolving model is expanding (nonstationary) and that a static universe is not changing in time (stationary).

 

In other words, if the radius or size (scale factor) of the cosmos does not grow or contract with time the universe is said to be static and non-evolving. Note that a static universe does also evolve with time, according to the laws of nature (particularly the second law of thermodynamics).

 

 

 

 

CC

[wigglieverse]

Sorry, a comment about using the term "static" for your universe model, but most people probably think of something that doesn't change when they think of something static. Don't you mean something that cycles about the equilibrium?

[coldcreation]

Sorry, a comment about using the term "static" for your universe model, but most people probably think of something that doesn't change when they think of something static. Don't you mean something that cycles about the equilibrium?

 

In this case the word 'static' refers to the scale factor (or size) of the universe. In an infinite spatiotemporal steady state universe there is no size, no boundary, no change in the scale factor: it remains the same (infinite, never ending), thus 'static,' stationary, non-expanding.

 

Static does not in this case refer to the dynamics, evolutionary changes and transformation of properties and constituents of the universe, as is commonly and erroneously attributed to the work 'static' (unchanging). Again, it is the scale factor to the metric, in standard cosmology, that is dynamic.

 

A static universe does not violate the physical laws, irreversibility, etc. (More on that aspect later).

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

The constituents are perceived as embedded in a stationary four-dimensional continuous manifold where there is no spatiotemporal boundary condition (the extent of the vacuum is infinite, it does not end or begin, spacetime is a continuum).

 

The two possible models [static (non-expanding) and variable radius (expanding)] can be carefully studied in order to determine which more closely corresponds to the universe in which we live.

 

CC

 

The first thing that comes to mind is GR. Why is / isn't your space-time curved? There is matter and energy in your universe today - shouldn't that matter and energy curve your space-time? If this is the case and it is infinite in age (and not expanding) then matter should have all clumped together into one (or an infinite number of) curvature point(s). Or is your space-time not curved but was perhaps curved in the past before matter showed up to flatten it out? Or does matter not curve your space-time?

 

None of these options seems too promising. Have you considered / explored this?

 

A quick note to keep this a little on topic - do the laws of thermodynamics apply in your model? :eek_big: Then again, I think in the alternative theories section there is perhaps some leeway as far as staying on topic. I don't know - I haven't been a member here too long - it seems like that would be the case.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

The first thing that comes to mind is GR. Why is / isn't your space-time curved? There is matter and energy in your universe today - shouldn't that matter and energy curve your space-time? If this is the case and it is infinite in age (and not expanding) then matter should have all clumped together into one (or an infinite number of) curvature point(s). Or is your space-time not curved but was perhaps curved in the past before matter showed up to flatten it out? Or does matter not curve your space-time?

 

None of these options seems too promising. Have you considered / explored this?

 

A quick note to keep this a little on topic - do the laws of thermodynamics apply in your model? :eek_big: Then again, I think in the alternative theories section there is perhaps some leeway as far as staying on topic. I don't know - I haven't been a member here too long - it seems like that would be the case.

 

-modest

 

If you look at a thread entitled Redshift z you will see the Coldcreation explanation for redshift z. That will provide an affirmative answer to the question you pose regarding the global curvature of spacetime in a non-expanding regime. Be sure to check out the posts leading up to, say, post #197.

 

The reason matter does not all fall into one deep potential well is because the global curvature is isotropic to a large extent. There is no preferred location, no center in the manifold. The curvature look the same to all observers and from all locations at this time.

 

In other word, as opposed to locally curved gravitational wells in the vicinity surrounding massive objects, where curvature diminishes according the the inverse square law, global spacetime curvature can be seen as a relative deviation from linearity that obeys Lorenz invariance.

 

 

It's funny you should mention curvature at this point, because I just finished writing down an idea about how thermodynamics - redshift z - cosmology can all be tied in under the same theoretical and empirical framework. I just haven't decided where to post it: here in this thread of in the thread called Redshift z. It really should be in both places.

 

If you will, it is an interpretation of redshift z that is based on the laws of thermodynamics (particularly the second law), rather than due to a change in the scale factor to the metric in an expanding frame, where space is continually being created. I'm not sure yet whether this effect would override the de Sitter effect interpretation or whether they would both be operational simultaneously providing a redshift factor of (1 + z) each.

 

 

More to come on the possible relation thermodynamics-redshhift z very soon.

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

If you look at a thread entitled Redshift z you will see the Coldcreation explanation for redshift z. That will provide an affirmative answer to the question you pose regarding the global curvature of spacetime in a non-expanding regime. Be sure to check out the posts leading up to, say, post #197.

 

The reason matter does not all fall into one deep potential well is because the global curvature is isotropic to a large extent. There is no preferred location, no center in the manifold. The curvature look the same to all observers and from all locations at this time.

 

In other word, as opposed to locally curved gravitational wells in the vicinity surrounding massive objects, where curvature diminishes according the the inverse square law, global spacetime curvature can be seen as a relative deviation from linearity that obeys Lorenz invariance.

 

 

It's funny you should mention curvature at this point, because I just finished writing down an idea about how thermodynamics - redshift z - cosmology can all be tied in under the same theoretical and empirical framework. I just haven't decided where to post it: here in this thread of in the thread called Redshift z. It really should be in both places.

 

If you will, it is an interpretation of redshift z that is based on the laws of thermodynamics (particularly the second law), rather than due to a change in the scale factor to the metric in an expanding frame, where space is continually being created. I'm not sure yet whether this effect would override the de Sitter effect interpretation or whether they would both be operational simultaneously providing a redshift factor of (1 + z) each.

 

 

More to come on the possible relation thermodynamics-redshhift z very soon.

 

CC

 

Huh?

You describe an infinite universe then point to posts talking about the de Sitter model which is closed. There is a static de Sitter model - but it looks nothing like your model. At the bottom of this page you can see a comparison between some different models including de Sitter's. Are you suggesting that as the mass of your universe changes there is no corresponding global curvature because de Sitter found a static solution to the field equations. I really don't see any similarity between the two.

 

In fact de Sitter's static solution depends on the universe being about twice the size of the observable universe because the temporal component is variable and vanishes at the "equator" of an arbitrary coordinate. Also, there is a difference between a GR cosmological model that has static coordinates and one that is static in terms of expansion. Oddly enough de Sitter had them all. In terms of expansion he had a static model and an expanding model, and in terms of coordinates his "static expansion" model he wrote in static Euclidean space coordinates (like einstein) and with non-static hyper-hyperboloid Minkowski space-time coordinates. But, the only reason his static-static model was static was because of a cosmological constant - just like Einstein's.

 

In any case, I see your model as having nothing substantial in common with any of these.

 

I believe the combination of increasing mass + GR + no expansion would lead to a gravity well where all the matter has settled. Given enough time this is the solution gravity finds because it is only attractive and all matter responds to it. Everything (eventually) would swirl down the gravity drain.

 

-modest