Cosmology, Big Bang, Black Holes & New Thermodynamics
Below is a post on thermodynamics. It’s from Kent Mayhew. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with his views, but CNPS welcomes new ideas on thermodynamics, so please comment and let us know your thoughts.
In my previous blogs, I [Kent] discussed that “lost work” by “useful/expanding systems” can be better explained in terms of the energy lost due to the upward displacement of Earth’s atmosphere’s mass. As simple as this seems, it is truly problematic because it means that we must rethink traditional thermodynamics. And, first and foremost, we need to dethrone the elevated (almost demigod) status of both entropy and its accomplice the second law.
What happens when we apply such logic to cosmology? Certainly the implications to cosmology may be too numerous for discussion in any one blog. The implications range from questioning the universality of Boltzmann’s constant (k) to the applicability of entropy to cosmology. Herein we will start with reconsideration of some of the consequences to entropy and its application to our universe.
Traditional thermodynamics considers entropy as the “arrow of time” for an expanding Big Bang universe. It sounds simple, but once entropy is dethroned, then the concept of signifying time’s arrow completely crashes. Certainly, there is no need for entropy at all in discussion of an expanding universe. Note: Herein I am talking as if Hubble’s conceptualization was correct, which may or may not be our reality.
Rather than entropy we can simply state that conservation of momentum will mean that matter disperses as our universe expands from a Big Bang. There are equally dispersive forces at the molecular level, which can be thought of in terms of kinetic theory and elastic collisions. And, of course, gravity reigns supreme when it comes to forces countering all such dispersive forces. Obviously, entropy is not required when the universe is contemplated at the simplest of levels of conceptualization, irrelevant whether or not we are thinking on a macroscopic or microscopic level. Even if we decide to elevate our thought process and claim that it is the fabric of space-time that is expanding, entropy is still not needed.
The concept of entropy and work does lend itself to a further non-sensible contemplation when considering an expanding universe. Since work and entropy are so intertwined in traditional thermodynamics by the relation: W=TdS=dE+PdV (1). Of course, (1) implies that an expanding universe does work: Onto what, no one can say. When Enrico Fermi was asked where does this work go, his answer was “into the hands of god”. However, once entropy is dethroned, then (1) no longer applies to any universe and Fermi’s words become illogical. One can view this another way: Unless we know what surrounds our universe, hence, onto what work is actually done, then any consideration of work being done by an expanding universe is fool’s gold.
How about black holes and the second law paradox? There are those who consider that contemplations by many (Stephen Hawkins, etc.) have explained this paradox. It must be pointed out that once you accept what I say concerning lost work, then neither entropy nor the second law applies to black holes. As I stated in one of my earlier papers (2004 paper in Physics Essays: Energetics of Nucleation) that a black hole is nothing more than an isometric horizon, one that I would now say that both entropy and the second law renders into unrealistic complicated mess. Our simple reality is that the daunting black holes are a case where humans have complicated the simple. This is not to say that I can fully fathom black holes, but it may be a simpler place than we previously believed.
So does our universe simplify if we entertain what I call new thermodynamics. Well, yes it does.
All comments concerning any aspect of the above will be appreciated.
Sincerely Kent Mayhew
Side Note: I am not sure if anyone is interested but I wrote a book that I was hoping would lead to people rethinking thermodynamics. I am currently rewriting this book and am looking for assistance. If you know of anyone interested in reading and possibly commenting, providing any level of assistance or anything please let me know. It requires common sense and an open mind first and foremost. Moreover, this is a job for someone with little vested interest in traditional thermodynamics And no I cannot do a great job by myself, even though I do have a great puppy dog that I can throw ideas off of, he is having problems with the math, not to mention he is seemingly convinced that the world is flat..
I can be contacted thru my website www.newthermodynamics.com under heading contact.
I do not recognize your description of thermodynamics and would agree that if they are as you say that they do not make sense.
Thermodynamics and entropy have nothing to do with expansion assuming even that expansion exists. Thermodynamics and entropy have to do with order and disorder and work. The arrow of time has to do with irreversible processes eg. we get older, we do not get younger. For work to be done, heat has to be given off into a cooler environment. This was discovered at the time the steam engine was invented. It is why we have heat stroke and die when the temperature is too high. Our bodies cannot do the necessary work to maintain our far from equilibrium status because we cannot give off heat into an environment much hotter than we are.
Dear Lou
Lou states: “Thermodynamics and entropy have nothing to do with expansion assuming even that expansion exists. ”
agreed it is just that there are those who apply the concept of entropy onto an expanding universe: and end up with ideas like enrico fermio saying that the work associated with an expanding universe “goes into the hands of god”
Me I do not believe entropy should be applied to our universe as I have stated
Lou states: “Thermodynamics and entropy have to do with order and disorder and work.”
Yes it does to an extent: I agree that randomness/disorder is a basis foe entropy as bestowed by Boltzmann and generally has led to definitions of entropy like “randomness of molecules in incessant motion” A real issue concerning disorder/randomness is that you can show various depictions of systems to a crowd of people and ask which one is more random and you will get numerous various responses. In other words I agree with writes like Arieh Ben-Naim that the concept of randomness is not particularly scientific since it remains in the eyes of the beholder. Note: I disagree with many of Arieh’s other interpretations concerning entropy and the second law
The above has lent itself to physical chemistry writing entropy change in terms of logarithmic function of volume change. and to this I disagree as I wrote in my other blog. The original basis for Boltzman’s entropy is
S=kIn(@) where @ is the number of accessible energy states
and then I question should the number of accessible states increase just because the volume increases, as so many texts on the subject seemingly imply. The answer is no
Consider that an isobaric isothermal system expands due to an input of energy. It does work onto the surrounding atmosphere i.e. it upwardly displaces the atmosphere’s mass. To deny otherwise is to deny that the atmosphere has mass in a gravitational field: This being what traditional thermodynamics missed
Consider that the input of energy equals the work done by the system onto the surrounding atmosphere. So herein is a case where the isobaric isothermal system’s energy remains constant although its volume has increased
If the system’s total energy has not changed then can its number of accessible energy states have increased. I would argue no. But traditional thermodynamics would respond yes because its volume has increased.
But the system’s total energy as defined by 3NkT/2 remained constant: This is assuming system is an ideal gas.
If you now consider entropy in terms of Clausius’s realization of entropy being something that when multiplied by temperature defines an energy, i.e. TS = energy. What are you saying if you believe that the system has an entropy increase because it had a volume increase, yet its total energy remained constant. I mean by Clausius’s very first interpretation of entropy an isothermal entropy increase means an energy increase. To deny this is to deny: Tdelta S= delta E
You see traditional thermodynamics has dug itself into a hole all because it failed to realize that the atmosphere has mass and it happens to exist in a gravitational field, hence its displacement requires work just as lifting a rock requires work.
Of course it has glossed over this gross oversight by bestowing the very arguments that you Lou provide
I realize that our indoctrination’s run deep. But Lou can you not see the mistake. It is blatant as soon as you let go of entropy, the elephant in the room that has no clarity as to what it really means. The other problem is that letting go of entropy simplifies the science, so what are the experts going to do.
Lou states: The arrow of time has to do with irreversible processes eg. we get older, we do not get younger.
A process is irreversible if energy is lost by that process. So all a process has to do to be irreversible is experience friction, expand (when surrounded by an atmosphere) or any other factor that results in an energy loss like radiate heat etc etc.
Yes time does that > I really wish I knew what I know now when I was 20 yrs old. Sadly time does not allow for anything but wishes. the past has gone past us. That is a time thing, it has nothing to do with entropy 9it is not times arrow). Over time matter in the universe has split apart and come together (accretion). things have changed, heck even my belly has grown in size over the yrs. It all has nothing to do with entropy, it all has to do with time.
Father time is not easily turned back. so what! It is a fact of existing
Lou states: “For work to be done, heat has to be given off into a cooler environment. ”
=Yes and no. As previously stated a system can remain isothermal as it expands, so long as that system experiences an influx of energy.
Otherwise no energy input and an expanding system will cool down. just open a tank of propane.
why does it cool. well it requires volume and volume is not a commodity that is readily given up by the atmosphere not unless the system is willing to work for it
Lou states: “This was discovered at the time the steam engine was invented.”
Yes it was. It also led to the Carnot cycle. Please feel free to read my previous blog concerning the Carnot cycle. although my blog may need some tweaking before we can grant it perfections I think that you will find it interesting
Lou sates:” It is why we have heat stroke and die when the temperature is too high. Our bodies cannot do the necessary work to maintain our far from equilibrium status because we cannot give off heat into an environment much hotter than we are.”
So now you are talking about temperature. I can write a blog about temperature if you would like. But i agree our bodies were not designed to overheat for prolonged periods of time. Its a shame because otherwise visiting the sun would be an easy endeavor. heck even my 30 yr old car seem to not like over heating. I know little about new cars as I cannot afford one but I suspect the same applies to them to
cheers and thank kindly you for your input Lou, albeit we clearly disagree
Kent
thanks for your comment
In the intro to this topic appears the wish to have an entity through which we can define or describe an “arrow of time” for an expanding Big Bang universe.
I have a post, “Early cosmic densities as Mother Nature’s thorn in the flesh of cosmologists” under the cosmology category which has been labelled ‘Pending’ by the site’s administrators since Aug.30, 2016 (in my opinion too long a time).
Using thermodynamic principles, in particular blackbody radiation laws, e.g. Stefan Boltzmann law, knowing the temperatures at different epochs in the early universe, we can ascertain the corresponding energy densities at the different cosmic sizes and from there the actual matter-energy content. It can be shown from this that the mass of the universe has been increasing with time.
At the Planck epoch with a temperature 10^32K, the corresponding matter-energy content is 10^-8kg, at three minutes ABT, about 10^37kg and today from astronomically observed flatness with Ω ~ 1, we have about 10^52kg.
If this is the case, does “increasing mass” not provide an arrow of time? What is the implication of increasing mass of the universe with radius on the thermodynamic discussions involving entropy?
I appreciate that a worthwhile discussion may not be possible till the administrators post the pending article. However, aspects of the post can be found in my published e-book, Hypotheses Fingo, especially from page 24.