Aren't exploding black holes negentropic?

[SmallIsPower]

I've heard that they are entropic, but it doesn't seem that way, have scientists twisted the idea of entropy so it seems to apply here.

 

Here's how I understand entropy: Light from the sun hits a surface on earth, gets reradiated at room temperature. Visable light is degraded into less useful, less powerful infrared.

 

Now to our black hole: After a septillion years, background radition is radio waves, that get sucked into a black hole, which explodes into gamma rays.

 

How is entropy preserved?

[Klaynos]

Entropy is a measure of "order", it isn't a conserved quantity, it always increases (when the whole universe is looked at)

[SmallIsPower]

I know that entropy isn't conserved.

 

But if going from visable light to infrared is entropic....

 

 

Isn't going from radio waves to gamma rays negative entropy? How can entropy increase in this situation?

[Klaynos]

I am not familiar with the exact mechanics of the system so don't know... Entropy will increase though...

[padren]

I know that entropy isn't conserved.

 

But if going from visable light to infrared is entropic....

 

 

Isn't going from radio waves to gamma rays negative entropy? How can entropy increase in this situation?

 

This is a total shot in the dark since I know nothing about the topic, but I am pretty sure when life appears to cause negative entropy, it is explained by the fact the organism has to increase the entropy of the environment by a greater degree than the amount of entropy reduced in order to have that effect.

 

Perhaps the process that changes radio waves to gamma rays has a greater entropic waste in other aspects than the total entropy reduced by the result of the conversion of radio waves to gamma rays itself.

 

That said, its just a wild guess, I don't know anything about gamma rays and radio waves etc.

[SmallIsPower]

So far it the only answer I've gotten is that exploding black holes have to be entropic because entropy always increases. This is as bad as saying creationism is true because the bible is God's word. Padren, the only effect on the outside universe is that you could hook up generators to get much more energy from the gamma rays to get lots of energy.

[Klaynos]

Not really because we have experimental evidence that shows that in all systems we can measure entropy increases.

 

That cannot be the only interaction with the universe if that is an entropy decreasing system. I am unfamiliar with the exact mechanics of the system so can't really say much more. Could you provide some mathmatical models of the situation?

[reor]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entropy

 

I understand entropy to be the measure for chaos and that it's the reason for the increasing expansion of the universe.

[Kyrisch]

So far it the only answer I've gotten is that exploding black holes have to be entropic because entropy always increases. This is as bad as saying creationism is true because the bible is God's word. Padren, the only effect on the outside universe is that you could hook up generators to get much more energy from the gamma rays to get lots of energy.

 

I don't think you quite understood one of the points that was brought up here... Just as the growth of an individual ostensibly decreases entropy, it doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics because it increases entropy around it more that it decreases it. Thusly, the transfer from radio waves to gamma rays increases entropy around it much more than entropy is decreased by the actual transition.

[SmallIsPower]

If you were to do useful work from the gamma rays, you'd be creating order.

[DV8 2XL]

If you were to do useful work from the gamma rays, you'd be creating order.

 

But the whole point is that it comes from decreasing disorder from elsewhere. This is not negotiable - it is the way the Universe is.

[SmallIsPower]

"It's the way the Universe is...."

 

That's almost as bad an argument as:

"'Cause the Bible tells me so"

 

That's not the kind of argument I'd expect here. It's obvious I'm going to have to contact a local Physics professor to get an answer that satisfies me, I emailed one a few days ago, it looks like I'll have to drop by the University.

[Klaynos]

"It's the way the Universe is...."

 

That's almost as bad an argument as:

"'Cause the Bible tells me so"

 

That's not the kind of argument I'd expect here. It's obvious I'm going to have to contact a local Physics professor to get an answer that satisfies me' date=' I emailed one a few days ago, it looks like I'll have to drop by the University.[/quote']

 

TBH, all you're going to get from me, as I explained above is an "all the experimental evidence I've seen says it has to hapen in this way", unless you explain the mechanics involved, I don't know the mechanics involved so can't explain the entropy issue to you without knowing that. So if you want to know from me you'd have to do the research....

 

But when you find out from someone, would you mind posting the answer here?

 

And really saying that comparing known scientific experimental evidence to an unknown system, is akin to saying that "it is true because the bible says" is an idiotic and childish thing to say. I agree that we havn't fully answered your question but we havn't just said "it is so because that is how we say" we've said "all the evidence suggests this is how the universe works, and there's no evidence to state this would be any different"

[SmallIsPower]

Norman Alber has written papers for NOAA on dark energy, so he fits my definition of expert. From his PMs at least I know I'm not doing nuts, even though I'm waiting for a conclusive statement, on way or the other:

 

################################################################################

 

Folder : Sent Items

################################################################################

 

================================================================================

From : SmallIsPower

To : Norman Alber

Date : 2006-06-06 13:48

Title : Want an expert's opinion in physics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This question has always puzzled me, the answers given me seem too simplistic, your papers have convinced me you can give a competent answer. and if a black hole sucks up microwave background radiation and explodes in gamma rays can it be consered negative entropy? What if a reflective dyson sphere is set up around it to contain the gamma rays, with ports to allow space ships out as they got charge from the explosion to replicate in soon-to-be-exploding black holes?

 

 

 

 

################################################################################

Folder : Inbox

################################################################################

 

================================================================================

From : Norman Alber

To :

Date : 2006-06-06 19:12

Title : it all

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not ready to say much specific to your offering, but I'll certainly say I am seriously screwing around with the theory of the virtual radiation field which is a major part of our theoretic analysis at singular surfaces. I think we are a mess here.

 

================================================================================

From : Norman Alber

To :

Date : 2006-06-06 19:18

Title : thoughts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps explodes is not a good word here. If there are emissions they are steady Hawking radiation, or generated by infalling matter................Now if you tried to capture the outgoing high frequency stuff, would you not also block the ingoing?

 

================================================================================

 

 

================================================================================

From : SmallIsPower

To : Norman Alber

Date : 2006-06-07 15:18

Title : Re: thoughts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps explodes is not a good word here. If there are emissions they are steady Hawking radiation, or generated by infalling matter................Now if you tried to capture the outgoing high frequency stuff, would you not also block the ingoing?

 

I'm not talking about when part of the mass is lost as matter falls in, I'm talking about when it's lost so much mass that it ceases to be a black hole, and it explodes. IIRC in 10^66 years for a solar mass black hole.

 

Thanks,

Russ

=============================================================

From : Norman Alber

To :

Date : 2006-06-07 15:25

Title : Re: thoughts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you are cooler than I here! Thank heavens, it pisses me off to think that they might last forever. The last I heard they get pretty small and then? I shall read further, though I am happily busy as you can read in my thread today.

[Perturbation]

I've heard that they are entropic' date=' but it doesn't seem that way, have scientists twisted the idea of entropy so it seems to apply here.

 

Here's how I understand entropy: Light from the sun hits a surface on earth, gets reradiated at room temperature. Visable light is degraded into less useful, less powerful infrared.

 

Now to our black hole: After a septillion years, background radition is radio waves, that get sucked into a black hole, which explodes into gamma rays.

 

How is entropy preserved?[/quote']

 

Because their emission is essentially that of a perfect black body, a thermodynamic system. Its radiation of energy is pretty much spot on with thermodynamics, so it radiates like any ideal thermodynamic system will do, entropically. I can't remember the equations and things off hand to figure out the specific mechanics of it though, but I do remember that a consequence of the Hawking area theorem is that the change in entropy must be strictly positive.

 

If stuff keeps falling into the black hole to increase its mass-energy it ain't gonna explode. It will "explode" due to a kind of run-away in Hawking radiation as its mass gets increasingly smaller. The derivation of Hawking radiation does not consider the CMBR, the calculation takes place in space-time that is a vacuum apart from the black hole itself.

[SmallIsPower]

The derivation of Hawking radiation does not consider the CMBR, the calculation takes place in space-time that is a vacuum apart from the black hole itself.

 

Then the derviation of Hawking radition is incomplete, from the standpoint of calculating entropy in our Universe.

 

Saying it's thermodynamic begs the question, the early Universe was quite thermodyamic too, in the instant the exploding black hole was created there is a dramatic reversal in entropy, after which, I agree the energy will degrade. You've created a trillion degree location in a 3 degree universe without degrading any of the 3 degree CMBR. Why is looking for errors in Newton's or Einstein's laws OK, while entropy is sacred?

 

IMHO, it's the same prejudice that reinforces that taking is better than cooperating, because there's a limited slice of pie. [Yes, I know that both will cause entropy, I'm talking in the philosphical sence here.]

 

I'm not sure that this discussion can go any further, as it looks to me as if entropy itself has been redefined solely to fit The Second Law.

[[Tycho?]]

Oh, it looks to you like entropy has been redefined to fit the Second Law? In your highly educated opinion?

 

Just because you dont know what you're talking about hardly means that the entire physics community is wrong. Go and talk to that physics prof you mentioned, that at least is a good idea.

[Forensicmad]

I cannot wait until I do my astrophysics course and A-Level physics - i love black holes but I have absolutely no idea what you guys are all on about!

I cannot wait! In a few years, i will finally understand.

 

Preserve your knowledge guys/gals, i want to have complicated discussions like this later on.

 

(sorry for this pointless post)

[SmallIsPower]

']Oh' date=' it looks to you like entropy has been redefined to fit the Second Law? In your highly educated opinion?

 

Just because you dont know what you're talking about hardly means that the entire physics community is wrong. Go and talk to that physics prof you mentioned, that at least is a good idea.[/quote']

I'm still looking for someone to explain how gamma rays are more entropic than microwaves. Perhaps you can tell me Tycho.

 

There was a time when the entire Medical community believed in leeches, too.

[SmallIsPower]

On further reflection.........

 

Victory over entropy unfortunately seems to be only temporary, even though it exists soon after the explosion of a black hole. It's unlikely that the Universe has a geometry that could continue this cycle in perpetutity. If the Universe expands forever, much of the energy will not be recycled through black holes, in a closed Universe, there will be a Big Crunch. In a flat Universe, without dark energy, there will be plenty of radiating black holes, whose orbits will shrink until they collase into one huge Singularity.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'm still looking for someone to explain how gamma rays are more entropic than microwaves. Perhaps you can tell me Tycho.

 

There was a time when the entire Medical community believed in leeches' date=' too[/b'].

 

Off topic but they are using them again.