Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
The places where one changes and not the other look like Klyce's black gas-white gas example. You briefly raise a barrier between two gasses at the same temperature and pressure. Some amount of mixing occurs. You can't tell how much mixing happened by working backward from the zero change in thermodynamic entropy.

But, OTOH, if one of the gasses was also a lot hotter than the other one, you can tell after the fact how much white mixed with the black and vice-versa with Boltzmann's formulas. (It corresponds nicely with the amount of temperature change observed in both compartments.)

What Thorne describes--actually a historical narrative in which key insights were made by Bekenstein, Zel'dovich, and Hawking--not only involves such equivalence as there is between logical and thermodynamic entropy, but an equivalence between black hole dynamics and thermodynamics in general.

Thus it was that Hawking, in 1974, having proved firmly that a black hole radiates as though it had a temperature proportional to its surface gravity, went on to assert, without real proof, that all of the other similarities between the laws of black hole mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics were more than a coincidence. The black-hole laws are the same thing as the thermodynamic laws, but in disguise ...
Sounds shaky, but Hawking's postulate is so far holding up. Thorne cites some of his own work as an example.

Throw into a black hole's atmosphere a small amount of material containing some small amount of energy (or, equivalently, mass) angular momentum (spin), and electric charge. From the atmosphere this material will continue on down through the horizon and into the hole. Once the material has entered the hole, it is impossible by examining the hole from outside to learn the nature of the injected material (whether it consisted of matter or of antimatter, of photons and heavy atoms, or of electrons and positrons), and it is impossible to learn just where the material was injected. Because a black hole has no "hair," all one can discover, by examining the hole from outside, are the total amounts of mass, angular momentum, and charge that entered the atmosphere.

... [T]he logarithm of the number of ways to inject must be the increase in the atmosphere's entropy, as described by the standard laws of thermodynamics. By a fairly simple calculation, Zurek and I were able to show that this increase in thermodynamic entropy is precisely equal to 1/4 times the increase in the horizon's area, divided by the Planck-Wheeler area; this is, it is precisely the increase in the horizon's area in disguise, the same disguise that Hawking inferred, in 1974, from the mathematical similarity of the laws of black-hole mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics.

He goes on a bit later,

The thought experiment also shows the second law of thermodynamics in action. The energy, angular momentum, and charge that one throws into the hole's atmosphere can have any form at all ... When the bag is thrown into the the hole's atmosphere, the entropy of the external universe is reduced by the amount of the entropy (randomness) in the bag. However, the entropy of the hole's atmosphere, and thence of the hole, goes up by more than the bag's entropy, so the total entropy of hole plus external Universe goes up. The second law of thermodynamics is obeyed.

Similarly, it turns out, when the black hole evaporates some particles, its own surface area and entropy typically go down; but the particles get distributed randomly in the external Universe, increasing its entropy by more than the hole's entropy loss. Again, the second law is obeyed.


164 posted on 03/02/2003 11:40:44 AM PST by VadeRetro (Typos are all mine. Source is Kip Thorne, Ibid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
I guess what I'm still scratching my head about is why Hawking would say that black-hole dynamics are different from the laws of thermodynamics, if they both behave the same way. For me, it ivolves the same question of how logical entropy is really any different from thermodynamic entropy, since the latter seems to me to be just a very convoluted form of logical entropy, with atoms and subatomic particles as the "logic units", so to speak.

Incidentally, this leads me to another question: Does the Second Law apply to individual atoms, that is, the motion of electrons in the closed system of an atom? It seems to be using 100% of its initial energy, at all times.

177 posted on 03/03/2003 7:35:01 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson