Blog: Cosmology

A New Thermodynamics

By Kent W. Mayhew




Entropy and the Second Law


Certainly the rewriting of thermodynamics will have implications to cosmology. Perhaps first and foremost is the reality that entropy no longer applies to an expanding universe (assuming Hubble was right). This means that we no longer have to consider the implications of any apparent randomness changes within our universe, in the context of either entropy, nor the second law.


 For example: Enrico Fermi once stated that the work of an expanding universe “goes into the hands of god”, a statement completely lacking scientific fortitude. Such thought was based upon the erroneous traditional assertion that work goes into an expanding system’s wall, irrelevant as to whether those walls are real or imaginary. Although this is a mathematical result, the reality is that work is always done through an expanding system’s walls onto the surroundings (i.e.lost work), or into a neighbouring system (i.e. a car).  


 As Earth shattering as the above may seem to the indoctrinated, if you have read previous blogs within this website you have by now accepted the reality of what is said.


Boltzmann’s Constant (k)


Furthermore Boltzmann’s constant is no longer some universally applicable constant as was discussed in the Boltzmann blog. 


I have always found it interesting how scientist have also wrongly arrived at the conclusion that based upon kinetic theory and theorized temperature that the mean velocity and/or pressure exerted by a cosmic gas can be determined. Again traditional kinetic theorists fail to appreciate that the only reason that intermolecular gaseous collisions appear to be elastic is because the experimental wall’s molecules impose their kinematics onto the gas molecules that striking them. And even this illusion only happens when considering sufficiently dilute gases, as has been emphasized by this author and is beheld in his new kinetic theory!


Supersonic Solar Winds


Of course in cosmology there are no walls so all intermolecular gas collision will be inelastic therefore equations like the following barometric relation should not be applied in cosmology. I.e.:


   0 = d(2NkT)/dr  + GM@MN/rr      (1)  (reference E. N.Parker)


Where N is number of particles, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is absolute temperature, G is gravitational constant, M@ is mass of sun, M is molecule’s mass.


The barometric relation GM@MN/rr  is based upon the natural relationship for matter with kinetic in a gravitational field, hence applies to cosmology. Unfortunately the pressure exerted by a gas in a walled experimental system i.e. P=2NkT, does not apply to cosmology. It is actually limited to sufficiently dilute gases in closed systems (systems enclosed in walls), as described by kinetic theory. Hence eqn (1) is not valid.


Interestingly, eqn (1) is the first equation used in determining some cosmological events including Eugene Parker’s1 solar winds. This is not to say that supersonic solar winds do not exist rather the equations that we accept as defining them generally are to be questioned.


 An intriguing email conversation I once had with Stephen Crothers. It started with Stephen rightfully questioning how Eugene Parker’s famed equation can actually be valid because it had intrinsic parameters on one side of the equality and extrinsic parameters on the other side. This not attack upon Parker’s work, rather it shows how absurdities can grow and develop, eventually becoming part of science’s indoctrination.


Of interest. How does one rewrite the pressure exerted by a cosmological gas? Certainly any consideration must do two things:


1)      Obey conservation of momentum

2)      Realize that polyatomic gases adsorb thermal and/or blackbody radiation, and this determines its vibrational energy, which may or may not be part of the resultant mean kinetic energy of gases.


Lots of room for insightful thought.


Eddington’s Sun’s Temperature


Eddington’s equation for the temperature of a star is:


T = GMmp/5kR


Where T is temperature, G is gravitational constant, M is star’s mass, mp is proton’s mass [remember stars are collapsed gases (hydrogen)], k is Boltzmann’s constant, R is radius


  Eddington’s equation is similar to Eugene Parker’s solar wind i.e. another example of how misconstrued ideal gas law may not be absolutely applicable to cosmology.  Again one can challenge Eddington’s equation based upon intrinsic vs extrinsic parameters as Robitaille does.


 What about Robitaille’s assertion that collapsing gases challenges thermodynamic fundamentals, i.e. the second law. Since herein we have tossed out the second law and entropy as gross misunderstandings, Robitaille’s arguments that star are not collapsed gases just does not hold in this author’s opinion. If anything they show how absurd the second law based thermodynamics really is.


 In our new thermodynamics, when gases collapse then:

1)      Their potential energy is transformed in kinetic energy hence heat.

2)      Their natural P-T relation changes. Remember the natural P-T relation is due to inelastic collisions between gas molecules.


 Certainly the above two would help explain Star’s seemingly high temperature. Of course knowing their real temperatures will require new insights by others, as Eddington’s equation can only be deemed a rough approximation at this point.  




(1) Parker, E.N., “Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic Fields”


thermowebsite3059017.jpg thermowebsite3059014.jpg thermowebsite3059012.jpg thermowebsite3059009.jpg thermowebsite3059008.jpg thermowebsite3059007.jpg thermowebsite3059005.jpg
Help support this site
This website is copyright of Kent W. Mayhew who in 2018 resides in Ottawa Ontario Canada
   This website is full of new ideas, which are the property of Kent W. Mayhew.  
    Furthermore you are free to share, copy or distribute in any manner that you feel is warranted, so long as you fully respectfully reference the author (Kent W. Mayhew) in a manner that you deem fit. 
Sommerfield quote:"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, so it doesn't bother you any more."

In his 1917“Treatise on Thermodynamics” Planck acknowledges that there are two ways to formulate thermodynamics. 1): “We may take for granted the correctness of the mechanical view of nature, and assume that all changes in nature can be reduced to motions of materials points between which there act forces which have a potential. Then the principle of energy is simply the well-known mechanical theorem of kinetic theory, generalized to include all natural processes.” Or 2): As is traditionally done; “leave open the question concerning the possibility of reducing all natural processes to those of motion, and start from the fact which has been tested by centuries of human experience and repeatedly verified ”…”no way possible to have perpetual motion,