Cosmology
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.
Reference:
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”,
