Black hole thermodynamics

September 10, 2014 by Brian Koberlein
Simulation of a black hole merger. Credit: NASA/Chandra

In the 1800s scientists studying things like heat and the behavior of low density gases developed a theory known as thermodynamics. As the name suggests, this theory describes the dynamic behavior of heat (or more generally energy). The core of thermodynamics is embodied by its four basic laws.

The zeroth states that if object A is in thermodynamic equilibrium with object B (meaning no net energy flows between them), and object C is in thermodynamic equilibrium with B, then A and C are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other. Since objects in thermodynamic equilibrium have the same temperature, another way to state this law is that if A has the same temperature as B, and C has the same temperature as B, then A and C have the same temperature. When you put it that way it seems quite obvious, which is why it isn't known as the first law. The other laws were developed first, and as they were refined it became clear the zeroth law should be included as a physical property, not just an assumption.

The first law states that energy is conserved. Since heat is a form of energy, this means an object that is heating up must be getting energy from somewhere. Likewise, if an object is cooling down, the energy it loses must be gained by something else. Conservation of energy was known before , but this law recognized heat as a form of energy.

The second law is perhaps the most misunderstood law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it can be summarized as "heat flows from hot objects to cold objects". But the law is more useful when it is expressed in terms of entropy. In this way it is stated as "the entropy of a system can never decrease." Many people interpret entropy as the level of disorder in a system, or the unusable part of a system. That would mean things must always become less useful over time, which is why evolution skeptics often claim it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

But entropy is really about the level of information you need to describe a system. An ordered system (say, marbles evenly spaced in a grid) is easy to describe because the objects have simple relations to each other. On the other hand, a disordered system (marbles randomly scattered) take more information to describe, because there isn't a simple pattern to them. So when the second law says that entropy can never decrease, it is say that the physical information of a system cannot decrease. In other words, information cannot be destroyed.

The third law basically states that at absolute zero an object is at its minimum possible entropy (often taken as zero). One consequence of this law is that you cannot cool an object to absolute zero.

In an earlier post I wrote about how classical have "no hair", meaning that they are simply described by their mass, charge and rotation. Because of this, you could toss an object (with a great deal of entropy) into a black hole, and the entropy would simply go away. In other words, the entropy of the system would get smaller, which would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Another way of looking at it would be that the classical black hole has a temperature of absolute zero. This means you could take some hot mass and collapse it into a black hole, which would essentially be cooling an object to absolute zero, in violation of the third law of thermodynamics.

Of course, this ignores the effects of quantum mechanics. When we take quantum mechanics into account, black holes can emit light and other particles through a process known as Hawking radiation. Since a "quantum" black hole emits heat and light, it therefore has a temperature. This means black holes are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Integrating general relativity, and thermodynamics into a comprehensive description of black holes is quite complicated, but the basic properties can be expressed as a fairly simple set of rules known as black hole thermodynamics. Essentially these are the laws of thermodynamics re-expressed in terms of properties of black holes.

The zeroth law states that a simple, non-rotating black hole has uniform gravity at its . This is kind of like saying that such a black hole is at thermal equlibrium.

The first law relates the mass, rotation and charge of a black hole to its entropy. The entropy of a black hole is then related to the surface area of its event horizon.

The second law again states that the entropy of a black hole system cannot decrease. One consequence of this is that when two black holes merge, the surface area of the merged event horizon must be greater than the surface areas of the original black holes.

The third law states that "extreme" black holes (those with a maximum possible rotation or charge) would have minimum entropy. This means that it would never be possible to form an extreme black hole. For example, it would never be possible to spin a black hole so fast that it would break apart.

The advantage of black hole thermodynamics is that provides a way to get a handle on the complex interactions black holes can have. Thermodynamic black holes have not just mass, charge and rotation, but also temperature and . The rules first devised to describe the heating and cooling of simple gases also seems to apply to black holes.

But there are things we still don't understand about black hole thermodynamics. I'll talk about those next time.

Explore further: Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

Source:: One Universe at a Time

4 shares

Related Stories

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

February 14, 2014

On January 24, the journal Nature published an article entitled "There are no black holes." It doesn't take much to spark controversy in the world of physics... But what does this really mean? In a brief article published ...

What would it be like to fall into a black hole?

September 8, 2014

Let's say you decided to ignore some of my previous advice. You've just purchased yourself a space dragon from the Market on the Centauri Ringworld, strapped on your favorite chainmail codpiece and sonic sword and now you're ...

How fast do black holes spin?

February 14, 2014

There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their secrets hide behind ...

Recommended for you

New dwarf satellite galaxy of Messier 83 found

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—Astronomers have found a new dwarf satellite of Messier 83 (M83, also known as the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy) located some 85,000 light years from its host. This satellite galaxy was designated dw1335-29 and could ...

Colliding galaxy clusters

December 5, 2016

Galaxy clusters contain a few to thousands of galaxies and are the largest bound structures in the universe. Most galaxies are members of a cluster. Our Milky Way, for example, is a member of the "Local Group," a set of about ...

ALMA measures size of seeds of planets

December 5, 2016

Researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), have for the first time, achieved a precise size measurement of small dust particles around a young star through radio-wave polarization. ALMA's high ...

Swiss firm acquires Mars One private project

December 2, 2016

A British-Dutch project aiming to send an unmanned mission to Mars by 2018 announced Friday that the shareholders of a Swiss financial services company have agreed a takeover bid.

17 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2014
Next in the series...
'The Thermodynamics of Unicorns'
no fate
1 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2014
Any examples of observed Hawking Radiation emanating from any object purported to be a BH?

The rest of the assumptions regarding interactions of merging fantasy objects and properties of fantasy objects can be whatever anyone describing them wants them to be when there is no means of falsification (this is a cornerstone of reputable science).

Feelin' hungry again, think I'll gravitationally collapse my filing cabinet into a ham and dark matter cheese sandwich, heat it with some dark energy and flavor it with some Higgs sprinkles. I have the coolest stuff in my pantry....

I believe the cheese will melt due to the first and second laws....
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2014
Wow. "Since heat is a form of energy..." No. Heat is the flow of energy. Energy is an abstraction which is inadequately defined as a thing which is conserved (locally, macroscopically, and if integrated over 'sufficient' space-time intervals) having (giving) the ability to do work. The author also confuses the thermodynamic entropy with the Information Theory definition (which is better suited for bh work, admittedly). He invokes the "0th law", which is a tautology. The failure of his simplistic explanation to DEFINE what "equilibrium" is, is sad. What is a (closed, isolated or open) system? How do you create a (gravitationally and electromagnetically) "isolated" system in the lab? Physics still (after almost 100 years) fails to discriminate between the properties of a "system" and the state of our knowledge about it. Confounding the two leads to endless confusion. Physics IS the state of our (best) knowledge about the system, it is also the study of that system ('s properties).
Jixo
Sep 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jixo
Sep 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 10, 2014
Wow. "Since heat is a form of energy..." No. Heat is the flow of energy.


Skippy Wow, you might not want to let a lot peoples see that ol Ira is the one correcting you with the science stuffs.

Heat is too a form of energy. Heat-ing is the transferring of the energy in the forms of heat. I learn this going to community college to study the BIG diesel engines me. We use the joules to measure heat when we want to talk about how efficient our engines are working. Diesels is a kind of heat engine. We use the joules/second to talk about how much heat can be used for good stuff in the diesel engines when they produce heat. from burning fuels. We used to only say it in horsepower but now we are starting to use the kW (that means 1000 joules/second). But the bottom line is we are still talking about the heat the engine produces. The engines on the boat I work now 3060 kW x 2 of them. Heat is measured in the joules (energy) or if you are really old and out of date calories.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2014
Among other things, as I've noted before, this article is phrased with absolute certainty about "black hole thermodynamics", even though no such experiments have ever actually been done to verify that! Note that the article talks about heat flowing from hot to cold objects is an imprecise way to under stand the entropy law of thermodynamics, then asserts the information interpretation, as if even that is necessarily a more precise way to think of entropy. Note, for example, ordered and disordered marbles on a grid, invoked in the article, are at equal entropy thermodynamically, even if, supposedly, more information is needed to describe the disordered marbles. And, if the "universe" is actually viewed as part of an even larger system, energy can leave one through a black hole and go to the other and not be lost. And if matter falling in a black hole is viewed as lost, then "Hawking radiation" is a loss of mass and so is not radiation.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2014
Personally, I try to avoid black holes, if at all possible.
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2014
Any examples of observed Hawking Radiation emanating from any object purported to be a BH?


No and you know that. You also know why. Pointing to predictions beyond current instrumentation isn't an argument. But why don't you ask about other tests? Relativistic orbits with Sagittarius A* and SMBH binaries, the inner most stable orbit and it's corresponding accretion temperature observe red in smaller black holes in x-rays and now with VLBI on SMBH. Several predictions made by black hole physics, later confirmed. This article as another example.
no fate
1 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2014


No and you know that. You also know why. Pointing to predictions beyond current instrumentation isn't an argument. But why don't you ask about other tests? Relativistic orbits with Sagittarius A* and SMBH binaries, the inner most stable orbit and it's corresponding accretion temperature observe red in smaller black holes in x-rays and now with VLBI on SMBH. Several predictions made by black hole physics, later confirmed. This article as another example.


Translation: We have no empirical evidence, we have math, how we interpret motion, and how we interpret what causes the motion. And when our relavistic orbits with Sag. A say there isn't enough matter for the math to work when describing the observed motion...hell we can just add the required mass to the equation, distributed appropriately..what's that..it's out by 75-80%??? Well just make sure it's in the right spot so everything moves in the models as observed.

no fate
1 / 5 (8) Sep 10, 2014
Pointing to predictions beyond current instrumentation? OK...so we just can't see God because we don't have the right instrumentation yet. You got any links for that Quantum gravity you said we had found in the other thread? Anything at all?

Just because you have a bibles worth of math and an equal amount of theory doesn't mean marrying the 2 makes either more valid if at the end of the day you can present as much physical evidence of somethings existence as we have for Gods. Your soapbox is right next to the guy going off about the four horsemen of the apocalypse...you guys (mainstream) just got a group deal on the soapboxes so you can prop each other up. The only difference between equations that say there are black holes and text depicting the story of Zeus is the shape of the scribbles.

You can't prove shit.
Urgelt
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2014
no fate wrote, "You can't prove shit."

Qualifier: "You can't prove shit to the troll known as 'no fate.'"

Because said troll accepts evidence only when it fits into his world-view. All other evidence need not apply.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
We'll I've got a black hole testing machine I'll sell you!
Jixo
Sep 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2014
no fate wrote, "You can't prove shit."

Qualifier: "You can't prove shit to the troll known as 'no fate.'"

Because said troll accepts evidence only when it fits into his world-view. All other evidence need not apply.


LOL...nope. I simply know the difference between actual evidence, vs. information presented as evidence that is more aptly described as a guess made from a biased perspective. Case in point, Compressor boy citing galactic stellar motion around Sag. A as "evidence" that black hole theory is valid, except that until the "minor" adjustment to the mass of the entire galaxy it (the math) didn't work out. Just because adding the mass into the equation makes the equation a better descriptor of the motion doesn't mean the mass is actually there.

That is why you can't find it...even when you look where the math says it should be.

When something only exists on paper you can expand it's properties to be whatever is needed to make it do what your math needs it to.



no fate
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
... evidence only when it fits into his world-view. All other evidence need not apply.


You have no evidence that any object is a BH. The defining property of this object by people who claim they exist is that it conveys no information beyond the event horizon. So any "evidence" you present is nothing more than interpretation based on emissions from the matter on "our side" of said horizon.

Applicational physics: We can only accelerate charged particles one way...we all know what that is. We also know that every photon ever emitted by one of these particles did so due to interaction with a magnetic field other than it's own. We know the jets result from magnetic acceleration. Uniform rotation, oscillation and polarity reversal are all traits of EM structure.

This is all proven physics, recognized valid by the mainstream.
It is also ignored in favor of a math/gravity model in need of repeated adjustments, with non falsifiable entities as cornerstones.

Conclusion:
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2014
We don't need a BH to be there, we don't need DM to be there. Gravity is a local mass effect, not observable on the quantum scale and it needs too many crutches to remain standing as the driver of universal structure, non falsifiable crutches.

In polite discourse I would offer links to experiments and observations which support the statements I made regarding magnetism above, that is EVIDENCE. There is no polite discourse when dealing with mainstream ignorance...so google it like Ira.

What you claim is evidence: Math. And the inference that because we are "stuck" to the earth means that all things in the universe are where they are and move how they move because of mass attraction.

But 99% of all visible matter (plasma) is more effected by magnetism than gravity...which you also acknowledge because this has been experimentally proven.

Will you acknowledge this is a contradiction? No.

Can anyone without predetermined bias see it as plain as day?
Easily.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.