A. The radiation is a small faction of the entire sun's mass on any given moment , so it probably should be neglected in any practical measure of the sun's entropy.
B. How is even relevant. Are you suggesting that the low entropy of the hot universe after the bb is duo to the lack of radiation?
Let's look at the sun's formation. Some gas and dust in space compressed by gravity to form the sun. In one way the compressed particles
have less movement freedom so the system has less potential states which means lower entropy. On the other hand the high temperature means more potential...
If the universe was very hot right after the Big Bang how come the entropy of the universe was lower at that point than now? Isn't heat a reason for higher entropy?
So you disagree with @Ibix on this matter but the original question is now back - do black hole sets a time arrow?
About the second law of thermodynamics I don't mind, because we talking about reversed time which this law is not applied.
I'm bit confused now, since the all reason we brought up the white hole to this thread is to say that black hole collapse is time reversal as a white hole. In simple words, if we see a reversed video clip of a star falling into a black hole we can say that the events in the clip obeying the laws...
So when the white hole explode it means that we get material out of vacuum which brings new quotations.
1. What about the energy preservation law ?
2. As mentioned, black holes eventually disappearing dou to Hawking radiation, in other words the original mass that fails into the black hole find...
But if white hole has no mass , how come it has gravity? (Black hole can have a satellite , it means that on time reversed e.g. white hole will have also that satellite) .
It seems like you all treating black and white holes as spacetime topologies without paying attention to the cause of that topology which is the mass. We must have mass in order to have black hole and vise versa - a black hole means there is a mass inside. But if this is the case how does the...
Let's say we have 2 holes, one is a black and the other is white. Both can have gravity fields (a satellite can orbit both bodies) , the difference between the two is that in the future the white will push out martials and disappear, but the black can become bigger and never push out martials...
The question is whatever a white hole can actually be formed in our universe if somehow we were able to set all the particles in the right place. If the answer is "no" - it means black hole is setting time's arrow.
Can you please explain it a bit more?
If white hole is not creating mass out of nothing, it means that until the "explosion" we had all the mass in a singular point. So why does gravity is not working here as expected?
Does "white hole" can be explained by the standard physics? Let's say we have a mass that collapse to a black hole - now under time reversal we also have the same mass concentration, so it should become a black hole under the same gravitational rules, so what make it white?