First, the article is not a technical or scientific publication. It is "pop sci" journalism, so you have to avoid the "black hole" claims and pay attention to the description of the device itself. The device described is simply an interesting lens. There is simply no way for a lens to violate the 2nd law of thermo because for every ray that takes heat from the room to the core there is a ray that takes heat from the core to the room. If you put a lens in a situation of thermal equilibrium then it will remain in thermal equilibrium.Let's say there is a closed and perfectly insulated room. In that room the temperature is exactly the same at every point. Then I put this device in there and I built this thing so that it works in the infrared range.
Now if I understood the article correctly the temperature at the core of the device will be higher then in the rest of the room because all the IR photons in the room that hit the outside shell will be directed towards the core.
So where did I misunderstand the article?
Where can I read the paper published by Cheng and Cui?
So since all photons get directed towards the core independent of the direction they travel in, it should concentrate diffuse light.Hence the black hole will
absorb nearly all electromagnetic rays hitting on it from every direction, as illustrated in
Fig. 1(a) for the ray-tracing approximation.
DrZoidberg, the only person who is claiming this violates the 2d law is you - certainly not the authors.
Why so complicated? That a photon density gradient possesses a lower entropy then uniformely distributed photons is obvious. The same is true for heat.I think it's time that you backed up this claim: Define a closed system, calculate the entropy at one time, calculate it again at a later time, and show that the second value is smaller.
When you do this, you should pay particular attention to DaleSpam's observation that every path that goes from the outside to the inside also goes from the inside to the outside.
By the way, did you miss the abstract of the paper when you found that quote? They call this black hole a "thermal emitting source". Emitting.
Do you understand why a simple convex lens does not violate the 2nd law? This device is not fundamentally different.
Your posts are full of badly wrong logic, assertions and examples and read like they are intentionally dense/argumentative.