Could "reverse entropy stars" exist in our universe?

In summary, this lecturer is claiming that reverse entropy stars could exist and that by detecting one we could determine if they do or not. However, there is no evidence to support this and it seems dubious at best.
  • #1
Seanra
14
1
My lecturer claimed that "reverse entropy stars" could exist in our universe.

One of the examples he gave was that if you exposed some sort of detector in the direction of a hypothesized reverse entropy star, you could determine if it existed by whether it "sucked" photons out of the detector.

Is it just me or is this all BS?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
My guess. BS.
 
  • #3
Seanra said:
Is it just me or is this all BS?

I'm no expert, but this sounds like the latter option to me. The first 5 pages of a google search for "reverse entropy star" bring up no results relating to astronomy except for this exact thread. Besides, something "sucking" photons out of a detector is nonsense. Photons cannot be "sucked" out of something. They will be emitted from an object through several different mechanisms, none of which can be influenced by a far away star of any type.

However, it's possible I'm wrong. Perhaps others here will know more about this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Presumably what this dubious lecturer is saying is that stars shine because they are hotter than the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation, and that's why we see them because of normal entropy considerations, but if there existed "reverse" entropy stars, they would instead remove light from the CBR even though they are hotter. One doesn't need reverse entropy stars for that, stars cooler than 2.7 would suffice fine. Of course there is no reason to expect the existence of either type of star, nor would a reverse entropy star do anything to a photon detector that is different from what a very cold star would do. I think that lecturer needs to bone up on not only what physics says, but also what physics is.
 
  • #5
Hi guys

Thanks so much for replying. It sounds like we all seem to agree that there may be something wrong here. However, in my best effort to not misrepresent his argument, here is a link to a screencap of him discussing the topic with a skeptical student (all names are removed):

http://imgur.com/Saa6VAX
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Ken G said:
Presumably what this dubious lecturer is saying is that stars shine because they are hotter than the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation, and that's why we see them because of normal entropy considerations, but if there existed "reverse" entropy stars, they would instead remove light from the CBR even though they are hotter. One doesn't need reverse entropy stars for that, stars cooler than 2.7 would suffice fine. Of course there is no reason to expect the existence of either type of star, nor would a reverse entropy star do anything to a photon detector that is different from what a very cold star would do. I think that lecturer needs to bone up on not only what physics says, but also what physics is.

He specifically said such a star could "suck out photons from a previously exposed detector". But yes, I agree with what you said 100%.
 
  • #7
Seanra said:
Hi guys

Thanks so much for replying. It sounds like we all seem to agree that there may be something wrong here. However, in my best effort to not misrepresent his argument, here is a link to a screencap of him discussing the topic with a skeptical student (all names are removed):

http://imgur.com/Saa6VAX
All he is doing is watching the universe with time running backward. It's trivial. But we don't see time running backward, so we do not have reverse entropy stars. I don't even see a lesson here-- yes, we can watch a movie running backward, and it will look like entropy is reversed. This is not what we actually observe, though one can always imagine hypotheticals. What is learned?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Is your lecturer referring to a white hole? White holes should decrease entropy, but they're considered more a curiosity of the mathematics than real objects.
 
  • #9
newjerseyrunner said:
Is your lecturer referring to a white hole? White holes should decrease entropy, but they're considered more a curiosity of the mathematics than real objects.

No he definitely isn't referring to a white hole.
 
  • #10
Ken G said:
All he is doing is watching the universe with time running backward. It's trivial. But we don't see time running backward, so we do not have reverse entropy stars. I don't even see a lesson here-- yes, we can watch a movie running backward, and it will look like entropy is reversed. This is not what we actually observe, though one can always imagine hypotheticals. What is learned?

Well he seems to believe that reverse entropy objects could exist in our current universe. Again, I'm no expert but I am sceptical of claims that I can't find any credible backing for.
 
  • #11
In our universe of endless wonders it's not that hard to imagine... who knows, maybe he has telepathically seen something the rest of us are yet to :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:?:)
 
  • #12
Was this lecture on April the First, by any chance?
 
  • #13
sophiecentaur said:
Was this lecture on April the First, by any chance?
I suspect so
 

1. Could "reverse entropy stars" exist in our universe?

This is a commonly asked question in the field of astrophysics. While there is currently no evidence to suggest the existence of such stars, it is not entirely impossible. The concept of reverse entropy stars is based on the idea that the natural tendency of the universe is towards disorder and chaos, but these stars would defy this by becoming more organized over time.

2. How would "reverse entropy stars" be different from regular stars?

If reverse entropy stars were to exist, they would have a number of unique characteristics that would set them apart from regular stars. For one, they would emit less heat and light as they age, as opposed to regular stars which become brighter as they age. Additionally, they would have a much longer lifespan, potentially lasting trillions of years.

3. What would be the implications of "reverse entropy stars" on our understanding of physics?

If these stars were to exist, it would challenge our current understanding of the laws of physics. The concept of reverse entropy goes against the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or disorder, always increases over time. It would require a major shift in our understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe.

4. Are there any known examples of "reverse entropy" in nature?

While the concept of reverse entropy is still hypothetical, there are some examples in nature that seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics. One example is the formation of complex molecules and organisms, which goes against the natural tendency for disorder. However, these examples can be explained by energy input from external sources, whereas reverse entropy stars would not have such sources.

5. How would we detect or observe "reverse entropy stars"?

Since these stars are only a theoretical concept at this point, it is difficult to say how we would detect or observe them. However, some scientists suggest that they may emit a unique type of radiation or have a distinct chemical composition that would set them apart from regular stars. Further research and technological advancements would be needed to accurately identify and study these stars, if they do indeed exist.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
926
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top