Do White Holes Violate 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theoretical implications of white holes and their relationship to the second law of thermodynamics. It argues that white holes, as part of the maximally extended Schwarzschild geometry, do not conform to physical reality and lack a meaningful concept of entropy. The conversation highlights that black holes increase entropy through mass accumulation, while white holes, if they existed, would violate this principle by decreasing mass. Additionally, the Einstein-Rosen bridge connects separate external regions of spacetime rather than linking black holes and white holes, further complicating the notion of white holes in physical terms. Overall, the consensus is that white holes are not considered a viable physical phenomenon.
Tengo Preguntas
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have heard (read) much debate over the fundamental problems with white holes, mainly that they violate Thermodynamics by increasing entropy. However, I have also read that a black hole bends space-time enough to "connect" somewhere else as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. So if the exact same event occurs on both sides of the bridge (time simply reversed), then why does entropy change whatsoever?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Tengo Preguntas said:
I have heard (read) much debate over the fundamental problems with white holes, mainly that they violate Thermodynamics by increasing entropy.

I think you mean "decreasing", correct? I don't know that it's that simple. The usual meaning of "white hole" refers to part of the maximally extended Schwarzschild geometry, which is an idealized mathematical solution to the Einstein Field Equation that nobody believes is physically reasonable. This classical geometry doesn't have any meaningful concept of "entropy" at all, since it is static and can only describe an "eternal" black hole whose mass never changes.

The usual argument for assigning an entropy to a black hole, and for the generalized second law that includes black hole entropy, requires considering processes where things fall into black holes and increase their mass. It also requires considering a physically reasonable way for a black hole to form in the first place, by the gravitational collapse of matter. The spacetime geometries used in these arguments don't contain a white hole region at all. So a "white hole" on this view would have to be the time reverse of the geometries used in these black hole arguments, where we have a hole that things come out of and whose mass decreases--or, ultimately, a hole that spontaneously ejects all its mass and becomes an ordinary star. These processes would indeed violate the second law and are not considered physically reasonable. (To put it another way, there is no way to explain how a white hole in this sense could form in the first place.)

Tengo Preguntas said:
I have also read that a black hole bends space-time enough to "connect" somewhere else as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. So if the exact same event occurs on both sides of the bridge (time simply reversed)

The Einstein-Rosen bridge does not connect a white hole with a black hole. It connects the "normal" exterior region--the vacuum region outside a black hole/white hole that represents the external universe--with a second exterior region that appears in the maximally extended Schwarzschild geometry and represents a second, separate external universe. Neither exterior region is "before" or "after" the other; the bridge is spacelike and nothing can actually pass through it (it closes up again so fast that even a light ray can't make it through before it closes up and disappears). Nobody really believes the bridge is physically reasonable either.
 
Thanks, that really clears things up!
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top