Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hubble Constant and Entropy

  1. Feb 27, 2015 #1
    Do I understand correctly (in general terms) or wildly incorrectly if I imagine that the constant of expansion and the second law of thermodynamics are very closely connected, or even that the constant of expansion is potentially the source of the second law?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2015 #2

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know, but I doubt a broken glass would spontaneously reassemble itself if the universe wasn't expanding. Of course I can't test this:)
     
  4. Feb 27, 2015 #3

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Why is your line of reasoning for this?
     
  5. Feb 27, 2015 #4

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You are wrong. But you are in a good company, because Hawking made a similar mistake (and later called it his biggest mistake) when he concluded that the thermodynamic arrow of time will reverse its direction when (and if) the Universe will start to collapse.
     
  6. Feb 27, 2015 #5
    Well now I need to figure out what I'm getting wrong. I have been imagining that the expansion has an effect on the size of phase space?
     
  7. Feb 27, 2015 #6
    Does the expansion of the universe affect the size of phase space?

    I can picture collapse (shrinking phase space?) allowing for entropy increase as long as the phase space (the universe) still contains an additional state that would be higher entropy than current state.

    But isn't an expansion of state space a pre-requisite for entropy increase. At some step i doesn't there have to be a phase space incrementally bigger than the one occupied by a system at step i-1? Otherwise probability of state i-1 remains 1 at step i.

    Seems a system could move spontaneously from a high entropy to low entropy state in a given state space, then have room to move back toward higher entropy. But that's only a possible interim. At the limit doesn't the probability of maximal entropy win? Doesn't that mean that any system that is increasing in entropy can only be doing so because at some point it was able to move into an expanded state space - one with higher entropy states available.

    Lord I am confused.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  8. Feb 28, 2015 #7
    So am I "not wrong" if I believe that expansion, or some introduction of additional degrees of freedom, which allow for states of higher entropy, is required for entropy increase. This just seems definitive to me. I hadn't thought about this, but I can see that this does't mean entropy follows expansion lock-step - a large increase in DOF would provide "headroom" for the arrow of time to carry on in the same direction. And if at some point phase space starts getting smaller it would't matter until the available higher entropy phases were exhausted - a situation that in no way sugests a backward running clock...

    I thought this was Penrose's conundrum of the great collapse looking like a bunch of colliding "white holes" (penrose' term) rather than a reverse Big Bang.
     
  9. Feb 28, 2015 #8

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  10. Feb 28, 2015 #9

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Thanks for the link to Baez easy-going tutorial on entropy-with-gravity-included
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html
    That in turn leads to another fine informal rap on the virial theorem
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html
    It's worth repeating: Baez is a really good explainer.

    BTW there is something else that by contrast is comparatively subtle and hard to grasp--the observer-dependence of entropy. Especially (since you mentioned gravitational entropy) in a GR context, where the entropy of the gravitational field (geometry) enters the picture.
    I don't feel competent to summarize the situation so will just refer to work by prominent people like Don Marolf, Robert Wald, Thanu Padmanabhan.
    Wald's and Padmanabhan's earlier papers are cited in this 2003 paper by Marolf et al.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0310022.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310022
    Notes on Spacetime Thermodynamics and the Observer-dependence of Entropy
    Donald Marolf, Djordje Minic, Simon Ross
    http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+eprint+HEP-TH/0310022


    ==quote wald's: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9901033v1.pdf ==
    The comments in the previous paragraph refer to serious difficulties in defining the notions of gravitational entropy and total entropy in general relativity. However, as I now shall explain, even in the context of quantum field theory on a background spacetime possessing a time translation symmetry— so that the “rigid” structure needed to define the usual notion of entropy of matter is present—there are strong hints from black hole thermodynamics that even our present understanding of the meaning of the “ordinary entropy” of matter is inadequate.
    ...
    ...
    I believe that the above puzzle suggests that we presently lack the proper conceptual framework with which to think about entropy in the context of general relativity. In any case, it is my belief that the resolution of the above issues will occupy researchers well into the next century, if not well into the next millennium.
    ==endquote==
    This is just my interpretation but I think that the concept of entropy is not absolute, but is relative to the observer and in particular to the observer's MAP OF PHASE SPACE which shows which collections of microstates (are indistinguishable in that observer's experience and) constitute the partition into distinguishable macrostates.
    Marolf et al speak of the observer's resolution. The observer's map RESOLVES phase space into macro regions, where the macroscopic variables that he cares about are the same and microscopic differences can be ignored. We cannot expect two observers to agree on the entropy unless they share the same resolution.
    But Marolf et al explore a deeper observer-dependence where even two observers that have the same resolution may differ about the entropy.

    Basically I suspect the gist of what these researchers are saying is that you cannot expect the "2nd law" to apply if you change observers or switch perspectives too radically. (and we need progress in defining the phase space of geometry so that the entropy of the geometric state can be included in the total entropy.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  11. Feb 28, 2015 #10

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hah I knew I shouldn't have used that expression or you'd open a whole other can of worms !
    But thanks for the pointers : ) and yes Baez rulez
     
  12. Feb 28, 2015 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    :biggrin: Indeed he rulez!
    I'm feeling quite hopeful that the problems represented by that can of worms can be resolved (maybe even while-U-wait)
    It's not enough to consider just the phase space of a bunch of particles moving around in a rigid geometry. You have to also include the phase space of the geometry they are moving in. I think Jimster started a good thread largely because he starts to grapple with this by bringing in the idea of EXPANSION. How does that affect thermodynamics? We don't have a general relativistic thermodynamics. It's a major outstanding problem, discussed in general terms in this 2012 Rovelli paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0065) and in a bunch of subsequent ones by Rovelli and others.

    The most recent one (google "rovelli compact phase space" ) argues that at least in the Euclidean 3d case including a positive cosmological constant makes the phase space of geometry discrete in a certain sense---the corresponding Hilbert space when you quantize becomes finite dimensional.
    That's a remarkable idea and it would greatly simplify the thermodynamics. Still must be extended to 4d and to Lorentzian case.

    Another good sign is a fat new paper by Hartle and Hertog. What they say is rather similar to some things in recent Rovelli et al papers but they say it resoundingly with considerable grandeur.
    Quantum geometry is the real thing. Classical GR is just an approx that works in certain situations and not in others. Quantum gravity may know how to "tunnel" from a black hole to a white. From collapse to expansion. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06770) It appeared Friday, it reminds me a lot of a 2014 Haggard Rovelli paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0989).
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  13. Feb 28, 2015 #12

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    TBH I need to look at this more closely, I know at some point one is supposed to utter the magic words "gravitational deegrees of freedom" but it is still a little frightening to me..,

    Edit. I'm trying to think of this in 2+1d, spherical space, empty but for a gas of pointlike massive galaxies, strictly gravitation only.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  14. Feb 28, 2015 #13

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well that is so badly written (as a form), that my initial positive intentions of reading that article disappeared after the first couple of equations.
     
  15. Feb 28, 2015 #14

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I wonder if the "Shape dynamics" approach of Koslowki & al. that you mentioned elsewhere might provide a basis for an interesting alternative way of looking at this ?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6264
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03007
     
  16. Feb 28, 2015 #15
    Thanks Marcus.

    I'm always trying to shrink this stuff. For completely selfish reasons...
    I know it's anathema to progress being made

    For better or worse my current cartoon (that I'm trying to check) is:

    quanta of spacetime geometry are the open set that is our universe
    expansion of the quanta's phase space, creates geometry phase probability gradient, entropy is gravity.
    matter and energy (things and all the moving things do) are emergent spacetime geometrical systems, on that gradient

    I keep wondering about gravitational clumping backwards where the expansion of phase space makes what was even, a step before, now relatively speaking, an uneven - clump. I'm just struck by picturing it that screwed up way. Is that inconsistent with emergent structure, or not at all? And what does non-local randomness (Bell) have to do with it all... Surely something.

    Not going to say I follow the proofs or derivations, in detail, but in terms of grappling with concepts...
    Unruh effect: I saw it in Verlinde. It was a key take away from that for me. His entropic gravity depends on it I thought.
    Virial Theorem: new to my eyes but, I believe it, and it seems consistent with an answer I got recently from Penrose which is that for matter and energy in a g-field, clumped is higher entropy than evenly distributed. But then I'm confused when he says at the end of the expansion of the universe, matter and energy are all totally distributed, and that's maximum entropy.
     
  17. Feb 28, 2015 #16

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hi Jimster, just to be clear about the background to this problem let me quote the first sentence of the abstract of CR's 2012 paper
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0065
    General relativistic statistical mechanics
    Carlo Rovelli
    (Submitted on 1 Sep 2012)
    Understanding thermodynamics and statistical mechanics in the full general relativistic context is an open problem.
    ==endquote==
    It's sort of important, I think, that it is an open (unsolved) problem. people with a lot of experience and knowhow and intuition haven't gotten it figured out yet. I think progress is being made though. On a fixed rigid non-interactive curved geometry it IS solve, and that can provide useful approximations but it is not how nature works. Anyway that was the first sentence of the abstract. The idea is amplified in the first two sentences of the introduction section
    ==quote http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0065==
    Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are powerful and vastly general tools. But their usual formulation works only in the non-general-relativistic limit. Can they be extended to fully general relativistic systems?
    ==endquote==
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  18. Feb 28, 2015 #17

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Coming at this from another angle there's the recent Hartle Hertog paper. It's apt to be influential as the two of them separately and jointly have co-authored many papers with Stephen Hawking and James Hartle is a big name on his own. I'll quote their conclusions:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06770
    Quantum Transitions Between Classical Histories: Bouncing Cosmologies
    James Hartle, Thomas Hertog
    (Submitted on 24 February, 2015)
    36 pages, 6 figures
    ==quote from conclusions==
    It is an inescapable inference from the physics of the last nine decades that quantum mechanics is fundamental and that classical physics is an approximation to it that emerges only in certain limited circumstances. Classical physics is an approximation that holds when the probabilities predicted by a system’s quantum state are high for histories exhibiting correlations in time governed by classical deterministic laws.

    In particular, classical spacetime is an approximation in a quantum theory of gravity holding in limited circumstances specified by the quantum state. We should therefore not generally assume classical spacetime, or classical backgrounds. Rather we should assume a quantum state and derive when and where the classical approximation holds in a background independent manner.

    It is common to assume that the classical approximation to quantum mechanics holds until the classical equations become singular or Planck scale physics is predicted by them. A lesson of this paper is that this assumption is not generally reliable. In the examples of barrier penetration, the growth of fluctuations, and bouncing universes classical prediction breaks down in regions of configuration space where the classical equations remain well defined...
    ==endquote==
    It looks to me as if Hartle and Hertog, in their treatment of BH, are considering black tunneling to white hole---like a kind of barrier penetration---with some nonzero probability. This possible BH explosion before the conventional Hawking evaporation time is up. Likewise in a cosmological bounce they consider different expanding universe outcomes might have different quantum probabilities. Some of their diagrams or figures are intended to illustrate what they have in mind.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  19. Feb 28, 2015 #18

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I'm hopeful that Wald's estimate that it might take many decades for physicists to understand thermodynamics (and entropy in particular) in a quantum and general covariant (i.e. general relativistic) context is pessimistic. The reason I'm hopeful is the Rovelli Vidotto paper I mentioned back in post#11.
    It's the one you get by googling "rovelli compact phase".
    The idea is that not only does a system of particles have a phase space representing the individual positions and momenta but also geometry itself has a phase space and thanks to the intrinsic curvature constant this phase space is compact and upon passing over to quantum states acquires a certain discreteness reflected in the geometry's Hilbert space of states being finite dimensional.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00278
    Compact phase space, cosmological constant, discrete time
    Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto
    (Submitted on 1 Feb 2015)
    We study the quantization of geometry in the presence of a cosmological constant, using a discretization with constant-curvature simplices. Phase space turns out to be compact and the Hilbert space finite dimensional for each link. Not only the intrinsic, but also the extrinsic geometry turns out to be discrete, pointing to discreetness of time, in addition to space. We work in 2+1 dimensions, but these results may be relevant also for the physical 3+1 case.
    6 pages
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  20. Mar 1, 2015 #19
    I understand. It is helpful confirmation that the cartoon I have is a good one (for daydreaming about) if I know it includes real puzzles, and isn't predicated on some obvious misconception.

    My interpretation of the above quote and the first couple of pages, is that there is not yet a proven model for ensemble treatment of geometic quanta. It could be quite different from the model for particles. So I think I'm hearing you. I can't wait to hear more about what is discovered.

    Some unsanctioned thought w/respect to effect on my cartoon's utility (for me). 1. If particles are emergent from s.t. geometric quanta-ensembles, then surely there is some meaningful similarity. If the classical case is contained by the fundamental case, then classical is a useful proxy in the mean. (I know that's a weak use of the cartoon to prop itself up). 2. But what about the non-classical limits and thereabouts? I get it, you can't rely on the classical statistical Thermo model. I feel immensely lost in the limits anyway... black/white holes, beginning and ending of cosmological cycles (bounces), entangled events... Being able to ruminate (while reading on the subway) about these puzzles pieces is the purpose of the cartoon in the first place. So that's okay. 3. Most importantly, and this is a big question I would love help on, I see Louiville's theorem and the basic notion of "entropy" as as a fundamental mathematical/logical dynamic/property of any phase space. There is always a probability gradient (though it can be at zero) for any phase space, and all my cartoon posits is that we are in a s.t. Quanta phase space, where there there is a probability gradient - which we experience (in the classical projection) as the 2nd law (plus aforementioned staggering puzzles). Is that seriously wrong? Maybe I just can't picture the obvious exception - and I'm being way way too naive for even cartoons.

    Compactness: when you mentioned that awhile back, I tried to grok it, but got confused as to why it's a requirement for a model of s.t. Geomtry "spaces". Totally naive, but I interpret Bell's theorem as suggesting non-compactness is actually more of a required feature of a model of observation to-date (doesn't entanglement show that in one step from any spot you can wind up in exactly the a same, different and at least ostensibly random, spot). I may be conflating "compactness" with some other similar "bounded and well behaved" topological definition, but it seems like the difference between "arbitrarily distant random spot in the space" and "infinity" is a question of degree of bizarreness. And I don't believe in infinity anyway.

    On this subject of non-locality, I saw a paper in your long "intuitive content..." Thread that I need to go back and find, something about how superposition of the quantum state probability wave from distant points in the past light cone can bring forward both space-like and Time-like information. Huh? ...that sound fascinatingly illegal. I am hoping to get more of what you are alluding to in the black holes tunneling to white holes.

    As always the exaustive work you do in tracking and paraphrasing all the material you do, is very, much appreciated. Every time I get on here I lose, like two days.
     
  21. Mar 1, 2015 #20

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would like to mention that, in my view, while Rovelli's treatment does extend to the quantum situation, he starts with a strictly classical setup which is interesting in its own right, and perhaps sufficient here : if we go back to your original question about the second law and expansion, this is a well-posed question in a purely classical context, and I believe we should expect to be able to answer it without any need to venture into the more difficult realm of quantum gravity - especially as the question doesn't require us to go anywhere near a final singularity where GR becomes problematic.

    I cannot myself provide an explanation beyond some crude attempt at paraphrasing Baez, but I find his analysis of the entropy of a collapsing cloud of dust, marcus' mention of the phase space of geometry, or Rovelli's considerations about thermodynamics in classical GR, more illuminating for the original question than any mention of quanta of spacetime.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Hubble Constant and Entropy
  1. BH entropy (Replies: 4)

  2. Entropy in LQG (Replies: 5)

  3. Hubble length (Replies: 3)

  4. BH entropy (Replies: 2)

  5. Gravitational entropy (Replies: 5)

Loading...