What is the maximum entropy a system can have based on its energy and size?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Bekenstein bound, which relates a system's entropy to its energy and size, particularly when considering its interaction with black holes. Participants debate the treatment of radiation emitted during this process, questioning why the entropy of radiation is often considered negligible in derivations of the bound. They emphasize that while the energy of radiation may be small, its entropy contribution could be significant and should not be ignored. The conversation also touches on the complexities of deriving a generalized Bekenstein bound for charged systems and the implications of black hole size in these calculations. Ultimately, the need for a clearer understanding of radiation's role in entropy calculations remains a key point of contention.
  • #31
michael879 said:
But there is still the issue that the lower bound on the acquired area can grow substantially by making negligible changes to the system!

Looking at the "Black Holes and Entropy", Appendix A, it looks like the derivation there assumes a spherical particle, so it would not apply to configurations with a long "arm" sticking out. However, I can't see that any assumption is made about the density of the spherical particle that falls in; see below.

michael879 said:
Imagine a ball of size R and mass M, and another ball of size 2R and mass M (1/4 the density). Surely the area acquired by the black hole should be almost identical in both cases. However for whatever reason the larger ball has twice as large a lower bound on the area increase!

Yes, given that no assumption is made about the object's density, it looks like the area increase goes up with R if M is held constant, implying that an object with the same M but larger R has more entropy. This does make a kind of sense: a mass M confined in a larger radius R should have more degrees of freedom since the position of its parts is less constrained, and therefore should have more entropy (assuming we know nothing about its state other than M and R).

I'm still digesting the paper, and Appendix A in particular; I may have further comments later on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
That's a good point, and I see what you're saying about the larger system having more entropy in general. However, when you think about it in terms of area it makes no sense! Why would simply expanding the system make the final state black hole's area any larger?? I look forward to any other comments, I thought I understand the normal bound pretty well but apparently I don't... I mean, the heuristic argument makes perfect sense, but you're left with an unspecified factor and the question of radiation remains...
 
  • #33
This article I find unconvincing but understandable:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound

First we derive a bound that has the radius of the black hole as one parameter.

Then we replace "the radius of the black hole" with "couple of times the radius of the dropped object".

Then we find the exact value of "couple of times".
 
  • #34
So, if I have a system with very small mass, very large radius, and very large entropy, then it seems that I can violate the second law of thermodynamics by dumping the system into a small black hole.

(If the system is a gas cloud, just put the system and the black hole in a hermetic container, and wait)
 
Last edited:
  • #35
michael879 said:
Why would simply expanding the system make the final state black hole's area any larger??

I'm still digesting the papers, but I think this is because expanding the system changes the details of the process of it falling into the black hole, in such a way as to make the lower bound on the area increase larger.
 
  • #36
jartsa said:
So, if I have a system with very small mass, very large radius, and very large entropy, then it seems that I can violate the second law of thermodynamics by dumping the system into a small black hole.

First, you can't specify the mass, radius, and entropy of the system independently. Second, the bound is derived on the assumption that the black hole the system falls into is much larger than the system itself.
 
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
First, you can't specify the mass, radius, and entropy of the system independently. Second, the bound is derived on the assumption that the black hole the system falls into is much larger than the system itself.


I did not violate the Bekenstein bound when I assumed a system with low mass, large entropy and sufficiently large size.

When this system is put into a container with a small black hole, the second law of thermodynamics will not be violated, because the black hole will evaporate before the system has been sucked in.
 
  • #38
jartsa said:
I did not violate the Bekenstein bound when I assumed a system with low mass, large entropy and sufficiently large size.

When this system is put into a container with a small black hole, the second law of thermodynamics will not be violated, because the black hole will evaporate before the system has been sucked in.

Then I'm confused; I thought you were claiming that your scenario could violate the second law. What exactly are you trying to say?
 
  • #39
PeterDonis said:
I think this is because expanding the system changes the details of the process of it falling into the black hole, in such a way as to make the lower bound on the area increase larger.

I've read through Appendix A a number of times now, and I think I have a basic understanding of what it's saying.

(1) First, consider the idealized limiting case of R = 0; in other words, we drop a point particle of initial rest mass M into a black hole. The way to do this that minimizes the area increase is to release the particle exactly at the horizon into an orbit with zero energy at infinity and zero angular momentum. In other words, we drop it from rest just at the horizon. (We ignore technicalities such as the fact that a particle of nonzero rest mass can't be at rest at the horizon, even instantaneously; this is just heuristic, after all.) In this idealized limiting case, the area increase of the hole is zero, because the hole's mass and angular momentum are unchanged by this process.

(We also ignore the fact that we had to lower the particle to the horizon by some process from which we extracted work equal to the particle's initial rest mass M, so that its energy at infinity when we release it at the horizon is zero. That process is considered to be already completed while the particle is fully outside the hole, so it doesn't figure into the calculation of what happens when the particle falls into the hole.)

(2) Now consider what happens if the particle has a nonzero radius R. This means that we can't lower it all the way to the horizon; we can only lower it to a proper distance R outside the horizon. That means we can't release it with zero energy at infinity (although we *can* release it with zero angular momentum); so it will deliver some nonzero energy to the hole, increasing the hole's mass by some minimum amount. For very small R (i.e., R much less than the hole's horizon radius), we expect the hole's mass increase to be linear in R. We also expect it to be linear in M, the initial rest mass of the particle.

(3) Now, the key point: the energy at infinity of the particle with nonzero radius R (and zero angular momentum) when it is released is also proportional to the *temperature* of the black hole that the particle is falling into! This is the key fact that makes the hole's parameters cancel out of the area increase: heuristically, entropy is energy divided by temperature, so if the hole's mass increase is proportional to its temperature, then its entropy increase (i.e., the area increase) will be independent of the hole's temperature. Since the hole's temperature is the only way in which the hole's parameters enter into the calculation, this means the hole's parameters cancel out.

Why is the energy at infinity of the particle at release proportional to the temperature? The temperature formula given by Bekenstein is

\Theta = \frac{1}{4} \frac{r_{+} - r_{-}}{\alpha}

where \alpha = r_{+}^2 + a^2 = A / 4 \pi is the "normalized area" of the horizon. The r_{+} - r_{-} in the numerator is a measure of how "extreme" the hole is in terms of angular momentum vs. mass; but since the infalling particle is adding zero angular momentum in the case of minimal area increase, this quantity does not change in the process, so we can heuristically consider the simplest case of a Schwarzschild hole, where r_{+} = 2M and r_{-} = 0. This makes the temperature inversely proportional to the horizon radius. And *that* means the energy at infinity of a particle with a given initial rest mass M released at a given proper distance R above the hole's horizon is proportional to the particle's initial rest mass M, times the ratio of R to the hole's horizon radius. This makes sense: the energy at infinity is really a dimensionless fraction times the initial rest mass M, and so we would expect it to be determined by a dimensionless ratio derived from the particle radius R, rather than just by R itself.

So the overall calculation looks like this (where "=" here means "proportional to"):

(area increase) = (entropy increase) = (energy increase) / (temperature) = (M * R / horizon radius) / (temperature) = (M * R * temperature) / (temperature) = (M * R)

The hole parameters cancel out and we are left with just the particle parameters M and R.
 
  • #40
jartsa said:
This article I find unconvincing but understandable:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound

First we derive a bound that has the radius of the black hole as one parameter.

Then we replace "the radius of the black hole" with "couple of times the radius of the dropped object".

Then we find the exact value of "couple of times".

Yes, I've seen this article. It doesn't answer any of my questions though..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K