1

Entropy will eventually mean that the universe will have send all its energy outwards in the form of light and other radiation, leaving the remaining matter in the universe cold and inert.

I'm trying to find ways that are as realistic as possible to beat entropy, mostly by looking at things that cannot be proven yet. Currently I have just one idea how to prevent entropy: Black holes and hawking radiation.

Black holes evaporate by hawking radiation. As far as I know this radiation happens due to quantum effects which cause particles to pop into existance. To preserve the laws of thermodynamics and not create more energy this particle pops into existence with an anti-particle to balance the energy, but they pop in so close to eachother they immediately annihilate eachother from existance.

When this happens at the edge of a Black hole one of the particle/antiparticle group can be inside the event horizon (schwarzschild radius) and the other just outside. This prevents the particles from annihilating eachother. When the particle pops in just outside the event horizon and it can leave the pull of the Black hole it flies off as hawking radiation while the antiparticle annihilates a particle inside the Black hole causing it to lose mass or "evaporate" particle by particle.

Now you cant create more energy in the universe with this method as the energy of each particle added is countered by the negative energy of the antiparticle, but perhaps you could use antiparticle entropy. Imagine an antiparticle being send out as hawking radiation. The Black hole will gain one extra particle in mass and energy and the antiparticle will fly off into the universe to annihilate another particle instead. But if the antiparticle flies off towards the edge of the universe and doesnt hit anything you've essentially "created" more energy to use without disturbing the real balance of the universe.

The premise: you find a way to manipulate how antiparticles and particles pop in (with a potential to run in an alternative of Maxwells Demon). If you can manipulate one end of the Black hole to emit more antiparticles and aim this end at the edge of the universe your Black hole will grow in mass and thus energy. The hawking radiation it outputs "normally" can be collected and converted into energy and materials and since on one end the Black hole generates more mass it would keep doing this forever. The higher your control the more energy and mass you can create, with bonus points for being able to increase/decrease the amount of pop-ins across the surface area and the ability to have another part of the Black hole emit primarily particles to be collected and used.

The amount of energy and mass created depends on the size of the Black hole. Larger Black holes have comparatively less energy creation compared to a small Black hole. A Black hole weighing several tons will already release enough energy of several thousand atomic bombs in less then a second and then be evaporated. If you can keep it the same mass but still gather the energy without losing it you can power just about anything.

Besides "manipulate quantum pop-in and facing of the particles", is there a problem with this idea?

Are there better idea's to solve entropy with a potentially plausible method? These idea's will be rated on:

  • potential for being a realistic solution.
  • potential energy created
  • potential to keep mass and energy from escaping an area to hold back entropy in a local area.
  • scale. Black holes might make a lot of energy but require some larger scale equipment to function than a bunch of tireless hamsters.
  • Ease of use. You usually dont carry a black hole in your pocket.

Edit: this question is not about surviving entropy but preventing it. The answers in the "duplucate" have only one solution mentioned that truly generates matter and energy in an attempt to stop entropy and thats by snagging suns from an alternate universe.

Demigan
  • 45,321
  • 2
  • 62
  • 186
  • possibly the most fascinating and tantalising area of speculation about the potential of Theoretical Physics - entropy/enthalpy, how it began and may end - can we reverse the inevitable. Thing is, what's the question that you are asking exactly, seems somewhat broad, the way you've phrased it. – Escaped dental patient. Nov 17 '18 at 23:10
  • 1
    "Schwartzshield radius" --> Schwarzschild. "Edge of the universe": there is no such thing. "Antiparticle entropy:" what's that? Energy and entropy are different quantities, with different dimensions. "Negative energy of the antiparticle:" what makes you believe that antiparticles have negative energy? They don't. "A particle inside the Black hole:" whatever is inside a black hole it's not made of ordinary particles. – AlexP Nov 17 '18 at 23:16
  • 1
    I don't see how Hawking radiation creates energy, any more than a spring rebounding does. Mass goes into the black hole, eventually it comes back as radiation. Conservation is maintained. Admittedly I'm pretty far out of my depth though, so I could be overlooking something. – Cadence Nov 17 '18 at 23:21
  • @AlexP I'll edit the name later tnx. The universe is expanding and so has an edge as much as you can define one. It expands too fast for anything to catch up with it but its there. Entropy happens as energy leaves the Galaxies in various forms of radiation and particles and wont ever interact with anything again. Apply the same to the antiparticles released by making them move somewhere they'll not interact with the universe as it expands. – Demigan Nov 17 '18 at 23:33
  • I suspect that hidden beneath this mess of a question is a much simpler one : How to make a plausible sounding perpetual motion machine ? even if it's impossible in reality. The question has, at present, far too much waffle about physics (which you don't understand at all) that just gets in the way. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Nov 17 '18 at 23:40
  • the universe will have send all its energy outwards There's simply no outside to send anything to. The universe - by definition - is self contained. No edges, no outside, no problem. The "no edges" thing is not easy to grasp, but it's the way it is. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Nov 17 '18 at 23:45
  • "The universe is expanding and so has an edge": this is fundamentally incorrect. The universe is co-extensive with space-time; there is nothing for it to expand into: it expands in itself; actually, space itself is expanding. (As an analogy, consider the canonical problem of the hotel with infinitely many rooms, all occupied, where infinitely many new travellers need to be housed: simply move all occupants to a room numbered two times their room number, and you get your infinitely many empty rooms.) – AlexP Nov 18 '18 at 00:40
  • There are a lot of misplaced assumptions in this question. If you correct those assumptions, you end with the question that I tagged as a duplicate. Please edit if your question is different to explain how it is, and I will happily vote to re-open. – kingledion Nov 18 '18 at 00:54
  • This doesn't really answer the question, so I'm offering it here in the comments. Intelligent Life's best response to eventual heat death is immigration from here to another younger universe. Fortunately this is a problem which we don't have to address in the near future. Chances are that we will have evolved beyond being recognizably human long before we have to worry about heat death. Evolution and entropy seem to be contradictory theories, but they both hold an eventual demise for the human race. – Henry Taylor Nov 18 '18 at 02:17
  • @kingledion It's kind of hard to correct those assumptions is you don't explain what those assumptions are. Also the question is about beating entropy, not surviving it. There's about 1 answer in your duplicate that would be similar to the answers I'm looking for. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 08:58
  • @AlexP and if I talk about a fundamentally incorrect thing but get my message across (send it somewhere it won't affect anything anymore) then what's the problem? I already said it's not an edge as we would perfectly define it. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 09:00
  • @StephenG and when Entropy happens, all energy is expanding from the "center" of universe indefinitely without it ever interacting with something again, and it will expand outwards from the known universe. It won't expand into something else, it won't magically cross a sudden edge of the universe and into another one and I have no idea why people are making such a big deal out of literally nothing. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 09:03
  • @Demigan StephenG, AlexP, and Renan all point some out. Also, entropy is a quantity, not an event. You use the confusing terminology "when entropy happens", which probably should be "when an interaction causes entropy to increase." As for your duplicate comment, the only answer you like to the other question is the one that is not science-based. A real science based answer is: you can't escape the directional flow of entropy in this universe. – kingledion Nov 18 '18 at 12:54
  • @kingledion so using an expressly wrong take on the "edge of the universe" and saying "your physics is wrong" without any explanation constitutes enough of an argument? I'd expected better from this site. Its like I talk about parachutes and people assume the parachute is inverted and would therefore not work. Sure its true but its a wrong assumption as the reasonable idea would just be that the parachute isnt inverted. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 13:05
  • @Demigan This is a Q&A site for narrowly constructed questions. We don't have the mechanism, like, say, Reddit does, to have long discussions of physics in the comments. If you want to fix the question, you have two options. Go to the sandbox and post, or go post some physics questions on physics.SE to get your conceptual understanding down. You can also try dropping into chat when there are a few people there to get feedback. – kingledion Nov 18 '18 at 13:08
  • @Demigan The situation you describe in the question is actually adding mass to a black hole, not removing it. Even if you send antimatter into the black hole and it were to annihilate with matter before being ripped apart into some other, more fundamental, form of matter or energy, you would still be left with a net gain, not loss. A matter/antimatter annihilation leaves behind as much energy as there was in the particle and antiparticle. Much of that energy is in the form of gamma rays, but even that supposedly will not escape the black hole. – Loduwijk Nov 19 '18 at 22:33
  • @Demigan Your problem might come from your use of the term "antimatter," as that is usually used to refer to a particle with an opposite charge (anti-electrons [positrons], anti-protons, anti-quarks, etc.). You might be thinking of something else, but I cannot remember the term usually used to describe what I think you might be talking about. This might be a semantics issue. – Loduwijk Nov 19 '18 at 22:38
  • 1
    @Demigan Slight clarification on the how we think the mechanism behind Hawking radiation works. The antiparticle that falls back into the black hole actually adds to its energy. Energy is lost via the minuscule amount of gravitational energy that is stolen from the black hole by the other particle that escapes. – Skek Tek Nov 21 '18 at 14:41
  • @SkekTek The antiparticle reduces the mass of the Black Hole but it adds energy? Which is then reduced by the other particle flying off? – Demigan Nov 21 '18 at 21:03
  • @Demigan There are 2 transactions: [+] the antiparticle increases the mass/energy of the black hole and [-] the "real" particle takes energy away from the black hole as it is accelerated out into the inverse. The latter removes slightly more energy than the former adds. – Skek Tek Nov 26 '18 at 18:44
  • @SkekTek that would mean the Black hole would get heavier and heavier as it "evaporates", so how would it eventually stop being a Black hole if it only increases in mass but decreases in kinetic(?) energy? – Demigan Nov 27 '18 at 07:40
  • @Demigan mass=energy Instead of looking at it as gaining/losing MASS look at it as gaining/losing ENERGY. – Skek Tek Nov 27 '18 at 15:54
  • @SkekTek I dont see how that would evaporate a Black hole. A planet without rotational, kinetic or heat energy remaining is still a planet and wont suddenly break apart. A Black hole, if the antiparticles keep adding mass, would make the Black hole more and more massive. Eventually the Black hole reaches zero energy and then... What? It goes negative energy until it somehow anti-gravitates itself so far it starts expanding? Thats not it ofcourse but how then does it evaporate if it only accumulates mass? What happens upon reaching zero/negative energy? – Demigan Dec 08 '18 at 19:21
  • @Demigan The black hole loses energy in the exchange. For example I give you $1000 and take back $1001. A planet doesn't have an event horizon which is what causes Hawking radiation. A black hole never reaches zero energy. Eventually, after the black hole has radiated enough energy, it becomes a single weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP). – Skek Tek Dec 10 '18 at 14:50
  • @SkekTek looking at some articles, they all speak of the Black Hole's mass reducing until it reaches zero, which is paired with an energy explosion as it finally stops existing. Where did you get the information that it keeps accumulating mass? Also a WIMP seems not to be possible as end result of a Black Hole, it remains a singularity until the last of its mass is gone from what I read. – Demigan Dec 10 '18 at 17:10
  • @Demigan The event horizon shrinks until there are no further energy levels; the event horizon can't interact with the universe so Hawking radiation ceases, leaving a WIMP. Granted this is all theoretical. Even if were were able to witness the last moments of a black hole the resulting WIMP would be very very very hard to find and impossible to identify from other WIMPs traveling through the universe. The singularity is a mathematical anomaly and a physical impossibility. Hawking radiation doesn't allow enough time for the final collapse to form a singularity. – Skek Tek Dec 10 '18 at 18:17
  • I think this is a real question. There's a real possibility that none of the answers to the question it is claimed one of their answers answers this question, that assume the second law of second law of thermodynamics are totally accurate answers. According to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76842/the-statistical-nature-of-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/76873#76873, the second law of thermodynamics has not yet been proven to be an absolute law. I think this question is asking for ideas on how to exploit the second law of thermodynamics to have either individuals or the species – Timothy Feb 26 '19 at 23:48
  • continue indefinitely. Is that sort of what you were trying to ask? – Timothy Feb 26 '19 at 23:48

2 Answers2

4

You want Entropy to be reversed? We can arrange that possibly, but only if you're patient.

Wait. Quite a long while.

The universe will expand. We, on earth see the universe as it is, and as it was up to 13.8 billion years ago. But that is not all there is, or will be. Entropy, reversing, we can go there, won't be a brief journey though.

10^10^26 Years in the future: Low estimate for the time until all objects exceeding the Planck mass collapse via quantum tunnelling into black holes, assuming no proton decay or virtual black holes. On this vast timescale, even ultra-stable iron stars are destroyed by quantum tunnelling events. First iron stars of sufficient mass will collapse via tunnelling into neutron stars. Subsequently, neutron stars and any remaining iron stars collapse via tunnelling into black holes. The subsequent evaporation of each resulting black hole into sub-atomic particles (a process lasting roughly 10^100 years) is on these timescales instantaneous.

10^10^50 Years Estimated time for a Boltsman brain to appear in the vacuum via a spontaneous entropy decrease.

10^10^76 Years High estimate for the time until all matter collapses into neutron stars or black holes, assuming no proton decay or virtual black holes, which then (on these timescales) instantaneously evaporate into sub-atomic particles.

10^10^120 Years High estimate for the time for the universe to reach its final energy state, even in the presence of a false vacuum.

10^10^10^56 Years. Around this vast time-frame, quantum tunnelling in any isolated patch of the vacuum could generate, via inflation, new Big Bangs giving birth to new universes.

> Because the total number of ways in which all the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined is 10^10^115 a number which, when multiplied by 10^10^10^56, disappears into the rounding error, this is also the time required for a quantum-tunnelled and quantum fluctuation-generated Big Bang to produce a new universe identical to our own, assuming that every new universe contained at least the same number of subatomic particles and obeyed laws of physics within the range predicted by string theory.

Entropy is reversed.

Q.E.D.

A second edit may appear tomorrow.

Escaped dental patient.
  • 24,651
  • 6
  • 57
  • 115
0

Your assumption is flawed in two ways:

  • The universe has no edge. Even if it is finite. The universe is not a box with walls or a country with borders.

  • Hawkings radiation particles don't pop out of nothing. Even the "emptiest" volume in the universe is not depleted of energy. That energy may be transformed into a particle pair with opposite charges; But the energy total of the universe remains constant. You are just shifiting energy around. If new energy came out of Hawkings radiation, Stephen Hawkings would have had to answer for crimes against thermo's second in his lifetime.

The Square-Cube Law
  • 141,440
  • 29
  • 264
  • 586
  • why is everyone having this idea that I mean a literal edge? Take this article for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/27/ask-ethan-what-does-the-edge-of-the-universe-look-like/#5304d9604a16 It talks about the "edge" of the universe and how it's not a a literal edge. The second point you talk about seems to be the energy of the void. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy. But as mentioned to preserve the second thermodynamic law when vacuum energy creates a particle an antiparticle is created as well to preserve the balance. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 09:23
  • @Demigan you assumed in the question that after one particle falls into the black hole, the other particle would mean extra energy to the universe as long as it does not collide with anything, which doesn't even make sense. Hence the discussion about void energy. As for the edge, if you don't want to be corrected about it, don't mention it. Science has no place for ironies, sarcasm etc. - whatever you say will be taken literally. – The Square-Cube Law Nov 18 '18 at 13:26
  • I wasn't clear then. I meant that if you have one particle fall into the black hole and the antiparticle flies off the energy balance of the universe remains intact. But you have more energy locally in the black hole as there's now one more particle with mass and energy inside. Because entropy is about energy "leaving" the universe one way or another until it has expanded so far that there's not enough energy for anything to happen anymore the ability to "create" a new particle locally without violating Thermodynamics would allow you to prevent entropy if you do it on a large scale. – Demigan Nov 18 '18 at 21:48
  • @demigan the thing is, that energy didn't come from nowhere. Judt like the entropy of Earth diminishes a little bit at the expense of a larger increase at the entropy of the sun. – The Square-Cube Law Nov 18 '18 at 23:31