DOCSLIB.ORG

General Relativity and Its Applications 

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Relativity and Its Applications  UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI GENERAL RELATIVITY AND ITS APPLICATIONS BY DUKE MATOKE KENGURU A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED MATHEMATICS. UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, COLLEGE OF BIOLOGY AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS, DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MATHEMATICS. i DECLARATION This is my own research work and has not been presented for a degree award in any other university. SIGNATURE………………………………………DATE NAME: MATOKE DUKE KENGURU This project has been submitted with my approval as a university supervisors. SIGNATURE………………………………………DATE NAME: PROF. G. P. POKHARIYAL SIGNATURE………………………………………DATE NAME: Dr. MOINDI S. N. DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MATHEMATICS SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI ii DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my sons Kevin Kenguru Matoke, Justuce Nyarangi Matoke ; daughters F. Kemunto Matoke, Lilian Nyaboke Matoke and granddaughters Nicole Bosibori and Brianna Kemunto. Their care, patience, understanding and tolerance enabled me finish this work successfully. I thank you all and may God bless you in abundance. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank God most sincerely for seeing me through the of this course. I take this opportunity to thank my supervisor Prof. G. P. Pokhariyal for his availability, scholarly guidance, tireless efforts and interest to help me whenever I called upon him. I will forever be grateful. I am also grateful to the academic staff of the School of Mathematics, University of Nairobi, Dr. Ogana, Prof. Singh, Dr Nyandwi, Dr. Were, whose good teaching has enriched my interest in the academic pursuits. I thank Dr. Moindi for going through my project and making very relevant comments. Worth special mention is my classmates Violet and Fedli for the good company. I wish you all the best in life. I wish to acknowledge the support I received from the Dean Prof Gatere, Assistant Dean Mr Okioma, school Mathematics and workmates Mr W. Arisa Mr A. Motuka and everybody else who in one way or the other contributed to the success of this research work. May God bless you all. iv ABSTRACT Several Philosophers, Mathematicians and Physicists have in recent years tried to interpret general relativity. General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. Most of General relativity are Einstein’s predictions which were subject to interpretation. Mathematicians and Physicists have tried to test and apply the predictions. The aim of this study was to establish the tests , applications and future development of general relativity such as how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity. The study has looked at the predictions, tests and their applications. The predictions have been tested by international observatory bodies such as, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This predictions have found their applications in study of the universe. But some of the predictions have not been fully tested, their research is still on, such as, the production of gravitational waves. However, it is still an open question as to how the concepts of quantum theory can be reconciled with those of general relativity. Despite major efforts, no complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity is currently known, even though a number of promising candidates exist. iv `LIST OF ABREVIATIONS 1. LIGO: Laser interferometer Gravitational Observatory 2. ICRF: International Celestial Reference Frame 3. VLBI: Very Long Baseline Interferometer 4. GPS: Global Positioning System 5. LAGEOS: Laser Geodynamics Satellite 6. MGS: Mars Global Surveyor 7. LISA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna 8. NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 9. ESA: European Space Agency 10. GEO-600, TAMA-300 and VIRGO are Gravitational wave detectors in Germany, Japan and Italy respectively. v Contents DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................ i DEDICATION................................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ABREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................. v CHAPTER 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 1.1 General Relativity..........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Predictions of General Relativity ..................................................................................................1 1.3 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2: Evolution of General Relativity ...................................................................................................7 2.1. From classical mechanics to general relativity .............................................................................7 2.2. Geometry of Newtonian Gravity...................................................................................................7 2.3. Relativistic Generalization.............................................................................................................9 2.4. Einstein's Equations ....................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 3: Definition and Tests of General Relativity..........................................................................13 3.1. Definition and Basic Properties...................................................................................................13 3.2. Model-Building............................................................................................................................14 3.3. Tests of General Relativity ..........................................................................................................15 3.3.1. Perihelion Precession of Mercury.......................................................................................16 3.3.2. Deflection of Light by the Sun.............................................................................................20 3.3.3. Gravitational Redshift of Light ............................................................................................21 3.4. Modern Tests ..............................................................................................................................23 3.4.1. Post-Newtonian Tests of Gravity ........................................................................................24 3.4.2. Gravitational Lensing ..........................................................................................................25 3.4.3. Gravitational Lensing ..........................................................................................................30 3.4.4. The Equivalence Principle ...................................................................................................32 3.4.5. Gravitational Redshift .........................................................................................................32 3.4.6. Frame-Dragging Tests .........................................................................................................34 3.4.7. Strong Field Tests................................................................................................................35 3.4.8. Gravitational Waves............................................................................................................37 vi 3.4.9. Cosmological Tests..............................................................................................................38 CHAPTER 4: Astrophysical Applications .....................................................................................................40 4.1. Gravitational Lensing ..................................................................................................................40 4.2. Gravitational Wave Astronomy...................................................................................................41 4.3. Black Holes and other Compact Objects.....................................................................................41 4.4. Cosmology...................................................................................................................................43 CHAPTER 5: Advanced Concepts.................................................................................................................46 5.1. Causal Structure and Global Geometry ......................................................................................46 5.2. Horizons ......................................................................................................................................46 5.3. Singularities.................................................................................................................................48
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Frame Covariance and Fine Tuning in Inflationary Cosmology
    FRAME COVARIANCE AND FINE TUNING IN INFLATIONARY COSMOLOGY A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 2019 By Sotirios Karamitsos School of Physics and Astronomy Contents Abstract 8 Declaration 9 Copyright Statement 10 Acknowledgements 11 1 Introduction 13 1.1 Frames in Cosmology: A Historical Overview . 13 1.2 Modern Cosmology: Frames and Fine Tuning . 15 1.3 Outline . 17 2 Standard Cosmology and the Inflationary Paradigm 20 2.1 General Relativity . 20 2.2 The Hot Big Bang Model . 25 2.2.1 The Expanding Universe . 26 2.2.2 The Friedmann Equations . 29 2.2.3 Horizons and Distances in Cosmology . 33 2.3 Problems in Standard Cosmology . 34 2.3.1 The Flatness Problem . 35 2.3.2 The Horizon Problem . 36 2 2.4 An Accelerating Universe . 37 2.5 Inflation: More Questions Than Answers? . 40 2.5.1 The Frame Problem . 41 2.5.2 Fine Tuning and Initial Conditions . 45 3 Classical Frame Covariance 48 3.1 Conformal and Weyl Transformations . 48 3.2 Conformal Transformations and Unit Changes . 51 3.3 Frames in Multifield Scalar-Tensor Theories . 55 3.4 Dynamics of Multifield Inflation . 63 4 Quantum Perturbations in Field Space 70 4.1 Gauge Invariant Perturbations . 71 4.2 The Field Space in Multifield Inflation . 74 4.3 Frame-Covariant Observable Quantities . 78 4.3.1 The Potential Slow-Roll Hierarchy . 81 4.3.2 Isocurvature Effects in Two-Field Models . 83 5 Fine Tuning in Inflation 88 5.1 Initial Conditions Fine Tuning .
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Solutions
    Solutions to exercises Solutions to exercises Exercise 1.1 A‘stationary’ particle in anylaboratory on theEarth is actually subject to gravitationalforcesdue to theEarth andthe Sun. Thesehelp to ensure that theparticle moveswith thelaboratory.Ifstepsweretaken to counterbalance theseforcessothatthe particle wasreally not subject to anynet force, then the rotation of theEarth andthe Earth’sorbital motionaround theSun would carry thelaboratory away from theparticle, causing theforce-free particle to followacurving path through thelaboratory.Thiswouldclearly show that the particle didnot have constantvelocity in the laboratory (i.e.constantspeed in a fixed direction) andhence that aframe fixed in the laboratory is not an inertial frame.More realistically,anexperimentperformed usingthe kind of long, freely suspendedpendulum known as a Foucaultpendulum couldreveal the fact that a frame fixed on theEarth is rotating andthereforecannot be an inertial frame of reference. An even more practical demonstrationisprovidedbythe winds,which do not flowdirectly from areas of high pressure to areas of lowpressure because of theEarth’srotation. - Exercise 1.2 TheLorentzfactor is γ(V )=1/ 1−V2/c2. (a) If V =0.1c,then 1 γ = - =1.01 (to 3s.f.). 1 − (0.1c)2/c2 (b) If V =0.9c,then 1 γ = - =2.29 (to 3s.f.). 1 − (0.9c)2/c2 Notethatitisoften convenient to write speedsinterms of c instead of writingthe values in ms−1,because of thecancellation between factorsofc. ? @ AB Exercise 1.3 2 × 2 M = Theinverse of a matrix CDis ? @ 1 D −B M −1 = AD − BC −CA. Taking A = γ(V ), B = −γ(V )V/c, C = −γ(V)V/c and D = γ(V ),and noting that AD − BC =[γ(V)]2(1 − V 2/c2)=1,wehave ? @ γ(V )+γ(V)V/c [Λ]−1 = .
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hole Termodinamics and Hawking Radiation
    Black hole thermodynamics and Hawking radiation (Just an overview by a non-expert on the field!) Renato Fonseca - 26 March 2018 – for the Journal Club Thermodynamics meets GR • Research in the 70’s convincingly brought together two very different areas of physics: thermodynamics and General Relativity • People realized that black holes (BHs) followed some laws similar to the ones observed in thermodynamics • It was then possible to associate a temperature to BHs. But was this just a coincidence? • No. Hawkings (1975) showed using QFT in curved space that BHs from gravitational collapse radiate as a black body with a certain temperature T Black Holes Schwarzschild metric (for BHs with no spin nor electric charge) • All coordinates (t,r,theta,phi) are what you think they are far from the central mass M • Something funny seems to happen for r=2M. But … locally there is nothing special there (only at r=0): r=0: real/intrinsic singularity r=2M: apparent singularity (can be removed with other coordinates) Important caveat: the Schwarzschild solution is NOT what is called maximal. With coordinates change we can get the Kruskal solution, which is. “Maximal”= ability to continue geodesics until infinity or an intrinsic singularity Schwarzschild metric (for BHs with no spin nor electric charge) • r=2M (event horizon) is not special for its LOCAL properties (curvature, etc) but rather for its GLOBAL properties: r<=2M are closed trapped surfaces which cannot communicate with the outside world [dr/dt=0 at r=2M even for light] Fun fact: for null geodesics (=light) we see that +/- = light going out/in One can even integrate this: t=infinite for even light to fall into the BH! This is what an observatory at infinity sees … (Penrose, 1969) Schwarzschild metric (digression) • But the object itself does fall into the BH.
    [Show full text]
  • Hubble's Evidence for the Big Bang
    Hubble’s Evidence for the Big Bang | Instructor Guide Students will explore data from real galaxies to assemble evidence for the expansion of the Universe. Prerequisites ● Light spectra, including graphs of intensity vs. wavelength. ● Linear (y vs x) graphs and slope. ● Basic measurement statistics, like mean and standard deviation. Resources for Review ● Doppler Shift Overview ● Students will consider what the velocity vs. distance graph should look like for 3 different types of universes - a static universe, a universe with random motion, and an expanding universe. ● In an online interactive environment, students will collect evidence by: ○ using actual spectral data to calculate the recession velocities of the galaxies ○ using a “standard ruler” approach to estimate distances to the galaxies ● After they have collected the data, students will plot the galaxy velocities and distances to determine what type of model Universe is supported by their data. Grade Level: 9-12 Suggested Time One or two 50-minute class periods Multimedia Resources ● Hubble and the Big Bang WorldWide Telescope Interactive ​ Materials ● Activity sheet - Hubble’s Evidence for the Big Bang Lesson Plan The following represents one manner in which the materials could be organized into a lesson: Focus Question: ● How does characterizing how galaxies move today tell us about the history of our Universe? Learning Objective: ● SWBAT collect and graph velocity and distance data for a set of galaxies, and argue that their data set provides evidence for the Big Bang theory of an expanding Universe. Activity Outline: 1. Engage a. Invite students to share their ideas about these questions: i. Where did the Universe come from? ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawking Radiation As Perceived by Different Observers L C Barbado, C Barceló, L J Garay
    Hawking radiation as perceived by different observers L C Barbado, C Barceló, L J Garay To cite this version: L C Barbado, C Barceló, L J Garay. Hawking radiation as perceived by different observers. Classical and Quantum Gravity, IOP Publishing, 2011, 10 (12), pp.125021. 10.1088/0264-9381/28/12/125021. hal-00710459 HAL Id: hal-00710459 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00710459 Submitted on 21 Jun 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Confidential: not for distribution. Submitted to IOP Publishing for peer review 24 March 2011 Hawking radiation as perceived by different observers LCBarbado1,CBarcel´o1 and L J Garay2,3 1 Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Andaluc´ıa(CSIC),GlorietadelaAstronom´ıa, 18008 Granada, Spain 2 Departamento de F´ısica Te´orica II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain 3 Instituto de Estructura de la Materia (CSIC), Serrano 121, 28006 Madrid, Spain E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. We use a method recently introduced in Barcel´o et al, 10.1103/Phys- RevD.83.041501, to analyse Hawking radiation in a Schwarzschild black hole as per- ceived by different observers in the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Quantum Gravity on the Stability of Black Holes
    S S symmetry Article Effect of Quantum Gravity on the Stability of Black Holes Riasat Ali 1 , Kazuharu Bamba 2,* and Syed Asif Ali Shah 1 1 Department of Mathematics, GC University Faisalabad Layyah Campus, Layyah 31200, Pakistan; [email protected] (R.A.); [email protected] (S.A.A.S.) 2 Division of Human Support System, Faculty of Symbiotic Systems Science, Fukushima University, Fukushima 960-1296, Japan * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 10 April 2019; Accepted: 26 April 2019; Published: 5 May 2019 Abstract: We investigate the massive vector field equation with the WKB approximation. The tunneling mechanism of charged bosons from the gauged super-gravity black hole is observed. It is shown that the appropriate radiation consistent with black holes can be obtained in general under the condition that back reaction of the emitted charged particle with self-gravitational interaction is neglected. The computed temperatures are dependant on the geometry of black hole and quantum gravity. We also explore the corrections to the charged bosons by analyzing tunneling probability, the emission radiation by taking quantum gravity into consideration and the conservation of charge and energy. Furthermore, we study the quantum gravity effect on radiation and discuss the instability and stability of black hole. Keywords: higher dimension gauged super-gravity black hole; quantum gravity; quantum tunneling phenomenon; Hawking radiation 1. Introduction General relativity is associated with the thermodynamics and quantum effect which are strongly supportive of each other. A black hole (BH) is a compact object whose gravitational pull is so intense that can not escape the light.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big-Bang Theory AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602
    AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602 The Big-Bang theory Luis Anchordoqui Thursday, November 21, 19 1 17.1 The Expanding Universe! Last class.... Thursday, November 21, 19 2 Hubbles Law v = Ho × d Velocity of Hubbles Recession Distance Constant (Mpc) (Doppler Shift) (km/sec/Mpc) (km/sec) velocity Implies the Expansion of the Universe! distance Thursday, November 21, 19 3 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 4 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 5 To a first approximation, a rough maximum age of the Universe can be estimated using which of the following? A. the age of the oldest open clusters B. 1/H0 the Hubble time C. the age of the Sun D.
    [Show full text]
  • Firewalls and the Quantum Properties of Black Holes
    Firewalls and the Quantum Properties of Black Holes A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the College of William and Mary by Dylan Louis Veyrat Advisor: Marc Sher Senior Research Coordinator: Gina Hoatson Date: May 10, 2015 1 Abstract With the proposal of black hole complementarity as a solution to the information paradox resulting from the existence of black holes, a new problem has become apparent. Complementarity requires a vio- lation of monogamy of entanglement that can be avoided in one of two ways: a violation of Einstein’s equivalence principle, or a reworking of Quantum Field Theory [1]. The existence of a barrier of high-energy quanta - or “firewall” - at the event horizon is the first of these two resolutions, and this paper aims to discuss it, for Schwarzschild as well as Kerr and Reissner-Nordstr¨omblack holes, and to compare it to alternate proposals. 1 Introduction, Hawking Radiation While black holes continue to present problems for the physical theories of today, quite a few steps have been made in the direction of understanding the physics describing them, and, consequently, in the direction of a consistent theory of quantum gravity. Two of the most central concepts in the effort to understand black holes are the black hole information paradox and the existence of Hawking radiation [2]. Perhaps the most apparent result of black holes (which are a consequence of general relativity) that disagrees with quantum principles is the possibility of information loss. Since the only possible direction in which to pass through the event horizon is in, toward the singularity, it would seem that information 2 entering a black hole could never be retrieved.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1410.1486V2 [Gr-Qc] 26 Aug 2015
    October 2014 Black Hole Thermodynamics S. Carlip∗ Department of Physics University of California Davis, CA 95616 USA Abstract The discovery in the early 1970s that black holes radiate as black bodies has radically affected our understanding of general relativity, and offered us some early hints about the nature of quantum gravity. In this chapter I will review the discovery of black hole thermodynamics and summarize the many indepen- dent ways of obtaining the thermodynamic and (perhaps) statistical mechanical properties of black holes. I will then describe some of the remaining puzzles, including the nature of the quantum microstates, the problem of universality, and the information loss paradox. arXiv:1410.1486v2 [gr-qc] 26 Aug 2015 ∗email: [email protected] 1 Introduction The surprising discovery that black holes behave as thermodynamic objects has radically affected our understanding of general relativity and its relationship to quantum field theory. In the early 1970s, Bekenstein [1, 2] and Hawking [3, 4] showed that black holes radiate as black bodies, with characteristic temperatures and entropies ~κ Ahor kTH = ;SBH = ; (1.1) 2π 4~G where κ is the surface gravity and Ahor is the area of the horizon. These quantities appear to be inherently quantum gravitational, in the sense that they depend on both Planck's constant ~ and Newton's constant G. The resulting black body radiation, Hawking radiation, has not yet been directly observed: the temperature of an astrophysical black hole is on the order of a microkelvin, far lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature. But the Hawking temperature and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy have been derived in so many independent ways, in different settings and with different assumptions, that it seems extraordinarily unlikely that they are not real.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe
    galaxies Review The Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe Øyvind Grøn Faculty of Technology, Art and Design, Oslo Metropolitan University, PO Box 4 St. Olavs Plass, NO-0130 Oslo, Norway; [email protected]; Tel.: +047-90-94-64-60 Received: 2 November 2018; Accepted: 29 November 2018; Published: 3 December 2018 Abstract: Alexander Friedmann, Carl Wilhelm Wirtz, Vesto Slipher, Knut E. Lundmark, Willem de Sitter, Georges H. Lemaître, and Edwin Hubble all contributed to the discovery of the expansion of the universe. If only two persons are to be ranked as the most important ones for the general acceptance of the expansion of the universe, the historical evidence points at Lemaître and Hubble, and the proper answer to the question, “Who discovered the expansion of the universe?”, is Georges H. Lemaître. Keywords: cosmology history; expansion of the universe; Lemaitre; Hubble 1. Introduction The history of the discovery of the expansion of the universe is fascinating, and it has been thoroughly studied by several historians of science. (See, among others, the contributions to the conference Origins of the expanding universe [1]: 1912–1932). Here, I will present the main points of this important part of the history of the evolution of the modern picture of our world. 2. Einstein’s Static Universe Albert Einstein completed the general theory of relativity in December 1915, and the theory was presented in an impressive article [2] in May 1916. He applied [3] the theory to the construction of a relativistic model of the universe in 1917. At that time, it was commonly thought that the universe was static, since one had not observed any large scale motions of the stars.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmology and Religion — an Outsider's Study
    Cosmology and Religion — An Outsider’s Study (Big Bang and Creation) Dezs˝oHorváth [email protected] KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics (RMKI), Budapest and Institute of Nuclear Research (ATOMKI), Debrecen Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 1/46 Outline Big Bang, Inflation. Lemaître and Einstein. Evolution and Religion. Big Bang and Hinduism, Islam, Christianity. Saint Augustine on Creation. Saint Augustine on Time. John Paul II and Stephen Hawking. Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 2/46 Warning Physics is an exact science (collection of formulae) It is based on precise mathematical formalism. A theory is valid if quantities calculated with it agree with experiment. Real physical terms are measurable quantities, words are just words. Behind the words there are precise mathematics and experimental evidence What and how: Physics Why: philosopy? And theology? Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 3/46 What is Cosmology? Its subject is the Universe as a whole. How did it form? (Not why?) Static, expanding or shrinking? Open or closed? Its substance, composition? Its past and future? Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 4/46 The Story of the Big Bang Theory Red Shift of Distant Galaxies Henrietta S. Leavitt Vesto Slipher Distances to galaxies Red shift of galaxies 1908–1912 1912 Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 5/46 Expanding Universe Cosmological principle: if the expansion linear A. Friedmann v(B/A) = v(C/B) ⇒ v(C/A)=2v(B/A) the Universe is homogeneous, it has no special point.
    [Show full text]
  • BLACK HOLE THERMODYNAMICS the Horizon Area Theorem 1970: Stephen Hawking Uses the Theory of General Relativity to Derive the So-Called
    BLACK HOLE THERMODYNAMICS The horizon area theorem 1970: Stephen Hawking uses the theory of general relativity to derive the so-called Horizon area theorem The total horizon area in a closed system containing black holes never decreases. It can only increase or stay the same. [Stephen Hawking] Analogy between the area theorem and the 2nd law of thermodynamic Shortly after Stephen Hawking Formulated the area theorem, Jacob Beckenstein, at the time a graduate student at Princeton, noticed the analogy between the area theorem and the 2nd law of thermodynamics: [Jacob Beckenstein] The total area of a closed system never decreases. Entropy: logarithm of the number of ways you can relocate the atoms and molecules of a system without changing the overall properties of the system. Example of entropy: toys in a playroom (Thorne, pg. 424) Extremely orderly: 20 toys on 1 tile This playroom floor has 100 tiles, on which the kids can arrange 20 different toys. Parents prefer the toys to be kept in an extremely orderly configuration, with all the toys piled on one tile in one corner, as shown. There is only one such arrangement; the entropy of this configuration is thus the Number of equivalent rearrangements = 1; logarithm of 1, which is zero. entropy = 0. [This and next two slides courtesy of D. Watson] Entropy in a playroom (continued) Orderly: 20 toys on 10 tiles Parents might even accept this somewhat less orderly configuration: 20 different toys on 10 specific tiles. But there are lots of different equivalent arrangements (e.g. swapping the positions of two toys on different tiles produces a different arrangement that’s still acceptable): 1020 of them, in Number of equivalent rearrangements = 1020; fact, for an entropy value of “entropy” = 20.
    [Show full text]