Nov 16, 2023 04:36 PM
(This post was last modified: Nov 16, 2023 04:37 PM by C C.)
How black holes consume entropy
https://www.universetoday.com/164150/how...e-entropy/
EXCERPT: . . . Put another way, black holes are spheres of maximum entropy. Let that sink in. No matter how messy your room gets, no matter how much you deliberately or inadvertently increase its entropy, you can never, ever beat the entropy of a room-sized black hole. That fact should immediately raise some troubling but intriguing questions. Of all of the wonderful creations in the universe, why did nature choose black holes to contain the most entropy? Is this a mere coincidence, or is this teaching us something valuable about the connection between quantum mechanics, gravity, and information?
That sense of twinned unease and excitement should rachet up when you learn the second fact about black holes that Bekenstein discovered. When you add information to a black hole, it gets larger. That in and of itself is not surprising, but black holes – and only black holes – grow in such a way that their surface areas, not their volumes, grow in proportion to the amount of new information passing into them... (MORE - missing details)
Is anything absolute with relativity?
https://www.universetoday.com/164141/is-...elativity/
EXCERPTS: . . . Everything in the universe needs to know where everything else is so that gravity can act with the appropriate amount of force. And so Newton conceived of the cosmos as a vast fixed grid, a series of universal rules and master clocks, and absolute reference frame from which all other measures could be taken. (This is not meant to be taken literally, I should mention. There is no giant clock floating out there in the void of space, ticking by with absolute time, nor are there literally grids of marked rulers crisscrossing the cosmos. This is all a mathematical framework that provides the mechanisms for computing gravitational forces, but the need for that framework is paramount in Newton’s work.)
[...] But James Clerk Maxwell’s work on electromagnetism flew in the face of this universal frame of reference (although Maxwell did not realize it at the time)... If there was some universal frame of reference, some master clock and absolute ruler, as Newton suggested, then the speed of light should only be the speed that it is relative to that absolute frame, because that absolute frame is the benchmark against which to measure all motion. And so the existence of that absolute frame should allow you to move astride a beam of light and see it fixed and frozen in place.
[...] Who should win in this titanic battle of unification giants, Maxwell or Newton? ... Einstein picked Maxwell, and Einstein was right. There is no universal frame of reference, no master clock or absolute ruler...
[...] Not all things are relative; there are some constants in the universe. Namely, the laws of physics. All observers great and all, slow and fast, pointed and directionless, all observers agree on the commonality of the laws of physics... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.universetoday.com/164150/how...e-entropy/
EXCERPT: . . . Put another way, black holes are spheres of maximum entropy. Let that sink in. No matter how messy your room gets, no matter how much you deliberately or inadvertently increase its entropy, you can never, ever beat the entropy of a room-sized black hole. That fact should immediately raise some troubling but intriguing questions. Of all of the wonderful creations in the universe, why did nature choose black holes to contain the most entropy? Is this a mere coincidence, or is this teaching us something valuable about the connection between quantum mechanics, gravity, and information?
That sense of twinned unease and excitement should rachet up when you learn the second fact about black holes that Bekenstein discovered. When you add information to a black hole, it gets larger. That in and of itself is not surprising, but black holes – and only black holes – grow in such a way that their surface areas, not their volumes, grow in proportion to the amount of new information passing into them... (MORE - missing details)
Is anything absolute with relativity?
https://www.universetoday.com/164141/is-...elativity/
EXCERPTS: . . . Everything in the universe needs to know where everything else is so that gravity can act with the appropriate amount of force. And so Newton conceived of the cosmos as a vast fixed grid, a series of universal rules and master clocks, and absolute reference frame from which all other measures could be taken. (This is not meant to be taken literally, I should mention. There is no giant clock floating out there in the void of space, ticking by with absolute time, nor are there literally grids of marked rulers crisscrossing the cosmos. This is all a mathematical framework that provides the mechanisms for computing gravitational forces, but the need for that framework is paramount in Newton’s work.)
[...] But James Clerk Maxwell’s work on electromagnetism flew in the face of this universal frame of reference (although Maxwell did not realize it at the time)... If there was some universal frame of reference, some master clock and absolute ruler, as Newton suggested, then the speed of light should only be the speed that it is relative to that absolute frame, because that absolute frame is the benchmark against which to measure all motion. And so the existence of that absolute frame should allow you to move astride a beam of light and see it fixed and frozen in place.
[...] Who should win in this titanic battle of unification giants, Maxwell or Newton? ... Einstein picked Maxwell, and Einstein was right. There is no universal frame of reference, no master clock or absolute ruler...
[...] Not all things are relative; there are some constants in the universe. Namely, the laws of physics. All observers great and all, slow and fast, pointed and directionless, all observers agree on the commonality of the laws of physics... (MORE - missing details)