Comments on: Where Does the Entropy Go?

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:07:01 +0000

What if the singularity is only a theoretical point, which cannot exist due to uncertainty, and the physical whoville is the area just at the surface of this singularity. Consider if data is the basic “stuff” of the universe, then the Bose-Einstien condensate would be the coherence of data around the singularity, and would fluxuate. This quantum flux would cause occasional decoherence and a reshuffling of the data. Some data would become particles, some energy and some space according to its density. The space would then dirft away, carrying its informtion. This would also explain the fact that black holes seem to put space between themselves and their environment over time.

By: ¿Dónde va la entropía? « Pasa la vida

¿Dónde va la entropía? « Pasa la vida — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:50:07 +0000

[...] traducido y posteado en Ciencia Kanija, el origunal se publicó en Discover y su autor es Sean [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:10:53 +0000

Could this be how universes give birth?

By: Plato

Plato — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:02:24 +0000

And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!

When Susskind used the elephant in his gedanken experiment he was bringing us up to date. We are not so blind anymore relying on gut feelings?

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

See: The elephant and the horizon Are we then not exploring the region of quantum gravity? Best,

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:45:40 +0000

Extremely interesting! I wish that my mentor Feynman was around to discuss this. I hate to bug Kip Thorne, who’s such a busy guy. The two things most fascinating to me in your paper:

(1) there is a different kind of inaccessible subset of space-time that mere light cones and event horizons suggested originally;

(2) there is a discontinuity in what one naively expects to be a continuous function, in a way sharper even than phase change.

The series of refereed papers by myself and professor Philip V. Fellman which cite you and discuss you at length about Quantum Cosmology (one presented next month in Shanghai at Complexity2009) are leading us to search for yet another GR solution, near the end of time / beginning of time, where spacetime has two relatively inaccessible subsets. Another description is that the solution bifurcates, and by what basis do we say that one is physical and the other nonphysical?

This is both a Physics problem, and a metaphysics problem. In the subset of the late Caltech prof Fritz Zwicky on “Ideocosm” — Space of all mathematical theories: What topology?
How do we make a hyperplane or hypersurface to separate the physical theories from the nonphysical theories within the space of all mathematical theories?

p.s. I like “Whoville” and yes, blogs have an advantage.

By: Moss

Moss — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:58:15 +0000

Mathematical constants do not exist in spacetime, they exist in notime. BH becomes metaphor for notime. If there are different stages or aspects of BH then different mathematical constants evolve for each. From that perspective, external to the BH, as Je pense points out, mathematical constants might hold that make a case for the flat universe to be another aspect of the BH. N’est ce’pas?

By: Je pense, donc je suis

Je pense, donc je suis — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:10:45 +0000

It still sounds like a lot of hand waving.

I built a naive model once where I treated an EM charge as the cause of the cosmological constant. In that model, the interior volume of the universe was electrically neutral and all the excess charge went to the “surface” of the universe (which I never bothered to define). The like charge on the surface of the universe was repulsive and the surface was pliable, so this caused expansion.

Although horribly interesting, in the end you realize that there is a lot of arbitrary reasoning when building such a model.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:24:50 +0000

@Big Vlad: Thanks for explaining it as a ‘thought experiment’. I completely get the value of those, I now have the context I was lacking, and my question is completely answered. Nice. It can be difficult for me (dated technical edu) to keep up–think of a currently sporadic Sky and Telescope reader, for instance, who used to do ATM stuff, the odd asteroid occultation timing or AAVSO report, etc. 30 years ago.

I have a lot of reading to do, including lurking rather than posting here. So I need to stop that. But I have to put one more thought out there for disconnected ATMs and/or amateur astronomers. Catching up doesn’t suck; catching up is *wonderful*.

By: Dale B. Ritter, B.A.

Dale B. Ritter, B.A. — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:36:00 +0000

The concepts of quantum and relative, RQ, science are central to the grand unified theory for particles, fields, and waves. These have solutions for GT timespace integral atomic wavefunctions by expansion and differentiation of the atom’s Schrodinger equation of relativistic, quantized states. Quantized symmetry integrated into the psifunc produces the set of heat capacity energy particles of psi’s E(QT).
The quantum physics CRQT function network has support from the Clough Essays in Quantum Mechanics, Commercial Infotools, Graphics, and discussions of symmetopol imaging as a reality in modern data processing techniques; all online at http://www.symmecon.com .

By: Stepping Back a bit… Yet more on Seven Soldiers « Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:08:40 +0000

[...] This article has changed that. I always knew, of course, that black holes do strange things to entropy and information (once you’re in an event horizon, you can *only* move towards the singularity. That means that moving forward in time is equivalent to moving towards the singularity. As the ‘arrow of time’ is a thermodynamic one, that means that moving towards the singularity is equivalent to increasing in entropy. That’s a hopeless oversimplification, but it’s sort-of right). [...]