On 12/5/2013 5:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else,
except that
the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't
understood.
So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it wouldn't be
"visible" if you could zoom in on their microscopic processes (whatever they are), in
much the same way that you can't see the entropy of a collection of molecules by looking
at the molecules themselves, but only by looking at statistical properties of relatively
large numbers of them?
That's my understanding of it.
If so, that implies some sort of complicated large-scale organisation on the event
horizon, as I believe some string theorists have suggested. (I imagine it also has
implications for the Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle.)
Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea. Just above the event horizon, within a few Planck
lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell in are spread over the surface and
their degrees of freedom account for the entropy. But the same information also falls
into the singularity - which violates the no-cloning theorem. I think Susskind holds
that's this is OK since nobody can see the violation. But it's far from settled. The
problem is that QM says information should be preserved but GR says it should be lost in a
BH. It's widely assumed that GR is wrong and a quantum theory of gravity will show
information somehow comes out with the Hawking radiation.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
