Dark Energy, Dark Matter

[uwot]

I wonder whether we are accelerating at approximately 10m/s/s?

Well, if you have fallen out of the window then yes.

[attofishpi]

I wonder whether we are accelerating at approximately 10m/s/s?

Well, if you have fallen out of the window then yes.

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

[uwot]

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

[attofishpi]

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Haha. Welcome aboard. I've been thinking about this of late and am reminded of a conversation we had over coffee.

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy. The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

[uwot]

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy.

Well, at the level that it matters, information is essentially topography - the wiggles and wrinkles in space. Whether they get crushed out of existence is a moot point. It kinda depends on whether the density of a black hole is infinite, which in my book is gibberish - not to be confused with untrue.

The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The weird one who prefers rich tea to digestives? His name is Leonard Susskind.

[attofishpi]

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy.

Well, at the level that it matters, information is essentially topography - the wiggles and wrinkles in space. Whether they get crushed out of existence is a moot point. It kinda depends on whether the density of a black hole is infinite, which in my book is gibberish - not to be confused with untrue.

The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The weird one who prefers rich tea to digestives?

What's that all about then?

His name is Leonard Susskind.

Cheers.

[uwot]

...the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The weird one who prefers rich tea to digestives?

What's that all about then?

You've been out of the country too long, me old mucker; everyone knows plumbers prefer digestives to rich tea.

[attofishpi]

...the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The weird one who prefers rich tea to digestives?

What's that all about then?

You've been out of the country too long, me old mucker; everyone knows plumbers prefer digestives to rich tea.

lol
I hope next time we have a beer there are some more philosphers with us!

[Astro Cat]

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Yes, there'd be some radius at which something would appear to be accelerating away at 10 m/s^2 (but nobody would feel this since it isn't a proper acceleration). As you noted

It's complicated as well because gravity can directly counteract objects going along with the Hubble flow, so for instance there may be no point near a galaxy where an object would go 10 m/s^2 with the Hubble flow (because where it "would" fall is within a gravitationally bound zone).

[Age]

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Yes, there'd be some radius at which something would appear to be accelerating away at 10 m/s^2 (but nobody would feel this since it isn't a proper acceleration). As you noted

It's complicated as well because gravity can directly counteract objects going along with the Hubble flow, so for instance there may be no point near a galaxy where an object would go 10 m/s^2 with the Hubble flow (because where it "would" fall is within a gravitationally bound zone).

But 'it' is NOT actually complicated AT ALL.

'it' only APPEARS to be complicated, to some of you. But this is because you are just LOOKING AT things Wrongly or Incorrectly. As evidenced and PROVED by some of the comments and claims that are made.

[Age]

The way 'it', or what is sometimes called 'gravity', works is just through and by 'magnetic energy'.

It is all VERY SIMPLE, and EASY, REALLY.

[Astro Cat]

I don't think the building is tall enough for what I am envisioning.

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Haha. Welcome aboard. I've been thinking about this of late and am reminded of a conversation we had over coffee.

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy. The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The Holographic Principle is tricky and I barely understand much about it because I do not have a full QFT class under my belt yet (it's not offered except on the coasts, but a few of us are going to take one remotely). There is a weird consequence of some of the earliest thermodynamic evaluations of black holes where Hawking proposed a hard positive energy condition (coming straight from GR, but can be thought of as a consequence of the fact that despite being really weird degenerate matter, black holes are still composed of matter). It would be possible to extract energy from a black hole under a few exotic circumstances (one of the most famous/first proposed is the Penrose process).

This was a problem because the possibility of a black hole shrinking due to the Unruh effect/Hawking radiation would have amounted to violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking worked out that the Second Law isn't really violated if considering some constant of proportionality between entropy and (area)/(h-bar)*(gravitational constant) with a value of exactly 1/4 such that any change in (entropy + A/4(h-bar)G) is greater than or equal to zero.

In extraction processes like the Penrose process, energy is theoretically extracted by lowering something down to the black hole: in the Penrose case to take some of the angular momentum of a spinning black hole, etc. Well, when Hawking and Bekenstein worked out the constant of proportionality mentioned above, it meant that you can hover a box of size R and energy S < 2piER and get any closer to the horizon than R. This is now called the Bekenstein Bound.

That has the profound consequence that the most entropy that can be contained in a surface area A is proportional to A/4 (Planck units).

t'Hooft took this further and argued that the quantum states in a finite region must be encoded on the boundary of that region rather than a volume (and indeed, it's been suggested by at least one person I know of -- Lee Smolin -- that some quantum computation won't be helped by building into the third dimension, I don't remember where I read him speculate on that but I know that he did). It's already a consequence of earlier, more classical black hole thermodynamics that we know the entropy of a black hole is associated with the area (not the volume) of the event horizon.

Susskind came along and tried to make a little more sense of what it means to have a hard entropic limit in a finite space. He basically pointed out that it doesn't matter whether there's something about the universe that "doesn't like" >A/4 entropy in an area because if you tried to put >A/4 stuff in an area, you'd just end up with a black hole, which would reduce the entropy down to A/4, which would mean that you were never able to put >A/4 "stuff" there in the first place by reductio ad absurdum.

[Astro Cat]

The way 'it', or what is sometimes called 'gravity', works is just through and by 'magnetic energy'.

It is all VERY SIMPLE, and EASY, REALLY.

That is fractally wrong, though -- wrong at every level of magnification. What gave you that sort of idea? Electromagnetism is a completely separate force than gravity.

[Age]

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Haha. Welcome aboard. I've been thinking about this of late and am reminded of a conversation we had over coffee.

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy. The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The Holographic Principle is tricky and I barely understand much about it because I do not have a full QFT class under my belt yet (it's not offered except on the coasts, but a few of us are going to take one remotely). There is a weird consequence of some of the earliest thermodynamic evaluations of black holes where Hawking proposed a hard positive energy condition (coming straight from GR, but can be thought of as a consequence of the fact that despite being really weird degenerate matter, black holes are still composed of matter). It would be possible to extract energy from a black hole under a few exotic circumstances (one of the most famous/first proposed is the Penrose process).

This was a problem because the possibility of a black hole shrinking due to the Unruh effect/Hawking radiation would have amounted to violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking worked out that the Second Law isn't really violated if considering some constant of proportionality between entropy and (area)/(h-bar)*(gravitational constant) with a value of exactly 1/4 such that any change in (entropy + A/4(h-bar)G) is greater than or equal to zero.

In extraction processes like the Penrose process, energy is theoretically extracted by lowering something down to the black hole: in the Penrose case to take some of the angular momentum of a spinning black hole, etc. Well, when Hawking and Bekenstein worked out the constant of proportionality mentioned above, it meant that you can hover a box of size R and energy S < 2piER and get any closer to the horizon than R. This is now called the Bekenstein Bound.

That has the profound consequence that the most entropy that can be contained in a surface area A is proportional to A/4 (Planck units).

t'Hooft took this further and argued that the quantum states in a finite region must be encoded on the boundary of that region rather than a volume (and indeed, it's been suggested by at least one person I know of -- Lee Smolin -- that some quantum computation won't be helped by building into the third dimension, I don't remember where I read him speculate on that but I know that he did). It's already a consequence of earlier, more classical black hole thermodynamics that we know the entropy of a black hole is associated with the area (not the volume) of the event horizon.

Susskind came along and tried to make a little more sense of what it means to have a hard entropic limit in a finite space. He basically pointed out that it doesn't matter whether there's something about the universe that "doesn't like" >A/4 entropy in an area because if you tried to put >A/4 stuff in an area, you'd just end up with a black hole, which would reduce the entropy down to A/4, which would mean that you were never able to put >A/4 "stuff" there in the first place by reductio ad absurdum.

Talk about imaginations running wild, and being based solely upon on 'that' what is essentially nothing more than just assumptions or guesses about what only might be true anyway.

[Age]

The way 'it', or what is sometimes called 'gravity', works is just through and by 'magnetic energy'.

It is all VERY SIMPLE, and EASY, REALLY.

That is fractally wrong, though -- wrong at every level of magnification. What gave you that sort of idea? Electromagnetism is a completely separate force than gravity.

Can you see the 'electromagnetsim' word absolutely ANYWHERE in what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE?