On 11/6/2013 5:16 PM, LizR wrote:

On 7 November 2013 14:06, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote:## Advertising

On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:That's very interesting. I'm afraid I can't quite see what is meant by the entropy of the universe being maximal but not the local entropy. There is a claculation showing that the entropy in a sphere is less than maximal /until /the sphere equals the Hubble volume. This is where my understanding breaks down. This is the sort of thing I was trying to explain - badly I expect - in my last post. How can the entropy of a small sphere be non maximal if the entropy of the entire observable universe is maximal (I referred to "information" but entropy is probably better).Because the entropy density is roughly constant and depends on the number of different quantum fields. So the entropy within a volume is proportional to the volume. But the Beckenstein bound is proportional to the bounding surface area. So for small spheres the maximum possible entropy can be much bigger than the BB; but as you consider larger spheres the entropy due to particle fields goes up as the cube of the radius while the BB only goes as the square. So at some size the former catches up with the latter. And this happens roughly at the Hubble radius; which suggests it may be more than a coincidence.Yes it does rather. The BB is (I believe) supposed to specify the maximum possibleentropy (or information) that can physically exist within a volume - so the fact thatthe BB for the Hubble sphere equals the calculated entropy within it implies that theuniverse couldn't contain any more information than it does, or equivalently that theentropy is maxed out overall. Or that the universe is a black hole, or that theexpansion parameter (or whatever it's called) is exactly 1. Or something along thoselines. I'm still not sure I understand how we can have local pockets of low entropy ifthe universe is at maxium entropy overall, though. And what happens when the hubblesphere expands, as it is doing?

`You're confusing the *observable universe*, i.e. the Hubble volume, the sphere relative to`

`us whose surface is being carried away at c due to the expansion of spacetime. This is`

`NOT *the universe*. It's a tiny part and it's defined relative to us or relative to any`

`other point. The universe is very likely infinite. Observationally we can only say it's`

`at least 251 times bigger than the observable universe (because it's so nearly flat). The`

`Hubble volume is like a black hole in that things come into it but nothing inside can`

`leave because it's boundary moving away from us at c. But it's not a black hole because`

`it doesn't contain a singularity.`

Brent

Sorry to be so dense but I fear my brain may be not big enough to contain thisparticular proof.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EverythingList" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toeverything-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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6810 - Release Date: 11/05/13

-- 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.