SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From WIRED, again. Sometimes they have good stuff.
In the early 1970s, people studying general relativity, our modern theory of gravity, noticed rough similarities between the properties of black holes and the laws of thermodynamics. Stephen Hawking proved that the area of a black hole's event horizon—the surface that marks its boundary—cannot decrease. That sounded suspiciously like the second law of thermodynamics, which says entropy—a measure of disorder—cannot decrease.
Yet at the time, Hawking and others emphasized that the laws of black holes only looked like thermodynamics on paper; they did not actually relate to thermodynamic concepts like temperature or entropy.
Then in quick succession, a pair of brilliant results—one by Hawking himself—suggested that the equations governing black holes were in fact actual expressions of the thermodynamic laws applied to black holes. In 1972, Jacob Bekenstein argued that a black hole's surface area was proportional to its entropy, and thus the second law similarity was a true identity. And in 1974, Hawking found that black holes appear to emit radiation—what we now call Hawking radiation—and this radiation would have exactly the same "temperature" in the thermodynamic analogy.
[...] But what if the connection between the two really is little more than a rough analogy, with little physical reality? What would that mean for the past decades of work in string theory, loop quantum gravity, and beyond? Craig Callender, a philosopher of science at the University of California, San Diego, argues that the notorious laws of black hole thermodynamics may be nothing more than a useful analogy stretched too far.
After what Hawking said about philosophy, I think that astrophysicists need a bit more perspective.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12 2019, @06:36PM (8 children)
Remember black holes are mathematical constructs.
We can see spots in the universe that act like these mathematical constructs. We are pretty sure what they do and how they will act on the outside.
Inside however is a whole different story. We can not observe inside. We can speculate. Our math points to particular things. But it is like looking at a totally sealed cardboard box with no writing on it and asking 'whats in the box' and not being able to do anything other than observe it from behind a brick wall.
a useful analogy stretched too far
Very possible or could be perfect.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 12 2019, @08:34PM (1 child)
It is like looking at a titanium sphere, three feet thick and seven feet in diameter, at the bottom of the deep ocean, from a satellite in orbit of Uranus, and asking what's going on inside.
No, actually, it's much worse than that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @11:37PM
Except, of course, having the ability to see its effects and a decent model of how it works. And what is "inside" for a black hole?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12 2019, @08:40PM
oh please, we all know schrodinger's cat is in the box.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 12 2019, @08:58PM
Based on that speculation, I would take some meatballs and red sauce with me if I were to jump into a black hole. And bring a camera to film the end of the universe.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Thursday September 12 2019, @09:11PM (3 children)
It's the sheep you asked for.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 12 2019, @09:22PM (2 children)
But the sheep will suffocate in that box!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:52AM (1 child)
That's why I drew in some black holes in the box. Shh! The sheep is sleeping.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 14 2019, @08:25AM
FOURTH WALL!! You Philistine Soylentils! Or, is it me for pointing it out?
Le Petit Prince [gutenberg.net.au]
But the crucial comment is from Chapter One:
Especially to engineers, and triply so to software engineers. Twinkle on, B-612. [wikipedia.org]