[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: [email protected]*Subject*: Bekenstein Bound*From*: Hal <[email protected]>*Date*: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 08:08:18 -0800*Sender*: [email protected]

From: Jim choate <[email protected]> > The problem I see with this is that there is no connection between a black holes > mass and surface area (it doesn't have one). In reference to the 'A' in the > above, is it the event horizon? A funny thing about black holes is that as the > mass increases the event horizon gets larger not smaller (ie gravitational > contraction). Actually black holes do have a defined surface area, which is basically, as you suggest, the area of the event horizon. And of course this is larger for more massive black holes, as you say. I believe the Bekenstein bound is based on reasoning that suggests that if the state density of a region exceeds that bound, it will essentially collapse into a black hole and be inaccessible to the rest of the universe. The surface area in that context can be the conventionally defined area. To bring this back to crypto a bit, the point of this discussion was that there can be only a finite amount of processing done in finite time by a finite-sized machine, even when QM is taken into consideration. Note, though, that this result appears to require bringing in quantum gravitation, a very poorly understood theory at present. Hal

- Prev by Date:
**Re: crypto software/papers/docs CD -- is there any interest?** - Next by Date:
**Clipper/Capstone/Skipjack excerpts from Cud 6.28** - Prev by thread:
**New MacPGP, but only in German?** - Next by thread:
**Clipper/Capstone/Skipjack excerpts from Cud 6.28** - Index(es):