Black hole thermodynamical entropy

As early as 1902, Gibbs pointed out that systems whose partition function diverges, e.g. gravitation, lie outside the validity of the Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) theory. Consistently, since the pioneering Bekenstein-Hawking results, physically meaningful evidence (e.g., the holographic principle) has accumulated that the BG entropy $S_{BG}$ of a $(3+1)$ black hole is proportional to its area $L^2$ ($L$ being a characteristic linear length), and not to its volume $L^3$. Similarly it exists the \emph{area law}, so named because, for a wide class of strongly quantum-entangled $d$-dimensional systems, $S_{BG}$ is proportional to $\ln L$ if $d=1$, and to $L^{d-1}$ if $d>1$, instead of being proportional to $L^d$ ($d \ge 1$). These results violate the extensivity of the thermodynamical entropy of a $d$-dimensional system. This thermodynamical inconsistency disappears if we realize that the thermodynamical entropy of such nonstandard systems is \emph{not} to be identified with the BG {\it additive} entropy but with appropriately generalized {\it nonadditive} entropies. Indeed, the celebrated usefulness of the BG entropy is founded on hypothesis such as relatively weak probabilistic correlations (and their connections to ergodicity, which by no means can be assumed as a general rule of nature). Here we introduce a generalized entropy which, for the Schwarzschild black hole and the area law, can solve the thermodynamic puzzle.Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures. Accepted for publication in EPJ

The psychological science accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with Little-to-No concomitant benefits: Experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions

The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data