Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

The Universe produces entropy overwhelmingly through black holes, yet a new causal-hydrodynamic envelope shows realized growth runs four to seven orders of magnitude below the maximum that gas dynamics and causality allow.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-04 00:45 UTC pith:53F3E6XG

load-bearing objection A useful, honest entropy ledger for early black hole growth, with a central quantitative claim that rests on an envelope whose maximality is asserted rather than proved. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00297 v1 pith:53F3E6XG submitted 2026-07-31 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

How greedy is the Universe? An entropy ledger and a causal envelope for early black hole growth

Fernando Izaurieta , Cristian Quinzacara , Omar Valdivia This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO MSC 83C5783F0580A10
keywords entropy productionblack hole horizonssupermassive black holescosmic entropy budgetmaximum entropy production principlelittle red dotsdirect collapse black holescausal-hydrodynamic envelope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper replaces the vague idea that the Universe maximizes entropy production with three measurable quantities: a channel-resolved entropy production history, a causal-hydrodynamic maximum growth envelope, and an efficiency ratio F(z) between the two. It finds that black hole horizons out-produce all radiative channels by 10^16–17 at every epoch after the first seeds, yet the realized rate is only 10^-7 to 10^-4 of the envelope across 4 ≤ z ≤ 12, even after a generous JWST-era upward bracket. The paper concludes that structure formation behaves like a greedy local algorithm rather than a global entropy maximizer, and that proposed entropic teleologies fail by up to 10^16. If correct, this means entropy accounting can describe what the Universe does, but cannot explain why it does it.

Core claim

The paper's claim is that although black hole horizons dominate the Universe's entropy budget—exceeding all radiative channels by 10^16–17 at all epochs after the first seeds—the Universe never comes close to the fastest entropy-producing trajectory that physics permits. The authors define a causal-hydrodynamic envelope in which every atomic-cooling halo funnels all its gas into a single black hole at Mdot ~ c_s^3/G ~ 0.1–0.4 solar masses per year, with radiative throttling absent. Comparing realized accretion to this envelope gives F(z) between 10^-7 and 10^-4 for 4 ≤ z ≤ 12, and even a generous JWST-era upward revision of early accretion leaves F ≲ 10^-4. They further show that three entro

What carries the argument

The central object is the entropy ledger identity dS_BH/dt = 8πG k_B/(ℏc) M Mdot, which says horizon entropy grows as the accretor's mass times its accretion rate. This makes entropy production compound-interest-like: the 'capital' M is itself accumulated income, so the production rate peaks only after the most massive accretors assemble, at z≈1–2, not at cosmic dawn. The causal-hydrodynamic envelope is the fastest growth trajectory allowed by causality and gas dynamics, Mdot_envelope ~ c_s^3/G for atomic-cooling halos, with Eddington throttling assumed absent because the flow is obscured and radiatively inefficient; it reaches 10^7±1 solar masses by z≈8–10. The paper's efficiency measure is

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single atomic-cooling halo can pour its entire baryonic content into one black hole at Mdot ~ c_s^3/G with no radiative throttling; if feedback or angular momentum always fragments the gas or caps the accretion rate at something far lower, then the envelope is not the real maximum, F(z) would be closer to unity, and the claim that the Universe runs far below its own envelope loses its force.

What would settle it

Measure whether early massive black hole growth is radiatively efficient and Eddington-limited. If a clear sample of high-redshift accreting black holes (for example, little red dots) shows X-ray bright, unobscured, Eddington-limited accretion, then the envelope describes no realized population and the F(z) gap shrinks or vanishes; a direct dynamical mass measurement consistent with the envelope's 10^7±1 solar masses at z≈8–10 would support it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The Universe's entropy production rate peaked near z≈1–2 and has been declining; the epoch of maximal entropy production lies in the past, not at cosmic dawn.
  • Black hole horizon growth is the dominant entropy channel by 10^16–17 at every epoch after the first seeds, so any complete cosmic entropy budget must center on black hole accretion.
  • Even if JWST-era little red dots are confirmed as accreting black holes, the early Universe operated only about thirty times closer to the envelope, still four orders of magnitude below maximal greed.
  • The no-go results imply that channel selection in structure formation is not governed by entropy-gain weighting, and that no strong maximum-entropy-production principle survives contact with the ledger.
  • The envelope trajectory has distinctive observational signatures—obscured, radiatively inefficient, X-ray weak, red—so if little red dots are envelope-like objects, they are the first population observed while following a near-maximal entropy-producing path.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the causal-hydrodynamic envelope is not the true dynamical maximum—because feedback or angular momentum always fragments the gas or throttles accretion—then the computed F(z) underestimates the realized efficiency; a targeted test would compare the growth of a direct-collapse candidate against Mdot ~ 0.1–0.4 solar masses per year rather than against Eddington tracks.
  • The ledger's bookkeeping sensitivity—including the cosmic event horizon makes expansion, not collapse, dominate by 18 orders of magnitude—suggests that any cosmic 'purpose' inferred from entropy is an artifact of which horizon one counts, not a robust physical principle.
  • The compound-interest structure (Sdot ∝ M Mdot) is general for any accretor that retains its mass, so the same weighting should produce late entropy-production peaks in other hierarchical settings, such as black hole growth in galaxy clusters, where the timing could be checked against the present z≈1–2 result.
  • The paper leaves open whether a horizon-independent volumetric gravitational entropy increases during structure formation; computing such an entropy for a perturbed expanding metric would give a second-law test that does not depend on black hole horizons at all.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper assembles a redshift-resolved entropy-production ledger for the observable Universe, separating the black-hole-horizon channel from radiative channels, and defines a 'causal-hydrodynamic envelope' for early black-hole growth given by Mdot ~ c_s^3/G in atomic-cooling halos. From the ratio of the realized history to this envelope it constructs an efficiency F(z), finding F ~ 10^-7 to 10^-4 over 4 ≤ z ≤ 12. It also presents three no-go results against Boltzmann-style channel weighting, dissipative adaptation, and any strong maximum-entropy-production principle. The authors conclude that although black-hole horizons dominate entropy production by 16–17 orders of magnitude, the Universe remains far below the maximum it could in principle realize. The paper is careful to separate the ledger from dynamical explanation, and it explicitly flags the little-red-dot consistency claim and the ongoing mass revision as the most exposed observational components.

Significance. If the envelope could be justified as a genuine dynamical upper bound, the F(z) efficiency measure would be a valuable quantitative contribution to the debate on entropy production and the assembly of early supermassive black holes. The entropy-dominance result is robust and clearly explained: it follows from the tiny Hawking temperature of large black holes and the Soltan-normalized accretion history. The paper also deserves credit for transparent parameter-band propagation, explicit validation checks against known entropy budgets, and a clear statement that the envelope is defined dynamically rather than thermodynamically. However, the central quantitative claim—that the Universe operates four to seven orders of magnitude below 'maximal greed'—rests on an unproven maximality assumption for Eq. (5), and the late-peak claim is in part an artifact of the assumed input accretion-history shape. These issues require substantive revision before the headline conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (5); Sec. 4, Eq. (6); Abstract] The envelope is introduced as 'the fastest entropy-producing trajectory permitted by causality and gas dynamics,' but Eq. (5) is not proven to be an upper bound. Mdot = c_s^3/G is the standard Bondi/singular-isothermal-sphere accretion rate, valid under the specific assumptions of isothermal gas near the atomic-cooling temperature, efficient angular-momentum removal, no radiative or mechanical feedback, and a monolithic central collapse. Each of these assumptions can only lower the physically realizable rate; none is derived. Because F(z) in Eq. (6) is the ratio of the realized history to this envelope, the headline values F ~ 10^-7–10^-4 and the abstract's assertion that the Universe is 'far below its own envelope' are conditional on the unproven maximality of Eq. (5). Section 7.2 flags the LRD consistency claim as the most exposed component, but it does not address this more basic prem
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 6] The first stated result, that dS/dt(z) peaked at z ~ 1–2 and that the 'late peak is structural,' is partly an artifact of the input model. In Sec. 2.2, psi_BH(z) is assumed to have the Madau–Dickinson functional form, whose peak is at z ~ 1.9, and Mchar(z) is monotonically increasing with cosmic time. The product Mchar*psi_BH therefore cannot peak before the input psi_BH peak, exactly as Sec. 6 shows. This is a consistency check, not an independent derivation. To claim the late peak as a result, the authors should reconstruct psi_BH(z) directly from the bolometric quasar luminosity function and the active black-hole mass function rather than adopting a shape whose peak is an input. The entropy-dominance and F estimates are not affected by this point.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The strong-MEPP no-go result is stated as robust, but its numerical version invokes F ~ 10^-5. If the envelope in Eq. (5) is not a proven maximum, the numerical content of this no-go ('fail by factors of up to 10^16') is conditional in the same way as F. The categorical argument that local field theories cannot evaluate global optima stands independently; the authors should separate that argument from the F-based quantitative statement, and should not describe the numerical failure as a robust leading-order result without qualification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The quantity rho_BH(< z) in Mchar(z) = max[10^6, rho_BH(< z)/neff] is never precisely defined. Please state whether it is the cumulative comoving mass density assembled above redshift z, and clarify the role of neff in the text.
  2. [Fig. 2] The label 'envelope M = c_s^3/G (0.1–0.4 M_sun/yr)' mixes mass and accretion rate; it should read 'envelope dM/dt = c_s^3/G' to avoid a units inconsistency.
  3. [Table 1] The caption should define every column explicitly, particularly dS_LRD_BH/dt and the F(fid. – LRD) convention. It would also help to state why the envelope and F are omitted at z < 4.
  4. [Sec. 2.3, footnote 3] The footnote 'which, for the record, includes ... us, and the reader' is informal and out of keeping with the rest of the paper. Consider removing it or rewriting it in neutral language.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The dust-reprocessed fraction f_IR is used in the equation but defined only in the following sentence. Define it immediately before or in the equation caption.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 3] The abstract uses 'causal envelope' while the text uses 'causal-hydrodynamic envelope.' Use one consistent term throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central 'far below envelope' result is independently constructed, but the late-peak and ×30-LRD 'implications' restate model inputs.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.2 (definition of Mchar) and Sec. 6 ('Why the ledger looks the way it does')]
    "Cosmic income, ψBH(z), peaks at cosmic noon for standard dynamical reasons... Cosmic capital, Mchar(z), can only increase because black holes retain their accumulated mass. The product must therefore peak at, or after, the income peak, and not before it."

    The characteristic accretor mass was defined as Mchar(z)=max[10^6 M⊙, ρBH(<z)/neff], i.e. the cumulative integral of the same Soltan-normalized accretion rate ψBH used as the ledger input. With Eq. (1), dS/dt ∝ Mchar ψBH ≈ (∫ψBH)ψBH, so the output peak is bounded by the input ψBH peak, as the paper concedes: the late peak is 'bounded from above by the peak of the accretion history itself at z≃1.9.' The 'late peak is structural' statement is therefore a property of the construction, not an independent first-principles prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2 (LRD bracket) and Sec. 4 / Sec. 7.2]
    "we include an “LRD bracket” in which ψBH is enhanced by a factor of 30 (band 10–100) at z≳5 ... If the JWST-era censuses are confirmed, their implication in this framework is specific: the early Universe operated approximately thirty times closer to its envelope than pre-JWST extrapolations indicated."

    The factor 30 is inserted as an input from the same little-red-dot observations to which the envelope is later compared. The statement that the early Universe operated 'thirty times closer' is that input factor restated as a derived implication, so it is not an independent output of the ledger. The paper itself flags the consistency claim as 'the most exposed component' in Sec. 7.2; it is acknowledged but still an input-to-output echo rather than a test.

full rationale

The central negative claim is not circular. The realized entropy history is built from the Madau–Dickinson star formation rate, a Soltan-normalized BH accretion history, and Eq. (1); the envelope is built independently from the Sheth–Tormen mass function, the atomic-cooling threshold, and the c_s^3/G rate of Eq. (5). The ratio F(z) is therefore a genuine comparison of two independently constructed quantities, and F ≲ 10^-4 holds even without the LRD boost. The no-go results (Boltzmann weighting, dissipative adaptation, strong MEPP) are order-of-magnitude comparisons that do not depend on fitting. The two flagged steps are secondary: the 'late peak' is forced by defining Mchar as the cumulative integral of ψBH, so its location is bounded by the input accretion-history peak; and the 'thirty times closer' JWST implication restates the ×30 LRD boost inserted from the same observations. Both are presented in the text as conditional/bookkeeping, and neither undermines the independent core: the Universe produces entropy overwhelmingly through black holes while remaining far below the stated envelope. The maximality of the envelope is assumed rather than proved, but that is a validity/robustness concern, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central comparison is realized entropy production (from Soltan-normalized accretion and Madau–Dickinson SFH) against an envelope built from the Sheth–Tormen mass function and the sound-speed rate c_s^3/G. The envelope is external to the fitted realized history, so the F≪1 conclusion is not circular; however, the quantitative peak and F values depend on several fitted or hand-chosen parameters (neff, LRD boost, envelope rate range, Δt). No new physical entities are introduced — the little-red-dot resemblance is observational and the envelope is a theoretical trajectory, not a new object.

free parameters (6)
  • neff (effective comoving density of accreting BHs) = 10^-3 Mpc^-3, band [3e-4, 3e-3]
    Enters Mchar(z)=max[1e6, ρ_BH(<z)/neff] and therefore the realized dS_BH/dt and F(z); no independent measurement, chosen by hand with a propagated band.
  • LRD boost factor = 30 (band 10–100) at z≥5
    Post-hoc enhancement of ψ_BH to accommodate JWST-era estimates of little-red-dot black holes; directly raises F(z) at high z.
  • Envelope start redshift z0 = 20
    Choice of when atomic-cooling halos begin following the envelope; affects envelope masses and hence F(z).
  • Halo baryon depletion time Δt = t(z)/2
    Ad hoc choice capping the envelope mass by fb*Mh; not derived from a model of gas supply.
  • Envelope accretion rate range = 0.1–0.4 M_sun/yr
    From c_s^3/G at T≈6000–12000 K; physical in origin but the range is chosen, not computed from a specific halo model.
  • Stellar radiative efficiency ϵ_star = 7e-4
    Chosen to reproduce the local bolometric luminosity density; calibrates the starlight entropy channel.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Bekenstein–Hawking horizon entropy S=4πGM^2/ℏc and the first law dS/dE=1/T_H.
    Used in Eq. (1) for dS_BH/dt and in the dominance argument; accepted physics.
  • domain assumption Soltan argument: total accreted mass density equals local SMBH mass density ρ_BH,0.
    Normalizes the BH accretion history ψ_BH(z); standard but relies on radiative efficiency assumptions.
  • domain assumption Madau–Dickinson functional form for ψ(z) and ψ_BH(z).
    Empirical fit adopted for both star formation and accretion history; the shape of the late peak is inherited from it.
  • domain assumption Sheth–Tormen halo mass function and atomic-cooling threshold T_vir=1e4 K (Barkana–Loeb).
    Defines the halo population available for the envelope; standard tools, invoked in Sec 3.1 and Appendix A.
  • standard math Planck 2018 cosmological parameters.
    Background cosmology inputs; stated in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The envelope trajectory (obscured, radiatively inefficient accretion at c_s^3/G) is physically realizable and maximal.
    Central to F(z); assumes no radiative throttling and monolithic collapse in every atomic-cooling halo. The paper defends it with direct-collapse literature but does not prove global maximality.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How greedy is the Universe? An entropy ledger and a causal envelope for early black hole growth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53F3E6XG

@misc{pith2026260800297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How greedy is the Universe? An entropy ledger and a causal envelope for early black hole growth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53F3E6XG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00297}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The entropy of the observable Universe is dominated, by fifteen orders of magnitude, by the horizons of supermassive black holes, and gravitational collapse into black holes has often been proposed as the Universe's preferred channel of entropy production. We examine this suggestion quantitatively, and the analysis largely refutes it. Three results are presented. First, an entropy production history: the rate $dS/dt(z)$ resolved by channel, from the star formation history and a Soltan-normalized accretion history. Black hole horizon growth exceeds all radiative channels by a factor $\sim 10^{16-17}$ after the first seeds; the total rate peaked near $z\approx 1$--$2$ and has since declined; the late peak is structural, because horizon entropy production weights accretion by the accretor's mass and the most massive accretors are assembled last. Second, a causal-hydrodynamic envelope: the fastest entropy-producing trajectory permitted by causality and gas dynamics, $\dot M \sim c_s^3/G$ in atomic-cooling halos, which reaches $10^{7\pm1}\,M_\odot$ by $z\approx 8$--$10$ without radiative throttling, and whose phenomenology (obscured, radiatively inefficient, X-ray weak, red) closely resembles the JWST little red dots. The realized-to-envelope ratio defines an efficiency $F(z)$, which remains between $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-4}$ throughout $4\le z\le 12$, even under the most generous JWST-era bracket. Third, order-of-magnitude no-go results: Boltzmann weighting of collapse channels by entropy gain, dissipative adaptation applied to self-gravitating systems, and any strong maximum-entropy-production principle in cosmology all fail at leading order, by factors of up to $10^{16}$. The Universe produces entropy overwhelmingly through black holes, yet remains far below its own envelope at all times. Whatever selects cosmic structure, it does not maximize entropy production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00297 by Cristian Quinzacara, Fernando Izaurieta, Omar Valdivia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The entropy ledger of the Universe: comoving entropy production rate by channel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The causal-hydrodynamic envelope (green band: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The efficiency F(z): realized entropy production over the causal-hydrodynamic envelope, for the fiducial (Soltan-normalized) and LRD-bracket accretion histories. The shaded band propagates the normalization, neff, and envelope-rate uncertainties. The Universe runs four to seven orders of magnitude below maximal greed at all epochs. If the JWST-era censuses are confirmed, their implication in this framework… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. A. Egan and C. H. Lineweaver,A larger estimate of the entropy of the universe, Astrophys. J. 710, 1825 (2010) [arXiv:0909.3983]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Profumo et al.,A new census of the Universe’s entropy, J

    S. Profumo et al.,A new census of the Universe’s entropy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09(2025) 049 [arXiv:2412.11282]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Frautschi,Entropy in an expanding universe, Science217, 593 (1982)

    S. Frautschi,Entropy in an expanding universe, Science217, 593 (1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    C. H. Lineweaver and C. A. Egan,Life, gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, Phys. Life Rev.5, 225 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    C. H. Lineweaver,The entropy of the universe and the maximum entropy production principle, in R. C. Dewar et al. (eds.),Beyond the Second Law, Springer (2014), ch. 22

    2014

  6. [6]

    V. M. Patel and C. H. Lineweaver,Solutions to the cosmic initial entropy problem without equilibrium initial conditions, Entropy19, 411 (2017) [arXiv:1708.03677]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Layzer,The arrow of time, Sci

    D. Layzer,The arrow of time, Sci. Am.233, No. 6, 56 (1975)

    1975

  8. [8]

    Wang et al.,A luminous quasar at redshift 7.642, Astrophys

    F. Wang et al.,A luminous quasar at redshift 7.642, Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L1 (2021) [arXiv:2101.03179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Maiolino et al.,A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe, Nature627, 59 (2024) [arXiv:2305.12492]

    R. Maiolino et al.,A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe, Nature627, 59 (2024) [arXiv:2305.12492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    D. D. Vaida and R. J. Farber,Little red dots: the assembly of early supermassive black holes in the JWST era, Front. Astron. Space Sci.13, 1779045 (2026)

    2026

  11. [11]

    L. M. Martyushev and V. D. Seleznev,Maximum entropy production principle in physics, chemistry and biology, Phys. Rep.426, 1 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    L. M. Martyushev,Maximum entropy production principle: history and current status, Phys. Usp. 64, 558 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    J. E. Greene et al.,UNCOVER spectroscopy confirms the surprising ubiquity of active galactic nuclei in red sources atz >5, Astrophys. J.964, 39 (2024) [arXiv:2309.05714]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    black hole star

    R. P. Naidu et al.,A “black hole star” reveals the remarkable gas-enshrouded hearts of the little red dots, arXiv:2503.16596 (2025); A. de Graaff et al.,A remarkable Ruby: Absorption in dense gas, rather than evolved stars, drives the extreme Balmer break of a Little Red Dot at z = 3.5, Astron. Astrophys.701, A168 (2025) [arXiv:2503.16600]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    F. Zou, E. Gallo, Z. Zuo, E. Hodges-Kluck et al.,Revisiting the claim for a direct-collapse black hole in UHZ1 atz= 10.05, arXiv:2603.24893 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Rusakov, D

    V. Rusakov, D. Watson, G. P. Nikopoulos, G. Brammer et al.,Little red dots as young supermassive black holes in dense ionized cocoons, Nature649, 574 (2026) [arXiv:2503.16595]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Juodˇ zbalis, C

    I. Juodˇ zbalis, C. Marconcini, F. D’Eugenio, R. Maiolino et al.,A direct black hole mass measurement in a Little Red Dot at the Epoch of Reionization, arXiv:2508.21748 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson,Cosmic star-formation history, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52, 415 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Soltan,Masses of quasars, Mon

    A. Soltan,Masses of quasars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.200, 115 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    Shankar, D

    F. Shankar, D. H. Weinberg and J. Miralda-Escud´ e,Self-consistent models of the AGN and black hole populations: duty cycles, accretion rates, and the mean radiative efficiency, Astrophys. J.690, 20 (2009) [arXiv:0710.4488]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    Shen et al.,The bolometric quasar luminosity function at z = 0–7, Mon

    X. Shen et al.,The bolometric quasar luminosity function at z = 0–7, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495, 3252 (2020) [arXiv:2001.02696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    M. C. Begelman, M. Volonteri and M. J. Rees,Formation of supermassive black holes by direct collapse in pre-galactic haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.370, 289 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Inayoshi, E

    K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal and Z. Haiman,The assembly of the first massive black holes, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.58, 27 (2020) [arXiv:1911.05791]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb,In the beginning: the first sources of light and the reionization of the universe, Phys. Rep.349, 125 (2001)

    2001

  25. [25]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen,Large-scale bias and the peak background split, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.308, 119 (1999)

    1999

  26. [26]

    Diemer,COLOSSUS: a Python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos, Astrophys

    B. Diemer,COLOSSUS: a Python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. Suppl.239, 35 (2018) [arXiv:1712.04512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Natarajan et al.,First detection of an overmassive black hole galaxy UHZ1, Astrophys

    P. Natarajan et al.,First detection of an overmassive black hole galaxy UHZ1, Astrophys. J. Lett. 960, L1 (2024) [arXiv:2308.02654]

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Volonteri, M

    M. Volonteri, M. Habouzit and M. Colpi,The origins of massive black holes, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 732 (2021) [arXiv:2110.10175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    J. L. England,Statistical physics of self-replication, J. Chem. Phys.139, 121923 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    J. L. England,Dissipative adaptation in driven self-assembly, Nat. Nanotechnol.10, 919 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Seifert,Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines, Rep

    U. Seifert,Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    Prigogine, ´Etude thermodynamique des ph´ enom` enes irr´ eversibles, Desoer, Li` ege (1947); D

    I. Prigogine, ´Etude thermodynamique des ph´ enom` enes irr´ eversibles, Desoer, Li` ege (1947); D. Kondepudi and I. Prigogine,Modern Thermodynamics, 2nd ed., Wiley (2014)

    1947

  33. [33]

    Grinstein and R

    G. Grinstein and R. Linsker,Comments on a derivation and application of the ‘maximum entropy production ’ principle, J. Phys. A40, 9717 (2007)

    2007

  34. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Cosmological event horizons, thermodynamics, and particle creation, Phys. Rev. D15, 2738 (1977)

    1977

  35. [35]

    Penrose,The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press (1989)

    R. Penrose,The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press (1989). 15

    1989

  36. [36]

    D. Z. Albert,Time and Chance, Harvard University Press (2000)

    2000

  37. [37]

    Penrose,Singularities and time-asymmetry, in S

    R. Penrose,Singularities and time-asymmetry, in S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (eds.),General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, Cambridge University Press (1979)

    1979

  38. [38]

    Banks,Entropy and black holes in the very early universe, arXiv:2109.05571 (2021)

    T. Banks,Entropy and black holes in the very early universe, arXiv:2109.05571 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Turok and L

    N. Turok and L. Boyle,Gravitational entropy and the flatness, homogeneity and isotropy puzzles, Phys. Lett. B849, 138443 (2024); L. Boyle and N. Turok,Thermodynamic solution of the homo- geneity, isotropy and flatness puzzles (and a clue to the cosmological constant), Phys. Lett. B849, 138442 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Bousso, R

    R. Bousso, R. Harnik, G. D. Kribs and G. Perez,Predicting the cosmological constant from the causal entropic principle, Phys. Rev. D76, 043513 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0702115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [41]

    Smolin,Did the universe evolve?, Class

    L. Smolin,Did the universe evolve?, Class. Quantum Grav.9, 173 (1992)

    1992

  42. [42]

    Banks and W

    T. Banks and W. Fischler,Holographic inflation, primordial black holes and early structure formation, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D33(2024) doi:10.1142/S0218271824400017 [arXiv:2402.11527]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: the Einstein equation of state, Phys

    T. Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: the Einstein equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995)

    1995

  44. [44]

    Chirco and S

    G. Chirco and S. Liberati,Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime: the role of gravitational dissipation, Phys. Rev. D81, 024016 (2010) [arXiv:0909.4194]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    Bianconi,Gravity from entropy, Phys

    G. Bianconi,Gravity from entropy, Phys. Rev. D111, 066001 (2025) [arXiv:2408.14391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Bianconi,Thermodynamics of the gravity from entropy theory, Phys

    G. Bianconi,Thermodynamics of the gravity from entropy theory, Phys. Rev. D114, 024042 (2026) [arXiv:2510.22545]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Dorau and A

    P. Dorau and A. Much,Quantum relative entropy implies the semiclassical Einstein equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 091602 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Bianconi,The quantum relative entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole and the area law, Entropy 27, 266 (2025)

    G. Bianconi,The quantum relative entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole and the area law, Entropy 27, 266 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Clifton, G

    T. Clifton, G. F. R. Ellis and R. Tavakol,A gravitational entropy proposal, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 125009 (2013). 16

    2013

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.