Genady

Doesn't matter. It might be not interesting to some, but it was interesting to me.

They did "post something interesting..."

They did.

Thanks. So, it is just the increasing pressure. I think what confused me was that they didn't mention pressure, only compression.

Actually, not "more", and "higher energy" but not "higher levels". They occupy the same energy level numbers, but as the available space gets smaller, the separation between the levels gets larger, i.e. the same n-th level has a higher energy. This is how I understand it qualitatively.

I think this is right. The energy of squeezing goes into pushing neutrons to occupy more and higher energy levels. But, back to the OP, why would the photons resist compression?

Yes, it did not. But because neutrons are heavier, they can be squeezed into smaller spaces. Gravity does not overcome the exclusion principle either. But it is strong enough to push the neutrons to higher energy levels, which is the way to obey the Pauli.

I don't think so. EDP and NDP resist compression because electrons and neutrons are fermions and obey Pauli exclusion principle. But photons are bosons and happily occupy the same state.

Thank you! I'm glad I didn't need to watch that video. This was easy 😉

Thank you. I'm glad you like the idea. OTOH, I'm sorry, but I can't watch a 35 min video because of my APD. If it exists in writing somewhere...

Could you show that calculation here? Perhaps then we can discuss its merits. Maybe there are 1029 different ways of a technological civilization to arise. Probability of each specific one is 10-30, but probability of one of them arising is then 1/10.

How do you know that they are "he"?

I think you could try first converting the polar coordinates to cartesian. Then you could use the existing theory of 3D rotation of cartesian coordinates. Then, convert back from cartesian to polar.

Yes, it is.

If you copy and paste the URL address from your browser, then you are not.

And it is much better in writing than an audio-visual. For me anyway.

Yes, it goes deep ... and into the parts of mechanics with which I'm mostly unfamiliar. The main point is, H does not correspond to an equilibrium state until it reaches the minimum, and thus its decreasing does not correspond to the thermodynamic entropy increase. However, the initial value of H corresponds to an equilibrium state before constraints are removed. The final value of H corresponds to a new equilibrium state, after the decrease of H. This difference between the initial and the final values of H corresponds to a difference in thermodynamic entropy between the two equilibrium states. Thus the inconsistency is removed. Banzai!

I like that the book starts with complex analysis. And I like the no-nonsense style. For comparison, the style of A. Zee's books is repulsive to me.

The textbook, Mathematics for the Physical Sciences by Leslie Copley, which costs $100+ in a hardcover edition, is FREE for Kindle. This was the author's intent. From the Foreword:

Nothing like this has been found in connection with schizophrenia AFAIK: Scientists identify overgrowth of key brain s | EurekAlert!

Math and physics are full of instances when common words from everyday language are used in a new sense. I don't think it is productive to be attached to any one meaning. Natural languages also have such instances, called homonyms. It doesn't generally confuse people using them.

If you are asked to draw an equilateral triangle with the area 1 m^2, will you draw a square?

No, you cannot draw m^2. You can draw a geometric shape, but m^2 is not a geometric shape. You can draw a square. It has various properties such as area, perimeter, sum of angles, etc. These are numbers. You do not draw them.

The book that has been mentioned by @studiot earlier (Lemons, Don S.. A Student's Guide to Entropy) has a paragraph about time-dependent entropy:

Plus 50,000 years that takes the photons from the core to reach the photosphere.