> This behavior is exceedingly non-intuitive, at least to me.

I've been thinking about the notion of the Bekenstein Bound lately, and I'm not really sure how accurate the whole idea is. There seems to be a few problems with it, and I don't get the sense that it is a particurly heavily studied problem in the physics community (compared to something like general relativity or QFT).

For one thing, nobody is certain that "actual" black holes exist. What I mean by this is a black hole where matter has actually fallen into it. Instead, the matter approaches the event horizon at an increasingly slower pace for an observer until at some point in time it is effectively frozen an infinitesimal distance from the event horizon (but still not in the black hole). In this sense, of course the information content is proportional to the surface area of the black hole.

(I should note that mathematically, "effective" black holes and "real" black holes end up having the same properties and behavior; they'd be indistinguishable to an observer).

Another problem with the Bekenstein Bound is that quantum states aren't localized to a volume of space. You can't just hold up a beach ball and say "What's the maximum information content of this beach ball?". Why? Because you can't just have a wavefunction of just "the beachball". It's a pretty good approximation, but what about the electron-electron correlations at the edge of the beach ball? And what if the spin of an electron within the beach ball is entangled with an electron outside of it? The information describing that particular quantum state is then delocalized.

Don't count on finding big misconceptions here: in fact, questions about black hole entropy and the Beckenstein bound are some of the most intensely studied topics in theoretical physics today. Not that we understand the answers! But these issues are very near the heart of questions about quantum gravity.

As for your question about "actual" black holes, I think you may be missing some pieces of the puzzle, and I don't have the time to chat about them at length here. But one important point is that while outside observers may see infalling matter appear to stall out an infinitessimal distance from the black hole horizon, the standard classical or semiclassical result is that an actual infalling observer would pass through the event horizon without noticing anything special about it at all. (For a stellar-sized black hole, they would probably have already been ripped apart by tidal forces at that point ("spaghettification"), but that's unrelated to the horizon. For a truly massive galaxy-sized black hole where tidal forces are small at the horizon, the observer wouldn't notice anything special at all as she crossed the point of no return.) There is at this moment a massive debate raging in the particle physics community about whether quantum gravity effects might lead to a "firewall" at the horizon of a black hole that would change this story, but I don't think the question is settled yet.

As for localization of quantum states and information, again, all I can tell you is that people have been studying those issues a lot, too. The details of entanglement of states inside and outside a black hole are closely tied in with the current "black hole firewalls" debate that I mentioned earlier, for instance. So don't make the mistake of thinking that the physics community has neglected this sort of issue!

So I take my cubic meter and divide into 100^3=10^6 1cm^3 segments, and store 10^66 bits in each one. This brings me to 10^72 bits in the 1m^3 volume. Does something stop me from doing this? Or take it the other direction, store 10^66 bits in 10^6 little cubes and just stack them up. What gives?

See, that's the fun part. If you try to pack in more information than given by these limits, you inevitably form a black hole (and then you lose access to those individual cm^3 regions, and your plan falls apart).

How so? Those 1cc-cubes all have the same exact density, and placing them together does not affect/change the density of the formed object (the 1m-cube).

For what you're saying, they would have to be so massive and dense (in the first place) that they would gravitate-in any matter placed near them (to then form a black hole).

But does that even hold true when you run the numbers to see if that "max-info" 1cc-cube is anywhere near the required mass (given it's volume of 1cc^3) to form a black hole?

One of the confusing issues here is that there is not a single, constant density necessary for the formation of a black hole. Instead, the Schwarzschild radius of a (potential) black hole is proportional to total mass. That means that as you increase its mass, the actual radius of a sphere of constant density grows only as m^(1/3) while its Schwarzschild grows much faster as m^1.

Thus, as you pile up more and more of your identical 1cc cubes, the size of the pile will grow more slowly than the size of its Schwarzschild radius. As soon as you add enough cubes for the Schwarzschild radius to exceed the actual radius, the system must inevitably form a black hole.

I think that this behavior is directly related to the information density limits that we've been talking about, but certainly the end result is the same: piling up lots of similar stuff in one place will eventually lead to gravitational collapse.

Looks like a glitch in the Matrix to me.

Information contained in a cubed meter should be equal to information contained in 100^3 cubed centimeters (the number of cubed centimeter parts in a cubed meter).

But it's not.

Does your object have to be spherical? (Is it because of the black hole thing?)

A real 3D object has an infinite surface area anyway (just like a real 2D object has an infinite perimeter/circumference). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

So if your computer is made out of atoms then it has an infinite information capacity.

To quote from that very article:

> However, this figure [infinite perimeter] relies on the idea that space can be subdivided indefinitely. This fiction—which underlies Euclidean geometry and serves as a useful model in everyday measurement—almost certainly does not reflect the changing realities of 'space' and 'distance' on the atomic level.

I saw that, but it's not really accurate.

A subatomic particle has a physical size of zero (the "size" of a particle is essentially the range of the forces it participates in, but the spatial size is zero), so depending on how you measure it (i.e. which forces) you can get an area that really is infinite.

Since the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, it is probably better to note that the maximum entropy of a black hole seems to scale with mass squared, instead of being proportional to the mass as in an ideal gas. But this can sort of be understood by noting that ( using a really badly flawed model of black holes) the minimum energy states are all occupied and to add matter, it needs to sit at a energy proportional to the mass of the black hole. Additionally, arguing about black holes assumes that we can not get any information out of the computer.

The thing I've always wondered about here is how we distinguish between information density, and our ability to calculate information density. How can we tell the difference between the limits of our mathematics, and the actual limitations of the universe?