Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how a living being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately people recognize intuitively order or disorder in agreement with what would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms. It seems that the filtering of information that is not relevant and to deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures. A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details, can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting patterns. The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level of coarse graining - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing between the thermodynamic coarse-grained idea of entropy and the (presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible, that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels, one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important here?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
As far as I remember, the entropy of the black hole is measured in absolute terms. that is, taking the information from the most fundamental level, at the Planck scale. But the entropy of a jar is relative to the jar broken state, not absolute. The example of a gas is more clear than the one of the jar, which is full of traps: A hot gas that is cooled suffer a decrease of entropy measurable by a thermodinamical formula or a change in the partition function using statistical mechanics, whatever you like, , But this decrease is relative. There is no aim to measure absolute entropy.in statistical mechanincs, the zero of entroy is at temperature 0. conisidering the atoms as points. but this is just a model upon which calculate relative states of entropy. But this decrease is the same that if it were calculated in absolute terms, since the extra entropy beelow the ground state cancel out. delta H= (H +HF) -(H2-HF) here HF is the information that is not considered below the ground state up to the planch level. H is the termodinamical information.. Since HF does not vary (the atoms stay as atoms) it cancel out when calculating differences of entrophy or information) For the same purpose, we can considerate other ground states to calculate increases or decreases of entropy or information. For example in a logic gate we can consider as ground state the gate discharged, with no regard for temperature changes, or more accurately, the gate at a certain temperature. Then the gain or loss of information is easily calculable. 2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how a living being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately people recognize intuitively order or disorder in agreement with what would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms. It seems that the filtering of information that is not relevant and to deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures. A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details, can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting patterns. The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level of coarse graining - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing between the thermodynamic coarse-grained idea of entropy and the (presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible, that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels, one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important here?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
I think with black holes there's a physically natural coarse-graining
defined by the no-hair theorem which says that in classical general
relativity, the only distinguishing characteristics of black holes are
mass, charge and angular momentum, they bear no other traces of the
particular configuration of matter that formed them (of course this may
change in quantum gravity, since Hawking radiation might contain
information about what fell into the black hole). So I think a black hole's
entropy would be defined in terms of the number of possible microstates in
quantum gravity compatible with a black hole of a given mass, charge, and
angular momentum.
More on the no-hair theorem here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
On Thursday, December 5, 2013, LizR wrote:
On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona
agocor...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'agocor...@gmail.com');
wrote:
I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is
how a living being select relevant information from the environment for
their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the
activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is
computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately
people recognize intuitively order or disorder in agreement with what
would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms.
It seems that the filtering of information that is not relevant and to
deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures.
A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details,
can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain
jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also
unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life
needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting
patterns.
The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level
of coarse graining - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like
entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so
on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much
more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing
between the thermodynamic coarse-grained idea of entropy and the
(presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible,
that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels,
one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important
here?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'everything-list@googlegroups.com');
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 12/5/2013 2:35 AM, LizR wrote: On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how a living being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately people recognize intuitively order or disorder in agreement with what would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms. It seems that the filtering of information that is not relevant and to deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures. A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details, can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting patterns. The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level of coarse graining - so how does one assign it entropy? If you consider the phase space of the dust you see that the vase corresponds to only a small part of that and so has a lower entropy. Of course from the thermodynamic standpoint both of these are only tiny parts for statistical mechanics phases space that considers the configurations and momenta of molecules and atoms. It seems like entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much more fundamental than that. It's thought to have an entropy because the surface area, in the classical approximation, acts like and entropy (non-decreasing) and then Hawking showed a BH should have temperature. Together the two imply a BH has microscopic degrees of freedom. It seems to me that there is something missing between the thermodynamic coarse-grained idea of entropy and the (presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible, that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels, one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important here?) The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't understood. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't understood. So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it wouldn't be visible if you could zoom in on their microscopic processes (whatever they are), in much the same way that you can't see the entropy of a collection of molecules by looking at the molecules themselves, but only by looking at statistical properties of relatively large numbers of them? If so, that implies some sort of complicated large-scale organisation on the event horizon, as I believe some string theorists have suggested. (I imagine it also has implications for the Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 12/5/2013 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't understood. So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it wouldn't be visible if you could zoom in on their microscopic processes (whatever they are), in much the same way that you can't see the entropy of a collection of molecules by looking at the molecules themselves, but only by looking at statistical properties of relatively large numbers of them? That's my understanding of it. If so, that implies some sort of complicated large-scale organisation on the event horizon, as I believe some string theorists have suggested. (I imagine it also has implications for the Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle.) Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea. Just above the event horizon, within a few Planck lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell in are spread over the surface and their degrees of freedom account for the entropy. But the same information also falls into the singularity - which violates the no-cloning theorem. I think Susskind holds that's this is OK since nobody can see the violation. But it's far from settled. The problem is that QM says information should be preserved but GR says it should be lost in a BH. It's widely assumed that GR is wrong and a quantum theory of gravity will show information somehow comes out with the Hawking radiation. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 6 December 2013 14:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea. Just above the event horizon, within a few Planck lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell in are spread over the surface and their degrees of freedom account for the entropy. But the same information also falls into the singularity - which violates the no-cloning theorem. I think Susskind holds that's this is OK since nobody can see the violation. But it's far from settled. The problem is that QM says information should be preserved but GR says it should be lost in a BH. It's widely assumed that GR is wrong and a quantum theory of gravity will show information somehow comes out with the Hawking radiation. I read something about an elephant falling into a black hole and being in an eternal superposition - one elephant on the event horizon and one crushed in the singularity, the idea being that this was a quantum superposition and both states were equally real. (It was probably in New Scientist...) All sounds a bit postmodern. I think the idea was to do a Schrodinger's cat on black holes, and bring out something paradoxical about our understanding of them (with apologies to Kermit). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 04 Dec 2013, at 03:17, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? It would help to close the circles, and to understand where the quantum information can be explained in elementary arithmetic. The thought experiment is of the deduction type. No amount of facts can change it, but those facts can give help to progress. How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? By deriving the physics from machine's psychology as UDA shows the necessity to do. What do you want more than what I have already explained? The problems are now math problem in arithmetic. Not sure about what you seem to miss. Perhaps the FPI, like most scientists. Are you OK with all steps in the UDA. This really should answer your question. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no entropy increase and no heat. Feynman already outlined how this would have to be done in quantum computers. I think the problems are far from solved. Black holes, in the semi-classical approximation seem to destroy information and there are various proposals for preserving the unitary evolution of quantum mechanics, but none that are completely satisfactory. Brent What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no entropy increase and no heat. But if it's reversible then there is no irreversible change in information either (such as what you'd get if you erased information) and Landauer's principle still holds true. So if you make a irreversible change in information you make a change in a physical quantity (like heat), and if you make a irreversible change in a physical system (like rotating something in 3 dimensions) you change the information it encodes. What more would you need to be able to say that information is physical? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
Yes not to speak so ignorantly, but what particle caries heat, in the same sense that photons carry e-m, the boson, radioactivity, the proton, essentially the strong force, and the graviton-gravity aka mass. Is there a Heat on, the wiggle of the neutron, using lots of photons to carry heat? -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Yes there is no loss of information at the lowest level, that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across thispost over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there isno entropy increase and no heat. Feynman already outlined how thiswould have to be done in quantum computers. I think the problems are far from solved. Black holes, in the semi-classical approximation seem to destroy information and thereare various proposals for preserving the unitary evolution ofquantum mechanics, but none that are completely satisfactory. Brent What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
The heat is measured in terms of energy. and this energy is proportional to the agitation of the particles. But a single particle moves. It is not hot. it´s energy is 1/2 m v2: Its cinetic energy. when you have zillions of particles of a gas or a liquiid or a solid in a recipient, it has heat proportional to the mean cinetic energy of these particles by a constant discovered by Boltzman. He used ordinary statistics to derive it. That was the foundation of statistical mechanics. Entropy is also a macroscopical magnitude, like heat. there is a statistical way to calculate entrophy by calculating in which way we can arrange N particules in different speeds and positions compatible with each observable macroscopical state. that is called the partition function. Leonard Susskind has lectures on statistical mechanics and explain all of this. 2013/12/4 spudboy...@aol.com Yes not to speak so ignorantly, but what particle caries heat, in the same sense that photons carry e-m, the boson, radioactivity, the proton, essentially the strong force, and the graviton-gravity aka mass. Is there a Heat on, the wiggle of the neutron, using lots of photons to carry heat? -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
A good exposition. It doesn't address the questions of the alignment of thermodynamic, radiation, and spacetime expansion though. This paper may be of interest: Arrows of Time in the Bouncing Universes of the No-boundary Quantum State James Hartle http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Hartle_J/0/1/0/all/0/1,Thomas Hertog http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Hertog_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 9 Apr 2011 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1733v1), last revised 16 Apr 2012 (this version, v3)) We derive the arrows of time of our universe that follow from the no-boundary theory of its quantum state (NBWF) in a minisuperspace model. Arrows of time are viewed four-dimensionally as properties of the four-dimensional Lorentzian histories of the universe. Probabilities for these histories are predicted by the NBWF. For histories with a regular `bounce' at a minimum radius we find that fluctuations are small at the bounce and grow in the direction of expansion on either side. For recollapsing classical histories with big bang and big crunch singularities we find that the fluctuations are small near one singularity and grow through the expansion and recontraction to the other singularity. The arrow of time defined by the growth in fluctuations thus points in one direction over the whole of a recollapsing spacetime but is bidirectional in a bouncing spacetime. We argue that the electromagnetic, thermodynamic, and psychological arrows of time are aligned with the fluctuation arrow. The implications of a bidirectional arrow of time for causality are discussed. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.1733v3.pdf Brent On 12/4/2013 3:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes there is no loss of information/at the lowest level,/ that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Speaking with rigurously as far as i can, the information depends on the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed day by day, tean after team, player after player yo will have more and more detailed states. In Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter where the atoms are individual, not in the form of plasma the statistical mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate. But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care. However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:21:32 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Speaking with rigurously as far as i can, the information depends on the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed day by day, tean after team, player after player yo will have more and more detailed states. In Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter where the atoms are individual, not in the form of plasma the statistical mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate. But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care. However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows. Even if you have the total information at every state, what does it really tell someone who wants 'information about New York City?' Without smuggling in top level correlations, we can't answer even simple questions like 'What's a nice place to eat?' or 'are New Yorkers rude?' To me, it is clearly the 'levels' which are more primordial and more informative than the theoretic invariances across the levels. Without the aesthetics, information is no different from entropy. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought
Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/ over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no entropy increase and no heat. Feynman already outlined how this would have to be done in quantum computers. I think the problems are far from solved. Black holes, in the semi-classical approximation seem to destroy information and there are various proposals for preserving the unitary evolution of quantum mechanics, but none that are completely satisfactory. Brent What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
