Bitcoin Forum

Guys,

I have been reading a couple of papers about black holes recently. One of the articles I read was dealing with what happens to information when it enters a black hole. What the authors said was that information inside a black hole gets converted into gravitons - basically gravity. Now, take internet for example, internet as an interacting system of things is rather the opposite process. Internet is an information explosion phenomena (for the sake of relevance I will downgrade term mind to term internet). This is blowing my mind, please re-read the sentence above last if it does not work for you until you get it.

The other side of this picture is the fact that we are figuring out how to store much more information into smaller bits of matter (mass). It seems like the mass is decreasing and when mass decreases gravity follows. On this end of things, gravity is converted into information. 


I know this forum is made up of smart people. I am trying to generate some discussion around this observation that can further develop the idea and maybe develop a theory. Maybe there are people who are also thinking about this in their spare time and are better than me at math. Maybe you can suggest some good reading relevant to this topic. In any case thank you and please post something!

Do You say that in some time in future the hard drives (sorry SSD) can turn into a "white hole" that converts mass into information? The problem might be that in some time in future we get to some physical problem that no more information can be stored. Like transistors becoming too small to make them.

The black holes evaporate over time. This is not experimentally proven but might be true. So the information might be destroyed, but the mass/energy is not. Like information on LTO tape is destroyed when thrown into bonfire but the atoms of elements that tape is made continue the journey in nature. The same with black holes. They can damage all devices in proximity that hold data and even information as more general concept, but that is it. The information probably still exists inside black hole but it is unavailable outside the event horizon. The evaporation of black hole destroys the information similar like melting of LTO tape in fire. The building blocks of LTO tape in form of carbon, iron and cobalt atoms are released but there is no more Pierre Woodman porno on it.

OP probably received the package from SR and it was good! The Friday evening rullz!

I don't understand how information could be considered to have mass.

When looking at information on a hard disk, the hard disk has the same amount of mass whether information has been recorded or not.  How would a black hole be able to tell between micro-organization of bits on a hard drive platter?  It wouldn't.

I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to believe a theory such as this.

The mass and information as a concept is not related. Take for example a rock. Caveman carves a signs on the rock and rock have lost a mass but gained additional information.

And there is opposite example. The electrons have a mass. This means that flash drive with various information written have it's mass changed. This is not applicable to hard drives as they are magnetic not electron trapping.

We only have more information stored per less mass on our devices in past years. The addition of additional space to store information adds more mass to device itself. Like adding additional platter to hard drive.

Okay, well... Let's go sub atomic on this. You guys are considering information is stored in something that already has mass. You don't need something that has mass to store information. You can store information in photons or something subatomic for example.
I do not buy the argument that we are going to reach a limit. Transistors will go away something based on something else might come up or a new way massive amounts of information is handled.
Like for example quantum computer deal with way more information that classical and that deal with way more info that abacus. (Let's assume the roughly are of the same mass). So mass/size of information here is relative.
The way I understood the series of theses articles was.
If you destroy any kind of information a particle is created usually graviton.

I mean I do not know how to quantify information in terms of gravitons that's what the authors were trying to do.
I just find it peculiar that while small amounts of information are destroyed in black holes some amounts of information are created else where (mind, the internet). So, the balance here is - a black hole increases mass but reduces information and mind increases information but decreases mass (relatively speaking). Can't you see the symmetry?

Awesome Friday indeed...

Most subatomic particles have mass. Photons can be used for transmitting information, not storing it. You cannot have a bottle with light. (well I have few bottles of light beer still unopened but this is not the case, they contain a loss of information if I pass out) You still need some structure that have mass to support the storage and retrieval of information.Yes we probably do. In year 2070 Intel and Samsung will start to make SSD chips that store multiple bits per quark. If it is possible, lol. But there is some fundamental laws of physics that prevent anyone to accumulate infinite amount of information and some scientists are perfectly clear about this.Quantum computers are not here and none knows when they will be available on newegg.comDo gravitons exist? It is some time I have not updated my knowledge on quantum physics but I'm certain that this is not true at all.The black holes can destroy the information if they like. I don't care. For example tiny part of mass of nuclear material in atomic bomb is converted to pure energy when the nuke explodes. This does not mean that part of that "destroyed" mass miraculously shows up in someones arsehole. The black holes in far reaches of galaxy really are not connected to the internet!

Good one!

The universe contains infinite amount of info. Otherwise infinite loops would be impossible and you could not make a fact out of a fact.

Oh, yes, they are look up D-Wave.

Let me remind you we've just discovered Higgs... Not sure how far back your modern physics knowledge goes.

Well it does not end up in someone's asshole but it does end up in headlines and on the internet. And let me tell you it can generates a hell of a buzz... lol... There is probably more info on WW2 because of Hiroshima than on any other war.

Eyes are black holes that turn light into information.

The information still needs something to hold it. There is finite amount of atoms and stuff in observable universe. The information still need something to retrieve and process it.Are they real quantum computers or some sort of analog computers with some of properties of quantum computers? I try to keep up with latest chips from Intel and AMD but not exotic quantum stuff.I try to watch and read all available information from reputable scientific sources. I know about Higgs but they are different from gravitons that soviets proposed. I think the idea if gravitons was discarded long time ago.This blown me away. Yes it generates a lot of information but also things that does not cause a mass to energy conversion create a lot of information. The presidential elections in USA for example. Both candidates have insignificant mass like all sockpuppets have but the process of choosing between two halves of same cookie creates a lot of information from thin air.

Here is on of the the articles that got me thinking...

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/418192/gravity-emerges-from-quantum-information-say-physicists/

As far as the D-Wave PC goes, they do claim the machine they made is capable of quantum calculations.
I looked at the SDK they offer for practicing quantum programing. The included documents  contain an example that has some similarities with Shor's algorithm (Consider it a test to identify if a machine can do quantum calculations ). The people behind D-Wave are pretty deep in this and I am pretty sure are knowledgeable. It is not another perpetum mobile scam.

The claim that D-Wave does not have a quantum computer usually comes from someone who does not know anything about QM.
I do not claim to know a lot about QM but from what I know D-Wave seems legit.

Usually my thoughts about QM Computer denial are on the lines of 'we also had a difficult time accepting classical computers and once we understood how they work they all of a sudden became 'real''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UMkCQjgqw

Some creative work on what's to think of Black Holes. Oh and that work you mentioned deserves some special attention.

Nice, thanks for sharing!

There is a major fallacy within this whole argument.

The Universe is information itself. When you store information somewhere, you haven't created new information. Instead, all you've done is change the information which already existed, plus change the existing information within your brain to interpret it as being meaningful to you.

No new quantity of information is created.

What do you mean? The change itself is new information of sort "Hey, this is what changed!"

And the storage used to record that something changed is now not available to store what it was storing before. Just because you attribute no significance to the prior stored information does not mean there was necessarily a net gain in information.

Maybe I'm wrong. I suggest you read The Library of Babel, which is a short story by Jorge Luis Borges.

We probably need experts in this thread because such questions are what frontline scientists are working on now. Can someone bring attention of some real physics scientist here? Otherwise we will be forever in history as total retards talking about things that we don't understand properly. Yes, the information of our blundering will be kept in Universe!

Information is a concept, the universe is made of objects.

But aren't "objects" also a concept? I've considered the "universe is information" formulation before and found it appealing. I've also considered the possibility that the universe is consciousness. But perhaps the most we can say is that "the universe is."

1) information = inverse of entropy

2) the entropy of a closed system always increase with time (2nd law of thermodynamics)

3) the Universe is a closed system

4) There is not such law as of "information conservation" Information can be easely destroyed. Kick a jigsaw for example, or crash a harddisk by dropping it on the floor for that matter.

Are you sure about number 3?

tbh I am sure of none of these. But as far as thermodynamics are concerned, yes. And as of today, the future of the Universe is a cold place with entropy maximum and all information gone.

Maybe some place may be used as vaults to preserve some of it for some time ...

It doesn't matter what you find appealing. Objects are no concept they exist.
Information is a property of an object, interpreted by our brains. The notion that objects consist of information is ludicrous, a typical fallacy perpetrated by those who follow esoteric teachings.
It might suit their purposes but in a scientific sense it is just plain wrong.

Are You sure? The universe increases in complexity over time. So the interpretable properties of universe that someone might call information also increases.True.I'm not so sure but it is likely. The scientists does not have a definite answer about such fundamental properties of our universe but we will see.Both cases have the information preserved. jigsaw can be reassembled by examining trajectories of flying pieces. The hard drive will not be damaged by dropping on the floor. I got accident when rack collapsed and spare hard drives fell on hard floor from height of almost 3 meters. All drives tested OK. And even if the hard drive is damaged by dropping, the information is still there, only inaccessible. Of course the information can be destroyed by other means.

See Shannon.


What I think is important is to not mix models here. I know quantuum physicists have exotic models which exchange things from an Universe to another one, but I stay in a thermodynamic POV here

[/quote]

Altho I admit the dropping a HDD is a bad example, the very true relation between entropy and information needs to be understood. Information is a way to order things, entropy is the destruction of that order.

As far as 2nd law of thermodynamics goes it only applies to classically behaving things.
When you get to quantum I think this law does not apply...

2nd law of thermodynamics hold macroscopically but it is definitely not the entire picture. I think the public is completely off the chart when they say "But wait! The laws of thermodynamics!"

Take, for example, quantum entanglement, according to this....

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428670/entangled-particles-break-classical-law-of-thermodynamics-say-physicists/ (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428670/entangled-particles-break-classical-law-of-thermodynamics-say-physicists/) entanglement breaks laws of thermodynamics...

Black holes are quantum entities.

For the sake of argument let's say that entropy is actually information itself, ("Hey, this egg is broken"). If its the case then black holes decrease entropy (also information) and convert it to a simple particle of gravity (graviton, Higgs, what have you). I think it is an established thing that the more stuff goes in the more pull a black hole has.

We still have no "theory of everything" and for now our best bet is to apply laws that are applicable to the system we are talking about. Your car runs on Newtonian laws of physics and it is hard to describe your car's engine using quantum mechanics.The disorder still contains information of both current disorder and the previous order. I don't know how this relate but I think that quantity of information and entropy is not strictly proportional.Black holes have no additional gravity than the mass of black hole itself. The gravity of our Sun and the gravity of black hole with the same mass as Sun will be equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28information_theory%29

Fair coins produce greater entropy in their sequence of tosses. Unfair coins produce less entropy. Imagine a coin so unfair, all it produces is heads. That's zero entropy. It takes more bits to encode a sequence of fair coin tosses.

A fair coin will produce an image of white noise. A picture of a perfectly blue sky will only be one color, the opposite of white noise. Thus white noise has greater entropy. A picture of a single color has next to no entropy.

Which has more information? A picture of pure white noise? A picture of a pure clear blue sky where all pixels are one color? A picture of an interior with many diverse objects?

I would be disinclined to claim that the inverse of entropy is information.

I think people still use term entropy just like they did in the 19 century. They did not think about it in terms of information.

I agree with this. The more entropy there is the more information.

Did someone tried to read that Wikipedia article and the additional links? At least partial understanding can give additional sense to this discussion.

From the Wikipedia entry:

Read it very carefully (emphasis is mine).


Zero entropy is not encoding more information.

The best compression algorithms will produce a stream of data that is indistinguishable form white noise. That means it cannot be compressed any further, because white noise is not compressible. The size of your file, after perfect compression, is a good indicator of how much information lies within.

An egg on the table has structure and pattern. Assuming all eggs are exactly alike, I can convey the structure of it to you with the term 'egg'. A broken egg on the floor cannot be conveyed as precisely. I might have to use words like this: "There is a fragment of a shell 1/4" in size over here, a splattering of yoke over there, and so on."

Each broken egg is different.

Except there is no best compression algorithm. It depends on the nature of the data and the understanding of it. If I take all prime numbers within a certain magnitude and add up the corresponding oscillations with respect to the wavelength until I used up all the bandwidth the resulting signal will be indistinguishable from white noise. Still the knowledge how the signal was created makes it possible to reproduce it with just the algorithm.

Information Entropy in respect to computer science is pseudoscience, any mathematician would be laughed at if he were to represent such a non-rigorous concept.

AFAIK information cannot be destroyed. You can change its form, you can scatter it so it looks nonsensical to us, but the information is still there. In the case of dropping a harddisk, you can hardly say that the magnetic bits have vanished.

Next, when something falls into a black hole, its information is preserved. Assuming you knew PRECISELY everything that had ever fallen into the black hole, and you were willing to wait a VERY long time to observe ALL information that the black hole gives out as it evaporates, then you could THEORETICALLY reconstruct the object you lost to the black hole.

Shannon's theorems prove that information is equivalent to entropy. The entropy of the universe is continuously increasing, therefore so it the information contained in the universe. In the "heat death" scenario of the universe, in the far far faaaar future (let's say, far enough away that bitcoin keys might be cracked [anyone wanna do the calculation to see which will happen first?]), the entire universe is a uniform cloud of individual, randomly placed, particles. Since a random signal contains maximal information, the entropy of the universe will at that point be maximal.

OP should look at the "Holographic Principal". To put it briefly, imagine a pile of computer memory chips. You can imagine adding more and more chips to the pile, increasing their density, and so forever increasing the density of information in the pile. Eventually, however, the pile will be so dense that it will collapse into a black hole, and the surface area of the black hole will be directly proportional to the amount of information in the pile. In a certain sense, all the information about everything that ever fell into the black hole is "written" on the surface.  Now instead of a black hole, and consider the whole universe, and the inescapable conclusion is that we, and all our 3D universe, is actually a hologram, being equivalent to, and derivable from, information and laws governing the interaction of those quanta of information, all written somewhere, very far away, on the 2D surface enclosing the (observable) universe. Fascinating, eh? New Scientist had a great article describing it a few years ago, but it's paywalled.

Now, after that tangent, OP is confusing correlation for causation. Just 'cos transistors are getting smaller and using less mass, therefore decreasing the gravity due to a single bit of human-stored information, doesn't indicate that the lesser gravity is due to information itself somehow requiring less 'gravity', but due to humans requiring less 'gravity' in order to encode information.  Think, once upon a time you needed a 10kg stone to write 100 bytes or so (think Moses).

Finally, the amount of quantum information in the memory chip of your computer is far far far more than the bytes of memory it contains. OP should read more of Shannon's theories of informational entropy. That's the theory you're looking for. The 'internet' is not creating information. It is merely storing information (very inefficiently, at that) that is already available, if only we could somehow understand it.

Whoops! 9 new posts since I started.

Whatever your domain is, there is indeed a best compression algorithm. If the Universe is deterministic, then I suspect the best compression algorithm starts with the seed of its beginnings.

This wikipedia entry is a bit misleading. If the coin toss is truly random, then irrespective of whether it's fair or not, then there is still no way to predict the next toss based on previous tosses - each toss is still completely unpredictable. I don't know enough to say how many bits of entropy there are in a weighted coin toss; according to the definition quoted above, it would still be one bit, since there are always two possible outcomes, even if (e.g.) the coin is weighted 99% in favor of heads. But that seems a little strange since the string of bits from a 99% weighted coin would be much more compressible than a fair 50% coin.

AFAIRemember, a best compression algorithm *does* exist. However, it is either impossible, or is NP-hard, to prove that any algorithm is actually the best possible one (can't remember which).  This relates to Turing's work, and also Godel. A better expert than me is surely visiting these forums.

There is a difference between a weighted coin and a two headed coin though, which the Wikipedia article uses as an example.

Regarding coins in general, and infinite flips, I believe the important thing to note (and you alluded to it in your prior post about how informational content only changes, but still contains information) is the fact that one picture may be more compressible than another, but its capacity for information storage does not change. A 500 x 500 pixel image, whether an even blue sky, or a detailed still life, still has the same capacity for information storage. I think it's important to distinguish between capacity and content.

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with determinism. On the contrary, it actually reverses it by making assumptions about the past.

What exactly makes you draw this conclusion? I think it is rather the opposite. Information is destroyed inside the black hole actually it is the only place where destruction can happen.

You are assuming two things. 1) you definitely need mass to store information 2) there is a limit to how much information could be stored in a given amount of mass


I was not suggesting gravity decreases because information goes up. I was only stating the fact that less mass is need to store the same amount of information and hence there is a drop in gravity per. I was trying to illustrate the point that the opposite process happen in a black holes - a black hole minimizes the amount of information to increase gravity (also conversion).

Just like a black hole I guess, which merely stores gravity? According to the article information is converted into gravity. I was using term internet as a black-box term for supermind something capable to produce information. This discussion for example is the product of the internet (our minds or what have you). So yes, internet produces information.

Just to add:
The way information is destroyed in a black hole, as far as I understand it now, is.

Something enters a black hole and all the quantum information is converted into gravity.
So the following example is not applicable...


Particles as unique entities disappear. What was an electron/proton or what have you becomes gravity. So you can't go back and do "take that electron and put it back into this place". That electron is out of existence. So if you have a group of electrons that encode some information undergo a similar process. Where does the information go? (other than emerge on the internet by some mysterious process :P)

Also, thank you all for solid ideas!

It doesn't matter what I find appealing? To whom doesn't it matter? (It matters to me.) And when you say that it doesn't "matter" are you suggesting that my beliefs regarding the nature of reality are "immaterial"?  ;) (Because if so, I'd tend to agree.) Why doesn't it matter? Is it because there is an objective reality that exists separate and apart from my experience of the same? If so, how can I know that for sure given that all of my knowledge of that reality is necessarily filtered through my experience?

Are you suggesting that mind arises from matter? What's your response to those who argue the opposite, i.e. that matter arises from mind?  Have you seen this video? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119344.0 What's your response to the argument it presents?

What "esoteric teachings" are you referring to specifically? (I'd be very interested in learning more about them.  :))

Can we know that our universe is not a computer simulation?  If so, how can we know that? If we can't know that, and our universe were a simulation, would you still say that the notion that objects consist of information is ludicrous?

When you say that I'm wrong "in a scientific sense," what do you mean? Are there any senses in which I'm right?

So we get no information whatsoever out of the photons that travel to us from distant stars, right?
A lightwave traveling from a star to us is only 'transfering' infromation, but does not contain (store) it?

I think you need a wider definition of information :)

Information is that which differentiates one state from another.
So actually any system can store or transduce information.
The fact that a photon has a certain frequency is information.
Saying that it doesn't store information is ridiculous. It's very expression in this universe is defined by information!

The problem is of course that we have mass and most of our consumption of information needs to be in the form of massive particles.
Light is just not very practical as a storage medium.

In any case, transmitting information requires the system to at least temporarily store the information.

But we do not need infinite amounts of information stored in one place.
The limits you talk about are pretty extreme.
The event horizon of a black hole, for instance, can be seen as a 2D surface that contains all the information of the matter inside the black hole. But that infinetly thin layer of information on the event horizon is all there is to know about the mass (and/or energy) inside it.
If you can describe so much matter (and its energy, the same type as in a atomic bomb) by such a thin layer of two dimensional information then there is hope for storing our tiny human datasets in a small pice of matter.



But in a nuclear explosion there is no information destroyed whatsoever, it is merely converted.
If you would look at the end product (mostly energy) you could trace back how the information looked before the conversion (it looked like matter).
The whole point about this black hole stuff is that the information that goes in is not the same that comes out. So by looking at the information that comes out you have no idea what caused it.
It's like the information is put into a gigantic box of random information on one end and at the other end a random set of information appears.
It's like the best random generator in the universe! Put in ordered stuff and you get maximum disorder.

Objects are concepts.
The universe is made of possibilities.
Information describes the relation between different expressions of possibility.

Infinite loops require infinite time because of the limit of the speed of light of information.

So here you only need the idea of infinite information if you are sure the universe will exist forever.

Stephen Hawking sez so? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox):
Unfortunately you'd have to ask Hawking himself to explain it better. I looked at the proof, but it's greek to me - no offence, greeks :-)

1) you do  2) there is.
1) What else will you store it with? Please be specific.
2) The upper limit, presumably, would be encoding a bit of usable information in each of the quantum properties of, e.g., an atom or subatomic particle (so: spin, polarisation, color, etc).

The amount of information in 1kg of silicon SDRAM wafer is almost precisely the same irrespective of whether is contains Shakespeare's sonnets, or just uninitialized random junk straight from the factory. This is because each bit (for us) is made up of millions of quantum bits of information about the state of the atoms composing that single macro-bit. So, in the analogy of the coin-toss, think of each silicon nano-bit reading off either heads or tails, randomly. The infomation in the silicon is *far* greater than the additional info obtained from Shakespeare's sonnets. I mean orders of magnitude greater.
A black hole does not minimize or information, and it doesn't 'create' or 'increase' or 'store' gravity. If you want to talk about black holes, there is only one valid framework in which to do so - General Relativity. (scientists are trying to apply quantum mech. to BHs too, but not yet successful). The gravity, therefore, does not originate in the black hole, but is a 'symptom' of the bending of space-time due to the mass contained within the black hole. Incidentally, mass is one of the three defining characteristics of a black hole: mass, spin and charge. Once you know those, you know all there is to know about a black hole - just like the Pressure and Temperature of an ideal gas. You still won't know anything about the speed of individual molecules, or about the single bits of information leaked by black hole evaporation, but as far as knowing how the black hole, or ideal gas, behaves, there is nothing more to know.

Have you read any of Shannon's theories? Information is 'turned into' gravity by virtue of the fact that the information is carried by massive particles which contribute to the black hole's mass and so alter the nearby gravitational field.
Let me ask you something: does a digital camera create or merely capture information? The internet, even considering it as somehow a 'hive' mind (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts etc) isn't creating anything. "It" is merely processing and memorizing information "it" finds interesting.

Actually, the case of the broken egg *is* analogous. Imagine if we had a Super-Duper Universal Quantum Scanning Machine (SDUQSM) which could scan any specified region of space-time and store all quantum information it found there. Now let the egg roll off the table. Afterwards, we could take the information from our SDUQSM - how the egg rolled just so, how that spatter interacted just so with that molecule of gas, and then with that atom of floor, and so on.... and so on....., well, we could reconstruct the egg just the way it was before. The information is perfectly preserved in the dynamic evolution of the system.
Now let's point our SDUQSM at a black hole, and then throw an egg into it - into the black hole, that is, not into the SDUQSM, it's a very expensive and delicate machine :-)
Well, by knowing the initial quantum state of the black hole (I mean, all the information "written" on it's surface), and by observing how it behaves after the egg falls in - that is, by carefully recording all information given off as the black hole evaporates over a period of googillions of years, well, we could reconstruct the egg again.
You should read "George's secret key to the universe" by Hawking. It's a book written for children, but it does explore the possibility of reconstructing something that falls into a black hole.  The point being, the information is NOT lost or destroyed. Merely, let's say, randomized, or encrypted in a certain sense.

To be more precise, if you take all information out of a system you are left with pure entropy.
Entropy is complementary to information.
But it also depends on how you use the word.
It would maybe be more correct to say: 'ammount of usefull information = inverse of entropy' as entropy itself can still contain information but that information cannot usefully interact with its environment.

... or stays the same.
The point is that it cannot decrease.
We don't know that.
Yes there is such a law and it can be used as a basis for laws such as conservation of energy.
Kicking a jigsaw doesn't destroy information, it merely recombines existing information.
You could say that you have added a kick of your own information to the information already there.
So if you know the exact informational content of your kick then you could 'simply' subtract this from the new chaotic state and thereby recreating the pre-kick information of the jigsaw.

new jigsaw information = old jigsaw information + kick information.

Then define the word object.

Well, for one an object suggests clearly defined boundaries.
And absolutely nothing in the universe has clearly defined boundaries.
So an object is a human concept that helps us focus on certain seemingly coherent parts of reality.
There is no meaningfull definition of an object in physics.

How about something that has a location and has length, width and height?

Yeah, well there you go.
A wave has none of these and yet everything seems to be based on wavelike behaviour.
Nothing has a certain position in time.
Nothing has an exact width or height.
Things only seem that way because of how our senses work.
We are on a pretty stable scale when it comes to these things and naturally our senses evolved to measure reality on this scale.
But on the atomic and subatomic scale these ideas of position and size become blurry.

So the idea of physical objects is just a concept to describe how we perceive certain things through our senses.
It's just an abstraction.

The problem with your scanner is that it is not physical.
You cannot learn every bit of information about a system without destroying it in the process.
And only classical information is preserved in the dynamic evolution of a system.
Part of the other information goes towards entropy and becomes irretreivable.

So you can only reconstruct the egg with information you cannot ever acquire!
In other words, you would have to approximate the egg because you cannot know fully how it was before.

Yes, but the information will be perfectly decorrelated if i'm not mistaken.
You would have no idea what bit of information that came out belongs to what information that went in.
You have no chance of even beginning a reconstruction!

How so? A wave is also something that describes the property of an object, namely oscillation.

How is that relevant? Are you familiar with the concept of Real Numbers?


The only reason why subatomic particles cannot be really measured is because you would have to use other particles to do it. Doing the same thing with marbles has the same effect. But we don't even know that there are really these particles, it is just an extrapolation. You can try to describe an electron as a wave but you still would need it to be some property of an object.

@fergalish, I am actually going of the article that I linked to above. The authors are claiming that information is destroyed and gravity appears as a result of a gradient between entropies in two different places.

As far as all the posts go mobodick is closest to define how entropy and information are connected that relates.


To summarize the main article there is always an interaction going between regions of low entropy (some information) and high entropy (less information) that causes gravity to arise.

Black hole is an entity with high gravity that sucks shit in. So basically overtime the information inside a black whole would increase and rather than become a massively more gravitational singularity it would become the opposite. The accepted fact is that the more stuff goes into the black hole the more massive it becomes. So either there is not enough information information that goes in to equalize the growth or the information is destroyed on the inside.

What is oscillating in a radio wave?

-facepalm- Do you want to talk in circles again?
It is relevant because all matter has wave behaviour so none of the things we have in the universe have well defined position or dimension.
We were talking about you saying that the universe is based on objects and now that i tell you that is not true you start to walk around the elephant in the room.\
No, thats not true.
The uncertainty principle is a real phenomenon. It is not about measuring error and we know this for some time now.
Quantum mechanics realy is very very srange to us.

I urge you to do the double slit experiment with marbles...
Your marble will not interfere.
Electrons and any small mass does interfere with itself, just like the massless photon.
So mass behaves as if it is in multiple places at the same time.

To describe a wave you only need forces and time.
Is the EM field an object?
Waves don't require an object but they do need a space to 'wave' in.

In fact i would say that ANY interesting phenomenon in our universe needs both.

It is just beautifull to see how biology sits neatly between chaos and order.
Too much order and nothing can interact.
Too little order and everything falls apart.
:)

Congratulations! You just re-invented the ether. :P

Yup, that's (and i'm not kidding) the forefront of current physics.
Of course it's a different kind of 'ether' then what people normally think of.

I'm sure it is ;)

Here is a youtube video about the double slit experiment done with a needle instead of a double slit by the guy who inspired me to take part in this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

Yeah well, this guy seems like a bunch of FUD.

He got it right with the particle explanation. You shouldn't see fringes if matter was a particle.
But he is completely wrong about wave behavior.
Waves are not cut off by an obstacle, they bend around it. All waves do that naturally. Water, sound, EM all bend around corners.
If his animation was true you could not hear direct sound around a corner. But you can.
All waves bend around corners and that is why his needle experiment shows fringes.
He apparently (and propably deliberately) misunderstands wave dynamics.
His only real example of 'no interference from needle' is the blue part at 6:33 and it shows interference except it's on the bottom side.
It also doesn't show an obstacle like a needle.

His gravitational lensing thing is also bunk.
There is not nearly enough mass in a needle to bend a photon in any meeningfull way.
If there was a gravitation-like or rope-like effect we would have found out about 100 years ago.

So he misrepresents the reality of wave dynamics and then uses some far out theory to explain how he is right...
Hmm.,., havent seen that one before.,  ::)
This guy is as pseudo as they come.
He does have his own book, tho!

PS No particle physicist has considered the newtonian model of the atom for at least 50 years. But then this guy here pretends like physicists are retarded.
This is our current understanding of how an electron in orbit looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png)

Not realy an orbiting ping-pong ball, right?

So whatever he proposes tries to solve problems that were solved by conventional physics decades ago.

I do not really concur with his own theories, and the attitude toward math, but I think Bill Gaede's critique about the current establishment is very solid.
He's a very entertaining fella too :)


The problem is that conceptual ideas are often represented to be actual reality which is plain wrong. That goes both for special relativity and quantum mechanics.
We haven't actually observed a black hole or an electron, but still those concepts are often said to be actual existing objects, which is wrong.
There is soo much pseudoscience attached to the whole black-hole, big-bang thing it's almost ridiculous. And this thread just caught my eye. I should have probably mentioned Tipler's Omega Point Theory in relation to OP's topic... Just look it up... talk about pseudo  ;D

Yeah, sure, critique is cool. Just not 60 year old critique, :)
I agree that math is not reality per se.

Just don't forget that math can still predict something about reality because experiments show that our reality is governed by mathematical relations.

The point is not to reconstruct the object. The point is: the information is not destroyed. It is preserved, but completely randomized and mixed far beyond our, probably even theoretical, ability to decode. It gets lost in heat. I have to admit that I would follow Shannon's theories though - information IS entropy. So when the article you cite talks about information being erased, and so necessarily increasing entropy, I would argue that the information is preserved in the increased entropy. We simply can't decode it, though according to Hawking, it might be theoretically possible (if I understand Hawking correctly).

I looked at the linked PDF from ArXiv, but it's beyond me. I don't understand why they say "information causes gravity" when one can simply say "mass-energy causes gravity, and encodes information". Their interpretation would somehow suggest that information endows (something) with mass. Two sides of the same coin maybe? All I can say is that I studied relativity and, at the time, I even understood it. So from that point of view Occam's razor rules, and I have to accept Einstein. But I'll keep an open mind. It would be interesting to see how this info-centric view of the universe relates to string theory.

@fergalish, I do not know how the conversion process works. Maybe I am trying to descride it. I am going of a bunch of studies and looking to establish some sort of an idea exchange about the main 'what if' post which is 'black holes/internet(mind) are interrelated. Your feedback is appreciated a great deal...

Now, there is principle in the physics world called Landauer's erasure principle that states whenever a bit of information is erased energy is released. Well obviously if you think that general relavity is a solid theory you can agree that mass can be converted into energy. I am not sure if general relativity allows energy to convert to mass. For this argument let's say it does alike to situation with water and ice at 0 degrees. So if a black hole fullfills two functions one to erase information and two provides a setting for energy to become mass then I can see how information becomes gravity. This is probably the main reason I struggle to accept that information is preserved in a black hole. Maybe I am considering a different kind of a black hole something ala information sink. Once again I want to point you back to the article the heart of their idea is what happens to information when it enters a black hole.