|
Post by carnyx on Feb 7, 2011 19:13:26 GMT 1
STA
I shall leave it to others to point out the many errors in your post. However I will point out that they all arise from your massive failure to comprehend this Physical Fact;
...that time, and information, rely on the comparison between events emanating from TWO separate sources of events.
And so your mind is unable to see the obvious consequences.
Why is that? Some kind of censorship at work?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 2:48:14 GMT 1
Nope, still the same empty rubbish! You just have no idea what information is.
If my errors are so glaring, how come you leave it to others to point them out? Answer: Because you obviously can't do it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 11:24:46 GMT 1
STA
The mere existence of a physical object is NOT information UNLESS and UNTIL the data encoding the physical attributes of the object, has been communicated as a series of events that have affected the state of a dynamical system.
To which you say;
So you DO accept the idea that time, and information, are both event-based phenomena!
And so, as an event can be defined as an amount of energy, it can also be defined as a mass via a well-know equation. And so, information and also TIME can be quantified in terms of mass.
Having accepted the idea of an event, you respond with this amazing volte-face;
Apart from the obvious equivalencing of energy, mass, length, time=
e = M.c^2 and so e/M = C^2 and also M = e / c^2
There is this even more amusing set of equivalencing, which those who had the benefit of an earlier standard of state education will remember;
But you miss my whole point, which is that time cannot be measured below the shortest event that can be physically observed .. which right now is at gamma ray frequencies. This means that time can be practically quantised as a length via the gamma wavelength, and so can be equivalenced to other properties.
And for mass, if you look at the definition of a coulomb, it shows that time really can be equivalenced to mass, as well !
Such is the nature of a quantum world ...
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 11:38:14 GMT 1
All I know about information is that the current scientific consensus is that it cannot be destroyed. So, even if you burn a book the information that went to make up all the symbols, paper and so on is still preserved somewhere in the universe. It was proposed by Stephen Hawking that information disappeared inside a black hole but that idea has now been discredited.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 12:31:49 GMT 1
Abacus,
This could only be true if information was somehow equated to energy ...... QED?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 13:22:58 GMT 1
Abacus, This could only be true if information was somehow equated to energy ...... QED? Well, yes, obviously energy is a crucial part of the picture since all matter contains it.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 15:41:16 GMT 1
Nope. E = mc^2 means that you can relate units of energy to units of mass, but that DOESN'T mean you can relate time to mass, since the c that appears in the equation, although a speed (distance/time) is not a variable speed -- it is instead the speed of light, which is a unique speed that sets the scale for relating our units of mass to those of energy. It doesn't relate units of time to units of mass.
what the speed of light does do is set a scale to relate units of time to units of length, hence lightyear as a distance, lightsecond and so on.
It is quite simple to see how light CAN'T be used to relate time to energy somehow, since we can have light with DIFFERENT frequencies (which is 1 over time), yet they all travel with the same speed. Hence no go there.
Plancks constant, which relates the frequency of light (1/time) to the energy of a photon of that frequency DOES relate energy (of light) to time in that sense. But all it does is give, for a given energy, the wavelength or frequency of a photon with that energy. Its NOT the same sort of equivalence as you get for energy and mass, which says that energy and mass are different ways of measuring the SAME thing. But time and energy are different concepts. The fact that there happens to be a constant of nature which has the units of energy times units of time isn't the same sort of relation.
I think this is where you have got confused -- the quantum scale of events is USED to find the length scales\energies\times on which we expect quantum gravity effects to be important, but this ISN'T the same as saying that time can be 'equivalenced' to mass.
I'd like you to explain how units of information (measured in bits) can be related to energy then.............How does 010 (3 bits) mean energy................
Wrong. energy is conserved, but so is electric charge, and momentum, and angular momentum. This DOESN'T mean that momentum can be 'equivalenced' to energy, or any of that rot!
It just means there is a structure to the laws of physics such that energy is conserved (actually, that physics doesn't depend on where you are in time). A separate symmetry (physics doesn't depend on position in space, or in which direction you happen to place your axes), gives conservation of momentum and angular momentum. And the specific form of the laws of quantum theory gives the information conservation bit. Why should we assume there is only ONE conserved thing, hence anything that is conserved must be 'equivalenced' to that?
It's rot, and just totally misunderstands the physical meaning of conservation, as do statements about all matter 'containing' energy.
No, you are mixing up and misunderstanding the what is the scale arguments of quantum gravity (which were only ever back-of-the envelope, to give a rough idea of the probable actual scale anyway!).
You have also mixed up what is physically observable, and what )or whether) there is a fundamental limit on the maximum energy of a photon (and if there were, it would certainly be way above gamma rays!). So, if soace and time were actually discrete, then that means there is a smallest length scale, hence minimum photon wavelength, hence maximum photon energy. But this is just a guess! And you can use other physical arguments -- which is where I came in, a maximum energy content per unit little cube of the universe, if discrete, else that would spontaneously form a black hole.
Which now means I can kind of see where you got these warped ideas from -- you didn't understand the quantum gravity/holographic universe stuff however many threads back it was.
Saying we can relate scales of energy to scales of time, using quantum processes is a DIFFERENT thing to mass/energy equivalence (which says not just that the units can be related, but that both are different ways of measuring a SINGLE thing). Whereas time and energy are different things entirely, even if we can use the quantum scale to relate times and energies for quantum events.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 17:43:01 GMT 1
In all that barely concealed hysterical stuff, there is this;
Let us consider the situation where you want to impart information to me;
1. Information is defined as the communication, via a series of events, of a stimulus that will affect the state of a dynamical system.
2. Events are defined as changes of physical states. At basis, a physical change of state involves the absorbtion or emission of energy.
3. The state of an event in a series can only be determined by reference to the state of an event in a second series.
4. So, the transmission of your 3 bits of information will involve the transfer of energy to make a minimum of 2 changes of state .. PLUS the 6 changes of state involved in creating the three reference events.
5. And, for the reception of your 3 bits of information, I will also have to transfer energy to make the 6 changes of state to create the three reference events, plus the two changes of state of the '1' bit.
6. In summary, the transmission of information has also involved the transfer of energy. 7. It must therefore be possible to quantise the minimum energy required to transmit, and to receive, information
OK?
(BTW, if you wanted to send me a continual series of 10101010 ... why, between us we would have a means of telling the time .. i.e. a clock. So time and information share the same properties, including teh energy thing, don't they!)
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 8, 2011 18:35:16 GMT 1
STA The mere existence of a physical object is NOT information UNLESS and UNTIL the data encoding the physical attributes of the object, has been communicated as a series of events that have affected the state of a dynamical system. To which you say; So you DO accept the idea that time, and information, are both event-based phenomena! And so, as an event can be defined as an amount of energy, it can also be defined as a mass via a well-know equation. And so, information and also TIME can be quantified in terms of mass. Having accepted the idea of an event, you respond with this amazing volte-face; Apart from the obvious equivalencing of energy, mass, length, time= e = M.c^2 and so e/M = C^2 and also M = e / c^2 There is this even more amusing set of equivalencing, which those who had the benefit of an earlier standard of state education will remember; But you miss my whole point, which is that time cannot be measured below the shortest event that can be physically observed .. which right now is at gamma ray frequencies. This means that time can be practically quantised as a length via the gamma wavelength, and so can be equivalenced to other properties. And for mass, if you look at the definition of a coulomb, it shows that time really can be equivalenced to mass, as well ! Such is the nature of a quantum world ... This is very interesting and something that I have not considered before As you say e = mc 2therefore: c =(e/m) 1/2but c = ds/dt therefore ds/dt =(e/m) 1/2therefore dt/ds = ([(e/m)] 1/2) -1therefore dt = ([(e/m)] 1/2) -1ds therefore t = {Integral}([(e/m)] 1/2) -1ds t = s([(e/m)] 1/2) -1 +k Therefore it does indeed seem that time has the dimensions of energy (J) and m (kg) as you say Very interesting
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 18:35:51 GMT 1
You fall even before the first hurdle -- you are confusing information, and the TRANSMISSION and reception of information.
when it comes to energy, you also mix up the energy needed to SEND the message, and the energy involved in writing or storing the information.
Except that is trivial! I could send binary information as a photon circularly polarised either left or right -- two distinct states of the photon. But for those two states, I could theoretically have the photon energy as low as I liked, itb would still be transmission of the information. Nor is it a CLOCK -- succesive bits still mean the same, as long as the ORDER is maintained, whether or not I send them at regular intervals.
The ACTUAL relation behind all this is the information storage capacity of a physical state, as the holographic universe thread explained. It is not some daft linkage between time and information, or information and energy, based on misunderstanding all of them, which is all you have achieved so far....................
Wrong. You can have multiple states with the SAME energy. Like two photons of the SAMe frequency (hence energy), just with different polarisation states. Two distinct states, 1 energy.
This all reduces to -- energy moves about when you do stuff. Time means stuff changes, hence time needs energy. You need energy when you send information, hence information is linked to time and energy..............................Which is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 18:53:16 GMT 1
#
It's not interesting, just shows how easy it is to come out with nonsense when you know algebra (ie how to manipulate symbols), but not what those symbols MEAN when you are trying to manipulate them!
So, c here ISN'T ds/dt unless you mean by that is the position and speed of a light ray in vacuum. Which is pretty boring since it is a CONSTANT! Like pi, except it is a physical rather than a mathematical constant.
Hence the original equation MEANS that energy is proportional to mass for anything, and the particular constant of proportionality is the speed of light. It DOESN'T mean that there is any sense in integrating this, since the s and t refer to ANY light ray in vacuum (which could have been a million years ago across the other side of the universe), whilst the E and m refer to the electron I happen to be studying, or the entire earth. There is hence no physical meaning to linking these events far apart in space and time, apart from the totally trivial one that s/t is the SAME for ANY light in vacuum. Hence you might as well take natural units, where c is defined as 1, and then it reduces to E=m, without any NONSENSE about time being related to energy.
E=m that is all it MEANS physically, anything else is just redefining units, such as if you measured mass in terms of double-decker buses, and energy in terms of the energy you needed to heat a pint-pot of water by 13.7666 degrees centigrade. It just changes the constant of proportionality, which in the SI case just happens to be lightspeed in metres per second. but could as well be my house number, if I liked!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 19:09:44 GMT 1
Rubbish!
E = mc^2
m is in kg, c is in metres per second. Hence energy, we can deduce, has units of kilogram meter squared by second squared.
Or in ordinary parlance, 1 joule (which happens to be the energy units being used in this equations), is 1 kg m^2 s^-2
Which DOES NOT say that time has the dimensions of energy and mass, just that time has the dimensions of length times (kg/J)^{1/2}.
Except we could have deduced this without Einstein, we just have to say that kinetic energy is mass times speed squared to get the same result. Or that F=ma, and energy is force times distance (1 joule is 1 Newton meter). neither way do we get time and energy having the SAME dimension, just that because of the way we define force and energy, and relate them to mass and speed and distance and time, the units are related.
Related is not the same as 'equivalenced' as the idiots seem to think!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 20:03:17 GMT 1
This is TRIVIAL. All it says is that:
Take the energy content of one electron.
Take the mass of one electron.
If I know take a distance, the time I get out of your equation is the time it takes light to travel that distance -- nothing to do with the electron, just a trivial consequence of the fact that the constant or proportionality between the units of mass and units of energy in SI units happens to be the speed of light.
If we workedin units where the speed of light was one, then we'd just have E=m, and s=t for light, job done. But the 'time equation' would tell us trivially that light travels one lightsecond in a second, which is hardly surprising................
Except ds/dt is only first-order, and TRIVIAL in that it is constant, and that constant is lightspeed. Hence we have the totally trivial result that for light, s = s0 + ct, which is a daft way of saying -- light travels at lightspeed.
WHY would anyone encourage Carnyx in his delusions.............
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 20:50:20 GMT 1
Well, STA,
Perhaps as you don't like my definition of information, which seems to have fogged your brain to the point where we can practically see the smoke!
(I'd get the English circuits checked if I were you; ... but here is an idea... get your mate Jean to translate my stuff into German and back again, or French or even Latin, and backwards, ... to avoid your frequent and dangerous misunderstandings )
Anyway perhaps you would inform us of your definintion of 'information'?
I will then proceed to make the same points.. only then you MIGHT be able to grasp what I am actually saying, instead of some self-induced cafard.
And, it has obviously not crossed your mind that the storage of information still requires the elementary Transmission and Reception processes I outlined earlier ... both of which rely on two streams of events ... i.e CLOCKS.
QED old girl!
(But I see you are wedded to the idea of Time as an absolute physical quantity. You cannot see that it is just an invention .... by the brains of MEN, haha!)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 20:54:15 GMT 1
Storage doesn't require transmission, and transmission doesn't require equally-spaced events (hence no clocks), just that all stuff travels at the same speed, so that what I sent out first gets there first.
As I said, Humpty-Dumpty, except you don't know what you mean precisely, and it certainly doesn't agree with the mathematical definitoin, hence you'd better just stickl to talking to yourself........................until they come to take you away.
|
|