@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.
Topic: Black Holes and The Internet (Read 3006 times)
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.
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!
@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.
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. 
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
Yeah, sure, critique is cool. Just not 60 year old critique, He's a very entertaining fella too
Quote
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
I agree that math is not reality per se.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
Just don't forget that math can still predict something about reality because experiments show that our reality is governed by mathematical relations.
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
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
Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether. 
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
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
Not realy an orbiting ping-pong ball, right?
So whatever he proposes tries to solve problems that were solved by conventional physics decades ago.
Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether.
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
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!
Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether.
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
Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether.
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.
Congratulations! You just re-invented the ether.
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.
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.
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.
How is that relevant? Are you familiar with the concept of Real Numbers?Nothing has an exact width or height.
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.\
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.
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 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.
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.
@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.
As far as all the posts go mobodick is closest to define how entropy and information are connected that relates.
if you take all information out of a system you are left with pure entropy.
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.
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.
How is that relevant? Are you familiar with the concept of Real Numbers?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.
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 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.
Something enters a black hole and all the quantum information is converted into gravity.
So the following example is not applicable...
)
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.So the following example is not applicable...
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.
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 Each broken egg is different.
)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.
Quote
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.
Yes, but the information will be perfectly decorrelated if i'm not mistaken.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.
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!
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.
There is no meaningfull definition of an object in physics.
How about something that has a location and has length, width and height?
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.
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.
Information is a concept, the universe is made of objects.
Objects are concepts.
The universe is made of possibilities.
Information describes the relation between different expressions of possibility.
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.
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.
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.
Information is a concept, the universe is made of objects.
Objects are concepts.
The universe is made of possibilities.
Information describes the relation between different expressions of possibility.
Then define the word object.
1) information = inverse of entropy
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.
Quote
2) the entropy of a closed system always increase with time (2nd law of thermodynamics)
... or stays the same.The point is that it cannot decrease.
Quote
3) the Universe is a closed system
We don't know that.Quote
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.
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.
Something enters a black hole and all the quantum information is converted into gravity.
So the following example is not applicable...
)
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.So the following example is not applicable...
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.
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 Each broken egg is different.
)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.
Jump to: