• [deleted]

  • Post #7

Anton,

The idea to use this thought experiment to prove that information-based physics and relativity are incompatible, is quite original. Whether or not you have succeeded in your purpose is another question.

Let's look at one particular detail. The analysis of the thought experiment yields the equation on page 2; you then claim that this equation forms a contradiction with your axioms of information-based physics. The correctness of your proof thus depends on the correctness of the equation, and the correctness of your axioms of information-based physics.

On the right hand side of the equation, we have c²+v²/c²-v². This is a ratio between two real numbers, which is again a real number. So on the right hand side we have a real number. For the equation to be correct, the left hand side must thus also be a real number. That means that the symbols ICharlie and IBob must also be real numbers. From the text it is obvious that these symbols represent information. Thus, in your essay (or at least in the thought experiment), information is a real number. Can you give a motivation for that? E.g. in quantum physics one says that the wave function contains information. But the wave function is a much more complex entity than a real number. So could you elaborate on your choice to represent information by a real number? Or do you mean not information but the amount of information?

Best regards,

Marcoen

    Marcoen, thanks for the read and comment. The ratio ICharlie to IBob is the ratio amount of information received. The correctness of the ratio (c2+v2)/ (c2-v2) you can confirm in the appendix, equation 1 of the appendix is the text book explanation to the null result of the MM experiment, all other equations thereafter use the same principles or methodology.

    Yes, you are correct in saying that information in the context of quantum physics the wavefunction contains information. In the presented thought experiment, I take a super-ordinate view; the ratio ICharlie to IBob could be information from anything starting with information encoded in say an AM modulation signal as in communication, to the quantity of information within the numerous wavefunctions that describe each and every photon in the packet . Furthermore, if we take a simplistic view that each cycle in the "beam packet' equals one photon (machine gun principle) then ratio represents an energy ratio.

    The real discussion that I wish to stimulate is the continuation of Phillip Gibbs comment. His sentence "It should not work out that way" is an observation but not a scientific statement, what I am after is a mathematical explanation/proof, using the contemporary theories, to show that the result is indeed ICharlie = IBob, that what Philip expected.

    Joe, I am sorry that you have not fully understood my simple thought experiment, I take a complete general view what information could be and think of the information carried in a beam of electromagnetic radiation. If it is encoded by humans or carries the information of a natural process, i.e. a beam of sunlight, which contains the reality of the moment it was created . Please also read my below reply to Marcoen's comment.

    Why do you think that "The information content of the universe is constant."?

    Consider observations of early universe: lots of more or less homogeneous stuff. Now, some billions years later, there is way more structure, thus information, and at many levels, e.g. clusters of stars, and clusters of cells.

      Mikalai, It has to be constant. The Black Hole Information Paradox debate is based on this principle and great minds discussed this endlessly. If the information changes then please tell me who changes it and how it is changed.

      Er, perhaps because what is generating this 'information'-information being representation of something, ie information is not just existent, per se-is altering??

      Paul

      Paul, The information contain is a constant, the distribution is changing that is what we observe. Consider quantum entanglement, i.e the experiments of Prof Anton Zeilinger with entangled photons and quantum teleportation, the sum of information of the two entangled photons is constant, change something in one photon and by "spooky action" the other changes in opposition. The same principle applies to the universe as a whole.

      Do not mix observation with information

      Error in first sentence: The information content is a constant, .....

      • [deleted]

      • Post #15

      Anton

      "the sum of information of the two entangled photons is constant"

      Leaving aside whether this conception is valid (ie corresponds with reality), this is not information, but a physically existent characteristic, which is why you say before that: "The information content is a constant, the distribution is changing that is what we observe". As I said, information is not what is existent, per se. Otherwise the concept of information is meaningless, everything is in a sense information for us, but that is not the point.

      "Do not mix observation with information"

      Observation is the receipt of a physically existent representation (aka light) of what actually occurred. Think about that.

      Paul

      Paul, You hit the nail on the head "...everything is in a sense information for us,..." that is my point of view and that is where we agree to differ.

      However, this whole discussion misses the point of my essay.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #17

      Anton,

      Here's just an intuitive thought.

      In your thought experiment, information is encoded in a photon ray. A beam is then a number of such parallell rays. Now what if we say that the measure for the amount of information in a ray is just the number of subsequent photons in that ray. The amount of information is then always an integer.

      In your thought experiment, the device that cuts off the beam cannot split a photon. So regardless of any relativistic effects, both Bob and Charlie detect a ray with the same number of photons, say N. So then we get IBob = ICharlie = N, in agreement with Philip's comment. So if we define the amount of information as above, then the outcome of the thought experiment doesn't indicate an incompatibility of information-based physics and relativity.

      So apparently things depend heavily on the measure that we define for the amount of information. What are your thoughts on that matter?

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      Marcoen, Nice try, yes you cannot split a photon, Now consider a 1 Watt red laser, and as Energy = Planck constant times Frequency (E=h f) the number of photons per one metre beam are:

      N = (L/c)/(h f) approx 11 x 109

      ( h=6.6 x 10-34 J/s ; f=4x 1014 Hz ; c=3x 108 m/s ; L=1)

      however what I can agree with you is that the ratio is not a real number but a rational number i.e a fraction of two integers.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      Anton, the photons are light quanta, which in the thought experiment are released by Alice. Relativistic effects do not create or annihilate photons, so how can Bob and Charlie receive a different number of photons? I would say that the ratio of the numbers of photons received by Bob and Chalrie is not just a rational number, it is 1. What argument is there against that?

      Regards, Marcoen

      Marcoen, Thank you, logic tells us that relativistic effects should not alter the the light quanta in a predefined space (Bobs shutter to mirror and return) as seen from different reference systems HOWEVER the mathematics, detailed in appendix of the essay, does not confirm this - That is the paradox

      The philosophical discussion should be steered to a mathematical discussion discussing why the mathematics throws this curve ball.

      "The philosophical discussion should be steered to a mathematical discussion discussing why the mathematics throws this curve ball."

      What should be realised is that there was one definitive physical occurrence, which in doing so (ie the sequence progressing) physically interacted with something else which was not inherently part of that sequence, but which is physically existent, to create light, etc. Certain physical properties (ie constancy and speed of change, imperviousness to physical influence, etc) thereof mean that this is a representation of that physical occurrence. That is, it can be converted with a standard set of rules to reveal what occurred. Which is why sight evolved, because it gives the possessor an advantage (you can avoid being eaten/you can see a potential dinner). Light, as in what is convertible if received, is, more or less the 'same' for all recipients. Obviously, the physical entity received is not. Also light takes time to travel, so apart from environmental circumstances in each case, the relative spatial position of recipients with respect to the occurrence is important.

      The 'relativity' is not in physical occurrence. There was not a different occurrence for everything that happened to received some indication that there had been an occurrence. The relativity is in the receipt of a physically existent representation of that occurrence, aka light, which depends on relative spatial position. Which of course can alter whilst the light is travelling.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #22

      Anton,

      From your abstract: "Alternately expressed, a change of state is the result of the interaction with the information content presented by the universe. ... ."

      I'm inclined to take a smaller, though related, step: The word "state" in QM might be beneficially replaced by "state of information." A "change of state" then occurs when new information comes to hand. Thus the Bayesian idea of learning and updating from observations.

      But this still leaves me questioning your continuation: "... . Information is thus a preserved quantity; ... ."

      Am I being too concrete when I say: "Anton, here's some new information for you; just a short note to compliment you on the fine quality of your presentation. Absolutely stunning!"

      Since (even neglecting the gain that I suspect you just received), I gained information from my interaction with your information: How then, please, is information a preserved quantity?

      PS: Would you mind also telling me how you generated that presentation? For I'd like to attempt it myself.

      With best regards, Gordon

        Gordon, I appreciate your comments and compliment.

        When I think of information I divorce it from the living and thus can ask what is the information a piece of space dust receives. This takes some abstract thinking to make sense. The next step in abstraction is not to think in particles, or what I call marble theory, but to think in wavefunctions, and to describe the universe as one single wavefunction. The universe's wavefunction cannot change, however all the sub-wavefunctions which make up particles and your thoughts can change relative to each other.

        In essence, the above has been proven by the many experiments that demonstrate instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" or action (information) transfer by entangled photons.

        Therefore, if you present me with a new observation or information, in doing so you needed energy and by mere act of living, you converted or rearranged many wavefunctions. It sounds like a crackpot idea, but the more thought you give it the less crackpotty it becomes. Ask yourself the question how is knowledge programmed into the living, what we call instincts. I.e. how does a turtle that just hatched from its egg know which way to dig itself out of the sand, and once it reaches the surface what makes it seek the ocean and then as a grownup how does it navigate back to the same beach to lay the eggs for the next generation. There is one important step in this cycle; turtles being loners have no Internet or example in the species from which to learn how to reproduce, furthermore how do they meet in fast expanse of the ocean? All per pre-programmed information that does not get lost from generation to generation.

        All in all, I am trying to approach the question how it was possible for inorganic materials to arrange themselves and form the basis of life. In doing so, preconceived ideas have to be broken down, which include well-established theories.

        Now to your PS. Again thanks for the compliment. I use the free LaTeX a typesetting system that allows you to create your own style, it takes a bit of learning. I use the modern font Palatino for text and it is matched with the awesome Euler fonts for math. For an optimum reading experience it is important to limit the number of characters per line to between 50 and 60, and to provide enough white space between the lines. The sketch was done in LaTeX using TikZ & PGF. You are welcome to email, address in the essay.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #24

        1- Krausse does state the possibility that we are at the centre of the universe, but Copi et al. seemed to assiduously avoid that conclusion from the CMB multipole anomalies. Did you add geocentrism to Copi's explanations as an unspoken truism?

        2- Analysis of the MMX using Doppler shifts of the Earth's motion makes the heliocentric system mandatory... that is, makes the Sun an absolute ref frame. I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity? Can you give evidence thzt if the Earth were at rest, there would be no Doppler shifts?

          Robert, (1) If you read Krauss statement fully he carries on that the idea of heliocentrism (that is what the CMB data suggest) is absolutely crazy and if in any way I implied that Copi et al believe we are center of the universe I apologies. I, as Krauss, believe that this result suggests that there is new physics at large that we have not yet discovered.

          (2) I do not believe that we can define a center of the universe using the three dimensions we observe, for the same reason that we cannot define the center of the surface of a sphere, but that is not the subject of the essay.

          You ask: "I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity?" That basically is the subject of the essay, as stated in the title, it is paradox revealed by a mathematical analysis using special relativity transformations and Doppler shifts that give an unexpected result. Furthermore, I believe the community here has sufficient knowledge of both SR and Doppler, to address this mathematical analysis with the hope to get an explanation for this unexpected result, however everyone, who commented above, has avoided the analysis.