Essay Abstract

Information has been known for a comparatively long time as a concept in science. However, it has yet to enter mainstream theoretical physics as an entity which can be computed, and which can lead to meaningful experiments. The purpose of this essay is to discuss how to deal with the physics of info in the Information Age. It also engages the questions of how to define information, and what its true nature is. It is hoped that the essay will bring the concept of data closer to those thinkers familiar with it philosophically but not mathematically, or in a new way to those with expertise in their field. If nothing else, may it excite in the reader a happy and speculative laugh or two!

Author Bio

I am currently a undergraduate physics student. I play music or do art regularly on the side. I hope to finish a degree in Sweden, if I am lucky enough to complete what is necessary for this plan.

Download Essay PDF File

The tests or experiment that you are referring to is the Michelson-Morley Experiment, with was done at the turn of the 19th century. This was meant to sort out the Maxwellian notion of constant speed of em waves, that was opposed to the idea of directional aether drift. So the idea was that by having a crisscross set up like a letter x, light would slow down in some direction and go faster in a another, and that could be measured. So this was the buzz at that time when results (from any experimenters) were null.

But today, the concept of a carrier of light and motion is best expressed in General Relativity, where space time fabric, takes the physiological place of the old Newtonian aether. So, following this line of thought, experiments Today must try to detect the presence of space time behavior. Such experiments would be testing for a non-negative vacuum expectation value. To date, I know of no with meaning full results, so you have me there! I just wanted to express the pyschological from old to modern, and then suggest that today, if there have been any tests, the results have no evidence for this aether idea. Can you think of any such experiments currently going on in science, or a way to detect a vacuum expectation value?

I hope I cleared up what I meant in that sentence, and I could have been more clear. It's more of a suggestion if the reader happened to pick up on the possibilities of other tests for aether. Which you did! Thank you for bringing up the good point.

William

"For example, when two particles collide and shoot off in different directions, measuring one necessarily changes the state of the other, by information alone."

How does this occur then? Assuming that what you say did occur, for the sake of the argument, how does measuring (observing/whatever) alter the physical circumstance, which has already occurred?

Paul

Hello Paul!

This is a great question, thank you for asking! The major interpretation of the incompleteness of the quantum state or theory is posed in the well known Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paper of the 1930's. In its more generally talked about form, the main or basic argument in that paper is know as the EPR parodox. Basically what the paper said was that if you have a quantum state with two particles, measuring one of them renders the other one unable to be determined. So the one not measured or observed is affected by non-classical interference. This was particularly disturbing for some scientist when the experiment that a beam of light was split by a slot, and measuring one particle some made the other one indeterminable. It ties into the uncertainty principle idea. But anyway these authors wrote a pap that said Q.M. is incomplete because it makes one particle unmeasurable by determing values for the other; it does not give the whole picture.

However, there is evidence to state tentatively that old A. Einstein saw the situation a little differently, yet still agreed enough with the other two scientists to do the work. This other view is that two particles interact so that they can be regarded as having the same properties after this striking, whatever those may be. Then they are seperated physically by some means do that they are very distant from each other, say at the non-local span. Because of uncertainty, messing one particle for one value means another measurement cannot be successfully made again on that same particle. Supposing that the two particles are linked still by their mutual interaction at the get go, this renders the second, as-of-yet-not-measured particle unable to give a value after measurement. So the system woul be incomplete because on measurementof a particle, spacially distant, makes a second particular not measurable. The main idea of my sentence was to give the physical interpretation of this scenario as since one doesn't measure twice one particle, measuring a particle once which is "attached" to a second is just like measuring that second particle. As determing one value, say velocity or something, changes the physical state of that particle, this equates into a distance particle changing the state of another, by (extraction of) information alone, if interpreted physically.

So the exacts are still a little fuzzy on the verification of whether this is true. But simply, if interaction makes two particles the same initially, and then later a change to one somehow changes the second, it is equivalent to the second changing from the initial to a final, which is just like the measurement changing that interaction which already occurred. Since that took so much to explain, it's has more room for error, but I hope you see the logic now, however phrased.

The main concern is finding new interpretations of this rather dated EPR experiment. We must offer new thoughts to the old problem so it can be solved. I attempted to offer another one.

Best,

W. Amos Carine.

    Hello William,

    Just a comment on above comment. I will advise you get your degree first before saying anything contrary to what your lecturer believes so as not to put your career in jeopardy.

    1. The M-M expt used the earth surface as a turntable to discover earlier or later arrival of light signals. It found no difference (so called isotropy of light speed). The rotating turntable here is both for orbital motion and earth rotation.

    2. Another experimenter, Sagnac used another turntable, this time earth-bound and found anisotropy, i.e. differences in light arrival corresponding exactly to the rotation speed.

    3. Turntable experiments, this time with the light source located far above earth surface in the Global Positioning System find anisotropy due to earth rotation (a finding absent in the M-M expt).

    As I said earn your degree first, then join us in the battle to restore our physics where it should be.

    Cheers,

    Akinbo

    Dear Sir (Dr. Akinbo Ojo)

    Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Einstein's causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz's motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein's theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don't realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein's work is based on "aether-less model" is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

    In any case, we should act like Peers to youngsters and should not be dismissive about their views. After all, there is no end to learning. A student learns while preparing for his studies assisted by the teacher. A teacher learns while preparing to teach the students. They also get new insight from the queries of students.

    Regards,

    basudeba.

    Dear Willium,

    Your courage in participating in this program is laudable. Irrespective of the outcome, it is a step in the right decision. You will learn from your mistakes. Please keep it up.

    God bless you,

    basudeba

    Dear William,

    For my fragile heart's sake, could you please explain a bit better what you meant when you wrote: "... Einstein's workings, occurring with the use of a certain type of information (Fisher information, ...")

    The problem with Newton and Einstein and every theoretical and practical physicist who has ever lived is that they have never noticed that every real thing in the real Universe is unique, once. Postulated numbers are not unique. Although postulated numbers are mindlessly tossed onto all manner of things real and imagined such as temperature gauges, timepieces and abstract human intelligence quotients, this only increases the ignorance and useless parasite capabilities of pathetic mankind.

      Dear Sir,

      There is much confusion in science today due to one-up-man-ship. EPR is the outcome of an ego clash between two scientists.

      Schrödinger coined the term "entanglement" to describe the connection between quantum systems. The entangled state is not an independent state, but a state dependent on another state in some way. For example, if a laser is shone at a crystal, it is possible to generate entangled pairs of photons. In that case, it is generally held that a single photon splits to become two photons. This view is not correct as it implies mass for photon or bare charge, both of which are debatable options. Further it may imply internal structure for photons. Each photon produced in this way will always have a polarization orthogonal to the other photon. For example, if one photon has vertical polarization, then the other photon must have horizontal polarization. Thus, if we measure the polarization of one of the entangled pairs of photons, we can know the state of the other photon even without measurement.

      Theoretically, two particles can be entangled even if they are light years apart. However, in practice, entanglement seems to break down on the order of a few kilometers. It is like objects within the gravitational field of a planet. They are entangled till the object reaches escape velocity. Similarly if you take a ball of dough and pull it apart by holding it in both hands, for some distance, they remain entangled after which, it breaks down. A pair of socks is also entangled. If we take only one of them by mistake, both the socks do not remain in a superposition of states and collapse to a fixed state only when we look at one. The other sock does not take the opposite orientation, but all along it was like that. Observer only records the state of an object and does not affect the state. The cat's death or otherwise does not depend on observation. However, we impose our ignorance of the state of the object on the quantum system to make it sensational.

      The laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference - be they micro or macro. Every quantum phenomena like superposition, entanglement, tunneling, spin etc, have macro equivalents. There is no weird quantum world, but only weird ideas that needs to be banished. We should not blindly follow the text books - that is superstition. We should try to independently evaluate each statement.

      Regards,

      basudeba.

      Dear Dr. Akinbo Ojo,

      Thank you for your kindly advise! Also, the examples you gave will be sure to help the readers! I did not know about 2. and 3, so finding out is helpful. A degree would make me more familiar, as I admit I know nothing. But alternatively, I think it is never too early to start the good battle, even without brandishing a two edged sword!

      Regards,

      W. Amos Carine.

      Dear sir Basudeba,

      Thank you for sharing that history on aether and how it was tied up in Special and General Relativity Thoery! For the sake of giving credit to those who acknowledge certain weak points in their work, it should be stated that Einstein did say that his space time view of things did actually replace the old idea of an aether, and in his way payed debt to Newton's science.

      Receptively,

      W. Amos Carine.

      Dear Sir Basudeba,

      Ego fights should be avoided at all costs, especially when things need to be evaluated at face value, so good call their. I think they are more acceptable in letters, but what happens between two physicists outside of acedemics often makes a muck wash of events that need tranquil minds to look at them, a piece at a time. Schrödinger said that two states became dependent on one another after being entangled. Those physical examples really clear up connections between seperated particles, but does this tie into information gathering and extraction of states? It may be reasonable to consider information as being somehow entangled as well. If a measurement of two attached photons, the observing act itself, affects the state of one, and that effect equalling the state of the second, then one would have to consider the role of information itself changing the physical state of the second photon. That is to say, the assumption of observation without changed that which is observed, when challenged, leads one to consider a physical role of information in the entanglement process.

      In a similar way, when you talked about entanglement theoretically being indefinite, yet in practice are limited to the range of a gravity field, the information involved may play a role. Gravity appears to be neccesary for this entanglement business to go down. So perhaps this idea of bent space time as carrier of information is analogous to the concept of an aether, in rough psychological form. This appears to be a very rich area for further physics discussion in the future science community! The breaking down of entanglements may come from some underlying inability to retain that state of two particles over some thoretical and large distance. Does the exact copy of two particles in an entanglement of light photons realizable with our notion of space? Many questions spring from this very interesting point you've made, if one can tweak the assumptions.

      You play dough and dock example are good demonstrations of the mentally straining concepts, which help facilitate understanding in the reader. The only argument I see viable against the notion of quantum mechanics to be absolute is to attempt to show that in the scheme employed, the observation does affect that which is the observed, which, as you said, seems like it does not happen.

      I could not agree more with you closing statement of constantly re-evaluating. I feel this to be the case especially dealing with the concept of information currently. There's a lot of philosophy that's not clear as well.

      Best,

      W. Amos Carine.

      Dear Joe Fisher,

      I will try to clear up what I meant by my writing, especially if it is a heart matter! I indicated that the scientific developments to date might have been processes where the minds of Newton's or Einstein's, or and working physicist, we're actually processing information by itself, and the parts of this info which corresponded to the needs of their times was drawn out of the heap of data and put into their physics. So I meant there is the (very real) possibility that scientific schemes to date are just simpler versions of this mess of information out there. It is kinda like the idea that since Relativity approximates Newtonian laws when things are slowed down enough as to avoid relativistic effects, that Newton drew from the foundations of Relativity Theory. Wait you say, this is backwards! It is in our common notions of experience where one thing leads to the next. But I merely wanted to indicate that that is what physics today that use information to come up with laws do. The only necessity that I see is that afterwards these laws line up with the facts, that is are realistic.

      Your uniqueness view reminds me of the beauty of single snowflakes on a calm winters day. This snow flake uniquity is very interesting, but very few people have been let in on the exceptional minds of people like Einstein, so it is tough to say what he knew he was overlooking.One who feeds on the ideas held in a culture without adding back food for thought is no better than a parasite. Yet, on the other hand, the people who think of such fundamental changes often have no idea what will trickle down from it, so that only the pursuit of the idea for its own sake is of value. Google "langarian and fisher information" if you want to know more about the topic first discussed dealing with information use in coming up with scientific law.

      Earnestly,

      W. Amos Carine.

      Dear William,

      One fallacy that is continuing for about a century is the notion that a light pulse has to bounce back from an object for its measurement and this disturbs the object. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. You measure length by comparing it with the length of a scale. You measure area or volume or density by comparing it with the area or volume or density of suitable unit. Thus, light, which moves at a constant speed, can be used to measure only the speed of something by comparing its distance at some intervals through the reflected light. In all other cases it can be used only as an aid to ocular perception and not measurement. We see objects in their own or reflected light. To disturb the object, light pulse should have either mass or energy. Since photon is mass less, we can consider only its energy. But this energy is being applied to all - including the measuring device and the person doing the measurement. You may argue, the light pulses are different for the observer and the object of measurement. But then velocity of light being same, its effect will be same. When we measure something on Earth, we ignore the effects of gravitation, air pressure, etc, since it is common to all. Similarly, the light energy should be ignored as it is common to all. Otherwise we will land in problem.

      For example, let us consider the measurement of length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Mr. Einstein in his 1905 paper were:

      (a) "The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest", or

      (b) "By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod"

      The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

      • If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

      • If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

      Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!

      Some scientists we have come across try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. They claim that if we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of motion, then there will be no length contraction. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding the rod in a transverse direction. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference because the length contraction, if real, will be in the same proportion for both.

      The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats "as if all three were at rest", one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Mr. Einstein missed this point or he was clever enough to camouflage this, when, in his 1905 paper, he said: "Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks". But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.

      Mr. Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference. We quote from his 1905 paper on the definition of synchronization: "Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t'A - tB."

      "We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--

      1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

      2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other."

      The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Mr. Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!

      There are similar fallacies in the principle of equivalence that gives rise to the Russell's paradox of set theory. Hence, in your formative years, please do not believe whatever is taught to you. Apply your intelligence to understand the concept logically. Otherwise question it irrespective of who proposed it.

      God bless you.

      basudeba

      Dear Basudeba,

      First, thanks for the exceptional exposition of Einstein's 1905 paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" published in the 17 Annalen der Physik. Your first point seems to say that the effects of light energy can be ignored because it's applied to everything: the measuring tools, the observer and the interaction itself. This seems fine until information is considered. It's not so much that the effect on the apparatus is a negligible part of the experiment, but more so that the extraction of information may change the physical state of a photon. Or, stated more explicitly, that the act of observing or measuring the light actually affects the state of light itself. This is contrary to the common argument that the light affects adversely (to give rise to error in) measurement. The idea here is that since information gained from measurement (say of its velocity) changes the actual photon, gives rise to information having physical significance.

      Your interpretation of the "length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system" is inadequate. This is because however small an effect is, this does not determine whether it happens. It is true that it is not measurable with short rods (think a larger one having a greater contraction because length contraction works according to the ratio 1: the square root of 1 minus the square of velocity over the speed of light). However, part of the beauty of S.R. is that it reduces to Newtonian kinematics in approximations.

      As for point B) listed, I'll communicate not the strict logic, but the psychological drift when it was written. I've looked more into it, but it doesn't pertain exactly this discussion, so I'll say it quickly. The length of the rod decreases as time dialation decreases the time interval, when c is maintained. Also, I believe the velocity of k is measured from K. The problem isn't that Enstein didn't know what he meant, but that the man is dead and we can't ask him for clarification. His spinning disc example in his 1916 General Relativity paper are meant to convey the simple fact that ratios of c/d are suspect to change because S.R. effects (Lorentz contraction) apply to bodies like rods in rotary motion, by virtue of v alone.

      As for Russel's paradox, it remInds me of the problem we have of aether and its other alternative empty space. If there is matter in empty space, it is not empty, or other similar bits of logic. I would specialty that development in physics may happen with the use of information as the aether concept. There will likely be twists and turns, but we are at the information age. What other areas of physics may information possibly furnish a clear interpretation? I hope the essay and this discussion has brought up many other thoughts of this questioning nature.

      William

      What light des and does not do is one thing. In respect of Einstein it is another. Because there is no observational light in Einstein. He proposes a postulate, talks of observers, etc, but is there any observational light? Answer: no. What he has is an example of light (a ray, or lightening, Cox and Forshaw use a light beam clock)which is just used as a constant against which to calibrate duration and distance. He could have used any constant. The nearest he gets to differentiating reality from the light based representation thereof is when he speaks of the "immediate proximity". In other words, all this effort to resolve constancy and light is completely pointless. In sum, Einstein shifted the relativity of receipt of light to being a characteristic of reality itself. Reality does not occur relatively, it occurs. Light from any given occurrence just arrives at any given observer at different times, depending, fundamentally, on spatial position.

      Paul

      William

      "if you have a quantum state with two particles, measuring one of them renders the other one unable to be determined. So the one not measured or observed is affected by non-classical interference"

      As per my comment above on Einstein, the same type of mistake has occurred here. That is, people have not understood physical existence first, in generic form, and then gone on to develop theories based on observation, etc.

      Because, leaving aside the specific detail of what may or may not be occurring, there are two fundamental errors in this approach:

      - the physical circumstance cannot be affected by measurement/observation, because it has already occurred

      - existence as knowable to us (and we are supposed to be considering what is manifest, not what we can believe in, this is after all science not religion) must occur in discrete definitive states. In other words, there is no form of indefiniteness in physical existence. Whether we can identify how it occurs is another matter. But our inability to do so should not be reified as characteristics inherent to existence.

      [Re Einstein 1905. If you want to know what his mistake was, and it has nothing to do with priviledged frames and length alteration, then there are the first 24 paras of a paper which explain this on my essay blog. This is not what my essay is about, I just posted that when some people early on started quoting Einstein at me.]

      Paul

      Thank you Paul for sharing your opinion of Relativity and view of reality.

      W. Amos Carine.

      Sir,

      You state that the measurement cannot affect the physical state of the observed thing. I agree completely that this is a logical rule of thumb, but I've been trying to say that information in dntahled pairs has a physical effect which does affect the state of a particle or entity after measuring one. The argument has (if any) power in that if quantum mechanics fails by the criteria of measurement changing a physical state, a different approach be taken.

      Your first listed error seems to say that observations are light coming off of some event, such that the waves contains information of history (as in something that has already occurred. I don't think the energy in event, I observer and measuring aparatus can be so easily ignored. But reason says the light ray we sent to the event had some energy, this decreased upon contact at the event, such that upon reaching the observer it had diminished even more. Granted, this is tiny, negligible, yet it still shows that the energy partitioned out during observation may not equivalently be directly at the three. In this very small scale, minute differences may affect measurement processes and value recorded.

      I don't think the religious feeling, putting belief aside, is ever far from the creative endeavors of science. I suspect some new way that accounts for the quantum affects but is rid of the psychological unnaturalness in current thinking would clear this up. It would be discrete and definite, but nature may be weird on the deepest level, relative at its roots. As long as we keep going over issues as they pop up, progress will be made in the science community. With all of these new information difficulties being present, what is most important is an open mind to take the results in.

      You made on statement that I thought was curious. You said that information is defined according to physical means instead of probabilities. Of course with the Khinchin-Shannon theorem information is defined for the n^th probability as I_n = log(P_n) and entropy is

      S = -sum_n P_n I_n = -sum_n P_n log(P_n).

      For P_n = 1/N and the sum over n sums up to N it is not hard to show that entropy is log(N). This then connects with the Boltzmann result that S = k log(Ω), for the volume in phase space the macrostate of the system occupies.

      Cheers LC