Information Theory by David Dunstan Moran

Dear David Moran

In Gutenberg galaxy we have flow of noice,not flow on information.We need a data reducion.To convert information we need common representation.For human organism

information not exist. Exist only retract all information to Nielsen number 3.

Its constans tempetature.See Landau dumping as a global quantum.

Dariusz Krzywicki

Dear David Dunstan Moran

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

"... Dr. Murray Gell-Mann posed ... Is there a place or time in the development of the universe where entropy actually decreased? ..."

Is there any hope of reformulating String Theory without supersymmetry?, quora.com

"There is today a disconnect in the world of physics. Let me put it bluntly. There are physicists, and there are string theorists. Of course the string theorists are physicists, but the string theorists in general will not attend lectures on experimental physics. They will not be terribly concerned about the results of experiments. They will talk to one another." -- Sheldon Glashow

NOVA, The Elegant Universe, Viewpoints on String Theory, Sheldon Glashow

I have suggested the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? I don't think so -- if MOND were wrong then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa. If supersymmetry is empirically invalid, then I think that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is correct and the multiverse has a recycle time of 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years (with a reset of entropy when the quantum collapse of each alternate universe occurs); furthermore, the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect explains dark matter. If supersymmetry is empirically valid, then I think that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct and Guth's inflationary cosmology is correct -- a quantum fluctuation in the quantum vacuum overthrows entropy and creates an inflationary universe that expands forever; furthermore, WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles are the explanation for dark matter; these are WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles (such hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration).

Alan Guth: Inflationary Cosmology: Is Our Universe Part of a Multiverse? - YouTube, 2014

Nice essay Prof Moran,

Your questions and thinking are excellent for eg...

The three questions were:

• Is there a place in the space-time continuum where the logarithm of xy does not equal the log of x plus the log of y?;

• Is there a place or time in the development of the universe where entropy naturally decreased?; and,

• Can you derive a model for 'thinking out of the box'?

A Good idea, I fully agree with you.................................I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear Professor David Dunstan Moran,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear David,

We have similar views that information is ubiquitous in the Universe and that it is at the basis of everything. You have realised that something is needed to convert that information into a reality but what could that thing be ? Here, our views differ slightly.

I propose in my essay that consciousness is what transforms "potential" information into "real" meaningfull information. I would love to have your comments on it, if you have the time.

In any case, I believe that your essay deserves a much better ranking.

Cheers,

Patrick

David,

If the real is clarified by the ideal a priori mathematical law, then to convert bits of information content of mathematical law to systematic knowledge require unlimited energy expenditure in the case of becoming Universe. ?

Respectfully

Michael

Essay " Kantian Answers "

Dear David,

"Information is the primary "substance" of the universe, meaning that, without information, the universe is just mass and energy without interaction or conceptual laws of behavior."

When I started reading the essays by others, it surprised me that how little the number of people who placed emphasis on the centrality of semantics of information. Apart from yours, it was only Rovelli, but then he too moved away from deriving the actual 'meaning' of information arsing from physical interactions.

I suppose, I wrote that paragraph in too much haste, as you go ahead and state, "Information is ubiquitous in the space-time of the universe. It is everywhere at all times. The measure of information is the "bit" and we are surrounded in a foam of information." I notice that the scientists have their attention only on the quantity of information, without defining what is the specification (meaning) of a given information, and how does it come about. No one seems to be wanting to ground the basis of information in reality of physical natural causation that makes the information a reality of its own.

In the middle you dropped a worthy statement, "Indeed, every Nobel prize belongs to every person on earth who ever lived, not just to the single individual who benefited from this body of prior knowledge and the vast energy that was necessary to bring it into fruition." I have always wondered that the reward system that the humanity has built for the progress of humanity does not take into account even such a simple fact as that.

There is a dilemma though, a conservation of information would mean that all the information existed at all times, and we only get to know them in time. This necessarily means that all such information must be fundamentally true, since if they included false information too, then one cannot have a basis, as well as a bound on information, or its origin -- how could a false information may have a bearing in the processes of the universe. But then, as we make endeavors in our daily lives, we gather information at each moment and transmit them in some form, but they are not all correct. So, either we agree that information gets created at each moment for every entity that exists, and therefore also gets destroyed, or we have to include all expressible information, true or false as part of an undefinable basis.

It is the insistence of using maths to deal with information, scientists are forced to deal only with the quantum of information, and not with the semantics of each piece (not bit) of information. Whether or not the treatment of information in this essay allows us to understand the emergence of 'aims and intentions', but it has no dearth of creativity !

Rajiv

P.S. I am not rating this since I did not follow the math fully.

Dear Professor Moran,

I have read your inspiring essay a couple of times. It really triggered my imagination.

Let's assume that in the very beginning there is only energy, manifested as linear motionﾂ of primordial entities of energy at the speed of light.ﾂ  Can such entities be described as bits - mathematical bits as well as bits of energy? If so - what is the least amount of energy necessary to constitute one bit of information/energy?

I have found two alternatives to define this quantity.

One can be found in "Entropy and Information" byﾂ Mikhail V. Volkenstein, Abe Shenitzer:

To be able to interact with other bits of information, the thermodynamic equivalent of one bit of information has to be at least:

10ﾂｭﾂ -16ﾂ ergs/ﾂｰK

Another value is that of Landauer's principle which relates to bits of information in electronic cicuits. It asserts that there is a minimum possible amount of energy required to erase one bit of information, known as the Landauer limit:

kT ln 2,

where k is the Boltsman constant (approximately 1.38ﾃ--10竏'23 J/K), T is the temperature of the circuit in Kelvins, and lnﾂ 2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.69315).

For an environment at temperature T, energy E = ST must be emitted into that environment if the amount of added entropy is S. For a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so, the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E 竕･ kT ln 2.

To evaluate the two alternatives is beyond my mathematical ability. I can only conclude that the amount of energy required must be very minute.

If one transforms the mass of the earth into bits of energy according to the formula Einstein gave us:

Eﾂ =ﾂ mcﾂｲﾂ 

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.ﾂ 

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the sameﾂ  volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?ﾂ 

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?ﾂ 

In that case, assuming a zero entropy condition, in the very beginning each one can beﾂ anywhere anytime in the universe, until they begin interacting and thereby participateﾂ in the aggregtion process and acquire an increasingly probable position in the universe.

Can these interacting e-bits constitute electrons, quarks, all the elementary particles and the forces that govern their interactions in the same way as these particles of mass and forces are described mathematically by binary expressed algorithms?

These are only a few of all questions and possible scenarios that has come to my mind by the suggestion in your essay that everything we can feel and percieve is expressed as information. However right or wrong my thinking is, I have enjoyed it very much.

Kindest regards

Jan-Axel Nyman

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Dear David,

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

I have suggested the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? I don't think so -- if MOND were wrong then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa. If supersymmetry is empirically invalid, then I think that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is correct and the multiverse has a recycle time of 81.6 В± 1.7 billion years (with a reset of entropy when the quantum collapse of each alternate universe occurs); furthermore, the FernГЎndez-RaГ±ada-Milgrom effect explains dark matter. If supersymmetry is empirically valid, then I think that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct and Guth's inflationary cosmology is correct -- a quantum fluctuation in the quantum vacuum overthrows entropy and creates an inflationary universe that expands forever; furthermore, WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles are the explanation for dark matter; these are WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles (such hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration).

where k is the Boltsman constant (approximately 1.38Г--10в€'23 J/K), T is the temperature of the circuit in Kelvins, and ln 2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.69315).

For an environment at temperature T, energy E = ST must be emitted into that environment if the amount of added entropy is S. For a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so, the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E ≥ kT ln 2.

To evaluate the two alternatives is beyond my mathematical ability. I can only conclude that the amount of energy required must be very minute.

If one transforms the mass of the earth into bits of energy according to the formula Einstein gave us:

E = mcВІ

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the same volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?

In that case, assuming a zero entropy condition, in the very beginning each one can be anywhere anytime in the universe, until they begin interacting and thereby participate in the aggregtion process and acquire an increasingly probable position in the universe.

Can these interacting e-bits constitute electrons, quarks, all the elementary particles and the forces that govern their interactions in the same way as these particles of mass and forces are described mathematically by binary expressed algorithms?

These are only a few of all questions and possible scenarios that has come to my mind by the suggestion in your essay that everything we can feel and percieve is expressed as information. However right or wrong my thinking is, I have enjoyed it very much.

Kindest regards

From toThue loa keo Ha Noi

Jan-Axel Nyman

Dear David

I propose in my essay that consciousness is what transforms "potential" information into "real" meaningfull information. I would love to have your comments on it, if you have the time.

In any case, I believe that your essay deserves a much better ranking.

"... Dr. Murray Gell-Mann posed ... Is there a place or time in the development of the universe where entropy actually decreased? ..."

Is there any hope of reformulating String Theory without supersymmetry?, quora.com

"There is today a disconnect in the world of physics. Let me put it bluntly. There are physicists, and there are string theorists. Of course the string theorists are...

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

Click here:thuê loa kéo tay

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

I have suggested the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? I don't think so -- if MOND were wrong then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa. If supersymmetry is empirically invalid, then I think that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is correct and the multiverse has a recycle time of 81.6 В± 1.7 billion years (with a reset of entropy when the quantum collapse of each alternate universe occurs); furthermore, the FernГЎndez-RaГ±ada-Milgrom effect explains dark matter. If supersymmetry is empirically valid, then I think that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct and Guth's inflationary cosmology is correct -- a quantum fluctuation in the quantum vacuum overthrows entropy and creates an inflationary universe that expands forever; furthermore, WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles are the explanation for dark matter; these are WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles (such hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration).

Another value is that of Landauer's principle which relates to bits of information in electronic cicuits. It asserts that there is a minimum possible amount of energy required to erase one bit of information, known as the Landauer limit:

kT ln 2,

where k is the Boltsman constant (approximately 1.38Г--10в€'23 J/K), T is the temperature of the circuit in Kelvins, and ln 2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.69315).

For an environment at temperature T, energy E = ST must be emitted into that environment if the amount of added entropy is S. For a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so, the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E ≥ kT ln 2.

To evaluate the two alternatives is beyond my mathematical ability. I can only conclude that the amount of energy required must be very minute.

If one transforms the mass of the earth into bits of energy according to the formula Einstein gave us:

E = mcВІ

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the same volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?

In that case, assuming a zero entropy condition, in the very beginning each one can be anywhere anytime in the universe, until they begin interacting and thereby participate in the aggregtion process and acquire an increasingly probable position in the universe.

Can these interacting e-bits constitute electrons, quarks, all the elementary particles and the forces that govern their interactions in the same way as these particles of mass and forces are described mathematically by binary expressed algorithms?

From to: https://tienao24h.com

These are only a few of all questions and possible scenarios that has come to my mind by the suggestion in your essay that everything we can feel and percieve is expressed as information. However right or wrong my thinking is, I have enjoyed it very much.

I have suggested the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? I don't think so -- if MOND were wrong then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa. If supersymmetry is empirically invalid, then I think that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is correct and the multiverse has a recycle time of 81.6 В± 1.7 billion years (with a reset of entropy when the quantum collapse of each alternate universe occurs); furthermore, the FernГЎndez-RaГ±ada-Milgrom effect explains dark matter. If supersymmetry is empirically valid, then I think that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct and Guth's inflationary cosmology is correct -- a quantum fluctuation in the quantum vacuum overthrows entropy and creates an inflationary universe that expands forever; furthermore, WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles are the explanation for dark matter; these are WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles (such hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration).

Another value is that of Landauer's principle which relates to bits of information in electronic cicuits. It asserts that there is a minimum possible amount of energy required to erase one bit of information, known as the Landauer limit:

kT ln 2,

where k is the Boltsman constant (approximately 1.38Г--10в€'23 J/K), T is the temperature of the circuit in Kelvins, and ln 2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.69315).

For an environment at temperature T, energy E = ST must be emitted into that environment if the amount of added entropy is S. For a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so, the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E ≥ kT ln 2.

To evaluate the two alternatives is beyond my mathematical ability. I can only conclude that the amount of energy required must be very minute.

If one transforms the mass of the earth into bits of energy according to the formula Einstein gave us:

E = mcВІ

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the same volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?

In that case, assuming a zero entropy condition, in the very beginning each one can be anywhere anytime in the universe, until they begin interacting and thereby participate in the aggregtion process and acquire an increasingly probable position in the universe.

Can these interacting e-bits constitute electrons, quarks, all the elementary particles and the forces that govern their interactions in the same way as these particles of mass and forces are described mathematically by binary expressed algorithms?

From to: https://tienao24h.com

These are only a few of all questions and possible scenarios that has come to my mind by the suggestion in your essay that everything we can feel and percieve is expressed as information. However right or wrong my thinking is, I have enjoyed it very much.

I have suggested the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? I don't think so -- if MOND were wrong then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa. If supersymmetry is empirically invalid, then I think that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is correct and the multiverse has a recycle time of 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years (with a reset of entropy when the quantum collapse of each alternate universe occurs); furthermore, the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect explains dark matter.

Click to website: thuê bá»™ Ä'àm

If supersymmetry is empirically valid, then I think that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct and Guth's inflationary cosmology is correct -- a quantum fluctuation in the quantum vacuum overthrows entropy and creates an inflationary universe that expands forever; furthermore, WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles are the explanation for dark matter; these are WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles (such hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration).

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

Please visit the thuê bá»™ Ä'àm

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

I have read your inspiring essay a couple of times. It really triggered my imagination.

Let's assume that in the very beginning there is only energy, manifested as linear motion of primordial entities of energy at the speed of light. Can such entities be described as bits - mathematical bits as well as bits of energy? If so - what is the least amount of energy necessary to constitute one bit of information/energy?

I have found two alternatives to define this quantity.

One can be found in "Entropy and Information" by Mikhail V. Volkenstein, Abe Shenitzer:

To be able to interact with other bits of information, the thermodynamic equivalent of one bit of information has to be at least:

10ﾂｭ -16 ergs/ﾂｰK

Another value is that of Landauer's principle which relates to bits of information in electronic cicuits. It asserts that there is a minimum possible amount of energy required to erase one bit of information, known as the Landauer limit:

kT ln 2,

where k is the Boltsman constant (approximately 1.38ﾃ--10竏'23 J/K), T is the temperature of the circuit in Kelvins, and ln 2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.69315).

For an environment at temperature T, energy E = ST must be emitted into that environment if the amount of added entropy is S. For a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so, the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E 竕･ kT ln 2.

To evaluate the two alternatives is beyond my mathematical ability. I can only conclude that the amount of energy required must be very minute.

If one transforms the mass of the earth into bits of energy according to the formula Einstein gave us:

E = mcﾂｲ

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the same volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?

In that case, assuming a zero entropy condition, in the very beginning each one can be anywhere anytime in the universe, until they begin interacting and thereby participate in the aggregtion process and acquire an increasingly probable position in the universe.

Can these interacting e-bits constitute electrons, quarks, all the elementary particles and the forces that govern their interactions in the same way as these particles of mass and forces are described mathematically by binary expressed algorithms?

These are only a few of all questions and possible scenarios that has come to my mind by the suggestion in your essay that everything we can feel and percieve is expressed as information. However right or wrong my thinking is, I have enjoyed it very much.

one would get un uncomprehensible large number of bits of energy. Given ample space to move freely and randomly they would occupy a space larger than a sphere surrounding the solar system - or even larger.

Doing the same transformation of all the observable mass of our observable universe one will find that the freely and randomly moving bits of energy would occupy the same volume as the observable universe fills today.

How would these freely moving "bits of energy", or why not call them e-bits, behave?

Would they obey quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle?

From to:Loa kﾃｩo