geordief

Are all objects connected so that ,for example clock,when viewed as a physical object is actually part of a physical network and cannot (except for practical reasons) be viewed in isolation? When ,for instance a neutron is measured as spatially contracted ,might this also imply that the physical clock is also correspondingly so ? Does this physical interconnection of objects show up only at the quantum level where extremely small "particles" which previously seemed to be isolated bodies turn out to be waves and all the waves add/superimpose as if they were part of one network. Perhaps I have made a few bad missteps here.Are there any obvious misunderstandings or might it be at least a decent first appreciation of the scenario? I placed this in speculations as I feel I may have misunderstood the mainstream present understanding although I hope that I am not too far off.

Indeed ad homunculums are applicable in his case (although overuse and misapplication can be counter productive) His "authoritative" dismissal of climate change concerns is justification enough for me to feel personal hate for the man and his coterie. That is damage that can't be undone. B.Dylan's "Masters of War" runs through my head.

What would be the limit of the amount of information that can be stored on an object? Alternatively for a given amount of information what is the smallest system that can hold this information? Does Planck length come into play or are there other considerations? Pardoning my ignorance but do virtual particles "carry information"?

Is that the "rest mass" question? Do photons have (relativistic) mass because they are in relative motion? And is that where they get their energy from? (if I am not diverting the thread)

Certainly not.(I am not saying that information is physical....) But can information about things be classified in the "direct" vs "grow like topsy" way I asked? Could there be information that can be used to reconstruct a system or a part of a system entirely which might differ from information that might be called "virtual" ? Do I just seem to be speculating for the sake of speculating or is there an actual problem in physics connecting objects with the "information" about them?

I only meant as an analogy. It would be really sexy if information was somehow "physical" .... Perhaps the answer lies in redefining the question...Might "Is the physical informational ?" be a better ask? After all ,all attempts to define "reality" meet the turtle response and are "physicality" and "reality" fairly synonymous ?

Perhaps spacetime will be described eventually as globally based rather than locally? Can information have more "informational mass" depending on the "closeness" of its description to the phenomenon or physical object being described? So we say 15000 people attended a sporting event and the calculation of that number is directly descriptive but the fact that it was calculated in binary form has less "weight"... Is

Perhaps we can distinguish between unique information that can be mapped to a particular component (including the overarching state) of a system and redundant descriptions? Like the dimensional analysis you showed me in another thread , the LHS and the RHS of the equation can be rejigged in different combinations but the core information is unchanged if you dig down. Also do we distinguish between physical information regarding a physical system and the kind of information regarding .....human history althgugh you have adduced a science based example.? Hope I am not too convoluted ....or off piste.

No I wasn't suggesting that "information has some kind of physical form" just that ,as someone else said it was a property of the system and not ,as you implied by your "Information is a human term" (my bold) somehow dependent on its measurement or gathering.(maybe you didn't mean that either). As for my entropy observation ,I know very little about it ,it just struck me as possibly relevant.(are you sure it doesn't apply much more generally than just to the BH scenario?I had the idea that entropy was a really fundamental idea -which I struggle badly with)

Is it? If there are two systems ,one inside the other then does the "sub system" not contain intrinsically less information that the system containing it? Is this question related to entropy? Does entropy destroy information?

n Yes,analytically/mathematically ** as both sides of the equation are presumably expressing the same thing in different ways( perhaps they can be broken up mathematically in different ways and so the verbal description would have to adapt) I guess verbal descriptions are a blunter tool in this regard(when I came across the word applied to spacetime I must have subconsciously supplied my own meaning as I didn't get the proper context-even if my own meaning made no good sense) Maybe I fell into the trap of confusing the mathematical model with some kind of "entity" -it's not unknown **I mightn't be able to comment on the verbal description as I am out of the way of the subject of work,power energy as basic as it probably is.

I had not come across that use of the word "conversion" (as a way of ensuring that all 4 axes were units of length).** If that is the accepted use of the word I am happy with it though as it is very simple and understandable (in theory any speed quantity would do in that case ,wouldn't it ?) ** I was actually struggling to understand what "conversion" meant as I had heard it employed on quite a few occasions ( as in perhaps " c is the conversion factor between space and time")

The link felt like a resume of things I had come across in the past but with more detail. It seems to me like a good way of double checking equations and making sure you are not "comparing apples with pears" As well as other practical uses it seems.

So mass and energy are related (dimensionally) in a " L^2 T^-2 " way?

M L2 T-2 =M L2 T-2 ? Does mass just have one dimension?

Hardly news shattering that there is a mass -energy "equivalence". Was Einstein the first person to show this ? Can someone perhaps give a little detail (or a rough resume) of how the two are connected? Is it interesting that c ,which is described as a "conversion factor" between space and time (have I got that right?) appears to fill the same or a similar role between mass and energy?

Does the OP suggest that ,if the information about an object (or a system) can be called an "entity" then the object itself is also an entity (of a different kind-or perhaps the same kind)?

With "sense" ,I feel one is collating and processing all available sensory inputs (including remembered inputs )

Would my laser act as a gravitational source and so at least distort signals passing through to it or in its vicinity? A "shadow" of sorts. (gravitational lensing)

Can light cast a shadow?If a powerful laser passes between another light source and the observer is a shadow cast?

So we detect and interpret properties of light (frequency) ? "Light" itself is the old "what is reality" question?

Proper time * itself seems to have an absolute property. It is unchanging (as is,presumably space). It is only when measurements of time or space are attempted of objects in another frame of reference that the spatio- temporal ratio is altered When we take measurements in our immediate locality and at low speeds , time and space seem to take on a reliable character and relationship** Is this circumstance "fundamental" or ,as I seem to have understood up till now "special" ? (that is why it is called "Special Relativity" ,I think) * described ,as an analogy as passing at one second per second **admittedly spacetime intervals (and apparently some other measurements) are also the same to any observer in any frame of reference .

I am sure the subject will crop up again some time...

Has the other "philosophical" thread gone for good? I thought it made sense to split the subject...

I was wondering something similar myself. When we look directly back at a beam of light (such as a torch) are we actually "seeing" the filament/source ? (buried in the glare) Is there any worthwhile distinction between detecting light directly from its source and detecting it after it has reflected off a third ( or later object) ? Apart from "3rd party" sources allowing us to map the world around us.......