the information paradox.

[dstebbins]

Don't let the title mislead you. Yes, I know the information paradox is a dead controversy, but what I'm about to ask relates to how it could have been such a big deal in the first place.

 

For those who don't know, the information paradox was a theory that was proposed in the 1970's by Stephen Hawking where he hypothesised that during the life of a black hole, the black hole wold suck up matter and energy, and then, at its death, said matter and energy would unexplicably disappear. It's called the INFORMATION paradox instead of the matter-energy paradox or something to that affect because these particles and energy contain information, so if this paradox were true, information was disappearing, so nothing science knows, not even our own memories, could be trusted. Predictability becomes impossible; cause and effect become unrelated, blah blah blah.

 

But where in the blue world did we get the scientific law that particles had information IN THEM in the FIRST PLACE? I thought information was entirely a human invention. Software, if I may, and it couldn't be manipulated because it doesn't physically exist. Things arranged in a certain pattern, such as ink showing certain symbols on a piece of paper, represent this information, but in order for this paradox to have a legitamate claim in the first place, information has to take on a physical form, and I never heard that information was any more than a thought.

 

So can someone give me the information (pun intended) I need?

[Klaynos]

The way I've always believed it is.

 

An electron has mass, this mass is information, therefore the electron contains the information of it's mass. all we need to do is weigh it and it will tell us...

[fredrik]

> But where in the blue world did we get the scientific law that particles had information IN THEM in the FIRST PLACE?

 

I always considered information to be intrisinsically relatioal. A relation between the system and observe, a relation between two particles reflects their mutual information of each other.

 

In my thinking I can't possibly make any sensible distinction between the qualifying information of x, and x itself. I mean it's kind of a circular and IMO is ultimately the same thing, but put differently.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

For those who don't know, the information paradox was a theory that was proposed in the 1970's by Stephen Hawking where he hypothesised that during the life of a black hole, the black hole wold suck up matter and energy, and then, at its death, said matter and energy would unexplicably disappear.

 

This is, AFAIK, incorrect. What was proposed to disappear was the information about the states of the matter and energy that had entered the black hole, i.e. the Hawking radiation was from a thermodynamic (mixed state) source even if the particles that gave rise to that energy were in a single QM state.

[dstebbins]

The way I've always believed it is.

 

An electron has mass, this mass is information, therefore the electron contains the information of it's mass. all we need to do is weigh it and it will tell us...

 

What I'm inferring is that you're suggesting that matter and energy are like a computer; you give the "computer" instructions (i.e. weighing it) and it spits out the results (i.e. telling you the weight).

 

But that's not what I'm talking about. Information is dependant entirely on the human element. Information is as we see it. To paraphrase a lecture given by Einstein, the laws of physics would exist without humans, just without a language. An object would still accelerate when a force is applied, it just wouldn't be called "force" and "accleration." Stars would still perform nuclear fusion; it just wouldn't be called "fusion."

 

Information is the understanding of things, not the actual things themselves, and without the proverbial human element, nothing can be truly understood.

 

What I'm trying to say is that in order for something to be lost, it must first exist, but information only exists in our minds, due to the human element. I don't know how much more clearly I can put that.

[fredrik]

Dstebbins, I think I know what your saying.

 

But the fact that we are humans, and anything we do so sort of conditional on that fact is nothing we can do anything about But the information concept can certainly be generalized beyond human brain. After all, the human brain is also part of the universe, right? And it happens to be one of the more complex dynamical systems we konw of, that we also have a very good intuitive feeling about, so why not exploit it?

 

> "the laws of physics would exist without humans, just without a language"

 

This is true, however they have been discovered by means of the human brain. We have learned. If you do not consider that fundamental I am not sure what is.

 

How do you think a particle learns about it's environment? How does an electron know that it must deflect in an magnetic field? Couldn't it ignore it?

 

Or is the difference that the human brain has a choice, and the electron doesn't? Well, that would IMO be an inconsistent view because then the only one having a choice would be ME, not any other humans. From my point of view all other humans must simply obey the laws of nature, complex as they are! And what does the human brain dynamics work like? Well, it responds to given information, and action is taken upon that, and the result may lead to new data that is fed back into the brain via our senses.

 

IMO the only consistent view is that information, or a generalized concept there of must be fundamental and have relative meaning beyond human world: A particle needs to somehow be make "aware of", or be informed of, the magnetic field in order to respond. If the particle was completely uninformed about this field, it would ignore it - violating the laws of physics.

 

So, intuitively, x having information about y, must have some sort of connection to the physical interactions between x and y.

 

/Fredrik

[dstebbins]

Fredrik, are you suggesting that the information that Stephen Hawking was talking about when he invented the information paradox was the physical characteristics about a particle or energy, such as the proton-electron charge, the amount of energy, the gravitational field, the spatial dimensions, etc.? That doesn't sound like "information" to me. That sounds like characteristics.

 

But in any case, if it's lost, what does it have to do with out memories? Removing an electron's negative charge by removing the electron is like getting rid of a computer file by throwing the computer in a black hole. Sure, it's gone, and maybe the "information" is as well, but it's still preserved in our memories.

[fredrik]

This is philosophy but here are my "associations"

 

Physical reality is coded in information; we inform ourself about the physical reality, and the qualifying evidence for "physical reality" is the pieces of information we consume. Ie. we have seen evidence supporting reality, or even forming it.

 

physical interactions <-> mutual information exchange; in this interpretations an interaction is usually conflicting information making a mutual exchange, if there was no conflict the interaction would be trivial (ie preservation of previous state).

 

Why doesn't a neutral particle respond to an electric field? From the point of view of the neutral particle, the electric field simply can't be seen. It's unaware of it, and thus wont respond. A neutral particle, by definition, has no way of *relating* to an electric field. So from the direct point of view of this neutral particle, there is no such as an electric field.

 

Consider a poker game, except for the element of bluffing, all pro players play their cards based on the information they have, and from that tries to predict the other players actions by guessing what information they have.

 

Etc. IMO the analogy is clear, and it's implications possibly profound. I could be wrong, but this is my view.

 

If you consider physical reality to be independent of information, then I am curious how do you determine it? out of the infinite possibilities of "possible realities". If there is a qualifying information to pinpoint actual reality, this qualifying is seemingly deeply entangled with whatever this true reality is, right? No?

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

> That doesn't sound like "information" to me. That sounds like characteristics.

 

Reality and information are in a way different words and perhaps different ina way but what I suggest is that some qualifying information is so entangled with this supposed reality (beeing described by it's characteristics), that they can't be distinguished.

 

/Fredrik

[dstebbins]

Okay, let me try and put this in my own words.

 

When the information paradox talks about "information," what it's really talking about is the physical characteristics of a particle or energy. Since information is needed to describe the characteristics, and information is nothing without characteristics for it to describe, then they go hand-in-hand and are one in the same, much like space and time in Einstein's relativity.

 

Since there theoretically could be millions of subatomic black holes in this room right now, or even in my head, sucking up, not the information directly, but indirectly by sucking up the characteristics that the information needs to have meaning, then our brains could not function the way they do, because the chracteristics disappear, and thus the information becomes worthless.

 

Enter hawking radiation, the waste product of black holes. This "stuff" for lack of a better word is said to have no information, but what it really lacks is characteristics. It has no charge, no mass, no spatial dimensions, no energy, nothing. If it were to approach or pass through an object or energy, nothing would happen because, in fredrik's words, nothing is informing the second object or energy of the hawking radiation's presence. But since the information paradox has been solved, I guess we can rule out the possibility of hawking radiation existing, eh?

 

Is that in the ball park?

[fredrik]

Okay, let me try and put this in my own words.

 

When the information paradox talks about "information," what it's really talking about is the physical characteristics of a particle or energy. Since information is needed to describe the characteristics, and information is nothing without characteristics for it to describe, then they go hand-in-hand and are one in the same, much like space and time in Einstein's relativity.

 

The "information loss" refers to that *assuming the hawking radiation to be thermal* total probability seems to not be conserved - ie. unitary evolution seems violated. Which means the states seem to kind of step outside of the hilbert spaces - in violation with QM foundations.

 

The core of QM is to assume that the space of statefunctions is complete in the sense than any state of reality can be described by a "vector" in this space. Which clearly boils down to the assignment of the event space in the first place? this boils down to the postultes of quantum mechanics, which IMO, as far as reality is concerned, technically are assumptions. Probably the best ones we've got, but still their status of assumptions, or expectations should not be lost.

 

Does it make sense to assume that, when you are to learn something new, you have an accurate list of every possible option you may ever come across? IMO that is doubtful. But that's not to say that an estimate of such a list may be provide an excellent basis for progression. But we must not be so stubborn to think that the list we made in "in all our ignorance" is going to stay accurate forever, it may need revision.

 

I think this "list" (space) is in the general case also possibly dynamic. Of course it is fixed, life gets much easier It's a natural first guess, but nothing I'd like to see carved in stone.

 

It has no charge, no mass, no spatial dimensions, no energy, nothing. If it were to approach or pass through an object or energy, nothing would happen because, in fredrik's words, nothing is informing the second object or energy of the hawking radiation's presence. But since the information paradox has been solved, I guess we can rule out the possibility of hawking radiation existing, eh?

 

Is that in the ball park?

 

When the hawking radiation first hits the object, it is beeing informed, and it responds accordingly. It does not need to be priorly informed. Hawking radiation of course have energy coming from the supposedly evaporating black hole.

 

If the presumed "thermal" hawking radiation has actually information coded in it, the information is nevertheless effectively lost, at least until the information is decoded (ie gaining the information about coding).

 

Just like energy isn't conserved, rather just it's expectation values, I think this is only the first expansion in a general kind of learning expansion, you can similarly see that expectation itself may fluctuate too. But you would not invoke such variations unless you have evidence suggesting it. The trick seems to be that of choosing the right patterns for conserved quantities to limit the expansion.

 

I define my information about x, as my ability to predict x. Of course, I do not actually know until in retrospect wether my predictions were correct, but the learnin strategy seems convergent enough to be successful, so it means I can't KNOW how good I can predict x, I can again only estimate it. But reality repetadly proves the success of this strategy. Often a qualified guess, while not perfect, is extremtly successful.

 

I consider the process of learning to be somewhat similar to that of reaching equilibrium. When there is nothing more to learn, I think you reach some kind of residual unresolvable uncertainty. And then, and only then, does the original QM assumptions of completenss make sense.

 

Others are free to disagree of course.

 

Anyway, I forgot what we were talking about? I guess I responded to your question on information, and I consider it to be quite fundamental, although subjective and relative, but still. Sorry for the ramblings.

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

Note that there is no question of wether the hilbert space is complete in the mathematical sense. The question is, can we squeeze reality into a particular hilbert space? Which QM does by it's axioms/postulates/assumptions depending no which view you take.

 

/Fredrik

[dstebbins]

Fredrik,

 

You're speaking in pig latin. Can you at least TRY to speak so I can understand you?

[fredrik]

I'm sorry... I'm not sure where to start of focus though. Also it gets a bit philosophical and that's always fuzzy.

 

> The "information loss" refers to that *assuming the hawking radiation to be

> thermal* total probability seems to not be conserved - ie. unitary evolution

> seems violated. Which means the states seem to kind of step outside of

> the hilbert spaces - in violation with QM foundations

 

One of the postulates of quantum mechanics is that the state of the system, our information of the system, is described by one possibility out of a defined set of possibilites. One assumes as a starting point that there exists such a set that contains all the possible states, and this set is known. Which means that no matter what happens, if we sum over all possibilities we should find the state somewhere.

 

And time evolution is considered as just moving the state around within this given set. I mean, regardless of what happens, the state of the system is not supposed to leave this set. It's constrained to this set by assumption.

 

But if some interaction seems to suggest, that suddenly the state is found nowhere in this set, then we have an inconsistency and something is wrong. Either we don't understand the interaction (note that the black hole stuff is mostly gedanken experiments and are thus subject to possible fallacies), or our postulates set of possibilities is incomplete, or the assumption that the set of possibilities is a non-dynamical quantity in the first place might be wrong.

 

Hilbert space is a function space, making parts of the mathematical formalism of QM.

 

Suppose you play dice, expecting outcomes in {1..6}, but if you suddently you get 7 you'd get perplexed. Did someone manipulate the dice? Did the dice evolve another face? Is the dice alive? Or is something wrong with your vision? Maybe it will never happen again? And more importantly, how can you tell he difference?

 

I'm just trying to provoce some questions, since you asked about what the issue was to start with.

 

/Fredrik

[dstebbins]

I'm sorry... I'm not sure where to start of focus though. Also it gets a bit philosophical and that's always fuzzy.

 

> The "information loss" refers to that *assuming the hawking radiation to be

> thermal* total probability seems to not be conserved - ie. unitary evolution

> seems violated. Which means the states seem to kind of step outside of

> the hilbert spaces - in violation with QM foundations

 

One of the postulates of quantum mechanics is that the state of the system, our information of the system, is described by one possibility out of a defined set of possibilites. One assumes as a starting point that there exists such a set that contains all the possible states, and this set is known. Which means that no matter what happens, if we sum over all possibilities we should find the state somewhere.

 

And time evolution is considered as just moving the state around within this given set. I mean, regardless of what happens, the state of the system is not supposed to leave this set. It's constrained to this set by assumption.

 

But if some interaction seems to suggest, that suddenly the state is found nowhere in this set, then we have an inconsistency and something is wrong. Either we don't understand the interaction (note that the black hole stuff is mostly gedanken experiments and are thus subject to possible fallacies), or our postulates set of possibilities is incomplete, or the assumption that the set of possibilities is a non-dynamical quantity in the first place might be wrong.

 

Hilbert space is a function space, making parts of the mathematical formalism of QM.

 

Suppose you play dice, expecting outcomes in {1..6}, but if you suddently you get 7 you'd get perplexed. Did someone manipulate the dice? Did the dice evolve another face? Is the dice alive? Or is something wrong with your vision? Maybe it will never happen again? And more importantly, how can you tell he difference?

 

I'm just trying to provoce some questions, since you asked about what the issue was to start with.

 

/Fredrik

 

WELL GEE! THAT MAKES IT AS CLEAR AS TWO PLUS ****ING TWO!

 

Dude, with some due respect, if you can't speak English, then maybe you aren't the one to help me.

[swansont]

But that's not what I'm talking about. Information is dependant entirely on the human element. Information is as we see it.

 

One problem is you are using one particular definition of information, and it isn't the same definition used by the people doing the physics at play here.

[dstebbins]

One problem is you are using one particular definition of information, and it isn't the same definition used by the people doing the physics at play here.

 

You know what would be uber-sweet? If you were to read the whole thread before you post, because I'm not trying to suggest anything, but maybe, just maybe, what you're thinking could have already been said.

[Sepiraph]

But where in the blue world did we get the scientific law that particles had information IN THEM in the FIRST PLACE? I thought information was entirely a human invention. Software, if I may, and it couldn't be manipulated because it doesn't physically exist. Things arranged in a certain pattern, such as ink showing certain symbols on a piece of paper, represent this information, but in order for this paradox to have a legitamate claim in the first place, information has to take on a physical form, and I never heard that information was any more than a thought.

 

So can someone give me the information (pun intended) I need?

 

Claude Shannon work in the 40s established the field of information theory, and in his "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" he introduced the concept of Information entropy. This established a connection to the work done in the 19th century in the fields of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Specifically, there are relationship between the statistical mechanical definition of the entrophy of a physical system and the concept of information entropy.

 

The paradigm shift is that information is physical. Later physicsts, mathematicans and computer scientists such as Szilard, Landauer, Fredkin, etc investigated this idea. Some later speculated about the idea of a computational universe, which has its root traced back from the early days during the development of the digital computer, as the mathematican Ulam already speculated about the possibility.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory

 

Basically, if you really want to know, you needed some understanding of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Specifically, the field of quantum computation happens to link these fields together.

[lakmilis]

SOrry havent read all the posts, but dstebbins for the love of God, you touch exactly what I (being more a metaphysicist, epistemological philosopher) is or was rather concerned with (gave up everything with an awful predicition of neutron stars should be spinning faster than they do). Anyway, your notion is entirely right with respect to the information indeed exists in our minds or the mind of the observer. So, I would rather ask, what is the mind.. (and just completely disregard the so confused department of psychology). Obviously don't look at the relation of atp molecules and brain to mind , mind to brain relations as that goes back to what you said about putting into a computer something and out it spits a result, the black box.

 

But just like space-time is invisible (and so we associated space with nothingness), through mathematics we saw properties of this manifold and indirectly have seen its effects, the same way I query if mind is a substance of some dimension which directly is therefore invisible as such (exceeds the 3 dimensions like space[-time] itself) but has indirect results (hey, we can think, hey we can manipulate the matter in our body, hey we create a relation between us and that which is observed , etc).

 

In another post once I used the term epistemological physics. hehe. I know I'll get pun for this so won't at all go into this but will say I believe we will be able to make a cohesive model where such things as mind/emotions? etc will be part of a super-symmetrical manifold, which also will predict why information then becomes more real as such

 

lak

[lakmilis]

and read some more, and just can't help myself. No matter how much I work in science, no matter how much in neural computing, neurology etc, we learn about the relations of the brain and thoughts, I just will never (well sure, if its proven , yet in my lifetime I do not think I will ever change belief, as I dont think this is true) EQUATE brain and mind why? simply because like I said in previous post, I think mind is literally a substance with qualities of +3D and therefore can not be the brain. That the body/brain and mind are all part of one object of N dimensions, sure thats a different ballgame. I know this is a mix of physics/maths/biology/chemistry/information theory/philosophy but hey the topic was here.

 

lak

 

PS> haha, just saw you stebbins mentioning the reading the whole thread, in fact just above my post, hihi. sorry I fell into that category right now. I normally try to but you touched something which was my brainchild so long ago :x

[lakmilis]

Ok, read the whole thing, one thing stebbins, read the forum rules.

 

Not all are Native English speakers. And sure, semantically things get messed up with people assuming others know what this term and that term means.

 

Perhaps that is due to someone having read other posts from yourself and assumes a certain understanding in some field, who knows.

 

In any case, if someone is unclear, one just needs to state it, you dont have to go on about pigs, and f****....and 'dude', lol what a word.

 

You sounded English for a good while at least ^^

[dstebbins]

SOrry havent read all the posts, but dstebbins for the love of God, you touch exactly what I (being more a metaphysicist, epistemological philosopher) is or was rather concerned with (gave up everything with an awful predicition of neutron stars should be spinning faster than they do). Anyway, your notion is entirely right with respect to the information indeed exists in our minds or the mind of the observer. So, I would rather ask, what is the mind.. (and just completely disregard the so confused department of psychology). Obviously don't look at the relation of atp molecules and brain to mind , mind to brain relations as that goes back to what you said about putting into a computer something and out it spits a result, the black box.

 

But just like space-time is invisible (and so we associated space with nothingness), through mathematics we saw properties of this manifold and indirectly have seen its effects, the same way I query if mind is a substance of some dimension which directly is therefore invisible as such (exceeds the 3 dimensions like space[-time] itself) but has indirect results (hey, we can think, hey we can manipulate the matter in our body, hey we create a relation between us and that which is observed , etc).

 

In another post once I used the term epistemological physics. hehe. I know I'll get pun for this so won't at all go into this but will say I believe we will be able to make a cohesive model where such things as mind/emotions? etc will be part of a super-symmetrical manifold, which also will predict why information then becomes more real as such

 

lak

 

But what does all that in those two posts have to do with information taking on a physical existence?

[grifter]

This Thread is becoming very messy...

[lakmilis]

because then it is literally constituent elements of something real. You don't as such ask that mass exists only because we perceive it. The point more consisely I was indicating was that the hardlink between information is that it is embedded in a dimension, just like mass is. Now it is your turn to still see information as abstract. I am just thinking that perhaps in the future we will have symmetrical theories of higher than 4-vectors lets say which includes lol lets say curvature of mind if that would help.

But enough of that, like Grifter said this is a metaphysical topic (I mean that which Im rambling on about) and not physics.

 

zips his mouth