Can or should we count information as physical entity?

[1x0]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it? You made an incorrect claim about Einstein, and have said nothing that shows that you have cleared up your confusion 

Quote

Energy, mass, and matter are different states of the same thing? Would that be correct?

I can differentiate the states by observation, energy with mass or matter, that's why I claimed I understand the difference. Could an electron with mass become matter without further physical impact?

Which part of Einstein's theory do I get incorrect? Maybee that I try to apply space-time itself to c2 ... Why would be this an absolutely incorrect thought experiment? 

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[1x0]

On 2018. 02. 05. at 10:49 PM, Gees said:

Hello. It has been a long time since I talked to you. You are still working on the same problem and writing interesting threads. I wish I could help you more, but I don't have the answers either -- I don't think anyone has them . . . . yet.   1+ simply because your threads are interesting.

But I am enjoying reading this thread, and hopefully will be able to comment before it goes too far off topic, or someone closes it down.

In the meantime, I would like to make an explanation, to Swansont regarding the following question, on your behalf. I think I can get him to understand what I think you meant -- if it would not offend. If I am wrong, please let me know.

1

Hello Gee, 

Yes, It has been a while, I applied to a University to further understand different aspects of value recognition. The answer is in the reality we try to understand. It will come. 

I really like this thread. I hope we will be able to keep it opened and that with the Moderators help will be able to protect it from off threads rather than close it.

Thanks for your explanation! 

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[1x0]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The issue was energy being a substance. We know electrons are, but electrons aren't energy. Energy is a property they have.

8 hours ago, 1x0 said:

So electrons are substance and electrons are not energy rather the property of matter.

The question is then: what is matter?

As far as I understand it is materialized energy in spacetime. Or in other words, collapsed energy with mass in space(time). Is this thought is incorrect? 

What was first, energy or matter?

Could be that mass is a pre-state of matter? Meaning that every energy has mass but until the physical circumstances do not allow, it can not collapse to be matter? 

I sense that E=mc2 could say that Energy=mass in space(time) 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Energy, mass, and matter are different states of the same thing? Would that be correct?

Not really. Energy and mass are properties that things can have. Matter has mass and can also have energy. Photons, for example, have energy but no mass.

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Could an electron with mass become matter without further physical impact?

Electrons are a component of matter (whether they are themselves matter depends on how you define "matter" ).

55 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

So electrons are substance and electrons are not energy rather the property of matter.

This sentences is very ambiguous: it is not clear what you are saying is a property of matter. Electrons are "substance" in that they have a variety of physical properties (mass, charge, energy, etc) and you can count them and put them in swansont's bucket.

57 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

The question is then: what is matter?

One definition is that it is anything with mass and physical extent (ie. size). Another is that it is anything made up of electrons,porotons and neutrons in other words, made of atoms). 

58 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

As far as I understand it is materialized energy in spacetime. Or in other words, collapsed energy with mass in space(time). Is this thought is incorrect? 

I don't think it is very accurate or useful. 

59 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

What was first, energy or matter?

It is not a choice between those. The earliest state of the universe was a quark-gluon plasma (I'm not sure if electrons already existed at that point or not). This had mass and energy. Whether it is matter or not depends how you define "matter".

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

I sense that E=mc2 could say that Energy=mass in space(time)

They are not equal, but they are equivalent:we can convert one into the other and these equation tells us how much energy we will get from a certain amount of mass.

[studiot]

On 06/02/2018 at 6:44 AM, 1x0 said:

I hope I will be able to keep this thread open. I try my best not to pull it off topic, although as information is everywhere so there are plenty of examples what we can play with trying to deny or approve: does information is physical or not. 

Here is a practical application why the question can appear from a different point of view maybe than physics but still existing. 

I am a veterinary surgeon and I work on a medical data managing software for my praxis and my patients. The software collects medically relevant information (signalment, symptoms, physical examination findings, laboratory results) helping the veterinarians work with statistical data comes from the uploaded medical information and the previously crafted medical database. The database is based on the scientific results of our profession, extracted from medical books. So I have a set of information recognizable during an examination: fewer, vomiting, cough and by bringing it in to the system, that is able to give the answer, that from all the diagnosis existing in our medical database which differential diagnosis could it be and how high is the chance of a certain diagnose to occur. With this information, the system further can support my examination process by telling which laboratory examination(blood test, x-ray, ultrasonography etc..) belonging to most of the most likely possible diagnoses and so should be executed to narrow down the list of differential diagnoses. The information I received shorten my examination process saving time for me and unnecessary costly examination for the owner i.e it has a recognizable economic benefit. These information I originally do not have but because the software can handle data physically recognizable I can have extra information which is basically transforming reality itself (i.e: the process of examination is different than it would be without the information)  So even the information is originally in the system ( i.e: from all possible medical problems how many contain the signalments had been possible to recognize with the examination, and how high is the possibility for that medical condition to occur if we see all diseases) because the lack of awareness of this information I execute examintation differently. So this previously unrecognizable information existing because we are able to perceive it mathematically get physical presented through a computer which digitally recognizes, visualizes and maintain this information in perpetuity. This information created time (even we count it as physical or not) for me (I still recognize the time I won as I can be more with my family) and economic benefits (lower veterinary costs) for the owner. So the information which would not exist without the mathematical calculation now present and has impacted the physical reality itself. 

I'm sorry I missed this reply of yours before.

This is a very busy thread.

I do like this reply, +1 to reduce your red mark score.

 

Yes your database contains the information you originally put in.

But it also constains the logical connections between the stuff in your database that enable you to use it efficiently.

And yes your database requires physical objects to hold it.

 

Now here is a question.

Before you assembled your database, all the input data existed somewhere else.

Since the data existed the logical connections must have also existed, even if they were not accessible because the data was widely separated.

No additional physical entities were required for these logical connections to exist before your database, they just did.

 

So how are you accounting for this?

 

 

@Steveupson

Quote

Steveupson

How do you carry position information except for in spacetime?  Granted, we can remove the base quantity of time from the information and we have position in space, which is only a partial description of position.

Similar constructs can be made using any of the other base quantities, such as mass, temperature, luminous intensity, or amount of substance.

Another example would be the information contained in the expression of density.  If we remove either component (volume or mass) we no longer have density information.  The ratio between volume and mass "carries" the density information.

 

To answer the underlined question consider this

The position information available via spactime is a particular type of position, mathematically available because spacetime is a metric space (that means it has a distance function).

Pure topological space do not have a distance function yet allow the specification of topological position.

For example

The yolk is inside the egg.
The pips are inside the orange.
Manchester City are first in the football league table.
The number 3 is third in the following ordered set listing {27, 1, 3, 59}.

Also I don't know if you realise that even completely empty space has other physical properties than distance.

For example it has an electrical impedance of 377 ohms. As a matter of fact this is independent of distance or position.

 

 

[1x0]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Not really. Energy and mass are properties that things can have. Matter has mass and can also have energy. Photons, for example, have energy but no mass.

4 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How can photons have energy and no mass?

Would not that be contraindicated by our own calculus?

The recognition of Energy would look like this based on Einstein's theory: E=mc2 which is, in this case, E=0*c2 indicating the energy of the photon should be 0.

This does not feel right.

Alternatív approach to recognition try to play outside the box presenting the thought just as an alternatív example and not like the ultimate truth and I am very interested what are the physical contraindications for the process suggested:  

If we would not have the same calculus and zero would not have the absolute degrading effect how we use it today the equation could express E=space(time) which would suggest that matter is energies evolved state in expanding space(time). This could suggest an evolution in the physical reality where photon (energetic wave) is an existing state before gaining mass (if it does not have some anyway, yet unrecognizable to us....)

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[geordief]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Not really. Energy and mass are properties that things can have. Matter has mass and can also have energy. Photons, for example, have energy but no mass.

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)

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

How can photons have energy and no mass?

Because that's how nature works.

51 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Would not that be contraindicated by our own calculus?

The recognition of Energy would look like this based on Einstein's theory: E=mc2 which is, in this case, E=0*c2 indicating the energy of the photon should be 0.

E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ 

All of a photon's energy is due to its momentum

 

25 minutes ago, geordief said:

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)

"relativistic mass" is just total energy. Photons are always in relative motion, at a speed of c.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Swansont;

 

Logic. Did you read the rest of that post, or just the first line?

Logic ≠ evidence

 

[1x0]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

All of a photon's energy is due to its momentum

so all the energy comes from velocity in spacetime? Or velocity of space(time)....? 

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

so all the energy comes from velocity in spacetime? Or velocity of space(time)?

No, the speed is always c. It's the frequency that dictates the amount of energy, and momentum. None of this comes from having mass.

Velocity of space(time) makes no sense.

[1x0]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Because that's how nature works.

Quote

I amaze its rigidity. 

[1x0]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Velocity of space(time) makes no sense.

If it expands should not that have speed (velocity)? Something physically measurable. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's the frequency that dictates the amount of energy, and momentum.

What is frequency? The physical property of what? Does frequency is something more than information? What determined frequency? 

Does frequency have velocity? Does frequency have space-time detectable? (i.e. the area where the frequency which dictates momentum universally applied and recognisable)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

If it expands should not that have speed (velocity)? Something physically measurable. 

The objects in it have a recessional velocity.

How would you know if space itself was moving? Or if you are just adding more space over time?

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

What is frequency? The physical property of what? Does frequency is something more than information? What determined frequency? 

Does frequency have velocity? Does frequency have space-time detectable? (i.e. the area where the frequency which dictates momentum universally applied and recognisable)

You should have a handle on such fundamental concepts before you delve into more complex topics. Feel free to study up and then ask questions here if you get stuck.

[1x0]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

How would you know if space itself was moving? Or if you are just adding more space over time?

Quote

This question came up for me too, because how would I know that it is space which is moving and not energy and matter itself. I think the consistent velocity of the two suggests that, something fundamental has to move the whole system. As long as I am pondering uppon the question I can not exclude velocity of spacetime That it is moving. If it would be infinite energy and matter would have to be infinite as well. Infinity has to apply to everything if it would be physically possible for infinity to exist more than an information. Meaning here the forward pointing evolution of spacetime. Because here we, not just space itself have to recognize but the fundamental information about it as well: Time. Can it more than information about the length of existence. Can I say that space is existing even physically I can not grep it but I can measure it with fine precision. Can I say that space is more than information? Can I grep it? You can give me in an empty bucket!

That would be space which would not be more than information. 

You can give me space, but you can not give me the exact same space for example when the request was made. 

Does not this incapability indicates that we constantly existing in different space in a different time as before and that energy and matter "glides" towards infinity by the pull of space itself. If space expands c2 then energy and matter with a limitation of c. Time would be here the indicator of velocity meaning the length of an area burst to existence under a certain time (c2). From somewhere we have to start to measure....

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

This question came up for me too, because how would I know that it is space which is moving and not energy and matter itself. I think the consistent velocity of the two suggests that, something fundamental has to move the whole system. As long as I am pondering uppon the question I can not exclude velocity of spacetime That it is moving.

How can you tell if it is moving? We have tested this. There is no measurable effect from motion through space; confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (who expected to be able to measure our motion but couldn't) and all of relativity, which says that physics is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

26 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

If it would be infinite energy and matter would have to be infinite as well. Infinity has to apply to everything if it would be physically possible for infinity to exist more than an information.

I don't see how that follows.

26 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Meaning here the forward pointing evolution of spacetime. Because here we, not just space itself have to recognize but the fundamental information about it as well: Time. Can it more than information about the length of existence. Can I say that space is existing even physically I can not grep it but I can measure it with fine precision. Can I say that space is more than information? Can I grep it? You can give me in an empty bucket!

Time is not fundamental. It is relative to the frame you are in.

What is it about space you think is being measured with fine precision?

26 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

That would be space which would not be more than information. 

You can give me space, but you can not give me the exact same space for example when the request was made. 

How can you tell the difference between two volumes of space?

26 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Does not this incapability indicates that we constantly existing in different space in a different time as before and that energy and matter "glides" towards infinity by the pull of space itself.

That sounds pretty meaningless, so no. Time and energy are not substances, so they cannot "glide" toward anything.

 

[koti]

You cannot grip spacetime. However, you can use grep to display contents of a file on a linux box. Heres the wiki on frequency:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

[1x0]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That sounds pretty meaningless, so no. Time and energy are not substances, so they cannot "glide" toward anything.

 

Time is more "just" information although perceived physical. Energy...Still "feels"(sorry for the expression) correlated to spaces expenditure....Energy is not a substance... I have a hard time to grep this.... especially if it has/can have mass. I would inspect the option of spaces rigidity i.e matter has no effect on space. Just space can have an effect on mass....(space expenditure = cause, matter=effect..... If it would be true that mass can torsion space than does not that indicate that space has weight? Otherwise, how can mass effect space? Which physical attribute of space can be impacted by mass? Space itself. But how space could be more than information about any physical entities whereabout? Time?  But isn't time is information about any physical entities when about? If space and time can be impacted than aren't they physical? And we are back to the original question.  

Thought experiment: What is more likely: Mass impacts the mass of photons(yet not recognized) and by that torsion their path (does the torsion of the common path has to mean the torsion of space (the 4D coordinate system) itself? I mean photons are waves in proportion to one another while impacted......or mass torsion spacetime itself (meaning the impact implied throughout the system and that every concentrated structure such as an atomic nucleus bends spacetime itself the same way pulling some part of it with while existing in a new space-time reality in every upcoming moment...) The second version sounds a bit messy.... 

How could you prove that space has no velocity and it does not expand it just is? The infinite ever Being? What observation indicates this? Hubble's work seems to reject this or I perceived it wrong..

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[Tub]

On 5/21/2015 at 5:53 PM, 1x0 said:

Can/should we count information as physical entity?

 

 

Hello,1x0. I think there is one way to say that  information can be a physical entity. For example,  i have a car, a silver Peugeot 206, and that information is stored physically in my brain in my memory-cells so that, if someone asks me what car i have, i can retrieve that information from its physical location in the brain. Each time someone asks me that same question , i go to the same location , the same memory-cells, and the same information is still there. Even when i am not thinking of my car, the information is still stored in that physical location until the next time i need it. So, as the action of memory is a mechanical function, i think it is not too unreasonable to say that the information stored in the memory-cells has a physical presence.

[1x0]

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Time is more "just" information although perceived physical. Energy...Still "feels"(sorry for the expression) correlated to spaces expenditure....Energy is not a substance... I have a hard time to grep this.... especially if it has/can have mass. I would inspect the option of spaces rigidity i.e matter has no effect on space. Just space can have an effect on mass....(space expenditure = cause, matter=effect..... If it would be true that mass can torsion space than does not that indicate that space has weight? Otherwise, how can mass effect space? Which physical attribute of space can be impacted by mass? Space itself. But how space could be more than information about any physical entities whereabout? Time?  But isn't time is information about any physical entities when about? If space and time can be impacted than aren't they physical? And we are back to the original question.  

Thought experiment: What is more likely: Mass impacts the mass of photons(yet not recognized) and by that torsion their path (does the torsion of the common path has to mean the torsion of space itself? I mean they are waves in proportion to one another while impected......or mass torsion spacetime itself (meaning the impact implied throughout the system and that every concentrated structure such as an atomic nucleus bends spacetime itself the same way pulling some part of it with while existing in a new space-time reality in every upcoming moment...) The second version sounds a bit messy.... 

How could you prove that space has no velocity and it does not expand it just is? The infinite ever Being? What observation indicates this? Hubble's work seems to reject this or I perceived it wrong..

Could we account time as a vector (it tick since space exist) and can something change a vectors attributes? 

Edited February 7, 2018 by 1x0

[studiot]

I can see one way in which information might require physical substance.

That would be in the correct and proper application of Shannon's definition to say a box of chocolates.

 

[1x0]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How can you tell the difference between two volumes of space?

Quote

By being aware of time and the motion of the examined realm. 

Is there anything without some level of velocity? 

[Sensei]

On 21.05.2015 at 7:24 PM, 1x0 said:

The complex internet as the weight of a strawberry?

If you will store data on disk, CD, DVD, magnetic tape, bit is stored as certain state of electrons, and atoms.

Different state, slightly different mass-energy.

 

Somebody can send information using light signals.

Zero data might be expressed as lack of photons (lack of light), one data might be expressed by presence of photons (light), with fixed delays between them.

Lack of photons = lack of energy they carry.

 

Traditional communication using paper with ink, with words: paper full of words will weight tiny tiny bit more than completely empty piece of paper, without any words.

 

[Gees]

Sensei;

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Traditional communication using paper with ink, with words: paper full of words will weight tiny tiny bit more than completely empty piece of paper, without any words.

Not being a scientist, I don't know much about the other ideas that you mentioned, but is it possible that with the "traditional" communication, the ink itself is what causes the weight difference? Not the information itself?

For that matter, is weight the only measure that proves something is physical? I study consciousness, and consciousness is simply information in motion. There have been tests where researchers try to weigh the body just prior to death and immediately after death in order to determine if consciousness has weight, with limited and inconclusive results. So is there another way to determine if information is physical?

 

1x0;

I have been loath to bring up the subject of consciousness, because few people study it or know much about it, and I do not want to damage or distract this thread. On the other hand, I see relationships between some of the ideas regarding information and consciousness, so I think it may be relevant. Actually, I see comparisons between information and the unconscious aspect of mind, like Shannon's bits, 1/0, which work in much the same way as the unconscious aspect of mind works. Even Mathematics has fundamental comparisons to the unconscious.

In my studies of consciousness, I have had a great deal of difficulty determining if thought and knowledge (information) are real, if they have any properties that can cause an effect or in any way influence matter. On the other hand, emotion does have an effect on matter, and emotion is, for all I can determine, just information in motion. So does the motion of emotion cause it to be more real? More physical? Does the fact that it is in motion allow us to determine that it has a physical aspect?

Gee

[1x0]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Sensei;

 

Not being a scientist, I don't know much about the other ideas that you mentioned, but is it possible that with the "traditional" communication, the ink itself is what causes the weight difference? Not the information itself?

For that matter, is weight the only measure that proves something is physical? I study consciousness, and consciousness is simply information in motion. There have been tests where researchers try to weigh the body just prior to death and immediately after death in order to determine if consciousness has weight, with limited and inconclusive results. So is there another way to determine if information is physical?

 

1x0;

I have been loath to bring up the subject of consciousness, because few people study it or know much about it, and I do not want to damage or distract this thread. On the other hand, I see relationships between some of the ideas regarding information and consciousness, so I think it may be relevant. Actually, I see comparisons between information and the unconscious aspect of mind, like Shannon's bits, 1/0, which work in much the same way as the unconscious aspect of mind works. Even Mathematics has fundamental comparisons to the unconscious.

In my studies of consciousness, I have had a great deal of difficulty determining if thought and knowledge (information) are real, if they have any properties that can cause an effect or in any way influence matter. On the other hand, emotion does have an effect on matter, and emotion is, for all I can determine, just information in motion. So does the motion of emotion cause it to be more real? More physical? Does the fact that it is in motion allow us to determine that it has a physical aspect?

Gee

I do not wonder that you bring up consciousness. I wonder sometimes could the fact that evolved consciousness (we)can exist basically in any space with the right physical circumstances (at the end of the day we "glide" through reality with at least the motion of our galaxy and the solar system itself). So if consciousness basically can exist in space that does not mean that space itself is fundamentally conscious as it able to support and maintain (give the right realm) for existing, observable, recognizable conscious entities. Could consciousness mean the awareness of at least the physical attributes the examined physical entity owns? If I observe a photon, It has the very rigid physical presentation (velocity, energy, wavelength). Does the fact that it acts always based on the information this physical presentation visualize (and by that recognizable for us) meaning that on a very simple way it is aware of the information (the fundamental determination by the Laws of Nature) about its existence.  

I think everyone has its own way to recognize the personal, biophysical, experience-based values ones owns as everyone has a different path in reality. 

I have written a small essay kind of paper for my Strategy Exam which got a bit philosophical (the professor give the perfect question to wonder...) but shows my own way (the questions I raise trying to determine biological, physical, mathematical, philosophical, economical, personal values) on the path of recognition. I am not fully aware for sure because there are so many things I do not know but for sure I recognized a lot of reality-based values which I would not have been able to do if I do not sense what Nothing could mean (i.e. medically and economically relevant informations during the operation of the praxis). In proportion to the sense of Nothing everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. I see this in basically everything.....

I will add a link to the essay if you are interested. It is a limited minds wondering about reality. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRWgdGuKa665mMpmTvGnQI7KapVMpVJMhCPofbTbj9w/edit  

 

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by 1x0

[Strange]

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I have had a great deal of difficulty determining if thought and knowledge (information) are real, if they have any properties that can cause an effect or in any way influence matter.

Well your thoughts and knowledge are causing black and white patterns to appear on my computer screen, so I guess they can influence matter.

13 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

If I observe a photon, It has the very rigid physical presentation (velocity, energy, wavelength).

I'm not sure they are that rigid. The energy and wavelength depend on the observer, for example.