What is information in relation to physics?

[neutrinosalad]

So I was watching this interesting video of Leonard Susskind:

 

 

He stated something along the lines of how bits of information can never be lost and how that concept is a part of the foundation of physics.

 

What are bits of information and how do they relate to physics?

 

Edit: grammar

Edited December 31, 2015 by Capayan

[studiot]

The number of bits of information a system can hold is the number of different states it can exist in.

 

So a system that can be liquid or gas can store two bits of information, one for liquid and one for gas.

 

The definition of states can be very wide indeed

 

In statistical mechanics it is the number of energy states.

In electronics it can be the positions of a switch.

 

In some circumstances the variable used to define state can vary continuously and the number of states is then infinite. Velocity would be an example.

Iin some circumstances it can only vary in steps, eg the charge on a capacitor, which can only vary in steps of one electron charge.Here there are very many, but not infinite, states available between minimum and maximum charge.

[EdEarl]

I think it means that if it were possible to undo the effects of a black hole, all the stuff that fell into the black hole could be recreated during the undo.

[elizsia]

I think it means that if it were possible to undo the effects of a black hole, all the stuff that fell into the black hole could be recreated during the undo.

You would have to reverse time to recreate what has already been lost..

[Strange]

You would have to reverse time to recreate what has already been lost..

 

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples where we can recreate what was "lost" without reversing time. Some chemical reactions are reversible. We can dissolve crystals and then regrow them. Melting and freezing. Boiling and condensing.

 

And the idea of Hawking radiation came out of looking to see if the same was true of the information that entered black holes.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Strange

[elizsia]

 

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples where we can recreate what was "lost" without reversing time. Some chemical reactions are reversible. We can dissolve crystals and then regrow them. Melting and freezing. Boiling and condensing.

 

And the idea of Hawking radiation came out of looking to see if the same was true of the information that entered black holes.

 

You cant recreate what has been lost... The only thing you are doing, is creating something artifitial and something different.. You can never recreate the Original thing... Once the Original thing has been lost you can never create the same thing again... You cant recreate mount everest once it has been destroyed, The Original version of something can never exist again... All you will be recreating is an Illusion...

 

Its like the teleportation devices on star trek, you destroy the Original thing and re-create it, But it will never be the Original version... Once the Original version has been destroyed all you are reforming is a different and newer version, but not the Original version..

 

The only way to have the original version is to reverse time..

Edited January 5, 2016 by elizsia

[imatfaal]

 

You cant recreate what has been lost... The only thing you are doing, is creating something artifitial and something different.. You can never recreate the Original thing... Once the Original thing has been lost you can never create the same thing again... You cant recreate mount everest once it has been destroyed, The Original version of something can never exist again... All you will be recreating is an Illusion...

 

Its like the teleportation devices on star trek, you destroy the Original thing and re-create it, But it will never be the Original version... Once the Original version has been destroyed all you are reforming is a different and newer version, but not the Original version..

 

The only way to have the original version is to reverse time..

 

If two particles are indistinguishable and when the loss of the first particle is strictly followed (ie the action is determined and the sequence cannot be reversed/changed to allow both to exist at the same time) by the appearance of the completely indistinguishable second particle - why must we consider this a non-original; what is the difference ontologically?

 

This is a simplistic description of what quantum computation academics sometimes call quantum teleportation btw