# Where does the information come from?

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
Where does the information come from?
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /

===
#
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we dont have a theory
#

In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isnt em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron

The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electrons energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.

According to QED in interaction with vacuum electrons
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwells equations

c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law

e) Fermi-Dirac statistics
#.

What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.

But how can we trust them if we dont know what is electron ?
====.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:

"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
====.
Ladies and Gentlemen !

Friends !
Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are.
==========.
#
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.

This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the
Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into
Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================

In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.

By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==========.
Best wishes.
=====
P.S.
Robert Milliken, who measured a charge of electron,
in his Nobel speech ( 1923 ) told, that he knew nothing
about the last essence of electron.
#
The verse: The world of electron.

But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov./
===============

#### samjesse

Joined Sep 14, 2008
212
Simply put. information originates in an intelligent source.

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
Simply put. information originates in an intelligent source.
Where does intelligent source come from ?
From Australia, Sydney ?

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,420
Poetry and philosophy does not science make.

We have had many visit here who could not understand the difference. Usually they wind up leaving, because they do not understand the differences.

Science is about observations, with theories build, discarded, rewritten, to explain more observations. Science can morph and change with one simple fact, one simple observation. It is both simple and complex, but ultimately understandable by those who are truly interested.

Those who want to use semantics are ultimately going to be disappointed, since most folks do not play the game. I do not want to play the games.

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
Poetry and philosophy does not science make.

We have had many visit here who could not understand the difference.
Usually they wind up leaving, because they do not understand the differences.

Science is about observations, with theories build, discarded, rewritten,
to explain more observations. Science can morph and change with one
simple fact, one simple observation. It is both simple and complex,
but ultimately understandable by those who are truly interested.

Those who want to use semantics are ultimately going to be disappointed,
since most folks do not play the game.
I do not want to play the games.
Book Dreams of a final theory. By Steven Weinberg.
Page 66.
 Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-students research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
 He tried to understand quantum mechanics. (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Dont try to understand quantum theory if you want reach success.
==.

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,420
No thanks. I have done plenty of reading, and am not interested in engaging you.

If you had a questions we could talk, but you want to lecture. Not my cup of tea.

We get many people who have a personal agenda and use pseudo science to push it, eventually they leave. One way or another.

I am not sure what you are about, but I'll be watching on the sidelines. It's my job here.

I love science. I have since I was old enough to read. I have the basics down.

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
No thanks. I have done plenty of reading, and am not interested in engaging you.

If you had a questions we could talk, but you want to lecture. Not my cup of tea.

We get many people who have a personal agenda and use pseudo science to push it, eventually they leave. One way or another.

I am not sure what you are about, but I'll be watching on the sidelines. It's my job here.

I love science. I have since I was old enough to read. I have the basics down.
' Engineering is not science.
Where the engineering is ended, the science begins.'
/ Pyotr Kapitza,
won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 /
==.

#### amilton542

Joined Nov 13, 2010
497
@ Socratus

Your postulated theory will always be revised to counter the opposition.

On the other hand, lets face facts, physics works.

#### justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
439
I agree with Bill. No discussion going on here.

As far as origin of information...

“We know that attention acts as a lightning rod. Merely by concentrating on something one causes endless analogies to collect around it, even penetrate the boundaries of the subject itself: an experience that we call coincidence, serendipity – the terminology is extensive. My experience has been that in these circular travels what is really significant surrounds a central absence, an absence that, paradoxically, is the text being written or to be written.”

and

“Once in a while it happens that I vomit up a bunny... it's not reason for one to blush and isolate oneself and to walk around keeping one's mouth shut.”

coming to you from Julio Cortazar. (my conclusion - I live in the wrong time when people and literature are boring

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
@ Socratus

Your postulated theory will always be revised to counter the opposition.

On the other hand, lets face facts, physics works.
Yes! The Physics works.
But . . .
On the one hand;

In Physics we trust.

Is it correct ?
Yes, it is correct.
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality.

On the other hand,

Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. /
Is it correct ?
Yes, it is correct.
Why?
#
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
/ Richard Feynman /.
#
... the more you see how strangely Nature behaves,
the harder it is to make a model that explains how even
the simplest phenomena actually work.
So theoretical physics has given up on that.
/Feynman /
#
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. 
( Feynman. 1987)
#
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you cant correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
 Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them.
/ John von Neumann ./
#
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/ Dirac /
#
In his book  Quantum theory  ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,
/ chapter 6, part  Quantum hype, page 92 /
#
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory./
#
etc . . .
=====.

#### studiot

Joined Nov 9, 2007
4,998
About as much as you evidently thought about the Ancient Mariner.

Since I am not sure if there is a question in your postings here are some references to the thoughts of many great persons. including some Nobel laureates, about what I think is your subject.

A Question of Physics

Converstations with Heisenberg, Bohm, Rosen, Dirac, Roesenfeld and others

Edited by Buckley and Peat

---------
On Space and Time
Modern essays on the subject by Connes, Majid, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Taylor, Heller.

edited by Shajn Majid

-----------------

The Lightness of Being

Frank Wilczek

All explore the development of the various quantum theories to incorporate known and new observations and extend predictions for further testing and development.

You should be able to obtain these from your university library.

Last edited:

#### samjesse

Joined Sep 14, 2008
212
Where does intelligent source come from ?
From Australia, Sydney ?
Galapagos.

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
 The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.
Where did the information go? 
/ Book  The big questions by Michael Brooks.
Page 195-196. /
1.
Modern biologists speak of information  in genetics.
( a set of chromosomes contains in its genes the information )
The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.
Question:
How many cells  volumes can a single man have and
how they can create a child during 9 months if according
to the probability theory it is impossible?
Question:
Does DNA Know Geometry ?
2.
When a radium atom decays, old electro - information is lost,
and the new information is not equivalent to the old.
It seems as if the elementary event in physics presupposes
not the conservation of information but its change.
Question:
What does law of transformation mean according to
the single quanta of information- electron?
3.
Black hole information paradox . . .
It suggests that physical information could permanently
disappear in a black hole, . . . . .

=========== . .

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,420
Information is not energy, it can be destroyed, and is wiped clean routinely.

The Scientific Law is Energy or Matter can not be destroyed, though they can be converted into each other or other forms.

Philosophy is not science.

#### steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
Information is not energy, it can be destroyed, and is wiped clean routinely.

.
There is a school of thought in modern physics that information is never truly destroyed. Actually, it is more than a school of thought because it is the primary school of thought and all firmly accepted fundamental physics theory is founded on information preserving principles. There are of course practical issues in trying to recover information, but this is a different issue entirely.

It must be remembered that we often use black box models and statistical techniques to deal with very hard problems, and hence much practical theory seems to show that information is destroyed. However, this is an illusion, and if more fundamental theory is used, this fact can be shown.

This concept was brought to the forefront in the famous long term debate/battle between Hawking and Susskind about black holes. The present view is that Susskind has won and information is not even destroyed by a black hole, which was previously thought to be true by Hawking. Hawking claimed to have proved that Black holes are the the one thing that can and do destroy information. After the long battle, Hawking conceded he was wrong.

Speaking out against Hawking's statement that he proved that black holes destroy information, Prof. Leonard Susskind commented, "It violates one of the fundamental principles of physics, which says nothing is ever lost completely. You may say, "How can you say information isn't lost? I can erase information on my computer." But every time a bit of information is erased, we know it doesn't disappear. It goes out into the environment. It may be horribly scrambled and confused, but it never really gets lost. It's just converted into a different form."

The following reference says, "During this discussion Stephen Hawking stated that the information inside a black hole is lost forever as the black hole evaporates. It took 28 years for Leonard Susskind to formulate his theory that would prove Hawking wrong."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

More information is here, and a Google search will uncover more, as well as books by both Hawking and Susskind on this subject.

#### studiot

Joined Nov 9, 2007
4,998
Information is not energy, it can be destroyed, and is wiped clean routinely.
There is a school of thought in modern physics that information is never truly destroyed
Both statements are true!!

Unfortunately the word information has been hijacked from the English language and has more than one meaning.

Populist science authors often write rubbish when their writings apply one definition to the wrong context.

Mathematically even a totally empty universe contains 'information', in just the same way that zero is a valid number.

Did you intend this ?

#### socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
Can energy and information be identified ? 
ask Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
The unity of Nature. Page 282.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker

And on the page 290  291 he wrote:
 Mass is information.
And on the page 292 he wrote:
 Energy is information.
=========.
My opinion.
What is information from Quantums Theory point of view ?
From Quantums Theory point of view information must be
some smallest bit / quantum of information. But physicists
in our world ( according to QED ) use only one particle 
electron to transfer information. They dont use any another
particles ( quark, muon, meson, tau, . . . etc )
Therefore I say:  The smallest bit / quantum of information
is electron with energy: E=h*f. 
===.