1. We will be in Read Only mode (no new threads, replies, registration) for several hours as we migrate the forums to upgraded software.

Where does the information come from?

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    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.
    Because information can be transfered only by
    electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
    about protono-magnetic fields.

    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.
    Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
    it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
    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= ∞
    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
    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
    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.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
    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,
    and the memory of forty centuries.
    / Valery Brusov./
  2. samjesse

    Senior Member

    Sep 14, 2008
    Simply put. information originates in an intelligent source.
  3. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    Where does intelligent source come from ?
    From Australia, Sydney ?
  4. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    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.
  5. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    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.’ (!)
    Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want reach success.
  6. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    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.
  7. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    ' Engineering is not science.
    Where the engineering is ended, the science begins.'
    / Pyotr Kapitza,
    won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 /
  8. amilton542

    Active Member

    Nov 13, 2010
    @ Socratus

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

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

    Senior Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    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.”


    “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 ;)
  10. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    Yes! The Physics works.
    But . . .
    On the one hand;

    In Physics we trust.
    / Tarun Biswas /
    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.
    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 . . .
  11. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
  12. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
  13. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    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: Apr 6, 2012
    socratus, justtrying and Wendy like this.
  14. samjesse

    Senior Member

    Sep 14, 2008
  15. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
  16. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    ‘ 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. /
    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.
    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?
    Does DNA Know Geometry ?
    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.
    What does law of transformation mean according to
    the single quanta of information- electron?
    Black hole information paradox . . .
    It suggests that physical information could permanently
    disappear in a black hole, . . . . .


    =========== . .
  17. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    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.
  18. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    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.

  19. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    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 ?

  20. socratus

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    ‘Can energy and information be identified ? ‘
    ask Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
    The unity of Nature. Page 282.

    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. ‘