Energy and Mass can be randomized. Information is neither Energy or Mass, though they can be modulated with information. Semantics does not work with science. Results do however.

 

If you could be bothered to read my third reference you would find out how far behind modern physics quantum electrodynamics is.

Since you have yet to provide a working definition of what you consider information is, how can you state

From Quantum’s Theory point of view ‘information’ must be
some smallest bit / quantum of information.

whatever this means?

As a matter of interest, how do you measure the size or quantity of information?

Before you can compare sizes, you must of necessity, have a scale of measurement.

What do you mean by smallest?

1 is the smallest positive integer.

You can say this because (any set of) the integers, the rational numbers or the real numbers can be placed in order from smallest to largest.

However this is not possible with complex numbers. These cannot be placed in order.

 

If you could be bothered to read my third reference you would find out how far behind modern physics quantum electrodynamics is.

Since you have yet to provide a working definition of what you consider information is, how can you state



whatever this means?

As a matter of interest, how do you measure the size or quantity of information?

Before you can compare sizes, you must of necessity, have a scale of measurement.

What do you mean by smallest?

1 is the smallest positive integer.

You can say this because (any set of) the integers, the rational numbers or the real numbers can be placed in order from smallest to largest.

However this is not possible with complex numbers. These cannot be placed in order.

QED has business only with particle by name photon / electron.
And Feynman wrote book:
‘QED: The strange theory of Light and Matter.’
==.

 

We are trying to help you here, but I really can't understand what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking.

Feynman was a great scientist, but he has been dead nearly twenty five years and produced his famous work more than twenty five years before that.

Physics has moved on since then.

 

I would like to know what you are asking. After all, simply put information is meaningless until someone interprets it. For this, I will turn to some of the work done by Shannon and the information theory. If you are trying to figure out what information is contained in an atom or an electron, then probably a term other than information should be used.

 

An interesting discussion on information is given here.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf

 

An interesting discussion on information is given here.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf

Tnxs, very interesting. I'm going to have to give it a closer read when I have the time. Maxwell's demon is a neat one. Cannot really comment on anything, but a question of memory does comes up with the altered state and energy expenditure...

 

An interesting discussion on information is given here.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf

The Physics of Information
F. ALEXANDER BAIS AND J. DOYNE FARMER
. . .
The notion of information as used by Shannon is a generalization of the notion
of entropy, which _rst appeared in thermodynamics.
In thermodynamics entropy is an abstract quantity depending on heat and
temperature whose interpretation is not obvious.
. . . .
It turns out that the concept of entropy or equivalently information is useful
in many applications that have nothing to do with physics
.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf

=====.
#
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
==========..

 

Yes thank you Steve for an interesting link. It will certainly take more than 5 minutes to read!

 

Don't you have anything to say on your on? that's not copied from somewhere else?

 

Book: The Physics of Information
By F. ALEXANDER BAIS AND J. DOYNE FARMER
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf

The conception of entropy appears in every chapter of this book.

And the Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.

If we don’t know what entropy is, then today’s theory of information
is only a shadow of the future theory of information.
==========..

 

For me loosewire was very special ,as i never understood most of his post ,but now loosewire is no more special for me ...soooorry loosewire just look at his post,I believe that will blow your mind too...

BTW socratus welcome to AAC,and this is a request please stop using that blue color for your text it irritates me and will you ever share something from your point of view....I read almost #31 post and among them on your posts I only read quotation from books...

Have a good time in AAC and keep blowing minds

 

Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html

===.

 

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/talks/blackholes.pdf

More reading material for you to digest.

 

DNA – Information - Evolution.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
between information and DNA. He wrote:
‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
/ page 281 /
DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
/ page 282 /
#
My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
#
My question.
Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA information is not static information.
DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
DNA information can evolve.
DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
#
Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
/ The unity of Nature, page 40. /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
#
Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take time
more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========.

 

How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.

How does your computer draw the shape of a human on the screen?

It just blindly follows code stored in computer memory and runs it through a complex set of logic gates. It has no "understanding" of what it is doing, at least not the way a human understands, it is just a machine.

In an analogous way, DNA is the code containing instructions, and your body is a machine that follows the instructions, though sometimes it makes mistakes when following instructions, which is what makes evolution possible.

No "understanding" is necessary, and no need to wait trillions of years for chance to build a human.

At least this is how I think it works - at a very high level.

 

In an analogous way, DNA is the code containing instructions,
and your body is a machine that follows the instructions,
though sometimes it makes mistakes when following instructions,
which is what makes evolution possible.

1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.

 

Life is an artifact created by DNA to increase the probability of its replication.

We are a life support system for a self replicating chemical compound.

 

1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.

In my opinion, your logic is completely hopeless. I disagree with both assertions.

I sense that you are trying to push some kind of religious belief here.

 

A lot of science has been twisted over time to suit religion. I am not against religion, but the pursuit of science should never be confused with religious beliefs, both suffer in the end.

It has been suggested the OP is engaged in exactly that. We have some of the most tech savvy and science savvy types you could hope for on this site. They will point out most of the errors in logic I keep seeing.

If this does turn out to be a religious rant of some kind (and I will assume it is not) the thread(s) will eventually be closed. AAC does not support evangelization nor politics. Sometimes it can be hard to tell which is which.

There have been other people pushing pseudo science point of view to support overunity and other forms of fantasy physics. Their threads got closed, and in a few cases the OPs got banned if they were professional scammers.

I'm not sure where these thread(s) are heading, so I am tracking them. So far it is OK.