Information has mass

[atanu]

Dr Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth advances ‘it from bit’ concept of John Wheeler, who coined the phrase and the idea that every particle in the universe emanates from the information locked inside it. At the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, Wheeler proposed that everything, from particles to forces to the fabric of spacetime itself "… derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely … from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."

Vopson says that not only is information the essential unit of the universe but also that it is energy and has mass. He unifies and coordinates special relativity with the Landauer Principle (which is named after Rolf Landauer) which predicts that erasing even one bit of information would release a calculable tiny amount of heat.

What will it all mean, if the concept is correct?

Part Einstein, part Landauer

...

 

[exchemist]

Dr Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth advances ‘it from bit’ concept of John Wheeler, who coined the phrase and the idea that every particle in the universe emanates from the information locked inside it. At the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, Wheeler proposed that everything, from particles to forces to the fabric of spacetime itself "… derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely … from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."

Vopson says that not only is information the essential unit of the universe but also that it is energy and has mass. He unifies and coordinates special relativity with the Landauer Principle (which he named after Rolf Landauer) which predicts that erasing even one bit of information would release a calculable tiny amount of heat.

What will it all mean, if the concept is correct?

Part Einstein, part Landauer

...

I'm not sure what this really signifies. There is a well-known link between information and entropy. However what this seems to be saying is that to create information work has to be done and conversely, when information is erased, heat is released. So from that one can say that information is associated with a certain amount of energy. If that is true, then by the mass-equivalence principle, information must also be associated with a certain amount of mass. So far so good.

But what all this does not make clear (because it is not relevant to the author's argument), is that neither energy nor information can exist as entities in their own right, any more than mass can.

Energy is not ""stuff": you can't have a jug of energy. Energy is a property of a physical system, just like mass. A proton, for instance, has mass and energy. You cannot say it "is" mass, and you cannot say it "is" energy either. Einstein's equivalence relation E=mc² says that if a system has a certain rest mass then it has a certain rest energy too. It says nothing about what something "is".

The same will apply to information, it seems to me. You can't have jug of information either. If you claim, as this author does, that information "is" energy, that implies that information too is a property of whatever physical system one is dealing with.

So I do not believe this is quite as earth-shatteringly fundamental as the article seems to suggest. It is suggesting a link between various properties of systems, namely, information, energy and mass. But the systems are still the systems. They have not dissolved into "pure information", in the style of a Star Trek episode waffling, unscientifically, about "pure energy".

 

[Aupmanyav]

"On the other hand, recent advances in non-equilibrium statistical physics have established that there is no a priori relationship between logical and thermodynamic reversibility. It is possible that a physical process is logically reversible but thermodynamically irreversible. It is also possible that a physical process is logically irreversible but thermodynamically reversible. At best, the benefits of implementing a computation with a logically reversible systems are nuanced."
Landauer's principle - Wikipedia

Energy is not ""stuff": you can't have a jug of energy.

So I do not believe this is quite as earth-shatteringly fundamental as the article seems to suggest. It is suggesting a link between various properties of systems, namely, information, energy and mass. But the systems are still the systems. They have not dissolved into "pure information", in the style of a Star Trek episode waffling, unscientifically, about "pure energy".

Not sure about that. How come stuff changes in to energy (the Bomb)?

Or "pure consciousness".

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure what this really signifies. There is a well-known link between information and entropy. However what this seems to be saying is that to create information work has to be done and conversely, when information is erased, heat is released. So from that one can say that information is associated with a certain amount of energy. If that is true, then by the mass-equivalence principle, information must also be associated with a certain amount of mass. So far so good.

But what all this does not make clear (because it is not relevant to the author's argument), is that neither energy nor information can exist as entities in their own right, any more than mass can.

Energy is not ""stuff": you can't have a jug of energy. Energy is a property of a physical system, just like mass. A proton, for instance, has mass and energy. You cannot say it "is" mass, and you cannot say it "is" energy either. Einstein's equivalence relation E=mc² says that if a system has a certain rest mass then it has a certain rest energy too. It says nothing about what something "is".

The same will apply to information, it seems to me. You can't have jug of information either. If you claim, as this author does, that information "is" energy, that implies that information too is a property of whatever physical system one is dealing with.

So I do not believe this is quite as earth-shatteringly fundamental as the article seems to suggest. It is suggesting a link between various properties of systems, namely, information, energy and mass. But the systems are still the systems. They have not dissolved into "pure information", in the style of a Star Trek episode waffling, unscientifically, about "pure energy".

I agree. Information, like mass and energy, are system properties. So what is going on here is that one cannot erase the information property without altering the mass property.

 

[Polymath257]

Among other things, it means that computers will always require some energy to erase information (which they do frequently). Even a superconducting computer will require some energy to run. This also suggests a minimal amount of energy that would be required.

As @exchemist pointed out, energy and information don't exist on their own: they are properties of matter (like charge, momentum, or spin).

Information is a curious property. In some forms, it has been linked with entropy, but I don't think that is the whole story. I think that any event that is irreversible produces information. And, in fact, this is partly what connects information and entropy: both are fundamentally the result of irreversible processes when a deeper analysis is made.

And, of course, this brings up the issue of the arrow of time. For most of our equations of physics, there is a time reversal symmetry: the equations look the same with time running backward as they do with time running forward. And, even in those where this is not the case (weak interaction), the differences are small. So why the arrow of time? Why does entropy increase at all?

This is also linked to the fact that entropy is the result of a high level description as opposed to a lower level one: it isn't a basic thing. Even defining it depends on how we break up the universe. In a sense, entropy is the loss of information produced when we ignore the small scale behavior and concentrate on macroscopic phenomena. Again, that suggests it isn't fundamental.

 

[Polymath257]

"On the other hand, recent advances in non-equilibrium statistical physics have established that there is no a priori relationship between logical and thermodynamic reversibility. It is possible that a physical process is logically reversible but thermodynamically irreversible. It is also possible that a physical process is logically irreversible but thermodynamically reversible. At best, the benefits of implementing a computation with a logically reversible systems are nuanced."
Landauer's principle - Wikipedia
Not sure about that. How come stuff changes in to energy (the Bomb)?

Or "pure consciousness".

In a nuclear bomb, mass is converted into kinetic energy. But that energy is still the energy *of something*. In fact, it is the energy of the fission or fusion products from the nuclear reactions.

As for 'pure consciousness', I have yet to see evidence of such.

 

[exchemist]

"On the other hand, recent advances in non-equilibrium statistical physics have established that there is no a priori relationship between logical and thermodynamic reversibility. It is possible that a physical process is logically reversible but thermodynamically irreversible. It is also possible that a physical process is logically irreversible but thermodynamically reversible. At best, the benefits of implementing a computation with a logically reversible systems are nuanced."
Landauer's principle - Wikipedia
Not sure about that. How come stuff changes in to energy (the Bomb)?

Or "pure consciousness".

No, in the bomb, rest mass of atomic nuclei is converted to the kinetic energy of subatomic particles and the electromagnetic energy of radiation (gamma rays) and thus eventually to heat, which is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules in thermal motion. If you analyse it properly, the energy released is all energy of some system.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what this really signifies. There is a well-known link between information and entropy.

Caution!
Opinions to follow.

They're only linked in the sense of analogs.
"Information" is a perspective we humans have
applied to thermodynamics (statistical mechanics).

Because we store information using material means,
this means that energy levels (eg, electrical, mechanical)
& mass will be affected (depending upon the nature
of the system, eg, biological, electronic, mechanical).
The information itself has no mass or energy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for 'pure consciousness', I have yet to see evidence of such.

As for examples of pure consciousness, i.e., consciousness unhinged from anything in the natural world, one need only read some of the offerings found in Scriptural Debates.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In a nuclear bomb, mass is converted into kinetic energy. But that energy is still the energy *of something*. In fact, it is the energy of the fission or fusion products from the nuclear reactions.

Beg to differ, Polymath. IMHO, energy is a entity in itself. That is my Brahman. Brahman existed prior to inflation. Brahman existed before any other entity seemed to exist. All which seems to exist is Brahman only (Sarvam khalvidam Bahma), because there is none else (Advaita Vedanta).

No, in the bomb, rest mass of atomic nuclei is ..

And what is an atom - Energy.

 

[exchemist]

Beg to differ, Polymath. IMHO, energy is a entity in itself. That is my Brahman. Brahman existed prior to inflation. Brahman existed before any other entity seemed to exist. All which seems to exist is Brahman only (Sarvam khalvidam Bahma), because there is none else (Advaita Vedanta).

Then your belief is not physics, and when you use the word "energy", you do not mean what is meant by the word in science.

That's OK, so long as you never try to join in a science discussion. (We are in the Science and Technology subforum, here.)

 

[Polymath257]

Beg to differ, Polymath. IMHO, energy is a entity in itself. That is my Brahman. Brahman existed prior to inflation. Brahman existed before any other entity seemed to exist. All which seems to exist is Brahman only (Sarvam khalvidam Bahma), because there is none else (Advaita Vedanta).

In that case, you are using the word in a different way than the scientists who talk about energy. That is fine as long as you realize the differences.

And what is an atom - Energy.

No, an atom is a collection of fundamental particles that *have* energy.

Energy is the property of particles. But the particles are not *only* energy. They also have charge, momentum, spin, parity, etc.

 

[exchemist]

And what is an atom - Energy.

No, an atom is not energy. An atom is a nucleus, comprised of protons and neutrons, with a cloud of electrons surrounding it. These constituent parts of the atom HAVE energy, certainly. But it is absurd to say they ARE energy. You've been watching too much Star Trek.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, an atom is a collection of fundamental particles that *have* energy.
Energy is the property of particles. But the particles are not *only* energy. They also have charge, momentum, spin, parity, etc.

In that case, you are using the word in a different way than the scientists who talk about energy. That is fine as long as you realize the differences.

What was there before Baryogenesis? Anything other than energy?
Star Trek was well-produced. You cannot blame a science lover for reading or seeing science fiction, Asimov books for example. Fun is a part of life. Although I do not remember them now, read them decades ago.
I am using the word energy exactly in the same way that you scientists use. Only using a Hindu word for it. Brahman has no properties different than those of physical energy. For me, Brahman is not God.

 

[Polymath257]

What was there before Baryogenesis? Anything other than energy?

Yes, although different models have different precursors. At the very least, there were photons. Some models have very massive bosons. Some have quarks and gluons even very early on.

In ALL cases, the energy is a property of some particles, not something that exists independently by itself.

I am using the word energy exactly in the same way that you scientists use.

In that case, your statements above are simply wrong scientifically.

Only using a Hindu word to describe it. Brahman has no properties different than physical energy.

All I can say is that you misunderstand the concept of energy as used in physics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Polymath257 said: "All I can say is that you misunderstand the concept of energy as used in physics."
OR perhaps science has not yet realized that, being a little myopic and missing the larger picture.
What was there before the advent of Baryonic matter?

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 said: "All I can say is that you misunderstand the concept of energy as used in physics."
OR perhaps science has not yet realized that, being a little myopic and missing the larger picture.
What was there before the advent of Baryonic matter?

Again, I answered that above. Before baryonic matter (which is all fermionic), there was bosonic matter, like photons, gluons, etc. There may also have been quarks (which are fermions and make up the baryons).

The big picture is that energy is a property of particles, not unlike momentum. There are also other properties like charge, spin, parity, isospin, etc. Energy is only *one* of these properties, although it is an important one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've been watching too much Star Trek.

Is there any such thing as "too much Star Trek"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Before baryonic matter (which is all fermionic), there was bosonic matter, like photons, gluons, etc. There may also have been quarks (which are fermions and make up the baryons).

What was Bosonic matter constituted of, photons, gluons, etc.?

 

[exchemist]

What was Bosonic matter constituted of, photons, gluons, etc.?

Themselves.

In our models, the photon is elementary, as is the gluon - and the quark. But it doesn't matter: the point is these are physical entities that, according to the models of science, possess energy as one of their various properties.

I think part of the misunderstanding here - which is a common one - may be that some people don't realise that radiation (light, etc) is a physical entity, just as much as the "hard bits" of matter like protons, which have rest mass. Some people loosely say "light is energy" but it isn't: light has energy....and momentum, and spin, and frequency and wavelength and velocity and polarisation.......