The World As A Hologram

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In all seriousness I don’t think the problem lies with the definition. I have said things multiple times, that you have repeatedly responded to with definitions or quotes as to what other people defined as bit of either entropy or a bit in general which don’t conflict with anything I have said.

I must not be understanding you, for which I apologize.

So I almost get the feeling that we are speaking past each other on this topic

That does seem to be the case.

With that being said, I have not been relating everything (well really nothing) directly to a binary system of computer bits. I am just letting you know I understand bits and how they can be manipulated when it comes to computers.

I believe you, and I thought that perhaps that might be the issue, because of the way bits are treated somewhat differently in computer science/programming/etc. It seemed from some of your statements that your issue was one with the use of uncertainty to characterize units of information. I may have read into this as well as your comment about knowing computers, because there actually is a difference in emphasis when it comes to computers vs. information science.

This doesn’t disagree with some of the definitions I am most familiar with and some you have also posted.

As in:

'It isn't, as the "unit of information" which is defined as a bit is "the physical realization of a system- any system- that after appropriate preparation and operation 1. can exist in one of two clearly distinguishable, mutually exclusive, states (0–1; no–yes; true–false; on–off; left path–right path; etc.), and 2. can be read-out or measured to determine which of the two states it is"

Roederer, J. G. (2005). Information and its Role in Nature. Springer.'

That is an accurate definition.

From some of what you said earlier (in particular, what I quoted in my last reply), it seemed like the issue was one of knowledge about the states. That's a terrible way to phrase it, but with computers, the uncertainty part of information is not focal and sometimes not mentioned, even when the discussion get's down to the level of voltage. There doesn't need to be any inclusion of uncertainty or the emphasis on the irrelevance of the system because whatever digital technology one is using, bits work pretty much the same and the binary "system" is always the same thing.

Is how can a bit be in two possible states, when dealing with a black hole since no one has actually gone into a black hole or gotten close enough to physically put anything in it.

Here's where I think we might be talking past one another. A bit cannot be in two possible states ever. It is defined as the amount of uncertainty we have before a measurement of any system in which an actual measurement (or observation) would yield either one of two possible states. Particles have spin, even mass-less particles like photons. The fact that quantum systems can be entangled means that you can know something about one system by performing a measurement on the other, even at a distance. That ability to know translates into nonlocal measurements of sorts (but causality constraints make it impossible to transmit information nonlocally).

Basically, the issue was that what used to be the laws of thermodynamics in classical physics have a direct relation to measurement in quantum physics, which means they also have a direct relation to information. Entropy in statistical mechanics dealt with uncertainty that was epistemological. In QM, the uncertainty principle guarentees that there will be a certain amount of entropy no matter what, and Planck's constant is involved in knowing how much uncertainty we have for any observation of a system.

So the laws of physics entail certain things which (it appeared) black holes violate because it entailed a violation of conservation (which, in QM, can be framed and is actually easier to frame in terms of information, because the "states" of quantum systems are entirely mathematical until observation).

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Here's where I think we might be talking past one another. A bit cannot be in two possible states ever. It is defined as the amount of uncertainty we have before a measurement of any system in which an actual measurement (or observation) would yield either one of two possible states. Particles have spin, even mass-less particles like photons. The fact that quantum systems can be entangled means that you can know something about one system by performing a measurement on the other, even at a distance. That ability to know translates into nonlocal measurements of sorts (but causality constraints make it impossible to transmit information nonlocally).

Basically, the issue was that what used to be the laws of thermodynamics in classical physics have a direct relation to measurement in quantum physics, which means they also have a direct relation to information. Entropy in statistical mechanics dealt with uncertainty that was epistemological. In QM, the uncertainty principle guarentees that there will be a certain amount of entropy no matter what, and Planck's constant is involved in knowing how much uncertainty we have for any observation of a system.

So the laws of physics entail certain things which (it appeared) black holes violate because it entailed a violation of conservation (which, in QM, can be framed and is actually easier to frame in terms of information, because the "states" of quantum systems are entirely mathematical until observation).

Thanks.

That is the only way I could phrase the question to get at what I was asking or wanting to know about a black hole. Otherwise I don’t think I would have gotten the same response.

So I guess just like people have to worry about hurricanes and tornadoes, planets and stars (anthropomorphism) have to worry about black holes. Unless they are not that violent. Like a nice black hole or something. lol
And now I can't stop thinking about 3D and 4D. :thud:
Because for some reason I was starting to think a black hole belongs to another dimension, but it doesn't or maybe they do! Who knows? I know I don't.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I know this article is somewhat dated as of 2002, but I have found more information on it to ease my restless mind.

It says that nobody really knows how many dimensions make up the universe. So studying black holes may help physicists eventually determine how many possible dimensions there may be. So this really blows the socks off of most things I originally thought about the universe and I’m no physicists either so it comes as no surprise.

Number of Dimensions in a Black Hole

Then I got looking into 4-dimensions and found a picture which is absolutely amazing. I believe this was the problem with using a bit reference for me because there more dimensions which I thought may have been the case (black holes are actually studied by indirect observation).

This site:

Segal Conformal Physics and GraviPhotons

gets into spinors and shows a picture from a book called “Spinors and Spacetime, volume 2, by Penrose and Rindler (Cambridge 1986)”.

Is that suppose to be a visual representation of a black hole?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know this article is somewhat dated as of 2002, but I have found more information on it to ease my restless mind.

It says that nobody really knows how many dimensions make up the universe. So studying black holes may help physicists eventually determine how many possible dimensions there may be.

The big problem with physics at the moment is a incongruity between to incredibly successful theoretical framework: relativity and quantum mechanics.

In cosmology, astrophysics, and other disciplines which are concerned with the "big picture", for the most part we're still using the 4D universe from Einstein's work.

The problem is that fundamental to this theory (relativity) is how gravity is understood. Spacetime and universal coordinates are all fundamntally based on how Einstein and others showed the way the structure of the cosmos resulted in gravity.

Quantum mechanics developed without this and doesn't need it. However, it should need it. Because as quantum mechanics concerns the laws of everything on a very small scale, spacetime geometry includes that scale. Each should show how the other can work.

They don't. We have a number of competing theories which resolve this issue, but they are ad hoc and there is no good way most of the time to test one against another empirically.

Even worse, the entirety of quantum mechanics is based on a mathematical framework which corresponds to reality in some way we don't know. Spacetime physics generally uses what is called Minkowski space, while Hilbert spaces are absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics, and relativistic quantum mechanics are again ad hoc ways to try to force results from quantum mechanics into some interpretation of spacetime.

Often enough, this involves positing extra dimensions, or infinite parallel universes.

I believe this was the problem with using a bit reference for me because there more dimensions which I thought may have been the case (black holes are actually studied by indirect observation).

The existence of black holes is inferred, yes. But the problem with dimensions is more than just black holes. For example, while we can only infer what's going on near a black hole because we don't have one handy, quantum physics is quite different. Every observation changes a quantum system fundamentally. Every preperation of a quantum system for some experiment involves the same disturbances, but we don't call it that. The "states" of quantum systems are an entirely statisistical entity, and exist in Hilbert space (an abstract, mathematical space). In order to say anything about the state of some quantum system, we have to basically set it up without looking (if we looked, it would ruin the entire experiment), describe it entirely mathematically without knowing what "it" is, and then "observe" it, relating this observation to the mathematical description, even though we never actually knew, saw, or in any other way related our description to the actual quantum system.

Segal Conformal Physics and GraviPhotons

gets into spinors and shows a picture from a book called “Spinors and Spacetime, volume 2, by Penrose and Rindler (Cambridge 1986)”.

Is that suppose to be a visual representation of a black hole?

Um, I don't believe so. Hopf maps for me are generally reserved for topology and differential geometry (I'm going to assume that the word "Clifford" in the picture refers to Clifford algebra). I know that certain components of algebraic number theory, abstract algebras, differential geometry, etc., have very little application outside of physics, a big exception being cryptography. Any description of either spacetime or relativistic quantum field theory or both needs a mathematical structure. Topology and its combination with other mathematical fields is all about mathematical structure. The "holographic principle" is very much a toplogical issue relating structure/spaces to one another via mappings.
I'm not sure though, as it only looks vaguey familiar.