4 ms·

Newbie question, would this imply that there's something like an "information particle"?

• krastanov 7y ago
  Not in any of the usual meanings of "particle" (an "excitation of a quantum field", which of course is not a particularly elucidating explanation if you are lacking context).
  • mojomark 7y ago
    In Light Emitting Diodes, electrons move across the electron transport layer, while "hole" particles move through the hole transport, where they meet at the heterojunction to combine and emit photon particles. Holes aren't really like other atomic particles, rather they represent the lack of an electron in an energy field that has an affinity for electrons. But it's still a type of manifestation of energy (or lack thereof), thus represents a unit of mass (albeit negative), which effectively signifies the presence of a manipulatable minute piece of negative matter - the definition of a particle. So, I don't see why you couldn't use the particle label when referring to information. How about an "infon"?
    • krastanov 7y ago
      Yes, holes exist and are a useful formalism. But you are wrong, holes very much behave like other elementary particles (pseudo-particles), and you get to call these things particles, exactly because they behave like excitations of a field. If you insist, sure, you can make up an infon and call it a particle. However, it would not behave like anything a physicist would call a particle, nor would it use any of the mathematical tools that were developed to deal with particles, nor it would provide any useful intuition or insight, nor would it provide any pedagogical value. And at that point why bother calling it a particle if it does not behave like one.