9 ms·

Is information the fifth state of matter?

73 points by akvadrako 5y ago

gfodor 5y ago
Here's the link to the (recently published) experiment proposal paper: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0087175 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0087175
- 7373737373 5y ago
  What does it mean for an electron to have e.g. 1.509 bits of information?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    That number is an average number of bits per elementary particle. I presume that information can be found not only in particles, but also in how they're arranged. On the other hand, information need not come in whole bits: there are three quark "colors." Storing the color of a quark takes, what, 1.5 bits on average?
    - hello___world 5y ago
      log(3)/log(2) is approx 1.585
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    First, worth clarifying that "information" can be misleading because it sounds like a very general term. For example, it may sound like it implies that there's some underlying super-reality that requires ~1.509 bits to model an electron. Which isn't (generally) the case. Instead, "information" in that context often refers to how much information humans estimate that they could record using some amount of energy -- or, various things like that (depending on the model). Mass can warp reality -- such as through gravity, and as noted with relativistic-effects. And apparently energy counts toward mass (e.g., the E=mc^2 thing), where adding energy to a system adds mass to it, affecting its gravity. So, if energy and mass are linked, and energy and information are linked, then is information linked to mass? For example, would a sufficient amount of information-density create a black-hole? Kinda like an informational-[energy-based black-hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics) ) That's kinda how they appear to be considering it.
infogulch 5y ago
> [matter-antimatter annihilation] converts all the mass of the annihilating particles into energy, typically gamma photons. However, if the particles do contain information, then this also needs to be conserved upon annihilation, producing some lower-energy photons. In the present study, I predicted the exact energy of the infrared red photons resulting from this information erasure, and I gave a detailed protocol for the experimental testing involving the electron-positron annihilation process. Neat.
hprotagonist 5y ago
For something to exist, it has to be observed. For something to exist, it has to have a position in time and space. And this explains why nine-tenths of the mass of the universe is unaccounted for. Nine-tenths of the universe is the knowledge of the position and direction of everything in the other tenth. Every atom has its biography, every star its file, every chemical exchange its equivalent of the inspector with a clipboard. It is unaccounted for because it is doing the accounting for the rest of it, and you cannot see the back of your own head. (except in very small universes). Nine-tenths of the universe, in fact, is the _paperwork_. --Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
- disconcision 5y ago
  interesting, this feels quite close to verlinde's entropic gravity theory, that "gravity is a consequence of the "information associated with the positions of material bodies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- lmarcos 5y ago
  When studying physics (simple stuff like electromagnetism and gravitational forces) I always wondered how the universe "knows" what's the distance between two planets when it comes to calculating forces amongst them. If the data (the distance) actually exist, where is it stored? Is it perhaps calculated "on the fly" so it doesn't need to be "stored"? Totally sure that's not how it works in real life, but for us humans, that model is the best theory we have so far, so it's difficult to think differently.
  - sritchie 5y ago
    Good question; I think the answer from general relativity is that it doesn't, and that those changes are propagated out locally at the speed of light. So it's a Newtonian fudge to have variables like "distance between two bodies" in the equations. Mass changes spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature pushes masses around, back and forth in a grand dance!
inopinatus 5y ago
All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe. (in the Greg Egan edition of this thesis, the speed of light emerges as a property of evaluative propagation through a functional universe, and new forms of consciousness are encountered living within the Lisp machine of the cosmos)
- amelius 5y ago
  > All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe. If the universe is deterministic, then there is no information (everything can be computed from the initial conditions).
  - lmarcos 5y ago
    Aren't then the initial conditions information?
    - AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
      And aren’t the lambdas that evaluate the information information as well?
      - kleene_op 5y ago
        Where the heck is the bottom? Is there even one? Do the lambdas just loop back unto themselves??
        goldenkey 5y ago
        Our universe is a busy beaver program. The longest running BB programs are self-modifying. Any program that reserves static areas necessarily loses out on potential runtime.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
quirkot 5y ago
Either this uses the word "information" in a way that is 99% divorced from common usage or the philosophical implications of this are massive. It would essentially mean that truth or falsity is an inherent property of the universe. Is this string gibberish or is it information? Might even change cryptography forever, too
- gfodor 5y ago
  It's information in the Shannon sense of information entropy, which is about the rarity of sequences of bits, not the notion of bits themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    How could this possibly be a "state of matter" ("the fifth" in contrast to sold, liquid, gas and plasma, the standard four)? Entropy and information are qualities which all states of matter have. And Information as a quality of matter is already taken into account by a variety of physical theories - none of which label information a "state of matter"?
    - gfodor 5y ago
      The OP claims that low information entropy results in an increase in mass. I don't believe the 'state of matter' bit is exactly right, it seems to be an extension to the mass-energy equivalence theorem. (IANAP)
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      I think the 5 states thing is a confusion of the reporter. The theory is saying that energy (or mass) can be converted to information and that it isn't a quality of matter.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        The theory is saying that energy (or mass) can be converted to information and that it isn't a quality of matter. How could possibly be? Information is an arrangement of elements - the elements are normally matter, what else would they be? Oppositely, how could you have matter without information? Matter and energy are characterized by multiple states, which is what allows and forces them to carry information.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Until you can cause phase shifts of other matter to and from information, it's an obvious no. Oh, you're going to take a liquid, bake it into information, then freeze it back into a liquid? Cool, cool
readthenotes1 5y ago
5th? There seems to be some information missing in the title. Maybe not a massive amount. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
- jdrc 5y ago
  I think they misused "state of matter" to mean "fundamental property".
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I think they were referencing solid, liquid, gas, plasma, information as five natural states of matter.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
adamrezich 5y ago
In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
_Nat_ 5y ago
This seems like confusion over [the map/territory relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation ): > "A map is not the territory" Whatever reality might be considered to involve -- mass, energy, entropy, time, whatever -- it's information that we actually consider in our minds. In grade-school physics, it may be all too easy to confuse the map for the territory, because everything's just so simple that students might feel little compulsion to put much thought into things. But it's always been information. If someone wants a string 2-meters long, they might measure out two lengths of 1-meter strings, then tie them together. If the result isn't close enough to 2-meters, then they might reason that they ought to be more precise -- they ought to better measure the 1-meter strings, consider the length-contraction due to tying the knot, and so forth. And then, they might think that there's a difference between the string and their information about it. But further away, in more exotic contexts like in sub-atomic quantum-mechanical arenas or near black-holes, there might be less intuition about the things like strings -- folks may be pushing harder, working more heavily with information without a background sense of naturalness. Inferences may be drawn based on information, and then more built upon that information, until it seems like it's all information. But, to be clear, this isn't some new quality of reality; it's how stuff's always worked. It's just how intellectual-computation works. It's just that, when things were simpler, folks didn't care to consider it. That said, reality isn't quite "information"; it's just our perceptions of reality that're information. This is, reality's the territory, and our conceptions of it are the map. More involved computational-modeling just helps make that more apparent by undermining more naive modes of thinking about it.
- cgio 5y ago
  I think there is an inversion here, though. The question implicit in this context is not whether the map is the territory, but whether the territory is the map. Now one can see these as homophonic statements, but is this the case? When is it or not?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 5y ago
abeppu 5y ago
> Since every particle is supposed to contain information, which supposedly has its own mass, then that information has to go somewhere when the particle is annihilated. In this case, the information should be converted into low-energy infrared photons. How does this compare to the very very low amount of heat released when a bit is erased under Landauer's principle? How many bits does a particle store? Does it store its location? Does the number of bits needed to store that depend on a choice of units, frame of reference, and resolution? (edited typo)
adonovan 5y ago
This seems to be a pet theory of one researcher (Vopson). Have any other physicists written anything about it, supportive or critical?
chroma 5y ago
Looking at the paper linked to in the article[1], I'm having a hard time not dismissing this immediately. There are several implications to this theory: - Information has mass. - Information cannot exist at absolute zero. Does this mean that bringing a hard drive to absolute zero changes its mass and erases its contents? Does the information somehow come back after the drive is warmed up? Also there are many ways to represent information: magnetic charges on a spinning platter, electrical charges in SSDs, physical impressions on metal, graphite on paper, etc. Do all of these get destroyed at absolute zero? I don't know how that's reconcilable with the rest of physics. 1. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
- traskjd 5y ago
  Armchair interest only, so please tell me if I'm wrong or at least we theorize how I could be wrong. My understanding is that even in the full vacuum of space, we do not get to absolute zero. Quantum fluctuations keep it ever so slightly above it. So perhaps information does actually not exist at absolute zero?
  - chroma 5y ago
    According to the paper, the amount of information that can be stored decreases as one gets closer to absolute zero. Our current information storage technologies and refrigeration technologies don't let us actually test this, but with a high enough information density and a low enough temperature, one should expect to lose information if this theory were true.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Well I understand that information, like energy, cannot be destroyed (hence Hawking radiation) so it couldn't just be reduced to zero, it'd have to be transformed. Also the parent's argument about freezing and then reheating to destroy and restore information is a good one because that would be reversing entropy in a closed system (assuming the info was indeed destroyed) and thus impossible. IANA physicist though, just a lay person with an interest in information theory.
  - 5y ago
_8j50 5y ago
More like matter is an expression of information imo
dekhn 5y ago
Information is matter that encodes meaningful data in a way that is resistant to loss from entropy. See also: reversible computing.
zamalek 5y ago
My pet hypothesis is that information is the wave, and particles are just particles. For example, the information about an entangled pair propagates at (or above) the speed of light the instant that they are created. Therefore, the shared state would already be determined at the place of measurement. Also, wouldn't a full hard drive weight less than an empty one (unless "empty" means initialized to all zeroes)?
pieter_mj 5y ago
Unless you're gonna call the natural laws an emergent property of matter, I'd say it's the first state.
klik99 5y ago
A couple of questions from someone struggling to put this in more relatable terms: Isn't information in theoretical physics just mean something that repeats, or perhaps relatable, in some way - for example an underlying structure similar to other structures - and in that sense is measurable information another form of describing mass/energy, like moving between frequency and time domain in signals? (side note: could the significance of information be a by product of using math to describe physics, as math can only describe properties of repeating systems, so high information is equilivant to being easily captured in mathematical terms) And on his experiment, assuming his theory is correct - why would a hard drive represent "pure data", such that writing to it would constitute adding an exact measure of information to mass? For example, in an erased state the drive would have ambient information from surrounding electrical fields, is there some mechanism to erase the drive that ensures it lacks any information? And why would data that a computer can read not be inefficient in some way and contain information irrelevant to the hard drives usage, causing it to measure higher even if this exact mass of information is correct? The weights seem so small that even the smallest bit of environmental interference would make this experiment fail.
MaxMoney 5y ago
xaxaxb 5y ago
This is a point of view originating from physics to look at the world and combining with information theory. I think it's more likely the other way round: information/patterns dictate how particles are structured and their interactions. This goes for energy as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

73 points by akvadrako 5y ago

Here's the link to the (recently published) experiment proposal paper: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0087175 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0087175

7373737373 5y ago
What does it mean for an electron to have e.g. 1.509 bits of information?
- klyrs 5y ago
  That number is an average number of bits per elementary particle. I presume that information can be found not only in particles, but also in how they're arranged. On the other hand, information need not come in whole bits: there are three quark "colors." Storing the color of a quark takes, what, 1.5 bits on average?
  - hello___world 5y ago
    log(3)/log(2) is approx 1.585
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  First, worth clarifying that "information" can be misleading because it sounds like a very general term. For example, it may sound like it implies that there's some underlying super-reality that requires ~1.509 bits to model an electron. Which isn't (generally) the case. Instead, "information" in that context often refers to how much information humans estimate that they could record using some amount of energy -- or, various things like that (depending on the model). Mass can warp reality -- such as through gravity, and as noted with relativistic-effects. And apparently energy counts toward mass (e.g., the E=mc^2 thing), where adding energy to a system adds mass to it, affecting its gravity. So, if energy and mass are linked, and energy and information are linked, then is information linked to mass? For example, would a sufficient amount of information-density create a black-hole? Kinda like an informational-[energy-based black-hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics) ) That's kinda how they appear to be considering it.

infogulch 5y ago

> [matter-antimatter annihilation] converts all the mass of the annihilating particles into energy, typically gamma photons. However, if the particles do contain information, then this also needs to be conserved upon annihilation, producing some lower-energy photons. In the present study, I predicted the exact energy of the infrared red photons resulting from this information erasure, and I gave a detailed protocol for the experimental testing involving the electron-positron annihilation process. Neat.

hprotagonist 5y ago

For something to exist, it has to be observed. For something to exist, it has to have a position in time and space. And this explains why nine-tenths of the mass of the universe is unaccounted for. Nine-tenths of the universe is the knowledge of the position and direction of everything in the other tenth. Every atom has its biography, every star its file, every chemical exchange its equivalent of the inspector with a clipboard. It is unaccounted for because it is doing the accounting for the rest of it, and you cannot see the back of your own head. (except in very small universes). Nine-tenths of the universe, in fact, is the _paperwork_. --Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

disconcision 5y ago
interesting, this feels quite close to verlinde's entropic gravity theory, that "gravity is a consequence of the "information associated with the positions of material bodies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lmarcos 5y ago
When studying physics (simple stuff like electromagnetism and gravitational forces) I always wondered how the universe "knows" what's the distance between two planets when it comes to calculating forces amongst them. If the data (the distance) actually exist, where is it stored? Is it perhaps calculated "on the fly" so it doesn't need to be "stored"? Totally sure that's not how it works in real life, but for us humans, that model is the best theory we have so far, so it's difficult to think differently.
- sritchie 5y ago
  Good question; I think the answer from general relativity is that it doesn't, and that those changes are propagated out locally at the speed of light. So it's a Newtonian fudge to have variables like "distance between two bodies" in the equations. Mass changes spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature pushes masses around, back and forth in a grand dance!

inopinatus 5y ago

All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe. (in the Greg Egan edition of this thesis, the speed of light emerges as a property of evaluative propagation through a functional universe, and new forms of consciousness are encountered living within the Lisp machine of the cosmos)

amelius 5y ago
> All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe. If the universe is deterministic, then there is no information (everything can be computed from the initial conditions).
- lmarcos 5y ago
  Aren't then the initial conditions information?
  - AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
    And aren’t the lambdas that evaluate the information information as well?
    - kleene_op 5y ago
      Where the heck is the bottom? Is there even one? Do the lambdas just loop back unto themselves??
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        Our universe is a busy beaver program. The longest running BB programs are self-modifying. Any program that reserves static areas necessarily loses out on potential runtime.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

quirkot 5y ago

Either this uses the word "information" in a way that is 99% divorced from common usage or the philosophical implications of this are massive. It would essentially mean that truth or falsity is an inherent property of the universe. Is this string gibberish or is it information? Might even change cryptography forever, too

gfodor 5y ago
It's information in the Shannon sense of information entropy, which is about the rarity of sequences of bits, not the notion of bits themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  How could this possibly be a "state of matter" ("the fifth" in contrast to sold, liquid, gas and plasma, the standard four)? Entropy and information are qualities which all states of matter have. And Information as a quality of matter is already taken into account by a variety of physical theories - none of which label information a "state of matter"?
  - gfodor 5y ago
    The OP claims that low information entropy results in an increase in mass. I don't believe the 'state of matter' bit is exactly right, it seems to be an extension to the mass-energy equivalence theorem. (IANAP)
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    I think the 5 states thing is a confusion of the reporter. The theory is saying that energy (or mass) can be converted to information and that it isn't a quality of matter.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      The theory is saying that energy (or mass) can be converted to information and that it isn't a quality of matter. How could possibly be? Information is an arrangement of elements - the elements are normally matter, what else would they be? Oppositely, how could you have matter without information? Matter and energy are characterized by multiple states, which is what allows and forces them to carry information.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

Until you can cause phase shifts of other matter to and from information, it's an obvious no. Oh, you're going to take a liquid, bake it into information, then freeze it back into a liquid? Cool, cool

readthenotes1 5y ago

5th? There seems to be some information missing in the title. Maybe not a massive amount. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter

jdrc 5y ago
I think they misused "state of matter" to mean "fundamental property".
IncRnd 5y ago
I think they were referencing solid, liquid, gas, plasma, information as five natural states of matter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

adamrezich 5y ago

In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

_Nat_ 5y ago

This seems like confusion over [the map/territory relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation ): > "A map is not the territory" Whatever reality might be considered to involve -- mass, energy, entropy, time, whatever -- it's information that we actually consider in our minds. In grade-school physics, it may be all too easy to confuse the map for the territory, because everything's just so simple that students might feel little compulsion to put much thought into things. But it's always been information. If someone wants a string 2-meters long, they might measure out two lengths of 1-meter strings, then tie them together. If the result isn't close enough to 2-meters, then they might reason that they ought to be more precise -- they ought to better measure the 1-meter strings, consider the length-contraction due to tying the knot, and so forth. And then, they might think that there's a difference between the string and their information about it. But further away, in more exotic contexts like in sub-atomic quantum-mechanical arenas or near black-holes, there might be less intuition about the things like strings -- folks may be pushing harder, working more heavily with information without a background sense of naturalness. Inferences may be drawn based on information, and then more built upon that information, until it seems like it's all information. But, to be clear, this isn't some new quality of reality; it's how stuff's always worked. It's just how intellectual-computation works. It's just that, when things were simpler, folks didn't care to consider it. That said, reality isn't quite "information"; it's just our perceptions of reality that're information. This is, reality's the territory, and our conceptions of it are the map. More involved computational-modeling just helps make that more apparent by undermining more naive modes of thinking about it.

cgio 5y ago
I think there is an inversion here, though. The question implicit in this context is not whether the map is the territory, but whether the territory is the map. Now one can see these as homophonic statements, but is this the case? When is it or not?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago

abeppu 5y ago

> Since every particle is supposed to contain information, which supposedly has its own mass, then that information has to go somewhere when the particle is annihilated. In this case, the information should be converted into low-energy infrared photons. How does this compare to the very very low amount of heat released when a bit is erased under Landauer's principle? How many bits does a particle store? Does it store its location? Does the number of bits needed to store that depend on a choice of units, frame of reference, and resolution? (edited typo)

adonovan 5y ago

This seems to be a pet theory of one researcher (Vopson). Have any other physicists written anything about it, supportive or critical?

chroma 5y ago

Looking at the paper linked to in the article[1], I'm having a hard time not dismissing this immediately. There are several implications to this theory: - Information has mass. - Information cannot exist at absolute zero. Does this mean that bringing a hard drive to absolute zero changes its mass and erases its contents? Does the information somehow come back after the drive is warmed up? Also there are many ways to represent information: magnetic charges on a spinning platter, electrical charges in SSDs, physical impressions on metal, graphite on paper, etc. Do all of these get destroyed at absolute zero? I don't know how that's reconcilable with the rest of physics. 1. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

traskjd 5y ago
Armchair interest only, so please tell me if I'm wrong or at least we theorize how I could be wrong. My understanding is that even in the full vacuum of space, we do not get to absolute zero. Quantum fluctuations keep it ever so slightly above it. So perhaps information does actually not exist at absolute zero?
- chroma 5y ago
  According to the paper, the amount of information that can be stored decreases as one gets closer to absolute zero. Our current information storage technologies and refrigeration technologies don't let us actually test this, but with a high enough information density and a low enough temperature, one should expect to lose information if this theory were true.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Well I understand that information, like energy, cannot be destroyed (hence Hawking radiation) so it couldn't just be reduced to zero, it'd have to be transformed. Also the parent's argument about freezing and then reheating to destroy and restore information is a good one because that would be reversing entropy in a closed system (assuming the info was indeed destroyed) and thus impossible. IANA physicist though, just a lay person with an interest in information theory.
- 5y ago

_8j50 5y ago

More like matter is an expression of information imo

dekhn 5y ago

Information is matter that encodes meaningful data in a way that is resistant to loss from entropy. See also: reversible computing.

zamalek 5y ago

My pet hypothesis is that information is the wave, and particles are just particles. For example, the information about an entangled pair propagates at (or above) the speed of light the instant that they are created. Therefore, the shared state would already be determined at the place of measurement. Also, wouldn't a full hard drive weight less than an empty one (unless "empty" means initialized to all zeroes)?

pieter_mj 5y ago

Unless you're gonna call the natural laws an emergent property of matter, I'd say it's the first state.

klik99 5y ago

A couple of questions from someone struggling to put this in more relatable terms: Isn't information in theoretical physics just mean something that repeats, or perhaps relatable, in some way - for example an underlying structure similar to other structures - and in that sense is measurable information another form of describing mass/energy, like moving between frequency and time domain in signals? (side note: could the significance of information be a by product of using math to describe physics, as math can only describe properties of repeating systems, so high information is equilivant to being easily captured in mathematical terms) And on his experiment, assuming his theory is correct - why would a hard drive represent "pure data", such that writing to it would constitute adding an exact measure of information to mass? For example, in an erased state the drive would have ambient information from surrounding electrical fields, is there some mechanism to erase the drive that ensures it lacks any information? And why would data that a computer can read not be inefficient in some way and contain information irrelevant to the hard drives usage, causing it to measure higher even if this exact mass of information is correct? The weights seem so small that even the smallest bit of environmental interference would make this experiment fail.

MaxMoney 5y ago

xaxaxb 5y ago

This is a point of view originating from physics to look at the world and combining with information theory. I think it's more likely the other way round: information/patterns dictate how particles are structured and their interactions. This goes for energy as well.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]