3 ms·

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.wik

by 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.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      You should read the paper. The conjecture seems to be that arrangements of particles of lower information entropy are more massive than those which do not. Weird? Yes. More weird than the weirdest aspects of quantum mechanics? Not in my opinion.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        You should read the paper. The conjecture seems to be that arrangements of particles of lower information entropy are more massive than those which do not. My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey and I've given some good reason imo why it is. Sure, spew out random balderdash and then point to some unusual pattern somewhere and say "see that proves it". HN used to be good in the sense of having skepticism to everything. Now someone has found some formula that can push idiocy to the front page.
        RandomBK 5y ago
        >My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey You don't _have_ to read or understand everything. It's fairly evident that this is an article in the field of theoretical physics, and as such assumes certain understanding of the current thinking in the field. Now, I'm not an physicist, and I can't personally judge the underlying paper. _Especially_ because of this, I'm careful not to immediately dismiss this as "incoherent Malarkey" and "random balderdash". I like seeing this type of content on HN in the off-chance someone who _does_ know more can chip in their thoughts. Having said all this, what the paper proposes is not entirely inconceivable on its face. It's reasonably accepted in Quantum Mechanics that there's something special about "information" [0][1], so who knows? Maybe there's something here. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem
        gfodor 5y ago
        Uh, I just read the paper and am trying to explain what’s in it to you. I don’t have a strong opinion about the conjecture’s validity. In the time it took you to ask basic questions you could have read it.

by gfodor 5y ago

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.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    You should read the paper. The conjecture seems to be that arrangements of particles of lower information entropy are more massive than those which do not. Weird? Yes. More weird than the weirdest aspects of quantum mechanics? Not in my opinion.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      You should read the paper. The conjecture seems to be that arrangements of particles of lower information entropy are more massive than those which do not. My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey and I've given some good reason imo why it is. Sure, spew out random balderdash and then point to some unusual pattern somewhere and say "see that proves it". HN used to be good in the sense of having skepticism to everything. Now someone has found some formula that can push idiocy to the front page.
      - RandomBK 5y ago
        >My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey You don't _have_ to read or understand everything. It's fairly evident that this is an article in the field of theoretical physics, and as such assumes certain understanding of the current thinking in the field. Now, I'm not an physicist, and I can't personally judge the underlying paper. _Especially_ because of this, I'm careful not to immediately dismiss this as "incoherent Malarkey" and "random balderdash". I like seeing this type of content on HN in the off-chance someone who _does_ know more can chip in their thoughts. Having said all this, what the paper proposes is not entirely inconceivable on its face. It's reasonably accepted in Quantum Mechanics that there's something special about "information" [0][1], so who knows? Maybe there's something here. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Uh, I just read the paper and am trying to explain what’s in it to you. I don’t have a strong opinion about the conjecture’s validity. In the time it took you to ask basic questions you could have read it.