3 ms·

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. Weir

by 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

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.