Dear Pedro and colleagues,
Its my understanding that a law of nature, like F = ma, for instance,
contains no information except in its physical implementation. You asked
whether -- if laws of nature do process "information" and are
themselves "info", What kind of physicality they do purport? Writing
the symbols F = ma on a piece of paper results in a particular physical
configuration of ink and paper molecules which is a stable energy state.
That particular energy state contains the information. Just as Landauer
said, for example that inscription on a stone tablet, or a voltage
stored on a transistor is information. One might consider a bi-level
atom with ground and excited energy levels. In its excited state the
atom contains one bit of information.
When someone thinks of the formula F = ma, I suppose, there are
particular energy states of brain cells that actually contain the
information. I believe that F = ma is analogous to an algorithm for
implementing a computer program. It processes no information until the
algorithm is implemented, by a computer say, or by brain cells, moving
energy from one storage register to another.
Cordially,
Michael Devereux
Dear Hans and colleagues,
Thanks for re-emphasizing Schrodingers argument for the incompatibility
of a point particle in classical mechanics, and a finite limit on the
amount of information so contained. I believe we ought to question the
concept of point particles. Most physical objects, including protons,
neutrons, photons, and such have been shown to have spatial extension.
The electron is sometimes believed to be a point in space, but there is,
of course, no conclusive empirical evidence for this. What weve
measured for the electron is a size much, much smaller than protons. An
electron radius at least 10,000 times smaller, if I recall correctly. Of
course that is not proof that the electron is a point, but may
represent, instead, a limit to our ability to measure small sizes. We
recall that the nucleus is some 10,000 times smaller than the smallest
atom, but is not, itself, a point.
Electrons, and other fermions, have mass. If one believes that mass is a
consequence of the energetic interaction of constituent particles, then
the electron must be composed of at least two constituents. Its not
really elementary in that sense. Two or more constituents implies some
extension in space, even if one is not yet capable of measuring such
small distances.
We recall that quantum mechanics doesnt really specify the actual
present state of any physical system, even though we often call Psi the
state function. Instead, Psi prescribes the probability that one or
another state will result from the next measurement. Perhaps its not so
surprising that one can equate just one possible jump in energy of a
quantum system, if measurement were to occur, with a single bit of
information transferred.
Cordially,
Michael Devereux
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Jun 19 19:56:53 2006
