From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 00:22:15 MST
[Joe Dees] Matter and energy have to be conserved, not information.
Information is comprised of a configuration of matter/energy rather than
matter/energy itself; Matter/energy can be transmuted, either into the
other, but not created or destroyed; such conservation laws do not apply to
information, for no logical or physical exigency demands that the sum total
of configurational complexity, meaningful or otherwise, must be conserved. I
can wipe out a detailed, complex sand-mandala into a practically random
scattering of grains with a few wipes of my hand.
[Hermit] There is such a law, which while an inevitable corollary to
Heisenberg [Position or spin, but not both] is even more a consequence of
the principles of quantum theory. Information cannot "evaporate" as
otherwise I could e.g. figure out the spin of a particle today, and in a
while work out it's location. In fact, I cannot do that. If I try it, the
particle will evaporate. Thus the information has to be preserved at the
quantum level. The question was generalized as the "Black Hole Information
Paradox" which was one of the millennium physics challenges. Simplifying,
when a particle in a quantum-mechanically pure state disappears into a black
hole, its state changes to a thermal one; it now has a particular
temperature. This constitutes a fundamental violation of the laws of quantum
theory. Hawking has shown that this violation is resolved by addressing the
color/location information, and that this must survive the evaporation of
particles at the event horizon and has also shown that Hawking Radiation
cannot carry information. So revoking this hypothesis which is now so well
confirmed that it is regarded as a law, also revokes QM, superstring theory
(which requires the persistence of information as a precursor) and what we
currently accept as a workable model for understanding black-holes and
universe formation.
[Hermit] This is one of those places where QM drives over "common sense"
with a steam-roller. I suggest that you visit:
[url=http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~strings/superstrings/][/url]
[url=http://www.superstringtheory.com/][/url]
for general background and
[url=http://www.teorfys.uu.se/COURSES/exjobb/paradox.pdf]The Black Hole
Information Paradox, Keizo Matsubara[/url] For a discussion of this issue in
particular.
[Hermit] You might also find
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/055380202X/thehermit0d]The
Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking[/url] offers an accessible
discussion of the issue and Hawking's conclusions.
[Joe Dees] The term "universii" is a contradiction in terms, if we hold to
the definition of universe as all-that-is. If such a
nodal-with-axonal-connections thing were discovered to exist, then it would,
by definition, in its entirety be the universe, and its very discovery would
be impossible without a transfer of matter/energy, whether informationally
configured or otherwise.
[Hermit] I think that we are having a disagreement between set theory and
cosmology. The probable existence of an infinity of universii is an
inevitable consequence of the fact that superstring theory predicts their
creation, that their basic laws may be anything (as ours could have prior to
the first three minutes(Weinberg)) and that within a Universe the laws have
to be the same (Einstein). So a Universe within a Universe with different
fundamental laws would be a far greater paradox than another Universe.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT