efh1 OP t1_j1qtr5a wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Second law of information dynamics by efh1
He is suggesting information has a small amount of mass and has calculated it. He then predicts a way to detect it with a design of experiment. Perhaps his underlying assumptions are wrong but it’s very interesting and testable so we should reserve judgement if it’s wrong or right based on experimental evidence.
tornpentacle t1_j1qy1ch wrote
Right, but isn't this compeltely ignoring the very obvious fact that the universe is physical and therefore anything in it is physical? Like this doesn't actually seem to be saying anything other than "things that exist exist in the same way that everything else that exists exists". It's also obvious that organizing things into a configuration that humans can use as reference (whether it be writing on paper, encoding on a disk, punching holes in cards, whatever) takes energy to do, and also due to entropy, takes energy to maintain because of quantum effects and degradation of matter into lower configurations of energy...
So given all that, I'm assuming I'm missing something, if this is indeed some kind of revolutionary idea. What am I missing? How is this not simply restating the laws of physics and framing it as some huge paradigmatic shift even though it's just (apparently) saying "the laws of physics haven't broken down yet"?
efh1 OP t1_j1qzjmo wrote
Because it’s stating that information itself has mass and the current classical interpretations doesn’t. He then predicts results that wouldn’t happen under current interpretations. Adding information as part of the fundamental framework with mass and energy would certainly lead to paradigm shifts. The theory is not in contradiction to any other theories so if it was confirmed it would integrate well. The fact it’s testable means it should be considered even if you disagree with the assumptions as anything that could potentially move science forward deserves consideration.
[deleted] t1_j1r38ml wrote
[removed]
ubermeisters t1_j1tauzu wrote
maybe dark matter is just far away information?
efh1 OP t1_j1tb6qn wrote
This concept does potentially address dark matter and it’s funny to me that people are just beginning to point this out. I shared a video of Vopson explaining his theory and multiple people just commented about it as well.
So, what’s the connection to dark matter? Vopson says, “M.P. Gough published an article in 2008 in which he worked out … the number of bits of information that the visible universe would contain to make up all the missing dark matter. It appears that my estimates of information bit content of the universe are very close to his estimates.”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments