[Fis] It From Bit video

Wed May 27 08:26:46 CEST 2015

Caro John e Cari colleghi,
Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò
che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta
"orizzonte degli eventi". Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa
proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono
tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione,
perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica
quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare
persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che "sui buchi
neri aveva torto". Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si
limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano
o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui
sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri
non  evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di
informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità
cosmiche,  e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione
creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I
buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici
processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui "input"  e "output" sono
materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici.
Questo significa che da economista ho:
-elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica;
-preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998
("Gravitational  entropy") e nel 2005 ("Information loss in black holes",
Phisical review. D 72).
 Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una
maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore
neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA
(corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente
bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una
minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente
con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed
 emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale
asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione.
Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa
dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr.
soprattutto "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza
della scienza", Aracne, Roma, 2014).
Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi
scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo.
Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.


2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier <Collierj at ukzn.ac.za>:

>  Dear Srinandan,
>
>
>
> He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory
> in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe
> symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries,
> which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is
> worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in *Asymmetry:
> The Foundation of Information*. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd
> relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and
> other means in his *Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer
> Scientist Takes on the Cosmos*. More direct connections can be made via
> the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the
> entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed,
> but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent
> ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But
> basically it is in the asymmetries.
>
>
>
> As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think
> this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some
> physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you
> have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well.
> I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:sd at ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* May 26, 2015 10:20 PM
> *To:* ulan at umces.edu; John Collier
>
> *Cc:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
>
>
>
> Re: boundary conditions, etc.
>
>
>
> I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the
> references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite
> befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as
> information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on
> physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or
> even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering
> classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for
> galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the
> large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of
> gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it.
> I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a
> consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a
> continuum description, typically.
>
>
>
> In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the
> system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately
> describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the
> system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility.
>
>
>
> To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent
> redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not
> enough, strikes me as sane.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Srinandan
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz"
> Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00)
> To: John Collier
> Cc: fis
> Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
>
> I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary
> conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary
> statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be
> stated in closed form, the physical problem remains indeterminate! (The
> aphorism from computer science, "Garbage in, garbage out!" is appropriate
> to reversible laws as well.)
>
> Then there is the issue of the continuum assumption, which was the work of
> Euler and Leibniz, not Newton. Newton argued vociferously against it,
> because it equated cause with effect. The assumption works quite well,
> however, whenever cause and effect are almost simultaneous, as with a
> force impacting an object, where the force is transmitted over small
> distances at the speed of light. It doesn't work as well when large
> velocities are at play (relativity) or very small distances and times
> (quantum phenomena) -- whence the need arose to develop the "exceptional"
> sciences, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics.
>
> I would suggest it doesn't work well at very large distances, either.
> Consider galaxies, which are on the order of 100,000 or more light years
> in diameter. (I was surprised to learn recently that we really don't have
> decent models for the dynamics of galaxies.) Gravitational effects are
> relatively slow to traverse those distances, so that cause and effect are
> not immediate. (Sorry, I don't think quantum entanglement is going to
> solve this conundrum.) If cause and effect are widely separated, then the
> continuum assumption becomes questionable and by implication,
> reversibility as well. Now Noether demonstrated that reversibility and
> conservation are two sides of the same coin. So I see it as no great
> mystery that we encounter problems with conservation of matter and energy
> at galactic scales or higher -- witness "dark" matter and "dark" energy.
>
> Of course, I am neither a particle physicist nor an astrophysicist, but
> merely someone writing from my armchair. So I invite anyone on FIS to put
> me straight as regards my speculations on these issues.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob U.
>
>
> > Interesting question, Ken. I was not overly impressed with the video
> > because it didnâ€™t explain one of the most crucial points about the use
> > of information in dealing with quantum gravity, for which we as yet have
> > no good theory. The issue with both black holes and the origin of the
> > universe process is that the boundary conditions are dynamical. You can
> > have as many laws as you could want and still not have a physics if the
> > boundary conditions are ignored. Usually they are added in as an initial
> > state, or sometimes ad hoc but when they are changing, especially if they
> > are mathematically inseparable from the laws, there is a problem with
> > relying on the laws alone to explain. With black holes there is a
> question
> > of whether or not information disappears at their event horizon. There is
> > a similar issue for the observable portion of the universe at any given
> > time. It is hard to see how the questions can even be posed without
> > referring to information. Any boundary in basic physics can be conceived
> > the same way, and if all masses and energies come from geometry (in a
> > Unified Theory) then information is all there is in basic physics.
> >
> > I have argued for some time now that biological systems are much more
> > defined by their boundary conditions, which are typically dynamical and
> > changing, than by their energy flows, so information flows dominate,
> > though energy flows place limits, so I have talked of the information and
> > energy budgets being partially decoupled in biological systems. So
> > information is important to biology because understanding its flow can
> > answer questions about dynamical boundaries, just like in basic physics.
> > The energy (and matter) flows I will leave to the biophysicists, but the
> > paragraph above suggests that these are information flows as well. I like
> > the potential for unification here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John
> >
> > From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es
> <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Ken Herold
> > Sent: May 26, 2015 12:30 AM
> > To: fis
> > Subject: [Fis] It From Bit video
> >
> > Released recently--what about the biological?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY
> >
> > --
> > Ken
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis at listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150527/a2f33071/attachment.html>