It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Can you describe an experiment that would test this idea?
originally posted by: Bleeeeep
What if physicality doesn't move, and instead, information moves or rather energy purposed/measured moves. So then it is that force moves through physicality, and is physicality, but what differentiates force from physicality is how it is measured/its information/the information of force.
Good question. I have seen that mentioned as the reason 1.5 solar masses becomes a neutron star and not a black hole, as it's definitely above the Chandrasekhar limit for electron degeneracy pressure which we can calculate, and likely below the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit for neutron degeneracy pressure, which we haven't been able to calculate exactly.
originally posted by: Maverick7
To me that's skipping some step or omitting or not having enough knowledge to make that claim. Why no mention of neutron degeneracy pressure stopping the collapse?
The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well known. The mass of the pulsar PSR J0348+0432, at 2.01±0.04 solar masses, puts an empirical lower bound on the TOV limit.
If the above is correct then the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit where neutron degeneracy pressure is exceeded is somewhere between 2-4 solar masses, and I've seen common conjecture for the limit as maybe in the range of 2.5-3.0 solar masses, but you're right that we don't really know how to calculate the exact value as we can do for the Chandrasekhar limit for electron degeneracy pressure.
Why no conjecture about size or rate or when or how neutron degeneracy is surpassed?
Do we REALLY know how BHs are created from stars or not. I say it's just 'lazy concluding' that 'too big for neutron star, then BH'.
This is where you lose me, because we have evidence of why different objects made out of different materials have different properties...they are constructed of different elements, molecules and compounds, which is not just information, it's the arrangement of matter.
originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Imagine you have a solid object in the way that you thought of solids when you were a child: it was not made of smaller parts. (nothing doesn't exist to enable separation.)
Now imagine that what that thing's properties appear as (physicality as we know it, for example) is based solely on whatever information is assigned to it
Most of the stuff we are familiar with is made of protons, neutrons and electrons, so the physicality of those are similar to a large degree, that much is true.
- so then, at the most fundamental level, all of physicality is the same and all things are made of said stuff.
You lost me even more right there, as expanding the dimensions of something to infinity makes no sense to me. It sounds like gobbledeygook to me.
So with that solid object still in mind, and it being all stuff, expand its dimensions to infinity
That seems like it does not follow logically from the preceding thought, but on it's own one can say the appearance of motion is relative. An object which appears stationary to one observer might appear to be in motion to another observer. We have math to translate between reference frames to explain this but again I don't really follow your idea.
and imagine that its appearance of motion is just an appearance of its information change, coupled with your own interpretation of said change.
Interesting, that your description implies a lot of math but the wikipedia description says it lacks mathematical rigor (I haven't read it so I can't comment on the incongruity):
originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur
With somewhat less hooey, there is actually (or was, maybe) a fairly interesting yet difficult read called "Information Mechanics" by Kantor.
If you bulldoze your way through it (warning: tensors lie ahead) you can find him deriving basic stuff like Maxwell's equations from his theoretical base. Spooky action as well. I don't know how far it was taken, or if it runs into a brick wall at some point like Kaluza-Klein.
So if "without mathematical rigor" implies it doesn't make any predictions different from what we already observe, then experimental confirmation of such an idea can't happen until sufficient mathematical rigor is provided to make predictions which can be experimentally tested.
The first formal presentation of the idea that information might be the fundamental quantity at the core of physics seems to be due to Frederick W. Kantor (a physicist from Columbia University). Kantor's book Information Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1977) developed this idea in detail, but without mathematical rigor.
That article was from 2014, and I found this paper by the same scientist, Aaron Chou (and others) about a year later, which talks about experimental results from the same apparatus:
A unique experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory called the Holometer has started collecting data that will answer some mind-bending questions about our universe – including whether we live in a hologram.
Much like characters on a television show would not know that their seemingly 3 - D world exists only on a 2 - D screen, we could be clueless that our 3 - D space is just an illusion. The information about everything in our universe could actually be encoded in tiny packets in two dimensions.
Get close enough to your TV screen and you'll see pixels, small points of data that make a seamless image if you stand back. Scientists think that the universe's information may be contained in the same way, and that the natural "pixel size" of space is roughly 10 trillion trillion times smaller than an atom, a distance that physicists refer to as the Planck scale.
Measurements are reported of high frequency cross-spectra of signals from the Fermilab Holometer, a pair of co-located 39 m, high power Michelson interferometers. The instrument obtains differential position sensitivity to cross-correlated signals far exceeding any previous measurement in a broad frequency band extending to the 3.8 MHz inverse light crossing time of the apparatus. A model of universal exotic spatial shear correlations that matches the Planck scale holographic information bound of space-time position states is excluded to 4.6σ significance.
v.t. -piled, -pil•ing.
1. to put together (documents, selections, or other materials) in one book or work.
2. to make (a book, writing, or the like) of materials from various sources: to compile an anthology of plays.
3. to gather together: to compile data.
4. to translate (a computer program) by means of a compiler.
[1275–1325; Middle English < Latin compīlāre to rob, pillage]
reply to: Arbitrageur
As with the belief that physicality is moving, rather than information alone, it would be innate to all experiments and would simply fall to interpretation.
edit on 3/3/2016 by Bleeeeep because: edited for clarity
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections
The surface of the boulder will start to accumulate complex mix of residue.
Nope. It will erode away.
I can program a computer to do that and the computer should still give the same answer after I'm dead.
originally posted by: Bleeeeep
To reiterate, again, e.g. if you compose a question like “what is 1+1“ and then press enter to compute, you are partially responsible for the answer. And the answer is not so much about what is there in the code/forces, but how you measure/question it.
So even if it's true, if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. The scope of science is limited to things which can be falsified according to the US court, and science has no opinion on things which cannot be falsified. Since physics is a branch of science and the topic of this thread, I'm afraid that non-falsifiable ideas are off-topic here though perhaps such an idea might be on topic in the philosophy and metaphysics forum.
Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools as such (it can be taught as religion). The argument was presented by philosopher, Michael Ruse, who defined the characteristics which constitute science as explanatory, testable, and tentative; the latter of the three being another term for falsifiability...
United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I would call that tennis ball example an example of a frequency. I don't see much analogy between a photon and that, nor 20 toilet flushes a day which is another example of frequency. Frequency is a very broad term and light has unique properties. For example, white light can be separated into light of different frequencies by shining it through a prism as shown here, and I can't see how tennis balls could do anything like this, where 10 balls per minute and 20 balls per minute go in different directions after being shot though glass; they would either bounce off the glass, or crack it and maybe break it: