It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Information = Dark Energy

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Definitions:
Information – Knowledge derived from observation or experience.
Dark Energy - a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.

In a recent experiment physicist Shoichi Toyabe of Chuo University in Japan showed that you can convert information into pure energy. You can read about that experiment here: www.foxnews.com...

Reading about this experiment got me to really thinking about the possibility that information is the dark energy that scientist have been searching for. I have a couple of thoughts that seem to support my theory.

First the big bang. I have to start this thought with a precursor about quantum physics. There are several tenants of quantum physics where certain parts of reality or even reality itself do not exist unless observed. I want to look at the idea that an electron doesn’t exist in a specific place in space until measured or observed.

Now if you look back to pre big bang, current theory supposes that all matter existed in a point and then all of a sudden dark energy comes along and the universe expands. Here is my thought. Before the big bang the universe was unobserved… so all the matter that existed did not have to be in a specific space or have a specific mass because it was unmeasured and unobserved. What changed this? My thought is that a supreme being if you will came along and observed the universe. In doing so created information. Now the matter in the universe could no longer exist in a timeless, spaceless and mass less existence, it would need to choice a specific reality. It was this observation that sent the universe into expansion mode, because all that matter could not exist in one place.

My second thought or point is in reference to Hawking Radiation. If you look at a black hole it is theorized nothing is able to escape not even light. If this is the case, then any matter that is unlucky enough to get sucked in is no longer observable. I would argue along the lines of my theory that hawking radiation is created by the information that is no longer needed by the matter that is no longer observable.

I have had several other thoughts on this; however, I think these two suffice to outline my theory. I am not an actual physicist or mathematician; I am just an armchair philosopher. I am happy to acknowledge any flaws in my logic wherever you may find them. I just wanted to get this theory out there and discussed, because it seems so plausible to me at the moment.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wisintel
 


www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (click the celtic fingerprint logo)...

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wisintel
 


I understand where your coming from with your scenario but answer me this...

Before the big bang, nothing existed because it wasnt observed, then a superior being came along and observed it so it existed...if thats the case then who was observing the superior being for the superior being to exist?

My thoughts are this...

I am god, you are god, we are god...(god being superior being). This superior being only exists because we and all other life in the universe exist. Who created this superior being? Well i believe the superior being was created because you cant have "nothing" without something, nothing is a perception, so that perception created the "superior being". This is the creation, continuation and inevitability of infinity...it cannot be undone, nor can it be created...it has always existed and always will.

You are god, i am god, we are god...(god being superior being). I came to this conclusion because of this...what we percieve with our senses are electrical signals interperated by our brain. Without this electricty, or without the senses, there would be no physical existance. You are capable of having the same thoughts as me, however varied they may be, you are also capable of having the same tastes, sights, feelings, sounds etc as me, however varied they may be...bear this in mind, because we are limited in this percption, we are limited because of our existance as humans...what i mean by that is that you can only sense what other humans can, so that means all humans can sense the same...this makes us one. Your life is interpritation, as is mine and as if everyones. This interpritation means that you only exist because i exist, and i only exist because you exist. I can feel you, see you , hear you etc, so my brain tells me you are real, and vice versa...this happens the world over at the same time sub conciously without even recognising it. This leads to one inevitability, without eachothers interpritation we wouldnt be here.

An example of this would be "if a raindrop falls into a puddle and there is no living creature nearby or no living creature that is aware of it in any sense, did the raindrop fall?"

the answer is no...if you think the answer is yes then that is because you have percieved it in thought to have fallen which makes you aware of it, which makes you sense it which means you made it fall...this again is interpritation so you have created it...elaborating further...if every single living being/organism on this planet fell asleep at the sametime and went into a deep sleep without perception would you wake up? My opinion is no you wouldnt, the only way you would wake up is if you have been percieved to have woken up, by percieved i mean by a superior being, be it God or ET because there are no other worldly beings to percieve you...you dont know you exist until you percieve or have been percieved...

Anyways, i could go on allday about this but i'm mabe boring you guys about it...

I'll maybe start a thread one day!!!


edit on 21/11/10 by jrmcleod because: missed out word


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link
edit on Sun Nov 21 2010 by Jbird because: replaced entire quote with Reply To



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I am not saying nothing existed.. I am just saying that before it was observed it didn't have to occupy space or time. As for the supreme being... I am imagining from another universe... but that will always and ever be speculation.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wisintel
 



Originally posted by wisintel
In a recent experiment physicist Shoichi Toyabe of Chuo University in Japan showed that you can convert information into pure energy. You can read about that experiment here: www.foxnews.com...


The terminology used in the articles in the media about this experiment is in my opinion blatantly misleading.

When they say that information has been converted into energy, they actually mean that information has been used to create energy. More accurately, the information acquired by the camera and processed by either computer or experimentator to decide whether or not to shift the 'virtual wall' has been used to 'guide' the molecule upwards in the field of potential energy by limiting it's random naturally-occurring jostles to only one direction.

The reason they call this an "information-to-energy conversion" is because of the method used to manifest the potential energy that's created when the molecule moves to points of higher potential. The molecule isn't affected directly, but its position is measured and used to influence its following position. So they gather information in order to create potential energy.

Calling this "information-to-energy conversion" is misleading because the word "conversion" implies that one thing has been converted (!) into another ("change or turn from one state or condition to another; to alter in form, substance, or quality; to transform; to transmute; as, to convert water into ice"). If any conversion of the information (the location of the molecule) has taken place, it's the transformation of the molecule's location into the decision where and whether to raise a wall. Considering the fact that you have to acquire a photograph, run an algorithm to interpret its location, transform that interpretation into instructions (whether by computer or human) and finally execute those instructions, there's a lot more than just 'information' used to create energy - and the biggest transformation to which the information is subject is the manipulation into instructions. At that point in the chain of events, the information becomes irrelevant; the instructions are executed, and as an indirect result, energy is created. In no way is information actually being converted into energy. The addition to the potential energy of the molecule doesn't hold any information - it is a result of a function of which the information is the only parameter.

Apart from not actually converting information to energy, this process doesn't create energy; it costs energy! In fact, in order for any information to be used, it has to be observed and interpreted; both observation and interpretation cost energy. In that sense, the term "information-to-energy conversion" is a contradictio in terminis - the combination of words doesn't make sense.

Once again, the reason they use the term "information-to-energy" is because the energy is created through observation; but the amount of energy required for the process far outweighed the weenie bit of potential energy created, and more importantly, the newly created energy wasn't the previously acquired information in another state, substance, quality or form, There was no conversion, just a shared chain of events - calling this a conversion of information to energy while the information is actually just used to manipulate the environment of a particle to raise its potential energy is like breaking a dam with a sledgehammer and calling it a "sledgehammer-to-flood conversion". It's.. it's just not right.

I don't think physicists care how confusing their terminology is, though. The media copying this story didn't make much effort either to resolve the obvious discrepancy between the physicist's and layman's interpretation of "information-to-energy conversion" - putting headlines out like "Scientists Convert Information Into 'Demonic' Energy". Ugh..

But apart from my reluctance/inability to believe that information can exist as pure energy, only through observation/interpretation.. That's a cool theory in your OP :] I interpreted it perhaps a little different than you intended it: information that is never observed or interpreted as such by any consciousness is not information at all - let's say written language doesn't exist and someone coincidentally draws a "V"; would it be the letter "V" or just a random doodle? But as soon as something is interpreted, it becomes information. If we'd teach the imagined illiterate artist to read, his observation of the doodle wouldn't change - it's still the same doodle, the same matter - but now, the interpretation through integral processing of the doodle assigns meaning to its various aspects (the number of lines, orientation of the lines relative to eachother, orientation of the whole), which results in a much deeper experience of the observation of the doodle. In this analogy, the observation is the original point of matter, the interpretation is the expansion.. I guess dark matter would then be consciousness, or algorithm, or something inbetween (if that's possible). To be honest, I'm having difficulties imagining this rather arbitrary analogy, but it's fun trying ;]! Thanks.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
I am not saying nothing existed.. I am just saying that before it was observed it didn't have to occupy space or time. As for the supreme being... I am imagining from another universe... but that will always and ever be speculation.


Along that line of thought though...would be a endless 'being only through observation'.

For the Supreme Being that came along and observed....from this other Universe....how did the other Universe spring into 'being'...who observed it for it to 'become' and expand? And then if you say another supreme being had to come along and observe for that universe to 'be'....where again did that one come from...and who 'sprung' its universe into 'being'.

I never understood the whole 'other universe' thought...for universe is 'all that is'. If something is beyond what we consider our own boundaries...dont we just find out that there was more to this universe then we thought there was?

Are there many 'points' in space that are awaiting to be observed to expand?
edit on 21-11-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
I am not saying nothing existed.. I am just saying that before it was observed it didn't have to occupy space or time. As for the supreme being... I am imagining from another universe... but that will always and ever be speculation.


"Nothing" never existed


Since eternity exists, then nothing can't exist, if nothing existed, we wouldn't exist.

No one can prove nothing has ever existed. Even before big bang, there is no evidence that it was nothing, there is evidence that something existed, that something brought the formula of universe together. Laws and elements which follow those laws, different types depending etc..

Great formula non the less, it is the product of something, something eternal.

Nothing never existed.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This is HUGE!

I read the article and I can't wait to read the published paper. This is an experiment that confirms Maxwell's Demon and the Demon is information.

This shows that immaterial information can do work. Think about that, information expends energy when it does work. So information has to be seen as a fundamental entity that's immaterial and that does work.

So this is saying that they can measure how much energy information uses to do work. So basically information doesn't create energy but it uses energy to do work and we can measure how much energy the demon uses.

This could explain why we have a lot of space and pockets of order. This would occur because there's a small amount of order and large amounts of disorder. So as entropy increases so does disorder but you will have pockets of order as the demon(information) does work.

This could also tell us about intelligent life in the universe. You could take the total energy of the universe and calculate how much of this energy the demon is using. You then take the total energy of earth and weigh that against the energy used by the demon. I suspect the demon will be using much more energy than the total energy of earth. If the demon is using more energy to do work than every human being on this planet uses, then more beings must exist in the universe.

Information is a fundamental property of the universe and it looks like it's an immaterial entity. We know that space, time and the laws of physics break down at Planck scales. We also know that information doesn't break down at Planck scales. It just goes from classical bits to qubits.

Good article.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is HUGE!

I read the article and I can't wait to read the published paper. This is an experiment that confirms Maxwell's Demon and the Demon is information.


I can't make much sense of what you're saying - I interpreted the results and the experiment itself quite differently. Could you perhaps read my previous post above (the lengthy one ;]) and the ponderings below and tell me whether & where I'm making a mistake in my interpretation?

The original conceptualization of Maxwell's Demon was of an entity ('finite being') that uses information about a molecule to displace it in a thermodynamically inprobable direction ('against' diffusion). The demon uses the amount of movement of gas molecules (~= temperature) to pass it either to the left or the right of the membrane on which the demon operates. Why it was conceptualized as a demon instead of simply a mechanism beats me - however, in this experiment, Maxwell's demon is the camera + operator + device that creates the virtual/electromagnetic wall - those are the elements out of which Maxwell's Demon emerges.

So when you say that Maxwell's Demon has been confirmed - what do you mean? Surely, none of the elements in this experiment needed to have its existance confirmed.. Even Maxwell's Demon itself didn't need to be confirmed, it was just a matter of time before we could create mechanisms to track molecules in a resolution high enough in both size and time to allow us to create a Maxwell's Demon. It's great that they finally did it, but it doesn't prove anything, other than our ability to work on this scale.
Following with the statement that the demon is information, you have me thoroughly confused. Even in the original thought experiment, the demon was the mechanism that acquired information and put it to use (see the link). To be able to use that information, it was conceived as a demon - but a combination of electronical devices and a human works just fine, as this experiment shows. I thought. Isn't it unlikely that the terminology of the experiment is to be interpreted differently than the original Maxwell's Demon thought experiment? Or am I missing something obvious?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wisintel
 



Interesting experiment and results.
Molecules in fluids and gasses are tricky entities.. This is a good scientific experiment.
Chk out my thread on a thought experiment here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


I think you need to read the article again. You're reading the article and then saying well they didn't really mean.... This is what occurs when people read articles that don't agree with what they may already believe.

Here's what the article said:


As the particle moved up the staircase, it gained energy because it moved to a location of higher potential – akin to climbing a mountain. Yet the researchers never had to push the particle up the mountain (i.e. do work or input energy) – they simply used the information about which direction it happened to be moving in at any given time to guide the climb.

Energy boost

Not only were the researchers able to move the particle up the stairs, but they were able to precisely measure how much energy was converted from information.

The researchers describe their results in the Nov. 14 online edition of the journal Nature Physics.

In an accompanying essay in the same issue of the journal, physicist Christian Van den Broeck of the University of Hasselt in Belgium, who was not involved in the new study, called it "a direct verification of information-to-energy conversion."


This is plane as day. I have seen in your comments and comments on the article people trying to twist the experiment.

The experiment is saying that information(bits) was converted to potential energy and this conversion can be measured. Here's some more information about the experiment that tells you even more.


The rotor is formed from two linked polystyrene beads each 0.3 micrometres across. One is pinned to a glass surface leaving the other free to rotate around it and the whole thing is immersed in fluid. Buffeted by molecules of the fluid, the rotor turns clockwise as often as it does anti-clockwise.

But then the researchers add a complex electric field that applies a gentle torque to the rotor, which varies at different angles. The torque is analogous to the force of gravity acting on the tiny ball on a staircase.

Like the ball occasionally moving up a step, the rotor is sometimes buffeted enough by other molecules to move against the gentle torque. Overall, however, it is now much more likely to move in the direction of the torque (equivalent to hopping down a step in the spiral staircase) than to move against it (equivalent to hopping up).

Finally, enter the demon, whose eye is a camera and brain a computer that controls the electric field. Whenever the rotor makes some progress in turning against the torque, the demon shifts the electric field so that the rotor suddenly finds itself nudged onto the top of that "step". This keeps happening, and the overall effect is to gradually climb the staircase.

As it does, the rotor gains energy. Crucially, though, the demon need pump no energy into the rotor, only information about the position of the rotor, which it uses to switch the field.

Video information about the rotor's position can be quantified in terms of digital bits. The researchers worked out that the exchange rate between energy and information matches theoretical predictions: at room temperature, one bit of information converts to about 3 x 10-21 joules.

Other researchers have summoned versions of Maxwell's demon before this, but they have not measured the energy gain and the information used, says Shoichi Toyabe of Chuo University in Tokyo, a member of the team. "We have verified that information can indeed be converted to potential energy and that the fundamental principle of the demon holds true," he told New Scientist.


www.newscientist.com...

I didn't want to quote that much from the article, but New Scientist went into more detail about the experiment and I felt it was relevant to the discussion. If the Mods disagree, then I understand if they shorten the article.

The experiment clearly explains how information is converted into potential energy. Again, this is huge. This is because we can measure the conversion of energy from immaterial information.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Thanks for the response. According to you, I'm trying to twist the experiment because it doesn't agree with what I already believe, and I should read the article again. I did. I guess I understand where you're coming from: the article says "information-to-energy conversion", a professor speaks of "direct verfication" of that process, there are measurements of the conversion - so I must be wrong. Frankly though, I posed specific questions in my post that you didn't (seek to) answer. Maybe I should've properly formatted them as questions. I'll try again.

Indeed it's true that your interpretation doesn't match with what I already believe, but I'm willing to accept new theories, paradigms or whatever you can throw at me. All I require is a solid explanation. The article does a fine job of explaining what the experiment was about, and I have no problem believing it.

What I'm trying to get at is this - you need to interpret the terminology in the proper context. For example, in physics the term "moment of force" does not refer to a timespan in which force is applied. If we were to interpret "information-to-energy conversion" in an inproper context (e.g. without looking up what it means), we might end up reading the article very differently from how it was intended. Certainly, we can agree on that?

I'll just try to make my case:
  1. This research was conducted to experimentally verify the fundamental principle of the thought experiment called Maxwell's Demon, which explains what is to be understood under information when talking about this experiment. When talking about information-to-energy conversion in this context, information is not being converted to energy, but instead used to create energy. The article states that the experiment confirms the original thought experiment; the hypothesis is supported, and the theory holds up. There is no reason to assume it proves anything outside the original thought experiment unless indicated otherwise by the article.
    An in-context quote (link) from the physicist himself as to what is to be understood under "information-to-energy conversion":


    Masaki Sano, a physicist at the University of Tokyo, and his colleagues have demonstrated that a bead can be coaxed up a 'spiral staircase' without any energy being directly transferred to the bead to push it upwards. Instead, it is persuaded along its route by a series of judiciously timed decisions to change the height of the 'steps' around it, based on information about the bead's position. In this sense, "information is being converted to energy", says Sano


  2. If this experiment indeed transformed information to energy, there would have to be a known process performing that transformation, and a device to execute that process. The peripheral apparatus described in the article is unable to transform information into anything other than instructions for the virtual staircase / electrical field, and the description of the process itself leaves little to the imagination:


    The scientists used a high-speed camera to photograph the molecule. When it happened to be moving up the staircase, they let it move freely, but when it happened to be moving down the staircase, the researchers blocked its motion by inserting a virtual wall using an electric field.
    link


    Finally, enter the demon, whose eye is a camera and brain a computer that controls the electric field. Whenever the rotor makes some progress in turning against the torque, the demon shifts the electric field so that the rotor suddenly finds itself nudged onto the top of that "step". This keeps happening, and the overall effect is to gradually climb the staircase.
    [..]
    As it does, the rotor gains energy. Crucially, though, the demon need pump no energy into the rotor, only information about the position of the rotor, which it uses to switch the field.
    link

    The demon (the eye a camera, the brain a computer) controls the electric field. The information is used to decide how to control it. Then the information is discarded. The field has been changed according to the information, but it is just a controlled field - it doesn't contain the information. There is no mention of immaterial information.


There are of course a few things that seem to contradict my interpretation as well (otherwise we wouldn't be disagreeing):
  1. The measurements of the conversion. It seems that if they can give a highly significant bit-to-joule conversion ratio, they have indeed converted bits into Joule.


    Video information about the rotor's position can be quantified in terms of digital bits. The researchers worked out that the exchange rate between energy and information matches theoretical predictions: at room temperature, one bit of information converts to about 3 x 10-21 joules.
    link

    However, you can't just look at the end result and deduce the underlying process. The process has been described in detail. The measurement reflects the total amount of potential energy created divided by the total amount of bits of used video information. Energy expenditures made by the peripheral apparatus (i.e. the demon) are not accounted for, because it is not relevant to this theory. It is, however, very relevant to the implications of this experiment.

  2. Statements about the possibility of using this as an energy source. If this process has the potential of creating energy on its own, thus powering nanobots:


    While the amount of energy the system produces may seem insignificant, it might be enough to power nanomachines of the future, says Toyabe.
    link

    .. or providing free energy:


    While the experiment itself does show that it's possible to create energy out of information, in practice, the technique doesn't offer potential for solving the energy crisis any time soon.
    link

    .. then why am I persisting that there is no transformation of information to energy? It's because of the details:


    Initially, it seemed as if Maxwell's demon was getting something for nothing, creating a perpetual motion machine, but later it became clear that the demon must expend some energy in getting information about these random motions, so it wouldn't break the laws of thermodynamics after all. But nobody was able to physically demonstrate the demon and find out for sure.
    link


    "The true energetic cost of this information-to-energy conversion experiment lies somewhat hidden in its huge peripheral apparatus (including the doctoral student who is operating the experiment)," Van den Broeck wrote. "As such, the experiment is reminiscent of producing a tiny shot of energy from nuclear fusion in a reactor that is consuming considerably more energy."
    link

    Paraphrased: the energy the process/demon requires to create the tiny bit of potential energy is akin to running a reactor to get just a cough of energy. This won't work as a means of creating energy until we are able to create a demon (camera, virtual wall generator & controller) that uses less energy than the total amount of potential energy that's eventually created, or in other words - a system that spends less than 3 x 10-21 joules per bit in its total process of observation and field manipulation. Personally, I think it's impossible to achieve such a small energy footprint per bit, but we can always hope. Even if we reach that goal though, there is no transformation of information to energy - only use of information to create energy, and the use of information itself requires energy.

    The statements in various articles about this experiment proving the possibility to create energy out of information and implications about its apparent potential as a source of energy are all editorial notes. One has to take the actual process and the total amount of energy it needs into account.


All in all, I don't see how this experiment proves anything other than how to make a tiny unconventional motor. They certainly haven't proven the existance of immaterial information - there's no mention of that whatsoever, and you can bet that if physicists discovered something like that, they wouldn't be excited about the part where they created energy with it - they would just be stunned by the fact that they discovered immaterial information, itself. Maxwell's Demon himself would be in awe of the fundamental discovery.

It's possible that I'm simply spinning everything to fit my current view of the world - one without the discovery or scientific creation of immaterial information - but the deeper I look into this experiment, the more confirmation of my original interpretation I find. Then again, we're all biased to confirm our own views. The question is - how much inconsistency does it take for one to doubt his own views? I've shown 2 inconsistencies in your view, and tried to explain 2 apparent inconsistencies in my view - could you please show actual inconsistencies in my view?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 



I gather from your post that you have a problem with them saying information to energy conversion and you're saying a lot of things that have nothing to do with the experiment to try to show something that frankly makes no sense.

For instance:


What I'm trying to get at is this - you need to interpret the terminology in the proper context. For example, in physics the term "moment of force" does not refer to a timespan in which force is applied. If we were to interpret "information-to-energy conversion" in an inproper context (e.g. without looking up what it means), we might end up reading the article very differently from how it was intended. Certainly, we can agree on that?


This is gobbledy gook that has nothing to do with the experiment. When people start talking about putting things in proper context, what they're saying is don't read what the article says because I need to conform the article to fit my belief system. So "the proper context" will always be one that agrees with what you already believe.

You said:


When talking about information-to-energy conversion in this context, information is not being converted to energy, but instead used to create energy.


Again, you're not reading the article but you're applying you're own belief system and reading it in that context. Yes, the article is talking about information to energy conversion.


Masaki Sano, a physicist at the University of Tokyo, and his colleagues have demonstrated that a bead can be coaxed up a 'spiral staircase' without any energy being directly transferred to the bead to push it upwards. Instead, it is persuaded along its route by a series of judiciously timed decisions to change the height of the 'steps' around it, based on information about the bead's position. In this sense, "information is being converted to energy", says Sano

Video information about the rotor's position can be quantified in terms of digital bits. The researchers worked out that the exchange rate between energy and information matches theoretical predictions: at room temperature, one bit of information converts to about 3 x 10-21 joules.


Straight from the horses mouth. Information is being converted to energy. The things you're saying have nothing to do with what occurred in the experiment. I have noticed this on a few post associated with articles about this experiment. People don't like what's being said about information being converted to energy so they try to refute the article with things that have nothing to do with the experiment.

Their talking about the difference between energy used to climb the stairs vs information about how to climb the stairs which is converted into potential energy. This is what can be measured.

Let's do a thought experiment on a macroscopic scale.

Let's say you had an experimenter who was watching a female walk up the stairs. When the female got to the third step, the experimenter would hit a button and a red stop sign would pop up on the 5th step and this would signal to the female to turn around and she would start walking down the stairs. As she walked down the stairs, before she reached the first step the experimenter would hit a button and a stop sign would pop up and she would turn around and start walking back up the stairs.

The energy to walk up and down the stairs is different than the energy used to know that a red stop sign means stop or the information the experimenter uses to know what step you're on. (When I say different energy, I'm not talking about two types of energy but the same energy used for different purposes)

This is what happened in the experiment on a microscopic scale. They coaxed the rotor up the stairs based on information that was converted into potential energy vs kinetic energy which is used to power the object up and down the stares.

So information(bits) was converted into energy(joules) and this was measured.


Video information about the rotor's position can be quantified in terms of digital bits. The researchers worked out that the exchange rate between energy and information matches theoretical predictions: at room temperature, one bit of information converts to about 3 x 10-21 joules.


Their you have it. The guy who did the experiment is laying it out for you.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Everything that happens is a product of observation and focus.

"god" is a result of self awareness. So in essence, i created myself by becoming aware of myself.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

I want to continue to try to have a meaningful (content-driven) conversation, so l'll just focus on the most sensible part of your post - the thought experiment.

Can you please define the following in your thought experiment:
- the demon
- information gathered by the demon
- information converted by the demon
- potential energy
- the process by which the demon converts information into potential energy

.. and explain why the female is walking both up and down?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join