Does Information Carry Mass?

If information carries mass, could it be the dark matter physicists are craving?

The existence of dark energy and dark matter was inferred in order to correctly predict the expansion of the universe and the rotational velocity of galaxies. In this view, dark energy could be the source of the centrifugal force expanding the universe (it is what accounts for the Hubble constant in the leading theories), while dark matter could be the centripetal force (an additional gravity source) necessary to stabilize galaxies and clusters of galaxies, since there isn’t enough ordinary mass to keep them together. Among other hypotheses, dark energy and dark matter are believed to be related to the vacuum fluctuations, and huge efforts have been devoted to detecting it. The fact that no evidence has yet been found calls for a change of perspective that could be due to information theory.

How could we measure the mass of information?
Dr. Melvin Vopson, of the University of Portsmouth, has a hypothesis he calls the mass-energy-information equivalence. It extends the already existing information-energy equivalence by proposing information has mass. Initial works on Shannon’s classical information theory, its applications to quantum mechanics by Dr. Wheeler, and Landauer’s principle predicting that erasing one bit of information would release a tiny amount of heat, connect information to energy. Therefore, through Einstein’s equivalence between mass and energy, information – once created – has mass. The figure below depicts the extended equivalence principle.

In order to find the mass of digital information, one would start with an empty data storage device, measuring its total mass with a highly sensitive device. Once the information is recorded in the device, its mass is measured again. The next step is to erase one file and measure again. The limiting step is the fact that such an ultra-sensitive device doesn’t exist yet. In his paper published in the journal AIP Advances, Vopson proposes that this device could be in the form of an interferometer similar to LIGO, or a weighing machine like a Kibble balance. In the same paper, Vopson describes the mathematical basis for the mechanism and physics by which information acquires mass, and formulates this powerful principle, proposing a possible experiment to test it.

In regard to dark matter, Vopson says that his estimate of the ‘information bit content’ of the universe is very close to the number of bits of information that the visible universe would contain to make up all the missing dark matter, as estimated by M.P. Gough and published in 2008,.

This idea is synchronistic with the recent discovery that sound carries mass (https://resonancefdn.oldrsf.com/sound-has-mass-and-thus-gravity/), i.e., phonons are massive.

Vopson is applying for a grant in order to design and build the measurement device and perform the experiments. We are so looking forward to his results!

RSF in perspective

Both dark matter and dark energy have been inferred as a consequence of neglecting spin in the structure of space-time. In the frame of the Generalized Holographic approach, spin is the natural source of centrifugal and centripetal force that emerges from the gradient density across scales, just as a hurricane emerges due to pressure and temperature gradients. The vacuum energy of empty space – the classical or cosmological vacuum – has been estimated to be 10−9 joules per cubic meter. However, vacuum energy density at quantum scale is 10113joules per cubic meter. Such a discrepancy of 122 orders of magnitude difference in vacuum densities between micro and cosmological scales is known as the vacuum catastrophe. This extremely large density gradient in the Planck field originates spin at all scales.

Additionally, the holographic model explains mass as an emergent property of an information transfer potential between the information-energy stored in a confined volume and the information-energy in the surface or boundary of that volume, with respect to the size or volume of a bit of information. Each bit of information-energy voxelating the surface and volume is spinning at an extremely fast speed. Space is composed of these voxels, named Planck Spherical Units (PSU), which are a quanta of action. The expressed or unfolded portion of the whole information is what we call mass. For more details on how the holographic approach explains dark mass and dark energy, please see our RSF article on the Vacuum Catastrophe (https://resonance.is/the-vacuum-catastrophe/).

Link original:https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/does-information-carry-mass?fbclid=IwAR2gkGFxUvbzGW4bq5nP-M9b6lBVwPX6xBoE9xf3aSS5qm6lG60C7B6Rqhc


Ask Ethan: What should everyone know about quantum mechanics?

Quantum physics isn’t quite magic, but it requires an entirely novel set of rules to make sense of the quantum universe.

The most powerful idea in all of science is this: The universe, for all its complexity, can be reduced to its simplest, most fundamental components. If you can determine the underlying rules, laws, and theories that govern your reality, then as long as you can specify what your system is like at any moment in time, you can use your understanding of those laws to predict what things will be like both in the far future as well as the distant past. The quest to unlock the secrets of the universe is fundamentally about rising to this challenge: figuring out what makes up the universe, determining how those entities interact and evolve, and then writing down and solving the equations that allow you to predict outcomes that you have not yet measured for yourself.

In this regard, the universe makes a tremendous amount of sense, at least in concept. But when we start talking about what, precisely, it is that composes the universe, and how the laws of nature actually work in practice, a lot of people bristle when faced with this counterintuitive picture of reality: quantum mechanics. That’s the subject of this week’s Ask Ethan, where Rajasekaran Rajagopalan writes in to inquire:

“Can you please provide a very detailed article on quantum mechanics, which even a… student can understand?”

Let’s assume you’ve heard about quantum physics before, but don’t quite know what it is just yet. Here’s a way that everyone can — at least, to the limits that anyone can — make sense of our quantum reality.

Before there was quantum mechanics, we had a series of assumptions about the way the universe worked. We assumed that everything that exists was made out of matter, and that at some point, you’d reach a fundamental building block of matter that could be divided no further. In fact, the very word “atom” comes from the Greek ἄτομος, which literally means “uncuttable,” or as we commonly think about it, indivisible. These uncuttable, fundamental constituents of matter all exerted forces on one another, like the gravitational or electromagnetic force, and the confluence of these indivisible particles pushing and pulling on one another is what was at the core of our physical reality.

The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, however, are completely deterministic. If you describe a system of masses and/or electric charges, and specify their positions and motions at any moment in time, those laws will allow you to calculate — to arbitrary precision — what the positions, motions, and distributions of each and every particle was and will be at any other moment in time. From planetary motion to bouncing balls to the settling of dust grains, the same rules, laws, and fundamental constituents of the universe accurately described it all.

Until, that is, we discovered that there was more to the universe than these classical laws.

1.) You can’t know everything, exactly, all at once. If there’s one defining characteristic that separates the rules of quantum physics from their classical counterparts, it’s this: you cannot measure certain quantities to arbitrary precisions, and the better you measure them, the more inherently uncertain other, corresponding properties become.

  • Measure a particle’s position to a very high precision, and its momentum becomes less well-known.
  • Measure the angular momentum (or spin) of a particle in one direction, and you destroy information about its angular momentum (or spin) in the other two directions.
  • Measure the lifetime of an unstable particle, and the less time it lives for, the more inherently uncertain the particle’s rest mass will be.

These are just a few examples of the weirdness of quantum physics, but they’re sufficient to illustrate the impossibility of knowing everything you can imagine knowing about a system all at once. Nature fundamentally limits what’s simultaneously knowable about any physical system, and the more precisely you try and pin down any one of a large set of properties, the more inherently uncertain a set of related properties becomes.

2.) Only a probability distribution of outcomes can be calculated: not an explicit, unambiguous, single prediction. Not only is it impossible to know all of the properties, simultaneously, that define a physical system, but the laws of quantum mechanics themselves are fundamentally indeterminate. In the classical universe, if you throw a pebble through a narrow slit in a wall, you can predict where and when it will hit the ground on the other side. But in the quantum universe, if you do the same experiment but use a quantum particle instead — whether a photon, and electron, or something even more complicated — you can only describe the possible set of outcomes that will occur.

Quantum physics allows you to predict what the relative probabilities of each of those outcomes will be, and it allows you do to it for as complicated of a quantum system as your computational power can handle. Still, the notion that you can set up your system at one point in time, know everything that’s possible to know about it, and then predict precisely how that system will have evolved at some arbitrary point in the future is no longer true in quantum mechanics. You can describe what the likelihood of all the possible outcomes will be, but for any single particle in particular, there’s only one way to determine its properties at a specific moment in time: by measuring them.

3.) Many things, in quantum mechanics, will be discrete, rather than continuous. This gets to what many consider the heart of quantum mechanics: the “quantum” part of things. If you ask the question “how much” in quantum physics, you’ll find that there are only certain quantities that are allowed.

  • Particles can only come in certain electric charges: in increments of one-third the charge of an electron.
  • Particles that bind together form bound states — like atoms — and atoms can only have explicit sets of energy levels.
  • Light is made up of individual particles, photons, and each photon only has a specific, finite amount of energy inherent to it.

In all of these cases, there’s some fundamental value associated with the lowest (non-zero) state, and then all other states can only exist as some sort of integer (or fractional integer) multiple of that lowest-valued state. From the excited states of atomic nuclei to the energies released when electrons fall into their “hole” in LED devices to the transitions that govern atomic clocks, some aspects of reality are truly granular, and cannot be described by continuous changes from one state to another.

4.) Quantum systems exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors. And which one you get — get this — depends on if or how you measure the system. The most famous example of this is the double slit experiment: passing a single quantum particle, one-at-a-time, through a set of two closely-spaced slits. Now, here’s where things get weird.

  • If you don’t measure which particle goes through which slit, the pattern you’ll observe on the screen behind the slit will show interference, where each particle appears to be interfering with itself along the journey. The pattern revealed by many such particles shows interference, a purely quantum phenomenon.
  • If you do measure which slit each particle goes through — particle 1 goes through slit 2, particle 2 goes through slit 2, particle 3 goes through slit 1, etc. — there is no interference pattern anymore. In fact, you simply get two “lumps” of particles, one each corresponding to the particles that went through each of the slits.

It’s almost as if everything exhibits wave-like behavior, with its probability spreading out over space and through time, unless an interaction forces it to be particle-like. But depending on which experiment you perform and how you perform it, quantum systems exhibit properties that are both wave-like and particle-like.

5.) The act of measuring a quantum system fundamentally changes the outcome of that system. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, a quantum object is allowed to exist in multiple states all at once. If you have an electron passing through a double slit, part of that electron must be passing through both slits, simultaneously, in order to produce the interference pattern. If you have an electron in a conduction band in a solid, its energy levels are quantized, but its possible positions are continuous. Same story, believe it or not, for an electron in an atom: we can know its energy level, but asking “where is the electron” is something can only answer probabilistically.

So you get an idea. You say, “okay, I’m going to cause a quantum interaction somehow, either by colliding it with another quantum or passing it through a magnetic field or something like that,” and now you have a measurement. You know where the electron is at the moment of that collision, but here’s the kicker: by making that measurement, you have now changed the outcome of your system. You’ve pinned down the object’s position, you’ve added energy to it, and that causes a change in momentum. Measurements don’t just “determine” a quantum state, but create an irreversible change in the quantum state of the system itself.

6.) Entanglement can be measured, but superpositions cannot. Here’s a puzzling feature of the quantum universe: you can have a system that’s simultaneously in more than one state at once. Schrodinger’s cat can be alive and dead at once; two water waves colliding at your location can cause you to either rise or fall; a quantum bit of information isn’t just a 0 or a 1, but rather can be some percentage “0” and some percentage “1” at the same time. However, there’s no way to measure a superposition; when you make a measurement, you only get one state out per measurement. Open the box: the cat is dead. Observe the object in the water: it will rise or fall. Measure your quantum bit: get a 0 or a 1, never both.

But whereas superposition is different effects or particles or quantum states all superimposed atop one another, entanglement is different: it’s a correlation between two or more different parts of the same system. Entanglement can extend to regions both within and outside of one another’s light-cones, and basically states that properties are correlated between two distinct particles. If I have two entangled photons, and I wanted to guess the “spin” of each one, I’d have 50/50 odds. But if I measured the spin of one, I would know the other’s spin to more like 75/25 odds: much better than 50/50. There isn’t any information getting exchanged faster than light, but beating 50/50 odds in a set of measurements is a surefire way to show that quantum entanglement is real, and affect the information content of the universe.

7.) There are many ways to “interpret” quantum physics, but our interpretations are not reality. This is, at least in my opinion, the trickiest part of the whole endeavor. It’s one thing to be able to write down equations that describe the universe and agree with experiments. It’s quite another thing to accurately describe just exactly what’s happening in a measurement-independent way.

Can you?

I would argue that this is a fool’s errand. Physics is, at its core, about what you can predict, observe, and measure in this universe. Yet when you make a measurement, what is it that’s occurring? And what does that means about reality? Is reality:

  • a series of quantum wavefunctions that instantaneously “collapse” upon making a measurement?
  • an infinite ensemble of quantum waves, were measurement “selects” one of those ensemble members?
  • a superposition of forwards-moving and backwards-moving potentials that meet up, now, in some sort of “quantum handshake?”
  • an infinite number of possible worlds, where each world corresponds to one outcome, and yet our universe will only ever walk down one of those paths?

If you believe this line of thought is useful, you’ll answer, “who knows; let’s try to find out.” But if you’re like me, you’ll think this line of thought offers no knowledge and is a dead end. Unless you can find an experimental benefit of one interpretation over another — unless you can test them against each other in some sort of laboratory setting — all you’re doing in choosing an interpretation is presenting your own human biases. If it isn’t the evidence doing the deciding, it’s very hard to argue that there’s any scientific merit to your endeavor t all.

If you were to only teach someone the classical laws of physics that we thought governed the universe as recently as the 19th century, they would be utterly astounded by the implications of quantum mechanics. There is no such thing as a “true reality” that’s independent of the observer; in fact, the very act of making a measurement alters your system irrevocably. Additionally, nature itself is inherently uncertain, with quantum fluctuations being responsible for everything from the radioactive decay of atoms to the initial seeds of structure that allow the universe to grow up and form stars, galaxies, and eventually, human beings. 

The quantum nature of the universe is written on the face of every object that now exists within it. And yet, it teaches us a humbling point of view: that unless we make a measurement that reveals or determines a specific quantum property of our reality, that property will remain indeterminate until such a time arises. If you take a course on quantum mechanics at the college level, you’ll likely learn how to calculate probability distributions of possible outcomes, but it’s only by making a measurement that you determine which specific outcome occurs in your reality. As unintuitive as quantum mechanics is, experiment after experiment continues to prove it correct. While many still dream of a completely predictable universe, quantum mechanics, not our ideological preferences, most accurately describes the reality we all inhabit.

LINK ORIGINAL:https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/basics-quantum-mechanics/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3mAh4Ue8DT4GrUCC5jvjD68yHZhrQy0AdQsgyvCYYcqNzJzPeweGHF_ss#Echobox=1635520201


PARTICULAS FANTASMAS

Los científicos a menudo se refieren al neutrino como la «partícula fantasma. «Los neutrinos fueron una de las partículas más abundantes en el origen del universo y lo siguen siendo hoy en día. Las reacciones de fusión en el sol producen vastos ejércitos de ellos, que vierten sobre la Tierra todos los días. Trillones pasan a través de nuestros cuerpos cada segundo, luego vuelan a través de la Tierra como si no estuviera allí.Aunque fue postulado por primera vez hace casi un siglo y detectado por primera vez hace 65 años, los neutrinos permanecen envueltos en el misterio debido a su reticencia a interactuar con la materia», dijo Alessandro Lovato, un físico nuclear del Departamento de Energía de los Estados Unidos (DO E) Laboratorio Nacional Argonne.Lovato es miembro de un equipo de investigación de cuatro laboratorios nacionales que ha construido un modelo para abordar uno de los muchos misterios acerca de los neutrinos – cómo interactúan con los núcleos atómicos, sistemas complicados hechos de protones y neutrones («núcleo ns») unidos por la fuerza fuerte. Este conocimiento es esencial para desentrañar un misterio aún más grande — por qué durante su viaje a través del espacio o la materia los neutrinos se transforman mágicamente de uno en otro de tres posibles tipos o «sabores. «Para estudiar estas oscilaciones, se han llevado a cabo dos series de experimentos en el Laboratorio Nacional de Accelerator Fermi (MiniBooNE y NOvA). En estos experimentos, los científicos generan una intensa corriente de neutrinos en un acelerador de partículas, luego los envían a detectores de partículas durante un largo período de tiempo (MiniBooNE) o a quinientas millas de la fuente (NOvA).Conociendo la distribución original de los sabores de neutrinos, los experimentalistas recogen datos relacionados con las interacciones de los neutrinos con los núcleos atómicos en los detectores. A partir de esa información, pueden calcular cualquier cambio en los sabores de neutrinos a lo largo del tiempo o la distancia. En el caso de los detectores MiniBooNE y NOvA, los núcleos son del isótopo carbono-12, que tiene seis protones y seis neutrones.»Nuestro equipo entró en escena porque estos experimentos requieren un modelo muy preciso de las interacciones de los neutrinos con los núcleos detectores en un gran rango de energía», dijo Noemi Rocco, una posdoctora de la división de Física de Argonne y Fermilab. Dada la esquividad de los neutrinos, lograr una descripción completa de estas reacciones es un desafío formidable.El modelo de física nuclear del equipo de interacciones de neutrinos con un solo nucleón y un par de ellos es el más preciso hasta ahora. «El nuestro es el primer enfoque para modelar estas interacciones a un nivel tan microscópico», dijo Rocco. «Los enfoques anteriores no eran tan finos. «Uno de los hallazgos importantes del equipo, basado en los cálculos llevados a cabo en la supercomputadora Mira ahora retirada en la Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), fue que la interacción del par de nucleones es crucial para modelar las interacciones de neutrinos con nu Clei con exactitud. El ALCF es una instalación de usuario de la Oficina de Ciencia DOE.»Cuanto más grandes son los núcleos en el detector, mayor es la probabilidad de que los neutrinos interactúen con ellos», dijo Lovato. «En el futuro, planeamos extender nuestro modelo a datos de núcleos más grandes, a saber, los de oxígeno y argón, en apoyo de experimentos planeados en Japón y los EE. UU.».Rocco añadió que «Para esos cálculos, nos basaremos en computadoras ALCF aún más potentes, el sistema Theta existente y la próxima máquina exascale, Aurora. «Los científicos esperan que, eventualmente, surja una imagen completa de oscilaciones de sabor tanto para neutrinos como para sus antipartículas, llamados «antineutrinos». «Ese conocimiento puede arrojar luz sobre por qué el universo se construye a partir de materia en lugar de antimateria — una de las preguntas fundamentales sobre el universo.

Link Original:Quantum Physics News


The Universe Is a Machine That Keeps Learning, Scientists Say

In fascinating new research, cosmologists explain the history of the universe as one of self-teaching, autodidactic algorithms

The scientists, including physicists from Brown University and the Flatiron Institute, say the universe has probed all the possible physical laws before landing on the ones we observe around us today. Could this wild idea help inform scientific research to come?

In their novella-length paper, published to the pre-print server arXiV, the researchers—who received “computational, logistical, and other general support” from Microsoft—offer ideas “at the intersection of theoretical physics, computer science, and philosophy of science with a discussion from all three perspectives,” they write, teasing the bigness and multidisciplinary nature of the research.

Here’s how it works: Our universe observes a whole bunch of laws of physics, but the researchers say other possible laws of physics seem equally likely, given the way mathematics works in the universe. So if a group of candidate laws were equally likely, then how did we end up with the laws we really have?

The scientists explain:

“The notion of ‘learning’ as we use it is more than moment-to-moment, brute adaptation. It is a cumulative process that can be thought of as theorizing, modeling, and predicting. For instance, the DNA/RNA/protein system on Earth must have arisen from an adaptive process, and yet it foresees a space of organisms much larger than could be called upon in any given moment of adaptation.”

ANOTHER THEORY

We can analogize to the research of Charles Darwin, who studied all the different ways animals specialized in order to thrive in different environments. For example, why do we have one monolithic body of laws of physics, rather than, say, a bunch of specialized kinds of finches? This is an old question that dates back to at least 1893, when a philosopher first posited “natural selection,” but for the laws of the universe.

In the paper, the scientists define a slew of terms including how they’re defining “learning” in the context of the universe around us. The universe is made of systems that each have processes to fulfill every day, they say.

Each system is surrounded by an environment made of different other systems. Imagine standing in a crowd of people (remember that?), where your immediate environment is just made of other people. Each of their environments is made of, well, you and other stuff.

Evolution is already a kind of learning, so when we suggest the universe has used natural selection as part of the realization of physics, we’re invoking that specific kind of learning. (Does something have to have consciousness in order to learn? You need to carefully define learning in order to make that the case. Organisms and systems constantly show learning outcomes, like more success or a higher rate of reproduction.)

The researchers explain this distinction well:

“In one sense, learning is nothing special; it is a causal process, conveyed by physical interactions. And yet we need to consider learning as special to explain events that transpire because of learning.”

Consider the expression “You never learn,” which suggests that outcomes for a specific person and activity are still bad. We’re using that outcome to say learning hasn’t happened. What if the person is trying to change their outcomes and just isn’t succeeding? We’re gauging learning based on visible outcomes only.

RELATED STORY

If you’re interested in the nitty gritty, the full, 79-page study defines a ton of fascinating terms and introduces some wild and wonderful arguments using them. The scientists’ goal is to kick off a whole new arm of cosmological research into the idea of a learning universe.

Link Original: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36112655/universe-is-self-learning-algorithm/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBPOP&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0w5eAVWL1Ub1dIKudTE1o4z4YpVF99GCFPvqePqzYHvcE47nMRZuEfTpE


Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious

In upcoming research, scientists will attempt to show the universe has consciousness. Yes, really. No matter the outcome, we’ll soon learn more about what it means to be conscious—and which objects around us might have a mind of their own.

What will that mean for how we treat objects and the world around us? Buckle in, because things are about to get weird.

What Is Consciousness?

The basic definition of consciousness intentionally leaves a lot of questions unanswered. It’s “the normal mental condition of the waking state of humans, characterized by the experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, awareness of the external world, and often in humans (but not necessarily in other animals) self-awareness,” according to the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology.

Scientists simply don’t have one unified theory of what consciousness is. We also don’t know where it comes from, or what it’s made of.

However, one loophole of this knowledge gap is that we can’t exhaustively say other organisms, and even inanimate objects, don’t have consciousness. Humans relate to animals and can imagine, say, dogs and cats have some amount of consciousness because we see their facial expressions and how they appear to make decisions. But just because we don’t “relate to” rocks, the ocean, or the night sky, that isn’t the same as proving those things don’t have consciousness.

This is where a philosophical stance called panpsychism comes into play, writes All About Space’s David Crookes:

“This claims consciousness is inherent in even the tiniest pieces of matter — an idea that suggests the fundamental building blocks of reality have conscious experience. Crucially, it implies consciousness could be found throughout the universe.”

It’s also where physics enters the picture. Some scientists have posited that the thing we think of as consciousness is made of micro-scale quantum physics events and other “spooky actions at a distance,” somehow fluttering inside our brains and generating conscious thoughts.

The Free Will Conundrum

One of the leading minds in physics, 2020 Nobel laureate and black hole pioneer Roger Penrose, has written extensively about quantum mechanics as a suspected vehicle of consciousness. In 1989, he wrote a book called The Emperor’s New Mind, in which he claimed “that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.”

Let’s quickly break down that statement. What does it mean for human consciousness to be “algorithmic”? Well, an algorithm is simply a series of predictable steps to reach an outcome, and in the study of philosophy, this idea plays a big part in questions about free will versus determinism.

Are our brains simply cranking out math-like processes that can be telescoped in advance? Or is something wild happening that allows us true free will, meaning the ability to make meaningfully different decisions that affect our lives?

Within philosophy itself, the study of free will dates back at least centuries. But the overlap with physics is much newer. And what Penrose claimed in The Emperor’s New Mind is that consciousness isn’t strictly causal because, on the tiniest level, it’s a product of unpredictable quantum phenomena that don’t conform to classical physics.

So, where does all that background information leave us? If you’re scratching your head or having some uncomfortable thoughts, you’re not alone. But these questions are essential to people who study philosophy and science, because the answers could change how we understand the entire universe around us. Whether or not humans do or don’t have free will has huge moral implications, for example. How do you punish criminals who could never have done differently?

Consciousness Is Everywhere

In physics, scientists could learn key things from a study of consciousness as a quantum effect. This is where we rejoin today’s researchers: Johannes Kleiner, mathematician and theoretical physicist at the Munich Center For Mathematical Philosophy, and Sean Tull, mathematician at the University of Oxford.

Kleiner and Tull are following Penrose’s example, in both his 1989 book and a 2014 paper where he detailed his belief that our brains’ microprocesses can be used to model things about the whole universe. The resulting theory is called integrated information theory (IIT), and it’s an abstract, “highly mathematical” form of the philosophy we’ve been reviewing.

In IIT, consciousness is everywhere, but it accumulates in places where it’s needed to help glue together different related systems. This means the human body is jam-packed with a ton of systems that must interrelate, so there’s a lot of consciousness (or phi, as the quantity is known in IIT) that can be calculated. Think about all the parts of the brain that work together to, for example, form a picture and sense memory of an apple in your mind’s eye.

The revolutionary thing in IIT isn’t related to the human brain—it’s that consciousness isn’t biological at all, but rather is simply this value, phi, that can be calculated if you know a lot about the complexity of what you’re studying.

If your brain has almost countless interrelated systems, then the entire universe must have virtually infinite ones. And if that’s where consciousness accumulates, then the universe must have a lot of phi.

Hey, we told you this was going to get weird.

“The theory consists of a very complicated algorithm that, when applied to a detailed mathematical description of a physical system, provides information about whether the system is conscious or not, and what it is conscious of,” Kleiner told All About Space. “If there is an isolated pair of particles floating around somewhere in space, they will have some rudimentary form of consciousness if they interact in the correct way.”

Kleiner and Tull are working on turning IIT into this complex mathematical algorithm—setting down the standard that can then be used to examine how conscious things operate. 

Think about the classic philosophical comment, “I think, therefore I am,” then imagine two geniuses turning that into a workable formula where you substitute in a hundred different number values and end up with your specific “I am” answer.

The next step is to actually crunch the numbers, and then to grapple with the moral implications of a hypothetically conscious universe. It’s an exciting time to be a philosopher—or a philosopher’s calculator.

Link Original: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36329671/is-the-universe-conscious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBPOP&fbclid=IwAR2RtikR_vKNp0wepXtQ_QEq1o438qMPsGLEB5RV4czuo6M7lcRgWO-c1hI



Fractal Pattern in a Quantum Material Confirmed for the First Time!

The word fractal has become increasingly popular, although the concept started more than two centuries ago in the 17th century with prominent and prolific mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz is believed to have addressed for the first time the notion of recursive self-similarity, and it wasn’t until 1960 that the concept was formally stabilized both theoretically and practically, through the mathematical development and computerized visualizations by Benoit Mandelbrot, who settled on the name “fractal”.


Fractals are defined mainly by three characteristics:

  1. Self-similarity: identical or very similar shapes and forms at all scales.
  2. Iteration: a recursive relationship limited only by computer capacity. With sufficiently high performance, the iterations could be infinite. This allows for very detailed shapes at every scale, that modify with respect to the first iteration, manifesting the original shape at some levels of iteration. Because of this, fractals may have emergent properties, which make them a suitable tool for complex systems.
  3. Fractal dimension, or fractional dimensions: describes the counter-intuitive notion that a measured length changes with the length of the measuring stick used; it quantifies how the number of scaled measuring sticks required to measure, for example, a coastline, changes with the scale applied to the stick.
Leer Más

Físicos dizem ter detectado o quinto elemento – a quintessência

Redação do Site Inovação Tecnológica – 27/11/2020Quintessência: Físicos dizem ter detectado o quinto elementoO observatório Planck rastreou a radiação cósmica de fundo, que os cientistas acreditam ser o «eco» do Big Bang. [Imagem: ESA/Planck]

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

O retorno do éter

Uma dupla de físicos da Alemanha e do Japão acredita ter dado um passo importante para ressuscitar uma das teorias mais controversas da Física: o éter.

Até Einstein, o éter era a substância essencial a partir da qual todas as partículas e ondas eram medidas, e no qual elas se deslocavam. Mas a teoria da relatividade especial dispensou o éter. Como defender o éter significava contrapor-se à relatividade, o termo foi logo banido e criou-se muito preconceito em torno dele.

Não têm faltado tentativas de ressuscitá-lo, sendo que a versão mais moderna equivale ao chamado vácuo quântico, que descreve o «vazio» como uma sopa de partículas que surgem e desaparecem o tempo todo – para quase todos os efeitos, aceitar o vácuo quântico significa apenas rebatizar o éter.

Leer Más