Topic: According to science, information can never be lost or destroyed.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #49,594
Therefore, a sufficiently advanced entity could reach out over time & space and reconstruct any human being, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, thought by thought. The resurrection of the body predicted by the Book of Revelations is scientifically feasible. That is all.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #644,576
> Therefore, a sufficiently advanced entity could> could
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,579
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> The resurrection of the body predicted by the Book of Revelations is scientifically feasible.
> The resurrection of the body predicted by the Book of Revelations is scientifically feasible.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,581
> couldAnonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,582
> The resurrection of the body predicted by the Book of Revelations is scientifically feasible. That is all.
> Book of Revelations
OP
So like you have a great great great grandfather buried somewhere out there. His brain was loaded with information. Some unique only to him.
Now really you don't think for one damned second the information his brain contained can be resurrected.
It is true the neurons are now just dust and maybe in the wind, but that information provided by the network of neurons are gone in the same way Jesus is gone.
> Book of Revelations
OP
So like you have a great great great grandfather buried somewhere out there. His brain was loaded with information. Some unique only to him.
Now really you don't think for one damned second the information his brain contained can be resurrected.
It is true the neurons are now just dust and maybe in the wind, but that information provided by the network of neurons are gone in the same way Jesus is gone.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,584
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,587
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,588
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,589
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,590
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,591
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #644,603
@644,582 (C)
Every electro-chemical impulse generated by the human body is imprinted on the fabric of time-space, right down to the quantum level. According to present day physics, even the most insignificant piece of information can never be truly lost, even if it passes the event horizon of a black hole. That is all.
Every electro-chemical impulse generated by the human body is imprinted on the fabric of time-space, right down to the quantum level. According to present day physics, even the most insignificant piece of information can never be truly lost, even if it passes the event horizon of a black hole. That is all.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #644,606
@644,591 (G)
Spoken like a true angry anae.
@previous (A)
The term "information", as used by present day physicists, does not mean what you think it means. Thanks.
Spoken like a true angry anae.
@previous (A)
The term "information", as used by present day physicists, does not mean what you think it means. Thanks.
P6 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,619
hmmm
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,620
@644,603 (A)
it gets scrambled, or so they think. information is "encoded" on the event horizon, and hawking radiation of virtual particles offsets the entropy which reduces its size. theoretically, they think, that information from the event horizon influences how hawking radiation radiates (or something like that) and so therefor the information on the black hole is carried away as a randomized radiation. so, the information is NOT lost, but it's so scrambled it's not usable.
you're batting pretty far from the plate, bud
it gets scrambled, or so they think. information is "encoded" on the event horizon, and hawking radiation of virtual particles offsets the entropy which reduces its size. theoretically, they think, that information from the event horizon influences how hawking radiation radiates (or something like that) and so therefor the information on the black hole is carried away as a randomized radiation. so, the information is NOT lost, but it's so scrambled it's not usable.
you're batting pretty far from the plate, bud
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,636
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 37 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,637
@644,606 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
> The term "information", as used by present day physicists, does not mean what you think it means. Thanks.
Yes it does. Thanks.
> The term "information", as used by present day physicists, does not mean what you think it means. Thanks.
Yes it does. Thanks.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,649
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,650
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Let's see...whose word should I take on the subject? World famous theoretical theorist Michio Kaku...or some unemployed knob-head who couldn't even hold down a part time job in Asia?
Tough choice.
Let's see...whose word should I take on the subject? World famous theoretical theorist Michio Kaku...or some unemployed knob-head who couldn't even hold down a part time job in Asia?
Tough choice.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,655
@previous (A)
He was dumbing it down for the plebs. As a science commnicator, that is, in fact, his job.
He was dumbing it down for the plebs. As a science commnicator, that is, in fact, his job.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,724
@644,636 (A)
are you talking about the brand new theory he recently introduced about black holes having "hair?" if so, well yeah, it's an untested theory but i think it has some experimental implications for verification. but yeah, you'd be a pretty bad scientist to agree it's correct when even hawkins believes it will need to be tested and verified. the introduction of a new theory isn't a declaration that something is correct or needs to be agreed with. it's a declaration that something ought to be tested and either verified or proven to be wrong. hawkings thinks he might be right, and his ideas need to be tested experimentally and backed up with lots of observation.
no one is out there saying, "oh, stephen hawking has an idea so let's all jump to agree or disagree with it based on our feelings." science isn't about guesswork or agreeing with ideas because they are liked, it's a methodology of questioning and experimentation. no one is just grabbing ideas and championing them because they sound good. and if they are then they are not engaged in science.
are you talking about the brand new theory he recently introduced about black holes having "hair?" if so, well yeah, it's an untested theory but i think it has some experimental implications for verification. but yeah, you'd be a pretty bad scientist to agree it's correct when even hawkins believes it will need to be tested and verified. the introduction of a new theory isn't a declaration that something is correct or needs to be agreed with. it's a declaration that something ought to be tested and either verified or proven to be wrong. hawkings thinks he might be right, and his ideas need to be tested experimentally and backed up with lots of observation.
no one is out there saying, "oh, stephen hawking has an idea so let's all jump to agree or disagree with it based on our feelings." science isn't about guesswork or agreeing with ideas because they are liked, it's a methodology of questioning and experimentation. no one is just grabbing ideas and championing them because they sound good. and if they are then they are not engaged in science.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,725
@previous (squeegee)
> hawkins believes it will need to be tested and verified
Cannot wait for them to build a Black Hole in lab.
> hawkins believes it will need to be tested and verified
Cannot wait for them to build a Black Hole in lab.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 30 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,727
@previous (C)
i'm not a physicist so i can't answer how or what can be tested about his theory. but i do believe that like 20 years after he predicted it there was eventually detection of hawking radiation. let me check.
but, i think i read that solving the whole information paradox "thing" might not directly lead to any new physics. it'll be more of an intellectual curiosity rather than something we'll be able to glean insight from. if hawking is correct then the answer to the whole thing is quite uninteresting. if he's wrong then the truth of it still probably won't lead us anywhere if we could even solve it. if information is encoded on the event horizon then cool, information is not lost. it just gets hopelessly scrambled as it randomly radiates off. if information is not encoded on the event horizon then it's lost to the singularity and we are back to square one. but what is the difference between losing something completely and just losing something practically completely? it doesn't really give insight into the singularity except to say that the singularity doesn't break physical laws we consider immutable. it bends them. so i guess it helps to narrow down what properties make up a black hole by showing that information loss doesn't have to be a consideration since black holes store information outside of the singularity. it's interesting, but not practically useful as far as theoretical physics is concerned. maybe, if it's correct, then they can just quit worrying about how to reconcile information loss with future models of singularities.
anyway, i don't really know, hawkings could totally be wrong but at least his work exists in the testable realm of the universe outside of the event horizon and not some philosophical string theory
i'm not a physicist so i can't answer how or what can be tested about his theory. but i do believe that like 20 years after he predicted it there was eventually detection of hawking radiation. let me check.
Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems this effect is too small to be observed directly. In September 2010, however, an experimental set-up created a laboratory "white hole event horizon" that the experimenters claimed was shown to radiate Hawking radiation, although its status as a genuine confirmation remains in doubt. Some scientists predict that Hawking radiation could be studied by analogy using sonic black holes, in which sound perturbations are analogous to light in a gravitational black hole and the flow of an approximately perfect fluid is analogous to gravity.
so no, it has yet to be verified. but, as you can see there are multiple ways to test this theory some with a black hole and others without. but i think they'll eventually generate microblack holes in the lab. they'd just evaporate almost instantly but they'd leave behind a measurable fuckload of hawking radiation (i do believe the idea goes).but, i think i read that solving the whole information paradox "thing" might not directly lead to any new physics. it'll be more of an intellectual curiosity rather than something we'll be able to glean insight from. if hawking is correct then the answer to the whole thing is quite uninteresting. if he's wrong then the truth of it still probably won't lead us anywhere if we could even solve it. if information is encoded on the event horizon then cool, information is not lost. it just gets hopelessly scrambled as it randomly radiates off. if information is not encoded on the event horizon then it's lost to the singularity and we are back to square one. but what is the difference between losing something completely and just losing something practically completely? it doesn't really give insight into the singularity except to say that the singularity doesn't break physical laws we consider immutable. it bends them. so i guess it helps to narrow down what properties make up a black hole by showing that information loss doesn't have to be a consideration since black holes store information outside of the singularity. it's interesting, but not practically useful as far as theoretical physics is concerned. maybe, if it's correct, then they can just quit worrying about how to reconcile information loss with future models of singularities.
anyway, i don't really know, hawkings could totally be wrong but at least his work exists in the testable realm of the universe outside of the event horizon and not some philosophical string theory
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,739
Everyone in this thread is stupid. Thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,742
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,749
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,751
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,752
@644,749 (A)
Have fun misunderstanding everything physicists say when they talk about information. Thanks.
Have fun misunderstanding everything physicists say when they talk about information. Thanks.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,753
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,759
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,761
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,789
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
No. Squeegee simply stated that Hawking's predictions can't be tested. That neither confirms nor denies the universally accepted fact that information cannot be lost or destroyed.
No. Squeegee simply stated that Hawking's predictions can't be tested. That neither confirms nor denies the universally accepted fact that information cannot be lost or destroyed.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,791
@previous (A)
what? i stated that they have potential for testing and haven't been tested YET. i didn't say his theory can't be tested. it's untested, there's a difference. and depending on how you look at it it's tested and confirmed but not verified by a 3rd party repeating the process. anyway, it's very possible it can be tested. what i did say is that it's very possible that it's completely irrelevant if it's even retained at all. it would only be truly interesting if information WAS lost, which doesn't appear to be the case. idk, who knows. i doubt jesus is going to use blackhole powered hawking radiation to raise the dead. i believe the bible said there would be trumpets.
what? i stated that they have potential for testing and haven't been tested YET. i didn't say his theory can't be tested. it's untested, there's a difference. and depending on how you look at it it's tested and confirmed but not verified by a 3rd party repeating the process. anyway, it's very possible it can be tested. what i did say is that it's very possible that it's completely irrelevant if it's even retained at all. it would only be truly interesting if information WAS lost, which doesn't appear to be the case. idk, who knows. i doubt jesus is going to use blackhole powered hawking radiation to raise the dead. i believe the bible said there would be trumpets.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,795
@previous (squeegee)
Please keep making the only sensible responses in this thread. I know it's full of trolls, but your clearly stated talk is refreshing to hear.
Please keep making the only sensible responses in this thread. I know it's full of trolls, but your clearly stated talk is refreshing to hear.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,802
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,803
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,823
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,831
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,832
Thomas Roofer joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,833
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,834
Thomas Roofer replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,835
Dr. FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,838
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,843
@644,832 (Triptych !!/xkPL9myM)
that's interesting. i read a while back about a chip that was being developed that could operate like a particle collider.
https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2015-11-19-accelerator-on-a-chip-grant
stanford evidently, and they got a big grant to pursue it last year.
that's interesting. i read a while back about a chip that was being developed that could operate like a particle collider.
https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2015-11-19-accelerator-on-a-chip-grant
stanford evidently, and they got a big grant to pursue it last year.
At full potential, this means the 2-mile-long linac could be replaced with a series of accelerator chips 100 meters long – roughly the length of a football field.
kinda neat. i wonder if his research is similar.Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,845
@previous (squeegee)
When I read Trips reply I hit Google with this.
> PhD student working on creating black holes inside chips
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/12/wizard-at-circuits-physics/
Further down on the page - universe on atom chip - Quantum Gravity Laboratory - Looked good on search page - Not so much with actual results. Then further down on page found something of value Perhaps
So far no Black holes on a chip.
Yours was a good read.
When I read Trips reply I hit Google with this.
> PhD student working on creating black holes inside chips
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/12/wizard-at-circuits-physics/
built the world’s smallest nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system by controlling atomic nucleic motions on a silicon chip, for example. The system, 1,200 times lighter than a commercial instrument, can be used as a handheld biomolecule sensor for disease screening, oil detection, and quantum computing.
Further down on the page - universe on atom chip - Quantum Gravity Laboratory - Looked good on search page - Not so much with actual results. Then further down on page found something of value Perhaps
So far no Black holes on a chip.
Yours was a good read.
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 10 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #645,068
@644,843 (squeegee)
wow!! that's really cool
there was a presentation of what i assume was PhD projects in chemistry (and i believe physics, since the PhD who runs the physics labs had one). i wish i'd stuck around to see them but the lab was terrible so i grabbed free food and left.
@previous (C)
wow
wow!! that's really cool
there was a presentation of what i assume was PhD projects in chemistry (and i believe physics, since the PhD who runs the physics labs had one). i wish i'd stuck around to see them but the lab was terrible so i grabbed free food and left.
@previous (C)
wow