>From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:34:42 +1000
>On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:03:47AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > Russell Standish wrote:
> > > Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
> > > measurement by an observer that information can be created or
> > > destroyed. Usually, the second law is interpreted as the destruction
> > > of information (anyone observing a closed system will over time know
> > > less information about the system), so it puzzles me that you have the
> > > sign the other way.
> >
> > What?  You're saying that if I observe a system, then I know less about 
>it.  You
> > must be using some non-standard meaning of "know".
> >
> > Brent Meeker
> >
>Yes - in the case of milk being stirred into coffee. Strange as it may
>seem, you know more information when the system is initially
>structured than after that initial structure  has dispersed.
>And yes you need to observe it. Entropy is undefined without an

As I understand it, you don't need exactly need an observer, you just need 
to identify various macro-variables (like pressure and temperature) which 
can be used to "coarse-grain" the phase space of the system, with entropy 
being proportional to the logarithm of the number of possible detailed 
"microstates" (detailed descriptions of the positions and momenta of all the 
particles, within the limits of the uncertainty principle) compatible with a 
given "macrostate" (descriptions of the system which only tell you the value 
of the macro-variables). Once you have chosen your set of macro-variables, 
they should have well-defined values for any system, regardless of whether 
it's being observed by anyone or not. Of course, the choice of variables is 
based on what properties we human observers are actually capable of 
measuring in practice, so I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, 
but I think it needs a little clarification.

Likewise, I think "the second law is interpreted as the destruction of 
information" needs a bit of clarification--as entropy increases, there are 
more and more microstates compatible with a given macrostate so the observer 
is losing information about the microstate, but information is not really 
being lost at a fundamental level, since *in principle* it would always be 
possible to measure a system's exact microstate.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to