On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:32:49 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 20 March 2014 15:38, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:53:37 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 20 March 2014 00:54, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, >>>> >>>> If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the >>>> universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has >>>> been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being >>>> stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in >>>> the SAME amount of matter states? >>>> >>>> As far as I know, unitary evolution in QM implies that the information >>> content of the universe remains constant. This is why entropy is emergent, >>> for example, even though it appears on the macroscale to change the amount >>> of order and disorder. Since the laws of physics are time agnostic at the >>> fundamental level (bar the usual caveat involving CPT violation) this is to >>> be expected. You couldn't play physical scenarios backwards even in theory >>> if information was being created, and the evolution of the wave function >>> wouldn't be unitary if it was being lost. Hence it stays constant.. >>> >> >> Liz you;'re confusing me. >> > > Sorry. Of course I may also be confusing myself... > > >> Order/disorder is not a function of QM sense information or is it? >> > > No, that's my point. > > >> Information QM sense doesn't get created or destroyed or affected at all >> by changes in entropy, but harder to make useful. >> > > Yes, exactly. Entropy is to do with how the constituents of the universe > are arranged. The laws of physics don't care about that (so to speak), but > it's important to systems like us, which are examples of special > arrangements of those constituents. The fact that the entropy ceiling keeps > going up as the universe expands is a result of this making more space > available between bound systems. This is important early on, allowing the > big bang fireball (which basically turned into a single star filling the > universe for a while) to later turn into lots of relatively small stars > with large spaces between them. However this trick gets less useful as the > universe gets larger, colder and more dilute. Assuming dark energy keeps > pushing things apart we will end up with each atom - or at least each > gravitationally bound system - alone inside its own Hubble sphere, > surrounded by a sky filled with very weak electromagnetic radiation > equivalent to a black body a trillionth of a degree about absolute zero. > Not much useful work is going to get done at that point, I imagine. > Hi Liz, so it was...it was your point, which I misread. What else you sadi, I'd acknowledge the view of science on readings. My reading would be it depends what you mean by fundamental laws of physics (I obviously know what you mean). I think I think energy and entropy are vastly more ancient ....and influential directly in propotion.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
