arXiv blog

The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics?

The nature of information is the key question for those pondering the laws of physics.

kfc 05/18/2009

  • 12 Comments

We've all come across the mind-blowing weirdness of quantum mechanics; that it makes its predictions in probabilistic rather them deterministic form, that it does not allow unknown states to be copied and that one quantum object can instantly influence another regardless of the distance between them, but not in a way that allows faster-than-light communication.

That's one helluva a theory and in recent years physicists have discovered an entire class of theories that do the same kind of thing. The question is which one do we choose?

A few can be ruled out because they simplify various computational tasks in implausible ways. But the rest have seemed more or less equivalent. Until now.

Marcin Pawlowski at the University of Gdansk in Poland and a few pals say that the addition of a single additional consideration, quickly and easily separates the non-physical theories from the physical ones.

The idea is based around information and can be stated simply. The rule is this: the sending of "m" classical bits causes an information gain of, at most, "m" bits.

It sounds bewilderingly simple and perhaps it is. Pawlowski and co say that without this principle, non-physical theories allow extra information to be sent. They point out that the rule applies only to classical bits. In the real quantum world, extra infromation can be sent using the ideas of super dense coding.

The team say because the idea distinguishes between physical and non-physical versions of quantum mechanics, it must be a fundamental property of the universe.

Perhaps. The problem with this argument is that the new rule so far gives no insight into the nature of quantum mechanics (or information) and seems to have no predictive power. That's not going to be much use to anybody.

The truth is that this team is not the first to consider the role that information plays in quantum mechanics.

There are no shortage of theorists who recognise the problem of understanding the nature of information as the outstanding mystery of our era.

Various teams are wrestling with the problem of producing a quantum version of Shannon's Theory of Communication which describes how a classical message created at one point in space can be recreated at another. The problem is how to describe in very general terms the rules that govern how a quantum message created at one point in space can be recreated at another.

Others are attempting to redraw the laws of quantum mechanics in terms of quantum information alone.

Roy Frieden at the University of Arizon in Phoenix, has already derived the laws of physics, including the Schrodinger equation, using the powerful idea of Fisher information (although the method has not produced the kind of predictions needed to make it mainstream).

All this work stems from the growing realisation that it is not the laws of physics that determine how information behaves in our Universe, but the other way round. The implication is extraordinary: that somehow, information is the ghostly bedrock of our Universe and from it, all else is derived. That really is mind-blowing.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292: A New Physical Principle: Information Causality

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

tulcod

6 Comments

  • 1001 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2009

My personal theory

I have personally thought about the foundations of reality before (I'm interested in physics but definitely not a real physicist), and what I highly suspect is the truth is the following.

Consider the theory of forms, and imagine that the forms in a world of forms are theories. This world of forms has no rules (thus there is nothing keeping such a world from existing, thus it exists), so there is no equivalent of Newton's first law of gravity, and there is no such thing as time either, so everything can exist. Physical theories, mathematical theories, anything. In fact, all logically possible theories, and likely all logically impossible theories as well, since logic is just a theory too, are in this world of forms. Our world is just one of those theories, existing solely because the Idea of such a world exists.

This is a theory I can live with, it's keeping me away from religion. We exist because if we wouldn't exist, there would need to be a "law of inertia" keeping us from existing, which would imply the existence of another theory, so something else would exist. My theory implies something of a MWI for physical (and other) theories. Also note that this has interesting implications on the is-math-created-or-discovered-discussion.

Perhaps things suddenly make sense for the physicists in Poland now, perhaps this is just another random post from a random guy on this web of fake knowledge.

Reply

morganxander

1 Comment

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Re: My personal theory

Wow. I agree one hundred percent. I have formulated a similar theory. Except that instead of saying "forms," I used concepts. For instance, a man that does not have a concept of color may physically see orange and red, but if asked to distinguish between an orange and red circle, he will not be able to, because he has no concept of color. So we are experiencing all sorts of things, but they are beyond human conception/imagination and so do not exist for us.

Reply

stephan.froede

6 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Re: My personal theory


Sorry, I think your theory was first made up ca 2500 years ago by Plato.

Some philosophers think that the theory of forms is to unflexible to explain anything useful. Some even say it is plainly wrong and misleading, or they are saying this theory is only a product of human imagination read our wish to see forms.

So it is more like a fata morgana.

Reply

tulcod

6 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Re: My personal theory

Hey, first of all, I love the fact that others even want to discuss about this.

However, since when do philosophers make sense? If a philosopher's not writing a book on an unrelated topic, (s)he's pessimistically walking around the world because (s)he's a nihilist, and if there's one thing which doesn't make sense, it's nihilism. Plus, philosophers usually don't know crap about physics.

You're right, though, this is actually simply a different use of Plato's theory, with a few added backup arguments.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Re: My personal theory

I do believe, things exists in objective way, if they're existing in patterns, multiple instances (analogies) or probability gradients, so they can be distinguished from pure noise. If nothing would exist, we couldn't distinguish the existence from nonexistence.

Reply

Wireless Dongle

2 Comments

  • 1001 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2009

I know what I know

In logic, "I know" is a statement however "I know what I know" is not. Although we believe that we exist, we cannot verify that beyond using our own bodies that we are testing their existence as an instrument to detect our existence. We are limited from discovering more by our perception.

Similarly information is not available to our cognition from its source. Matter is also not available to our cognition from its source. They are both available to our cognition through our senses (i.e. perception). But there is a little problem with this simplification. It doesn't address meta knowledge like mathematics. Where do we get the ability to abstract from. We can know patterns from nature through our senses but we don't know something in particular that we call abstraction. My only explanation to that is that it is innate. Also all our knowledge can be thought of as being innate because it is conveyed to our conscience using our senses' abilities and their limitations. This leaves me thinking that if we someday get to explain the basis of information and whether information or physics are the basis of the universe, we will only be able to conjure what we already have innate. This also leads me to think that if we can only get the information that we are limited to get, then we are saying that we cannot get information that is not available to us, then we are limited to the variants of information that can pass through our senses, then knowledge is limited (it might not feel logical but logic is not about feelings).

Although information and quantum mechanics have rules, we can only perceive them within our abilities. Hence they must have a threshold and physical bits must have a threshold as well. In conclusion, whether it is information laws or quantum mechanics that rule, they will be capped by our perception. I believe (only on faith here) that information laws and quantum mechanics will be proven to be equivalent because in the end we are as capable to know as our senses carry. This is reality.

Reply

irreverent

14 Comments

  • 1001 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2009

so it goes

Going from the quantum entanglement and spookiness of sub atomic particles to the real world is like extrapolating from zero to infinity. Without some real testable prediction it is nothing more than a thought experiment that muddies the waters. Nature loves simplicity. All this assumes that the laws of physics are the same throughout the cosmos. Given our extremely limited exploration of it that is a big question mark. Of course none of this explains how amid all this probabilistic mechanics living organisms manage to sense anything but chaos, obviously things are not as uncertain as the religion of physics predicts. The cat in the cage has been dead a long time. Keep rocking Albert.

Reply

Advertisement

stephan.froede

6 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

One argument for this theory


Information has no size or a very very small size. We do count the amount of informations in bits, and we do "see" information as its physical representation lets say a DVD. And the size of the physical representation is only given in the way we can store it.

If information is the foundation of everything, than it should be indefinitly small. Smaller than everything else. Otherwise it could not be packed in the seed of a universe to produce a big bang.

The good thing with this assumption is, that it can be falsified.

But I doubt that information is the foundation of everything, I think it is just the expression of states.

 

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Information

is of none physical relevance, it has no SI unit so it cannot be measured in physical way. Here doesn't exist relevant way, how to determine, whether some cluster of random characters has some information or not. In reality the information is always mediated by some bosons. So we can talk about enthropy or energy, but not about information.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

In the real quantum world, extra information can be sent using the ideas of super dense coding.... Without this principle, non-physical theories allow extra information to be sent..
...
...
Because this principle is "a  fundamental property of the universe.", it would mean, even non-physical theories allow extra information to be sent... it means, here's still no way, how to distinguish physical theories from those unphysical ones, until they both care about "real quantum world"...
...
Or did I miss(understand) something in the above logic?

Reply

tulcod

6 Comments

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Re:

there's a difference between sending quantum state information and a classical bit. in super dense coding, a lot of information can be sent, but you can only read a bit out of all that information.

Reply

uncountable

1 Comment

  • 999 Days Ago
  • 05/20/2009

small correction

The University of Arizona is in Tucson.

Interesting. Blog. I am a huge fan of the arXiv and I'm glad that someone is blogging the highlights.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement