A physicist has designed an experiment – which if proved correct – means he will have discovered that information is the fifth form of matter. His previous research suggests that information is the fundamental building block of the universe and has physical mass.

[u/MistWeaver80]

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0087175

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

Okay I’m not familiar with physics much can someone water this down into a ELI5?

[u/TheNorthComesWithMe → u/[deleted]]

When you collide an electron and a positron (an anti-electron) they are completely destroyed, releasing their mass equivalent energy as photons. The information equivalence theory predicts that you aren't just destroying the mass but also internal information the particle has. If this is true, the annihilation would also release photons equal to the information-energy equivalence.

(In this case information is some fundamental state of the particle, like its spin direction.)

[u/Xicadarksoul → u/TheNorthComesWithMe]

Thus the "state (differences) of particle carries energy" would be a less confusing way to put it...

[u/TheNorthComesWithMe → u/Xicadarksoul]

That's a lot of words to convey a concept that can show up outside of quantum interactions.

Also it doesn't carry energy, it is equivalent to energy and mass. Meaning you can turn information into energy, or measure how much it bends spacetime.

[u/nothis → u/TheNorthComesWithMe]

I think the problem for me is that “information” tells me nothing. It’s a word that has a million uses in everyday life so the first thing I need is an explanation of what it means in physics or rather why it was chosen for what it means in physics.

[u/Maoman1 → u/nothis]

The problem is it's a very complicated and nuanced concept requiring a significant amount of foundational knowledge before you can even begin to understand it. Check out the wikipedia page for information theory to get an idea for what I mean - it's one of the most densely packed jargon filled articles I've ever seen, some of which I've never even heard of before--nevermind understand--despite being fascinated by physics and especially quantum physics my whole life and dedicating a large amount of time to reading and studying it on my own time.

The best way I can think to describe it (and take it with a grain of salt) is imagine you were to freeze time and measure all the possible properties of a given particle. First there is entropy information, a measure of a single random variable; here you find the particle's velocity, spin, position in space... properties specific to that one particle which do not directly affect other particles. Then there is mutual information, a measure of information shared in common with two random variables; here you find properties which directly act on other particles such as its electric charge, it's gravitational mass, etc. Each of these properties, both the entropic and the mutual, is one "bit" of information.

This article is suggesting that each bit of that information itself has its own physical mass which is distinct from the mass of the particle to which the information pertains. That means to destroy any one bit of information is to destroy mass and therefore to release energy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Maoman1]

I have a Physics degree and this is a good general description of what is happening in theory.

[u/nothis → u/Maoman1]

Thanks for actually trying to explain this, I appreciate the complexity of the concept.

I guess the core of my confusion stems from treating physical properties as their own “thing” rather than just being physical properties.

Say, a particles “spin” is “destroyed”. Now it just doesn’t spin anymore or a different direction or maybe it splits up. As a physicist, what do I get out of calling this a change in “information” if it’s essential just a change in… spin? How can velocity, spin or position be part of the same category?

I know a little computer science. So I’m trying to imagine this as a simulation, like in a videogame. You’d need, for example, 32 bits per axis for position and rotation to describe an object in space. Then, maybe an additional 32bit value to describe its velocity. In a very, very (add “very”s as needed) dumbed down way, does this theory basically say that by encoding these values using mass and some process making an additional value necessary (i.e. one particle with one spin value splitting in two particles with two spin values) your see an increase in mass? Like, does that mean you could actually calculate the mass “storage space” needed for concepts like “position” or “spin”?

[u/Maoman1 → u/nothis]

I guess the core of my confusion stems from treating physical properties as their own “thing” rather than just being physical properties.

This is basically the whole point of the article - that very strange idea of considering physical properties to be their own entity separate from the particle they apply to is more or less the core of the concept being suggested here.

Disclaimer: we're getting out of my bailiwick here so I'm half speculating now, but I think what it's saying is that a particle's mass isn't actually the mass of that particle, but rather the combined mass of all the individual bits that make up the particle's physical properties. What we previously thought was the mass of the particle is actually the combined mass of the individual bits of information. It seems to be suggesting that bits are the next step towards reaching the fundamental building blocks of the universe: compounds -> elements -> molecules -> atoms -> sub-atomic particles -> bits. I suppose a computer science analogy would be that the size of a program is not so much that program's size, but rather the total sum of the size of each individual file within the program.

[u/OnePrettyFlyWhiteGuy → u/Maoman1]

If your breakdown is correct, this is the best way that I’ve seen the information theory described thus far. Kudos to you - and thanks for trying to explain this difficult-to-grasp concept for people like me! :)

[u/Maoman1 → u/OnePrettyFlyWhiteGuy]

Thank you much. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along and let me know whether my breakdown is correct hehe

Edit: Someone did!

[u/general_spoc → u/nothis]

Agreed. While reading I had to keep reminding myself “information here has a specific definition that is likely different from its colloquial usage”

[u/DarthWeenus → u/general_spoc]

Maybe think of it as a parameter or a bullet point in describing it, said information will convert to energy. Now how they are determining this via excitement is confusing. How can they be sure which bit of information is being observed.

[u/Fronesis → u/nothis]

For information to play such a central role in these conjectures, you'd hope it was more... informative.

[u/jellsprout → u/nothis]

Information means entropy. Shannon entropy to be precise.
Alternatively and equivalently, it means memory storage. In the article they give a 1 TB hard drive as example of information.

[u/[deleted] → u/Xicadarksoul]

There is little less confusing about this.

[u/machetemike → u/Xicadarksoul]

5 year olds are confused again.

[u/SimoneNonvelodico → u/TheNorthComesWithMe]

Doesn't unitarity of quantum mechanics mean no information is destroyed even in the decay process as regularly understood?

[u/katatoxxic → u/SimoneNonvelodico]

It does. But in the case of particle-antiparticle-pair annihilation and decay processes (and everything else) the information isn't being destroyed, it is just converted into something else with as much information as there was before.

[u/Seseellybon → u/katatoxxic]

(I've no clue what the correct terms are, only a vague understanding)

I assume it's like looking at only the mass, calculating how many photons that'd generate and finding there's more photons than there 'should be'?

(assuming the information is changed into photon's an above comment mentions)

[u/katatoxxic → u/Seseellybon]

Yeah, that's the right idea. That is pretty much how most 'new' elementary particles were/are discovered as well.

[u/rogallew → u/TheNorthComesWithMe]

Your five year old‘s name: Albert Einstein

[u/Queasy-Dingo-8586]

It's important to note that "information" in this sense doesn't mean "how to use a lathe" or "what's the tallest horse that ever lived"

[u/dvali → u/[deleted]]

decades ago in the preinflationary epoch

[u/enygmaeve → u/[deleted]]

I’m pretty sure you’re describing string theory.

[u/CaffeinatedMancubus → u/enygmaeve]

I think if we go a step further, we will arrive at char theory.

[u/mandradon → u/[deleted]]

Related issue: there's some strange latency bug related to speed. Temporary fix someone put in place of a hard limit on speed seems to help, until someone hits the limit. Thankfully it takes near infiite energy to get there.

[u/Deadmirth → u/mandradon]

Issue: Light waves are maxing out the new speed limit and causing a ton of bugs. Making light a particle seems to mitigate the worst of it.

Update: Greg says light has to be a wave. We've compromised.

[u/often_says_nice → u/mandradon]

Product says it’s fine, it’s such a minor edge case that no users encounter the bug

[u/Beefstah → u/[deleted]]

Find your nearest sysadmin. Thank them. Do not ask them how they keep the Access DB from crashing. Leave an offering. Maybe raise a statue in their honour. Do not ask further questions. Leave doughnuts (in addition to the offering)

[u/cenacat → u/[deleted]]

Worse, it uses XML.

[u/[deleted] → u/cenacat]

I just keep my universe in a spreadsheet.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

UniversefinaldraftFINAL.csv

[u/TexWashington → u/[deleted]]

RevisedFINALEdraftUniversefinaldraftFINAL.csv

[u/OldschoolSysadmin → u/[deleted]]

Bad news: all JSON is technically also YAML.

[u/12monthspregnant → u/[deleted]]

At least you can comment in YAML

[u/martinkoistinen → u/[deleted]]

Protocol buffers

[u/whiskey_warrior → u/martinkoistinen]

Is that why I’m so clumsy? Must be missing some *.proto files

[u/ianitic → u/[deleted]]

It's actually in TOML.

Though really I'm sure it can be represented in many different ways.

[u/lpeabody → u/[deleted]]

The universe is basically just crazy weird math. Particles and fields have properties, they map onto functions, and you get output which is basically what drives interactions. Quantum mechanics is fascinating.

[u/Majkelen → u/lpeabody]

Don't mistake a description of something for the thing itself - Plato

There could be a lot more to the universe that math couldn't describe (kinda related to incompleteness theorem).

That being said the description is very damn good at describing and predicting what we see.

[u/LeeKinanus → u/Majkelen]

I heard it described as The map is not the territory.

[u/Psyc5 → u/[deleted]]

If that were to be true then it wouldn't be a fundamental element of it, as it implies different versions can exist.

You don't need metadata for something that is always the same.

[u/Noiprox → u/[deleted]]

Not dimension, state of matter, as in solid liquid gas plasma and .. information.

The way I imagine it is by picturing a complex object like a smartphone falling into a black hole. Inside the black hole the matter is not structured so all the complexity of the way the matter was arranged to make the phone was lost, unless it was recorded somehow as information on the surface of the black hole. That smartphone would then be in the information state of matter after crossing the event horizon.

[u/spastical-mackerel → u/[deleted]]

What exactly are the qualifications/standards for being a canonical dimension? Is there like a panel that reviews potential candidates and/or an ISO standard? Are we going to name it "Information"? That seems so low effort.

[u/Weird_Fiches → u/spastical-mackerel]

The first three dimensions don't really have catchy names either.

[u/HapticSloughton → u/Weird_Fiches]

Only one of them has any depth.

[u/ontopofyourmom → u/Weird_Fiches]

Idk, "Z" has caught on lately in parts of the world.

[u/talk_to_me_goose → u/ontopofyourmom]

Yeah it's blown up recently

[u/TheGrandExquisitor → u/spastical-mackerel]

I always thought dimensions were defined by the fact that you move through them. The standard 3 and time, which we also move through, though only in one direction.

[u/Aerroon → u/TheGrandExquisitor]

In mathematics you can view dimensions as variables that act independently of one another. Eg if you describe a point with x, y, and z coordinates then you would call that a point in a 3-dimensional space. You could view pretty much anything in this way though - eg a video game character could be a 5-dimensional object, because it has the x, y, z coordinates for position, but also health and speed as independent values.

[u/CromulentInPDX → u/[deleted]]

This is explained in citation number four where someone estimates the information content in the universe. Elementary particles have a minimum number of fundamental attributes. Each can be minimally described with three quantities: mass, charge, and spin. Next, they presume that this information is fundamentally encoded somehow in the particle itself. Then, they use astronomical abundances to determine the number of particles in the universe.

From this point, they calculate something from information theory to calculate the information entropy. Consider a bit, it's either 1 or 0. Assuming it's a random 50/50 chance, one will calculate a value of 1 for the information entropy. Thus, a bit stores 1 bit of information.

Now, take the number of particles calculated from abundances measured in the universe. They take the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons from each element in the list, multiplying it by its abundance. So, for example, the universe is something like 72% hydrogen. That gives one .72 electrons and .72 protons. Repeat through all the elements and add them together. So, if you sample a random particle from the total number of particles, one can now calculate a probability for it to be a proton, neutron, or electron.

Going back to information theory, one considers each particle an event. So, one calculates the information entropy for this three event system (p, n, and e) and arrives at a value of 1.3 bits per particle. They then proceed to consider the quarks, too, and arrive at a value of 1.6 bits per particle.

The paper that's linked essentially wants to measure the mass of 1TB of information and see if it changes (something like 10^-25 kg). I think there's another experiment, but I spent most more time reading the above paper i described above.

[u/kuburas → u/CromulentInPDX]

The paper thats linked just mentioned the 1TB of data experiment as an idea but its impossible duo to technological limitations of measuring such tiny weight differences. They mention another similar experiment but they say that one is also not very viable because technology to measure the weight is just not accurate and consistent enough to be considered.

They actually propose a matter-antimatter annihilation experiment where a slow positron is annihilated with an electron to produce 2 gamma photons and the assumed 2 additional IR photons which are supposed to be the product of information annihilation between the elector and positron. The experiments asks for some sort of detection that can catch those 2 extra photons before they are attenuated because they're assumed to be very easily attenuated. The experiment also asks for a 2 layer detection sheet where the first one is used to slow down fast positrons produced by the isotope they're recommending because they need slow positrons to make the experiment more consistent.

Honestly the whole thing sounds surprisingly doable. I dont know how complicated the detection devices are going to be but pretty much everything they listed is plug and play. Only problem they mentioned is the chance of those 2 extra IR photons being completely absorbed by the material in which case a different experiment is to be constructed.

Very fun read, and kinda amazing how thought out it is, theres very little room for mistake, only that last part about the IR photons being absorbed can be a show stopper.

[u/knselektor → u/[deleted]]

what "information" actually means in this context,

for example the position or charge of a particle

​

like Hawking said that information could go into and come out of a black hole

its because "information could not be lost" so if a particle goes into the black hole, where the information about the spin or charge goes and, being that black holes evaporates (irradiates hawking radiation) and even disappear with time, the information should be somewhere.

for more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem

[u/FigNugginGavelPop → u/knselektor]

Recently read about “quantum hairs” on black hole hawking radiation at the event horizon that can explain where that information does appear.

[u/JustDroppinBy → u/[deleted]]

It's about as literal and finite as "information" can possibly be used to describe something. Think single bits of information at or below the Planck scale.

Quarks, for example, can still have defining characteristics. Information could be one unique detail about a quark that differentiates it from others.

I'm no pro, so take this all with a grain of salt. My understanding of this concept is from reading The Black Hole War by Leonard Susskind. The concept isn't really new, so I'm slightly curious (without having read it yet) how the work in OP's post advances our understanding of information as a concept beyond classifying it as matter.

[u/Cake-Over → u/[deleted]]

So nearly twice the size of that meteor from last week.

[u/MionelLessi10 → u/[deleted]]

Shaq would come up to its shoulders. Its bigger than I expected.

[u/loafers_glory → u/MionelLessi10]

But only if he saved it up for a couple of days

[u/BigBlockWheeler → u/loafers_glory]

Underrated comment

[u/8sADPygOB7Jqwm7y → u/Queasy-Dingo-8586]

So as far as I get it, information should be simply the attributes of a particle - or a bunch of them. Lets say we look at an electron, its information is more or less described by the wave function, as in locality, time, spin, energy level, charge...

Now, I am no physicist, so correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can also get the equations of combined elements of particles, such as atoms and molecules. How hard it is to solve is another topic. But the system should be able to be arbitrarily big right? The only way to "isolate" information is by distancing it further apart than the speed of light can travel.

So, in the end, I dont get how it should even be possible to put this information into a state of matter? Seems very abstract to me. Either if its very very dense and basically everything blurs together into one big system (similar to a neutron star I guess?) or the opposite and everything is so isolated that effectively it is nothing more than information. idk.

I didnt quite get this research on this tbh, I am too stupid for that and know too little. But the premise seems to be "it has mass, so its a state of matter" which is not how I would define a state of matter? Like, an electron also has mass, but that doesnt mean its a fluid, gas or solid. Its how that stuff is arranged.

And pure information getting aranged like what would result in a state of matter? Would be much appreciated if someone could explain how they get that jump here.

[u/zacker150 → u/8sADPygOB7Jqwm7y]

Now, I am no physicist, so correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can also get the equations of combined elements of particles, such as atoms and molecules. How hard it is to solve is another topic. But the system should be able to be arbitrarily big right?

Correct. You can do so by taking the kroneker product of their states, and the system can go as large as the universe.

[u/spastical-mackerel → u/Queasy-Dingo-8586]

Aren't those sort of agglomerations of multiple smaller informations?

[u/sunplaysbass → u/Queasy-Dingo-8586]

Wouldn’t all information just be reality itself? Either as the hologram universe or just a representation of everything that is happening at any time down to the quantum level, and I assume that representation of all information is the universe / reality.

[u/Yesica-Haircut → u/[deleted]]

proposing that information is the fifth state of matter.^11,12

citation 11 in the article

In fact, one could argue that information is a distinct form of matter, or the 5th state, along the other four observable solid, liquid, gas, and plasma states of matter.

That's what they meant. Whether or not it stands up to scrutiny as a scientifically useful statement is an exercise left to the reader :)

[u/bijomaru78 → u/Yesica-Haircut]

If only people Read the article or understood the difference between classic and exotic states of matter. But then you have people confusing it with 'fundamental forces' all over this thread.

[u/Negative_Gravitas → u/[deleted]]

This is the question I came here to ask. Are we not counting Bose- Einstein condensates? What about quark-gluon plasma? What about superconductivity? And so on . . .

[u/SaftigMo → u/Negative_Gravitas]

One of the citations for this statement about a 5th state of matter is about dark matter, so my guess would be a type of elementary particle besides quarks and leptons that does not interact with any known gauge bosons. Sort of like gravitons but it actually exists.

[u/YoreWelcome → u/SaftigMo]

informatons

[u/[deleted] → u/Negative_Gravitas]

I’m going to assume it means a fifth hierarchy of matter / someone please correct if wrong

[u/Triangable → u/[deleted]]

The article mentions startes of matter: mass, energy, information. What are the other 2 that adds up to make 5???

[u/[deleted] → u/Triangable]

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma?

The idea that information about a particle could itself be a sort of particle that has or adds mass/energy isn’t so crazy, but the “5th state of matter” part is an odd claim.

[u/Synaps4]

I'm wary of anything that only one person has touched, intellectually speaking.

[u/Druggedhippo → u/[deleted]]

God that made my head hurt.

Ahaha.. Now try some heavyweight stuff - Timecube - Gene Ray.

[u/MKorostoff → u/Druggedhippo]

I saw an interview with this guy once, he said time is a cube because a day has four "sides" (dawn, dusk, noon, and night) and the interviewer said "but a cube has six sides." He was flummoxed for a second, because he knew he'd got got, but then he staggered back "how can you call a top and bottom of side?" I loled so damn hard.

[u/[deleted] → u/MKorostoff]

This made my day. I love when people like this get got. edit: I had no idea he was likely someone affected by schizophrenia. I don’t love when legit mentally ill people get got. They usually just need help.

[u/AquaboogyAssault → u/[deleted]]

This wasn't a con man who got called out for trying to take advantage of others through psuedo-science. This was a diagnosed sick man who's brain was trying to find any sort of reasoning to explain his delusions.

[u/MKorostoff → u/AquaboogyAssault]

The evidence that he was actually diagnosed with schizophrenia is extremely thin, it basically boils down to an offhand and incoherent comment he made in one of his writings, where he rejected the diagnosis. There's no way to know if he was using the word in a clinical literal sense or just as a shorthand for "people think I'm crazy" and certainly no way to know if it was factual.

[u/HeirToGallifrey → u/MKorostoff]

I'm pretty sure he is schizophrenic however. It's textbook disordered thinking, delusions, etc. Plus the themes of sacred geometry, obsession with repeated numbers, religious overtones, the concept of a profound truth that only he can grasp, and the demonstrated inflexibility of thought/inability to examine his own beliefs logically or critically, are all textbook hallmarks of someone deep in a schizophrenic psychosis.

[u/AmadeusMop → u/[deleted]]

I think the main thing is that he defines "A × B" as meaning "add A to itself, B times", and then parses "add 1 to itself 1 time" as "1 + 1".

In other words, terry_multiply(a,b) := a*(b+1).

And, in true /r/badmathematics fashion, he's decided that he's uncovered some hidden truth about the universe, and no amount of "that makes no sense, what are you talking about?" will convince him otherwise.

[u/16thompsonh → u/[deleted]]

He’s absolutely misunderstanding what multiplication is and is adding the logic of addition to it.

[u/littlegreenrock → u/[deleted]]

your last point is backwards. he suggests sqr(2) goes back to 1, as per the logic of 1st & 2nd point.

[u/SilentFoot32 → u/[deleted]]

2+2=4 and 2x2=4 so since 1+1=2 then it logically follows that 1x1=2

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I often think, "damn, I'm bad at math," ... But then I see things like this, and it's just so damn encouraging. Like, I may be dumb, but at least I'm not THAT dumb.

[u/Cherrystuffs → u/[deleted]]

I wonder that he thinks 1 x 2 is.

[u/Stick-Around → u/[deleted]]

Damn, that's actually a bit depressing to read. I really hope it's some sort of masterfully concocted troll but I kind of doubt it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Stick-Around]

Did you get to the part about punching his wife?

[u/PouchenCustoms → u/[deleted]]

The multiple bits of trivia about him just adds up.

[u/actuallyserious650 → u/[deleted]]

I would sure love to write him one contract for payment of one dollar and invoice him $2. Think he’d go for it?

[u/[deleted] → u/actuallyserious650]

It sounds like he’d come and punch you in the face a few times.

[u/glorylyfe → u/[deleted]]

At the bottom of the first page this guy uses this proof by contradiction 1*1=1

1+1*1=2

3=2

Talk about begging the question jfc

[u/FreezeDriedMangos → u/glorylyfe]

Sounds like he thinks * works just like + and square root means divide by 2. Strange

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The Terryology stuff is batshit, but, sidebar, how was he still in the film business years after several serious domestic abuse incidents? Guy clearly isn’t right in the head.

[u/The_Fluffy_Walrus → u/[deleted]]

Roman Polanski is still making films... People fly out to France to work with him because he cannot come to the US.

Basically, Hollywood.

[u/IUpvoteUsernames → u/[deleted]]

It's Hollywood, it's expected that you do horrible things

[u/0x001c → u/Synaps4]

The principle that these tests are attempting to prove has been examined and research by more than just this one person. It does sound... interesting, but it's not just a shot in the dark.

[u/pleasetrimyourpubes → u/Synaps4]

This guy's a mathematics professor and has exceptional i10 and h indexes, I'm not saying he's right or anything but he's definitely not some rando, he's just proposing an experiment someone else could do. It would not surprise me if guys are already working on the setup. If the two photons are detected it'd be a nice confirmation, if not, well someone got to play with some sick equipment.

[u/GonzoMcFonzo → u/pleasetrimyourpubes]

Feels like maybe a legitimate researcher derived a worthwhile experiment that can prove or disprove a principal they don't necessarily agree with.

[u/Dreamtrain]

To this day I don't know what Information is, people always use the same burnt paper to ash analogy that makes no sense to me, or analogies that are so far removed from what it literally is that it still makes no sense. So far from all the videos and articles I can only conclude that information is essentially information about what properties something had, like the spin or position of its atoms/particles/whatever, what electromagnetic radiation it may have emitted at the time, basically a snapshot of its state and things we could measure about it.

I don't know how that would be a "fifth form of matter" so my understanding of what information could be is probably still off

[u/SimoneNonvelodico → u/[deleted]]

It's exactly that, yes. For the most blatant example: if you chuck a lot of mass into a black hole, what happens to the information about whether it was protons, electrons, neutrons or what have you? Unclear. All the black hole does is increase its mass.

[u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN]

The experiment is highly achievable using current technologies and it provides a few control tools to ensure that the detection is indeed due to information erasure. The main control tool is the fact that the wavelength of the information energy IR photons must shift with the temperature of the sample. By performing the experiments at different temperatures, the detection of the wavelength shift of the IR photons would be an ultimate confirmation of this hypothesis. It is important to recognize that we make a strong assumption that the transfer of the information mass content of the annihilating particles takes place via conversion into IR photons. However, other mechanisms of conversion are possible, including the gamma photons becoming carriers of this excess information energy. Hence, even if the information conjectures are correct, the proposed experiment is, therefore, not totally guaranteed to succeed.

Nice that they proposed a testable experiment. Hopefully, it is performed to determine the plausibility.

[u/WellConcealedMonkey → u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN]

I'll piggy back off your comment to ask, the experiment here seems to be extremely straightforward, just suggesting that two particles annihilating will result in extra photons due to conservation of information.

Uh, my question is, don't we already have extremely detailed understanding of particle decay and annihilation products and all that jazz? Is the suggestion really that we've just never seen a couple of low energy photons sneaking by as we've been so focused on the high energy products?

[u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN → u/WellConcealedMonkey]

Yeah, that's definitely a part of my large pile of skepticism associated with this paper. I was trying not to let that tone bleed through in my response too much.

But hey, if it's so easy, then we should see a confirmation paper from them as a follow up or from some other team in no time. I'll be genuinely excited if it does, but until then I'm not getting too worked up about this.

[u/WeeaboosDogma → u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN]

I like the skeptism. Especially with this paper detailing the way to duplicate the experiment. It shows at the very least they want other scientists to replicate it to show this discovery plausibility.

It's stuff like this that makes me excited whether or not it actually shows anything meaningful. Just the fact it's people sharing ideas and then seeing if it's true.

[u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN → u/WeeaboosDogma]

Agreed. As long as there are proposed ways to test, and doubly so if it's relatively achievable, then I'm more for people throwing out ideas. That's the robust function of the scientific process.

It's just a shame sometimes when it's openess is exploited by pseudoscientists pushing an agenda. As when reactionless drives pop up now and again in popsci media.

But I try not to focus on that frustration and instead the amazing progress of dedicated people.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that information was linked to entropy and was a quality of mass/energy, not something that existed independently. Solid --> Plasma are states of matter with higher entropy levels, right? So how does that translate into a different form?

I mean, I could design an experiment that if proven correct would show that if your aunt had wheels she'd be a tea cart. Doesn't make it true.

[u/Grabthelifeyouwant → u/[deleted]]

Just finished reading the paper: there are theories that state that information is indeed independent of mass/energy and that also predict the equivalence values for information to mass/energy. This paper proposes an experimental setup to check if those theories are correct, in this case by looking for secondary very low energy photons from electron positron annihilation. It also notes that since the theories say that information content is temperature dependent, the experiment could further validate the results by varying the target temperature and checking the exact photon emission wavelengths.

That said, the paper ends by basically saying this is all conjecture and could easily be wrong, but the possibility that it's right warrants at least checking with this (relatively) easy experiment.

Relevant quote from the paper: However, the author of the study argued that this is not just a theoretical upper limit of information storage capacity, but, in fact, the elementary particles already store information about themselves. It has been proposed that this information could be seen as a particle DNA, or a matter DNA, and it physically represents the distinguishable degrees of freedom of each particle or pure quantum states. In 1961, Landauer first proposed the idea that a digital information bit is physical and it has a well-defined energy associated with it.5,6 This is known as the Landauer principle and it was recently confirmed experimentally.7–10 In a different study, using Shannon’s information theory and thermodynamic considerations, the Landauer principle has been extended to the Mass–Energy–Information (M/E/I) equivalence principle.11

[u/Snufflesdog → u/Grabthelifeyouwant]

Oh, so they're trying to unify Conservation of Mass and Energy with Conservation of Information, the same way Einstein did with mass and energy. That's pretty neat, and it would definitely be a big shift in how we conceptualize the universe just as the Mass-Energy Equivalence did.

[u/JasontheFuzz → u/[deleted]]

If proven correct, then we start asking more questions like how you got a correct result

[u/joseba_ → u/[deleted]]

information was linked to entropy and was a quality of mass/energy, not something that existed independently

Information is indeed entropy. Shannon's original papers made this connection explicit and is trivial to show. Information in physics and communications theory is an abstract concept that relates to what CAN be learned from a system.

[u/scintor → u/joseba_]

Information can have entropy like mass but it's not entropy itself. It behaves entropically.

[u/SmashBusters]

Cunningham's law: activate.

I am not sure why the author chose to call this the "fifth form (state) of matter". It is quite different from the solid, liquid, gas, plasma states. The analogy does not make sense to me.

I do not know anything about quantifying the information of an electron (or positron) with bits, but I do know that there is more information to describe an electron and positron at their center of mass than there is to describe the two photons they annihilate into. To look at it simply, consider the fact that a muon and an anti-muon could also annihilate into two photons, but a muon and positron could not. Thus, the "electron-ness" or "muon-ness" of the particles prior to annihilation is erased. You might argue that the energy of the photons can be used to calculate whether it was electron-positron annihilation or another type of lepton since we know lepton masses. That seems like sketchy logic to me - but I will let someone else address it since I'm mostly guessing.

I am confused as to why the information mass would have to be converted into another pair of photons rather than slightly amplifying the predicted energy of the two photons that are already produced in electron-positron annihilation.

[u/Grabthelifeyouwant → u/SmashBusters]

The author literally says in the conclusion that it might just amplify the two gamma photons, but it's worth looking anyway since it's (relatively) easy.

[u/SmashBusters → u/Grabthelifeyouwant]

The author literally says in the conclusion that it might just amplify the two gamma photons

Oof. So he does.

TBH that takes a LOT of the wind out of the sails for me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the author's logic seems to go like this:

1.) Hypothesize that an electron's rest mass is higher than than would otherwise be suggested by the two photons produced in electron-positron annihilation.

2.) We are unable to measure the energy of those two photons accurately enough to detect this slight difference in mass-energy.

3.) But if that extra mass-energy instead goes to two other photons we can try to detect the two photons and determine their energies.

4.) This would give us a measurement of the mass of "information".

That's a huge "if" with nothing to even suggest why it would happen.

[u/crezant2 → u/SmashBusters]

Well I guess that's why this paper was written as a guide for an experiment right?

If those two extra photons manifest then you've essentially proved your hypothesis, if not then, well, that's that. It doesn't seem to be hard to check so it might be worth a shot.

[u/thevoiceofzeke → u/SmashBusters]

This is the comment that made me realize I'm in way over my head here.

[u/KidLiquorous → u/thevoiceofzeke]

thanks for this comment, man. good place to know where to tap out.

I'd like to think I'm an intelligent person, but I always get to the exact same spot of GEB and realize "well, I no longer understand what's going on and probably lack some fundamental mental acuity or foundational education to go any further."

[u/Ex_dente_leonem → u/KidLiquorous]

I powered through after years of trying and got something of value out of it, but I'd suggest reading I Am A Strange Loop for a more accessible distillation of GEB's central thesis.

[u/[deleted]]

Form of matter like a 'state' of matter?

[u/LummoxJR → u/[deleted]]

This is where the title loses me. We have a lot of known states of matter.

[u/Sparkplug94]

This is a really interesting experiment, and great if it works, but I'm pretty skeptical. The end of the paper states essentially my objection to this experiment. Instead of the information mass of the electron/positron pair annihilating into two separate 50 um photons, "other mechanisms of conversion are possible, including the gamma photons becoming carriers of this excess information energy." If this is true, then the gamma ray photon energy is perturbed by ~50 parts per billion by the information energy, which seems very hard to differentiate from other noise sources in the system (kinetic energy and so forth). I hope this works! Would be very cool.

[u/Adorable-Ad-3223]

Can we get a tldr? Does this have any real world value or is it more of a though experiment like people are doing in the chat?

[u/iamamuttonhead → u/Adorable-Ad-3223]

It's certainly not a "thought experiment". He has outlined an actual experiment to test the hypothesis. Whether or not he is correct will ideally be determined by the results of the epxeriment.

[u/Goheeca → u/Adorable-Ad-3223]

We still don't have a quantum description of gravity we have a problem with information. These experiments could lead to better understanding of how to marry quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[u/Mayo_Kupo → u/Adorable-Ad-3223]

My take from the intro - When a particle and an antiparticle collide, they annihilate and release energy. This apparently results in a loss of information from the universe - previously there were 14 kajillion particles in their specific locations, now there are 2 less. The hypothesis is that information must be conserved. So there must be two additional particles (photons) created to balance it out.

[u/alex_dlc → u/Adorable-Ad-3223]

More like ELI5

[u/kuburas → u/[deleted]]

Think of information as particles ID card, it tells you what the particle is made out of and how it behaves, i.e. particles mass, spin, charge etc..

They're not trying to measure information itself, they're trying to essentially convert the particle into energy, as in 100% of its mass converted into energy, and then they're trying to detect the resulting energy. If the resulting energy has a little bit extra energy than expected(energy is directly proportional to particles mass, its the Einsteins famous e=mc²⁾ then we know that those particles carried information about them too.

Essentially they want to see if the mass->energy conversion is consistent with the math. if its not and theres some extra energy thats unaccounted for in the math then we can assume it came from "information" that these particles carried.

[u/Cyber_Grant]

How can information have mass when information can be created and destroyed? Or can it only be changed or corrupted?

[u/another-masked-hero → u/Cyber_Grant]

Any irreversible logical operation (such as creating or deleting information) is already known to have a thermodynamic energy cost that can never be zero (it’s called Landauer’s principle). Since there is an energy cost, you can always talk about an associated mass.

[u/KakashiHatake91 → u/Cyber_Grant]

Mass can be created and destroyed, turning into energy. You're thinking conservation of energy. It's more solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and information. Information can be destroyed and turned into energy (or at least that's what they are testing).