| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tim Golden" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2005 09:12:35 AM |
| Object: |
An infinite information particle |
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite information?
To push even harder, allow a bight of information to be one complete
number.
i.e. 3.14159276... is a bight of information. So although it could be
argued that one single number contains infinite information this
approach will only attribute that parcel of information as one unit;
the bight.
Is it unacceptable to attribute a particle infinite bights of
information?
so
i(p) = inf.
I am exploring a structure where the natural unbounded representation
takes on a 'tatrix' format:
A =
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
....
amn is a bight.
The only seperable components are a31, a32, a33, a21, a22, a11.
Because the remainder of the components (a4n and beyond) have a
different behavior (see http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html)
they lump together forming an infinity of information. This is
conjectured from the product behavior of polysigned numbers.
Would such an infinity help or harm a particle model?
It allows for complex states of any degree.
Thinking in the context of decay times for particles,
if the infinite information lump contained a decay attribute
then such a theory could account for a prefixed time of decay without
observability. Such a construction allows for a semi-deterministic
reality.
On the one hand all of the information is there, but on the other hand
the amount of information is infinite. The polysigned numbers point to
the idea that such information is not seperable beyond sign three.
The tatrix construction is row orthogonal. Each row is dimensionally
one greater than its predecessor, starting at dimension zero(a11).
It is the product law of polysigned numbers which supports the
conjecture so that should we work in the product space the ability to
reverse engineer the product components diminishes beyond sign three.
In other words division does not exist beyond sign three. Hence the
ability to isolate any component fails beyond sign three. These
components(greater than sign three) then form a lumped parameter which
is infinite in its informational extent:
i(p) = inf (complete function)
i'(p) = inf
r(p) = i(p) - i'(p).
r + i' = i.
r/1 = r1.
r/2 = r2.
r/3 = r3.
r = r1 + r2 + r3 (usual representation)
i' = r4 + r5 + r6 + ...
r1 + r2 + r3 + i' = i
r1 = a11
r2 = a21, a22
r3 = a31, a32, a33
r4 = a41, a42, a43, a44
...
Without operations no real physics can be done.
What about the basis?
Can it be worked with?
Or is it already broken?
-Tim
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
15 Mar 2005 02:02:10 PM |
|
|
Tim Golden wrote:
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite
information?
Yes.
To push even harder, allow a bight of information to be one complete
number.
bight n.
1. a. A loop in a rope.
b. The middle or slack part of an extended rope.
2. a. A bend or curve, especially in a shoreline.
b. A wide bay formed by such a bend or curve.
Perhaps you mean 'byte'.
i.e. 3.14159276... is a bight of information.
A byte contains 8-bits of information, no more.
[remainder mercifully snipped]
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
15 Mar 2005 02:20:43 PM |
|
|
Tim Golden wrote:
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite
information?
To push even harder, allow a bight of information to be one complete
number.
i.e. 3.14159276... is a bight of information.
Then this is enough information to encompass the information content of
everything else -- including itself.
Step 1: Spread out the bight
3.()1()4()1()5()9()2()7()6...
Step 2: Use the unlimited number of additional cells to store
everything else -- even a (countably) infinite number of other bights.
For instance, suppose the other bights are (schematically):
a b c d ...
A B C D ...
0 1 2 3 ...
; : . , ...
...
Then sequence them as
a (A b) (0 B c) (; 1 C d) ([] : 2 D []) ([] [] . 3 [] [])
([] [] [] , [] [] []) ...
where the []'s are the other stuff not shown above.
Then insert the sequence in the empty slots above.
Is it unacceptable to attribute a particle [1] bight of
information?
In other words: the capacity for total omniscience (even
self-engulfing) within a single particle.
Obviously so. Otherwise, explain what makes storage scarce enough that
it requires costing any money at all; and why any external storage is
needed for anything in the first place?
Saying "it could be" ain't good enough. It don't count until it's
there already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
15 Mar 2005 08:41:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Tim Golden wrote:
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite
information?
To push even harder, allow a bight of information to be one
complete
number.
i.e. 3.14159276... is a bight of information.
Then this is enough information to encompass the information content
of
everything else -- including itself.
Step 1: Spread out the bight
3.()1()4()1()5()9()2()7()6...
This is no longer the same piece of information that it started out as.
The point here is merely to distinguish the possible claim that a
single number contains infinite information from the construction that
I am posing.
The idea is inverse to what you are composing. I am saying that the
bight is a discrete piece of information that is a single
value(typically in the real numbers) in the usual sense, for example
pi.
Step 2: Use the unlimited number of additional cells to store
everything else -- even a (countably) infinite number of other
bights.
For instance, suppose the other bights are (schematically):
a b c d ...
A B C D ...
0 1 2 3 ...
; : . , ...
...
Then sequence them as
a (A b) (0 B c) (; 1 C d) ([] : 2 D []) ([] [] . 3 [] [])
([] [] [] , [] [] []) ...
where the []'s are the other stuff not shown above.
Then insert the sequence in the empty slots above.
I agree that you can pack more information in this way, but that is not
the purpose of the construction I have posed.
Is it unacceptable to attribute a particle [1] bight of
information?
These are not my exact words above here.
The standard spacetime positional information is 4 bights of
information.
If derivative information (velocity or momentum) is included then four
more bights are needed.
In other words: the capacity for total omniscience (even
self-engulfing) within a single particle.
Omniscience has no relation to this construction.
These are merely an assembly of numbers with a lumped infinite
component that may allow mathematical operations that are not otherwise
available. You can treat the particle by an unbounded sum over r. I
understand that it is distasteful to put so much potential complexity
in, but the neat part is that it doesn't necessarily come back out.
Obviously so. Otherwise, explain what makes storage scarce enough
that
it requires costing any money at all; and why any external storage is
needed for anything in the first place?
Well if you are correct that storage is a scarce commodity then this
would certainly fit the bill, since each particle takes up so much in
this construction. I really don't understand the context that you are
in.
Saying "it could be" ain't good enough. It don't count until it's
there already.
If I state that there could be developments in physics in the future I
think that would be a statement with high acceptance. I do not expect
that level of acceptance for this construction. Maybe you should just
say as much. I'm completely open to this construction being wrong. I'd
be happy to rule it out if I could. But I need some help to do that.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
18 Mar 2005 12:47:41 PM |
|
|
Tim Golden wrote:
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite
information?
If one removes the requirement for an embedded dictionary, the
theoretical compression limit is 0. I dazzled the mediocre here by
compressing a 3 meg mp3 into less than 100k by superimposing wavelets
acquired from offsets into instruments from a midi sound bank. To play
the sound wave, one requires the dictionary (the sound bank). Very
roughly, this is analogous to how information is "transmitted
superluminally".
To push even harder, allow a bight of information to be one complete
number.
i.e. 3.14159276... is a bight of information. So although it could be
argued that one single number contains infinite information this
approach will only attribute that parcel of information as one unit;
the bight.
Is it unacceptable to attribute a particle infinite bights of
information?
so
i(p) = inf.
I am exploring a structure where the natural unbounded representation
takes on a 'tatrix' format:
A =
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
...
amn is a bight.
The only seperable components are a31, a32, a33, a21, a22, a11.
Because the remainder of the components (a4n and beyond) have a
different behavior (see
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html)
they lump together forming an infinity of information. This is
conjectured from the product behavior of polysigned numbers.
Would such an infinity help or harm a particle model?
It allows for complex states of any degree.
Thinking in the context of decay times for particles,
if the infinite information lump contained a decay attribute
then such a theory could account for a prefixed time of decay without
observability. Such a construction allows for a semi-deterministic
reality.
On the one hand all of the information is there, but on the other
hand
the amount of information is infinite. The polysigned numbers point
to
the idea that such information is not seperable beyond sign three.
The tatrix construction is row orthogonal. Each row is dimensionally
one greater than its predecessor, starting at dimension zero(a11).
It is the product law of polysigned numbers which supports the
conjecture so that should we work in the product space the ability to
reverse engineer the product components diminishes beyond sign three.
In other words division does not exist beyond sign three. Hence the
ability to isolate any component fails beyond sign three. These
components(greater than sign three) then form a lumped parameter
which
is infinite in its informational extent:
i(p) = inf (complete function)
i'(p) = inf
r(p) = i(p) - i'(p).
r + i' = i.
r/1 = r1.
r/2 = r2.
r/3 = r3.
r = r1 + r2 + r3 (usual representation)
i' = r4 + r5 + r6 + ...
r1 + r2 + r3 + i' = i
r1 = a11
r2 = a21, a22
r3 = a31, a32, a33
r4 = a41, a42, a43, a44
...
Without operations no real physics can be done.
What about the basis?
Can it be worked with?
Or is it already broken?
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
29 Mar 2005 04:57:58 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
If one removes the requirement for an embedded dictionary, the
theoretical compression limit is 0. I dazzled the mediocre here by
compressing a 3 meg mp3 into less than 100k by superimposing wavelets
acquired from offsets into instruments from a midi sound bank. To
play
the sound wave, one requires the dictionary (the sound bank). Very
roughly, this is analogous to how information is "transmitted
superluminally".
Hi. Thanks for the input. I understand what you are saying.
And nicely enough the wavelet format is not unlike the tatrix format.
I am not aware of a wavelet decomposition that uses a 1/n progression.
From what I have understood before they use a constant 1/4 or 1/2
progression.
So that for a Haar basis the decomposition function makes terms that go
like:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33 a34
a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 a46 a47 a48
What seems most interesting is that the class of infinity is different.
Since the tatrix goes like 1/n and the Haar goes like 1/2 they are
different types of infinity. This should no doubt play into their
transformation functions in the continuous sense and unarguably in the
discrete form.
The tatrix format fundamentally matches the space-time composition so I
think that there may some promise of going down this road.
Since the Haar basis in arguably the simplest wavelet it does not
preclude a 1/n style of wavelet. If that construction fits in with the
polysigned notation then so much the better. If it doesn't then I would
follow it anyways.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: An infinite information particle |
14 Mar 2005 09:20:33 AM |
|
|
Tim Golden wrote:
Is it unacceptable for a single particle to carry infinite information?
Infinite
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinite.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
