5:05 is highly instructive, "If we both send a signal at the same time..." good to hear a proper physicist saying it. A 'universal now' is still embedded in our thinking so we ARE allowed to talk about a light pulse 4 light years away being emitted at the same time as ours although of course we can't cause it to happen or even know about it for 4 years. Same as we say distant stars we're currently seeing have probably exploded by 'now' as if there's a universal 'now'. I think there's big confusion in relativity over the concept of reality: an actual event vs the way it appears due to information traveling at the speed of light. Einstein says reality is what you measure, not what you think ought to be, ie they're one and the same thing. It would be great if you could do an in-depth video on the subject of reality.
Among a lot youtube science channels, you did a very interesting look back in physics timeline, particularly information; relating mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, all of them related by the concept of information. You should make more videos like this, relating more branches of physics, energy for example is another concept that binds them together. You made physic's history interesting by jumping forward and backward. (y)
@@ScienceAsylum Small error in the video: at 7:15 you say 1877 but put Boltzmann & Gibbs at the 1887 mark on the timeline. I looked it up and the 1877 date is the correct one. Rather than entropy being defined roughly halfway along the timeline between the speed of light being constant and special relativity, it was more like 1/4 of the way.
I forgot I watched it 15 minutes ago... and I do remember causality is the "real" speed limit. But what I do not understand fully and completely is everything. Wtf is going on and where did it come from and.. and I feel like the guy "forced masure" or whatever the ex hippy world conqueror in potentia cuz he could take over anyones body. Where he is questioning Dirk gently and the hand eating hobbit bellboy.. and is sooooo confused and just rants out questions in total bewilderment and awe. LOL. Crayyyyzee haha!🍻
This man should have more subscribers than even pew die pie. Really, his content has very good quality. One of the best science channels in whole of youtube
Nick you r brilliant...👍👍👍👨🎨🥁what comes across so well in your videos is commitment to your theories, and your humor ... the mix between the two makes you magic. big fan. Don't stop talking please.
Hey there. Love the channel. Once upon a time I was an evolutionary biologist and my mentor wrote a book about Evolution as Entropy. Could you perhaps do a video explaining this a little better ? Sort of a merging of biology and the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It could be quite valuable to the general community as it is often a bone of contention in debates. Keep up the great work!
Job Yep!! I have ADHD and every time that frame came, I completely lost track of both nick's argument and my own inner mental physics thoughts and diagrams...
Just subscribed to your channel. I love your approach. From the historical stuff to the philosophy and context. But also your enthusiasm and understanding of it. All done with appropriate irreverence
The historical development of ideas is what is sorely missed from my actual physics lectures. I have sometimes wondered why physics cannot be taught more like a humanities course, where in lecture we look back to the original papers and piece things together...
The best question for me is..."What causes the information"? Why is it there? What/who told it to do these "things" to us? And why? Oh...and by the way...you are fantastic. Keep up this BRILLIANT work.
9:15 oh no Nick is hacking us all it's interesting that way after my death my gravity will reach Andromeda for however long I am alive. I know gravity doesn't really care about my mass being "alive" but I do.. and as long as I'm alive it is MY gravity =D
Well technically your mass would be conserved anyway just spread around the ecosystem of the world. Also as most of your cells renew throughout life you can't define your matter as you. Indeed, most if not all your cells have been renewed since you were born. There is maybe an exception to your memory cells but I don't know.
Fantastic job on this one! Also excellent pronunciation of Huygens. as to your last dea about the physical universe being made up of information (paraphrasing) you should look up Max Tegmark. Normally he writes papers about data processing of radio data (he processed the CMB map) but he has a book and a couple papers which are about the philosophical notion that reality is a particular mathematical construct.
Information is never lost it can just become more random or complicated as its entropy increases. Even for objects falling into the Black Hole information is not lost. This is the result of great debate between Hawking and Susskind.
I'd like to weigh in. Imagine your gravestone, (which has been left for centuries because of a nuclear war or something), imagine your name on the inscription slowly fading until there is no possible way of reading it anymore. Your name is lost forever. The same goes for your body: as you age, more and more parts of it are unable to remember how to function properly: due to entropy the DNA software loses more and more data (information), until a point is reached called 'cascade collapse' This can be illustrated by an old building reaching a point where it finally caves in. When this collapse happens in your body, it is called death. Then entropy REALLY begins to take over until your body is eventually indistinguishable from topsoil, and the last bit of information about who you once were is lost forever.
I think TH-cam hates you. I am subscribed to the channel, have left a thumbs up on nearly all of your videos, and somehow your new videos don`t show up as suggestions when they come out. I feel like this is hurting your growth. You have over 6000 subscribers but sometimes a per video view count of less than a 10th that. I have also never seen your videos in the side bar as recommended videos when I am watching videos by other creators on the same topic. You make great videos and its a shame the view count doesn't reflect that.
+outsider344 Thanks! The more time goes on, the harder and harder it is to get noticed. That TH-cam algorithm really hates the little guy. I know from my analytics though that my videos DO go to SOME people's recommended box.
@The Science Asylum I did the math - for a distant object to appear to be moving faster than light as a result of Earth's rotation, it would have to be almost as far away as Neptune (at opposition). Neptune is the nearest superluminal object to our observation. v=ωr, r = v/ω, r = c/(one day in radians per second) = 3.8 light hours
r = c * T / (2 pi) = c * 24 hours / (2 pi) = 3.8 light hours... CONFIRMED! Almost to Neptune's orbit... It never occurred to me the problem could be that close.
I was actually surprised it was that far... now here's an interesting idea - what happens inside a star if a certain layer is rotating fast enough that its outermost layer appears to be superluminal? Btw, I edited original comment as you are right, Neptune is the closest superluminal object, not Pluto
This could get even closer. If you manage to project a shadow of your finger on the Moon surface (if you're standing on Earth's surface) and just shake it, you've got a shadow traveling faster than light right on the Moon's surface.
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't a high entropy state also a state of high information? As in: you need much information to describe that state. A low entropy state (e.g. all particles are in the upper right corner of a box) needs less information to describe. Ok now that i think of it, i guess you could differentiate between the information We have, and the information thats hidden in the system (that the system has). Low entropy does then mean that we have lots of information, and therefore only a little bit is left hidden in the system. Either way, doesn't seem to me that information is getting lost really, just the information we as observers can have about a system dilutes over time. But the properties of the physical world (its information) only mix up, but don't get lost Anyways, nice videos, keep up the good work, i enjoy it! :)
Information entropy is not only incredibly similar to physical entropy, it is the same thing. Just described in a different way. More specifically, physical entropy is information that is lost, has become unknown, is no longer useable. While in computer science and communication, the smallest unit of information is the bit (binary digit), physicists prefer the natural logarithm, measuring information in nits. But the thing that is measured is the same thing. There is an equivalence between energy and information (which depends on temperature, so there is the gradient required for energy).
Hey Nick. Make a series of videos on electronics too which includes the components of logic gates and some logic circuits too because getting that explained from you would be EXTREMELY CRAZY & AWESOME!! Anyways man you're SUPERB and thank you for conveying all the INFORMATION!!!
I've been quite convinced for a while now that your last sentence is actually true. I don't see any good reason to distinguish between "physical" information and meaning, or information "we made up". We've never experienced anything but the information we made up.
This man is an absolute fukin legend. also Really appreciate the beetlejuice /بيت الجوزاء bit. The amount of information and clarity u squeeze in these videos is amazing man.
1. So if there are things that are traveling faster than the speed of light, will we never know? Because we will not be able to detect the information coming from them? 2. What about Tachyons? CERN says it travels faster than light? How did they measure that? 3. Also, I am having a hard time digesting the fact that the speed of light is same for all observers in all reference frames. How would you explain the following scenario? - You start running against the direction of a light beam that was fired towards you. Wouldn't you see light traveling faster than c? I mean yes, the information coming from that light beam will have a constant speed but won't that information reach me faster if I am running towards it?
+Abhijit Ghogre 1+2) As far as we know, there is nothing that travels faster than light. Tachyons have never been observed. If they ARE real, it's likely that we'll never interact with them so we'll never know they're there. 3) No, you would always see it travel at "c" no matter what. Length contraction and time dilation adjust for the change in speed you're expecting to be there so it doesn't change at all.
My guess is that we are information. I would also predict that physicists don't yet know what information is, and need to hone it a bit more. I would also guess that we cannot be destroyed as such.
I'm sure you mentioned somewhere that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light if you go out far enough, and it would have been useful here perhaps despite the risk of blowing a few extra minds. This puzzled me for years before someone explained that it's space itself that is expanding, and as Lawrence Krauss pointed out, "space can do whatever it wants." Light speed is the (actually unattainable) maximum only for massive things traveling *through* space!
@@ScienceAsylum How do you measure it then, apart from the Hubble Constant? I'm seriously interested in this as a lifelong student of physics (if not at a professional level) who can handle at least some of the math.
Great explanation, as always. I must admit the idea of information as physicists talk about it has always been more of a puzzle to me than quantum physics itself, which I am starting to get a handle on. Could you do a video on why physicists get so wrapped up on information? Why do they care so much that they have to have equations and such. Surely understanding quantum systems is far more like physics. I have a computer science background, and I totally get why IT people are hot on information, since that is what IT is all about. But why do physicists care about it so much?
So, one way I've heard it explained is that the information isn't fading or lost, it's becoming noise. The complexity of the information is actually growing but our ability to track it or get anything meaningful out of it decreases. Random static on your computer has more information than a neat organized pattern, it's just less useful to us.
I think information is definitely reducing/decaying. Its a personal opinion but I like to think of information as the fabric of our reality. At the end of the universe, information will be warped and standardized. If a particle is a projection of its information, and that particle is in its highest state of decay, than the information is at its highest state as well. (Evenly entirely inert?)
I may be wrong, but, as far as I know (physical) information is conserved. I think it's impossible to destroy it even if you wanted to (or even if you where a black hole :P). Other than that, the video rocks :D
Unless you're talking about my clones, I don't have a team. It's all me. (Although, to really answer your comment, yes I do learn stuff making these videos.)
You lost me at information entropy. Such a deep concept added to another deep concept in just 30 seconds is too much for my old brain. Oh and I could do without the scary clown all the time. Please?
In my language (Polish) we pronounce betelgeuse something like "beth el getha" (betelgeza), so it's a bit more similar to the intended pronunciation. Props for the meta screen.
Scientific uses of the word "Information" can be quite confusing. For instance, Hawking argued that all information on things passing the event horizon was 'lost' forever. But Leonard Susskind and others disagreed. Quite a bust up! Another is entropy, which has been described as the _slow loss of information_ contained in the universe over time. Lots of fun in physics :0)
we are not loosing information. Information is always there if there is energy and mass/matter. if you combine those two youll get information transmission through time and space. Basically information is ever changing property of quantum but never equal to null, it can be delivered, transmitted and changed but it changes other entity who is in interaction with quantum. So it is never lost, its just traveling until there is energy and mass. Even if there is no receiver, information exist waiting to be measured and decompressed.
Really like that you try to pronouce scientists name in their native tounge. I know danish is difficult for english speaking people, so here is how you pronounce “Rømer”. First there is the R-sound. It’s exactly the same R you find in french “vive la fRance” or german “Rote armee fRaktion”. To get it right you must activate your uvula (like somerhing was stuck in your throat). The Ø- sound is easier. Say ah (like in “I” pronounced ai) while you purse your lips as If you would say “oh” and, voila, you have the Ø-sound.
'Another widely misused concept is that of information. Information is a concept associated with the transmission of signals that codify some statements in some language. It is not a thing, it has no energy, and it has no independent existence. It is a semantic concept with the ontological status of a fiction, and in particular there is no such a thing as a "law of conservation of information" as stated by some authors.'
If you watched the entire video, you'll know that I stated something similar: 7:55 "But we need to be careful comparing data information and physical information. Data is something humans made up. The physical world is not."
Ok,here goes... Information can only be created and scrambled, but never destroyed. Eg: someone draws a line in the sand on a beach near the waterline at low tide. The line has a particular shape, but it is not important what. As the tide comes in the line will appear to be washed away, but this isn't the actual case. The situation and position of sand partials on the beach will always contain this line but in a scrambled form. In fact it is inevitable that the influence of this line will spread special over time.
Greetings all. Information is the structure of the universe. It’s exists everywhere you find any structure in space-time. As far as I know, there is no “non-physical information” (unless this means software). The hardware of any system is made of structure (information) arranging physics particles into the any macro structures we see. Even the particles contain information. Information looks like the most fundamental substance I’ve ever seen. To summarize, the structure of our universe (information) is a fundamental part of our universe (this includes all time as well). Structure (information) is as real and physical as you get. There are lots of things that only make sense if you view them from an structure (information) perspective... Complexity - the amount of structure (information) in a system. Order - the density of structure (information) in a system. Communications - using machines to move information (bits of structure) around. Memory systems - structure (information) storage machines. Software - structure (information) stored in a memory system. Software provides its own separate levels of organization. bodies - the hardware information that defines your body structure. Minds - software control systems that do problem solving (act intelligently). Genomes - a cellular software manager, that does things like cellular construction and maintenance. Software universes - universes made of software (like a book, most games, The Matrix movie, mathematics, etc.). Reality - perception, a structural (informational) connection (sensors and effectors) between a mind and a universe (optionally software). Thanks for listening. ;)
Talking about the speed of light and the expansion of the universe makes me grumpy that we only have star charts of where things were and not where things ARE. I guess that we would have fun trying to plot a course to Andromeda.
The Beetlejuice gag kept making me laugh, to the point I yelled "stop it" after seeing it for like the 5th time. I think the more you see him the more the absurdity starts to get you. Ha. Also, nice f'ck'n' geometric model!!
I know this is a 6 years old video, but I just want to say that the Morse code at the end says "Hello world". I look in the comments and didn't find anyone mention that. Great video as always. Cheers!
Physical information is stored on waves as waves, this can be spun into matter or released to create forces. It is all information and it is always increasing in time. Our information can be lived and then sent out in waves that hold that information even entering a black hole it can just be re-spun into matter and stores that information that can now be released with new waves to imprint on them.
6.40 "Media.jpg" typically has LESS information than the other two. That is what the "lossy" means in the name of "lossy compression format". It still does have the information we care about though.
Hey Nick! I would really like you to take the ideas of this video a lot deeper into the works of Erik Verlinde. I really like his ideas about how space-time and gravity may be emergent properties of information. So I'd really love to see your take on Verlinde's ideas.
1:38 although I see what you mean, I'd be careful saying "Relativity says all reference frames are on equal footing". Relativity only grants that inertial frames are on equal footing. Kinematics allow you to transform between any reference frame at your convenience, but only inertial frames are invariant under the transformation.
I don't mean to imply that all frames of reference are the same, just that no one frame is given more _importance_ over any other (regardless of type). Yes, you can tell the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames. However, someone in a non-inertial frame is just as correct to say they are stationary as someone in an inertial frame. We don't give inertial frames "more correctness." If you do that, you miss the point of relativity entirely.
Nice video - the timeline you often pop up is very interesting to put all that into perspective. Just a remark : i often heard from other contents that our current models of quantum mechanics implies that information is never lost - how does that go with the last video comment? Anyway thanks again for this interesting content, I wish I could store, process and understand all that information easier.
I find it strange and interesting that we have trouble defining some of the most fundamental concepts of human language/thought such as energy, information, mass, entropy, space & time, etc. We have intuitions of what these concepts mean but when it gets down to clear cut definitions we really seem to struggle. Reality is way too complex!
I once did this thought experiment. What if a proton is 1 and an electron is 0? What if force between them is 10? What if their charges are 101 and 010? We can assign a unique number to any physical property. Does information/numbers have to be physical? If I'll think "Hmmm... 101010" and then die, does that number stop existing? If there is an infinite amount of numbers, does that mean there is an infinite amount of universes that exist, somewhere out there in this numbery abstract form? Are we one of such universes? And most importantly, why do I even think about these things...
We are trying to use information to define information. That is the problem with it, it’s an infinite self-referential black hole that makes completely defining information impossible
Love these video's btw. a little confused by the question at the end but I've been having my own thoughts recently on how perhaps the level of interaction denotes the causality of the subsequent events that follow, so the less something is being physically interacted with in any way the less certain the future path it will take will be. Let me know in the comments section below ;)
Different types of particle interactions definitely change entropy by different amounts. Fewer interactions would certainly help keep it from going up too fast. It's also true that, without an interaction, properties of particles remain indefinite... so, under the right circumstances, a particles future path could be unknown to us. Eventually though, it has to interact with something. You can't stop the inevitable.
I have a question I hope you can answer, or perhaps a discussion that can begin others to think on this topic. As a molecular biologist, I have often wondered about other ways to categorize genes and other genetic elements. When I was an undergrad student I took a course in physics and the professor, who happened to the department chair, was trying to recruit students to their department. He came to each student, asked their major and why. When he came to me I told him I know several biologists in my family know they are limited in work and research, such marine biology as one cousin is. I said I wanted to get to the “bottom” of how things work biologically, so I am majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry. And I’ll never forget what he said...he said, “if you’re really interested in how things work...the only education that will satisfy that is physics. He said to me, “you may know how a gene works and functions in a macro or biological level, but a physicist can tell you why that molecular exists and how and why it will interact with others. He said “molecular biology is the bottom rung on your your biology ladder...but physics is the ground your ladder rests upon!” And since then, answers don’t satisfy me like they used to. I’ve seen the universe completely different in only the last week since I found your videos than my whole life before. Now back to my original question. Since genes are a collection of other specific molecules in a spec fixed arrangement, what about the energies of each nucleotide? Or more collectively, each gene. In molecular biology, the term “information” is often thrown around loosely. But my question is this: could energy and information “be” something? I mean, the specific genes affect the genes linear sequence. Those positions affect the three dimensional confirmation of the enzymes and proteins, very specifically it’s 3D structure. But with time and energy along with information, would you say genes, as collections of various nucleotides (DNA / RNA) are also specific energies? Forgive me if I am not expressing this clearly, but I am asking, like our minds have thoughts and knowledge, using specialized cells called neurons, they seem to carry information. But could it be said if genes, those specific sequential combinations of codons-proteins, each of those could also be unique information “bundles?” Well, hopefully you’ll be able to follow where I was going or trying to. I’ll explain further if you reply. Thank you. Lee
It's difficult to know _for sure,_ but from what we can tell: Energy is just clever bookkeeping. It's just a number that has some useful mathematical patterns. I try to give it some physical meaning in this video: th-cam.com/video/snj1wBtn6I8/w-d-xo.html but it is _not_ some kind of tangible substance. It's just a useful property of things.
This is a comment of mine in Facebook. It is my 'insight' of what thoughts are, which are physical off course to me. I responded to a comment that said that your dream about a house, the thought of it is not physical. At the moment, I am a layman trying as much as he can to know stuff. Maybe later down the years I will be found correct who knows LOL? 😜 The comment was made minutes before coming here to see this video about information. So when you see a house, its quantum information is sent to your eyes via light I say; from the video I gather that the information should be lost? I don't understand what information is from this video but it's a decent introductory to it I guess. Thanks for reading! My guess/view (I don't and haven't found someone say something like that, no evidence I guess) is this: you dream a house right? Obviously, you had seen a lot of houses in your life and it happened to dream one. I say that the house you dreamt about is formed out of the memories you have of houses. The info can be mixed, the characteristics of the house you are dreaming can be from a lot of houses of your memory. I'm heading now towards the answer 🙂. The house doesn't need to exist in the form of it where you can enter etc. It exists as memory and the memory of the house is the information of the houses you saw with your eyes when you saw them. In other words, you see the house with your eyes and the quantum information of it is getting in your eyes through the light and transmute it into the code/'language'of neurons that your brain understands. When I say quantum information, I have in mind black holes when scientists talk whether or not information of the objects gotten into the black hole still exist while in it. Ad I said, I haven't seen anyone talk about this or any evidence so consider this perhaps an interesting take? 😜 Not that I have searched out hard and that I know what to search, what to type in google but yeah xd😜."
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is so underrated. I was struggling with this thought as well. Also, you are too funny my friend 😂
I o
Finally science videos made for people with borderline personality disorder.
what happens when a couple of particle and antiparticle emerges right on the borderline?
@@georgewashington3164 one falls into the singularity envalope negating a bit of anti-itself, the other wanders the universe until it too is negated.
@@zombieregime u will block diagram illustrating an 🙏❤️🙏❤️ ui be 🙏❤️🙏❤️❤️ kkkkkoooo9oooooo9kokoo9😂oouj🎉oooooooôiiiiiiiiiiiil🎉🎉 in it 😂😂😂😂😂
Wut
5:05 is highly instructive, "If we both send a signal at the same time..." good to hear a proper physicist saying it. A 'universal now' is still embedded in our thinking so we ARE allowed to talk about a light pulse 4 light years away being emitted at the same time as ours although of course we can't cause it to happen or even know about it for 4 years. Same as we say distant stars we're currently seeing have probably exploded by 'now' as if there's a universal 'now'. I think there's big confusion in relativity over the concept of reality: an actual event vs the way it appears due to information traveling at the speed of light. Einstein says reality is what you measure, not what you think ought to be, ie they're one and the same thing. It would be great if you could do an in-depth video on the subject of reality.
One of my favorite channels on science. Very high quality content!
Agreed.
Does the morse code at the end mean "hello world"?
+Geo07ism
Yep! Well done!
should be "what hath god wrought" the original hello world at least electronically
Your videos are built the way people naturally think. Its impressive
Thanks! 😊
Among a lot youtube science channels, you did a very interesting look back in physics timeline, particularly information; relating mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, all of them related by the concept of information. You should make more videos like this, relating more branches of physics, energy for example is another concept that binds them together.
You made physic's history interesting by jumping forward and backward. (y)
I'm glad you liked it. I try to do that when I can and I have a video coming up in the next couple months with a little history in it.
Yes! It was fascinating. I wish i was taught physics like this.
"Brilliant"
@@ScienceAsylum Small error in the video: at 7:15 you say 1877 but put Boltzmann & Gibbs at the 1887 mark on the timeline. I looked it up and the 1877 date is the correct one. Rather than entropy being defined roughly halfway along the timeline between the speed of light being constant and special relativity, it was more like 1/4 of the way.
I'm pretending I understand all of it, but deep down I'm more confused now that I was before watching this video.
You lost information after the interaction with this video
I forgot I watched it 15 minutes ago... and I do remember causality is the "real" speed limit. But what I do not understand fully and completely is everything. Wtf is going on and where did it come from and.. and I feel like the guy "forced masure" or whatever the ex hippy world conqueror in potentia cuz he could take over anyones body. Where he is questioning Dirk gently and the hand eating hobbit bellboy.. and is sooooo confused and just rants out questions in total bewilderment and awe. LOL.
Crayyyyzee haha!🍻
That mean you’re learning
I think i understand it, which makes ne suspicious i don't understand it at all.
I agree, after watching this video I am even more confused on this subject.
This man should have more subscribers than even pew die pie. Really, his content has very good quality. One of the best science channels in whole of youtube
Nick you r brilliant...👍👍👍👨🎨🥁what comes across so well in your videos is commitment to your theories, and your humor ... the mix between the two makes you magic. big fan. Don't stop talking please.
Hey there. Love the channel. Once upon a time I was an evolutionary biologist and my mentor wrote a book about Evolution as Entropy. Could you perhaps do a video explaining this a little better ? Sort of a merging of biology and the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It could be quite valuable to the general community as it is often a bone of contention in debates. Keep up the great work!
I do have a couple videos on entropy, but I like the idea of connecting it to biology. I'll keep this in mind.
Damn Those 1 frame pictures tho
Job Yep!! I have ADHD and every time that frame came, I completely lost track of both nick's argument and my own inner mental physics thoughts and diagrams...
What was with "HILLO WORLE" in Morse code at the end ? Thought it was going to say Hello world.
@@k7iqThe message was …. (H) . (E) .-.. (L) .-.. (L) --- (O) .-- (W) --- (O) .-. (R) .-.. (L) -.. (D)
Yeah. I find myself going back to look at them, as my short life ebbs away. Help me God.
I thought my phone is hacked 😑
Just subscribed to your channel. I love your approach. From the historical stuff to the philosophy and context. But also your enthusiasm and understanding of it. All done with appropriate irreverence
Good info, thanks. But it's increasingly evident that I'm going to need a bigger central nervous processing unit.
took 6 years for this information to get to me, but I'm happy it finally arrived. subbed.
The historical development of ideas is what is sorely missed from my actual physics lectures. I have sometimes wondered why physics cannot be taught more like a humanities course, where in lecture we look back to the original papers and piece things together...
I just finished studying the concept of entropy of a random variable and opened TH-cam to saw the definition in you video? Great video as usual.
This is one of your timeless videos Nick.
The best question for me is..."What causes the information"? Why is it there? What/who told it to do these "things" to us? And why?
Oh...and by the way...you are fantastic. Keep up this BRILLIANT work.
9:15
oh no Nick is hacking us all
it's interesting that way after my death my gravity will reach Andromeda for however long I am alive. I know gravity doesn't really care about my mass being "alive" but I do.. and as long as I'm alive it is MY gravity =D
whoeveriam0iam14222 interesting, never seen this way
Well technically your mass would be conserved anyway just spread around the ecosystem of the world. Also as most of your cells renew throughout life you can't define your matter as you. Indeed, most if not all your cells have been renewed since you were born. There is maybe an exception to your memory cells but I don't know.
Fantastic job on this one! Also excellent pronunciation of Huygens.
as to your last dea about the physical universe being made up of information (paraphrasing) you should look up Max Tegmark. Normally he writes papers about data processing of radio data (he processed the CMB map) but he has a book and a couple papers which are about the philosophical notion that reality is a particular mathematical construct.
+YouCanScienceIt
I'll definitely look him up. Thanks!
Information is never lost it can just become more random or complicated as its entropy increases. Even for objects falling into the Black Hole information is not lost. This is the result of great debate between Hawking and Susskind.
Love the ghostbusters reference!
Mass hysteria!
I'd like to weigh in. Imagine your gravestone, (which has been left for centuries because of a nuclear war or something), imagine your name on the inscription slowly fading until there is no possible way of reading it anymore. Your name is lost forever.
The same goes for your body: as you age, more and more parts of it are unable to remember how to function properly: due to entropy the DNA software loses more and more data (information), until a point is reached called 'cascade collapse' This can be illustrated by an old building reaching a point where it finally caves in. When this collapse happens in your body, it is called death. Then entropy REALLY begins to take over until your body is eventually indistinguishable from topsoil, and the last bit of information about who you once were is lost forever.
I think TH-cam hates you. I am subscribed to the channel, have left a thumbs up on nearly all of your videos, and somehow your new videos don`t show up as suggestions when they come out. I feel like this is hurting your growth. You have over 6000 subscribers but sometimes a per video view count of less than a 10th that. I have also never seen your videos in the side bar as recommended videos when I am watching videos by other creators on the same topic. You make great videos and its a shame the view count doesn't reflect that.
+outsider344
Thanks! The more time goes on, the harder and harder it is to get noticed. That TH-cam algorithm really hates the little guy. I know from my analytics though that my videos DO go to SOME people's recommended box.
That is TH-cam entropy for you. Heat death of views is coming this way.
I noticed same for other science videos. But TH-cam shows me all kinds of garbage viral videos though.
Well at least he has nearly 400,000 subscribers today.
You deserve so many more videos. I love the explanation of speed of light is speed of causality/information. Thanks nick
Many more views *
+PapaKay
Glad you liked it!
I'm genuinely mind blown by this. Especially of the thought of a particle that hasn't interacted with anything yet
Man u cleared up so many doubts through your videos I absolutely love this guy super fun to be around wish I was like that too!
I normally watch vids at 1.25 or 1.5 speed and just realized there is no slower speed than 1.
Outstanding content! I'll need to watch this again.
I also watch a lot of videos at 1.25 to 1.5 speed. Many just go too slow and it saved a lot of time in the long run.
You can watch his videos at less than 1. I watch some of them at 3/4 speed.
Another excellent video. This channel is one of the best for real insight and clarity.
"Mixedupness" is certainly increasing. No doubt about it. Excellent presentation!
HELLO TO YOU TOO
This is literally the best science channel ever!
Oh you've really outdone yourself with this one...
Those beeps at the end: Nick sent a message to his homeworld of CraziLucid
Thanks for featuring my bro in your video
Love from India🙏
@The Science Asylum I did the math - for a distant object to appear to be moving faster than light as a result of Earth's rotation, it would have to be almost as far away as Neptune (at opposition). Neptune is the nearest superluminal object to our observation.
v=ωr, r = v/ω, r = c/(one day in radians per second) = 3.8 light hours
r = c * T / (2 pi) = c * 24 hours / (2 pi) = 3.8 light hours... CONFIRMED! Almost to Neptune's orbit... It never occurred to me the problem could be that close.
I was actually surprised it was that far... now here's an interesting idea - what happens inside a star if a certain layer is rotating fast enough that its outermost layer appears to be superluminal? Btw, I edited original comment as you are right, Neptune is the closest superluminal object, not Pluto
This could get even closer. If you manage to project a shadow of your finger on the Moon surface (if you're standing on Earth's surface) and just shake it, you've got a shadow traveling faster than light right on the Moon's surface.
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't a high entropy state also a state of high information?
As in: you need much information to describe that state. A low entropy state (e.g. all particles are in the upper right corner of a box) needs less information to describe.
Ok now that i think of it, i guess you could differentiate between the information We have, and the information thats hidden in the system (that the system has). Low entropy does then mean that we have lots of information, and therefore only a little bit is left hidden in the system.
Either way, doesn't seem to me that information is getting lost really, just the information we as observers can have about a system dilutes over time.
But the properties of the physical world (its information) only mix up, but don't get lost
Anyways, nice videos, keep up the good work, i enjoy it! :)
That clock in the background is amazing
"it's okay to be a little crazy" Yeah, I don't know how you can spend so much time talking about this stuff and not go completely nuts.
Information entropy is not only incredibly similar to physical entropy, it is the same thing. Just described in a different way.
More specifically, physical entropy is information that is lost, has become unknown, is no longer useable.
While in computer science and communication, the smallest unit of information is the bit (binary digit), physicists prefer the natural logarithm, measuring information in nits. But the thing that is measured is the same thing. There is an equivalence between energy and information (which depends on temperature, so there is the gradient required for energy).
You're so good at explaining, thank you for making these videos!
Thanks! 🤓
WHY YOU HAVE ONLY AROUND 150K YOUR EXPLANATION IS SO GOOD YOU SHOULD HAVE 4 M SUB😍😍
Great timing. Really entertaining and I appreciate the work you put into producing your channel. learning something new. Thanks.
Ok, now that was one wild ride of a video, I'm gonna have to watch it again after I've digested what I was able to grasp on this first pass.
Hey Nick. Make a series of videos on electronics too which includes the components of logic gates and some logic circuits too because getting that explained from you would be EXTREMELY CRAZY & AWESOME!! Anyways man you're SUPERB and thank you for conveying all the INFORMATION!!!
That "Jump to Conclusions" mat is from Office Space. :)
I spin and see that the entire universe move faster than light xD
6:05 if you are looking for the information being expressed while Nick is busy on his phone.
I've been quite convinced for a while now that your last sentence is actually true. I don't see any good reason to distinguish between "physical" information and meaning, or information "we made up". We've never experienced anything but the information we made up.
This man is an absolute fukin legend. also Really appreciate the beetlejuice /بيت الجوزاء bit. The amount of information and clarity u squeeze in these videos is amazing man.
Thanks! 🤓
1. So if there are things that are traveling faster than the speed of light, will we never know? Because we will not be able to detect the information coming from them?
2. What about Tachyons? CERN says it travels faster than light? How did they measure that?
3. Also, I am having a hard time digesting the fact that the speed of light is same for all observers in all reference frames. How would you explain the following scenario?
- You start running against the direction of a light beam that was fired towards you. Wouldn't you see light traveling faster than c? I mean yes, the information coming from that light beam will have a constant speed but won't that information reach me faster if I am running towards it?
+Abhijit Ghogre
1+2) As far as we know, there is nothing that travels faster than light. Tachyons have never been observed. If they ARE real, it's likely that we'll never interact with them so we'll never know they're there.
3) No, you would always see it travel at "c" no matter what. Length contraction and time dilation adjust for the change in speed you're expecting to be there so it doesn't change at all.
My guess is that we are information. I would also predict that physicists don't yet know what information is, and need to hone it a bit more. I would also guess that we cannot be destroyed as such.
Man Galileo was truly head of his time. Dude literally almost discovered relativity hundreds of years before Einstein
BTW, great Ghostbusters reference!
I'm sure you mentioned somewhere that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light if you go out far enough, and it would have been useful here perhaps despite the risk of blowing a few extra minds. This puzzled me for years before someone explained that it's space itself that is expanding, and as Lawrence Krauss pointed out, "space can do whatever it wants." Light speed is the (actually unattainable) maximum only for massive things traveling *through* space!
Well, when someones says “space expands faster than light,” that’s a over simplification. We don’t really measure the expansion as a speed.
@@ScienceAsylum How do you measure it then, apart from the Hubble Constant? I'm seriously interested in this as a lifelong student of physics (if not at a professional level) who can handle at least some of the math.
Great explanation, as always. I must admit the idea of information as physicists talk about it has always been more of a puzzle to me than quantum physics itself, which I am starting to get a handle on. Could you do a video on why physicists get so wrapped up on information? Why do they care so much that they have to have equations and such. Surely understanding quantum systems is far more like physics. I have a computer science background, and I totally get why IT people are hot on information, since that is what IT is all about. But why do physicists care about it so much?
I've been working on a series about the "black hole information paradox" for a while. I'm not sure when it will be done though.
So, one way I've heard it explained is that the information isn't fading or lost, it's becoming noise. The complexity of the information is actually growing but our ability to track it or get anything meaningful out of it decreases. Random static on your computer has more information than a neat organized pattern, it's just less useful to us.
You are doing super good man. Super funny and information is easy to understand
Thanks!
When Newton said light travels in an instant which is wrong. But from the photon's prospective it is an instant - no time passes for the photon.
I think information is definitely reducing/decaying. Its a personal opinion but I like to think of information as the fabric of our reality. At the end of the universe, information will be warped and standardized. If a particle is a projection of its information, and that particle is in its highest state of decay, than the information is at its highest state as well. (Evenly entirely inert?)
As entropy grows, information is not lost. It is diluted with more information and becomes inaccesible, but it is never lost.
I may be wrong, but, as far as I know (physical) information is conserved. I think it's impossible to destroy it even if you wanted to (or even if you where a black hole :P). Other than that, the video rocks :D
Well, _quantum_ information has to be conserved, which is a little different than just physical information.
Btw I really loved your book :D
Nick is so smart, and he and his team are probably getting even smarter making these videos
Unless you're talking about my clones, I don't have a team. It's all me. (Although, to really answer your comment, yes I do learn stuff making these videos.)
Why didn't I find this channel sooner. Love the content!
Amazing video and information
Those 4. 1 frame pictures though
You lost me at information entropy. Such a deep concept added to another deep concept in just 30 seconds is too much for my old brain. Oh and I could do without the scary clown all the time. Please?
The more things you put in a box, the harder it is to remember what's in the box.
It's not a clown, it's Beetlejuice
In my language (Polish) we pronounce betelgeuse something like "beth el getha" (betelgeza), so it's a bit more similar to the intended pronunciation. Props for the meta screen.
You got me with "...dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!"
😆
Scientific uses of the word "Information" can be quite confusing. For instance, Hawking argued that all information on things passing the event horizon was 'lost' forever. But Leonard Susskind and others disagreed. Quite a bust up! Another is entropy, which has been described as the _slow loss of information_ contained in the universe over time. Lots of fun in physics :0)
we are not loosing information. Information is always there if there is energy and mass/matter. if you combine those two youll get information transmission through time and space. Basically information is ever changing property of quantum but never equal to null, it can be delivered, transmitted and changed but it changes other entity who is in interaction with quantum. So it is never lost, its just traveling until there is energy and mass. Even if there is no receiver, information exist waiting to be measured and decompressed.
Really like that you try to pronouce scientists name in their native tounge.
I know danish is difficult for english speaking people, so here is how you pronounce “Rømer”.
First there is the R-sound. It’s exactly the same R you find in french “vive la fRance” or german “Rote armee fRaktion”. To get it right you must activate your uvula (like somerhing was stuck in your throat).
The Ø- sound is easier. Say ah (like in “I” pronounced ai) while you purse your lips as If you would say “oh” and, voila, you have the Ø-sound.
Thanks! That's helpful.
Amit Goswami has some interesting things to say that I believe directly address this question.
'Another widely misused concept is that of information. Information is a concept associated with the transmission of signals that codify some statements in some language. It is not a thing, it has no energy, and it has no independent existence. It is a semantic concept with the ontological status of a fiction, and in particular there is no such a thing as a "law of conservation of information" as stated by some authors.'
If you watched the entire video, you'll know that I stated something similar: 7:55 "But we need to be careful comparing data information and physical information. Data is something humans made up. The physical world is not."
Ok,here goes... Information can only be created and scrambled, but never destroyed. Eg: someone draws a line in the sand on a beach near the waterline at low tide. The line has a particular shape, but it is not important what. As the tide comes in the line will appear to be washed away, but this isn't the actual case. The situation and position of sand partials on the beach will always contain this line but in a scrambled form. In fact it is inevitable that the influence of this line will spread special over time.
Greetings all. Information is the structure of the universe. It’s exists everywhere you find any structure in space-time. As far as I know, there is no “non-physical information” (unless this means software).
The hardware of any system is made of structure (information) arranging physics particles into the any macro structures we see. Even the particles contain information. Information looks like the most fundamental substance I’ve ever seen. To summarize, the structure of our universe (information) is a fundamental part of our universe (this includes all time as well). Structure (information) is as real and physical as you get.
There are lots of things that only make sense if you view them from an structure (information) perspective...
Complexity - the amount of structure (information) in a system.
Order - the density of structure (information) in a system.
Communications - using machines to move information (bits of structure) around.
Memory systems - structure (information) storage machines.
Software - structure (information) stored in a memory system. Software provides its own separate levels of organization.
bodies - the hardware information that defines your body structure.
Minds - software control systems that do problem solving (act intelligently).
Genomes - a cellular software manager, that does things like cellular construction and maintenance.
Software universes - universes made of software (like a book, most games, The Matrix movie, mathematics, etc.).
Reality - perception, a structural (informational) connection (sensors and effectors) between a mind and a universe (optionally software).
Thanks for listening. ;)
Talking about the speed of light and the expansion of the universe makes me grumpy that we only have star charts of where things were and not where things ARE. I guess that we would have fun trying to plot a course to Andromeda.
The Beetlejuice gag kept making me laugh, to the point I yelled "stop it" after seeing it for like the 5th time. I think the more you see him the more the absurdity starts to get you. Ha. Also, nice f'ck'n' geometric model!!
I know this is a 6 years old video, but I just want to say that the Morse code at the end says "Hello world". I look in the comments and didn't find anyone mention that. Great video as always. Cheers!
Physical information is stored on waves as waves, this can be spun into matter or released to create forces. It is all information and it is always increasing in time. Our information can be lived and then sent out in waves that hold that information even entering a black hole it can just be re-spun into matter and stores that information that can now be released with new waves to imprint on them.
I always found your video entertaining and educational. Thanks.
You make great videos man, keep up the good work!
6.40 "Media.jpg" typically has LESS information than the other two. That is what the "lossy" means in the name of "lossy compression format". It still does have the information we care about though.
Hey Nick! I would really like you to take the ideas of this video a lot deeper into the works of Erik Verlinde. I really like his ideas about how space-time and gravity may be emergent properties of information. So I'd really love to see your take on Verlinde's ideas.
1:38 although I see what you mean, I'd be careful saying "Relativity says all reference frames are on equal footing". Relativity only grants that inertial frames are on equal footing. Kinematics allow you to transform between any reference frame at your convenience, but only inertial frames are invariant under the transformation.
I don't mean to imply that all frames of reference are the same, just that no one frame is given more _importance_ over any other (regardless of type). Yes, you can tell the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames. However, someone in a non-inertial frame is just as correct to say they are stationary as someone in an inertial frame. We don't give inertial frames "more correctness." If you do that, you miss the point of relativity entirely.
@@ScienceAsylum fair enough.
This is a great video. My mind is blown and I will not be able to return from state of crazy it created.
Please, avoid flashing images without a
*WARNING* *FLASHING LIGHTS*
(or similar) before the first of them.
Thanks for minding.
wow that office space reference was so good and unexpected
Nice video - the timeline you often pop up is very interesting to put all that into perspective. Just a remark : i often heard from other contents that our current models of quantum mechanics implies that information is never lost - how does that go with the last video comment? Anyway thanks again for this interesting content, I wish I could store, process and understand all that information easier.
I find it strange and interesting that we have trouble defining some of the most fundamental concepts of human language/thought such as energy, information, mass, entropy, space & time, etc. We have intuitions of what these concepts mean but when it gets down to clear cut definitions we really seem to struggle. Reality is way too complex!
I once did this thought experiment. What if a proton is 1 and an electron is 0? What if force between them is 10? What if their charges are 101 and 010? We can assign a unique number to any physical property. Does information/numbers have to be physical? If I'll think "Hmmm... 101010" and then die, does that number stop existing? If there is an infinite amount of numbers, does that mean there is an infinite amount of universes that exist, somewhere out there in this numbery abstract form? Are we one of such universes?
And most importantly, why do I even think about these things...
Subbed added to my LIS playlists. Shared on social media else where also.
I love the "hello world" message at the end of the video. That was the first time in years my Morse code skills actually came in handy. LOL
Thanks for noticing 🤓
We are trying to use information to define information. That is the problem with it, it’s an infinite self-referential black hole that makes completely defining information impossible
The sublimal Beetlejuice is the greatest thing to happen in any youtube video ever! Thank you!
Love these video's btw. a little confused by the question at the end but I've been having my own thoughts recently on how perhaps the level of interaction denotes the causality of the subsequent events that follow, so the less something is being physically interacted with in any way the less certain the future path it will take will be.
Let me know in the comments section below ;)
Different types of particle interactions definitely change entropy by different amounts. Fewer interactions would certainly help keep it from going up too fast. It's also true that, without an interaction, properties of particles remain indefinite... so, under the right circumstances, a particles future path could be unknown to us.
Eventually though, it has to interact with something. You can't stop the inevitable.
If nothing else, if you wait long enough, it'll probably interact with virtual particles.
I have a question I hope you can answer, or perhaps a discussion that can begin others to think on this topic. As a molecular biologist, I have often wondered about other ways to categorize genes and other genetic elements. When I was an undergrad student I took a course in physics and the professor, who happened to the department chair, was trying to recruit students to their department. He came to each student, asked their major and why. When he came to me I told him I know several biologists in my family know they are limited in work and research, such marine biology as one cousin is. I said I wanted to get to the “bottom” of how things work biologically, so I am majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry. And I’ll never forget what he said...he said, “if you’re really interested in how things work...the only education that will satisfy that is physics. He said to me, “you may know how a gene works and functions in a macro or biological level, but a physicist can tell you why that molecular exists and how and why it will interact with others. He said “molecular biology is the bottom rung on your your biology ladder...but physics is the ground your ladder rests upon!” And since then, answers don’t satisfy me like they used to.
I’ve seen the universe completely different in only the last week since I found your videos than my whole life before.
Now back to my original question. Since genes are a collection of other specific molecules in a spec fixed arrangement, what about the energies of each nucleotide? Or more collectively, each gene. In molecular biology, the term “information” is often thrown around loosely. But my question is this: could energy and information “be” something? I mean, the specific genes affect the genes linear sequence. Those positions affect the three dimensional confirmation of the enzymes and proteins, very specifically it’s 3D structure. But with time and energy along with information, would you say genes, as collections of various nucleotides (DNA / RNA) are also specific energies? Forgive me if I am not expressing this clearly, but I am asking, like our minds have thoughts and knowledge, using specialized cells called neurons, they seem to carry information. But could it be said if genes, those specific sequential combinations of codons-proteins, each of those could also be unique information “bundles?”
Well, hopefully you’ll be able to follow where I was going or trying to. I’ll explain further if you reply. Thank you.
Lee
It's difficult to know _for sure,_ but from what we can tell: Energy is just clever bookkeeping. It's just a number that has some useful mathematical patterns. I try to give it some physical meaning in this video: th-cam.com/video/snj1wBtn6I8/w-d-xo.html but it is _not_ some kind of tangible substance. It's just a useful property of things.
How are you makinh videos so clearly?..How you search for information?How you prepare and explain it so neatly?Can u tell me @Nick?
OH.MY.GOD I have the exact same “out of my mind” T-shirt you’re wearing how cool is that 😁
This is a comment of mine in Facebook. It is my 'insight' of what thoughts are, which are physical off course to me. I responded to a comment that said that your dream about a house, the thought of it is not physical. At the moment, I am a layman trying as much as he can to know stuff. Maybe later down the years I will be found correct who knows LOL? 😜 The comment was made minutes before coming here to see this video about information. So when you see a house, its quantum information is sent to your eyes via light I say; from the video I gather that the information should be lost? I don't understand what information is from this video but it's a decent introductory to it I guess. Thanks for reading!
My guess/view (I don't and haven't found someone say something like that, no evidence I guess) is this: you dream a house right? Obviously, you had seen a lot of houses in your life and it happened to dream one. I say that the house you dreamt about is formed out of the memories you have of houses. The info can be mixed, the characteristics of the house you are dreaming can be from a lot of houses of your memory. I'm heading now towards the answer 🙂. The house doesn't need to exist in the form of it where you can enter etc. It exists as memory and the memory of the house is the information of the houses you saw with your eyes when you saw them. In other words, you see the house with your eyes and the quantum information of it is getting in your eyes through the light and transmute it into the code/'language'of neurons that your brain understands.
When I say quantum information, I have in mind black holes when scientists talk whether or not information of the objects gotten into the black hole still exist while in it.
Ad I said, I haven't seen anyone talk about this or any evidence so consider this perhaps an interesting take? 😜 Not that I have searched out hard and that I know what to search, what to type in google but yeah xd😜."