- #1
celal777
- 11
- 0
Hello,
I would like second (and more) opinions on comments i received from a physicist in response to my observations on a certain experimental setup designed to make a particular point about information theory in the context of entropy.
The experimental narrative is found on pages 9 & 10 of the following document :
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/04Message.pdf [Broken]
A diagram of what is discussed in given at : http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/042Barmag.pdf [Broken]
What follows is the discussion that ensued between "me" and "my respondent":
ME :
1) You started out with a more highly ordered state (magnets in contact N-S & S-N) .
2) You opened the window
3) Magnets scattered - so magnets in a more disordered state
i.e. (entropy is increased =information is decreased)
4) Result : yet you say "information in the system has increased by
one bit"(p.10) i.e. (entropy is decreased= information is increased)
How is this possible ? Why are the conclusions in #3 & #4
different ?
The bits at the end of the experiment tell me there is more
information yet the system is also more disordered hence there is more
entropy which by definition means there is less information. The
contradiction in #3 & #4 below remains, doesn't it ? What am i missing
here ?
MY RESPONDENT:
You are using an intuitive definition of entropy rather than a
quantitative one, assuming the system is less orderly. Since entropy is
negative information, the entropy has decreased and so the system is
more orderly.
==========
My comments and questions for the Physics Help Forum :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is my respondant calling my interpretation "intuitive" ? Does he mean "wrong" ?
Is the system's final state really "more orderly" as he says ?
Is it possible that his experiment is really not demonstrating what he thinks it demonstrates either in terms of entropy or information theory ?
Many Thanks in advance for all comments received,
Celal Berker
London, England
I would like second (and more) opinions on comments i received from a physicist in response to my observations on a certain experimental setup designed to make a particular point about information theory in the context of entropy.
The experimental narrative is found on pages 9 & 10 of the following document :
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/04Message.pdf [Broken]
A diagram of what is discussed in given at : http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/042Barmag.pdf [Broken]
What follows is the discussion that ensued between "me" and "my respondent":
ME :
1) You started out with a more highly ordered state (magnets in contact N-S & S-N) .
2) You opened the window
3) Magnets scattered - so magnets in a more disordered state
i.e. (entropy is increased =information is decreased)
4) Result : yet you say "information in the system has increased by
one bit"(p.10) i.e. (entropy is decreased= information is increased)
How is this possible ? Why are the conclusions in #3 & #4
different ?
The bits at the end of the experiment tell me there is more
information yet the system is also more disordered hence there is more
entropy which by definition means there is less information. The
contradiction in #3 & #4 below remains, doesn't it ? What am i missing
here ?
MY RESPONDENT:
You are using an intuitive definition of entropy rather than a
quantitative one, assuming the system is less orderly. Since entropy is
negative information, the entropy has decreased and so the system is
more orderly.
==========
My comments and questions for the Physics Help Forum :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is my respondant calling my interpretation "intuitive" ? Does he mean "wrong" ?
Is the system's final state really "more orderly" as he says ?
Is it possible that his experiment is really not demonstrating what he thinks it demonstrates either in terms of entropy or information theory ?
Many Thanks in advance for all comments received,
Celal Berker
London, England
Last edited by a moderator: