Information - Energy equivalence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of information-energy equivalence, particularly in the context of a specific experiment where information is purportedly converted into energy. Participants explore the implications of this claim, referencing an article that describes a molecular experiment involving entropy and energy dynamics in a fluid system.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about the claim that information can be converted to energy, questioning whether the potential energy gained by a molecule is truly independent of energy exchanges with the surrounding fluid.
  • Another participant agrees that energy originates from the liquid and notes that the experiment demonstrates entropy reduction in the system, suggesting that work can be performed without reducing overall entropy.
  • A participant references Szilard's engine, attempting to relate the thought experiment to the discussion, but expresses confusion over the conversion of information to energy.
  • Another participant posits that knowing the position of the particle allows for the conversion of thermal energy to mechanical energy, framing it as a transition from high-entropy to low-entropy energy.
  • One participant questions whether the article implies the destruction of information to create energy, raising concerns about the violation of fundamental physical laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the interpretation of the article's claims about information and energy. There is no consensus on whether information can be considered a form of energy or how the dynamics of the system should be understood.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity on the definitions of energy and information, as well as the assumptions underlying the experiment's conclusions. The relationship between the system's entropy and energy distribution remains unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of thermodynamics, information theory, and the conceptual implications of energy dynamics in physical systems.

Routaran
Messages
447
Reaction score
94
I was having a discussion with an individual who was claiming that information is a form of energy. I disagreed with that claim. Over the course of the conversation, he provided me with the following article

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/information-converted-to-energy

The article says that the molecule was placed in an aqueous solution and then electric field was applied to the solution causing the molecule to spin in a given direction, causing it to fall down the potential energy staircase but every once in a while, buffered by the solution (I read buffered as colliding with the molecules in the solution) it rotated in the other direction causing it to go up the staircase. Then the article says that the researched reversed the phase of the field there by preventing it from falling down the potential energy staircase.

The article then says,
"In this way they could gradually raise the potential of the particle even though they had not imparted any energy to it directly."

That statement seems dubious to me. Energy may not have been added from the outside but what about the collisions that test molecule had with the solution it was sitting in? Couldn't it have simply gained that potential from the molecules in the solution? Is it more correct to say that after collisions with the molecules in the solution, the test molecule had more energy than it did before the collision while the molecules in the solution had less energy but the total energy is still the same, just distributed differently. Why say that information was converted to energy?

Then the article goes on to say,
"In recent years other groups have shown that collections of particles can be rearranged so as to reduce their entropy without providing them with energy directly."

That just sounded like bunk to me. Yes the test molecule gained potential but what about the solution it was sitting in? Why isn't that being discussed as part of the system?

Can someone please shed some light on this for me? The source seems reputable but I'm very skeptical about what they are saying.

Thanks.
 
Science news on Phys.org
The energy comes from the liquid, I agree. The interesting result of the experiment is the entropy reduction in the (not closed) system "fluid+particle"*. You could extract the energy stored in the particle, and perform work. This does not reduce the overall entropy, as image processing and the control of the electric field increases entropy more than it gets reduced by the rotation.

*this leads to the second quote in your post
 
I went back and looked at Szilard's engine, the article made a reference to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory#Szilard.27s_engine

if I understand it correctly, his thought experiment was:
You have 1 atom of gas in a chamber. When that atom is in the bottom half, we put a shutter in and split the chamber in half. Then the piston can drop unopposed in the empty half. When the shutter is opened, work can be performed by the atom.

I may be way off in my thinking but here's what i got from it.
When the shutter was closed, the volume available to the atom decreased thus increasing the pressure. This pressure increase is what allows for work to be done.

What I don't understand is why it says that information was converted to energy.
 
If you know where the particle is, you can use this to operate the engine - you can use this knowledge to convert thermal energy to mechanical energy.
Information and high-entropy energy (heat) is converted to low-entropy energy.
 
I don't fully understand that article. Did they simply create a tiny heat engine? And what do they mean by "converting information to energy"? They can't mean they destroyed information in order to create energy out of nothing. That would violate two fundamental laws of physics. Maybe they mean they moved information from the particle into the surroundings and moved energy from the surroundings into the particle?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K