Is Information Equivalent to Energy According to Landauer's Principle?

[adaptation]

The funny thing is that the sentence/information "I'm lazy" will evoke a response in an observer. This implies that it is energy or in the least it is the result of energy and lends itself to an energetic reaction like "get off the couch" or "you sure are!".

You got me thinking. Information can be the result of energy. Can energy be the result of information?

The more precise information I have about a system, the more energy I am able to extract from it. (This assumes that my measurements are nondestructive.) So there is definitely a relationship between the quality of information, quality here meaning how accurate the information is, and the work it can produce. This should hold true for any system that contains free energy.

Is this correct? Is there a way to quantify this?

 

[baywax]

You got me thinking. Information can be the result of energy. Can energy be the result of information?

The more precise information I have about a system, the more energy I am able to extract from it. (This assumes that my measurements are nondestructive.) So there is definitely a relationship between the quality of information, quality here meaning how accurate the information is, and the work it can produce. This should hold true for any system that contains free energy.

Is this correct? Is there a way to quantify this?

First of all, is "potential energy" similar, the same or unrelated to "free energy"? If energy does not do work is it really there?

Second... the "quality" of the information (as you say the accuracy, efficiency and "correctness") of the information certainly would determine the amount and the "quality" of the energy being passed along.

When someone uses "x" amount of energy to tell me to look out for a falling rock... it would seem that "x" would be the amount of energy I would use to move out of the way... as in Newton's "every action" axiom.

 

[Pythagorean]

Could information, for instance, be responsible for dark matter? Is it that real? Should it contribute to the total energy of the universe?

 

[adaptation]

First of all, is "potential energy" similar, the same or unrelated to "free energy"?

There are actually two types of free energy, Gibbs and Helmholtz. They are two types of thermodynamic potentials. In that way, you could consider free energy a type of potential energy. I don't claim to be an expert though.

If energy does not do work is it really there?

Yes. I could throw a piece of coal into my train's engine. I could get work from the heat produced by the chemical reaction of burning the coal. The train would move. If I didn't burn the coal, it would still contain energy. The coal's energy is not dependent on me getting work from it.

Or do you mean in some kind of philosophical sense of the word real? And I suppose it might also depend on what you mean by work...

When someone uses "x" amount of energy to tell me to look out for a falling rock... it would seem that "x" would be the amount of energy I would use to move out of the way... as in Newton's "every action" axiom.

Dodging a falling rock will almost certainly use more energy than warning some one about the rock. It would need to be a really passionate warning to compare to quickly moving your entire body out of the way of a deadly peril with adrenalin pumping through you veins, heavy breathing, and all that.

Could information, for instance, be responsible for dark matter? Is it that real? Should it contribute to the total energy of the universe?

I would say that if dark matter exists, it contains information. If information really is energy, it should be considered as part of the total energy of the universe. But is it energy?

I'm going to go and rub my three good brain cells together and see if I can apply some numbers to any of this.

 

[Andy Resnick]

First of all, is "potential energy" similar, the same or unrelated to "free energy"? If energy does not do work is it really there?

"Potential" energy is (usually) a function of mechanical coordinates- the position of a particle in a well, for example. "Free" energy is a more general concept, and refers to the amount of energy that can be converted into work (that is, the total energy less the entropy). The free energy contains a contribution from the potential energy

When someone uses "x" amount of energy to tell me to look out for a falling rock... it would seem that "x" would be the amount of energy I would use to move out of the way... as in Newton's "every action" axiom.

That's an incorrect application of the principle.

 

[adaptation]

The more precise information I have about a system, the more energy I am able to extract from it. (This assumes that my measurements are nondestructive.) So there is definitely a relationship between the quality of information, quality here meaning how accurate the information is, and the work it can produce. This should hold true for any system that contains free energy.

Is this correct? Is there a way to quantify this?

This is incorrect. I was confusing knowledge about information and physical information itself. In actuality there is a relationship between the quality of information and the amount of work I can use it to produce. The accuracy of the information does not increase the system's ability to do work. It increases the ability of my process to extract the work.

Exploiting the accuracy of physical information requires consciousness to act on the knowledge of that information.

*returns to drawing board*

 

[baywax]

I'm going to go and rub my three good brain cells together and see if I can apply some numbers to any of this.

Please do that because you want to quantify that information = energy and prove it (at least mathematically) and that's the only way to get there. My meager attempt at the quantification with the warning = avoiding rock idea didn't work.

If you can prove info is energy it would be like saying a road sign contains potential energy in that it is continuously warning 24/7 and the "energy" does its work only when a passing driver reads and deciphers the message on the road sign.

––––––––––––––––

I think it can be safely said that information is an indication that energy is or was present at one time.

For example a 40,000 year old pictograph or petroglyph on a cliff face is an indication that quite a lot of energy was spent at that site at one time.

The interpretation of that "information" also takes quite a load of energy... the energy it takes to get to the site... the energy it took to complete an Archaeology degree... etc etc... but, is the pictograph or the petroglyph actually energy in its own rite?... I am intuitively doubtful.

 

[baywax]

"Potential" energy is (usually) a function of mechanical coordinates- the position of a particle in a well, for example. "Free" energy is a more general concept, and refers to the amount of energy that can be converted into work (that is, the total energy less the entropy). The free energy contains a contribution from the potential energy





That's an incorrect application of the principle.

Thank you!