Proof of Conservation of Information

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of conservation of information, particularly in relation to entropy and the recoverability of information at the micro-level. The example of particles in an ideal box raises questions about how initial conditions affect trajectories and whether information can truly be lost through interactions. The participant expresses confusion over the implications of the uncertainty principle and whether it supports or contradicts the idea of information preservation. They also note a discrepancy in the community's belief regarding conservation of information, especially in light of the black hole information paradox. Ultimately, the conversation seeks clarity on the proof of information conservation and its validity across different models of evolution.
gabeeisenstei
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble with the idea of conservation of information.

I watched Susskind introduce the concept of entropy as "hidden information", using an example of drops of water filling a bathtub: a message encoded in the sequence of drops is lost for practical purposes, but in principle is recoverable at the micro-level. I don't understand this recoverability "in principle".

Let's simplify with an ideal box, into which particles are shot through a window (which is subsequently closed). Can we use momentum and the tracing of a trajectory as the encoding of relevant information? Another piece of information might simply be the time intervals between identical particles shot into identical boxes with identical momentum.

In the first case, let the velocities be the same, and the difference be the angle at which the particle goes through the window (or where it first strikes the far wall of the box). It seems to me that there are at least two different initial angles that will, after some number of bounces around the box, settle into the same trajectories. At that point the information as to their initial angles would seem to be lost.

In the second case, it seems clear that pairs of particles entering the box separated by different time intervals will attain the same trajectories if one interval is a multiple of the other, in terms of the time needed to travel across the box.

What am I missing? Is my box too ideal, not absorbing any of the particle's momentum? Is it wrong even to say that a single particle bounces around in the box, since a photon striking a mirror should actually be described as exciting an electron which then emits a different photon? Or would you apply the uncertainty principle to deny the hypothesis of identical particles with identical momentum? (But then the uncertainty principle would serve to destroy information, not preserve it?)
Where is the proof that information is never lost?

***

I wrote the above before viewing previous threads about conservation of information. I see that many people here don't believe in it or don't think it is well defined. I was assuming that it is widely acknowledged, given the prominence of the "information paradox" generated by black holes. If people like Hawking didn't assume conservation of information (at least outside of black holes), there would be no paradox. Surely he thinks there is a proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where is the proof that information is never lost?
Whether the "information" (distinction in initial conditions) is preserved depends on the model of the evolution. There are models that preserve it, and models that violate it.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top