Weight difference between an empty and a full memory stick

[Q_Goest]

Hi dmtr,

Yes. I agree. But I was talking about idealized memory which can be in 3 states - undefined/zero/one. For that type of memory theoretically there is a change in internal energy upon the transition between the initial undefined state and zero or one.

Can you clarify this? Are you saying an undefined (unknown?) state is different than a state with a zero or one? Don't we assume it has either a zero or a one already in it, so it must be the same as one of those? Or are you saying we need to put energy into it in order to determine what the state is?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Q_Goest,

Sure- an unknown state is in a superposition of states (here, kitty kitty!). Performing a "measurement" means we have interacted with the system. In QM, a (somewhat) new idea is what does 'measurement' mean, and how does the external environment perform measurements on a system to bring the system to equilibrium or a definite state (decoherence).

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Third, change in entropy only implies change in energy under certain assumptions (namely the fundamental assumption of statistical mechanics) that are not satisfied in constructs like Szilard's engine or the Maxwell's demon. Consequently, in these scenarios, there is a (subjective) change in entropy without a change in internal energy. (Yes, it's counterintuitive because it seems to go against the second law, and no, second law is not broken when these scenarios are properly analyzed.) The situation with the stick would be the same - any subjective change in entropy merely due to subjective change in Shannon's entropy of the data contents would not imply a change in the stick's energy/mass.

This is the key idea- can the entropy change without a change in *total* energy? For an isolated system it can, since free energy can be converted into entropy. But if that system is then decomposed into two subsystems (and the flow of entropy/free energy occurred between the subsystems), is it still true? I tend to think no: if there was a net flow of energy from one subsystem to another, for example.

 

[Q_Goest]

Q_Goest,

Sure- an unknown state is in a superposition of states (here, kitty kitty!). Performing a "measurement" means we have interacted with the system. In QM, a (somewhat) new idea is what does 'measurement' mean, and how does the external environment perform measurements on a system to bring the system to equilibrium or a definite state (decoherence).

Understood. But we're not talking about a QM system, we're talking about a classical system. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around... etc... does the act of having someone around change the physical facts about the tree? Or the bit on a computer?

Edit: Sorry for all the questions Andy. Just to clarify, does this suggest Schroedinger's cat weighs less when it is in a superposition of states? If so, why should we consider the information on a memory stick sitting on a table as being in a superposition of states (since it is interacting with the environment)?

 

[dmtr]

Hi dmtr,

Can you clarify this? Are you saying an undefined (unknown?) state is different than a state with a zero or one? Don't we assume it has either a zero or a one already in it, so it must be the same as one of those? Or are you saying we need to put energy into it in order to determine what the state is?

Yes. The classical analogy illustrating this would be the Szilard engine.
Take a look, page 2: http://arxiv.org/pdf/chao-dyn/9902012

The undefined state would be the state in which you can not tell which side the molecule is in (the partition sheet is up).

 

[dmtr]

Uh. And I've run into trouble with this classical analogy. Because it is the free energy/entropy that is changing, not the energy.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Understood. But we're not talking about a QM system, we're talking about a classical system. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around... etc... does the act of having someone around change the physical facts about the tree? Or the bit on a computer?

Edit: Sorry for all the questions Andy. Just to clarify, does this suggest Schroedinger's cat weighs less when it is in a superposition of states? If so, why should we consider the information on a memory stick sitting on a table as being in a superposition of states (since it is interacting with the environment)?

This has been an excellent thread, I've certainly learned a lot...

Calling something a 'QM system' is the same thing as saying QM does not apply for some (other) systems. QM is, AFAIK, consistent with macroscopic systems and 'reduces' to classical mechanics under the correct limit.

Before you read the memory stick, what can you say is encoded on it? Surely, it is not wrong to say it is in a ensemble of possible states, and results derived that way should not be in contradiction in the appropriate limit of guessing correctly. For example, the box full of gas- it is possible to guess the instantaneous positions and velocities of all the atoms (but highly unlikely)

What if the unmeasured object can be in one of several states, each of which has a different energy? That's a good question, but slightly different from what we are talking about, in which each state has equal energy (but we have no idea what that final state is). We must perform a measurement on the object to determine the state, or to verify our guess.

In order to measure, we must interact with the object. I'm not sure about 'reading' operations, but in order to write information I must increase the free energy of the memory device- because I can encode instructions for a machine that produces work in the memory. Furthermore, since this is an irreversible operation- the memory stick retains that information 'forever'- the entropy must also change. Based on the properties of the memory stick (finite number of erase/write cycles), I claim the entropy must also increase. Now, since we have dE = dF - TdS (E the total energy, F the free energy, etc.), it's not clear if E will increase, decrease, or stay the same.

Which is why this thread has been so interesting...

 

[atyy]

Take a memory device that stores only one bit. So its state is 1 or 0. If it has two symmetry breaking ground states of equal energy, then presumably, the mass of the device will not change depending on its state (But can such a device be isolated? If it is, and we rotate it, we will no longer know which state it is in, so it will not be a memory device any more). If the two states are not of equal energy, maybe one is a metastable state that will decay after a very long time, then the mass will change depending on its state.

 

[SHAMSAEL]

It should be noted that the unformatted 8gb memory stick DOES NOT contain anything resembling 8 billion 0000 0000s. I think that, even if every bit on the stick were to have a 0 or 1 stored on it, the difference in entropy would be practically undetectable, since I'm almost certain that a memory stick works by changing the positions of tiny switches inside the memory modules to open or closed states and that there is no difference in energy between a stick full of 1111 1111s and one full of 0000 0000s (or on full of mp3 files), assuming it's just sitting on a table not being read/written. I suppose the mass would fluctuate while data is being retrieved or stored on the stick.

My room mate often joked, because of the thousands of books I insisted on keeping in the apartment, that I would have to be careful about how I arranged them so I didn't create a black hole by piling too much information (entropy) on one shelf.

 

[dmtr]

It should be noted that the unformatted 8gb memory stick DOES NOT contain anything resembling 8 billion 0000 0000s. I think that, even if every bit on the stick were to have a 0 or 1 stored on it, the difference in entropy would be practically undetectable, since I'm almost certain that a memory stick works by changing the positions of tiny switches inside the memory modules to open or closed states and that there is no difference in energy between a stick full of 1111 1111s and one full of 0000 0000s (or on full of mp3 files), assuming it's just sitting on a table not being read/written. I suppose the mass would fluctuate while data is being retrieved or stored on the stick.

No. You won't find tiny switches in the real stick. And the real FLASH memory filled with '0's would weight more due to the extra weight of injected electrons (and protons). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Programming

My room mate often joked, because of the thousands of books I insisted on keeping in the apartment, that I would have to be careful about how I arranged them so I didn't create a black hole by piling too much information (entropy) on one shelf.

Just don't go nowhere near the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound" and you'll be fine.

Happy holidays ;)

 

[SHAMSAEL]

No. You won't find tiny switches in the real stick. And the real FLASH memory filled with '0's would weight more due to the extra weight of injected electrons (and protons). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Programming




Just don't go nowhere near the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound" and you'll be fine.

Happy holidays ;)

In short, modern flash memory actually stores electrons, switches aren't used. I stand corrected.

As for the entropy of my books, you've only compounded my concerns :(

 

[Pythagorean]

This has been an excellent thread, I've certainly learned a lot...

Much thanks to Berkeman saving the thread. And to you for your continued input.

 

[ranger]

This is a very interesting thread. I've not gotten a chance to read through all of the replies for a definite conclusion to the OP. So pardon me if I am being repetitive.

It should be noted that the unformatted 8gb memory stick DOES NOT contain anything resembling 8 billion 0000 0000s. I think that, even if every bit on the stick were to have a 0 or 1 stored on it, the difference in entropy would be practically undetectable, since I'm almost certain that a memory stick works by changing the positions of tiny switches inside the memory modules to open or closed states and that there is no difference in energy between a stick full of 1111 1111s and one full of 0000 0000s (or on full of mp3 files), assuming it's just sitting on a table not being read/written. I suppose the mass would fluctuate while data is being retrieved or stored on the stick.

It seems a lot of discussion has been geared towards the presence of charge in a flash RAM cell which is either logic 1 or 0. Whether the state is 1 or 0 is not as simple as having a charge in one position or the other, or setting switches to different states. A Flash RAM cell is not simply two compartments, where the presence of an electron in one compartment or the other dictates the state of the flash RAM cell. The state is determined by the charge trapped on the floating gate. The amount of charge on the floating gate is changed by Fowler-Nordheim tunneling and hot carrier injection. The presence of charge changes the threshold voltage(Vth) of the transistor. A high Vth is logic 0 and and low Vth is logic 1. To write ("0"), electrons are injected from the substrate to the floating gate by hot electron injection. That is, a substantially large lateral electric field between drain-source and transversal field between channel-gate injects electrons on the floating gate, Likewise, charge is removed to erase ("1") by the above mentioned tunneling method. Therefore, a cell that is 1 has different amount of charge compared to when it is 0, and hence a different electrical potential enegry (Vth).

Some links for those not familiar with floating gate MOSFET
http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/MEM96/SEC09.pdf
http://amesp02.tamu.edu/~sanchez/607-2005-Floating Gate Circuits.pdf

 

[denni89627]

I just read a book called "Decoding the Universe" by Seife. It is an intro to information theory and I enjoyed it. Here's a few things I would say:

The mass would not change in your memory stick because a string of 8gb of 0's is just as much information as 8gb of text. That's why we have compression programs. A few trillion 0's don't mean much to us so but the memory stick does not know that. A quick proof might be that if mass increased wouldn't it eventually be infinite in mass if you kept modifying the info on it?

Another source of confusion might be the mass relationship in general. Siefe states that you can theoretically figure out how many possible qbit's of information a mass can contain, but changing a qbit state would just change the meaning of the information - not the overall amount of info.

The book was great, involving Shannon entropy, Maxwell's demon and how this whole thing started by trying to fit the maximum number of phone calls on one copper wire.

 

[hover]

I would say,whether the mem stick is empty or full, that it keeps the same mass and therefore the same weight. The thing is that the stick is going to store information in bits. Either 0 or 1. 0 is an equivelent piece of information as a 1. You can. Think of 0 as a switch off and 1 as a switch on. Having a switch off(0) doesn't mean it's not there. From this point of view, it really depends on the number of switches/bits that the stick contains. Since the number of bits never changes, the mass and therefore the weight never changes.

 

[mheslep]

Initially I made a guestimate based on typical structure of modern flash memory of about 10^3 electrons per floating gate (that is, per bit). Stupidly I took the mass increase to be the mass of these electrons (approx 10^(-27) kg per bit). That's nonsense of course, as each cell remains overall charge neutral and the electrons are just redistributed from one plate of the capacitor to the other.

Looking at it again I'll say approx $n\, q_e\, V\, /\,(4\,c^2)$ kg per bit. So based on n approx 10^3 electrons per bit and assuming V is a few volts, I get about 10^(-33) kg per bit as a serious guestimate for modern flash memory.

I speculate you were more on the right tract in the first paragraph. When we say neutral, yes that means that at the macro scale of the memory stick the charge will be 'neutral', but not necessarily to every last −1.602×10−19 Coulomb (e), not over the many moles of electrons in question here. It could be that some state of the stick could well carry a net charge of a few e. Normally the mass of a few electrons would be insignificant, but compared to the minuscule E/c^2 mass grasped at in the second paragraph, the rest mass of even a few electrons is king.

 

[jacksonwalter]

Didn't have time to read all 8 pages, hope this isn't redundant. Usually the "1's" are stored as charged capacitors, whereas the "0's" are stored as uncharged capacitors. A charged capacitor is going to have energy = 1/2*C*V^2, therefore mass = E/c^2.