Jump to content

Can or should we count information as physical entity?


1x0
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Time is more "just" information although perceived physical.

Perception isn't relevant.

15 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Energy...Still "feels"(sorry for the expression) correlated to spaces expenditure....Energy is not a substance... I have a hard time to grep this.... especially if it has/can have mass.

Energy does not have mass. Matter has mass, and mass is a form of energy.

15 hours ago, 1x0 said:

I would inspect the option of spaces rigidity i.e matter has no effect on space. Just space can have an effect on mass....(space expenditure = cause, matter=effect..... If it would be true that mass can torsion space than does not that indicate that space has weight? Otherwise, how can mass effect space?

Mass can bend spacetime, yes. No, that does not indicate that it has weight. You can't just assume this connection, you have to test that it is there.

15 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Which physical attribute of space can be impacted by mass? Space itself. But how space could be more than information about any physical entities whereabout? Time?  But isn't time is information about any physical entities when about? If space and time can be impacted than aren't they physical? And we are back to the original question.  

There are things that are not physical. The color red is not a substance, for example. Your notion that it must be physical because you can't think of an alternative doesn't wash. It's argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

15 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Thought experiment: What is more likely: Mass impacts the mass of photons(yet not recognized) and by that torsion their path (does the torsion of the common path has to mean the torsion of space (the 4D coordinate system) itself? I mean photons are waves in proportion to one another while impacted......or mass torsion spacetime itself (meaning the impact implied throughout the system and that every concentrated structure such as an atomic nucleus bends spacetime itself the same way pulling some part of it with while existing in a new space-time reality in every upcoming moment...) The second version sounds a bit messy.... 

How could you prove that space has no velocity and it does not expand it just is? The infinite ever Being? What observation indicates this? Hubble's work seems to reject this or I perceived it wrong..

Photons having mass has implications beyond this in physics (e.g. they would not travel at c, and the speed would depend on the energy of the photon) and there is no evidence to support the idea.

14 hours ago, Tub said:

Hello,1x0. I think there is one way to say that  information can be a physical entity. For example,  i have a car, a silver Peugeot 206, and that information is stored physically in my brain in my memory-cells so that, if someone asks me what car i have, i can retrieve that information from its physical location in the brain. Each time someone asks me that same question , i go to the same location , the same memory-cells, and the same information is still there. Even when i am not thinking of my car, the information is still stored in that physical location until the next time i need it. So, as the action of memory is a mechanical function, i think it is not too unreasonable to say that the information stored in the memory-cells has a physical presence.

Information storage ≠ information itself

That a silver Peugeot 206 exists is true independent of any particular person's knowledge of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the limit of the amount of information that can be stored on an object?

Alternatively for a given  amount of information what is the smallest  system that can hold this information?

Does Planck length come into play or are there other considerations?

Pardoning my ignorance but do virtual particles "carry information"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange;

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Well your thoughts and knowledge are causing black and white patterns to appear on my computer screen, so I guess they can influence matter.

You are usually brighter than this. Maybe I should have said, "directly cause".

Do you suppose that I can think at your computer and cause black and white patterns to appear? That would be a neat trick, but I can't do it. 

The body can affect emotion and thought. Emotion can affect the body and thought. Thought can affect the body and emotion. They work together, but what about individually, outside the body?

The body can affect it's surroundings simply because of it's weight. Emotion can affect other lives through bonding. Thought does not seem to be able to directly affect anything outside of the body. As far as I can tell, telepathy is not real.

Thought, knowledge, or even information seem to have no physical properties or attributes that I have been able to find. On the other hand, emotion does. It can affect matter, cause bonding, and it can also remove or relocate awareness, so it has abilities. My question is how? It is clear that emotion is some kind of force, but it seems to be entirely made up of thought, knowledge, and/or information. So I was wondering if the actual motion is what causes it to have these abilities.

 

1x0;

4 hours ago, 1x0 said:

I do not wonder that you bring up consciousness. I wonder sometimes could the fact that evolved consciousness (we)can exist basically in any space with the right physical circumstances (at the end of the day we "glide" through reality with at least the motion of our galaxy and the solar system itself). So if consciousness basically can exist in space that does not mean that space itself is fundamentally conscious as it able to support and maintain (give the right realm) for existing, observable, recognizable conscious entities. 

I think that I agree with this. Physical space gives us a kind of format for our consciousness and shows no signs of being conscious itself. But when you have a format, you have rules that formulated that format, and I suspect that those rules developed into what we call Laws of Physics or Laws of Nature.

So I think that some kind of fundamental information was part of the organizing and development of the Universe. There were rules. These same basic rules are reflected in Mathematics and mirrored in the unconscious aspect of mind. Specifically, I think that "same and different", "equal", and "more and less" form some of the most basic and fundamental rules that order reality. These rules are also basic and fundamental to Mathematics, which is why Mathematics can give us such an accurate representation of reality. These are the same rules that guide the "thinking" of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is neither logical nor rational, mostly because logic and rationalization are both linear processes, and the unconscious ignores time -- so linear processes can not work. 

What I find fascinating, is the idea that if we can understand the unconscious aspect of mind, to know how it works and uses information, then we may get some insight into how information was/is used outside of the Universe. Outside the Universe would also ignore time.

 

Quote

 

Could consciousness mean the awareness of at least the physical attributes the examined physical entity owns? If I observe a photon, It has the very rigid physical presentation (velocity, energy, wavelength). Does the fact that it acts always based on the information this physical presentation visualize (and by that recognizable for us) meaning that on a very simple way it is aware of the information (the fundamental determination by the Laws of Nature) about its existence.  

 

I don't see anything except life as being aware. I could be wrong, as I have seen theories that state that the Universe is alive, but so far, I am not convinced.

 

Quote

 

I have written a small essay kind of paper for my Strategy Exam which got a bit philosophical (the professor give the perfect question to wonder...) but shows my own way (the questions I raise trying to determine biological, physical, mathematical, philosophical, economical, personal values) on the path of recognition. I am not fully aware for sure because there are so many things I do not know but for sure I recognized a lot of reality-based values which I would not have been able to do if I do not sense what Nothing could mean (i.e. medically and economically relevant informations during the operation of the praxis). In proportion to the sense of Nothing everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. I see this in basically everything.....

I will add a link to the essay if you are interested. It is a limited minds wondering about reality. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRWgdGuKa665mMpmTvGnQI7KapVMpVJMhCPofbTbj9w/edit  

 

I gave it a quick look and will review it later. For now, I can tell you that we have very different ideas about "Nothing". When I see the word, nothing, I interpret it to mean, no known thing. Historically, when we used the word nothing in Philosophy or Science, it was often the case that we had not yet discovered what the "nothing" was. (chuckle)

For a thought experiment: Take a blank piece of paper with "nothing" on it. We will say this represents reality before the Universe. Then draw a circle on the paper and examine what is now there. What do you see, one thing or three things? There is still only one circle, but there is also inside and outside, concepts that did not exist before. Many people, and most scientists, will say that the circle created the concepts, and that is why they exist, but it is not really an explanation. Ink does not create concepts. But if you look at the fundamental rules that I noted above, you will find "same and different". The circle caused a difference, and that difference created the concept. So I think that these simple rules that became more complex, over however many light years, caused the concepts and complexities that are our reality today. imo

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Gees said:

Emotion can affect other lives through bonding. Thought does not seem to be able to directly affect anything outside of the body. 

Thoughts affect the outside world just as (or no more) directly than emotions. Your emotions don't affect people by magic but because you do something. Your thoughts don't affect people (or computers) by magic but because you do something. There is no difference between thoughts and emotions in this respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gees said:

emotion

Intuition. Past knowledge and experience based general understanding and shaped personal attributes. 

Emotion. Intuitív reaction on current physical reality based information.

If space(time) contains all energy and matter observable than does not that mean that Space itself has (contains) energy and matter? Or has some kind of relation to energy and matter evolution. Why I can not let this thought go.... Could someone definitely deny this possibility? Prove that space has no velocity detectable. What does Hubble say than? If not nothing is at the beginning rather a spaceless, infinitely dens singularity than what could impact such dens infinite singularity....? What could be that impact and where from/how that impact would have been coming if there had been nothing else (not even space) what could exist....? Why and how can we reject a step by step, physically balanced, simple information* based, fine evolution? (even the first steps appear singular, singularity itself has to be relative) 

*simple information: Everything in proportion to Nothing. 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange;

 

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Thoughts affect the outside world just as (or no more) directly than emotions. Your emotions don't affect people by magic but because you do something. Your thoughts don't affect people (or computers) by magic but because you do something. There is no difference between thoughts and emotions in this respect.

Your above statements are not entirely true. I think there is a huge difference, but explaining that difference and then proving it is difficult and time consuming. I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, so an extended explanation can not be made here. This is why I usually bring up "bonding", as that is one product of emotion that Science accepts and recognizes as being caused by emotion.

You brought up the word "magic", which is interesting and gave me an idea of how to show that there is a difference between thought and emotion. What if we look at thought and emotion historically?

Historically, thought can be logical or illogical, rational or irrational, and be good or bad thinking. A few centuries ago, it might even be described as "Godly" good thoughts or "the Devil made me do it" bad thoughts, but these are explanations of what thought is, or maybe even where it comes from -- not what it produces. Thought has not been associated with producing anything close to "magic", unless it is a trick.

But, historically, there are ideas that seem to be "magical" like "Gods" and devils, angels and demons, demonic possessions, saints, miracles, and psychic phenomenon. Some of these ideas even have evidence that supports their claims like documents that the Church holds, or research by psychologists, who study psychic phenomenon. Most rational people dismiss these claims as "hysterical ramblings", which means emotional ramblings. For a long time, I dismissed them also, but it is a little difficult to get past the evidence. At some point, I realized that each and every one of these "magical" ideas related to emotion. Coincidence does not cause something to be consistently the same -- that is cause and effect.

So in my studies of consciousness, I started to study emotion more closely because it is the commonality in these "magical" ideas. Is emotion the result of these "imaginings", or is it the cause of these "imaginings"? Can they even be "imaginings" if they produce actual evidence? These questions, along with a much better understanding of the unconscious aspect of mind, is what caused me to conclude that thought and emotion are very different.

Gee

 

1x0: I will try to respond to your post tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gees said:

Your above statements are not entirely true. I think there is a huge difference, but explaining that difference and then proving it is difficult and time consuming. I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, so an extended explanation can not be made here.

OK. So we can safely ignore your opinion as it is entirely unsupported.

(This thread went off topic a longtime ago - it is a series of random non sequiturs from 1x0.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Strange said:

OK. So we can safely ignore your opinion as it is entirely unsupported.

(This thread went off topic a longtime ago - it is a series of random non sequiturs from 1x0.)

After reading this, I started to wonder who burnt your morning toast. Then I remembered. You are one of those people, who gets upset with the "woo woo" factor. I apologize. If I had remembered, I would  have used a different example, as it was not my intention to cause dissent.

I know that you know that magic is not real. If it looks like magic, then I see it as a puzzle that has not been worked out yet. Much like those "magical" rocks that we discovered ages ago. They were not magical, they were magnetized. Although magnets can look like magic and amaze little children, we know better. I am just trying to know better.

The "random non sequiturs" that you see may actually exist, or it may be the case that you simply do not see the connections. I am having no problem following 1x0's thoughts. You might want to consider doing more reading and less posting until you can also see the connections.

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Strange said:

 

This thread went off topic a long time ago

True, there have been a lot of twists and turns along the way - just like with my cheap sat-nav - but perhaps that makes the journey more interesting. Anyway, returning to the OP,  could it be said that genetically-transmitted information is a physical phenomenon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1x0;

 

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:46 PM, 1x0 said:

Intuition. Past knowledge and experience based general understanding and shaped personal attributes. 

Emotion. Intuitív reaction on current physical reality based information.

If you do not mind, I would like to keep "intuition" out of this thread. A few years back, in another Science forum, I worked a thread on Instincts, and intuition was part of that thread. Even though I worked with some very bright people, both scientists and philosophers, what we learned is that there is so much misinformation, assumption, history, and down-right guesswork attached to the ideas of instincts and intuition, that it is impossible to base any understanding on these concepts. When I talk about instincts, I limit it to survival instincts, as that idea has some evidence and support from Biology. 

One thing that we do know is that emotion, instincts, and intuition are all reactive and originate in the unconscious aspect of mind -- which is not well known or well understood.

 

Quote

If space(time) contains all energy and matter observable than does not that mean that Space itself has (contains) energy and matter?

Maybe. First problem is do we know that space/time contains ALL energy? If it does, then what could have started the Universe? Nothing?

Second problem is with the word "observable". As discussed before, observation and awareness are dependent upon space/time in order to exist, so how can we get outside of space/time in order to "observe" what was there prior, or what it is made up of? If I understand your ideas correctly, you are flexing between the ideas that space/time originated from nothing, or it originated from information. This is why you are trying to find physical attributes in information, so you can understand how it became energy and matter. Yes?

You are not the first person to come to these conclusions. It could be argued that the Holographic Universe, the dream or illusion realities, and even the "God" theories are very similar. They are all based on the idea that information caused everything, but we still can not find any reason to accept that information has physical attributes.

 

Quote

Or has some kind of relation to energy and matter evolution. Why I can not let this thought go.... Could someone definitely deny this possibility?

A lot of us can't let it go. Energy and matter have a relationship with space/time in that they exist in space/time, and they all seem to change or evolve in some way. Early in the thread, you mentioned that you thought information also evolves/changes. I agree with this, which is why I have problems with theories that state everything is predetermined. The only ideas that I can see that seem to be predetermined, are the basic rules that I mentioned earlier, which are the rules that determine balance. It is this idea of balance that I think caused the Universe and extracted reality, as we know it, from chaos.

This reminds me of the idea that time and space extracted the rational conscious aspect of mind from the unconscious aspect of mind. In evolution, the rational aspect of mind was much later in life's development. So the idea that the Universe evolved from a timeless reality seems to be reflected by the conscious mind evolving from a timeless unconscious.

This brings me to the idea that the unconscious mind works through emotion, and emotion does seem to have some properties and some influence on matter. No. We do not know what emotion is; many people think that it is Nothing.

 

Quote

 What could be that impact and where from/how that impact would have been coming if there had been nothing else (not even space) what could exist....? 

It is obvious to me that either "nothing" existed, which I have trouble accepting, or that we just don't know what that "nothing" is. I'm betting we just don't know . . . yet.

 

Quote

Why and how can we reject a step by step, physically balanced, simple information* based, fine evolution? (even the first steps appear singular, singularity itself has to be relative) 

As BR-549 stated early in this thread, everything is charge and balance. It is my thought that the tension between charge and balance is what causes movement, growth, evolution, and change, which leads to complexity.

 

Quote

*simple information: Everything in proportion to Nothing. 

"Everything in proportion to Nothing" is a concept, not a reality.

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

Maybe. First problem is do we know that space/time contains ALL energy? If it does, then what could have started the Universe? Nothing?

 

My recognition leads there... A step by step evolution and a simple basic information at the beginning which would have been a good start for a balanced reality. I do not think that a step by step fine evolution cannot include the singular aspects of this physical development. At the end of the day, even minimal information will be everything in proportion to nothing, which could be perceived as a singular event....

On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

Second problem is with the word "observable". As discussed before, observation and awareness are dependent upon space/time in order to exist, so how can we get outside of space/time in order to "observe" what was there prior, or what it is made up of? If I understand your ideas correctly, you are flexing between the ideas that space/time originated from nothing, or it originated from information. This is why you are trying to find physical attributes in information, so you can understand how it became energy and matter. Yes?

 

With analyzing the data received from the observations.The observation is executable in the realm and the physical properties recognizable. I do not think that we have to get outside to get what was prior. We just has to recognize reality as it is. 

I wrote a thought experiment about this maybe you would consider to read it: 

It is about information and how we perceive information (and by that does it have physical properties or not) As far as I understood our conversation about this it seems to me that it is space(time) itself we speak about. What other physical attributes spacetime has then information? It is recognizable and physically measurable. Attached to every observation.

We can measure space with our physical reality based objective scalings.

1 meter is one meter does not matter I measure it in thin air or in dense rocks. Then does this mean that I could measure one meter in a black hole too? 

I mean a black hole has a measurable real size where our scaling unit (meter) could be measured. I understand that this reality will be relative to all observers. But does the relativistic recognition of the observer and its assumptions to measure reality changes the measurable reality itself?  

Thought experiment: 

There are 1 million technologically advanced intelligence in our galactic neighborhoods with 100 - 10 million lightyears away.

They got the common task to measure earth´s exact size and weight as well as its future path in space-time. 

What would be the difference between the measurements of the intelligence 100 light years away and the one 10 million lightyears away? 

If I could collect all 1 million measurement results originating from their individual perception in different physical realities and measure what reality really is (we know the size, the weight and the path of the earth) then could we estimate/recognize the general relativity caused torsion of the original information? 

Why could I not measure the exact meter in a black hole when I know how its mass impacts the presentation of energy and matter (it is denser).

I can observe a black hole and assume its size.   

We perceive on earth that a black hole is a 100K km wide physical object but if we would be in it it would be like 100K lightyears. The differences between the perceptions and reality itself should not mean the absolute incapability of exact measurements and convertibility. 

Space and the perception of space have to be relative (e.g to our general physical understanding) so the subjectively set objective measurement and relative perception should not change the exact physical extent of the space pointed out and described with a numeric expression of one Unit subjectively determined but objectively measurable.  

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to make a conclusion about this thread could I say that time can be recognized as a basic information about space?

By the recognition of space through time the information gets physically relevant(volume)... Spaces velocity should be determined by time giving its rate/speed of evolution (if space really can expand and it is not an absolute infinity. Such an absolute infinity should have infinity velocity too or would it have 0 velocity then?....) 

Could we hold for 10 sec the same space-time? Is it more than information? Isn't spacetime physically present? 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Trying to make a conclusion about this thread could I say that time can be recognized as a basic information about space?

 

No. If you're having lunch with somebody at the crossing of 1st and 2nd street in a building on the 3rd floor (3 spacial coordinates) you need to add that its on Saturday 14:00 (1 temporal coordinate) You need 3+1 spacetime coordinates to pinpoint events. It makes no sense whatsoever though to state that "time is basic information about space" it is not, they walk together and are inseparable in GR but time is not telling us anything about space. Please kill me.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, koti said:

No. If you're having lunch with somebody at the crossing of 1st and 2nd street in a building on the 3rd floor (3 spacial coordinates) you need to add that its on Saturday 14:00 (1 temporal coordinate) You need 3+1 spacetime coordinates to pinpoint events. It makes no sense whatsoever though to state that "time is basic information about space" it is not, they walk together and are inseparable in GR but time is not telling us anything about space. Please kill me.

2

Time says when I should be there. It is an information when I should be present. It is an information about how long will it take for me to cover the distance to reach the restaurant in time. 

Would the 3 spatial dimensions of the restaurant change if I change the time of the meeting? It would just be a different information about the space where we should meet.

4 hours ago, koti said:

time is not telling us anything about space.

 

It is hard to believe that time has nothing to tell about space when you say it is an inseparable part of it. 

Could we have a space program if we would do not count with time just with space? We need to be aware of time to be able to determine the route of the rocket and the point of arrival in outer space. 

One could say we need to know the velocity of the rocket and not the time how long it takes to make the journey but then does not velocity is indeterminable without time (km/h).   

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Time says when I should be there. It is an information when I should be present. It is an information about how long will it take for me to cover the distance to reach the restaurant in time. 

Would the 3 spatial dimensions of the restaurant change if I change the time of the meeting? It would just be a different information about the space where we should meet.

I think that this was koti's point. The time information is orthogonal to the space information. 

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

It is hard to believe that time has nothing to tell about space when you say it is an inseparable part of it. 

Could we have a space program if we would do not count with time just with space? We need to be aware of time to be able to determine the route of the rocket and the point of arrival in outer space. 

One could say we need to know the velocity of the rocket and not the time how long it takes to make the journey but then does not velocity is indeterminable without time (km/h).   

Again, this just underscores the point. You need all four coordinates to uniquely specify a point in spacetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 1x0 said:

 

Could we have a space program if we would do not count with time just with space? We need to be aware of time to be able to determine the route of the rocket and the point of arrival in outer space.

One could say we need to know the velocity of the rocket and not the time how long it takes to make the journey but then does not velocity is indeterminable without time (km/h).  

 

This useful link refers to that and what koti and swansont have said:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

If I understand your ideas correctly, you are flexing between the ideas that space/time originated from nothing, or it originated from information. This is why you are trying to find physical attributes in information, so you can understand how it became energy and matter. Yes?

Yes.

On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

I have problems with theories that state everything is predetermined.

We have the freedom of the mind.

On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

many people think that it is Nothing.

Determine please what you mean by Nothing?

On 2018. 02. 08. at 11:47 AM, swansont said:

Energy does not have mass. Matter has mass, and mass is a form of energy.

Quote
1

This basically says matter is transformed energy. What transformed energy? Space and Time

Thought experiment:

Could the initial velocity of empty space-time be c2 at the beginning and why would the limitation apply(i.e why it is not infinite)? Energy, mass, and matter appear

 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

 This basically says matter is transformed energy. What transformed energy? Space and Time

No, this is the misconception I was pointing out. Mass is a form of energy, and is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of things that are not matter (like photons). 

There is no "stuff" that is energy that would allow you to say that matter is transformed energy. Energy is not a substance.

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Thought experiment:

Could the initial velocity of empty space-time be c2 at the beginning and why would the limitation apply(i.e why it is not infinite)? Energy, mass, and matter appear

 

There is no velocity of space-time, so no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Energy is not a substance.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Mass is a form of energy

Mass is a form of energy = Energy is a form of mass

Substance: 

  • Matter, anything that has mass and takes up space

Feels like we speak about two different states of the same thing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

 

Mass is a form of energy = Energy is a form of mass

Substance: 

  • Matter, anything that has mass and takes up space

Feels like we speak about two different states of the same thing....

You are not making much sense. Matter is something that has the properties of mass and volume. 

So what are "two different states of the same thing"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

If c2 is meant be c-squared then that is not a velocity. 

Isn't it the speed of light squared?  I recognize that in a moment of observation we have volume rather than velocity.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are not making much sense. Matter is something that has the properties of mass and volume. 

 

I know. Just let it go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Isn't it the speed of light squared?  I recognize that in a moment of observation we have volume rather than velocity.

C^2 in an equation is not equivalent to the velocity of twice the speed of light in reality. Objects which have mass cannot travel above or at the speed of light. Mathematics is just a tool which helps us to describe whats going on around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, koti said:

C^2 in an equation is not equivalent to the velocity of twice the speed of light in reality. Objects which have mass cannot travel above or at the speed of light. Mathematics is just a tool which helps us to describe whats going on around us.

This I understand. 

What c2 exactly refers to in the equation? 

As far as I am able to sense, it says Energy = Mass in SpaceTime

I know it is crazy....and I also think that while space can be volume, time can be just information. Still physical....

 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.