0
$\begingroup$

A physics friend of mine asserted today that within the field of information theory, information can be thought of as a conserved quantity. this put me in mind of Noether's theorem and motivated the following question; if it is ill-posed or meaningless, please let me know before you downvote and I will delete it so it doth not offend:

If information within a defined dynamical system is a conserved quantity, can Noether's theorem be used to tell us anything about the lagrangian of that system, and what the symmetry is which is responsible for that conserved quantity?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Worth noting: the calculation of the amount of information in a system is not only notoriously difficult, it's actually known to be uncalculatable in many cases. $\endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ agree. But I was wondering if my question has already been considered & answered by workers in that field- about which I know very little, but which fascinates me greatly. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 0:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related/possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/29175/50583 and its linked questions $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 0:45

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Yes, information in its basic simplest form, in quantum theory, is the state of the system (which could be composed of many subsystems). A physical system is defined by a state vector. It could and often is infinite dimensional, but could also have finite dimensional Hilbert subspaces (like the spin). The evolution of a system,considered a pure state, is given by a unitary operator which preserves causality (at the Hilbert space level, not in the probabilistic interpretation of collapse and measurements). You can always go back by applying the inverse operator. When the state becomes mixed information can be considered to be lost, and entropy increases.

The preservation of information is thought, in this way of describing it, to be equivalent to the unitary evolution of a system.

The problem that arose with Black Holes (BH), the No Hair Theorem and the Hawking radiation from a BH which is thermal (i.e., no information) is that as matter falls into the BH, say a pure electron, the BH keeps no trace of it, and as it the BH evaporates no state that was the unitary evolution of the electron state remains, i.e. information is lost. There is an unresolved paradox, the BH information paradox, with partial but not totally resolved solution. The most recent thought is that the information remains in the horizon as some kinds of quantum hair, and there is entanglements between particles being radiated as Hawking radiation and somehow it does not get lost, nothing fully shown but somewhat backed up by the AdS/CFT correspondence (gravity in the bulk is equivalent to a CFT on its surface).

The information loss paradox describes the paradox, but also explains the meaning of information (basically the unitarity of the state evolution in quantum theory), why information is thus assumed to be conserved, and why it would violate all kinds of physics if it is not. See a simple summary at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

There are plenty of articles and even books on it. There was a bet between Hawking and Susskind as to whether information was lost or gravity was wrong. Hawking paid up, but it's all still is not perfectly clear, and won't be till there is a quantum theory of gravity.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ this was useful, thanks for taking the time to write it out. to help my understanding: is it true that imposing the condition of unitarity is in some sense the same as asserting that the sum of all probabilities in the process(es) at hand is equal to one? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 3:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Exactly right. See it at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) and any QM books, it's how unitarity is derived as a requirement. So there's not much arguing with it.it means as a system evolves, all tHe probabilities better still add up to 1. That's why the paradox is/was so bothersome. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Bee
    Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 5:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ie, conservation of probability is in this sense conservation of information and that things just don't simply disappear, or worse, appear. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Bee
    Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ I have tried to answer a relevant question here physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427609/… , but as I am getting negative votes , I would appreciate if you tackle it and clear things up, if you have the time and inclination of course. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Sep 10, 2018 at 5:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.