Is information the 5th state of matter?

[allisrelative]

Recent Science headlines are abuzz about a new theory.

Physicists claim information is the fifth state of matter. By 2245, half of Earth’s mass could be converted to digital bits

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-fifth-state-matter-0252/

Digital Information Threatens to Consume The Planet's Mass, Physicist Claims

https://www.sciencealert.com/digita...onsume-the-planet-s-mass-physicist-calculates

This is coming from this paper:

The information catastrophe

ABSTRACT
Currently, we produce ∼10^21 digital bits of information annually on Earth. Assuming a 20% annual growth rate, we estimate that after ∼350 years from now, the number of bits produced will exceed the number of all atoms on Earth, ∼10^50. After ∼300 years, the power required to sustain this digital production will exceed 18.5 × 10^15 W, i.e., the total planetary power consumption today, and after ∼500 years from now, the digital content will account for more than half Earth’s mass, according to the mass-energy–information equivalence principle. Besides the existing global challenges such as climate, environment, population, food, health, energy, and security, our estimates point to another singular event for our planet, called information catastrophe.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0019941

Dr. Vopson from the University of Portsmouth Math and Physics Department talks about a mass-energy-information equivalence. The theory hasn't been tested yet but it has some grounding in Landauer’s principle which points to a connection between thermodynamics and information. Landauer predicted that erasing a bit of information requires a dissipation of energy. It was confirmed in several experiments.

High-precision test of Landauer's principle in a feedback trap

We confirm Landauer's 1961 hypothesis that reducing the number of possible macroscopic states in a system by a factor of two requires work of at least kT ln 2. Our experiment uses a colloidal particle in a time-dependent, virtual potential created by a feedback trap to implement Landauer's erasure operation. In a control experiment, similar manipulations that do not reduce the number of system states can be done reversibly. Erasing information thus requires work. In individual cycles, the work to erase can be below the Landauer limit, consistent with the Jarzynski equality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5089

The paper says:

We now examine this issue considering deeper physical implications. In 2019, the mass–energy–information equivalence principle was formulated,12 stating that information is physical, and it transcends into mass or energy depending on its state. Although this principle still awaits an experimental verification, assuming it is correct, it opens up interesting possibilities with wide ranging implications for computing technologies, physics, and cosmology. The mass–energy–information equivalence principle explains the mechanism by which a classical digital bit of information at equilibrium stores data without energy dissipation, requiring the bit to acquire a mass equal to mbit, while it stores information. Essentially, a bit of information could be seen as an abstract information particle, with no charge, no spin, and rest mass, mbit = (kBT · ln(2))/c2, where kB is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature at which the information is stored, and c is the speed of light. In fact, it was proposed that “information” is not only the fifth form of matter along solid, liquid, gas, and plasma but also possibly the dominant form of matter in the universe.12 Although this principle was first formulated in 2019, these ideas are not new. The legendary physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, considered the universe made up of three parts: particles, fields, and information. In fact, Wheeler proposed reformulating the whole physics in terms of the information theory.

In closing it says something very interesting.

In conclusion, we established that the incredible growth of digital information production would reach a singularity point when there are more digital bits created than atoms on the planet. At the same time, the digital information production alone will consume most of the planetary power capacity, leading to ethical and environmental concerns already recognized by Floridi who introduced the concept of “infosphere” and considered challenges posed by our digital information society.27 These issues are valid, regardless of the future developments in data storage technologies. In terms of digital data, the mass–energy–information equivalence principle formulated in 2019 has not yet been verified experimentally, but assuming this is correct, then in not the very distant future, most of the planet’s mass will be made up of bits of information. Applying the law of conservation in conjunction with the mass–energy–information equivalence principle, it means that the mass of the planet is unchanged over time. However, our technological progress inverts radically the distribution of the Earth’s matter from predominantly ordinary matter to the fifth form of digital information matter. In this context, assuming the planetary power limitations are solved, one could envisage a future world mostly computer simulated and dominated by digital bits and computer code.

It's a long paper and a good read. Also check out his other paper on mass-energy-information equivalence.

If this is true, it would be very interesting. IBM says we create around 7.3 sextillion bits per year. This is before the internet of things and 5G really takes off.

This would mean we wouldn't have the energy to sustain growth in digital information. He also claims his theory could explain dark matter which in this case would be bits of information mass. Any thoughts on this theory and it's implications?

 

[russ_watters]

Multi-century exponential growth models are fun!

Meaningless, but fun.

Also, I see multiple uses of the word "state", but none of the content implies to me "state of matter." These sources are really poor.

 

[allisrelative]

Multi-century exponential growth models are fun!

Meaningless, but fun.

Also, I see multiple uses of the word "state", but none of the content implies to me "state of matter." These sources are really poor.

What?

Did you read the Published paper?

However, our technological progress inverts radically the distribution of the Earth’s matter from predominantly ordinary matter to the fifth form of digital information matter.

What do you mean poor sources? It's a paper from AIP Advances and another paper from Arxiv.

 

[allisrelative]

Moderators what are you moderating?

It's a paper from a well respected Journal AIP Advances and it's a theory grounded in confirmed science. I thought Moderators were suppose to Moderate not dictate.

There's nothing wrong with this post and it shouldn't matter whether Moderators like the subject matter or not.

 

[Dale]

Any thoughts on this theory and it's implications?

I think it is rather silly to speak of this as an impending catastrophe. The silliness is the idea that this 20% information growth rate will be sustained until everything collapses. You can make similar “catastrophe” predictions about everything.

If the annual growth in cow farts continues at the present rate for an absurd length of time then we will have an unbreathable methane atmosphere and the whole atmosphere will ignite with a single lightning bolt. In fact, using the paper’s approach applied to cow farts we will reach the bovine-produced methane singularity in less than two centuries, so that is a much more pressing concern.

The pop sci references are pretty distorted, so I would neglect them entirely.

 

[russ_watters]

What?

Did you read the Published paper?

However, our technological progress inverts radically the distribution of the Earth’s matter from predominantly ordinary matter to the fifth form of digital information matter.

What do you mean poor sources? It's a paper from AIP Advances and another paper from Arxiv.

Skimmed, but also searched.
[edit]
Ok, it says "form of matter" instead of "state of matter", so when I searched I didn't see it.

It's thin to say the least. I don't see a reason to suggest that this "information matter" is anything distinct from ordinary matter. E.G., a hard drive has mass because it is ordinary matter. If the mass changes with the information content (we've had that discussion before), that mass is still ordinary matter. Similarly, the energy emitted by a computer is just ordinary heat. Not a special type of "information-energy" unless one wants to give it a label that doesn't mean much.

 

[Dale]

Moderators what are you moderating?

It's a paper from a well respected Journal AIP Advances

Ok, take a step back. You posted many links. Of those links most were pop-sci sources that basically really distorted the already-inflated claims of the original technical paper. So if you post a whole bunch of eye-catching junk and one technical reference then you cannot get too outraged by people calling you out on the junk.

As far as the technical paper goes, AIP Advances is not “well respected”. It has an impact factor of 1.6, so that is closer to “publish here after your 3rd rejection” than it is to “well respected”. Its Article Impact score is 0.5 meaning that its articles have half the impact of an average article. That Article Impact score ranks it as the 62nd best journal in the applied physics category.

The sorts of criticism you are getting are entirely appropriate for the sources. Note that the discussion is being allowed per our rules, so you are not being suppressed. These are substantive criticisms of the sources.

 

[kuruman]

Does this prove that uninformed people don't matter?

Forgive the levity; I have been cooped up for too long.

 

[cgmoran]

@allisrelative If it helps, the complete dismissal from others of what your original point was is clear to me. I understand your frustration. While I certainly embrace critique, unneeded negativity/pessimism that clouds the light of your original thought is difficult to watch. Who cares if it's pop sci? Pop sci got you interested in the idea and prompted you to dig further, find papers, and see something interesting that you wanted to share with others in a physics forum.

Anyways, I came across this post after researching this topic from a completely different angle and there is something to this. This sentence in this paper caught my eye: In this letter the Landauer’s principle is extrapolated to the mass - energy - information equivalence principle by providing viable arguments that the physical nature of digital information requires a bit of information to have a very small, non-zero mass.

This "bit of information to have a very small, non-zero mass" is equivalent to descriptions of neutrinos. Neutrinos are also thought to have a relationship with dark matter. I'm trying to dig into this possible relationship further.

I was recently working on 5G data networks and in the IoT industry and just from an initial intuitive mathematics approach, I believe the consequences they are describing are in fact plausible based on what I've seen with irresponsible/unmanaged data production/collection/processing/centers and computing resources etc...enough to make a moral decision to leave the work I was doing.

Will be interesting to see if science, particularly particle physics science, can keep up with industry and maybe if more of us can stay open to questions like this, we might actually be able to create a better future proactively instead of reactively if the consequences turn out to be true.

 

[Dale]

I believe the consequences they are describing are in fact plausible

Really? You honestly think that, unlike everything else produced by humans, that the amount of information will plausibly continue to grow at the same rate for the next 300 years. Can you think of any example of any other thing that humans produce which has grown at the same rate between 1700 until now? If not, then what makes you think that it is plausible that information will grow at the same rate for the next 300 years?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

 

[berkeman]

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

Quiz Question, what movie is that from?

Spoiler

Oops, I was thinking of Buckaroo Banzai -- "Wherever you go, there you are."

The actual quote is discussed here: Stein's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's attributed to Herbert Stein, but I think it might be older. Like maybe Cicero in one of his more obscure speeches or writings. I can't even find my copy of In Verrem.

 

[PeterDonis]

Landauer predicted that erasing a bit of information requires a dissipation of energy.

No, that's not what he predicted, and not what the cited experiment shows.

What he predicted, and what the cited experiment shows, is that transferring a bit of information from a controlled storage place where the bit's value is readable and can be kept track of and preserved, to the environment, where the bit's value is no longer readable and can't be kept track of and preserved, requires a dissipation of energy. The information is never destroyed; it's just no longer trackable.

The hype in the articles referenced in the OP seems to me to be trading on the same confusion.

 

[cgmoran]

Really? You honestly think that, unlike everything else produced by humans, that the amount of information will plausibly continue to grow at the same rate for the next 300 years. Can you think of any example of any other thing that humans produce which has grown at the same rate between 1700 until now? If not, then what makes you think that it is plausible that information will grow at the same rate for the next 300 years? Has information grown at a constant rate over the last 100 years?

I would say that I believe there's a higher probability of unexpected growth rate changes and/or peaks in the next 300 years that are worth paying attention to more than the last 300 years due to the speed of the latest technology advancements/usage. My only point is to be open to the idea now so we don't have to look up in even 100 years and ask how did this happen?

No, I don’t think information is growing because I believe energy is information, but I know information storage/compute/transfer resources are growing exponentially, replicating and processing information as an extension of humans with no overseer and will continue growing at a faster rate than anything comparable to what we’ve seen since 1700.

 

[PeterDonis]

I know information storage/compute/transfer resources are growing exponentially

Reference, please?

Also, what is your definition of "resources"? In terms of bytes, exponential growth might be a reasonable approximation (though I would still want to see the data), but that's not the same as actual physical resources consumed. The hard drive in the computer I'm typing this on consumes less physical resources than the one I the computer I had 20 years ago, but stores about 4 orders of magnitude more bytes.

 

[A.T.]

I know information storage/compute/transfer resources are growing exponentially,

But not with a constant exponent-factor. Just saying "exponential" doesn't mean much. In real life the exponent-factor is never constant, and long term predictions assuming that it is, are nonsense.

See for example:

From: https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/using-fpgas-survive-death-moore’s-law-part-1

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Can you think of any example of any other thing that humans produce which has grown at the same rate between 1700 until now?

Hi Dale:

I confess I have a problem in trying to give a reasonable answer to your question. I understand that the topic of global warming is not permitted here, so I am definitely trying to avoid discussing this topic. I found a source of charts about fossil fuel usage over one to two centuries, and also a reference to the antiquity of the use of this resource.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=chart+showing+use+of+fossile+fuels+ove+a+long+period+of+time&atb=v203-1&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://longtailpipe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/anthro-greenhouse-gas.png​

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/complete-history-fossil-fuels-210000253.html​

I find this data to have some relationship to your question, but I apologize for my failure to do a better research job.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Dale]

I found a source of charts about fossil fuel usage over one to two centuries, and also a reference to the antiquity of the use of this resource.

Very good example. In the chart it is crystal clear that even over just 150 years the growth in our fossil fuel consumption has not been a constant annual rate. It is in fact much closer to piecewise linear function than any exponential function.