From: Matt Mahoney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2008 - 17:38:01 MDT
--- Jeff L Jones <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Jeff L Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > You *cannot* derive it from those, as it depends on completely
> > different physical constants from those (such as the fine structure
> > constant, lots of electroweak parameters, the QCD scale, etc.). If
> > you are putting in those numbers and getting something close to the
> > proton mass, then it is purely coincidence... you haven't done
> > anything meaningful, you've just put a bunch of random numbers
> > together. It seems to me that no matter what you got when you divided
> > V by S, you would have claimed it was an interesting coincidence. I
> > mean, if you had gotten the size of an atom, you would say "oh wow, 1
> > bit per atom"... if you had gotten the size of the solar system, you
> > would have said "wow, 1 bit per solar system!" But bits per volume
> > means nothing. There is nothing significant about that quotient
> > coming out near the proton mass. There are plenty of other masses of
> > particles that it could have come out near.
> > Jeff
> Also, how did you start talking about the proton mass? I thought you
> said it comes out near the proton *volume*. These are two different
> unrelated things. But regardless of which it comes out nearby (if
> either), it's not going to tell you anything interesting.
Mass and size are related by Planck's constant.
Anyway, maybe it's not interesting to you that a bit is the size of the
smallest stable particle, but it's interesting to me. The entropy of the
universe puts an upper bound on the biggest memory you can build, independent
of whatever particles the universe might contain. It also suggests a
relationship between the strong force and gravity.
-- Matt Mahoney, email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT