[shaded-enmity]

My crazy pet theory: computational bandwidth is constant for any spacetime coordinate. According to Bekenstein bound the lower the temperature of the system the cheaper it is to flip a bit of information. As time progresses the CMBR gets colder, so it's cheaper to flip a bit, but conversely, as time progresses our Hubble volume gets smaller, limiting our total available energy budget to perform a bit flip.

[goldenkey]

None of these theories are crazy at all. Special relativity is directly derivable from energy causing a fixed amount of change (action) per unit time.

When the information/computational changes that the energy is allocated, is used for non-local movement, then we consider this to be an aspect of velocity, and the amount of changes leftover for internal changes, which effectively are internal time, is decreased by a ratio equivalent to the standard time dilation formulas.

Movement is change...change requires energy allocation, movement diminishes other interactions, hence time dilation, hence special relativity.

Wolfram talks about this in his new graph based model of physics. Mass is an emergent metric of the amount of internal changes occurring in an object per unit time. Essentially, causal loops in the graph. Feynman had a toy model called the checkerboard model where the amount of bouncing in an area represented mass.

https://youtu.be/xQafZ3CvBUs

[jpitz]

Movement does not require energy, acceleration does.

[goldenkey]

You're wrong. What you probably meant is that movement does not require external/additional energy. It uses already allocated energy.

Once you grasp this, you will understand why action is measured in units of Energy x Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

[jpitz]

Let me clarify my feelings here.

>>You're wrong. This is no problem. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm happy to be told I'm wrong.

>>What you probably meant is [...] This is problematic to me. I'm a grown adult, I own what I said, and I said precisely what I meant. When it's wrong, it's wrong, and no, I don't want to retcon that in some feeble attempt to save face, and I certainly don't want others to do that for me.

Obviously, this is not my field. Is movement and motion here the same thing? Motion is relative, so this energy "use" here is relative - in some reference frames where an object would be observed as at rest, is it still "using" energy? You see these quotes? That's because I don't really understand what "use" means here. An object in motion is in motion as a consequence of acceleration, which requires energy, and certainly possesses unrealized kinetic energy, but it isn't consuming energy. So what does "use" mean here?

[goldenkey]

> in some reference frames where an object would be observed as at rest, is it still "using" energy

There are numerous ways to measure relativistic mass (total energy) of a system from outside of it. As long as there is a measured energy, it is still using energy. Observation tricks usually just juggle energy from potential to kinetic, they don't change the total energy, so they don't change the usage.

> I don't really understand what "use" means here.

Energy causes change. The total amount of energy of a system measures the total number of changes happening every second, essentially actions per second. Action = Energy x Time = (Action / Seconds) * Seconds = Action

Energy is really only transformed, it is never created nor destroyed, you probably already know this basic tenet that Einstein espoused. The energy of mass is commonly thought to be "at rest" but in actuality, mass is just the phenomena of localizing the changes that the energy must cause. When this localization is upset, you get a nuclear explosion, a lot of change that once was concealed.

We might want to know how many changes per second a single Joule of energy causes. We can calculate this by taking the inverse of the Planck constant. Since Planck constant, h = Joule / Hz [1], the inverse would give us Hz / Joule. Which yields a value of about 10^34 Hz per Joule of energy.

I wish I knew all of this earlier in my life, as a lot of my _energy_ was spent on trying to do Cellular Automata simulations of our universe. Knowing how fast our universe computes, makes any simulation attempts with our current computers seem quite foolish if magnitude matters at all. Some might still argue the rules are more important, but sometimes, as you see in strength sports, even a 50% difference in strength beats any technique advantage a fighter can muster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value

[jpitz]

You do have a way with words. Congratulations.

[goldenkey]

An object possessing kinetic energy continues to move unless acted on by an external force/energy. It's literally Newton's first law. It doesn't move for free though. Energy bound to the object is being allocated every Planck second that it moves. That energy could have instead been used for internal interactions, local time for that object, if it were at rest with the same relativistic mass.

Time dilation is a consequence of energy having to be divvied up between external and internal changes.

Nothing I am saying is controversial. But yes, I am making it much easier for everyone to see that movement is just change of state/information, and that all energy causes a constant change of information per unit time.

The universe is computational, not really a surprise...

[meowface]

Although I'm skeptical of the correctness of Wolfram's grand new theory/hypothesis of everything, there are many intuitively appealing aspects of it, and I wouldn't be surprised if some aspects of the theory may help find or understand future discoveries. (Though maybe not; I'm definitely not an expert.)

Here's a detailed explanation of the hypothesis in a Lex Fridman podcast episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1_ffaFXao

[goldenkey]

Thanks, I'm also a big fan of Fridman. He's Rogan 2.0.