Yet quantum theory explicitly states information cannot be lost. Information not being lost is a corner stone of quantum theory. Your simplification is outright wrong.
Time is a perception, like color. You can know the past and future based on information. Cause and effect gives determinism to the Universe. Unless you don't believe in cause and effect, the basis of science.
It's more accurate to say "speed of information propagation". Light so happens to propagate at or very near the maximum rate of information through space-time.
I used to think the event horizon was when acceleration was the speed of light, but it's not. It's when the escape velocity is the speed of light. An ever increasing blackhole would have an event horizon where the gravitational acceleration of the event horizon would asymptotically approach zero. All the event horizon means is you cannot have enough initial energy to gravitationally escape the blackhole.
I don't know the math, but all they say is you can't gravitationally escape the blackhole, but they don't say you can't escape the blackhole. No frame of reference ever passes into the blackhole. My guess is that as space contracts, it will look like other objects are moving further an further away. At some point an object make look as if it is moving away faster than light, meaning it is out of your light cone. You can still attempt to approach it and get closer to where it was but not where it is, but you'll never interact with it again. The other side of things is if you start to approach the object before it recedes faster than light, you may theoretically be able to interact with it again, given enough time.
Yet scientists claim passing the horizon should be unnoticeable.
Because the event horizon is relative and different for all observers. One observer may see someone approaching the event horizon, but the one approaching the horizon may see that the horizon is still far away. "Passing" the horizon would be unnoticeable for the in-falling observer because from their frame of reference, they haven't passed it yet. Of course I don't think any observer would ever see any other object reach the event horizon, yet alone get past it.
Taken as a whole, the past present and future of a system can be described by its information at any point in time. Just think of forensics. It uses present information to figure out the state of the past. When talking about information at the Universe level, you can figure out the state of the past Universe perfectly assuming you have perfect access to all of the present information in the Universe.
The other way to look at it is destroying information destroys the energy it represents. Since energy also represents mass, if you destroy information, how does the mass of a blackhole increase? By definition destroying the information destroys the mass the information represents meaning the blackhole does not gain mass from in-falling matter/energy. That makes no sense.
For every unique cause is a unique effect. You can know what the cause was based on the effect. If the effect disappears, you can't know what the cause was. Anyway, if information is destroyed, that means the energy it represented is destroyed which means it cannot contribute to the mass of a system. It's contradictory to say the mass of a blackhole increases if the information is destroyed. A blackhole is created by too much information and it is itself a blob of information. The question isn't "why does a blackhole destroy information", but "what mechanism does a blackhole use to allow information to be recovered".
Particles aren't information, they're made of information. Energy is made of information. It takes information to describe something. Anything that can be described is made of information.
I'm not much for people who think wifi is dangerous, but unless this 1kw antenna was on top of a tall mast to keep the square law strong, that's a lot of energy.
BS! Find me a network of unlimited speed that doesn't cost more to upgrade capacity and I'll eat my words. What, no luck?
You ignore the elephant in the room. General maintenance. As old equipment dies, you need to replace it with new equipment. This alone will result in a faster network, cheaper parts, and more reliable parts. The problem is Cable and DSL network are not compatible with modern equipment , so they continue to use old equipment that is slower, more power hungry, less reliable, or they have to purchase special new equipment that is much more expensive than fiber equipment , but is backwards compatible with their old network.
The top two costs of an general ISP is Customer Service and Network Maintenance. Upgrading is an investment that saves money.
The connection costs more than the bandwidth, that's why. Want to save $1 on your bill because you use 1/1000th the bandwidth as someone else. Ohh wait. Tracking your bandwidth usage complicates pricing at the ISP, which means more overhead. Now they need to add an extra $5 to your bill to manage different bills. You increased your bill $4 to save $1. Great job Einstein.
I'm glad I don't have a cap anymore. A few weeks back I blew through 970GiB in 3 days with an overall network utilization average of only 16%. At 3.5TiB this month so far.
When looking at my average bandwidth over the length of a video, when my wife streams it's about 5Mb/s and when I stream with SuperHD it's about 8Mb/s. That's assuming the SuperHD player isn't spazzing. Sometimes it like to rebuffer and I can get upwards of a 20Mb-30Mb/s average over the period of a video. I haven't had that issue in a while, but for several weeks a few months ago, it was happening all the time, so I stopped using SuperHD just because it'd pause to buffer constantly. At one point I had an 80Mb/s average over a 5 minute period because it kept rebuffering.
WDM-PON is backwards compatible with GPON. It is the GPON protocol, it just has multiple lambdas of it. Using a GPON ONT, your GPON head port can be WDM-PON, and your ISP just puts a passive filter on your fiber and your GPON ONT thinks it's talking to a normal GPON head unit. The WDM-PON head unit see 32 ONTs talking on different lambdas. 40Gb/s of total bandwidth and dedicated per ONT. Newer ONTs don't need filters.
NG-PON2 is a different beast.current up to 8 lambdas of 10Gb using a hybrid TDMA/WDM setup. The head unit tells each ONT which lambda to look at for a given time slice. The ONTs only use one lambda at a time, but 80Gb/s of bandwidth is a lot of share with 32 people, even if it's not dedicated.
But PON can still have guarantees about latency and bandwidth. GPON can be configured to make sure all customers will never have more than 0.5ms of latency at the cost of total bandwidth efficiency. 0.5ms is something like 90% of total bandwidth, but 2ms is like 99%. So everyone gets 0 packet loss and 2ms latency even when the fiber is fully saturated. Bandwidth is configured by setting minimums and GPON will guarantee that an endpoint never gets less than that amount of bandwidth.
Even if GPON is shared, you can still have a dedicated minimum bandwidth. My ISP sets your minimum and maximum at the same value. Even if all 32 customers are running at full speed, you'll never notice.
I don't know what kind of crap you get, but my newer lightbulbs have a cheaper lifetime cost, give a better spectrum, and last a hell of a lot longer. They'er a win in all categories except up-front cost and how to dispose of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The QM definition of entropy is information loss
Yet quantum theory explicitly states information cannot be lost. Information not being lost is a corner stone of quantum theory. Your simplification is outright wrong.
Energy and particles are not made of information
Yet they cannot exist without information. Energy and information are like space and time, you can't describe one without the other.
Time is a perception, like color. You can know the past and future based on information. Cause and effect gives determinism to the Universe. Unless you don't believe in cause and effect, the basis of science.
It's more accurate to say "speed of information propagation". Light so happens to propagate at or very near the maximum rate of information through space-time.
I used to think the event horizon was when acceleration was the speed of light, but it's not. It's when the escape velocity is the speed of light. An ever increasing blackhole would have an event horizon where the gravitational acceleration of the event horizon would asymptotically approach zero. All the event horizon means is you cannot have enough initial energy to gravitationally escape the blackhole.
I don't know the math, but all they say is you can't gravitationally escape the blackhole, but they don't say you can't escape the blackhole. No frame of reference ever passes into the blackhole. My guess is that as space contracts, it will look like other objects are moving further an further away. At some point an object make look as if it is moving away faster than light, meaning it is out of your light cone. You can still attempt to approach it and get closer to where it was but not where it is, but you'll never interact with it again. The other side of things is if you start to approach the object before it recedes faster than light, you may theoretically be able to interact with it again, given enough time.
Yet scientists claim passing the horizon should be unnoticeable.
Because the event horizon is relative and different for all observers. One observer may see someone approaching the event horizon, but the one approaching the horizon may see that the horizon is still far away. "Passing" the horizon would be unnoticeable for the in-falling observer because from their frame of reference, they haven't passed it yet. Of course I don't think any observer would ever see any other object reach the event horizon, yet alone get past it.
Taken as a whole, the past present and future of a system can be described by its information at any point in time. Just think of forensics. It uses present information to figure out the state of the past. When talking about information at the Universe level, you can figure out the state of the past Universe perfectly assuming you have perfect access to all of the present information in the Universe.
The other way to look at it is destroying information destroys the energy it represents. Since energy also represents mass, if you destroy information, how does the mass of a blackhole increase? By definition destroying the information destroys the mass the information represents meaning the blackhole does not gain mass from in-falling matter/energy. That makes no sense.
It doesn't run forward either. Funny how that works. It just is.
Because information is made of matter and energy?
You got that reversed. Matter and energy is made of information. Universally unique information.
For every unique cause is a unique effect. You can know what the cause was based on the effect. If the effect disappears, you can't know what the cause was. Anyway, if information is destroyed, that means the energy it represented is destroyed which means it cannot contribute to the mass of a system. It's contradictory to say the mass of a blackhole increases if the information is destroyed. A blackhole is created by too much information and it is itself a blob of information. The question isn't "why does a blackhole destroy information", but "what mechanism does a blackhole use to allow information to be recovered".
Particles aren't information, they're made of information. Energy is made of information. It takes information to describe something. Anything that can be described is made of information.
Conservation of information is a property of causality.
I'm not much for people who think wifi is dangerous, but unless this 1kw antenna was on top of a tall mast to keep the square law strong, that's a lot of energy.
BS! Find me a network of unlimited speed that doesn't cost more to upgrade capacity and I'll eat my words. What, no luck?
You ignore the elephant in the room. General maintenance. As old equipment dies, you need to replace it with new equipment. This alone will result in a faster network, cheaper parts, and more reliable parts. The problem is Cable and DSL network are not compatible with modern equipment , so they continue to use old equipment that is slower, more power hungry, less reliable, or they have to purchase special new equipment that is much more expensive than fiber equipment , but is backwards compatible with their old network.
The top two costs of an general ISP is Customer Service and Network Maintenance. Upgrading is an investment that saves money.
The connection costs more than the bandwidth, that's why. Want to save $1 on your bill because you use 1/1000th the bandwidth as someone else. Ohh wait. Tracking your bandwidth usage complicates pricing at the ISP, which means more overhead. Now they need to add an extra $5 to your bill to manage different bills. You increased your bill $4 to save $1. Great job Einstein.
Leave the house?!
Wrong. The issue isn't the trunk, it's the last mile. Over 80% of the bandwidth of the last mile is for TV. Internet gets a small piece.
SuperHD is about 8Mb for me. That's measured on an entirely idle network, then taking the average throughput over the time of a 24min anime.
I'm glad I don't have a cap anymore. A few weeks back I blew through 970GiB in 3 days with an overall network utilization average of only 16%. At 3.5TiB this month so far.
When looking at my average bandwidth over the length of a video, when my wife streams it's about 5Mb/s and when I stream with SuperHD it's about 8Mb/s. That's assuming the SuperHD player isn't spazzing. Sometimes it like to rebuffer and I can get upwards of a 20Mb-30Mb/s average over the period of a video. I haven't had that issue in a while, but for several weeks a few months ago, it was happening all the time, so I stopped using SuperHD just because it'd pause to buffer constantly. At one point I had an 80Mb/s average over a 5 minute period because it kept rebuffering.
15 years ago when I used Linux, -O3 broke the Kernel.
$20 for a 20/20 dedicated bandwidth connection here. No hidden fees, no cap.
WDM-PON is backwards compatible with GPON. It is the GPON protocol, it just has multiple lambdas of it. Using a GPON ONT, your GPON head port can be WDM-PON, and your ISP just puts a passive filter on your fiber and your GPON ONT thinks it's talking to a normal GPON head unit. The WDM-PON head unit see 32 ONTs talking on different lambdas. 40Gb/s of total bandwidth and dedicated per ONT. Newer ONTs don't need filters.
NG-PON2 is a different beast.current up to 8 lambdas of 10Gb using a hybrid TDMA/WDM setup. The head unit tells each ONT which lambda to look at for a given time slice. The ONTs only use one lambda at a time, but 80Gb/s of bandwidth is a lot of share with 32 people, even if it's not dedicated.
But PON can still have guarantees about latency and bandwidth. GPON can be configured to make sure all customers will never have more than 0.5ms of latency at the cost of total bandwidth efficiency. 0.5ms is something like 90% of total bandwidth, but 2ms is like 99%. So everyone gets 0 packet loss and 2ms latency even when the fiber is fully saturated. Bandwidth is configured by setting minimums and GPON will guarantee that an endpoint never gets less than that amount of bandwidth.
Even if GPON is shared, you can still have a dedicated minimum bandwidth. My ISP sets your minimum and maximum at the same value. Even if all 32 customers are running at full speed, you'll never notice.
I don't know what kind of crap you get, but my newer lightbulbs have a cheaper lifetime cost, give a better spectrum, and last a hell of a lot longer. They'er a win in all categories except up-front cost and how to dispose of them.