/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8633553
http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

Mind you, that article for babies includes GPS, but if the fact that you have to use relativity calculations to keep those working right is "not tangible testable evidence" then you're one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks tens of thousands of engineers, physicists, college professors, et. al. are conspiring to lie about how physics works, without even being paid to do so.

...and that's a trigger for me. People who think folks are conspiring to lie to them en mass, simply because they can't wrap their head around a concept or it's slightly unintuitive. Or, in other instances, because it interferes with their business interests, or worse, in some way conflicts with their world view.

In other words, they can't be wrong, therefore the world is.

It's particularly frustrating to watch old folks dying with dementia pick up this pattern of thought and makes them near impossible to deal with. I sometimes wonder if the thought process is the source of the dementia itself, simply extending itself to anything and everything.

If the Theory of Relativity is just that; a theory, would that not mean everything ever taught in any Physics course is not, in fact, a truth, but rather an unproven answer to a hypothesis?

>>2245339
Fully familiar with the holographic principle, but I'm not asking about the information content of the universe. I'm asking about the information content of an isolated system neglecting universal contributions.

How would the surface area relationship help us find the information content of a human or a proton? I take it as a given that a system as complex as a human being has both a classical and quantum information content.

As for whether it is an experimental question or not? I'm asking to count the information content of a physical thing using empirical methods on the premise that information is physical. If it's not subject to experimental methods, we'll find that out as a null-result, and it will invalidate my hypothesis; otherwise, there exists an experiment to measure the information content if information is physical.

get