Warp wrote:
>   For one, timespace, ie. the geometry of the Universe is not energy.
> It's the "container" where the energy in the Universe resides, in other
> words it *contains* energy, it's not energy in itself.

I don't think science has determined this. GR is background-free, so in a 
sense, space-time is a relationship between other things and nothing more. 
It's not a "something" but an effect.

>   What about the four fundamental interactions? Are they energy, or are
> they some property of the Universe distinct from energy? 

They're energy in the sense that they're mass in the sense that they're 
mediated by particles (assuming one finds gravitons, at least). The electric 
force is photons interacting with electrons, for example, both of which are 
energy.

> (Another point which would indicate that information is not
> energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but information can.)

Actually, there's good reason to think information cannot be destroyed. 
That's what lead to postulating the holographic principle and hawking 
radiation. The basic problem is that the QM theories preserve certain kinds 
of information that GR does not, so matter falling into a black hole 
violates quantum mechanics in a very fundamental way.

I'm not sure I can go any farther than that. I'm not even certain you're 
mistaken in saying information isn't energy, spacetime isn't energy, etc. 
Just commenting on the bits I've vaguely understood. I can't really say I 
understand it well enough to say yes or no on any of it. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message