>>13922749>you're outright confusing terms like bitrate and frequencyokay, I should have said symbol rate
>this seems like real pseudosciencedon't think so. I remember looking this guy up and it was some older professor of experimental physics from one of the more renowned european universities. Can't remember which one exactly though. There was also no reason to doubt that the name was just randomly add to it.
>>13922749>when it comes to high frequency switching, yes adding more oscillations per second requires more power. is this what you actually want explained?No, at least I don't think so. You're going into the technical aspects. This guy is an experimental physicist and it was an approach on the general concept of data processing.
The entire thing was explained very basic like it was adressing some 50yo blue collars who haven't had to do anything with physics or math for 30 years.
It started with explaining energy, frequency, information, action etc at middle school level.
There were mainly two important statements like already said in OP: the first one was that there is a lowest amount of action to differentiate between two states (to interprete any given information). The second one was the connection of energy and time with action, explaining that with a higher frequency (more information in a shorter period of time) you're going to need an equally higher amount of energy for detection. In this context I remember a diagram of energy over time with the area beaing the product ergo action. So basically, the short time you "measure" the state, the more energy the process of measurement will require to get a definite statement.
Like I said, this is a physical principle and does not have to do anything with the technical aspects like coding, compression, switching or anything.
