PDA

View Full Version : A universe made of binary particles?



Professor Tanhauser
2006-Aug-16, 08:12 AM
As far as we know, virtually every single thing in the universe can be modeled on a computer, from sub atmoic particles to galaxies IF you have a BIG enhough computer and enough ACCURATE data. Computers can model the decay of nuclear material and the motions of galaxies and everything inbetween, with the possible exception of emotions.

Now, given that possibly everything in the universe can be modeled with computers and that computers are, fundamentally, nothing but a system based on 1s and 0s, I can't help wondering something:

If everything in the universe can be modeled with nothing more than vast numbers of 1s and 0s, a binary system, then is it possible that the universe itself is based on a binary system?

Is it possible that, at the fundamental basis of the universe, we might someday find that all matter and energy are composed of nothing more than two ultimately basic particles, perhaps nothing but a positive binome and a negative binome?

I just can't help wondering if we ever get down to the ultimately indivisible particles, assuming they exist, we may find two and only two, and we could call them the fundamental binome particles.

From these all existance is built up, by the combination and action of countless positive and negative binomes, just like a computer model of anything is built up from 1s and 0s.

I wondered if there was any fundamental flaw in my logic I have not percieved at this time, and if so what it might be.

ToSeek
2006-Aug-16, 02:42 PM
You can't model quantum physics no matter how good a computer you have - some things at that level just happen at random (like which specific atom in a mass of plutonium decays at any given moment).

Squashed
2006-Aug-16, 05:38 PM
... From these all existance is built up, by the combination and action of countless positive and negative binomes, just like a computer model of anything is built up from 1s and 0s. ...

I was thinking something similar where every component of the universe is ultimately made from a single charge: +1 ; but that this charge has two possible locations that it oscillates between and so the 2nd empty position becomes the -1 or zero. Then this linear path spins because of the electromagnetic field created by the moving charge which creates quasi-particles.

It sounded kinda kool, to me, but my knowledge of electromechanics is too limited to know if this could be the basis of actual reality.

The reason I started with only one charge is because it seems more of a "chance occurance" for a single charge to come into being than for 2 separate, but complementary, charges to be needed to build the universe.

Bluescreen
2006-Aug-17, 12:55 AM
How does it work, and why does it draw bodies together? Why does Gravity have the power to bend light, but is still considered a weak force? I have some suggestions that need peer review, and I am not published yet. First, much of our current math is based on a single brane non-co-habitating existance. Things are changing in the physics world. I believe in a universe that has different energy levels in different places. These places are commonly referred to as branes. Branes cannot interact, but they all feel the effects, and therefore influence gravity. Think of the red laser and the blue laser shining through one another without influencing each other. These branes have different energy levels which I will refer to as hot and cold branes. These branes can inhabit the same place in spacetime without influencing each other. The universe wants to balance the energy levels of these two places, but needs a medium. Even though the red and blue lasers cannot influence each other, if you put a brick where they intersect, both lasers will heat it up. The universe creates matter in the places where the two branes intersect. HOW?! Each brane is made up of strings. These strings vibrate at a common harmonic unique to their brane. Whenever you get two sources of vibration that are out of sync with each other, you get a bunch of noise, but every so often, the pitch and volume of two strings will be equal. This equality creates a resonance, and an energy node between the two branes through which the two (or more) branes attempt to balance their energy levels. While energy is flowing through these two strings, they have the ability to exist in all phases simultaneously. The hot brane energy gets pumped in, and it is translated into heat and radiation, or kenetic motion, or influence on other resonating strings. So now you have three strings resonating, and growing louder because there is more energy being pushed through them. Now you have more strings...Now you have matter. How does gravity work? The denser and more massive the collection of resonating strings, the more energy is pumped through them. Resonating strings feel that flow of energy, and get carried along with it because of resistance. The earth translates the energy into heat, radiation, and kinetic motion. Here is a riddle for you...you have a ballance with two pans, and three identicle weights. Your job is to make the pans balanced. Can you do it? Yes. One of the weights must be in transition at all times. The universe will never be able to balance the weights, but that's ok, because we rely on the transition to keep the laws of physics in effect. By the way, dark matter is just the amount of energy that is in transition between the hot and cold branes. Tell me what you think.
Eric Heyworth
eric3663@hotmail.com

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-17, 03:24 AM
The "Universe as simulation" idea isn't new, especially in science fiction. You might be interested in "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram. Here's the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science_%28_book_%29)

I don't pretend to understand his idea in depth, but I gather he believes that computation of a kind may be fundamental to the operation of the universe.

Professor Tanhauser
2006-Aug-17, 05:54 AM
The "Universe as simulation" idea isn't new, especially in science fiction. You might be interested in "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram. Here's the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science_%28_book_%29)

I don't pretend to understand his idea in depth, but I gather he believes that computation of a kind may be fundamental to the operation of the universe.


No, I wasn't endorsing the univsese as asimulation, I was wondering if the univserse could be built up from two basic particles, just like a system running with only two digits can model the universe.

Essentially I wonder if the universe might be nothing but just postivie and negative particles, just like every computer model is nothing but ones and zeroes when you get down to basics.

01101001
2006-Aug-17, 06:49 AM
No, I wasn't endorsing the univsese as asimulation, I was wondering if the univserse could be built up from two basic particles, just like a system running with only two digits can model the universe.
So does string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory), where strings are either open or closed (like "1" or "0"!) give you good vibes?

Professor Tanhauser
2006-Aug-21, 04:03 AM
So does string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory), where strings are either open or closed (like "1" or "0"!) give you good vibes?

Hmmm, thanks.

Ken G
2006-Aug-21, 01:36 PM
This reminds me of the "yin/yang" principle, which to me, sounds like the observation that existence is a manifestation of contrast. White chalk on a white board is nothing, it needs to be on a blackboard to exist. So I do think there is something to the idea that the simplest way to get nontrivial behavior is to have two contrasting things, but this does not mean the universe does it that way. For example, you can have three contrasting things, or 12, and I'm sure computers could be built based on those numbers systems and do the same simulations. There's no guarantee it will be done in the simplest way-- look at DNA. But even more importantly, I would expound on ToSeek's point, and say that a simulation is never more than a bunch of numbers, but a universe is not that. Any simulation requires more than meets the eye to be meaningful-- you have to know what the numbers mean. The meaning is added by the person interpreting the simulation. How does that happen in the universe, and where is the numerical representation of that? I would argue the opposite point-- I don't think "nature" has the slightest idea what a number is. It couldn't-- that would involve too much computational complexity to even "figure out" where pool balls go after the break, or how dice will roll, or quantum mechanics to take it to the extreme. Nature just happens, numbers come from us, from our efforts to interpret what we see.