Could the universe be mapped out in binary code

Soldato
Joined
3 Apr 2009
Posts
3,973
Location
Warrington
Maybe the data could be stored as photons? There doesn't seem to be a limit on the number of photons that we can produce (other than the energy required to make them - would only need a few million stars linked up to a big laser... probably. Using photons, I don't see why you couldn't store data on every single particle, except photons, because then obviously you'd be screwed. (so just store the data for atoms, maybe some naturally produced electrons and protons... maybe). (unless you could store information for 'natural photons', but not the ones created for storage purposes... but then you'd probably need at least half the stars in the universe powering your laser system...)

If the system were to be practical, apart from the data collection, I think any form of processing would be impossible on any feasible timescale - maybe 1 nanosecond of simulation time per trillion trillion trillion years?? depending on the storage system used, and processing apparatus. (think of working out how every atom is affected by every other atom, and particle...)
But just for storage, I could envisage some ginormous circuit with magic photon containment somehow, going round the galaxy or something...
Or maybe a stream of photons going in a certain direction to another galaxy and back again, reflected from a perfectly reflecting mirror, with many streams going in many different directions....
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
26 Oct 2004
Posts
7,540
Location
Isle of Wight
Surely this in it's self is paradoxical. As someone has already stated, it would require the same amount of particles to represent this data, but if you look beyond that, it would be mapping it's self in a never ending loop?
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2006
Posts
6,358
Location
SE England
My initial response is how would one collect that all that data to begin with? There are galaxies, planets, stars, moons and other bodies out there that we cannot even observe as they are so far away.

My second knee jerk reaction to this question is we we can't even map out our earth in binary code, let alone the universe. The universe is forever changing much like the composition of atoms inside your kitchen.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
ok what films we been watching then :p

pi or some other similar type film ?

when ever anything like this appears they do 10101010 or whatever as its simple.

no it wouldnt be possible as it would have been done. we cant even map a brain nevermind the whole universe.

to break down a number to get some kind of code you would need somekind of finished number end product. which the universe never ends guess it would be reoccurring then :confused:
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,226
Location
Overground, underground..
More interesting, irational numbers like Pi, contains an infinte string of digits that never repeats itself in a disernable pattern. Somewhere inside the digits of Pi is therefore contained an exact sequence representation of life the universe and everything.

Who woulda thunk it!

You don't need to look far for the answer

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679....
:D
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2004
Posts
7,018
Location
England
There was something about this that I didn't understand on a documentary lately, it is called the hologram theory or something. The information is stored at the edge of the universe. I think I could understand it if I really wanted too, but I don't see the point in me learning it tbh.

I think you will find that with a hologram each part no matter how small has all the information of the whole, much like our own DNA.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 May 2004
Posts
6,116
Location
Derby
Isn't Pi, TT (π) in Greek!!! If so then the answer must be in the car manufacturer Audi. They got a car call Audi TT. So there lies the answer. Audi Pi.

π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in the Euclidean plane; this is the same value as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. It is approximately equal to 3.14159265 in the usual decimal notation. Many formulae from mathematics, science, and engineering involve π, which makes it one of the most important mathematical constants.[1]
π is an irrational number, which means that its value cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends or repeats. It is also a transcendental number, which implies, among other things, that no finite sequence of algebraic operations on integers (powers, roots, sums, etc.) can be equal to its value; proving this was a late achievement in mathematical history and a significant result of 19th century German mathematics. Throughout the history of mathematics, there has been much effort to determine π more accurately and to understand its nature; fascination with the number has even carried over into non-mathematical culture.
Probably because of the simplicity of its definition, the concept of π has become entrenched in popular culture to a degree far greater than almost any other mathematical construct.[2] It is, perhaps, the most common ground between mathematicians and non-mathematicians.[3] Reports on the latest, most-precise calculation of π are common news items.[4][5][6] The current record for the decimal expansion of π, if verified, stands at 5 trillion digits.[7]
The Greek letter π, often spelled out pi in text, was first adopted for the number as an abbreviation of the Greek word for perimeter "περίμετρος" (or as an abbreviation for "perimeter/diameter") by William Jones in 1706. The constant is also known as Archimedes' Constant, after Archimedes of Syracuse who provided an approximation of the number, although this name for the constant is uncommon in modern English-speaking contexts.

So we have Circles and German Mathematics, Pi (TT) and Audi..

Audi= Circles+German+TT (Pi)=Audi TT (Pi)


The answer you're looking for is in the glove box.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2008
Posts
7,367
So you'd need at minimum at least 1 value for every atom in the universe (that would be at absolute minimum - not useful).

I highly doubt that a hard-drive can store any form of data, be it a single bit or sector, in less than the space of one atom. Surely this alone would mean that you would need a hard drive that was physically larger than the universe itself (assuming its not infinite).

atoms are made from protons, electrons and neutrons, which in turn are made of quarks and gluons of which are are 6 or more..

each has a spin, charge and mass, you would also need to store its location in the iniverse as well as I assume some time value and I guess some values to describe weather its moving and in what direction (probably other values as well)

you would need something along the lines of a few 100K of binary value to describe each quark I would assume..

so you would need a storage device millions of times the size of the universe to store the universe unless you were in a different universe where physics was different and the information could be more tightly packed
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
29,490
Location
Back in East London
Heisenberg would disagree!

Well, yeah, ok, but my beef is that why should we arbitrarily map the state of the universe in binary, and not just learn to read the state from how it is currently mapped at the moment (i.e. in particles/atoms/protons/etc/etc/etc)?

It's like translating something for the sake of translating something, instead of just learning to read it in native form.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Apr 2004
Posts
11,788
Location
Somewhere
Well, yeah, ok, but my beef is that why should we arbitrarily map the state of the universe in binary, and not just learn to read the state from how it is currently mapped at the moment (i.e. in particles/atoms/protons/etc/etc/etc)?

It's like translating something for the sake of translating something, instead of just learning to read it in native form.

You're right; I was just being pedantic :)

Storing it on some device is of course pointless, self-defeating (unless the device is "outside" the universe), and beside the point of the OP's question, which was hypothetical rather than concerned with technicalities.
 
Back
Top Bottom