The human race is using 25% of the Universe

[opcode-foo]

Supposedely, there are 10^80 total particles in the Universe, or something like that. Well, I was thinking about this, it seems rather like a large number right? Hmm..

Well, there are (supposedely according to Andre La Mother) 10^11 neurons in a typical human brain. Let's suppose, that each neuron is one particle, just for laughs. There are supposedly 10 billion people alive right now. So, that would mean that the human race and all their brains are using up 10^22 particles of the universe out of the 10^80 particles.

So my theory is this: the universe is being rapidly absorbed. Think about this. There are probably about 1000 terrabytes of hard drives in the earth. Let's imagine that 1 bit of information requires 1 particle (this is not rigorous) so, now we have left maybe 10^10 particles in the Universe left.

In summary: every time we reproduce or build a hard drive, a planet on the edge of the Universe is destroyed as it's particles are absorbed by our conquest.

The Universe is finished guys.:wallbash:

[bladder]

mkaaaaay...

Though, this is all based on your supposition of there being 10^80 particles in total. And another thing, 10^22 is not 25% of 10^80. is 10^1 25% of 10^4? It's more like 0.01% or something like that.

[.oisyn]

10^22 / 10^80 = 10^(22 - 80) = 10^-58
so it's 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000001% ;)

[opcode-foo]

But Andre La Mother confirmed this to be accurate. I have a PhD from the University of BS, and I can confirm my statistical analysis is correct!

You're just jealous of my superior scientific findings.:yes:

[monjardin]

About 67.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot. ;)

[.oisyn]

But Andre La Mother confirmed this to be accurate. I have a PhD from the University of BS, and I can confirm my statistical analysis is correct!

You're just jealous of my superior scientific findings.:yes:

So what, my penis is bigger :cool2:

[opcode-foo]

Look, you might doubt me, being new and all... but Andre La Mothe himself confirmed my THEORY:blink: Do you DOUBT ANDRE LA MOTHER?!?!?!

[eddie]

Look, you might doubt me, being new and all... but Andre La Mothe himself confirmed my THEORY:blink: Do you DOUBT ANDRE LA MOTHER?!?!?!

I know a lot of people do. :)

[.oisyn]

It's "André LaMothe", if you give the guy credit at least spell his name correctly.

[TheNut]

Well, better the universe :alien: to suffer at the hands of humanity rather then the reverse.

[opcode-foo]

It's "André LaMothe", if you give the guy credit at least spell his name correctly.

Andre LaMothe.

Ahh, that's how he spells it, I see! I was confused by this publisher telling me what a Andre LaMother f*** I was for the boatload of premier press books that were returned without selling. GAH!

Adios boys.

[Methulah]

Also, there are only 6.2 or something billion people in the universe, not ten billion.

[zavie]

Prove it. :-]

[Nautilus]

So what, my penis is bigger
Well, I fart louder :closedeye

Btw...
:cool2: <--- Isn't it Andrè LaMothe?
Come on, it's him! -hehehe-

Ciao ciao :)

[Onikhaosifix]

I'm surprise this topic hasn't been deleted yet. lol @ "Andre le Mother"

[Jynks]

There is quite a good novel by Greg Egan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan) called Quarantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_%28novel%29) a kind of sequal/rewrite of one of his top notch short stories in Luminous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_%28story_collection%29) witch is kinda about this very topic.

The novel is set in the near future (2034-2060), after the solar system has been surrounded by an impenetrable shield known as the Bubble. The Bubble permits no light to enter the solar system, and as a consequence the stars can no longer be seen. This seems to be mere background at first, but in fact it is central to the plot.

The Bubble, it appears, was constructed by aliens to prevent humanity from wreaking massive destruction on the rest of the universe, though this remains speculative. The human brain is responsible for all causality, by collapsing wavefunctions representing systems into a particular eigenstate. Human observations of the universe were reducing its diversity and potentiality (for instance, by rendering it uninhabitable to beings that relied on stars being something other than the enormous nuclear fusion-powered furnaces human astronomers have observed them to be).

Top notch scifi book if you are into that kinda thing (witch I am :)

[moe]

This thread reminds me of an old saying we have here in Switzerland.

"Big cheese equals small cheese."


Because:
1. The bigger the cheese the bigger the wholes.
2. The bigger the cheese the more wholes.

The bigger the wholes and the more wholes there are the less space there is for cheese.
The less space for cheese the smaller the cheese is.

Hence,
Big cheese == small cheese

[Reedbeta]

It's holes, btw, not wholes =) Whole means all of something, like two halves make a whole. A hole is a place where something is missing =)

[moe]

Lol, my bad but I see you got the point anyway.
Of course if one would speak proper English one would mean hole...

[.oisyn]

There is quite a good novel by Greg Egan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan) called Quarantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_%28novel%29) a kind of sequal/rewrite of one of his top notch short stories in Luminous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_%28story_collection%29) witch is kinda about this very topic.

Top notch scifi book if you are into that kinda thing (witch I am :)

Sounds like a cool plot. But then again, quantum physics is always cool :)

[Reedbeta]

Greg Egan is an amazingly innovative writer. I need to find some more of his work, currently I've only read "Axiomatic," another anthology of his short stories.

[opcode-foo]

Prove it. :-]

Well, the proof is rather complex. I had the realization of it, but it involved quartic fractal analysis in octonial dimensional space. I realized this while being body-slammed by the Undertaker in a WWF match that our idea of mathematics is fundamentally flawed because I was looking straight up and down in my camera space, but kept getting a NaN. Well, my body was punished too.


You see it is 22/80 is approximately the answer if you flip-converge the quartic-octonial space in a fractal dimension, proving that our understanding of exponential math is really a categorial optimization problem in the topological spaces of a fractal octonion, not as these people who misbelieve in linear space to be 0.0001%. They are really deceieved. But, I forgot to explain that my theory relates to 1 brain = 1000 terrabytes of hard drive space in this octonial fractional dimension, so you can see it is clearly proofed to be true.

Thank you.:w00t:

[bladder]

... crazy confusing talk ...

Thank you.:w00t:

You talk like that again and I'll delete you! :ninja:

[ProgramWizard]

It doesn't matterr how many particles there are in the universe, because according to Einstein (and I apoligize for believing him over you guys), there is a set amount of matter which cannot be created or destroyed, only have it's for changed. So by craeting something here on earth would not destroy a planet on the edge of the universe, nor would it "steal its particles". We can only change what is right here.

BTW, why are we using the icons from gamedev.net now? I liked the old colorful ones.

[opcode-foo]

It doesn't matterr how many particles there are in the universe, because according to Einstein (and I apoligize for believing him over you guys), there is a set amount of matter which cannot be created or destroyed, only have it's for changed. So by craeting something here on earth would not destroy a planet on the edge of the universe, nor would it "steal its particles". We can only change what is right here.

BTW, why are we using the icons from gamedev.net now? I liked the old colorful ones.

I deal with that problem in my proofs too, but if I try to explain it I will be deleted :surprise:

[ProgramWizard]

Why will it be deleted?

[anubis]

It doesn't matterr how many particles there are in the universe, because according to Einstein (and I apoligize for believing him over you guys), there is a set amount of matter which cannot be created or destroyed, only have it's for changed. So by craeting something here on earth would not destroy a planet on the edge of the universe, nor would it "steal its particles". We can only change what is right here.


But you are forgetting long distance quantum effects. In theory there is a probabilty of you being on Mars right now and not on earth :)

[Altair]

It doesn't matterr how many particles there are in the universe, because according to Einstein (and I apoligize for believing him over you guys), there is a set amount of matter which cannot be created or destroyed, only have it's for changed.
It has been proven many times that Einstein was wrong with his belief of deterministic non-quantum universe, but we accept your apology ;)

Cheers, Altair

[ProgramWizard]

Um... apology made? :blink:

Anyway, even if there was a set amount of particles in the universe, it seems logical that if we tried to make something here on Earth and there were no more particles to make it, we just wouldn't be able to make it rather than make it and have something else destroyed.

[Reedbeta]

You realize that opcode-foo was just pulling all this out of his ass, not trying to state a coherent position, right? ;)

[ProgramWizard]

Yeah, but other people said I was wrong too.

[Altair]

Anyway, even if there was a set amount of particles in the universe, it seems logical that if we tried to make something here on Earth and there were no more particles to make it, we just wouldn't be able to make it rather than make it and have something else destroyed.
Sure, it sounds logical, but logic/intuition doesn't quite follow quantum mechanics ;) The way Stephen Hawkings explains evaporation of black holes (Hawking radiation) is that in the vicinity of black holes event horizon pairs of virtual particles are created from nothing (due to quantum effects Einstein didn't believe in) which annihilate right after their birth, but during their lifetime another particle of the pair is sucked into the black hole and another is seen as radiation. Even according to the "conservative" Einsteinian way of thinking energy can be converted to matter and back (E=mc^2) and not only matter to matter. Just as a side note, IIRC ironically it was actually Einstein who unveiled the particle entanglengment while trying to disprove quantum mechanics ;)

Cheers, Altair

[gamerdude3045]

ever consider the universe is ever-expanding

[.oisyn]

Which means that the distance between objects is growing, not that the "borders" (if you can call them that) actually expand and acquire new particles or vacuum.

Also, there are theories which don't consider it ever-expanding, but instead regard the expansion to come to a halt in some point in "time", before it begins to shrink which will lead to the big shrink (again, if you can call that time, since those theories also consider the passage of time coming to a halt when the expansion stops, and reversing when the universe begins to shrink again).


So we are in what we programmers call "an infinite loop" ;)

[gamerdude3045]

"theories" are all they are, but im not a professor in this field so...

[Jotaf]

Sure, it sounds logical, but logic/intuition doesn't quite follow quantum mechanics ;) The way Stephen Hawkings explains evaporation of black holes (Hawking radiation) is that in the vicinity of black holes event horizon pairs of virtual particles are created from nothing (due to quantum effects Einstein didn't believe in) which annihilate right after their birth, but during their lifetime another particle of the pair is sucked into the black hole and another is seen as radiation. (...)

Hmm I don't quite understand that. So you say they're "virtual", but they're also observable as radiation? And wouldn't that make the black hole constantly increase due to these particles? I'm not doubting what you're saying, I'm really interested in the answer for these questions :P

---
My view on quantum mechanics: Are you familiar with (Someone Famous)'s Game of Life? The Universe is like a huge simulation similar to this, only with different rules -- such that on a higher level, you get particles and conservation of energy and all, but if you dwelve deep into the lower levels you'll get a whole lot of constantly changing rubbish (evolving lattice).
The thing is that this rubbish works, ensuring the higher level laws of physics we know; and also giving the impression that tiny particles are being created and destroied from nothing. Now go steal this and use it in your physics PhD :P

...is really a categorial optimization problem in the topological spaces of a fractal octonion, not as these people who...

So a fractal oct-onion you say?

[Reedbeta]

I don't completely understand virtual particles, but it seems they're "undetectable" except in certain special circumstances where they can become non-virtual. In any case, when a virtual pair is created, one of them is matter and the other is antimatter (or so I'm given to understand). If the antimatter one falls into the black hole, it actually decreases the black hole's mass, while the matter one escapes - so it seems as if the black hole 'emitted' the matter particle.

[Altair]

Hmm I don't quite understand that. So you say they're "virtual", but they're also observable as radiation? And wouldn't that make the black hole constantly increase due to these particles? I'm not doubting what you're saying, I'm really interested in the answer for these questions :P
Quoting Richard Feynman "I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ;)

What I "know" is just based on popular science books ("The Fabric of the Cosmos", "The Elegant Universe" "The Universe in a Nutshell", "Quantum: a Guide for the Perplexed", etc.), so I can't say I have some robust scientific knowledge backing me up (: My guess is though that they are called "virtual" particles because their lifetime is below Planck time which makes them undetectable, but become real particles under specific conditions (in the vicinity of black hole where there's strong enough force to rip those particles apart). Those virtual particles are real and antiparticle pair, so their collapsion in the end of their lifetime results in total annihilation of the particles, but if the antiparticle is sucked into the black hole, it annihilates with a particle inside black hole causing reduction of the mass of the black hole.

Personally I find it hard to digest the truely undeterministic universe quantum mechanics is proposing. It's understandable that something is unmeasurable small, but saying that something in truely undeterministic regardless if you would know the exact quantum state of the system is different beast. Still something like Double Slit or Delayed Choice Experiment is hard to explain without weird quantum effects (Wavefunction, etc.) I'm still stubbornly believing along the lines with Einstein that "God doesn't play dice", but there's some hard evidence (or hard to explain otherwise) that He is (:

Cheers, Altair

[Jotaf]

Hmm... but why would one of the particles be pulled in by the blackhole's gravity and the other one in the pair be pushed out? That's not how gravity works... unless, of course, my uninformed opinion on black holes is wrong :)

[Reedbeta]

The other wouldn't be pushed out. It would just escape naturally, because it happened to be slightly farther away from the black hole and therefore not as strongly affected by its gravity. Obviously this happens very rarely, unless the black hole is close to the size of a subatomic particle. Black holes Hawking-radiate at a rate that varies inversely with their size.

[Altair]

The other wouldn't be pushed out. It would just escape naturally, because it happened to be slightly farther away from the black hole and therefore not as strongly affected by its gravity.
I think as the result of decoupling of particles there must be some strong repulsive force applied to the real particle which kicks it to the speed of the light (seen as gamma rays), because otherwise it would get sucked to the black hole as well. I haven't seen any details about this though.

Obviously this happens very rarely, unless the black hole is close to the size of a subatomic particle.
That's why they are looking for Primordial Black Holes (as opposed to ones born from gravitational collapse of stars) which are fairly small and born right after Big Bang when the pressure was high enough to form those type of black holes. Maybe they should try to artificially make microscopic black hole (once LHC is built maybe?) which would evaporate right after and see if it emits gamma rays.. though it would suck big time if the theory wouldn't be right ;)

Cheers, Altair

[Reedbeta]

I'm pretty sure the tidal force (difference in gravity at various distances from the black hole) is solely what accounts for the Hawking radiation. That is why smaller black holes radiate more, because their gravitational force varies much more over a smaller scale and so there are going to be more particle pairs where one particle is swallowed, but the other is far enough away to escape.

[.oisyn]

...though it would suck big time...

Great choice of words :lol:

[Altair]

I'm pretty sure the tidal force (difference in gravity at various distances from the black hole) is solely what accounts for the Hawking radiation.
Hmh, my understanding is that it's not tidal force per se, but the absolute barrier of the event horizon that rips the pair apart, and that's why the effect only happens in the vicinity of the event horizon. I.e. during the lifetime of the pair, the antiparticle trajectory cuts to the dark side of the event horizon and as the result of ripping the pair apart the real particle is emitted as gamma ray at the speed of light which at that point is the only speed that's able to escape. If you got a source with more details about the decoupling process, please share (:

Cheers, Altair