It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Possible Binary Nature of Our Universe

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
About a year ago I wrote down the "diamond" Phoenix-I/II Theory, in which I postulated that everything in the universe, matter and energy, was composed of preonic components. I showed how everything could be reduced to only two kinds of preons: a logoson (symbol: a), with charge +0.1666, and a primeon (symbol: b), with charge -0.1666. This theory is so successful it can model the properties of particles in life... and in decay.

But furthermore, the model makes an interesting prediction.

It predicts that everything in this universe follow a kind of binary code. the difference between, say, an electron and an up quark, is, in the model, solved by simply modelling the two particles as two different preon sequences - in this case, aaaaab for the up quark, and bbbbbb for the electron.

I personally do not subscribe to the idea of dualism (I even tend to oppose any dualist views in philosophical discussions). And when I saw this binary sequence, I just found it at odd with my personal beliefs; and I attempted to demonstrate how both logosons and primeons could actually the same particle, one being simply inverted relative to the other. But this was mere speculation, as I couldn't identify the cause for such an inversion; I may be wrong, and I can't allow my personal belief to get into the way of truth. And thus the fact stands, unshaken: there are two, irreducible values to our universe. Our entire universe (including antimatter and forces carriers) is a bundle of strings of two values, always: logoson, or primeon.

Is it possible that the Universe could be composed of binary codes?




posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Interesting theory, if there could be some truth to it then it would have to have some proof.

Is there anything you could add that would show some proof of the possibility?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
I do not understand the technical parts , but a fair while ago , I had a moment when I felt and then said , it's a binary system , to someone I considered intelligent and knowing and they gave me the nod . lol real info is valuble lol. just the nod.
1%



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
There are research being made trying to figure out the The Resolution of Reality (the 3D that we can examine with our eyes) under the assumption that reality is a hologram.

sciencethat.com...

Holographic principle

en.wikipedia.org...



The holographic principle is a property of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[1][2] As pointed out by Raphael Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[4][5]




But then I am not convinced that time cannot be more than one dimensional even if we are thinking of it as one dimensional in our models.
edit on 21-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Ok I'll bite


Binary code as in computer?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Is there anything you could add that would show some proof of the possibility?


My investigations led me to the discovery of an important evidence: With only two preons (no less, no more) one can model every subatomic particles in the universe:

bbbbbb: electron
abbbbb: up antiquark
aabbbb: down quark
aaabbb: neutrinos/bosons
aaaabb: down antiquark
aaaaab: up quark
aaaaaa: positron

Full investigation

Many other properties of these particles can be accounted - with, again, only two preons:

-the three generations of fermions
-the spins of all matter and energy particles
-the antiparticles of all matter particles, and CT-symmetry
-the kaon oscillation mystery (which Phoenix-II theory solves)
-the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon
-the neutrino's oscillation into another flavor

Full investigation


Remember that I myself am reluctant to the idea that the universe is binary in nature. But the evidences seem to point to only one conclusion: that the Universe can be modelled as a (albeit very long) binary code.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Is there anything you could add that would show some proof of the possibility?


My investigations led me to the discovery of an important evidence: With only two preons (no less, no more) one can model every subatomic particles in the universe:

bbbbbb: electron
abbbbb: up antiquark
aabbbb: down quark
aaabbb: neutrinos/bosons
aaaabb: down antiquark
aaaaab: up quark
aaaaaa: positron

Full investigation

Many other properties of these particles can be accounted - with, again, only two preons:

-the three generations of fermions
-the spins of all matter and energy particles
-the antiparticles of all matter particles, and CT-symmetry
-the kaon oscillation mystery (which Phoenix-II theory solves)
-the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon
-the neutrino's oscillation into another flavor

Full investigation


Remember that I myself am reluctant to the idea that the universe is binary in nature. But the evidences seem to point to only one conclusion: that the Universe can be modelled as a (albeit very long) binary code.



When I think about it cannot be binary if you find out the resolution since binary is 0 1 even if it is digital not analog in nature. Your model need to be form my point of view -1 0 1 of whatever entity that exists that everything is built with (in this case thought too be preons).

If you have this then you can make a coordinate system of all in 3D and 3D can be described digitally.

The funny thing is that black whole cannot collapse in on them selves in this model since when you have a one in the resolution it cannot become more so either the black hole will have to become bigger or the information will have to cease to exist. But then black hole will not have existed anyway since time have not become infinity.
edit on 22-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: swanne



Ok I'll bite




Binary code as in computer?


Come to think of it.
I have often noticed either the light was on -- 1; or the light was off -- 0.

Kind of odd, wouldn't you say?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

Actually the light switch analogy is a good one...



It's kind of like the computer is made up of a bunch of lightswitches, and each lightswitch controls just one lightbulb. On or Off. One or Zero. But if you took all of those lightbulbs together, and said "Let's make each sequence of On-and-Off represent a different number!" Well then, you could get some pretty large numbers.


Source



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
"01000001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 01110100 01110011 0011111?"

This means "Any thoughts?" in binary code.

Any thoughts?
edit on 22-9-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Your model need to be form my point of view -1 0 1 of whatever entity that exists that everything is built with (in this case thought too be preons).

You mean, one could represent primeons as being -1, logosons as being +1, and vacuum as being 0?

Hm, you could be right. In which case, the Universe would be a Ternary system.


If you have this then you can make a coordinate system of all in 3D and 3D can be described digitally.

Indeed. Well, more accurately, the universe would have 5 dimension: each points of it would be defined by:

-all three space dimension values
-the Time value
-the presence of preon (-1, 0 or +1) value


The funny thing is that black whole cannot collapse in on them selves in this model since when you have a one in the resolution it cannot become more so either the black hole will have to become bigger or the information will have to cease to exist. But then black hole will not have existed anyway since time have not become infinity.

This is very interesting indeed, thanks for pointing it out!



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne



Indeed. Well, more accurately, the universe would have 5 dimension: each points of it would be defined by: -all three space dimension values -the Time value -the presence of preon (-1, 0 or +1) value


I agree that now we have a static model of 3D Space+1D time (That is described in 5D model). Now to figure out what is the smallest time quanta and space quanta so that all is represented in integers. I wonder how movement and acceleration would be described in this system.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Now to figure out what is the smallest time quanta and space quanta so that all is represented in integers. I wonder how movement and acceleration would be described in this system.


To come back to your thought on the black hole: I've give it some thoughts and I just wanted to point out that, Even in a binary or ternary model, black holes would indeed survive as "classical" objects with infinite mass - that's because, having a binary or ternary model doesn't imply quantization of space-time.

In short, just to clarify before we go further: quantization of space-time is a question independent from the ternary nature of the universe.

Now, to come back on the question of quantization:

Obviously we can't know for sure if the universe is indeed quantized. But if it is, it would solve things such as the Zeno Paradox. If the universe is quantized, I do not believe that it will influence movement or acceleration in any bad way... Technically, speed is simply the amount of space one can travel in an amount of time. Since the quantization of space and time will probably be near the Uncertainty level, the difference between a movement in an analogous universe compared to a movement in a digital universe would be so small that it would be almost imperceptible to our existence.

The possibility of a digital universe would not be incompatible to our current equations for movement nor acceleration.

But describing such movement or acceleration might provide a revolutionary insight to the very nature of the universe. Since Time will have to be quantized, then it will imply that the Universe is in fact made of frozen, 3-D Space frames which are being browsed at high speed by Time.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once."...
-John Archibald Wheeler



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
swanne

Hello John.
You bring up a very interesting concept and am looking forward to reading any further material.
Is your proposition similar to that of Nick Bostrom? The actual work behind his idea is being done by Silas Beane. We're expecting some fruitful responses.

Whist not the same on idea on a fundamental level- it seems to correlate in terms of the feasibility of binary on/off universe as apposed to one which contains variables (or deterministic) as basis for a quantum model.

Edit- Also, how would quantum entanglement and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tie into this? Seems to challenge and defy the very idea of a binary system.. But then again, it seems to do that to reality in general...
edit on 24-9-2014 by Gear because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gear
Is your proposition similar to that of Nick Bostrom?

It is actually the first time I hear about M. Bostrom. I read His paper and quite frankly, although his propositions are indeed located in another branch of knowledge than mine, I can't help but feel my propositions are certainly not incompatible with his. I think he might be unto something.


Also, how would quantum entanglement and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tie into this?

Since a binary or ternary system do not necessarily imply spacetime quantization, then both Entanglement and Uncertainty would still stand, unshaken. If spacetime quantization is proven to exist, then it might shake a bit Uncertainty (especially if the size of the quantization unit clashes with the size of a Planck unit), but Entanglement would still not be affected.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne Machine Intelligence operating from a super position within the present reference frame has been and has not been achieved. Output of the data set from the super position within the casual is being recorded in this time space envelope but the data can be over written within the current continuum of space time experience reference frame.

I am there fore what I experience is real to me.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Of course it is binary. In this reality something can either exist or not exist. That is the foundation for all that is. Everything else is built upon that foundation.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1


In this reality something can either exist or not exist.


Schrodinger would agree with this premise/paradox of course.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Of course it is binary. In this reality something can either exist or not exist.


Not existence equal vacuum. But define existence?

Until now, all that "existed" in Science could be resolved down to more than a dozen elementary particles:



But now I resolved Everything to only two preons:




Thus, add to that nothingness, and you get three forms of absolute existence.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Exactly



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join