Some Strange News... [computer code, string theory]

[Aethelwulf]

A computer code has been discovered in a certain class of string theory:

“Dr. S. James Gates, Jr., a theoretical physicist, the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and the Director of The Center for String & Particle Theory, is reporting that certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes! Gates says, “We have no idea what these ‘things’ are doing there”.

http://www.transcend.ws/?p=3020

[John Mendenhall]

The doctor offers no support other than a popular article.

Regards, John M.

[Rhaedas]

A more elaborate version of the fine tuned universe theory? Or a form of apophenia?

[ShinAce]

Just the error correcting codes sounds like fun physics. I don't really care about the virtual reality part. Although, The Matrix was an awesome movie.

[HenrikOlsen]

From the article:

Michio Kaku has stated “String Theory Is the Only Game in Town” because it is the only testable theory available.

Is this a joke news site like The Onion?

[Jens]

The site itself seems pretty suspect, but the actual guy is for real, and I think he's respected but just one of these people like Wolfram who are a bit on the "leading edge", meaning that it's a bit unclear whether they're just speculating or on to something more. There's an article he (Gates) wrote about this issue, which I'm sure is quite interesting though I couldn't really judge how serious it is.

http://being.publicradio.org/program...olsofpower.pdf

[Cougar]

...certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations... contain embedded computer codes.

I'm not surprised. But interpreting the pattern as a computer code has to be pretty arbitrary, I would think.

[Selfsim]

A lot of word-spin going on here (probably as a way of translating what's going on for the public … and to add intrigue).

For instance: in what sense is he using the term 'code' ?
When he uses this term, I think of like a pneumonic operating instruction code for a microprocessor. When presented to a microprocessor (under the control of various clocking (etc) circuitary), it will perform a particular kind of pattern shift operation on a digital 'word' (which is an electronically encoded string of ones, (eg: +5Volts), and zeros (eg: zero volts). So, with error correcting codes in digitial comms, a receiver filters an incoming string of digital data, captures these 'codes' (which it knows to look for in advance), and then makes a decision as to whether or not to apply an error-detection/correction algorithm to the received data block to correct it .. or let it pass onto the next process for treatment.

So a 'code' is really a string of data, which has no particular meaning until some iterative algorithm processes it. So, for starters, 'equations' are fundamentally different from data .. so how does data get embedded into an equation ? Some solving process has to do this. When this happens, the data may result in some solution, (or it may not). Iterative solutions which are relevant to string theory may generate data patterns, but they do not necessarily have any particular significance in the physical universe (as he is inferring). Perhaps the ones he's talking about do have physical significance in String Theory, (but so what) ? One might also find parts of a DNA sequence represented in some stock-trading algorithm somewhere ..?..

I guess we'll have to read in more detail what he's on about, when the paper becomes available. I don't believe its anything too mysterious, however.

Gee, the other day, I was watching an Ed Witten lecture about 'knot theory' (and the Jones Polynomial). Witten described it as being relevant to being able to predict whether or not a tangled knot in a length of string was able to be untangled, or not. He then mentioned that it was mathematically equivalent to certain equations which arise in quantum theory.

IMHO, I'll take a punt and say Gates is trying to do what Susskind and t'Hooft did with the Holographic Principle (ie: the hologram analogy). Perhaps he'd like to go down in history in the same vein as Alan Turing .. drawing the inference that nature and the universe is based on one giant computer, or perhaps as another Douglas Hofstadter as per his Pulitzer Prize winning non-fiction book: Godel, Escher Bach. Which is Ok, I suppose.

Regards

[Strange]

For instance: in what sense is he using the term 'code' ?

Quite. From the diagram on that page, it looks like he might just be referring to the fact that nodes of a graph can be numbered using a binary pattern. But then anything can be described in binary so I'm left wondering ... so what?

When he uses this term, I think of like a pneumonic operating instruction code for a microprocessor.

If any such code (mnemonic not pneumonic, by the way) was hidden in nature, it would obviously have to be Z80 code; the pinnacle of microprocessor design.

[cjameshuff]

Quite. From the diagram on that page, it looks like he might just be referring to the fact that nodes of a graph can be numbered using a binary pattern. But then anything can be described in binary so I'm left wondering ... so what?

Indeed. There's nothing fundamentally binary about computers or any sort of codes, it's just a representation, and the assignment of bit patterns to operations performed by computers is completely arbitrary. And computer encodings for things like forward error correction are based in group theory and other parts of abstract algebra, which also form the basis of much of physics, so finding similarities is...rather expected.

[Selfsim]

If any such code (mnemonic not pneumonic, by the way) was hidden in nature, it would obviously have to be Z80 code; the pinnacle of microprocessor design.

Ooops ... yep you're right about the spelling ... (thought it looked a bit strange when I typed it)... ..
Regards

[Aethelwulf]

Binary Codes are the most efficient way to represent information. Interestingly, I would however, not think of quantum reality in terms of bits but rather of qubits.

[cjameshuff]

Binary Codes are the most efficient way to represent information.

It's only the simplest, in terms of required symbols. Ternary (barticularly balanced ternary) has notable advantages, it just doesn't map as well onto digital electronics. Larger numbers of symbols can be more efficient...as illustrated by multi-level flash where it gives greater information storage density, numerous modulation techniques for high speed data communication, etc.

[Aethelwulf]

Simplest does mean the most efficient in physics.

[cjameshuff]

Simplest does mean the most efficient in physics.

No, it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...tellations.svg

Channel capacity for a signal of a given bandwidth with different modulations. BPSK is binary phase shift keying, the simplest approach...and the least efficient at making use of available bandwidth. The highest performing modulations on that chart are 16-PSK and 16-QAM, which encode data with 16 distinct symbols.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes it does. The simplest easiest path taken by a photon is the most efficient energy wise. This is the least action principle.

You must be thinking of a definition completely different to mine. When I speak of efficiency in physics, I think of systems taking the easiest action available. This comes back to energy efficient systems.

[Aethelwulf]

I can see your argument seems to be based on whether binary codes are the most efficient. You challenged my words stating that simplest does not mean the most efficient. I said in physics it does. Then you said it doesn't. Are you arguing with my definition of what is efficient and simple, or are you challenging the binary code thing I mentioned. Please be clear when you refute someone.

[Aethelwulf]

I think you will find here as well, there is a code [considered the most efficient code] in the form of binary operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding

So yes, loosely speaking, binary codes are the most efficient.

[HenrikOlsen]

You claim that Binary Codes are the most efficient way to represent information.
He's showing counter examples against just that claim, not against your secondary claim that simplest is most efficient.
Though if you claim that binary is simplest, the second claim is shown to be wrong by the counterexamples as well.

You forgot to define how you measure efficiency.


BTW Huffman coding is considered the most efficient binary code. Which does not mean it's the most efficient any type code and does not mean binary is the most efficient type of code.

[Aethelwulf]

I know nothing of the science that he posted to. Just tell me what the most efficient code is then, then I will decide whether it is simplest. I thought he argued that in physics simplest and most efficient always mean different things, which I corrected, not in the Least Action Principle.

So, again, clear and decisively what is the most efficient code we know about?

[HenrikOlsen]

Clear and decisive: Until you defined what criterion you use for efficiency your question is meaningless.

[Aethelwulf]

Clear and decisive: Until you defined what criterion you use for efficiency your question is meaningless.

Efficient in this case, I define as meaning producing information without minimum waste.

[HenrikOlsen]

"Producing" information? What does that have to do with codes? They're about holding/moving information, not about producing information.

[Aethelwulf]

"Producing" information? What does that have to do with codes? They're about holding/moving information, not about producing information.

Pedantic much?

When I say information, I mean Information Theory (and in physics) that is the study of bits.

[Aethelwulf]

Remove information.

Just this works: I define as meaning producing without minimum waste.

You can fill in the gaps such as what would be a waste and what we are producing.

[Aethelwulf]

Either way, I've defined this as you wanted. Now, I would like to know, for the benefit of learning something, is there a code which is more efficient than a binary code in computing?

[ShinAce]

Without minimum waste means you're excluding the case where waste is at a minimum. It's like a double negative gone wrong.

Moving along, I would guess that the maximum information transfer would happen when the signal to noise ratio is the highest. So something analog of very high frequency would be attractive. Maybe some kind of spread spectrum ultraviolet light medium. It says nothing about binary, other than the fact that a 5v difference for logic seems puny. We should be switching signals at a few hundred volts.

[Aethelwulf]

Without minimum waste means you're excluding the case where waste is at a minimum.

Seems like a confusing play on words

[cjameshuff]

When I say information, I mean Information Theory (and in physics) that is the study of bits.

No, it is not. Information theory is applied mathematics relating to quantifying information. A bit is just a unit of information, you could as easily use any other unit...the decimal unit is the ban/hartley, the natural unit (base e) is the nat, the ternary unit is the trit...which happens to be closer to a nat than a bit is.

And I've already given counterexamples to your claim. The most effective use of channel capacity is not with binary encodings, it is with encodings using larger numbers of symbols, transmitting multiple bits of information per symbol. The most effective use of flash memory transistors and silicon area is not with binary states, it is with multiple charge levels encoding multiple bits on each transistor. And balanced ternary gives a simpler and more direct way to handle many problems, on top of being a denser coding. The simplest possible approach is not always the most efficient one.

And I can't guess what confusion of ideas made you think this has anything to do with the least action principle or photon trajectories. The least action principle doesn't even have anything to do with the simplicity of the action...

[Aethelwulf]

No, it is not.

That is so strange. We where taught differently in our lectures, that when physicists talk about information, they are talking about ''bits''.


My education was a waste.