# Error Checking Codes found in String Theory Equations



## Metal_Webb (Mar 28, 2012)

Well this is an interesting development in that there string theory.

Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations! - YouTube
(Ignore that terrible intro, real thing starts about 0:30, also try to ignore the Inception horns over the last minute )


Pretty much, this guy has found block error checking computer code in the fundamental equations that describe string theory. If string theory is the correct assumption for the structure of the universe, the universe has built in error checking. Of course, this raises lots of questions about whether the universe is just a simulation or something else more sinister is going on.

Personally, I think that the fact that computer error code that was invented in the 1940's corresponds with this particular "natural" phenomenon just shows that the computer CHECKSUMS and the like arise from there already being a natural process of doing so.


Discuss.


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 28, 2012)

I watched the whole thing a while back. You should check out the Isaac Asimov Debate from this year (a week and a half ago actually). 

Back on topic, I would say it is best to wait and see what actually comes of this. You have to take into account that this is a theory provided to use via a theoretical physicist. Obviously the dude is smart as hell and knows what he is talking about but there might have been an error. If not, look around for articles from other scientists who did this guys experiments as well. That is how scientific theory is proven after all. Hell, look at OPERA, they put out a press release stating that the neutrinos they tested at CERN traveled faster than light and now, six months later, are saying there is probably an error somewhere. I don't mean to be all down about this guys work, he is cool and very smart, I just would like to see other scientists outside of his circle chiming in and agreeing (and I'm too tired to look it up right now so it might be out there for all I know).


----------



## USMarine75 (Mar 28, 2012)

Dont listen to Blind Theory... next he'll be telling us cold fusion didn't work... 

Plus, they discovered the error at CERN... it wasn't neutrinos that travelled faster than light... it was chemtrails.


----------



## Metal_Webb (Mar 28, 2012)

Here's James Gate's original paper for anyone interested:

Relating Doubly-Even Error-Correcting Codes, Graphs, and Irreducible Representations of N-Extended Supersymmetry

I'll be having a good read through of it when it's not 1am lol.

Btw, I'm about the least "Conspiracy Theorist" out there  I find it an interesting coincidence at most, not that we're living in a giant computer simulation. It makes sense that if the error checking exists as a natural phenomenon that we would be able replicate that. Also, the work on this has only been done in the last couple of years, no chance really for there to have been repeat experiments or peer review, so all the idiot press jumping on the "giant computer ZOMGZ" bandwagon are the typical sensationalist morons.


----------



## Nyx Erebos (Mar 28, 2012)

I was about to give my opinion but I'm not a physicist so .

I'm a computer science student so that interests me but it's hard to believe that there is a "real" checksum (other than an equational thing that keep the universe coherent I mean).

I'll read the doc when my brain will be fully functional.


----------



## JamesM (Mar 28, 2012)

Those guys have ruined their own credibility for headlines far too many times for me to appreciate this as anything scientific.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 28, 2012)

Quick skim sounds like there is no experimental data confirming this stuff.

"Systems exhibiting such symmetry have been studied over more than three decades and find many applications, although experimental evidence that Nature also employs supersymmetry is ironically lacking within high-energy particle physics, where it was originally invented."

Wading a bit deeper, it sounds like a mathematical representational system (even with no proven relationship to what is being represented) has quite a few ways of checking validity of various elements, but that's a far cry from saying that the universe corresponds to this in any way. It's like arguing that using a non-Euclidian geometry generates all kinds of neat results, but that one can't really relate all that weirdness to actual four-space (where *we* live). 

Remember, Einstein was able to demonstrate that his theories actually fulfilled the predictions those theories generated. Experimental data is what separates the men from the boys in the endeavor of science.

(Note: Not a mathematician. Would love to read of someone who can post some data that this stuff has a strong correlation to actual physical phenomena.)


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 28, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> Dont listen to Blind Theory... next he'll be telling us cold fusion didn't work...
> 
> Plus, they discovered the error at CERN... it wasn't neutrinos that travelled faster than light... it was chemtrails.



Opera works with CERN. Opera was the group that reported that they had detected super-luminal neutrinos. That was the original report and if you listen to anyone talk about it they claim them to be neutrinos, not chem trails. And I am not discrediting this mans work. I am just asking to see multiple other scientists opinions and versions of this. After all, the way all science is proven is through repetition of experiments by multiple different parties. 

Things like this are difficult to grasp for a lot of people, me included. That is why I ask for further information. Hell, physics is full of crazy stuff. They have a theory out there that claims we are nothing more than a hologram of a 2D "film" (or something of the sort). That is some crazy shit that is hard to grasp as well.


----------



## USMarine75 (Mar 29, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Opera works with CERN. Opera was the group that reported that they had detected super-luminal neutrinos. That was the original report and if you listen to anyone talk about it they claim them to be neutrinos, not chem trails. And I am not discrediting this mans work. I am just asking to see multiple other scientists opinions and versions of this. After all, the way all science is proven is through repetition of experiments by multiple different parties.
> 
> Things like this are difficult to grasp for a lot of people, me included. That is why I ask for further information. Hell, physics is full of crazy stuff. They have a theory out there that claims we are nothing more than a hologram of a 2D "film" (or something of the sort). That is some crazy shit that is hard to grasp as well.


 
You missed something in my original quote...

-->  <--


----------



## Alberto7 (Mar 29, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Things like this are difficult to grasp for a lot of people, me included. That is why I ask for further information. Hell, physics is full of crazy stuff. They have a theory out there that claims we are nothing more than a hologram of a 2D "film" (or something of the sort). That is some crazy shit that is hard to grasp as well.



Isn't that the holographic principle? I believe Leonard Susskind was the first to actually describe it. If you search for "holographic universe" and "Leonard Susskind" on YouTube you should find something. It's absolutely mind-boggling. There's an interview from a documentary (I forget which one) where the interviewer, after Susskind explains, says something along the lines of "Ooohh I think I get it," and Susskind just replies "No, you DON'T get it. Nobody does. No one is capable of wrapping their heads around it; not even me," or something along those lines


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 29, 2012)

Alberto7 said:


> Isn't that the holographic principle? I believe Leonard Susskind was the first to actually describe it. If you search for "holographic universe" and "Leonard Susskind" on YouTube you should find something. It's absolutely mind-boggling. There's an interview from a documentary (I forget which one) where the interviewer, after Susskind explains, says something along the lines of "Ooohh I think I get it," and Susskind just replies "No, you DON'T get it. Nobody does. No one is capable of wrapping their heads around it; not even me," or something along those lines



That's the one. Absolutely mind boggling. Things like the many worlds theory are hard to comprehend as well but no where near the level of this one. I just can't even figure out how this guy came up with that...wow.


----------



## Painhawg (Mar 30, 2012)

Interestingly though, a built in error checker could be why so many things/systems in the universe seem absolutely perfect in form and function.

The sheer complexity in everything taken as a whole is incredibly boggling, but fun to think on, even if I understand only a fraction of it.


----------

