Re: Lojbanistan Hadron Collider (was Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language))

[Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>]

Great answer! I was sure it would have been entertaining! :)


On Thursday, January 6, 2011, purpleposeidon <purpleposeidon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/5/11, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not against exploring how much {si} will make the universe collapse in a
>> black hole.
>
> Neither am I!
>
> ==BEGIN TL;DR==
>
> It would likely take a few {si}'s to erase an event -- events are most
> likely in the form of something like {.i xyxi pa darxi xyxi re} (xy.
> refers to all particles, so xy.xiny. refers to the nth particle). In
> this case, the number of words it takes to refer to a particular
> particle depends on the total number of particles in the universe.
> Specifically, the formula is 2 + (interacting particles)*(particle
> reference word count)
>
> (Also possible is that, instead of using an index for all particles,
> there is a description, perhaps something like {le kantu be la xunre
> je cizra}. In this case, 7 words. There also might be something like
> the coordinates on the grid on WP:Standard_Model . In which case, we'd
> get {le kantu be li pa .e li re}, for 8. As a final of many
> possibilities, I offer that each particle type has a name, in which
> case 2 words. (Tho this brings up the "Toyata" problem; I do not
> recall what the answer for that is.))
>
> Returning to the question of how many words it takes to refer to an
> index particle, let N be the number of atoms in the universe, which
> is, per WolframAlpha, 10^80 . WP:Chemical_Abundance tells me that the
> universe is about 3/4 hydrogen 1/4 helium. So, H = (3/4)N protons +
> (3/4)N electrons, and He = 2*(1/4)N protons + 2*(1/4)N neutrons +
> 2*(1/4)N electrons. WP:Proton, WP:Neutron, an WP:Standard_Model
> suggest to me that protons and neutrons each have 3 elementary
> particles, and an electron is 1 elementary particle. So, U = [(3/4)N*3
> + (3/4)N*1] + [2*(1/4)N*3 + 2*(1/4)N*3 + 2*(1/4)N*1]. Zapping the Wand
> of Maximas, we conclude that there are P = 6.5*10^80 particles in the
> universe (the same order of magnitude as N).
>
> (This result is obviously wrong; I've neglected the photons, the rest
> of the elements, your mom, whether N includes other forms of matter,
> etc. Also, I fails at maths. Likely there is someone who actually
> knows what ri is doing, and has a provided a better answer on the
> Internet. This potential resource was carefully ignored for the lolz.)
>
> The particle index could potentially be written in other bases. Base 2
> would take too long, base 5 is my pet fave, so of course would not be
> used. Dozenal is a number system for devil satan heathens, so God
> wouldn't use it. Lojban lacks convenient support for base 60, so is
> also unlikely to be used. Recursive calls to a successor function
> might be used, but that would be even worst than base 2. The best
> offense for what I'm pushing for is base 16. As we were made in His
> image, or something, the bases used are either 10, or 20. But, 20
> suffers from the same problems as 60; no words for the numbers. So,
> particles would be indexed in base 10. Therefore, an index requires up
> to 81 words to speak of any arbitrary particle. Adding the "xyxi", we
> need 83 words to refer to a particle.
>
> Each event would involve 2 particles. (There may occasionally be
> events involving less.) Let us suppose that each particle interacts
> with 8 of its nearest neighbors each time step t_p = 10^-44s
> (WP:Planck_time). WP:Age_of_the_universe gives us 4.3*10^17 seconds as
> the age of the universe, so the universe is 4.3*10^61 ticks old. Then,
> (8 events/particle * P particles) = 8P events/tick = 8*P*4.3*10^61
> events = 2.2*10^143 events have occurred Since The Beginning Of Time
> Itself. (Wrong because I don't know how many events per particle per
> second actually happen.)
>
> (total number of events) * (words in each event) =
> (2.2*10^143)*(2+3*(83)) = 5.5*10^145
>
> ==END TL;DR==
> (If you didn't read all of that, I will eat your flesh.)
>
> Therefore, it takes 5.5*10^145 {si}'s to return to the beginning of
> the universe. ∎
>
> Honestly, it'd be much easier to just use {su}. God is quite qualified
> to speak on the subject: http://jbotcan.org/jbo/arch/res/1093.html
>
>
> mu'omi'e.djeims.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.