Info about the recent attack

[fergalish]

So I must assume we know the entire universe. Rather call it a day, we call all science academies to shut off, because defxor here just came with a number of atoms in the universe. Nothing more to see, humanity has done its job.

Actually, he's more-or-less right; I mean, to within a couple of orders of magnitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content:

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10^80.

10^80 is roughly 2^266.  Just knowing how many atoms there are doesn't tell you much about what those atoms are doing.  Please make sensible arguments.  A complete rainbow table for 50-char passwords is so-so-so-so-so many orders of magnitude beyond what the human race could ever possibly be capable of storing.  Even if there were 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy with 100 billion planets, each planet with 100 billion people, each person with 100 billion computers, each computer with 100 billion hard discs, each disc with 100 billion bytes, you still wouldn't even prick the surface.  AND, can you imagine the headaches your network administrator would have?

Actually, wait, maybe if someday instant worm-hole travel & communication to remote regions of the universe becomes possible, AND assuming that the actual universe is 10 billion times larger than the visible universe, AND humanity can convert EVERY SINGLE ATOM of it into a combined processor-storage-networking unit..... yeah, ok, could be done.

[1714682852]

1714682852

[1714682852]

1714682852

[BCEmporium]

So I must assume we know the entire universe. Rather call it a day, we call all science academies to shut off, because defxor here just came with a number of atoms in the universe. Nothing more to see, humanity has done its job.

Actually, he's more-or-less right; I mean, to within a couple of orders of magnitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content:

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10^80.

10^80 is roughly 2^266.  Just knowing how many atoms there are doesn't tell you much about what those atoms are doing.  Please make sensible arguments.  A complete rainbow table for 50-char passwords is so-so-so-so-so many orders of magnitude beyond what the human race could ever possibly be capable of storing.  Even if there were 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy with 100 billion planets, each planet with 100 billion people, each person with 100 billion computers, each computer with 100 billion hard discs, each disc with 100 billion bytes, you still wouldn't even prick the surface.  AND, can you imagine the headaches your network administrator would have?

Actually, wait, maybe if someday instant worm-hole travel & communication to remote regions of the universe becomes possible, AND assuming that the actual universe is 10 billion times larger than the visible universe, AND humanity can convert EVERY SINGLE ATOM of it into a combined processor-storage-networking unit..... yeah, ok, could be done.

And...? This is pick on an exaggerated expression to divert the discussion to a non-sense place.
The French also say "tout le monde" when they want to refer to something widely known, yet I serious doubt "the entire World" actually knows about whatever they're talking about.
Still, by that path, we've subatomics... the atom isn't the smallest particle of the universe and whatever the future will bring us I simply can not know, can you? We're already dealing today with numbers of a magnitude someone on the XVIII century would consider intangible.

[fergalish]

And...? This is pick on an exaggerated expression to divert the discussion to a non-sense place.

No.  I'm being serious.  If those conditions should come about, then the table could be constructed.  Personally, I'm quite certain they never will.  Never ever.  Ever.  Period.  .

Still, by that path, we've subatomics... the atom isn't the smallest particle of the universe and whatever the future will bring us I simply can not know, can you? We're already dealing today with numbers of a magnitude someone on the XVIII century would consider intangible.

Yes, you're right.  If, as you say, humanity can also learn to store information in subatomic particles, and use those particles and communication and processing units, then the table will be constructed even sooner.  Again, personally, I think it's unlikely to happen before tomorrow morning's coffee, to say the least.

What do you think?  Are those conditions likely to come about soon?

[BCEmporium]

What do you think?  Are those conditions likely to come about soon?

Anything on such grounds would be mere speculation and sci-fi. Could happen a science breakthrough at any moment, can take centuries, can never happen if humanity is extinct before can reach it... an endless world of possibilities.

[phillipsjk]

I think I remember reading somewhere that there is not enough energy in the observable universe to even count to 2¹²⁸ using a "quantum" of energy each time. If true, it does not matter how densely you manage to pack your rainbow table (note rainbow tables don't generally store every possible hash explicitly AFAIK.)

From the same wikipedia page:

...a total mass for the observable universe of 3.35×10⁵⁴kg

We know that E=mc² = (3.35×10⁵⁴kg)(3.00x10⁸m/s)² = 3.015x10⁷¹ Joules (3 significant digits)

In trying to find out what a "quantum" is, I came across this page: Quantum energy. Apparently, the ammount of energy represented by a "quantum" is dependent on frequency and the plank constant (the smallest possible unit of measurement in the universe). Since you did not mention how many heat-deaths of the universe you wanted to wait, I will assume the machine is running at the temperature of the Cosmic microwave background radiation with a dominant frequency of 160.2 GHz (1.60x10¹¹Hz).

From the quantum energy page, the ammount of energy represented by a 'quantum' = (planks' constant)(frequency) = (6.62618x10^-34Js)(1.60x10¹¹Hz) = 1.0601888^-22J or 160yJ.

How high can you count using all of the energy in the known univese? (3.015x10⁷¹ J)/(1.0601888^-22J) = 2.84⁹³ ~= 2³¹⁰. Time required at 160.2GHz would be 5.63⁷⁴ years or about 1.52⁶⁵ times the estimated age of the universe. As I understand it, if you want to count faster, you need more energy. Counting is not embarasingly parallel, so I am not sure how the time estimate factors into generating a theoretical rainbow table.

Since the number thrown around earlier was 4.16x10⁸⁹ (or 2²⁹⁸) your theoretical rainbow table can use about 4096 quantums of energy (or 434zJ) for each hash.

PS: Rainbow tables may store some 50 character passwords, but they would likely have low entropy: consisting of published words/phrases.

[Alex Zee]

We know that E=mc² = (3.35×10⁵⁴kg)(3.00x10⁸m/s)² = 3.015x10⁷¹ Joules (3 significant digits)...

I love how the title of the topic is "Info about the recent attack" 

[BCEmporium]

We know that E=mc² = (3.35×10⁵⁴kg)(3.00x10⁸m/s)² = 3.015x10⁷¹ Joules (3 significant digits)...

I love how the title of the topic is "Info about the recent attack" 

Well, chaos evolution theory applies over all forum topics around the World. 

Picking up on the previous statements, looks like the impossible happened; a particle traveled faster than the speed of the light at CERN.

[Raoul Duke]

Well, chaos evolution theory applies over all forum topics around the World. 

Picking up on the previous statements, looks like the impossible happened; a particle traveled faster than the speed of the light at CERN.

I just hope they took a photograph of it... 

[Inaba]

Just toss a quantum computer down a singularity and pick it up after the next big bang around this time and BAM... you have your Rainbow table.  All you guys are so damned linear thinking.  In fact, I bet there's a computer at the bottom of the nearest black hole just waiting to be picked up...

[BurtW]

"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.

Well it made me laugh...

[TiagoTiago]

"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.

Well it made me laugh...

Me too, thx

[Bobnova]

Anybody notice that the pages keep saying "observable" universe?  There are more atoms, we just can't see far enough.
Plus who knows how many atoms are in black holes, anyway.

Sidenote:  Smooth move on running old forum software with known, easy, hacks.

[TiagoTiago]

Do atoms survive inside blackholes or are they ripped apart?

[legitnick]

Do atoms survive inside blackholes or are they ripped apart?

Only if you delete system32 first!