Bitcoin Forum

Is it real? Physicists propose method to determine if universe is a simulation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg/600px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

(Phys.org)—A common theme of science fiction movies and books is the idea that we're all living in a simulated universe—that nothing is actually real. This is no trivial pursuit: some of the greatest minds in history, from Plato, to Descartes, have pondered the possibility. Though, none were able to offer proof that such an idea is even possible. Now, a team of physicists working at the University of Bonn have come up with a possible means for providing us with the evidence we are looking for; namely, a measurable way to show that our universe is indeed simulated. They have written a paper describing their idea and have uploaded it to the preprint server arXiv.

The team's idea is based on work being done by other scientists who are actively engaged in trying to create simulations of our universe, at least as we understand it. Thus far, such work has shown that to create a simulation of reality, there has to be a three dimensional framework to represent real world objects and processes. With computerized simulations, it's necessary to create a lattice to account for the distances between virtual objects and to simulate the progression of time. The German team suggests such a lattice could be created based on quantum chromodynamics—theories that describe the nuclear forces that bind subatomic particles.

To find evidence that we exist in a simulated world would mean discovering the existence of an underlying lattice construct by finding its end points or edges. In a simulated universe a lattice would, by its nature, impose a limit on the amount of energy that could be represented by energy particles. This means that if our universe is indeed simulated, there ought to be a means of finding that limit. In the observable universe there is a way to measure the energy of quantum particles and to calculate their cutoff point as energy is dispersed due to interactions with microwaves and it could be calculated using current technology. Calculating the cutoff, the researchers suggest, could give credence to the idea that the universe is actually a simulation. Of course, any conclusions resulting from such work would be limited by the possibility that everything we think we understand about quantum chromodynamics, or simulations for that matter, could be flawed.

More information: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation, arXiv:1210.1847 [hep-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847)

Abstract
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

Love this subject, I wish there was a way to view what was present before any of the universe was developed ahead of the dark matter expanding.

these people should go, take a shovel and do some real work.

Too many eyes looking at things is going to crash the system. Only enough computing power to observe so much at a time.

uhhhhhhh...you guys know what happens to civilizations that ask this question right?

This is a spinoff of the holographic cosmology model where the faster than light expanding universe has an event horizon boundary layer like black holes have an event horizon where matter that fall in appears to stay at the horizon to the outside observer, while the observer inside the event horizon sees matter pass as normal (some math proofs that both realities exist). If that's the case with our universe, galaxies and we exist also on the 2D  surface on the expanding universe and we are just 3d projections of the 2D surface reality.

The argument for this theory is that such a 2D surface on the bit level (the Planck scale in physics), can hold the exact amount of information needed to describe every force and particle in our inside 3D universe.

In my opinion, this is not enough for a theory, and trying to support it with statistics, is just another way to calculate the same known relation, and not adding anything to the theory. What these guys should be doing is to formulate a standard model in 2D+time space, then I would start think they were on to something. But they can't, as they would have to invent a new kind of complex relativity and quantum mechanics to describe what we know so far in a 2D model.

Big Bang => simulation rebooted ?

* rewatch "The Thirteenth Floor" *

They win the game, then get to play a whole new one.

If the universe is simulated, we will never know, period. It's simply impossible for us to find out.

Could you elaborate a little on that "we are just 3D projections of the 2D surface reality" part?

Google "holographic principle".

i think it is not possible for a lab rat to find out that it is a lab rat (or what that means) :D
But who knows? MATRIX FTW!

The real question is, if we're in a simulation, are we simulated, too, or are we "jacked in" somehow? And if we're all simulated "NPCs", Who's the PC?

Consciousness.

If you've ever experienced a lucid dream, you would more likely believe that reality is a governed projection of conciseness. It feels real when your connected/tuned to the same level of conciseness. Who knows, we may be traveling between multiple levels of conciseness all the time without even realizing it.

You wrote "conciseness" three times.  If you're a computing simulation, there's a bug.

The argument is so strong that there's hardly a way around it actually.

They can run simulations with different degrees of faithfulness and different physical laws, which would result in different computational complexity, i.e. different frame rates of time (from the simulator's perspective, not from the inhabitants).

The dialog you quoted from the 13th Floor

The real question is, if we're in a simulation, are we simulated, too, or are we "jacked in" somehow?

From now on I'm going to feel terrible for killing the processes :( . What if thew were self conscious?

Basically, imagine a sphere. On that sphere, draw a complex pattern. Shine a light through that pattern. Now, imagine standing at the center of that sphere. If the pattern is complex enough, and drawn in the right manner, the interplay of light and shadow causes you to see an image projected around you. It's grossly oversimplified, but that's the idea.

Myrkul is now explaining the holographic theory?!!!

We have to be living in a simulation because this would never happen in the real world.

 8)

- Won't work:  at some point they'll manage to increase the speed of their spaceships and they'll reach your limits again.
- Yeah, that's why I'll add a rule saying that mass increases with speed, so that one needs an infinite amount of energy to accelerate above the speed of light.
- I see.  With such a rule, interstellar space travel will never be possible for them so whatever they do they'll never encouter the limits of your data.  Good work.
»

It would not stop exploration.

So, theoretical physics isn't "real work," is it?

Go ahead, call Stephen Hawking a slacker. [...]

It would not stop exploration.

A traveller would see the space in front of him getting contracted (and behind too) and he can go at any distance of the universe in any timelapse (if he can go fast enough, i.e. close enough to c)

True.  But it won't matter as this traveler won't be able to come back to earth.  So he will travel a few light years, encounter the limits of the data, realize he is inside a simulation, and then we'll just destroy it.  It will be a negligible loss.

Kind of like the Bermuda triangle.  For the hidden puppet master, it does not matter if the explorers of the Bermuda triangle meet him there, as long as they don't come back and tell others.

That is exactly the position of the simulation engine, sooo ...

If it is a simulation, would it be reasonable to assume the entity that generated or that is running the simulation is going to be at least a step or two ahead of the intelligence within the simulation?

I would have much difficulty to explain why, but I have a strong belief that the kind of simulation he's talking about can not run faster than reality.  Therefore, It is not possible for evolved conscious beings to simulate their evolutionary history up to their current level of consciousness, as it would take way too much time.  So they would not do that, either because it would be pointless (who wants to wait a billion years for the result of a computation?), or because they would just have no time to do it in the universe they live in (considering their universe might have a finite lifespan for cosmological reasons).

So I think amongst his three hypothesis, it's the second which is true:

« any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); »

It doesn't mean they can not gather enough computing power.  It just means that having an infinite computing power does not mean you can simulate anything as fast as you want.

It's a very interesting paper though.  Thanks.  I'll read it more thoroughly some day.

With Moore's law nothing takes a billion years.

Not even a subatomic-scaled simulation of a billion years of evolution for a whole universe?  I doubt so.

I believe reality goes "as fast as possible".  If you could go faster, it seems to me that it kind of would mess up with the very definition of time.   But I confess I'd have difficulties to rigorously explain why.  It's an intuition I got.

I think our universes designers are smarter than this, why not use SVG instead of a flat image format.
No matter how far we zoom in, it will still render smoothly :D