SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the that's-what-we-want-you-to-think dept.
Physicists have "confirmed" that we "aren't" "living" in a computer "simulation":
Scientists have discovered that it's impossible to model the physics of our universe on even the biggest computer.
What that means is that we're probably not living in a computer simulation.
Theoretical physicists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhin from the University of Oxford and the Hebrew University in Israel applied Monte Carlo simulations (computations used to generate probabilities) to quantum objects moving through various dimensions and found that classical systems cannot create the mathematics necessary to describe quantum systems. They showed this by proving that classical physics can't erase the sign problem, a particular quirk of quantum Monte Carlo simulations of gravitational anomalies (like warped spacetime, except in this case the researchers used an analogue from condensed matter physics).
Therefore, according to Ringel and Kovrizhin, classical computers most certainly aren't controlling our universe.
Which type of computers are we being simulated on?
Also at Newsweek.
Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity (open, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701758) (DX)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:06AM (1 child)
If we live in a simulation, odds are it isn't perfectly emulating every particle. It is likely to be approximating things to cut costs. Understand the system, find flaws. Might not be able to break out to the outside but perhaps can hack it? It would mean there are the official laws of physics and the actual ones, only operating where "the system" isn't paying proper attention to detail. Magic?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:54PM
> odds are it isn't perfectly emulating every particle
Heisenberg's principle is just the symptom of a neat simulation optimization trick: perceptibly lossless compression, with the noise set at the Planck level.