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: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:03AM (4 children)
First off, if we are in a simulation there is no reason to believe the laws of physics being modeled are exactly the same as the ones that hold in the "outside" universe hosting the simulation hardware. What if our purpose is to determine what sorts of different physics can still result in life?
Who says that the entirety of the universe we believe exists is even being simulated? And it certainly wouldn't have to be simulated down to each elementary particle, wave, etc. It really depends on what the purpose of the simulation is, doesn't it? We already build a lot of simulations on very reduced models. If the simulation is aimed at US it would only need to model 99.999999% of the universe very poorly, just enough to give our telescopes something to see. It doesn't even need to model the Earth entirely, just the people and the rest of he Earth can be approximated as needed, only modeling individual particles if they matter. Until we developed advanced physics almost none mattered. But if we are to be convinced we are in a "real universe" we have to able to discover laws of physics. An interesting thought is what impact on simulation cost will be incurred if we keep making ever more elaborate gadgets to explore the fine structure of the universe? What if the expense rises to the point the project becomes impractical to continue? The nerds could get us defunded and deleted in favor of a less expensive research universe project!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:00AM (3 children)
> If the simulation is aimed at US
I really didn't expect American Exceptionalism to pop up under this TFA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:27AM (2 children)
US as in Earth, humans. Doubt they simulating a world to study bears.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:11AM
"Man always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars, and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." (Douglas Adams)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:02PM
I dunno, it could be they simulated billions of solar systems to see what conditions would most likely lead to life, then to intelligent life. Pray that no intelligent life arises in our universe, or they might pull the plug! Also, it could be equally fascinating to them to study water-bears.