Physicists have long tried to explain why the universe began with conditions suitable for life to evolve. Why do physical laws and constants take such specific values that allow stars, planets, and eventual life to develop?
For example, the vast power of the universe, dark energy, is much weaker than theory suggests. allowing matter to stick together instead of being separated
The general answer is that we live in an infinite universe. Therefore, we should not be surprised that at least one universe has become ours. But on the other hand, our universe is a computer simulation. by someone
The latter option is supported by a branch of science called information physics. which suggests that spacetime and matter are not fundamental phenomena But essentially physical reality is made up of little information from our experience of spacetime.
In comparison, temperature is “born” by the mutual motion of atoms. Basically, no atom has a temperature.
This leads to the extraordinary possibility that our entire universe could be a computer simulation.
This idea is not new. In 1989, legendary physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed that the universe was mathematically based and could be viewed as formed by data. He created the famous aphorism “it from bit”.
In 2003, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University in the United Kingdom, formulated his simulation hypothesis. This argues that it is highly likely that we live in a simulation.
That’s because advanced civilizations should reach a point where their technology is so complex that simulations are indistinguishable from reality. And the participants will not know that they are in the simulation.
Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US, took the simulation hypothesis to the next level, proposing that the entire universe could be a giant quantum computer.
There is some evidence that our physical reality may be a simulated reality rather than a real world that exists independently of the observer.
Any virtual world is based on data processing. This means that everything is digitized or pixelated down to a minimum size that cannot be further subdivided: bits.
This seems to mimic our reality based on the theory of quantum mechanics. which governs the world of atoms and particles. It states that there The smallest and discrete unit of energy, length and time
likewise The elementary particles that make up the visible matter in the universe are the smallest units of matter. In other words, our world is a pixel.
The laws of physics that govern everything in the universe are similar to the lines of computer code that a simulation follows in the execution of a program. Moreover Mathematical equations, numbers and geometric patterns are everywhere – the world seems to be all mathematics.
Another curiosity in physics that supports the simulation hypothesis is the maximum speed limit in our universe. which is the speed of light in virtual reality This limit corresponds to the processor speed limit. or processing power limits
We know that overloaded processors slow down computer processing in simulations. likewise Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that time slows down in the vicinity of a black hole.
Perhaps the most supporting evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This indicates that nature is not “real”: particles in a given state, i.e. a particular location, do not seem to exist. unless you actually observe or measure it. But they were in different states at the same time. likewise Virtual reality requires an observer or programmer to make things happen.
Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to connect in a frightening way. So if you control one particle You will deal with another particle automatically and instantly. no matter how far apart the two particles are This effect appears to be faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible.
However, this can be explained by the fact that within the virtual reality code all “locations” (points) should be approximately the same distance from the central processor. But they wouldn’t be if they were created in the simulation.
Assuming the universe is actually a simulation, what kind of experiments would we deploy from within the simulation to prove this?
It is reasonable to assume that a simulated universe would contain many bits of information all around us. These bits represent the code itself, so detecting these bits will prove the simulation hypothesis.
The recently proposed mass-energy-information (M/E/I) equivalence principle indicates that mass can be expressed as energy or information. or vice versa Specifies that data bits must be of low mass. This gives us something to look for.
I have hypothesized that information is in fact the fifth form of matter in the universe. I have even calculated the expected information content for elementary particles. These studies led to the publication of an experimental protocol to test these predictions in 2022.
The experiment involved removing the information contained within elementary particles by allowing them and their antiparticles. (All particles have their own “anti” form, which is the same but with opposite charges.) Devastating in the blink of an eye of energy – emits a “photon” or particle of light.
I have predicted the expected frequency range of the resulting photons based on the physics of the data. Testing was highly successful with our existing tools. And we launched a crowdfunding site to achieve that goal.
There is another approach, too. The late physicist John Barrow has argued that simulation produces small computational errors that programmers must correct in order to keep going.
He suggests that we may encounter problems such as conflicting experimental results suddenly appearing, such as a changing nature constant. So checking the values of these constants is another option.
The nature of our reality is one of the greatest mysteries. The more seriously we take simulation assumptions, the more The more chances we have of proving or disproving it someday.
Melvin M. Vopson, Senior Lecturer in Physics University of Portsmouth
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.