If physics is inconsistent it is more likely we are in a computer simulation. If physics is internally self-regular then it is more likely we are in a sincerely real fact. Alas, we’ve got contradictions / inconsistencies in physics – relativity vs. Quantum mechanics for example. Therefore, in line with cosmologist George Smoot (on YouTube), you exist in a simulation and physics can prove it. However, here’s my preliminary series of evidence from physics.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Neutrino Oscillations.
Neutrinos come in 3 ‘flavors’ or in 3 generations that replicate other matter debris which also are available in three generations. The trinity of neutrinos are the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino and the tau-neutrino. While all are electrically impartial, they all have unique hundreds – tiny, however not zero. Now the interesting and anomalous aspect is that when they journey, say from being produced within the Sun to once they skip right via you (and billions and billions of them accomplish that each 2d), the trilogy of neutrinos oscillate among themselves. Each can and does morph into the others and lower back again*. But they don’t have the same masses, so wherein do the will increase / decreases in mass come from and visit? Special results to the rescue?
*It’s like a moving golf ball morphs right into a billiard ball into a bowling ball and lower back again for reason or reasons unknown without a explanation of where the will increase in mass comes from or goes returned into.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Antimatter.
Cosmological and theoretical physics predicts that the quantities of be counted and antimatter within the Universe have to be in (kind of at least) equal amounts. They’re no longer – seemingly as a minimum. Oops! This theoretical postulate is confirmed in laboratory experiments when electricity is transformed to remember. You get rely – antimatter equality. You get a pair of particles one every depend and its antimatter equal. The same applies to the vacuum energy that creates ‘virtual’ count number – antimatter particle pairs. They are ‘digital’ in that they seem and annihilate too speedy to be located at leisure. Further, when an electron meets and greets a positron (equal and contrary electric powered price) you get a Ka-Boom. When an electron meets and greets a proton (equal and opposite electric price), no Ka-Boom! Something is screwy somewhere. Can software explain screwiness? Actually it would make simply as lots feel for a particle (like an electron) and its anti-particle (like a positron) to simply merge into one electrically neutral particle with twice the mass (which in turn might be risky and decay returned into a particle (like an electron) and its anti-particle (like a positron).
The Simulation Hypothesis and Quantum Physics.
When it involves quantum mechanics / physics I may want to easily give a half-dozen examples of “it can not be consequently it is not vs. I know what I saw”. I’ll limit myself to just one example, an difficulty that reputedly nobody else finds an problem with – and that too is an anomaly. The problem underneath the investigative gun here is Radioactive Decay.
We all know approximately radioactivity (nuclear fission) and how a few atomic nuclei are unstable and could at some point decay into extra solid forms. So some distance – so right. The first issue is that nobody can predict while any particular volatile nuclei will move poof. There isn’t any closing cause why one nucleus will cross poof in 5 minutes and its round the corner neighbour might not poof over the next 5 hundred years. There is no apparent causality involved. That alone is “Twilight Zone” stuff, however wait, there is more. As we examine in excessive faculty, although the why is by no means defined, risky (radioactive) nuclei decay or move poof in a hard and fast mathematical way, acknowledged by the phrase called the “half of-existence”. An example would be if half of the unstable nuclei went poof in twelve months; one half of what remains risky goes poof at some stage in the subsequent year; one half of what is still volatile decays inside the third year; one half of what stays after that is going poof in the fourth year, and so on down the road till all the risky nuclei have long gone poof.
Now IMHO that radioactive half-lifestyles decay development makes absolutely no sense. If nuclei go poof for no reason at all, all those that go poof ought to do so in a completely random fashion – no fixed sample. Since there may be a hard and fast sample that suggests to me that the risky nuclei should ‘recognise’ approximately this half of-lifestyles duty they’re required to observe. They are self-aware enough to recognize when it is their turn to suicide (decay) so one can maintain up appearances; keep the quantum social order, and keep the 1/2-lifestyles dating legitimate.
Translated, radioactive decay happens for surely no purpose whatsoever. There isn’t any causality. There is not any purpose and impact. Things go poof – well, matters simply cross poof. How can you’ve got both a total lack of causality AND preserve such army or mathematical (half-life) precision? It’s pure bovine fertilizer.
Speaking of radioactive decay, doesn’t it strike you as as an alternative peculiar that NO known physical or chemical procedure can modify inside the slightest the fee of radioactive decay. Well there may be seemingly one exception, that being the “Observer Effect*” (i.E.- the Quantum Zeno Effect) wherein that one way or the other or other pure human remark can have an impact on radioactive nuclei going poof. That IMHO is just piling an anomaly on top of an anomaly (physics / chemistry having no affect on volatile atomic nuclei) on top of the ambiguity already mentioned inside the previous three paragraphs.
Now you may well say that you can’t growth the rate of mild (in a vacuum), however you can sluggish mild down (in air, water, glass, etc.). You can also well say which you can not block out gravity, however you may upload and subtract from it or even nullify it (i.E. – that country of weightlessness). Further, you could speed up, slow down and even opposite chemical reactions; in idea Maxwell’s Demon can negate entropy; and although you cannot create or spoil count / energy, you can convert one into the alternative. Radioactive decay seems to be the Lone Ranger – the untouchable.
*The reason that quantum physics can’t explain the Observer Effect, how an observer causes the transition from possibility (superposition-of-country) to reality (crumble of the wave-characteristic) is that there is no possibility ever worried, best actuality, and for that reason there’s no Observer Effect that desires explaining.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Radioactive Decay.
Quite apart from formerly mentioned anomalies with appreciate to radioactive decay, mainly how some thing can take place for in reality no purpose in any respect and the way that in turn can generate a particular mathematical courting (the 1/2-existence), there may be the problem that no acknowledged bodily or chemical (or for that remember biological) manner can regulate the price at which any individual specific sort of risky atomic nuclei (like say C-14, or U-238) decay. How unusual is that! Of route it truly is explainable if the charge of degradation is simply software program encoded.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Wave / Particle Dualism.
Another class of “it can’t be consequently it isn’t vs. I realize what I noticed” is that category in which something each can’t be and now not be at the same time and inside the equal location. This category has a tendency to move beneath the name of dualism. There has a tendency to be two sorts of anomalous dualisms – the body – brain / mind dualism and the wave / particle dualism in quantum physics. I’ll simply begin with the latter…
Wave / Particle Dualism:
Wave-particle duality takes place to be simply one of these given anomalies in quantum physics that appear to vex us. Physicists, I suspect, need to head beyond the present day nation of textbook descriptions to come back to phrases with how a particle (with mass/strength) can shape-shift into a wave with associated wavelength and frequency, after which form-shift returned into a particle again. The double-slit test is a living proof.
The equipment is quite basic. You have an ‘electron’ gun that can fireplace debris (both elementary as in electrons; or complete atoms, molecules, even Buckminsterfullerene a.Okay.A. Bucky-Balls or C-60) performing as tiny ‘bullets’. There’s no question here about the fame of those ‘bullets’ – they’re ‘particles’ with shape and substance – they have got mass. This ‘electron’ gun can hearth those ‘bullets’ either in rapid-fireplace mode, right down to one-at-a-time. You have two slits as the goal in front of the gun that can each be either open or closed. You have a detector display screen in the back of the two slits to record wherein the ‘bullets’ hit, and sooner or later you have got an observer or measuring device equal, like a digicam.
Methodology: Fire the ‘bullets’ from the ‘electron’ gun at a slit or at each slits unexpectedly or one-at-a-time, hit upon the ensuing styles wherein they hit the detector display and as a separate workout look at the ‘bullets’ absolutely going via the slits (to determine independently which slit or both the ‘bullets’ without a doubt went via). In another separate exercise, examine the ‘bullets’ after they skip through the slit(s) however earlier than they hit the detector display screen. That manner there’s no absolute way the ‘bullets’ can morph from wave-conduct to particle-conduct or vice-versa. This very last bit is called the Delayed Double-Slit test. Now prepare to get a headache so have some aspirin on standby.
Experiment One – Rapid-Fire Mode with One Slit Open:
- Expected Results: One blob of hits in the back of the only open slit.
- Actual Results: One blob of hits in the back of the one open slit. OK!
Experiment Two – Rapid-Fire Mode with Two Slits Open:
- Expected Results: Two blobs of hits; one every behind each open slit.
- Actual Results: No blobs just a wave-interference sample! What? Take an aspirin.
Experiment Three – One-At-A-Time Mode with One Slit Open:
- Expected Results: One blob of hits at the back of the only open slit.
- Actual Results: One blob of hits behind the only open slit. OK!
Experiment Four – One-At-A-Time Mode with Two Slits Open:
- Expected Results: Two blobs of hits; one every behind each open slit.
- Actual Results: No blobs, simply that wave-interference pattern! Double What? Take an aspirin.
Experiment Five – One-At-A-Time Mode with One Slit Open [+] Observer:
- Expected Results: One blob of hits at the back of the only open slit.
- Actual Results: One blob of hits at the back of the only open slit. OK!
Experiment Six – One-At-A-Time Mode with Two Slits Open [+] Observer:
- Expected Results: Based on Experiment Four, a wave-interference sample, no longer blobs of hits; one every behind each open slit.
- Actual Results: Two blobs of hits; one each at the back of every open slit. More What? Take some other aspirin.
Experiment Seven – Rapid Fire Mode with One Slit Open [+] Delayed Observation:
- Expected Results: You’ll see particle ‘bullets’.
- Actual Results: You see particle ‘bullets’. OK!
Experiment Eight – Rapid Fire Mode with Two Slits Open [+] Delayed Observation:
- Expected Results: You’ll see a wave-interference pattern.
- Actual Results: You see particle ‘bullets”. That’s the final What? If your stomach can take care of it, take every other aspirin.
A count particle (like an electron or neutrino) is an real factor with mass, spin, price, angular momentum, and so on., relying on exactly what particle you’re talking about. Any remember particle may be in movement however can not wave all over the area without outside forces performing on it, as according to Newton’s laws of movement. So if an electron or neutrino waves, one has to state what external forces are performing on it to purpose that wave movement behaviour.
A force particle (i.E. – a photon or a graviton) alternatively isn’t always sincerely a issue being with none actual structure or made of any actual substance. Particles without mass, like photons or gravitons can wave everywhere in the area without outside forces appearing on it. The wave behaviour is a assets component and parcel of such debris and so you have light waves and radio waves and gravity waves but now not electron waves or alpha waves or carbon atom waves or bucky-ball waves. Unlike rely particles which should have no wave behaviour that is an intrinsic or innate property element and parcel of such particles, force debris don’t require any medium wherein to wave – they simply wave.
The upshot of all of this is that you’d count on force particles to showcase wave behaviour but now not rely particle behaviour – bullet behaviour is anticipated because the type of behaviour depend particles showcase. You’d assume remember debris to showcase bullet behaviour however no longer pressure particle wave behaviour. That’s not what you get and therein lies the “it can’t be consequently it vs. I realize what I saw” anomaly.
A wave is only a shape. A shape in and of itself isn’t always a component. It may additionally have shape however it doesn’t have any substance. A wave is composed of lots of character things like the atoms / molecules that make up air that could behavior sound waves; or water molecules which permits for the propagation of ocean waves. Just one thing in isolation isn’t a wave and does not deliver rise to any wave phenomena. One oxygen atom won’t conduct sound; one water molecule would not behavior an ocean wave. One oxygen atom or one water molecule however can itself wave if the right set of forces are carried out to it. But one oxygen atom or one water molecule isn’t always elastic and can’t in and of itself stretch out and tackle a wave shape. An electron fired out of an electron gun for your TV set doesn’t hit the inner of your TV screen as a smeared out wave but as a depend particle; as a point; as a tiny bullet.
On a greater familiar macro scale, a flag can wave, but a flag itself isn’t always a wave. Tree branches can wave in the wind, but a tree branch itself isn’t always a wave. A whip in motion waves, however a whip itself is not a wave. A vibrating tuning-fork waves from side to side, but a tuning fork is not itself a vibration or a wave. The identical applies to say a tympani or another musical device. Your coronary heart vibrates / beats or oscillates rhythmically however your heart itself is not a vibration or a wave. Therefore, whatever that waves or vibrates isn’t always itself a wave or a vibration. Anything that waves or vibrates is just some thing in motion and movement isn’t a element. You can not maintain movement on your hand or inform me what motion consists of or what sort of shape it has.
One question already comes to thoughts, why that wave shape and now not a few different form?
The Simulation Hypothesis and the Illusion of ‘Solid’ Matter.
Your reality appears to be pretty strong. Even water waves and the wind can knock you around. But in real reality ninety nine.9999% of what seems to be strong is actually quite empty space. How can some thing that pretty empty seem so solid? How are you able to your self be ninety nine.9999% empty space? More computer graphics; any other example of a simulation? Software is an remarkable manner of simulating weirdness.
The Simulation Hypothesis and the Value of the Physical Constants.
There are a whole lot of bodily constants in nature like the electric rate on an electron / positron; the velocity of mild in a vacuum; the mass of every of the six quarks; the boiling and freezing factors of natural water at wellknown temperature and strain, and so forth. Now of route the values have to be some thing and it might be pretty bizarre to think that they may or could alternate*, however why they are what they’re is a total mystery. The values of nature’s constants cannot be calculated or determined from first concepts. Now if natural is only a simulation, nicely the programmed software might must give those genuine values to those constants, and in such a way as to result in the entirety hanging together coherently.
*And if some ‘constants’ did in truth trade, and there’s a few proof that a few have, properly it really is top proof of what we might in any other case call a software upgrade.
The Simulation Hypothesis and String Theory.
Extra Dimensions Are Hogwash: Where string concept falls off the rails IMHO is that with a purpose to work, the Universe has got to be made out of no longer the standard 3 spatial dimensions and the one measurement in time we are used to current in, however a complete of ten, even eleven dimensions, with method six or so greater spatial dimensions than simply up-down, left-proper, and lower back-forward. Sorry, it is those extra dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales. Extra dimensions can’t be definitely actual and therefore they are not, but the (I know what I saw) mathematics demands them. Just pronouncing, as string theorists are liable to do, that those extra dimensions are curled up and so tiny we don’t be aware them strikes me as a chunk of a cop-out. If extra dimensions absolutely exist, just produce the experimental evidence already. On the opposite hand, as severa academic movies on string theory have shown, extra / hidden dimensions can certainly be made seen. However, those more / hidden dimensions are simply special effects, no greater and no much less.