The Simulation Hypothesis: Evidence From Physics

If physics is inconsistent, it’s much more likely; we’re in a computer simulation. If physics is internally self-consistent, then it’s much more likely we are in clearly actual truth. Alas, we’ve got contradictions/inconsistencies in physics – relativity vs. Quantum mechanics, for example. Therefore, in step with cosmologist George Smoot (on YouTube), you exist in simulation games, and physics can prove it. However, here’s my preliminary series of evidence from physics.

Summary show

The Simulation Hypothesis and Neutrino Oscillations.

Neutrinos come in three ‘flavors’ or in three generations that reflect other count debris, which additionally is available 3 generations. The trinity of neutrinos is the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino, and the tau-neutrino. While all are electrically neutral, all of them have exceptional masses – tiny, but no longer zero. The exciting and anomalous element is that after the tour, say from being produced inside the Sun to when they pass properly thru you (and billions and billions of them accomplish that every 2nd), the trilogy of neutrinos oscillate among themselves. Each can and does morph into the others and lower back once more*. But they do not have the identical hundreds, so wherein do the will increase/decreases in mass come from and go to? Special results to the rescue?

*It’s like a moving golfing ball morphs right into a billiard ball right into a bowling ball and lower back again for motive or motives unknown with no explanation of where the increases in mass come from or are going returned into.

The Simulation Hypothesis and Antimatter.

Cosmological and theoretical physics predicts that the quantities of depending and antimatter in the Universe must be in (roughly at the least) identical amounts. They’re no longer – reputedly at least. Oops! This theoretical postulate is shown in laboratory experiments when strength is transformed to depend. You get count number – antimatter equality. You get a couple of debris, one each depend and its antimatter equal. The identical applies to the vacuum electricity that creates ‘digital’ count – antimatter particle pairs. They are ‘virtual’ in that they appear and annihilate too quickly to be discovered in entertainment. Further, while an electron meets and greets a positron (same and opposite electric powered rate), you get a Ka-Boom when an electron meets and greets a proton (same and opposite electric rate), no Ka-Boom! Something is screwy someplace. Can software programs explain screwiness? Actually, it’d make simply as a great deal of sense for a particle (like an electron). Its antiparticle (like a positron) to merge into one electrically neutral particle with twice the mass (which in turn is probably risky and decay lower back into a particle (like an electron) and its antiparticle (like a positron).

The Simulation Hypothesis and Quantum Physics.

When it involves quantum mechanics/physics, I should effortlessly provide a half-dozen examples of “it cannot be consequently it isn’t vs. I recognize what I saw.” I’ll restrict myself to just one instance, a difficulty that seemingly nobody else finds difficulty with – and that too is an anomaly. The trouble below the investigative gun here is Radioactive Decay.

We all realize approximately radioactivity (nuclear fission) and how some atomic nuclei are risky and could at some point decay into extra strong paperwork. So a long way – so exact. The first problem is that no person can predict when any particular risky nuclei will move poof. Hacking simulation games: There is no final motive why one nucleus will move poof in 5 mins, and it is round the corner neighbor won’t poof over the next five hundred years. There is no obvious causality involved. That by myself is “Twilight Zone” stuff; however, wait, there is more. As we examine in excessive school, though the why is by no means explained, volatile (radioactive) nuclei decay or pass poof in a set mathematical way, known through the word referred to as the “half of life.” An example might be if half of the unstable nuclei went poof in twelve months; one 1/2 of what remains volatile goes poof all through the following yr; one 1/2 of what is still risky decays within the 1/3 year; one 1/2 of what stays after that is going poof within the fourth 12 months, and so on down the line till all the unstable nuclei have long past poof.

Now IMHO, that radioactive half of-lifestyles decay development makes actually no sense. If nuclei move poof for no reason in any respect, all those that move poof need to accomplish that in a completely random fashion – no fixed pattern. Since there is a set pattern that shows to me that the unstable nuclei should ‘recognize’ approximately this half-of-life obligation they may be required to observe. They are self-aware enough to recognize whilst it is their flip to suicide (decay) if you want to preserve up appearances; preserve the quantum social order, and maintain the 1/2-lifestyles relationship valid.

Translated, radioactive decay happens for certainly no cause whatsoever. There is no causality. There is not any cause and impact. Things go, poof – well, matters pass poof. How can you have a complete lack of causality AND preserve such navy or mathematical (half of-lifestyles) precision? It’s natural bovine fertilizer.

Speaking of radioactive decay, does not it strike you as instead strange that NO regarded bodily or chemical process can alter in the slightest the fee of radioactive decay. Well, there’s seemingly one exception, that being the “Observer Effect*” (i.E.- the Quantum Zeno Effect) wherein that by hook or by crook or another pure human commentary can have an impact on radioactive nuclei going, poof. That IMHO is simply piling an anomaly on top of an anomaly (physics/chemistry does not influence volatile atomic nuclei) on the pinnacle of the ambiguity already referred to within the previous three paragraphs.

You could say that you cannot grow the speed of light (in a vacuum). However, you can slow light down (in the air, water, glass, and so forth.). You may additionally properly say that you can’t block out gravity. However, you may upload and subtract from it and even nullify it (i.E. – that country of weightlessness). Further, you could gradually accelerate or even reverse chemical reactions; in theory, Maxwell’s Demon can negate entropy; although you can’t create or damage be counted / energy, you may convert one into the alternative. Radioactive decay seems to be the Lone Ranger – the untouchable.

*The motive that quantum physics can’t explain the Observer Effect, how an observer causes the transition from possibility (superposition-of-state) to actuality (crumble of the wave-function) is that there may be no possibility ever involved, handiest truth. Hence, there is no Observer Effect that desires explaining dating simulation games.

The Simulation Hypothesis and Radioactive Decay.

Quite aside from formerly stated anomalies with recognizing to radioactive decay, particularly how something can take place for surely no purpose at all and the way that during a turn can generate a specific mathematical dating (the 1/2-existence), there is the issue that no regarded bodily, or chemical (or for that count number biological) system can alter the price at which anybody particular kind of risky atomic nuclei (like say C-14 or U-238) decay. How extraordinary is that! Of path, it truly is explainable if the price of degradation is simply a software program encoded.

The Simulation Hypothesis and Wave / Particle Dualism.

Another category of “it cannot be therefore it isn’t always vs. I recognize what I noticed” is that category where something each cannot be and no longer be at the same time and inside the identical vicinity. This class tends to go below the name of dualism. There tend to be forms of anomalous dualisms – the frame – brain/mind dualism and the wave/particle dualism in quantum physics. I’ll start with the latter driving simulator games...

Wave / Particle Dualism:

Wave-particle duality takes place to be simply one of these given anomalies in quantum physics that manifest to vex us. Physicists, I suspect, want to move beyond the modern state of textbook descriptions to come to phrases with how a particle (with mass/energy) can shape-shift into a wave with associated wavelength and frequency, after which form-shift again into a particle. The double-slit experiment is a case in point.

The system is quite fundamental. You have an ‘electron’ gun that can hearth particles (either elementary as in electrons; or entire atoms, molecules, even Buckminsterfullerene a.K.A. Bucky-Balls or C-60) acting as tiny ‘bullets.’ There’s no question right here approximately the repute of those ‘bullets’ – they’re ‘particles’ with structure and substance – they’ve mass. This ‘electron’ gun can fire those ‘bullets’ either in speedy-fire mode, down to one-at-a-time. You have two slits as the goal in the front of the gun that could ever be either open or closed. You have a detector screen in the back of the two slits to report wherein the ‘bullets’ hit, and finally, you have got an observer or measuring device equal, like a digicam.

Methodology: Fire the ‘bullets’ from the ‘electron’ gun at a slit or both slits unexpectedly or one-at-a-time, hit upon the resulting styles wherein they hit the detector screen, and as a separate exercise, examine the ‘bullets’ certainly going through the slits (to decide independently which slit or both the ‘bullets’ surely went through). In some other separate exercise, examine the ‘bullets’ when they pass through the slit(s) but earlier than they hit the detector screen. In that manner, there is no absolute manner the ‘bullets’ can morph from wave-conduct to particle-conduct or vice-versa. This very last bit is referred to as the Delayed Double-Slit experiment. Now prepare to get a headache, so have a few aspirins on standby.

Experiment One – Rapid-Fire Mode with One Slit Open:
– Expected Results: One blob of hits at the back of the only open slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits behind the only open slot. OK!

Experiment Two – Rapid-Fire Mode with Two Slits Open:
– Expected Results: Two blobs of hits, one each in the back of every open slit.
– Actual Results: No blobs, only a wave-interference pattern! 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 slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits in the back of the one open slot. OK!

Experiment Four – One-At-A-Time Mode with Two Slits Open:
– Expected Results: Two blobs of hits, one each at the back of each open slit.
– Actual Results: No blobs, simply that wave-interference sample! Double What? Take an aspirin.

Experiment Five – One-At-A-Time Mode with One Slit Open [+] Observer:
– Expected Results: One blob of hits behind the only open slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits behind the one open slot. OK!

Experiment Six – One-At-A-Time Mode with Two Slits Open [+] Observer:
– Expected Results: Based on Experiment Four, a wave-interference pattern, no longer blobs of hits; one every at the back of every open slit.
– Actual Results: Two blobs of hits, one every behind each open slit. More What? Take every 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 sample.
– Actual Results: You see particle ‘bullets”. That’s the final What? If your stomach can deal with it, take another aspirin.

Discussion:

A count particle (like an electron or neutrino) is an actual thing with mass, spin, rate, angular momentum, etc., relying on precisely what particle you are talking about approximately. Any depend particle may be in motion but can not wave all over the region without external forces acting on it, as per Newton’s motion laws. If an electron or neutrino waves, one has to the country what external forces are appearing to motive that wave movement behavior.

A pressure particle (i.E. – a photon or a graviton), on the other hand, isn’t truly an issue being without any real structure or fabricated from any real substance. Like photons or gravitons, particles without mass can wave everywhere in the area without external forces performing on it. The wave behavior is a belongings component and parcel of such particles. You have mild waves and radio waves, and gravity waves; however, no longer electron waves or alpha waves or carbon atom waves, or bucky-ball waves. Unlike count number particles, which must don’t have any wave behavior that is an intrinsic or innate assets part and parcel of such particles, force particles do not require any medium in which to wave – they wave.

The upshot of all of that is that you’d count on pressure debris to exhibit wave behavior but not depend on particle behavior – bullet behavior is predicted as the sort of behavior remember debris exhibit. You’d expect count number debris to show off bullet behavior; however, it no longer forces particle-wave behavior. That’s not what you get, and therein lies the “it can’t be therefore it vs. I recognize what I saw” anomaly.

A wave is just a form. A form in and of itself is not a component. It may also have shape, but it does not have any substance. A wave is composed of plenty of character matters, just like the atoms/molecules that make up the air that may conduct sound waves; or water molecules that permit the propagation of ocean waves. Just one component in isolation isn’t always a wave and would not provide rise to any wave phenomena. One oxygen atom might not behavior sound; one water molecule wouldn’t behavior an ocean wave. However, one oxygen atom or one water molecule can itself wave if the proper set of forces are implemented to it. But one oxygen atom or one water molecule is not elastic and can’t in and of itself stretch out and take on a waveform. An electron fired out of an electron gun to your TV set doesn’t hit the inner of your TV display screen as a smeared out wave; however, as a matter particle, as a point, as a tiny bullet.

A flag can wave on a more familiar macro scale, but a flag itself isn’t a wave. Tree branches can wave inside the wind, but a tree branch itself isn’t a wave. A whip in motion waves, but a whip itself isn’t a wave. A vibrating tuning-fork waves back and forth; however, a tuning fork isn’t itself a vibration or a wave. The identical applies to mention a tympani or some other musical tool. Your coronary heart vibrates/beats or oscillates rhythmically; however, your heart itself is no vibration or a wave. Therefore, anything that waves or vibrates is not itself a wave or a vibration. Anything that waves or vibrates is just something in motion, and movement isn’t always a component. You can not maintain motion to your hand or inform me what movement is composed of or what kind of shape it has.

One query already involves the mind, why that waveform and now not some other shape?

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Illusion of ‘Solid’ Matter.

Your truth seems to be quite strong. Even water waves and the wind can knock you around. But in actual truth, 99.9999% of what appears to be stable is true quite an empty area. How can something that enormously empties appears so strong? How are you able to self-be ninety-nine.9999% space? More computer graphics; some other instance of a simulation? The software is a fantastic manner of simulating weirdness.

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Value of the Physical Constants.

There are loads of bodily constants in nature like the electric rate on an electron/positron; the rate of mild in a vacuum; the mass of each of the six quarks; the boiling and freezing points of natural water at popular temperature and stress, etc. Now of the path, the values ought to be something, and it would be pretty weird to think that they may or might change*; however, why they are that there is a total thriller. The values of nature’s constants can’t be calculated or determined from the first standards. Now, if herbal is just a simulation, well, the programmed software program might deliver the one’s specific values to the one’s constants, and in such a way as to bring about the entirety striking collectively coherently.

*And if some ‘constants’ did in reality alternate, and there is some evidence that some have, nicely it’s right proof of what we would otherwise call a software program upgrade.

The Simulation Hypothesis and String Theory.

Extra Dimensions Are Hogwash: Where string principle falls off the rails IMHO is that for you to work, the Universe has got to be constructed from now not the usual three spatial dimensions and the only measurement in time we are used to current in, however a total of ten, even eleven dimensions, with means six or so more spatial dimensions than simply up-down, left-right, and lower back-forward. Sorry, it’s the one’s greater dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales. Extra dimensions can’t be truly actual, and therefore they are not, but the (I understand what I saw) mathematics needs them. Just announcing, as string theorists are at risk of do, that these more dimensions are curled up and so tiny we don’t note them strikes me like a piece of a cop-out. If greater dimensions absolutely exist, produce the experimental proof already. On the opposite hand, as several educational motion pictures on the string concept have proven, greater / hidden dimensions can certainly be made visible. However, the ones greater / hidden dimensions are just special effects, no extra and no less.