If physics is inconsistent it is more likely we are in a pc simulation. If physics is internally self-consistent then it is much more likely we are in an in reality real reality. Alas, we’ve contradictions / inconsistencies in physics – relativity vs. Quantum mechanics as an example. Therefore, consistent with cosmologist George Smoot (on YouTube), you exist in a simulation and physics can prove it. However, right here’s my preliminary series of evidence from physics.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Neutrino Oscillations.
Neutrinos are available in three ‘flavors’ or in three generations that mirror different matter particles which also are available in three generations. The trinity of neutrinos is the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino, and the tau-neutrino. While all are electrically impartial, all of them have distinctive loads – tiny, however no longer 0. Now the interesting and anomalous element is that once they travel, say from being produced in the Sun to once they skip right via you (and billions and billions of them accomplish that every second), the trilogy of neutrinos oscillate among themselves. Each can and does morph into the others and back again*. But they do not have the same loads, so where do the will increase/decreases in mass come from and go to? Special results to the rescue?
*It’s like a shifting golfing ball morphs right into a billiard ball into a bowling ball and lower back once more for reason or motives unknown and not using a clarification of where the will increase in mass comes from or goes back into.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Antimatter.
Cosmological and theoretical physics predicts that the amounts of being counted and antimatter within the Universe need to be in (kind of as a minimum) equal quantities. They’re not – seemingly as a minimum. Oops! This theoretical postulate is confirmed in laboratory experiments whilst power is converted to remember. You get count – antimatter equality. You get a pair of particles one every count and its antimatter equal. The equal applies to the vacuum power that creates ‘virtual’ count – antimatter particle pairs. They are ‘virtual’ in that they seem and annihilate too quickly to be found at amusement. Further, whilst an electron meets and greets a positron (identical and contrary electric powered rate) you get a Ka-Boom. When an electron meets and greets a proton (equal and contrary electric powered price), no Ka-Boom! Something is screwy somewhere. Can software provide an explanation for screwiness? Actually it’d make simply as a great deal experience for a particle (like an electron) and its antiparticle (like a positron) to simply merge into one electrically impartial particle with twice the mass (which in flip might be volatile and decay back right 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 supply 1/2-dozen examples of “it cannot be therefore it is not vs. I recognize what I noticed”. I’ll restrict myself to just one instance, a difficulty that apparently no one else finds an difficulty with – and that too is an anomaly. The problem under the investigative gun right here is Radioactive Decay.
We all know approximately radioactivity (nuclear fission) and the way some atomic nuclei are volatile and will in some unspecified time in the future decay into greater stable bureaucracy. So a long way – to right. The first difficulty is that no person can are expecting when any specific volatile nuclei will cross poof. There is not any final reason why one nucleus will move poof in five mins and its round the corner neighbor may not poof over the following five hundred years. There is not any apparent causality concerned. That on my own is “Twilight Zone” stuff, however, wait, there’s more. As we examine in high college, although the why is in no way explained, volatile (radioactive) nuclei decay or cross poof in a fixed mathematical manner, regarded by way of the phrase called the “1/2-existence”. An example could be if half of-of the volatile nuclei went poof in one year; one half of-of what remains unstable goes poof in the course of the following 12 months; one 1/2 of what is still volatile decays within the third 12 months; one half of what remains after that is going poof within the fourth 12 months, and so forth down the road until all the risky nuclei have long past poof.
Now IMHO that radioactive 1/2-lifestyles decay development makes sincerely no feel. If nuclei go poof for no cause in any respect, all people who pass poof need to achieve this in a very random style – no constant pattern. Since there is a fixed sample that indicates to me that the unstable nuclei have to ‘understand’ approximately this half of-lifestyles obligation they are required to follow. They are self-conscious enough to understand while it’s miles their turn to suicide (decay) to be able to hold up appearances; preserve the quantum social order, and preserve the half-existence courting legitimate.
Translated, radioactive decay takes place for surely no purpose whatsoever. There is not any causality. There is not any reason and impact. Things go, poof – well, things simply go poof. How can you have got each a complete lack of causality AND maintain such military or mathematical (1/2-existence) precision? It’s natural bovine fertilizer.
Speaking of radioactive decay, does not it strike you as alternatively bizarre that NO recognized bodily or chemical method can regulate in the slightest the rate of radioactive decay. Well there is apparently one exception, that being the “Observer Effect*” (i.E.- the Quantum Zeno Effect) wherein that come what may or other pure human remarks may have an effect on radioactive nuclei going, poof. That IMHO is simply piling an anomaly on a pinnacle of an anomaly (physics/chemistry having no influence on risky atomic nuclei) on a pinnacle of the ambiguity already stated within the preceding three paragraphs.
Now you can nicely say which you can not boom the speed of mild (in a vacuum), but you may slow light down (in the air, water, glass, and so forth.). You may properly say that you cannot block out gravity, but you can upload and subtract from it and even nullify it (i.E. – that nation of weightlessness). Further, you can speed up, slow down or even reverse chemical reactions; in theory, Maxwell’s Demon can negate entropy; and despite the fact that you can’t create or smash depend / electricity, you could convert one into the other. Radioactive decay seems to be the Lone Ranger – the untouchable.
*The purpose that quantum physics cannot give an explanation for the Observer Effect, how an observer causes the transition from possibility (superposition-of-nation) to actuality (collapse of the wave-characteristic) is that there may be no possibility ever involved, best fact, and for this reason there is no Observer Effect that desires explaining.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Radioactive Decay.
Quite aside from previously cited anomalies with recognize to radioactive decay, specifically how something can appear for surely no purpose in any respect and how that during turn can generate a unique mathematical courting (the 1/2-existence), there is the difficulty that no recognized physical or chemical (or for that matter organic) manner can modify the fee at which anyone unique type of volatile atomic nuclei (like say C-14 or U-238) decay. How abnormal is that! Of route, it’s explainable if the charge of degradation is simply software program encoded.
The Simulation Hypothesis and Wave / Particle Dualism.
Another category of “it cannot be therefore it isn’t always vs. I understand what I saw” is that category wherein something both can’t be and now not be at the identical time and in the identical location. This category has a tendency to head under the call of dualism. There tend to be kinds 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 occurs to be simply one of those given anomalies in quantum physics that show up to vex us. Physicists, I suspect, need to head beyond the current nation of textbook descriptions to come to phrases with how a particle (with mass/strength) can shape-shift into a wave with related wavelength and frequency, after which form-shift returned right into a particle once more. The double-slit experiment is a living proof.
The equipment is quite basic. You have an ‘electron’ gun which could fireplace debris (both basic as in electrons; or entire atoms, molecules, even Buckminsterfullerene a.K.A. Bucky-Balls or C-60) acting as tiny ‘bullets’. There’s absolute confidence right here about the reputation of those ‘bullets’ – they are ‘debris’ with shape and substance – they have got mass. This ‘electron’ gun can fire those ‘bullets’ either in fast-hearth mode, all the way down to one-at-a-time. You have slits as the goal in front of the gun that can every be both open or closed. You have a detector screen at the back of the two slits to document where the ‘bullets’ hit, and sooner or later you’ve got an observer or measuring instrument equal, like a camera.
Methodology: Fire the ‘bullets’ from the ‘electron’ gun at a slit or at each slits swiftly or one-at-a-time, discover the resulting patterns where they hit the detector screen and as a separate exercising take a look at the ‘bullets’ actually going thru the slits (to determine independently which slit or each the ‘bullets’ sincerely went via). In every other separate workout, study the ‘bullets’ when they bypass through the slit(s) but before they hit the detector screen. That manner there is no absolute way the ‘bullets’ can morph from wave-conduct to particle-behavior or vice-versa. This final bit is called the Delayed Double-Slit experiment. 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 at the back of the one open slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits at the back of the only open slot. OK!
Experiment Two – Rapid-Fire Mode with Two Slits Open:
– Expected Results: Two blobs of hits; one every in the back of each 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 in the back of the one open slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits at 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 every open slit.
– Actual Results: No blobs, just 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 at the back of the one open slot.
– Actual Results: One blob of hits in the back of the only 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, not blobs of hits; one each at the back of every open slit.
– Actual Results: Two blobs of hits; one each at the back of each open slit. More What? Take any 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 another aspirin.
A matter particle (like an electron or neutrino) is an actual thing with mass, spin, fee, angular momentum, and many others., relying on exactly what particle you’re speaking approximately. Any count number particle can be in movement, however, cannot wave all around the vicinity without outside forces acting on it, as in line with Newton’s laws of motion. So if an electron or neutrino waves, one has to kingdom what outside forces are appearing on it to reason that wave motion behavior.
A pressure particle (i.E. – a photon or a graviton) on the other hand isn’t certainly an issue being without any actual shape or made of any real substance. Particles without mass, like photons or gravitons, can wave all over the place without outside forces acting on it. The wave behavior is a belongings component and parcel of such debris and so you have light waves and radio waves and gravity waves but not electron waves or alpha waves or carbon atom waves or bucky-ball waves. Unlike count debris which should haven’t any wave behavior that is an intrinsic or innate belongings part and parcel of such particles, force particles don’t require any medium wherein to wave – they just wave.
The upshot of all of this is which you’d assume force particles to exhibit wave behavior however not remember particle behavior – bullet behavior is predicted because the sort of behavior depend particles show off. You’d anticipate remembering particles to exhibit bullet behavior however not force particle wave behavior. That’s not what you get and therein lies the “it cannot be therefore it vs. I realize what I saw” anomaly.
A wave is just a shape. A form in and of itself isn’t always an element. It may additionally have shape but it does not have any substance. A wave is composed of masses of person things just 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 component in isolation isn’t always a wave and doesn’t give upward thrust to any wave phenomena. One oxygen atom may not conduct sound; one water molecule wouldn’t behavior an ocean wave. One oxygen atom or one water molecule, however, can itself wave if the right set of forces are implemented to it. But one oxygen atom or one water molecule isn’t always elastic and cannot in and of itself stretch out and take on a wave shape. An electron fired out of an electron gun in your TV set does not hit the internal of your TV screen as a smeared out wave but as a count number particle; as a factor; as a tiny bullet.
On a greater acquainted macro scale, a flag can wave, however a flag itself isn’t always a wave. Tree branches can wave inside the wind, but a tree branch itself isn’t a wave. A whip in motion waves, however a whip itself is not a wave. A vibrating tuning-fork waves from side to side, however, a tuning fork isn’t itself a vibration or a wave. The same applies to say a tympani or some other musical tool. Your heart vibrates/beats or oscillates rhythmically, however, your heart itself is not a vibration or a wave. Therefore, something that waves or vibrates isn’t itself a wave or a vibration. Anything that waves or vibrates is just something in motion and motion isn’t a component. You can’t keep moving to your hand or tell me what movement is composed of or what sort of shape it has.
One query already comes to thoughts, why that wave shape and no longer a few another form?
The Simulation Hypothesis and the Illusion of ‘Solid’ Matter.
Your truth appears to be quite strong. Even water waves and the wind can knock you around. But in actual reality, 99.9999% of what appears to be stable is genuinely quite an empty area. How can something that relatively empties seem so solid? How can you yourself be ninety-nine .9999% empty space? More special effects; another example of a simulation? The software is a splendid way of simulating weirdness.
The Simulation Hypothesis and the Value of the Physical Constants.
There are loads of physical constants in nature just like the electrically powered price on an electron/positron; the speed of light in a vacuum; the mass of each of the six quarks; the boiling and freezing points of natural water at trendy temperature and stress, and so forth. Now of a route the values ought to be something and it’d be pretty weird to suppose that they could or might trade*, however, why they may be what they are is a complete thriller. The values of nature’s constants cannot be calculated or decided from first ideas. Now if natural is only a simulation, nicely the programmed software might have to supply the ones precise values to those constants, and in any such manner as to bring about the whole thing hanging together coherently.
*And if some ‘constants’ did in fact exchange, and there may be some evidence that a few have, nicely that is suitable evidence of what we’d in any other case name a software upgrade.
The Simulation Hypothesis and String Theory.
Extra Dimensions Are Hogwash: Where string principle falls off the rails IMHO is that on the way to work, the Universe has got to be constructed from now not the usual 3 spatial dimensions and the one dimension in time we are used to presenting in, however a complete of ten, even eleven dimensions, with means six or so extra spatial dimensions than just up-down, left-right, and again-forward. Sorry, it’s those more dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales. Extra dimensions cannot be definitely actual and therefore they are not, however, the (I recognize what I noticed) mathematics demands them. Just saying, as string theorists are at risk of do, that those greater dimensions are curled up and so tiny we do not notice them strikes me as a piece of a cop-out. If extra dimensions certainly exist, just produce the experimental evidence already. On the alternative hand, as numerous academic movies on string principle have proven, extra / hidden dimensions can indeed be made seen. However, those greater / hidden dimensions are just special effects, no greater and no less.