10 ms·
I predict the following quantum bug: Due to optimizations to prevent the need to simulate every single particle in this universe...the people who evolved in th
by swashbuck1r 9y ago
I predict the following quantum bug: Due to optimizations to prevent the need to simulate every single particle in this universe...the people who evolved in this universe are now perplexed that physics works so intuitively at the large scale, but at the small scale, it seems to become bizarre and "not calculated until you look".
- radarsat1 9y agoYou are suggesting that the nature of quantum mechanics is an argument for the simulation hypothesis?
- oregontechninja 9y agoI actually really like this idea. I was in Blender and thought about how mipmapping has some surface similarities with the way the world works. Detail is only apparent once you can observe it. Maybe fields and waves are faster to calculate, where finite particles are difficult. I'm just spewing nonsense, but this is the sort of stuff that makes for a great talk over a beer.
- irrational 9y agoBecause it only makes sense when you are drunk?
- 52-6F-62 9y agoI don't know enough about this to comment, but is there any reason it is critically unsound to do so? (within the confines of said theory)
- comicjk 9y agoYes, it is unsound. Quantum mechanics has features which aren't observable (the imaginary components of the wavefunction, the value of position and velocity at the same time, etc). However, this does not mean less computation, because in order to simulate the system you need to represent the whole wavefunction and everything that happens to it whether it's observable or not. Quantum mechanics is elegant in many ways, but low computational load is not one of them. See Feynman on the subject: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman....
- 52-6F-62 9y agoIs it weird that the complexity gets me excited? The thorough needs of this kind of nature of computation is a thrill to dream about. Thanks for the notes and the links. I've recently started to work my way through Feynman's lectures a I'm considering a return to school for physics particularly because of the excitement it brings me to be able to even just peek beneath the covers. I want to be able to rip them off the whole damned bed and leave the sleepers exposed! But I digress...
- comicjk 9y agoIt's not weird, I'm right there with you. I love this stuff.
- altrego99 9y agoI have always found the connection curious. In video games, for example, you do exactly this - not calculate something unless it is being observed. Who is to say the quantum effects are not actually artifacts of some optimizations in the simulation we are in?
- obstinate 9y agoOr who's to say that they didn't try exact simulations and find it too boring?
- comicjk 9y agoThat's not what quantum mechanics really does. The wavefunction, which is the core of a quantum calculation, "runs" all the time whether any part of it is observed or not. A given observable property of the wavefunction may not be predictable without looking, but that doesn't make the wavefunction any easier to simulate. And without the wavefunction running, we wouldn't observe the probabilities which we observe in experiments.
- robotresearcher 9y ago> The wavefunction, which is the core of a quantum calculation, "runs" all the time whether any part of it is observed or not. How can you tell?
- comicjk 9y agoSee the last sentence of my comment: it's not consistent with experiments. The success of quantum mechanics as a predictive tool comes from acting as if the wavefunction is always present, no matter what aspect of it is measured. There may be a whole different theory of physics which can replace quantum mechanics and doesn't have wavefunctions, and has completely different simulation requirements, but at that point you could postulate anything.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- wuch 9y agoThere is running joke about general relativity and quantum mechanics being a demonstration of simulation hypothesis, i.e., floating point computations used to simulate our universe break down under very small and very large scales.
- mandude 9y agoIt's funny because it's true.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jfoutz 9y agoAnd mass slows down time because the load increases
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jhurliman 9y agoRelated to this, Second Life has a concept of time dilation which is the ratio of current simulator frame rate to ideal frame rate (30fps IIRC). As more avatars, scripts, and physically simulated objects were put in a simulator the time dilation increased.
- JetSpiegel 9y agoInteresting, I first heard about this regarding EVE Online.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- monocasa 9y ago> "not calculated until you look". It's unfortunate how much the jargon around quantum physics has been misconstrued by the general public.
- EvanAnderson 9y agoI would be interested to hear more about this, if it's something that can be easily communicated to the lay-audience. It sounds like I share a similar feeling to others in this thread in thinking that this "not calculated until you look" idea is attractive.
- randomguy1254 9y agoI think the distinction is that observation can affect a system. In order to look at a particle, you need to bounce a photon off of it, which affects it. The particle/wave still exists and is still "doing calculation", its just that measuring the system literally and obviously affects it. Some people attach far too much significance to this.
- EGreg 9y agoNo, I heard this is a common misunderstanding. You can bounce light off particles going through ONE SLIT and still destroy the interference patten. Partivles going through the other slit shouldn't have been deflected - yet the interference pattern is totally broken! What you are suggesting is there is a hidden variable theory.
- randomguy1254 9y agoHmm, I'm maybe missing something in this example. In the two slit experiment, a single photon can appear to go through two slits simultaneously. You appear to be suggesting that there are multiple particles going throw the slits which creates the interference, but I understand it that one particle interferes with itself, when you do not detect which slit it goes through.
- 9y ago
- pishpash 9y agoAre you suggesting that when you look you can see every detail? Because that's not how the quantum bug works.
- comicjk 9y agoThe title of the article is misleading: this "virtual universe" simulates only gravity, which is all that was needed by the astrophysicists who wrote it. If it were simulating complete physics as we observe it, this amount of computing power wouldn't suffice to simulate a single cell for a single nanosecond. It doesn't have any quantum features, and if it did, they would make it require vastly more computing power, not less.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoSide note: I recently came across this YouTube video which did a fantastic job showing just the basics of waveform collapse, without straying into silly metaphors and cartoons, or getting bogged down by historical narratives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY Highly recommended for anyone trying to grok the relationship between a wave, a particle, and an observation. I find I don't want to hear what quantum physics is "like" I just want to have things explained to me slowly and completely.
- Nelgraf 9y agoThanks for the link. One of the best non mathematical visualizations/explanations for observation and uncertainty principle i've seen.