21–30 of 53 posts
On observers creating the universe, I’ve sometimes wondered if given the simulation hypothesis, that simulating quantum mechanics is so computationally expensive that it isn’t done unless we’re looking at it, and that the high energy levels required to probe smaller and smaller length scales is an artifact of the computational requirements of simulating it.
> The faster you go, the slower time goes. If you could go as fast as light, you’d see time come to a halt and disappear. No, you wouldn't. Someone observing you would. Am I getting relativity wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm by no means an expert, but how about using Pilot Wave Theory to do the simulation? As I understand, you wouldn't need to simulate an exponential number of states, you just simulate the pilot wave. See also (very accessible): https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-...
You must simulate the value of the wave at every point of the universe, or at least a grid that has enough points to have the correct precision. It's even more work. Imagine simulating all the waves in all the ocean in the Earth, but worse because there are some nonlocality effects. You can probably do some kind of smart representation of the wave, were you decompose it in some smart functional base of smooth waves.…
Maybe I'm not getting it, but that still sounds simpler than simulating an exponential number of states for the entire universe.
> The faster you go, the slower time goes. If you could go as fast as light, you’d see time come to a halt and disappear. No, you wouldn't. Someone observing you would. Am I getting relativity wrong?
You are getting relativity wrong. The layman phrase being used here 'time come to a halt and disappear' encodes what would happen from a relativity perspective. Everything that you would be seeing relative to you, would appear as if time had stopped if you were traveling at c.
On observers creating the universe, I’ve sometimes wondered if given the simulation hypothesis, that simulating quantum mechanics is so computationally expensive that it isn’t done unless we’re looking at it, and that the high energy levels required to probe smaller and smaller length scales is an artifact of the computational requirements of simulating it.
That's an interesting thought. It it's true, it seems to have some implications: * Whoever is running the simulation cares about whether we're looking. * They had a good reason for going with quantum mechanics rather than something that would be easier to simulate. I know some people would say that's because they're interested in simulating conscious life and quantum mechanics is essential for consciousness. However,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are getting relativity wrong. The layman phrase being used here 'time come to a halt and disappear' encodes what would happen from a relativity perspective. Everything that you would be seeing relative to you, would appear as if time had stopped if you were traveling at c.
Not so fast :) Your own time would not "come to a halt and disappear", would it? If something travels with you at the same speed it would not get frozen in time. So, "everything that you would be seeing" is a bit too inclusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must simulate the value of the wave at every point of the universe, or at least a grid that has enough points to have the correct precision. It's even more work. Imagine simulating all the waves in all the ocean in the Earth, but worse because there are some nonlocality effects. You can probably do some kind of smart representation of the wave, were you decompose it in some smart functional base of smooth waves.…
> You must simulate the value of the wave at every point of the universe Maybe I'm not getting it, but that still sounds simpler than simulating an exponential number of states for the entire universe.
The problem is that if you have five particles then the function ψ(r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, t) is a function on 3*5+1=15 coordinates. If we assume that for each particle we use a 100x100x100=1000000 grid, then for the 5 particles we need a grid of (1000000)^5=1000000000000000000000000000000 points. The space were the wave is defined grows exponentially. (As a rule of thumb, with a current notebook, you can do up to 1000000000 or 1000000000000 calculations in a few seconds/minutes/hours.)
I was lucky enough to have met John Wheeler when I was in grad school. He was a wonderful man who radiated joy and curiosity. My favorite anecdote about him, which was not widely known, involved what used to be called "nut letters." Before the internet, if you were a famous scientist, particularly a famous physicist, you would receive actual letters from people all over the world asking for help with their perpetual…
My colleagues and I used to get these "nut letters" occasionally even as unknown grad students. They were quite a treat to read: the human imagination is a marvel, and curiosity knows no bounds. If they'd taken slightly different paths than they had, some probably would have even been with my colleagues reading those letters instead of writing them.
First read this as "the race to explain that time was personal".
That's special relativity in a nutshell.