I Physical proof of a simulation?

Sciencelad2798
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
The above article gives lots of evidence to support the claim we are living in a simulation. I know this is usually considered hypothetical, but in the article they give physical explanations that fit topics discussed in this forum. Please read and give your opinion
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the date. It is an April Fool’s joke.
 
  • Like
Likes DrChinese
Dale said:
Look at the date. It is an April Fool’s joke.
I hadn't noticed that, but I'm still not sure. They give some convincing arguments in my opinion
 
Only because you desire to be fooled on this specific topic. Scientific American has a long history of publishing April Fool’s joke pieces.
 
Dale said:
Only because you desire to be fooled on this specific topic. Scientific American has a long history of publishing April Fool’s joke pieces.
Idk, there's nothing stopping them from presenting something that's true of true adjacent as an "April fools joke".
 
  • Sad
  • Haha
Likes Motore and Dale
Sciencelad2798 said:
Idk, there's nothing stopping them from presenting something that's true of true adjacent as an "April fools joke".
Nothing stopping them, sure. But here on PF we hold a higher standard. We require that all posts be consistent with the professional scientific literature. Scientific American is a pop-sci source, not part of the professional literature.

If you wish to discuss this topic here you will need to get a real reference. Not a joke piece in the pop-sci literature.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Hamiltonian
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
8K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Back
Top