If I were to model the standard model, say on a super powered computer (which does not necessarily have to exist in the real world), would I get molecules, chemistry, life?

I want to understand the current experimental view on this subject. How much do chaotic efects affect the physics of everyday-life scales? Would I or would I not get the same universe as I observe every day as a computer simulation based on the laws of the standard model of elementary particles?

Say we neglect gravity for simplicity.

Update: The mentioned chaotic effects are expected to give an ever-rising error between the predictions of SM and whatever physics lies beyond it. The whole point of the question is whether SM is capable of describing a simulation, or the growing corrections from Planckian physics will invalidate it in a short period of time.


closed as primarily opinion-based by Bernhard, Steeven, user36790, Kyle Kanos, Bill N Oct 11 '15 at 21:14

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You will never know your initial conditions accurate enough. $\endgroup$ – Bernhard Oct 11 '15 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Bernhard suppose I do. This is not a question about the possibility of an actual simulation, but rather a theoretical possibility of such simulations. $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Oct 11 '15 at 12:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, if for any objection that people make you add an assumption to your question, this will become an unanserable question. Voting to close for being to broad. $\endgroup$ – Bernhard Oct 11 '15 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ How much do chaotic efects affect the physics of everyday-life scales? Have you not answered your own question here? I would guess QM says you can't, even in principle, get the exact same initial conditions as this universe, then chaos theory kicks in, so as soon as you start running the simulation you will immediately diverge/split. $\endgroup$ – user81619 Oct 11 '15 at 13:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hindsight "if I simulate standard model, how close will the simulation come to the reality" is an indirect way of questioning the accuracy of the standard model, because that is the only thing we must first determine to answer the question. $\endgroup$ – Asher Oct 11 '15 at 16:36

The standard model is a quantum mechanical model.Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory.

The everyday world we see is a meta level, emergent level, on the underlying quantum mechanical level, and the transition is formalized with the density matrix formalism, which matrix becomes diagonal at the level of the everyday world.

At the level of biochemistry there already exist simulations of the DNA molecules.

The whole point of the question is whether SM is capable of describing a simulation, or the growing corrections from Planckian physics will invalidate it in a short period of time.

This is a cart before the horse statement . It is the simulation that simulates the Standard model not the other way around!

As I said, the need for the standard model to describe the classical universe stops when the density matrix off diagonal elements are effectively zero, i.e dimensions are such that h_bar is effectively zero. Nothing to do with Planck length .

  • $\begingroup$ I wasn't talking about simulating classical universes. Suppose your initial condition is the quantum state. $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Oct 12 '15 at 2:48

I will just say that this sounds like a question that is very hard to answer in a general way, because the possible effects of the new physics are so diverse.

One specific scenario that comes to mind, is dark matter that sometimes impacts atomic nuclei. This might occasionally jog an atom in the atmosphere, creating a noise term in atmospheric dynamics, and you could try to quantify its effects.

For example, there must be models of atmospheric hydrodynamics in which there are phenomenological parameters that in principle could be deduced solely by stipulating atmospheric composition, Earth's size and distance from the sun, and so on, and then using physical first principles to determine e.g. the thermodynamic and hydrodynamic effects of the sun's radiation on such an atmosphere.

If the noise term due to nuclear recoil from dark matter impacts actually modified those phenomenological parameters - e.g. by persistently introducing energy into a vibrational mode of a specific molecule, in excess of what first-principles calculations predict - that would presumably be an example of macroscopic deviation from standard model expectations.

I originally thought of this scenario because the question mentioned chaos, and I tried to think of some dynamical system where a difference in fundamental physics might be chaotically amplified.

But even in this case, if you were testing for this effect, you wouldn't need to somehow simulate the whole atmosphere as it was, starting at GMT midnight 1 January 2015, and then see if the weather turned out differently from reality; because the effect shows up, first of all, in a deviation from theoretical expectations, in the energetic behavior of some molecule.

The lesson I draw from this, is that even everyday life, despite its complexity, is made up of specific classes of physical system; and that if you are looking for a subtle impact on everyday life, of hypothetical new fundamental physics, it won't come about in a mysteriously generic way because of little perturbations distributed across numerous heterogeneous events. The perturbations will arise in a highly specific way, because the new physics impacts certain highly specific physical systems, and it should therefore show up in focused physical studies.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am aware that this question is hard to answer. This is why I have posted it: to (1) see if anybody who had experience in something similar posts his/her opinion and (2) provoke a discussion which would lead me to learning somehing new $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Oct 11 '15 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ Dark matter is a good point, btw. Do you think the noise coming from the dark matter would be strong enough for the two simulations to "feel" differently? $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Oct 11 '15 at 14:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.