-8
$\begingroup$

Is it possible to prove in 2016 that the universe is made up of more discrete units than say an atom or quark? What is the smallest thing we have been able to measure, like not theorize about, but literally measure? I can't seem to find any common consensus and theories are always mixed in with the facts.

The reason I ask is that it is quite possible that what many people call "quantum mechanics" are just a collection of misguided theories about the smallest discrete unit in the universe. The more I learn about quantum mechanics the more it makes sense that people generally have no idea and are applying all kinds of formulas to satisfy something which may instead be quite basic.

And that is that the universe is made up of discrete points in space and the interactions each point has are determined by something not operating in our universe, ie a computer or simulator running our universe. It seems this is only "obvious" to high end computer scientists.

Anyone who is a decent computer scientist already knows that our universe can be simulated to a decent enough level to fool a human. You do not need to go to planck level to fool a human, even physicist humans. Provided you have enough power to run a large enough simulator you can simulate the universe to a level that in a blind test will not be found as "Fake". So why is this theory that our universe is actually a simulation, or running on a computer, not the most logical and commonly accepted one? It seems to me this occurs simply because the cross over education needed rarely exists, most physicists don't know enough computers and most computer scientists know little about physics.

String theory, multiverses, quantum mechanics, general relativity, these all seem like naive explanations of basic computing concepts.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Everything after the first paragraph seems irrelevant for the actual question. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind ♦
    Apr 17, 2016 at 17:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ...isn't your question those things with question marks at the end in the first paragraph? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind ♦
    Apr 17, 2016 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyone who's a decent computational physicist knows that Quantum mechanics is a computationally difficult things to simulate. I don't see why these hypothetical aliens with computers would make their lives so difficult. $\endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    Apr 17, 2016 at 17:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RylerSturden Coincidentally, I work somewhere whose purpose is to write simulations of physical systems, and it turns out that this is an extremely hard problem. So, well. $\endgroup$
    – user107153
    Apr 17, 2016 at 19:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't general relativity a spin off company from GE? Thanks for your insight. $\endgroup$
    – Ryler Sturden
    Apr 18, 2016 at 14:28

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Is it possible to prove in 2016 that the universe is made up of more discrete units than say an atom or quark?

Physics is not mathematics, it does not prove anything. It measures and observes and fits mathematical models to data. These models become validated as long as their predictions are fulfilled. A wrong prediction falsifies a model and modifications or new models become necessary. At the moment all our data are consistent with the quantum mechanical nature of elementary particles working within the predictions of the standard model of physics.

What is the smallest thing we have been able to measure, like not theorize about, but literally measure?

All elementary particles are point particles in the fits, and thus can be considered as smallest. Measurement requires rulers and clocks for simple measurments, but mathematical functions are as good as rulers and clocks , and possibly more accurate.

As an example here is a bubble chamber photo of an electron, (the helix).

electron

An accumulation of ionisation measurements of a lot of electrons allows to identify it as an electron bending in a known magnetic field and losing energy by scattering on hydrogen atoms. All these statements are backed by mathematical rulers. The hypothesis that the electron is a point particle in the standard model Lagrangian has not been falsified up to now, with the most sophisticated experiments.

I can't seem to find any common consensus and theories are always mixed in with the facts.

If the mathematics is correct, models fitting factual measurements are as valid as the measurements. Physicists do have a common consensus.

String theory, multiverses, quantum mechanics, general relativity, these all seem like naive explanations of basic computing concepts.

Considering that once people stopped counting on their fingers, geometry and then mathematics took off, it is a very naive statement, imo. These theoretical models fit data and predict new behaviors, which is what physics is about.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
14
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for at least attempting to answer some questions. But your answers, at least to the things you quoted don't satisfy my curiosity. If you have anything further to add then please do. $\endgroup$
    – Ryler Sturden
    Apr 17, 2016 at 18:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @RylerSturden: If you are really curious, take a good course on Modern Physics, which covers relativity and atomic physics. It sounds like you have been reading pop science books; to actually learn you must do stuff - work problems - just like with computer systems you must write programs, etc. Otherwise all you get is a jumble of seemingly contradictory information. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Diehr
    Apr 17, 2016 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterDiehr yes I am not as educated as most people here on these topics. My current opinion from the broad reading of "current" atomic physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory, etc is that it is like Uncle John trying to talk about computing concepts at thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately I cannot quickly give you my experience with computers and it is the same with you giving me the knowledge on physics. Maybe if we both had each others knowledge too we could find some consensus and a better truth. I will continue to learn more about this, thank you. $\endgroup$
    – Ryler Sturden
    Apr 18, 2016 at 4:19
  • $\begingroup$ @annav what you describe as "point particles" sounds to me like people think something exists because you can measure "something" happening. Imagine a 3x3x3 grid of cubes. The center cube we will call an atom. Now if we get our measuring devices we can see the surrounding cubes are having things happen to them! Why! How? We should call it a point particle because we can't see it. The simulator may be operating over each cube in the 3x3x3 grid , and changes are made based on its rules. My point, understanding changes in our universe and what is really happening can be 2 different things. $\endgroup$
    – Ryler Sturden
    Apr 18, 2016 at 4:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RylerSturden Yes, wading into probably the single most predictively-successful field in science and describing theories which have been experimentally tested to parts in $10^{12}$ 'naive explanations of basic computing concepts' does make you look like an idiot. I am not saying you are one but, seriously, learn the field if you want to comment on it: we did. $\endgroup$
    – user107153
    Apr 18, 2016 at 10:21

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