Subscribe now

Log in

Your login is case sensitive

I have forgotten my password


Short Sharp Science: A New Scientist blog

Cosmic-ray test sparks new interest in Matrix reality

Jacob Aron, reporter


(Image: Moviestore Collection/Rex Features)

A study proposing a test for the idea that we are all living in a computer simulation has sparked a fresh flurry of interest in this intriguing take on reality. But fans of The Matrix might have to wait a little longer before they can unleash their inner Neo.

The recent buzz was sparked by Silas Beane of the University of Bonn, Germany, and colleagues, who recently pointed out that even our unknown simulating overlords are still likely to have limited computing power, creating errors in the simulation that we might be able to spot - a glitch in the Matrix, if you will.

Physicists, including Beane, have already used powerful supercomputers to create simulations of patches of the universe. The simulations tend to be of a 3D grid made up of proton-size cells just femtometres - around 10-15 metres - across that roughly approximate the apparently continuous nature of the real universe.

As computing power is constantly increasing, this leads to the possibility that a large enough number cruncher might even be able to simulate the entire thing. That in turn has led many to ask the question: what if we are already living in such a simulation?

In their new study, Beane and colleagues suggest that if we do live in a computer-simulated grid, then cosmic rays - charged particles that whiz through space - are more likely to travel along the lines of the grid, rather than at all possible angles, a "flaw" in the simulation of the universe that we might be able to detect.

This might confirm that we do indeed live in a computer simulation - operated by "future string theorists", the researchers explain.

Don't hold your breath, though. The energy limits of observed cosmic rays in our universe mean the cells in the grid of the simulation must be no smaller than 10-12 femtometres for the flaw to show up in this way. But  there's no reason to assume that significantly advanced overlords wouldn't be capable of yet smaller cells, nor that they would stick to a cubic grid, leaving us back in the dark.

There are other ways that the simulators could gives clues to their presence. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, has previously suggested that they might deliver a message alerting us to the fact, or just transport us to their reality.

But bear in mind that the more general question of whether or not there is another level to the reality we experience has plagued philosophers for millennia. We should not expect a definitive answer soon.

Reference: arXiv:1210.1847

Facebook iconDigg iconDelicious iconStumbleUpon iconTwitter iconTechnorati iconReddit iconAddThis icon
Subscribe to New Scientist Magazine


A very simple way for a simulation overlord to ensure we will never learn about our state, is simply to run the simulation in five dimentional space time. Since we obviously and so absolutely insist we live in four dimentional space time, we cant even handle the actual generational functions, never mind the six dimentional metaanalysis algorithms.

A kelin bottle is a two dimentional finite unbounded single sided surface that can only exist in four spacial dimentions. So, what happens when you place two klein bottles face to face, giving a finite, unbounded volume, with no outside? How do you code for Conways Life in there?


The most likely scale for simulations are not at the subnuclear levels but at the neural level. We are probably within a decade of having that kind of computing capacity even if we do not yet have the software.


Just throwing this out there, but both Christianity and Buddhism have stated this in principle for millennia. The former has maintained that the Universe is an invention put into existence where there had been nothing and brought into existence from nothing; the latter maintains that the fundamental property of the Universe is nothing. So, the point here actually goes to religion. Congratulations go out to these scientists for having "seen the light."


Mixing a little bit of Science with a little bit of fantasy aren't you. You know that if you say it, people will actually believe it - that is, if these errors show up, it doesn't suppose we have computer genius overloads, it just a fact of nature. If the universe turns out to be, just one big computation, then thats just nature for you. It doesn't mean that it has someone/thing controlling it.


Are there extremely powerful simulators running our universe? Reminds me of another unscientific speculation: is their a supernatural being who made the universe?

Neither of these speculations is scientific... How could you possibly know how ultra intelligent beings would simulate a universe? who says it would be a grid? Who says it would be discrete? What if they use analogue computers? Whatever power limitation you assume they have, why not double it? And it goes on and on..

By all means, search for your grids in space and time... Meanwhile Ill stick with Occams Razor and spend valuable research energy on more wordly pursuits.


In a shop I was shown a 3D TV with the spec on and if you took away the black boarder line of the screen I could not tell the difference from the reality around me and this sort of technology is recent, let alone a million years from now, the shop assistant even told me there be making them without the 3D spec’s.

3D video gamers will love this new concept when fully developed in there genre


The mysterious lack of resolution in our observation of quantum events hints at a a higher-resolution reality, upon whose immense computing power our own reality depends.


Results: It took approximately 13.75 billion years for our universe simulation to produce creatures which could be certain of their artificial status. At this point, the program ceased to be useful as a simulation, so the universe was switched off and the data harvested.

Twitter Follow us
Twitter updates
Recent comments


Your login is case sensitive

I have forgotten my password


© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.