Are we living in a simulation? Gravity points to a yes
What if gravity isn’t pulling you down, but compressing you like a Zip file? The universe could be reordering itself, and composed of information, not atoms – running like a digital simulation, as opposed to a material system.
Image by Cybernews
What if gravity isn’t pulling you down, but compressing you like a Zip file? The universe could be reordering itself, and composed of information, not atoms – running like a digital simulation, as opposed to a material system.
Leading physics scientist Melvin Vopson, from the University of Portsmouth, has added to the idea – supported by Elon Musk – that we are living in an advanced simulation.
Vopson proposes that gravity is the universe's way of compressing data and clustering particles into denser configurations to save memory.
In Vopson’s model, the entire universe is made up of tiny “cells” – like pixels or blocks in a digital grid. Each of those cells can either:
- Contain matter – which gets recorded as a 1
- Be empty – which gets recorded as a 0
So, instead of counting particles, he’s thinking in binary here – much like a computer does. The more 1’s we have, the more memory the universe has to use, hence the need for clustering.
“Just like computers try to save space and run more efficiently, the universe might be doing the same,” Vopson offered.
This feels like a milestone in what previously was a very speculative conversational topic – what if we are actually living in a simulation?
“It’s a new way to think about gravity – not just as a pull, but as something that happens when the universe is trying to stay organised,” he explained to Cybernews.
When matter means memory
Vopson's work is building on Einstein's idea of E=mc² – in plain terms, the notion that energy and mass are equivalent. Here, Vopson throws information into the mix, proposing that encoded information is actually physical matter.
This brings about a holographic principle, which originates from scientists like Gerard ’t Hooft and Leonard Susskind, that the 3D universe we live in might be a projection of 2D information.
Vopson's theory fits this nicely – if the universe is an information system, it makes sense that data can be stored effectively in lower dimensions.
The programmers above us
Other prominent thinkers are putting forward implications of simulations – Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently mentioned that we could effectively have a place in a stack of simulations.
In an Instagram video doing the rounds, Brin explained that it’s tough to reason with whichever higher-ups are running the simulation.
This school of thought corroborates the view that reality is a digital artifact and that physics is then code-level instructions.
Therefore, we are quite possibly characters in a program, not players in a sandbox.
The case for evidence
Critics argue that there’s a lack of direct experimental evidence available to justify the idea that we’re in a computerized scenario.
Vopson's work, however, is a notable counterargument to any scepticism.
The scientist points out a similarity to a computer cleaning up its files – nature acts like it's organising and minimising information. This shows up in biology, physics, and space.
Vopson has proposed a test in which matter and antimatter collide. He predicts that extra low-energy light (infrared) should appear if information has weight, and catching this would prove his idea.
“This triggers the attracting force because of the rule set in the computational system,” Vopson says. “It’s identical to how a digital simulation would be designed.”
Though the experiment hasn’t been carried out yet, it feels like there’s a pressing need to do so.
Cleaning up the code
If gravity isn’t just pulling us down – then it’s likely the system is reorganising itself, like any efficient machine would.
The universe then wouldn’t resemble a computer, but might actually be one – running code, compressing data, and managing bandwidth with cosmic precision.
We might wonder what the purpose is of this cosmic program, especially when we’re not sure if we’re characters, players, or data packets.
It’s a question that blurs science fiction and hard science – inviting brand new ways of thinking.