TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 17 April 2025

DOI 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

Astrophysical constraints on the

OPEN ACCESS simulation hypothesis for this
EDITED BY
Jan Sladkowski,
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
Universe: why it is (nearly)
REVIEWED BY
Filiberto Hueyotl-Zahuantitla,
impossible that we live in a
Cátedra CONACYT-UNACH, Mexico
Elmo Benedetto,
University of Salerno, Italy
simulation
*CORRESPONDENCE
F. Vazza, F. Vazza 1,2*
franco.vazza2@[Link]
1
Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universitá di Bologna, Bologna, Italy, 2 Istituto di Radio
RECEIVED 16 January 2025 Astronomia, Istituto Nazione di Astro Fisica (INAF), Bologna, Italy
ACCEPTED 07 March 2025
PUBLISHED 17 April 2025

CITATION
Vazza F (2025) Astrophysical constraints on
the simulation hypothesis for this Universe:
why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a Introduction: The “simulation hypothesis” is a radical idea which posits that our
simulation. reality is a computer simulation. We wish to assess how physically realistic this
Front. Phys. 13:1561873. is, based on physical constraints from the link between information and energy,
doi: 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873
and based on known astrophysical constraints of the Universe.
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Vazza. This is an open-access article Methods: We investigate three cases: the simulation of the entire visible
distributed under the terms of the Creative Universe, the simulation of Earth only, or a low-resolution simulation of Earth
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other compatible with high-energy neutrino observations.
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are Results: In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version
credited and that the original publication in of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics or (literally)
this journal is cited, in accordance with astronomically large, even in the lowest resolution case. Only universes with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as
which does not comply with these terms. a simulation.
Discussion: It is simply impossible for this Universe to be simulated by a universe
sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements in the
far future.

KEYWORDS

cosmology, information, simulations, black holes, computing

1 Introduction
The “simulation hypothesis” (SH) is a radical and thought-provoking idea with ancient
and noble philosophical roots (for example, works by Descartes [1] and Berkeley [2]) and
frequent echoes in the modern literature, which postulates that the reality we perceive is the
creation of a computer program.
The modern version of the debate usually refers to an influential article by Bostrom [3],
although several coeval science fiction movies contributed to popularizing this theme1 .

1 For example, it was the central topic of the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, featuring several
astrophysicists and physicists: [Link] This theme still
periodically surges and generates a lot of “noise” on the web, indicating both the fascination it
rightfully produces in the public and the difficulty of debunking it.

Frontiers in Physics 01 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

TABLE 1 Summary of the size, resolution, memory, and energy requirements of the tested simulation hypotheses.

Simulation System size MIN. Resolution MIN. Information MIN. Energy

(cm) (cm) (bits) (erg)

Full Res. Universe 4.47 ⋅ 1031 1.64 ⋅ 10−33 3.5 ⋅ 10124 8.9 ⋅ 10108

Full Res. Earth 6.37 ⋅ 108 1.64 ⋅ 10−33 9.8 ⋅ 1074 3.0 ⋅ 1059

Low Res. Earth 6.37 ⋅ 108 1.24 ⋅ 10−21 1.65 ⋅ 1051 4.3 ⋅ 1035

Despite its immense popularity, this topic has rarely been holographic principle (HP) arguably represents the most powerful
investigated scientifically because, at first sight, it might seem to be tool for establishing this connection. It was inspired by the modeling
entirely out of the boundaries of falsifiability and hence relegated to of black hole thermodynamics through the Bekenstein bound (see
social media buzz and noise. below), according to which the maximum entropy of a system scales
A remarkable exception is the work by Beane et al. [4], who within its encompassing surface rather than its enclosing volume.
investigated the potentially observable consequences of the SH by The HP is at the core of the powerful anti-de Sitter/conformal field
exploring the particular case of a cubic spacetime lattice. They found theory correspondence (AdS/CFT), which links string theory with
that the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the gravity in five dimensions with the quantum field theory of particles
universe is ∼10−11 GeV−1 , derived from the high-energy cut-off of with no gravity on a four-dimensional space [7].
the cosmic ray spectrum. Interestingly, they proposed that the SH According to the HP, a stable and asymptotically flat spacetime
can be tested through the distributions of arrival direction of the region with the boundary of area A is fully described by no more
highest energy cosmic rays through the detection of a degree of than A/4 degrees of freedom, or approximately 1 bit of information
rotational symmetry breaking associated with the structure of the per Planck area, defined as Equation 1:
underlying lattice. Our work will also use ultra-high-energy cosmic
rays and neutrinos to constrain the SH, although in a totally different l2p = Gℏ/c3 = 2.59 ⋅ 10−66 cm2 . (1)
way (e.g., Section 3.3).
Our starting point is that “ information is physical” [5, 6], and where obviously lp = √ℏG/c3 ∼ 1.6 ⋅ 10−33 cm is the Planck scale.
hence, any numerical computation requires a certain amount of power, While in a local classical field theory description, there are far
energy, and computing time, and the laws of physics can clearly tell more degrees of freedom, the excitation of more than A/4 of these
us what is possible to simulate and under which conditions. We degrees of freedom will trigger gravitational collapse [8–10]. The
can use these simple concepts to assess the physical plausibility—or total entropy contained with the holographic area A follows from the
impossibility—of a simulation reproducing the Universe2 we live generalized second law of thermodynamics, giving the Bekenstein
within, and even of some lower resolution version of it. bound, which applies to systems that are not strongly self-gravitating
Moreover, the powerful physical nature of information processing and whose energy is E ≈ Mc2 :
allows us to even sketch the properties that any other universe ER
simulating us must have in order for the simulation to be feasible. S ≤ 2πkB = A/4 (2)
ℏc
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the
quantitative framework we will use to estimate the information and In Equation 2, R is the circumferential radius of the smallest
energy budget of simulations; Section 3 will present our results for sphere that fits around the matter system, assuming (nearly)
different cases of the SH; and Section 4 will critically assess some of Euclidean spacetime for simplicity, and M is the mass of the system.
the open issues in our treatment. Our conclusions are summarized in Next, we can use the classical information-entropy equivalence
Section 4.6. [11], which states that the minimum entropy production connected
with any 1-bit measurement is given by Equation 3:

2 Methods: the holographic principle H = kb log(2) (3)

and information-energy equivalence where the log(2) reflects the binary decision. The amount of entropy
for a single 1-bit measurement (or for any single 1-bit flip, i.e., a
In order to assess which resources are needed to simulate a
computing operation) can be greater than this fundamental amount
given system, we need to quantify how much information can be
but not smaller; otherwise, the second law of thermodynamics
encoded in a given portion of the Universe (or in its totality). The
would be violated.
Therefore, the total information (in [bits]) that can
possibly be encoded within the holographic surface A is
2 As a sign of respect for what this astrophysicist honestly thinks is the only
described by Equation 4:
“real” Universe, which is the one we observe through a telescope, I will
use the capital letter for this Universe—even if, for the sake of argument, S ER
Imax = = 2π . (4)
is at times assumed to be only a simulation, being run in another universe. H ℏ c log (2)

Frontiers in Physics 02 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

How much energy is required to encode an arbitrary equal to the observable radius of the Universe, RU ≈ 14.3Gpc
amount of information (I) in any physical device? Computation (comoving), and assuming a critical density ρc = 8.5 ⋅ 10−30 g/cm3 ,
and thermodynamics are closely related: in any irreversible3 which is valid for a flat Universe at z = 0 and using a value
computation, information must be erased, which is a physical for the Hubble constant H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc. Equation 8 gives a
reduction of the number of possible states of one physical register total energy
to 0. This necessarily leads to the decrease of entropy of the device
4π 3 2
used for computing, which must be balanced with an equal (or EU = R ρ c ∼ 2.7 ⋅ 1078 erg (8)
larger) increase in entropy of the Universe. Thermodynamics thus 3 U c
leads to the necessity of dissipating energy (via heat) to erase bits of Based on Equation 4, Equation 9 results in a maximum
information. The related cost of erasing one single bit is thus given information of
by “Brioullin’s inequality,” Equation 5:
IU ∼ 3.5 ⋅ 10124 bits (9)
ΔE ≥ kB T log (2) (5)

where T is the (absolute) temperature where the energy is dissipated. which results into an ecoding energy given by Equation 10:
If we apply this to the maximum information within the holographic
sphere, we get Equation 6: EI, U ∼ 8.9 ⋅ 10108 erg (10)

ER Assuming a computing temperature equal to the microwave

EI = 2πkB T (6)
ℏc
background temperature nowadays (TCMB = 2.7°(1 + z)K). A
It is interesting to compute the ratio between the enclosed energy summary of the key quantities of energy and information required
within the holographic surface, E, and the energy required to encode for this simulation (as well as for the following lower resolution
the same information, EI , which scales as Equation 7: cases) is given in Table 1.
EI T E T M As anticipated, because EI,U ≫ EU , there is simply not enough
χ= ≈ 27.5 ≈ 0.04 (7) energy within the entire observable Universe to simulate another
E 1°K 1erg 1°K mp
similar universe down to its Planck scale, in the sense that there are
This physically means even at the low temperature of ∼1°K not even remotely available resources to store the data to even begin
for computing, the minimum energy required to fully describe all the simulation. Therefore, the SH applied to the entire Universe
internal degrees of freedom of the system becomes larger than the is entirely rejected based on the unimaginable amount of energy
actual energy that the system contains, already for systems with it requires.
a mass M ∼ 25mp , or more. This is enlightening, as it shows how As noted above, slightly different estimates for the total
the full simulation of any macroscopic (or astronomical) object is information content of the Universe can be obtained by replacing
bound to require an astoundingly large amount of energy, which, the Bekenstein bound with the Hawking–Bekenstein formula, which
in turn, allows us to assess the plausibility of the SH against known computes the entropy of the Universe if that would be converted into
astrophysical bounds. a black hole, as in Equation 11:
The exact bounds derived from Equation 4 depend on what
systems are considered and on how R, E, and S are defined [8, GM2
I′max = ∼ 2.0 ⋅ 10124 bits (11)
14]. It must also be stressed that a key assumption in Bekenstein’s ℏc
derivation formula is that the gravitational self-interaction of the
which is in line with similar estimates in the recent literature (Egan
system can be neglected, as highlighted by the fact that the Newton
and Lineweaver [15], once we rescaled the previous formula for
constant G does not appear. Although this assumption is reasonably
the volume within the cosmic event horizon rather than from
verified in the application explored in this work, we notice that the
estimates for black holes can significantly differ [8]. the volume within the observable Universe; see also Profumo
et al. [16] for a more recent estimate) and obviously incredibly
larger than the amount of information that is generated even by
3 Results: information requirements the most challenging “cosmological” simulations produced to-date
and energy bounds in astrophysics (e.g., ∼1.6 ⋅ 1013 bits of raw data in the Illustris-1
simulation, Vogelsberger et al. [17]).
3.1 Full simulation of the visible Universe This leads to the FIRST CONCLUSION: simulating the entirety
of our visible Universe at full resolution (i.e., down to the Planck
Based on the above formulas, we can first estimate the total scale) is physically impossible.
information contained within the holographic surface with radius

3.2 Full simulation of planet Earth

3 It must be noted that also reversible computation, with no deletion of bits
or dissipation of energy, is possible. However, irreversible computation Next, we can apply the same logic to compute the total
is unavoidable both for several many-to-one logical operations (AND or memory information needed to describe our planet (R⊕ = 6.37 ⋅
ERASE) as well as for error correction, in which several erroneous states 108 cm, M⊕ = 5.9 ⋅ 1027 g, and E⊕ = M⊕ c2 = 5.46 ⋅ 1048 erg). We assume
are mapped into a single correct state [12, 13]. here that a planet is the smallest system that “the simulator” must

Frontiers in Physics 03 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

model to recreate the daily experience that humankind collectively will, of course, be very large: Mmax,⊕ = Emax,⊕ /c2 = 1.68 ⋅ 105 M⊙ ).
considers reality4 . Moreover, such a computing Jupiter must be continuously supplied
Again, based on Equation 4, we get Equation 12: with a similar amount of energy for each time step while all
dissipated energy is somehow released outside of the system (and
Imax,⊕ = 9.81 ⋅ 1074 bits (12) without raising the computing temperature).
Interestingly, such planetary-sized computers were theoretically
and for the total energy needed to code this information, explored by Sandberg [12], who presented a thorough study of
Equation 13: all practical limitations connected to heat dissipation, computing
power, connectivity, and bandwidth, arriving at a typical estimate of
Emax,⊕ = 2.55 ⋅ 1059 erg (13)
∼1047 bits for a realistic Jupiter-sized computer. This is impressive,
and yet 27 orders of magnitude fewer than what is required to
assuming, very optimistically (as it will be discussed later), that
encode the maximum information within the holographic surface
T = TCMB . The amount of energy required to even start the
containing our planet. Even setting aside the tremendous distance
simulation of our planet is enormous, and it can be easily put into
between the hypothetical and realistic memory capacity of such a
astrophysical context:
colossal computer, the next problem is that concentrating so much
• this is of the same order as the rest-mass energy of mass and energy in such a limited volume will inevitably produce
globular clusters like Palomar2 (Mgc ∼ 3.3 ⋅ 105 M⊙ , for example high levels of energy emission and heating, as in standard black holes
Baumgardt and Hilker [18]): Erm, gc = Mgc c2 ≈ 5.6 ⋅ 1059 erg; and their related accretion disks.
• this is also of the order of the potential binding energy of If a black hole actively accretes matter, the kinetic temperature
the halo of our Galaxy (Mgal ∼ 1.3 ⋅ 1012 M⊙ and Rgal = 287kpc, acquired by accreted matter is very large, and is given by Equation 15:
for example, Posti and Helmi [19]): Urm, gal ∼ 3GM2gal /(5Rgal ) ∼
GMmax,⊕ mp 2mp c2
3.1 ⋅ 1059 erg. Tacc ∼ ∼ , (15)
3RJ kB 3 kB
Therefore, the initialization of a complete simulation of “just” a
planet like Earth requires either converting the entire stellar mass That is, regardless of the actual mass and radius of the black
of a typical globular cluster into energy or using the equivalent hole into consideration, the temperature acquired by accreted
energy necessary to unbind all stars and matter components in particles is in the ∼ (m/mp ) ⋅ 107 K regime for a generic particle
the Milky Way. with m/mp relative to the proton mass. Such temperature is
Elaborating on the implausibility of such a simulation, based manifestly much larger than the very optimistic cosmic microwave
on its energy cost, is straightforward: while this is indeed the background (CMB) temperature we previously assumed to
requirement simply to begin the simulation, roughly the same compute the minimum energy necessary to encode the full
amount of energy needs to be dissipated for each timestep of information of the simulation, that is, Tacc ∼ 107 TCMB . From
the simulation. This means that already after ∼106 timesteps, the E ∝ kB TIMAX (Equation 4), it follows that the actual energy
required energy is equivalent to the entire rest-mass energy of the requirement is a factor of ∼107 larger, even in the most optimistic
Milky Way or roughly to the total potential energy of the most configuration, requiring now a computer with radius ∼5 ⋅ 1017 cm,
massive clusters of galaxies in the Universe. that is, ∼0.16 parsecs.
Moreover, while the minimum mass required to contain this This leads to a SECOND CONCLUSION: simulating planet
information corresponds to a black hole mass prescribed by Earth at full resolution (i.e., down to the Planck scale) is practically
Equation 11, which gives ∼0.32M⊙ using Imax,⊕ , the actual energy impossible, as it requires access to a galactic amount of energy.
required to encode the entire amount of bits, Emax,⊕ , can at most
be confined at within a radius corresponding to the Schwarzschild
radius given by Equation 14: 3.3 Low-resolution simulations of Planet
Earth
2 GEmax,⊕
RS = ∼ 4.95 ⋅ 109 cm (14)
c4 Next, we shall explore the possibility of “partial” or “low-
9 resolution” simulations of planet Earth, in which the simulation
which is 70% of the radius of Jupiter (RJ = 6.99 ⋅ 10 cm), meaning
must only resolve scales that are routinely probed by human
that a planetary-sized computer must be deployed for this
experiments or observations while using some sort of “subgrid”
simulation. The equivalent mass enclosed within such a radius
physics for any smaller scale.
The Planck scale lp is at the core of physics as we know it, but it
is not a directly measurable scale by any means. In the framework
4 For the sake of argument, because we surmise here the existence of a
of the SH, it is well conceivable that lp appears in the equations
skilled simulator that somehow can use computing centers as large as a
of our physics but that the simulation instead effectively works by
planet-sized black hole, we can concede with no difficulty that it can also
discretizing our reality at a much coarser scale, thus providing a
create a consistent simulation of the experience of ≤103 astronauts who
“low-resolution” simulation5 .
have temporarily left our planet and probed a larger portion of space. The
simulator must also use a modest amount of extra computing resources
to produce fake data to constantly keep astrophysicists and cosmologists 5 As a matter of fact, in almost any conceivable numerical simulation that is
busy while they think they are studying the universe. run in physics, the Planck constant and its associated length scale lp are at

Frontiers in Physics 04 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

What is the smallest scale, Δxmin , that a realistic simulation of the South Pole, as this reduces the contamination by lower energy
our planet should resolve in order for the simulation not to be neutrinos of atmospheric or solar origin. Therefore, the established
incompatible with available human experiments or observations detection of this event can be used to constrain the minimum
made on the planet? length scale which must be effectively adopted by any low-resolution
High-energy physics, through the De Broglie relation, λ = simulation of our planet: λν = hc/Eν ∼ 1.2 ⋅ 10−21 cm6 . A simulation
hc/E ∼ h/p, establishes an effective link between observed energy with an effective resolution coarser than this will be incompatible
particle phenomena and spatial length-scales. So, the smallest with our experimental data on neutrinos. Less straightforward is
resolution that the simulation must have depends on the highest how to use this knowledge to estimate the information required
energies routinely probed by human experiments. On Earth, the for such a reduced-resolution simulation of planet Earth, using
smallest high-energy scale probed by man-made experiments is in the holographic principle as before. The most conservative choice
the ∼10−16 cm ballpark based on the particle collision energy scale appears to be to still apply the HP approach but rescale the
reached with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [20]. However, this application of Equation 4 to the minimum element of area possible
is true only limited to the portion of the terrestrial surface where the in the low-resolution simulation (∝ λ2ν ), instead of the Planck area
LHC is deployed (i.e., a ring of 27 km at most 200 m below sea level). (Equation 1). Therefore, the minimum necessary information to be
A much larger energy scale is probed by the detection of ultra- encoded follows from rescaling Equation 12 into Equation 16 for the
high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) as they cross our atmosphere ratio of the two areas:
and trigger the formation of observable Cherenkov radiation and
l2p
fluorescent light [21, 22]. Observed UHECRs are characterized I⊕,low ≈ Imax,⊕ ⋅ ≈ 1.65 ⋅ 1051 bits. (16)
by a power-law distribution of events, and the largest energy λ2ν
ever recorded for an UHECR is ∼3 ⋅ 1020 eV (1991, the “Oh my Equation 17 gives a minimum encoding energy:
god particle,” for example, Bird et al. [23]) while the second
exceeded the ∼2.4 ⋅ 1020 eV range (2022, the “Amaterasu” particle, for E⊕,low = 4.31 ⋅ 1035 erg (17)
example, Unger and Farrar [24]). The precise determination of “very
energetic” is subject to absolute energy calibration uncertainties, also if we very conservatively use T = TCMB as above (which we are going
due to their uncertain composition; hence, we can use EUHECR = to relax later on).
1020 eV = 1.6 ⋅ 108 erg as a conservative limit. This yields a length At face value, this energy requirement is far less astronomical
scale λUHECR ∼ 1.2 ⋅ 10−24 cm. However, a hardcore proponent of than the previous one: it corresponds to the conversion into the
the SH might still argue that this spatial scale is not really the energy of ≈2.4 ⋅ 10−19 M⊙ or ≈7.9 ⋅ 10−14 M⊕ (∼4.8 ⋅ 1014 g). This is
most stringent experimental limit on the minimum spatial scale of still equal to the total energy radiated by the Sun in 2 minutes,
the global Earth simulation because UHECRs probe only the last considering the solar constant (L⊙ ∼ 3.8 ⋅ 1033 erg/s), yet it is an
∼102 km of air above the ground level, where particle cascades and amount of energy that a fairly advanced civilization might access to.
airshowers are triggered by the interaction between UHECRs and air Equation 11 gives the size of the minimum black hole capable
molecules. Hence, the simulator might keep most of the simulated of storing I⊕,low : MBH,low = 4.4 ⋅ 10−13 M⊙ . The radius relative to this
volume of our planet at a much lower level of spatial resolution mass is also fairly small: RBH,low = 1.3 ⋅ 10−7 cm. Therefore, while the
to limit computing resources. Indeed, the best resolution that is total energy required for the initial encoding of the simulation’s
currently sampled for the interior of Earth, based on the advanced data is still immense by modern human standards, it is tiny in
analysis of seismic shear waves diffracting along the core-mantle astrophysical terms. However, we will next show that the only way to
boundary, is “just” on the order of ∼102 km [25, 26]. process the data of such simulation to advance it at sufficient speed
Luckily, high-energy astrophysics still comes to the rescue requires access to unattainably large computing power, which makes
due to the detection of very high-energy extragalactic neutrinos this last low-resolution scenario impossible, too.
crossing the inside of our planet. Since the first discovery of energetic We largely used here the seminal work by Lloyd [13] for the
neutrinos by the IceCube observatory [27, 28], the existence of a computing capabilities of black holes. The ultimate compression
background radiation of neutrinos, likely of extragalactic origin, limit of a black hole can provide in principle the most performing
in the 10TeV − 2PeV energy range, has been firmly established. computing configuration for any simulation. Thus, by showing
Such neutrinos are very likely produced in external galaxies, even that not even in this case can the simulation be performed, we
if the exact mechanism is highly uncertain [29–31]. In any case, can argue about its physical impossibility. Based on the classical
the maximum energy scale probed so far reaches approximately
Eν ∼ 1017 eV [32]; that is, lower than the maximum energy reached
6 Especially because we focus here on the simulation of Earth, a reasonable
by UHECRs and in line with theoretical expectations by likely
question would be whether such low-resolution simulation would still be
production mechanisms at the source. Unlike UHECRs, however,
neutrinos cross our planet entirely because they are extremely capable of reproducing the observed biological process on the planet. A

weakly interacting with anything else. As a matter of fact, the ∼10−21 cm length seems to be safely smaller than any process known to

IceCube observatory is more sensitive to events that are produced be relevant for biology, and thus, a hypothetical simulation using efficient

on the other side of the planet, with respect to its location on subgrid modeling of processes below such resolution might correctly
reproduce biology on Earth. If, instead, some biological processes will
be shown to depend on < 10−21 cm scales, this can be used to revise our
the core of many physical relations, and yet the effective spatial resolution constraints on the smallest scale to be resolved by the simulation and call
of simulations is coarser than this by many orders of magnitude. for an even more implausibly large amount of energy or power.

Frontiers in Physics 05 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

picture of black holes, no information is allowed to escape from In this case, we get the total computing power:
within the event horizon. However, the quantum mechanical view
is different as it allows, through the emission of Hawking radiation P′op ∼ N′op ⋅ I⊕,low ∼ 1.3 ⋅ 1067 [bits/s] . (23)
as black holes evaporate, to transfer some information on the
outside. Following Lloyd [13], even black holes may theoretically be
This computing power may seem immense, yet it is not
programmed to encode the information to be processed within their
enough to advance the low-resolution simulation of planet Earth
horizon. Then, an external observer, by examining the correlations
in a reasonable wall-clock time. We notice that the minimum
in the Hawking radiation emitted as they evaporate, might be
timestep that the simulation must resolve in order to consistently
retrieving the result of the simulation outside. Even such a tiny black
propagate the highest energy neutrinos we observe on Earth is
hole has a very long evaporation timescale: tev ∼ G2 M3BH,low /(3ℏc4 k),
Δt ≈ λν /c ∼ 4.1 ⋅ 10−32 s. In the extremely conservative hypothesis
with the constant k ∼ 10−3 − 10−2 depending on the species of
that only a few operations per bit are necessary to advance every
particles composing the bulk of the BH mass, which gives tev ≥ 1035 s.
bit of the simulation forward in time for a Δt timestep, ∼ O(1031 )
The temperature relative to the Hawking radiation for such a
operations on every bit are necessary for the simulation to cover
black hole is given by Equation 18:
only 1 s of the evolution of our Universe. The two previous cases
ℏc3 instead can at best achieve ∼8 ⋅ 1015 − 5.6 ⋅ 1017 operations per bit per
TH ∼ ∼ 1.4 ⋅ 105 K. (18)
8πGMBH, low kB second, depending on the working temperature. In those conditions,
a single second in the low-resolution simulation of planet
Quantum mechanics constrains the maximum rate at which
a system can move from one distinguishable quantum state to Earth requires:
another. A quantum state with average energy Ē needs a time of • tCPU ∼ 4.2 ⋅ 1013 s of computing time, that is, ∼1.4 ⋅ 107 yr, using
order (at least) δt ∼ πℏ/2Ē to evolve into another orthogonal and the computing power given by Equation 20;
distinguishable state. Hence, the number of logical operations per • tCPU ∼ 3.0 ⋅ 1015 s of computing time, that is, ∼1 ⋅ 108 yr using the
unit time (i.e., the computing frequency) that can be performed computing power given by Equation 22,
by a computing device is the inverse of the timescale from the
̄
Heisenberg uncertainty principle: f ∼ 1/δt ∼ 2E/(πℏ). If such a black which are in both cases absurdly long wall-clock times.
hole calculator uses all its storage memory, its maximum computing Therefore, an additional speed-up of order × 1015 − 1017 (or larger)
power per bit (i.e., the number of logical operations for each single would be necessary to advance the low-resolution simulation of
bit) is estimated to be Earth faster than real time7 . In this case, the necessary computing
power will be simply impossible to collect:
kB 2 log (2) Ē
Nop = (19) • dE/dt ∼ 1.1 ⋅ 1073 erg/s if the working temperature is ∼105 K,
πℏS
• dE/dt ∼ 9.4 ⋅ 1074 erg/s if the working temperature is ∼107 K,
In Equation 19, S is the black hole entropy. The link between
thermodynamic entropy and temperature here is given by T = which means converting into energy many more than all
(∂S/∂E)̄ −1 . By integrating the relationship linking T, S and E,̄ we get stars in all galaxies within the visible Universe (and using a
̄ in which C is a constant of order unity that depends on the
T = CE/S, black hole with mass ∼10−13 M⊙ for this). No known process
actual medium being used (e.g., C = 3/2 for an ideal gas or C = 4/3 can even remotely approach this power, and thus also this
for photons of a black-body spectrum). The dependence between scenario appears absurd.
the computing power and the working temperature is manifest: “the This leads us to the THIRD CONCLUSION: even the lowest
entropy governs the amount of information the system can register possible resolution simulation of Earth (at a scale compatible with
and the temperature governs the number of operations per bit per experimental data) requires geologically long timescales, making it
second it can perform,” as beautifully put by Lloyd [13]. entirely implausible for any purpose.
Estimating the working temperature of such a device is not
obvious. As an upper bound, we can use the temperature of accreted
material at the event horizon of an astrophysical black hole from
Equation 15 (T ∼ 107 K) and get Equation 20: 4 Discussion
kB 2 log (2) T
Nop ≈ ∼ 5.6 ⋅ 1017 [operations/bit/s] . (20) Needless to say, in such a murky physical investigation, several
πℏ
assumptions can be questioned, and a few alternative models can be
By multiplying for the total number of bits encoded in such a
explored. Here, we review a few that appear to be relevant, even if it
black hole, Equation 21 gives its total maximum computing power:
is anticipated that the enthusiasts of the SH will probably find other
Pop ∼ Nop ⋅ I⊕,low ∼ 9.5 ⋅ 1068 [bits/s] , (21) escape routes.

On the other hand, if the black hole does not accrete

matter, the lowest temperature at the event horizon is the
temperature relative to the Hawking radiation: TH ∼ 1.4 ⋅ 105 K for 7 It should also be considered that the time dilatation effect of general
this mass. Equation 22 thus gives: relativity will also introduce an additional delay factor between what is
computed by the black hole and what is received outside, although the
N′op ≈ 8.0 ⋅ 1015 [operations/bit/s] . (22) amount of the delay depends on where exactly the computation happens.

Frontiers in Physics 06 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

4.1 Can highly parallel computing make required for this very low-resolution scenario appears to be an
the simulation of the low-resolution Earth impossible task.
possible?

A reasonable question would be whether performing highly 4.3 What about quantum computing?
parallel computing could significantly reduce the computing time
estimated at the end of Section 3.3. In general, if the required By exploiting the fundamental quantum properties of
computation is serial, the energy can be concentrated in particular superposition and entanglement, quantum computers perform
parts of the computer, while if it is parallelizable, the energy can be better than classical computers for a large variety of mathematical
spread out evenly among the different parts of the computer. operations [38]. In principle, quantum algorithms are more
The communication time across the black hole horizon efficient in using memory, and they may reduce time and energy
(tcom ∼ 2R/c) is of the same order of the time to flip a single bit (∼ requirements [39] by implementing exponentially fewer steps than
πℏ/(2E),̄ see above); hence, in principle, highly parallel computing classical programs. However, these important advantages compared
can be used here. However, the somewhat counter-intuitive result of to classical computers do not change the problems connected with
Lloyd [13] is that the energy E is divided among Nproc processing the SH analyzed in this work, which solely arise from the relationship
units (each operating at a rate ∼2E/(πℏNproc )) the total number between spacetime, information density, and energy. According to
of operations per second performed by the black hole remains the the HP, the information bound used here is the maximum allowed
same: ∼ Nproc 2E/(πℏNproc ) = 2E/(πℏ), as in Section 3.3. This strictly within a given holographic surface with radius R, regardless of the
follows from the quantum relation between computing time and actual technique used to reach this concentration of information
spread in energy explored in Section 3.3. Thus, if the energy is or to process it. Moreover, our estimated computing power does
allocated to a more parallel processor, the energy spread on which not stem from the extrapolation of the current technological
they operate gets smaller, and hence they run in a proportionally performances of classical computing, but it already represents the
slower way. Finally, if the computing is spread to a configuration maximum possible performance obtained in the futuristic scenario
significantly less dense than a black hole by keeping the same mass, in which a black hole can be used as the ultimate computing device.
higher levels of parallelization can be used, but the computing time In summary, while quantum computing might, in principle, be
will increase as a black hole computer already provides the highest the actual way to get to the maximum computing speed physically
number of operations per bits per second (Equation 19). allowed at the scale of black holes (or in any other less extreme
computing devices), this technology will not be able to beat the
currently understood limits posed by physics.

4.2 What if the time stepping is not

determined by neutrino observations? 4.4 What if the holographic principle does
not apply?
What if (for reasons beyond what our physics can explain) high-
energy neutrinos can be accurately propagated in the simulation One possibility is that the HP, for whatever reason, does not
with a time stepping much coarser than the one prescribed by Δt = apply as a reliable proxy for the information content of a given
λν /c ∼ 4.1 ⋅ 10−32 s? In this case, the next constraint to fulfil is still physical system. It is worth reminding that the HP prescribes
very small and given by the smallest time interval that humans the maximum information content to scale with the surface, and
could directly measure so far in the laboratory: this is Δt′ ≈ 10−20 s not the volume, of a system; hence, it generally already provides
[33]. In this case, applying the same logic of Section 3.3, we get a very low information budget estimate compared to all other
tCPU ∼ 40 − 104 s depending on the computing temperature, which proxies in which information scales with the volume instead. In
still means a simulation running several orders of magnitude slower this sense, the estimates used in this paper (including in the low-
than real time. Moreover, even in this scenario, the amount of power resolution simulation of Earth in Section 3.3) already appear as
to process is (literally) out of this world: dE/dt ∼ kB T log (2) ⋅ Pop ∼ conservatively low quantities. If the HP is not valid, then a larger
1044 − 1047 erg/s if we rescale Equations 21–23 for the new time amount of bits can be encoded within a given surface with radius
rate. This power is astronomically large but not entirely impossible: R (in contradiction with our understanding of black hole physics).
mergers between massive clusters of galaxies, which are among the This will allow the usage of smaller computing devices, but at the
most energetic exchanges of matter in the Universe, “only” produce same time, it will require even more computing power, making
∼1045 erg/s of power [34]. Distant quasars can radiate energy up the SH even more implausible. On the other hand, while the HP
to ∼1047 erg/s [35], while supernovae can release up to ∼1052 erg/s, prescribes the maximum information that can be encoded with a
mostly in the form of energetic neutrinos and only in the first portion of spacetime, the actual evolution of the enclosed system
∼1 − 10 seconds of their explosion. A gamma ray burst from a might be described with fewer bits of information. For example,
hypernova can dissipate up to ∼1054 erg/s on a timescale of days in recent work by Vazza [40, 41], we used mathematical tools
[36]. Finally, the detection of gravitational waves by merging black from Information Theory [42, 43] to show that, on macroscopic
holes (with masses of several tens of M⊙ ) probed energy dissipation scales, the statistical evolution of the cosmic web within the
rates of several ∼1056 erg/s but is limited to the short timescale of observable Universe can be encoded by using (only) ∼4 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 1016 bits
the coalescence [37]. In any case, conveying in a steady way such of information. This is, of course, incredibly less than the IU ∼ 3.5 ⋅
a gigantic amount of energy through the microscopic black hole 10124 bits estimate quoted in Section 3.1 and following from the HP.

Frontiers in Physics 07 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

However, the latter includes all possible evolution on all scales, down • the simulation can be run at least in real time, or faster than real
to the lp fundamental length, in which a plethora of multi-scale time, in the universe where the simulation is produced. This
phenomena obviously happens. While the concept of “emergence” means that a time interval of 1s in this Universe is simulated
and efficiency of prediction for complex multi-scale phenomena in the equivalent of 1s in the other universe. However, any
is a powerful and useful tool to compress the information needed other universe can have different evolutionary timescales than
to describe physical patterns forming at specific scales [44], a full this one, depending on their H. By considering that 1 s ≈ 3 ⋅
error-less simulation of a multi-scale system seems to require a 10−18 tU , where tU is the age of this Universe, we require that
much larger amount of information. In essence, we shall conclude one second of this Universe can be simulated in Δt = 3 ⋅ 10−18 tU
that while it is conceivable that the actual information needed to of computing time in any other universe. To easily compute
fully capture the evolution of multi-scale phenomena emerging on tU , we assume for simplicity Einstein-de Sitter cosmology
different scales can be further reduced, it is implausible that the in every other universe, hence tU = 2/(3 H); here, H is the
information budget quoted in this work can be reduced by several Hubble–Lemaitre constant of other universes.
orders of magnitude. • The power used to produce the simulation is “reasonable.” How
can we guess what “reasonable” would be in any other universe?
We cannot, of course, but for the sake of the exercise, we use
4.5 Plot twist: a simulated Universe 1 GW of power as a goal: this is about the power provided
simulates how the real universe might be by a modern nuclear reactor, and it is ∼102 − 103 higher than
the typical power consumed by the best high-performance
Our results suggest that no technological advancement will computing center to-date. Thus, it represents some extreme
make the SH possible in any universe that works like ours. power budget available to numerical astrophysicists of the
However, the limitations outlined above might be circumvented remote future. As in the previous case, we must scale this
if the values of some of the fundamental constants involved in our power for the properties of other universes, and to do that,
formalisms are radically different than the canonic values they have we consider that 1 GW equates to ∼6.6 ⋅ 1018 protons (∼10−33
in this Universe. Saying anything remotely consistent about the of the mass of Earth) converted into energy in a second (where
different physics operating in any other universe is an impossible for the second, we again use the normalization of the previous
task, let alone guessing which combinations of constants would still step). Therefore, we assume that in any other universe, there are
allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Nevertheless, planets (or something conceptually equivalent) and that a very
for the sake of argument, we make the very bold assumption that in tiny fraction of their mass can be used to support computing.
each of the explored variations, some sort of intelligent form of life In Figure 1, we give the results of the Monte Carlo simulation,
can form and that it will be interested in computing and simulations. in which we show samplings of the distribution of allowed
Under this assumption, we can then explore numerical changes combinations of constants, normalized to the value each of them has
to the values of fundamental constants involved in the previous in this Universe. Although the exploration of the full 6-dimensional
modeling to see whether combinations exist that make at least a parameters space is complex, a few things can be noticed already.
low-resolution simulation of our planet doable with limited time First, two well-correlated parameters here are c and h: for a given
and energy. value of the age of the universe, the computing timescale scales as
So, in a final plot twist whose irony should not be missed, now ∝ h/TH , so if c increases, the Hawking radiation temperature of
this Universe (which might be a simulation) attempts to Monte the black hole increases too (lowering the computing timescale),
Carlo simulate how the “real universe” out there could be for the while at the same time, proportionally larger values of h are allowed.
simulation of this Universe to be possible. We assume that all known Another couple of correlated constants is (c, G), which stems from
physical laws involved in our formalisms are valid in all universes, the condition on the power: from this condition, it follows that
but we allow each of the key fundamental constants to vary randomly c3 /G ∝ mp . Hence, an order of magnitude increase in c must be
across realizations. For the sake of the exercise, we shall fix the total compensated by a three-orders-of-magnitude increase in G for a
amount of information required for the low-resolution simulation fixed value of mp . Most of the other combinations of constants
of our planet discussed in Section 3.3 (I⊕,low = 1.65 ⋅ 1051 bits) and (e.g., (mp , kB ) and (H, c) in Figure 1) show instead a lack of obvious
consider the Hawking temperature relative to the black hole which correlation.
is needed in each universe to perform the simulation. In general, this simulation shows that combinations of
The simulation consists of a Monte Carlo exploration of the parameters exist to make the SH for a low-resolution version of
six-dimensional parameter space of the fundamental constants that planet Earth possible (and similarly, also for higher-resolution
entered our previous derivation: G, mp , kB , c, ℏ, to which we now versions of the SH), although they require orders of magnitudes
add H, that is, the “Hubble–Lemaitre constant”8 to compute the differences compared to the physical constants of this Universe. It is
cosmic time. From 106 randomly drawn universes, we select all beyond the goal of this work to further elaborate whether any of the
realizations in which the low-resolution simulation of our planet is many possible combinations make sense, based on known physics,
“possible.” Each constant is free to randomly vary across 20 orders if they can support life, and whether those hypothetical forms of life
of magnitudes around its reference value. Our simplistic definition will be interested in numerics and physics, as we are9 .
of possibility for the simulation here stems from two conditions:

9 The full direct simulation of such cases, possibly down to the resolution
8 Very likely to be named differently in any other universe. at which conscious entities will emerge out of the simulation and start

Frontiers in Physics 08 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

FIGURE 1
Examples of the distribution of allowed values of the fundamental constants (rescaled to their value in this Universe) necessary to perform a
low-resolution simulation of Earth in other universes, as predicted with Monte Carlo simulations. Each axis gives the allowed value for each constant,
normalized to its value in this Universe.

4.6 What if the universe performing the SH can be reasonably well tested only with respect to universes
simulation is entirely different from our that are at least playing according to the physics playbook—while
Universe? everything else10 appears beyond the bounds of falsifiability and
even theoretical speculation.
Guessing how conservation laws for energy and information
apply in a universe with entirely different laws, or whether they
should even apply in the first place, appears impossible, and this 5 Conclusion
entirely prevents us from guessing whether the SH is possible in
such a case. For example, hypothetical conscious creatures in the We used standard physical laws to test whether this Universe or
famous Pac-Man video game in the 1980s will simply be incapable some low-resolution version of it can be the product of a numerical
of figuring out the constraints on the universe in which their simulation, as in the popular simulation hypothesis [3].
reality is being simulated, even based on all the information they One first key result is that the simulation hypothesis has
can gather around them. They would not guess the existence of plenty of physical constraints to fulfil because any computation
gravity, for example; they would probably measure energy costs in is bound to obey physics. We report that such constraints are so
“Power Pellets,” and they would not conceive the existence of a third demanding that all plausible approaches tested in this work (in
dimension, or of an expanding spacetime, and so on. Even if they order to reproduce at least a fraction of the reality we humans
could ever realize the level of graininess of their reality and make the experience) require access to impossibly large amounts of energy
correct hypothesis of living in a simulation, they would never guess or computing power. We are confident that this conclusively shows
how the real universe (“our” Universe, if it is real indeed) functions
in a physical sense. In this respect, our modeling shows that the
10 A possibility for such a model to work may be that all scientists are similar
to “non playable characters” in video games, that is, roughly sketched
questioning whether their universe is real or simulated, is left as a trivial and unconscious parts of the simulation, playing a pre-scripted role (in
exercise to the reader. this case, reporting fake measurements).

Frontiers in Physics 09 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

the impossibility of a “Matrix” scenario for the SH, in which our is still so immense that even dropping this fascinating topic cannot
reality is a simulation produced by future descendants, machines, make science any less interesting.
or any other intelligent being in a Universe that is exactly the
one we (think we) live in—a scenario famously featured in the
“The Matrix” movie in 1999, among many others. We showed Data availability statement
that this hypothesis is simply incompatible with all we know
about physics, down to scales that have already been robustly The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
explored by telescopes, high-energy particle colliders, and other made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
direct experiments on Earth.
What if our reality is instead the product of a simulation,
in which physical laws (e.g., fundamental constants) different Author contributions
from our reality are used? A second result of this work is that,
even in this alienating scenario, we can still robustly constrain FV: Writing – original draft and writing – review and editing.
the range of physical constants allowed in the reality simulating
us. In this sense, the strong physical link between computing
and energy also offers a fascinating way to connect hypothetical Funding
different levels of reality, each one playing according to the
same physical rules. In our extremely simplistic Monte Carlo The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
scan of models with different fundamental constants, a plethora the research and/or publication of this article.
of combinations seems to exist, although we do not dare to
guess which ones could be compatible with stable universes, the
formation of planets, and the further emergence of intelligent Acknowledgments
life. The important point is that each of such solutions implies
universes entirely different from this one. Finally, the question I have used the Astrophysics Data Service (ADS) and arXiv
of whether universes with entirely different sets of physical laws preprint repository extensively during this project and for writing
or dimensionalities could produce our Universe as a simulation this article, the precious online Cosmological Calculator
seems to be entirely outside of what is scientifically testable, by E. Wright, and the Julia language for the simulations of
even in theory. Section 4.5. This peculiar investigation was prompted by a public
At this point, we shall notice that a possible “simulation conference given for the 40th anniversary of the foundation of
hypothesis,” which does not pose obvious constraints on Associazione Astrofili Vittorio Veneto, where the author took his
computing, might be the solipsistic scenario in which the first steps into astronomy. I wish to thank Maksym Tsizh and
simulation simulates “just” the single activity of the reader’s Chiara Capirini for their useful comments on the draft of the paper,
brain (yes: you), while all the rest is a sophisticated and very and Maurizio Bonafede for useful suggestions on the geophysical
detailed hallucination. In this sense, nothing is new from Renee analysis of the core-mantle boundary used in Section 3.3.
Descartes’ “evil genius” or “Deus deceptor”—that is, for some
reason, an entire universe is produced in a sort of simulation,
only to constantly fool us—from its more modern version of Conflict of interest
“Boltzmann brains” [45]. Conversely, a more contrived scenario
in which the simulation simulates only the brain activity of single The author declares that the research was conducted in the
individuals appears to quickly run into the limitations of the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
SH exposed in this work: a shared and consistent experience construed as a potential conflict of interest.
of reality requires a consistent simulated model of the world,
which quickly escalates into a too-demanding model of planet
Earth down to very small scales as soon as physical experiments Generative AI statement
are involved.
At this fascinating crossroad between physics, computing, and The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the
philosophy, it is interesting to notice that the last egotistic version of creation of this manuscript.
the SH appears particularly hard to test or debunk with physics, as
the latter indeed appears to be entirely relying on the concept of a
reality external to the observing subject—be it a real or a simulated Publisher’s note
one. However, the possibility of a quantitative exercise like the one
attempted here also shows that the power of physics is otherwise All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
immense, as even the most outlandish and extreme proposal about authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
our reality must fall within the range of what physics can investigate, organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
test, and debunk. reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
Luckily, even in the most probable scenario of all (the Universe is claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
not a simulation), the number of mysteries for physics to investigate or endorsed by the publisher.

Frontiers in Physics 10 [Link]

Vazza 10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873

References
1. Descartes R. Meditations on first philosophy. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books (1984). 24. Unger M, Farrar GR. Where did the amaterasu particle come from? The
Astrophysical J Lett (2024) 962:L5. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ced
2. Berkeley GA. Treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge, 1734.
Menston: Scolar Press (1734). 25. Jenkins J, Mousavi S, Li Z, Cottaar S. A high-resolution map of Hawaiian
ulvz morphology from scs phases. Earth Planet Sci Lett (2021) 563:116885.
3. Bostrom BN. Are we living in a computer simulation?. Philos Q (2003) 53:243–55.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.116885
doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00309
26. Li Z, Leng K, Jenkins J, Cottaar S. Kilometer-scale structure on the core–mantle
4. Beane SR, Davoudi Z, J Savage M. Constraints on the universe as a numerical
boundary near Hawaii. Nat Commun (2024) 13:2787. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30502-5
simulation. Eur Phys J A (2014) 50:148. doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14148-0
27. IceCube Collaboration. Evidence for high-energy extraterrestrial neutrinos at the
5. Landauer R. Information is a physical entity. Physica A Stat Mech its Appl (1999)
IceCube detector. Science (2013) 342:1242856. doi:10.1126/science.1242856
263:63–7. doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(98)00513-5
28. Aartsen MG, Abbasi R, Abdou Y, Ackermann M, Adams J, Aguilar JA, et al. First
6. Landauer R. The physical nature of information. Phys Lett A (1996) 217:188–93.
observation of PeV-energy neutrinos with IceCube. Phys Rev Lett (2013) 111:021103.
doi:10.1016/0375-9601(96)00453-7
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021103
7. Maldacena JM. The large $N$ limit of superconformal field theories and
29. Buson S, Tramacere A, Oswald L, Barbano E, Fichet de Clairfontaine G, Pfeiffer
supergravity. Adv Theor Math Phys (1998) 2:231–52. doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1
L, et al. Extragalactic neutrino factories (2023). arXiv e-prints arXiv:2305.11263.
8. Bousso R. The holographic principle. Rev Mod Phys (2002) 74:825–74. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.11263
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825
30. Neronov A, Savchenko D, Semikoz DV. Neutrino signal from a population of
9. Bekenstein JD. Black holes and information theory. Contemp Phys (2004) seyfert galaxies. Galaxies (2024) 132:101002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.101002
45:31–43. doi:10.1080/00107510310001632523
31. Padovani P, Gilli R, Resconi E, Bellenghi C, Henningsen F. The neutrino
10. Suskind L, Lindesay J. An introduction to black holes, information and the string background from non-jetted active galactic nuclei. Astron Astrophys (2024) 684:L21.
theory revolution: the holographic universe (2005). doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450025
11. Szilard L. über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System 32. KM3NeT Collaboration. Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino
bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen. Z Physik (1929) 53:840–56. doi:10.1007/BF01341281 with KM3NeT. Nature (2025) 638:376–82. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08543-1
12. Sandberg A. The physics of information processing superobjects: daily life among 33. Ossiander M, F S, V S, R P, A S, T L, et al. Attosecond correlation dynamics. Nat
the jupiter brains. J Evol Technology (1999) 5. Phys (2017) 13:280–5. doi:10.1038/nphys3941
13. Lloyd S. Ultimate physical limits to computation. Nature (2000) 406:1047–54. 34. Markevitch M, Vikhlinin A. Shocks and cold fronts in galaxy clusters. Phys Rep
doi:10.1038/35023282 (2007) 443:1–53. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.01.001
14. Page DN. Comment on a universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio 35. Vayner A, Zakamska NL, Ishikawa Y, Sankar S, Wylezalek D, Rupke DSN, et al.
for bounded systems. Phys Rev D (1982) 26:947–9. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.26.947 First results from the JWST early release science program Q3D: powerful quasar-
driven galactic scale outflow at z = 3. Astrophys J (2024) 960:126. doi:10.3847/1538-
15. Egan CA, Lineweaver CH. A larger estimate of the entropy of the universe.
4357/ad0be9
Astrophysical J (2010) 710:1825–34. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1825
36. Mazzali PA, McFadyen AI, Woosley SE, Pian E, Tanaka M. An upper limit to the
16. Profumo S, Colombo-Murphy L, Huckabee G, Diaz Svensson M, Garg S,
energy of gamma-ray bursts indicates that GRBs/SNe are powered by magnetars. Mon
Kollipara I, et al. A new census of the universe’s entropy (2024). arXiv e-prints
Not R Astron Soc (2014) 443:67–71. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1124
arXiv:2412.11282. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.11282
37. Abbott BP, Abbott R, Abbott TD, Abernathy MR, Acernese F, Ackley K, et al.
17. Vogelsberger M, Genel S, Springel V, Torrey P, Sijacki D, Xu D, et al. Properties
Properties of the binary black hole merger gw150914. Phys Rev Lett (2016) 116:241102.
of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation. Nature (2014) 509:177–82.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102
doi:10.1038/nature13316
38. Simon D. On the power of quantum computation. In: Proceedings 35th Annual
18. Baumgardt H, Hilker M. A catalogue of masses, structural parameters, and
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science; Nov 20-22, 1994; Santa Fe, NM, USA
velocity dispersion profiles of 112 Milky Way globular clusters. Mon Not R Astron Soc
(1994). p. 116–23. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1994.365701
(2018) 478:1520–57. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1057
39. Chen S. Are quantum computers really energy efficient? Nat Comput Sci (2023)
19. Posti L, Helmi A. Mass and shape of the Milky Way’s dark matter halo
3:457–60. doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00459-6
with globular clusters from Gaia and Hubble. Astron Astrophys (2019) 621:A56.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833355 40. Vazza F. On the complexity and the information content of cosmic structures.
Mon Not R Astron Soc (2017) 465:4942–55. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3089
20. Soldin D. The forward physics facility at the HL-LHC and its
synergies with astroparticle physics (2024). arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.04714. 41. Vazza F. How complex is the cosmic web? Mon Not R Astron Soc (2020)
doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.04714 491:5447–63. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3317
21. Aloisio R, Berezinsky V, Blasi P. Ultra high energy cosmic rays: implications of 42. Adami C. What is complexity? Bioessays (2002) 24:1085–94.
Auger data for source spectra and chemical composition. J Cosmol Astropart Phys (2014) doi:10.1002/bies.10192
2014:020. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/020
43. Prokopenko M, Boschetti F, Ryan AJ. An information-theoretic primer
22. Abbasi RU, Abe M, Abu-Zayyad T, Allen M, Anderson R, Azuma R, et al. on complexity, self-organization, and emergence. Complexity (2009) 15:11–28.
Study of ultra-high energy cosmic ray composition using telescope array’s middle doi:10.1002/cplx.20249
drum detector and surface array in hybrid mode. Astroparticle Phys (2015) 64:49–62.
44. Shalizi CR. Causal architecture, complexity and self-organization in the time series
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.004
and cellular automata. Madison: University of Wisconsin (2001). Ph.D. thesis.
23. Bird DJ, Corbato SC, Dai HY, Elbert JW, Green KD, Huang MA, et al.
45. de Simone A, Guth AH, Linde A, Noorbala M, Salem MP, Vilenkin A. Boltzmann
Detection of a cosmic ray with measured energy well beyond the expected spectral
brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the multiverse. Phys Rev D (2010)
cutoff due to cosmic Microwave radiation. Astrophys J (1995) 441:144. doi:10.1086/
82:063520. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063520
175344

Frontiers in Physics 11 [Link]