你是由现实世界的夸克构成，还是由虚拟世界的量子比特构成？

我们是否有可能生活在一个虚拟模拟世界中？苏格兰皇家天文学家凯瑟琳·海曼斯教授用数学方法探讨了是否存在任何真实存在的事物。

作者：凯瑟琳·海曼斯

2026年9月1日

世间万物真的存在吗？

DigitalVision/Getty Images

以下摘自我们的 《迷失时空》 电子报。每月，我们都会深入探讨来自宇宙各处的奇妙想法。您可以 在这里订阅 《迷失时空》。

这场即将引发你思考的生存危机，都得怪我最小的孩子。他睁着天真无邪的大眼睛问我：“妈妈，你觉得我们是不是生活在电脑游戏里？” 我当时怎么也没想到，寻找答案的过程竟会持续三年！难道这一切其实只是电脑模拟的虚拟现实，完美到足以以假乱真？

我的征程第一天，就陷入了一场激烈的内心斗争：一方面，我戴着苏格兰皇家天文学家的帽子；另一方面，我又像个蹒跚学步的孩子。

天文学家罗伊尔说：“如果一个科学问题无法直接检验，那么根据定义，它就是毫无价值的。继续研究其他问题吧。”

内心小孩：“为什么？怎么会这样？什么？谁？你是真的吗？我是真的吗？什么是真实的？”

我花了一周时间才最终确定立场。模拟现实的能力取决于一个问题：我们宇宙中的一切都是数学的吗？——数学是计算机唯一能理解的语言——而皇家天文学家当然可以对此进行探究。

让我们首先赞颂那些粒子物理学家，他们以“闭嘴计算”的量子力学方法彻底改变了我们对现实基本构成要素的理解（这种方法巧妙地避开了所有在深入量子领域时出现的棘手哲学问题）。在20世纪70年代，他们提出了一个代数方程，即所谓的标准模型，它预测了亚原子粒子的数量、性质以及它们之间的相互作用。他们利用这个数学模型预测了两个质子以接近光速相互碰撞并分离，最终形成内部结构的现象。为了进行这项极具挑战性的粒子碰撞实验，他们建造了欧洲核子研究中心（CERN），这是一个位于法瑞边境地下100米、由超导磁体组成的27公里环形结构。理论家们的预测与CERN实验测量的精度完美契合，令人叹为观止。最终发现人们苦苦寻觅已久的希格斯玻色子，证实了我们关于宇宙本质上是高度数学化的假设。

但后来天文学家出现了，抛出了几个这其中存在着一些意想不到的障碍。例如，被称为中微子的粒子会在从太阳核心到达我们探测器的短短八分半钟内改变其性质——从一种所谓的“味”转变为另一种。根据标准模型，这是不可能的。而作为一名利用巨型望远镜绘制宇宙中不可见的暗物质和暗能量分布图的科学家，我对标准模型竟然也无法解释这些神秘的暗物质感到非常失望。

那么引力呢？阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的理论广义相对论认为，我们对引力的体验源于物质团块对整个时空的扭曲。这是一个经过充分验证的理论，每当天文学家观测宇宙时，它似乎都成立。但是，当我们聚焦于量子世界时，这种质量弯曲时空的引力理论又该如何运作呢？在量子世界中，粒子可以同时存在于任何地方，直到我们观测到它们。我们“闭嘴计算”的量子物理学方法对此束手无策。如果宇宙完全由数学构成，那么显然我们尚未找到答案。揭开故事的全貌。

但这并不妨碍我们展望未来。如果你愿意假设万物皆可数学解释的理论即将问世，并且拥有先进的量子计算能力来进行计算，那么我们所观测的宇宙以及其中的一切，究竟有多大的概率是这种模拟的数字化副产品呢？2016年，科技亿万富翁埃隆·马斯克曾轻松地回答了这个问题，他说：“这大概是现实的概率是十亿分之一”：也就是说，你生活在一个真实世界中的概率是十亿分之一，而这个世界在某个时刻将会……未来，我们将发展出模拟完美虚拟世界的技术和科学知识。有人认为，一旦模拟器掌握了这项技术，它们将不再仅仅创造一个虚拟世界，而是创造数十亿个如同电脑游戏般的虚拟世界，在宇宙时空中反复上演。届时，虚拟人类的总数将远远超过“基础现实”中真实存在的人类，从而使你成为少数真实存在的人类之一的概率微乎其微。

如果我们的宇宙真的是数学的，那么构成我们自身的夸克和所有亚原子粒子都有可能由数学构成。实际上，它们是量子比特，是量子数据位，目前正在未来量子计算数据中心中编码你的现实。不过，我可以向你保证，与世界首富的观点相反，这种情况发生的概率极低。仔细研究一下模拟一个完美虚拟世界的实际操作，你会发现，任何未来的软件工程师都需要消耗难以置信的能量才能成功。达斯·维达，你那可怜的星球毁灭者死星，靠边站吧！来见识一下我的“银河系歼灭者”，它将利用整个银河帝国的能量来模拟我们的虚拟宇宙：高度……极不可能。

这是否意味着我现在可以自信地回答儿子，我们不可能生活在计算机模拟世界中，因为创造我们的世界需要消耗太多的能量？很遗憾，并非如此。请花点时间评估一下你此刻对现实的体验。你能看到房间的四面墙吗？也许一只猫正依偎在你腿上发出咕噜声？你此时此刻的体验，对遥远宇宙中发生的事情一无所知，更不用说白金汉宫里正在发生的事情了。如果你生活在虚拟现实中，它无需完美复制我们仰望宇宙时所见的一切，也无需完全模拟地球上所有80亿居民。如果存在一个耗能巨大、包含所有夸克元素的模拟系统，但其中只有你一个人呢？人工智能已经足够先进，能够为你周围的每个人和每件事物创造出逼真的面孔、场景和对话。你是否有可能成为一项科学实验的核心对象，比如由一位对你的意识感兴趣的未来神经科学家进行的实验？这并非不可能，但可能性不大，因为科学家的效率相当高。在进行实验时：像这样的模拟总数会很少。

万一你的电脑主宰给你发这篇文章是为了激发你的好奇心，你或许可以向它挥挥手致意。不过，别灰心。科技哲学家大卫·查尔默斯曾说过，一个让你感受到自由意志、爱和欢笑的虚拟现实世界，与任何现实世界一样真实，我同意他的观点。归根结底，我们是否真实存在并不重要，重要的是我们感觉自己是真实的。

凯瑟琳·海曼斯是她是苏格兰皇家天文学家，也是英国爱丁堡大学的观测宇宙学教授。她的新书《如何设计宇宙：真实世界和虚拟世界的科学》讲述了她为儿子寻找答案的三年历程，该书将于2026年9月由布鲁姆斯伯里出版社出版。

Are you made of real-world quarks or virtual-world qubits?

Is it possible we’re living in a virtual simulation? Professor Catherine Heymans, the Astronomer Royal for Scotland, does the maths on whether anything is actually real

By Catherine Heymans

1 September 2026

Is anything actually real?

DigitalVision/Getty Images

The following is an extract from our Lost in Space-Time newsletter. Each month, we dive into fascinating ideas from around the universe. You can sign up for Lost in Space-Time here.

You can blame my youngest child for the existential crisis that I’m about to drag you into. When he gazed up with his innocent wide eyes to ask, “Mum, do you think we could be living inside a computer game?”, little did I know that my search for an answer would require a three-year journey of discovery! Could this all in fact be a computer simulation of a virtual reality so perfect that it appears to be real in every sense?

Day one of my quest started with an epic internal battle between the part of me that wears my Astronomer Royal for Scotland hat, and the other part of me who is still a toddler.

Advertisement

Astronomer Royal: “If a scientific question cannot be directly tested, it is, by definition, worthless. Move on.”

Inner toddler: “Why? How? What? Who? Are you real? Am I real? What is real?”

It took a week before I settled on a position. The ability to simulate reality hinges on the question of whether everything in our universe is mathematical – maths is the only language that computers speak – and the Astronomer Royal could certainly interrogate that.

Let’s start by celebrating the particle physicists who revolutionised our understanding of the building blocks of realitywith their “shut up and calculate” prescription for quantum mechanics, (an approach that handily evades all the problematic philosophical questions that arise when you zoom into the quantum realm). In the 1970s, they gave birth to a single algebraic equation, the so-called standard model, that predicts the number of subatomic particles, their properties and how they interact with each other. Using this mathematical model, they predicted what should be observed when two protons smash into each other at close to the speed of light and break apart to reveal their innards. To carry out this challenging particle-smashing experiment, they built CERN, a 27-kilometre ring of superconducting magnets buried 100 metres under the France-Switzerland border. The perfect accuracy of the theorists’ predictions compared with the precision of CERN’s experimental measurements is breathtaking. The resulting discovery of the long-searched-for Higgs boson affirms our hypothesis that the universe is very mathematical.

Read moreWhy banishing irrational numbers could trigger a revolution in quantum theory

But then the astronomers came along, throwing several spanners in the works. For example, particles called neutrinos change their personality – switching from one so-called flavour to another – in the eight and a half minutes it takes them to travel from the sun’s core to our detectors. This is an impossible feat according to the standard model. And, as a scientist who has made her name using giant telescopes to map invisible dark matter and dark energy across the cosmos, I find it deeply disappointing that the standard model also has nothing to say about these mysterious dark entities.

And what about gravity? Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity concludes that our experience of gravity arises from the way clumps of matter warp the entirety of space and time, an exceptionally well-tested theory that appears to be true whenever astronomers look out into the universe. But how can this mass-bending-space-time version of gravity work when we zoom into the quantum world? Here, particles can essentially be anywhere and everywhere all at once, until the moment we observe them. Our “shut up and calculate” prescription for quantum physics doesn’t have an answer for that. If the universe is wholly mathematical, it’s clear that we have yet to uncover the full story.

That shouldn’t prevent us from looking to the future though. If you are willing to assume that a mathematical theory of everything is just around the corner, with advanced quantum computing available to run the calculations, what are the chances that our observable universe, and everything in it, is a digital by-product of such a simulation? In 2016, tech billionaire Elon Musk answered that question by blithely stating “there is a one-in-billions chance that this is base reality”: a one-in-billions chance that you are living in the real world that will, at some point in the future, develop the technology and scientific know-how to simulate perfect virtual worlds. The argument goes that, once simulators develop this skill, they won’t create just one virtual world, but billions of realisations played like computer games, over and over again throughout cosmic space-time. The total number of virtual humans would then dramatically outnumber the real-world humans in the “base reality”, creating the tiniest probability that you are one of the few that physically exist.

If our universe is truly mathematical, then it is possible that the quarks and all the subatomic particles we believe we are made from are in fact qubits, quantum bits of data that are currently encoding your reality within a futuristic quantum computing data centre. Let me reassure you, however, that contrary to the opinion of the world’s richest man, the probability of this is vanishingly low. Looking carefully at the practicalities of simulating a perfect virtual world, you’ll find that any futuristic software engineer would require an incredible amount of energy to succeed. Step aside Darth Vader, with your puny planet-killing Death Star! Meet my Galaxy Annihilator, which will harness the energy of the entire Galactic Empire to simulate our virtual universe: highly, highly implausible.

Read moreDoes gravity create reality? A shocking path to a theory of everything

Does this mean that I can now confidently answer my son that we cannot be living inside a computer simulation, because creating our world would require far too much energy? Unfortunately, no. Take a moment to assess your experience of reality at this precise moment. Can you see the four walls of your room? Perhaps a cat is purring on your lap? Your experience, right here, right now, knows nothing of the goings-on in the far reaches of the universe, let alone what is happening in, say, Buckingham Palace. If you are living in a virtual reality, it does not need to be a perfect replica of everything that we can see when we look out into the cosmos, nor a complete simulation of all the 8 billion individuals who inhabit planet Earth. What if an energy-intensive, full-quarks-and-all simulation exists, but it features only you? AI is already sufficiently advanced to create realistic faces, places and conversations to paint in for everyone and everything around you. Could you be the centrepiece of a scientific experiment run by, say, a futuristic neuroscientist interested in studying your consciousness? It’s not impossible, but again it’s unlikely, as scientists are fairly efficient when conducting their experiments: the total number of simulations like this would be small.

On the off chance that your computational overlord has sent you this article to spark your curiosity, however, you might like to give them a little wave. But do not despair. The techno-philosopher David Chalmers has said that a virtual reality where you feel free will, love and laughter is as genuine a reality as any real world, and I agree with him. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether we are real, so long as we feel real.

Catherine Heymans is Scotland’s Astronomer Royal, and professor of observational cosmology at the University of Edinburgh, UK. Read about her three-year-long journey to find an answer for her son in her new book How to Design a Universe: The science of real and virtual worlds, published in September 2026 by Bloomsbury.