Slashdot Mirror


Simulated Universe

anonymous lion writes "A story in the Guardian Unlimited reports on The Millennium Simulation saying that it is 'the biggest exercise of its kind'. It required 25 million megabytes of memory to take our universe's initial conditions along with the known laws of physics to create this simulated universe." From the article: "The simulated universe represents a cube of creation with sides that measure 2bn light years. It is home to 20m galaxies, large and small. It has been designed to answer questions about the past, but it offers the tantalising opportunity to fast-forward in time to the slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now."

332 comments

  1. So where can I download it? by Uppity+Nigger · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think my PC can handle it.

    1. Re:So where can I download it? by Zaulden · · Score: 0

      Hahahah. Score 2, Informative? Man, the mods have no understanding of humor.

      --
      "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
    2. Re:So where can I download it? by Given+M.+Sur · · Score: 1

      "Informative"

      That's even funnier than the joke itself.

      --
      nil
    3. Re:So where can I download it? by Cromac · · Score: 1
      I think my PC can handle it.

      Got yourself one of those dual core chips, eh?

    4. Re:So where can I download it? by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      Did you hear that? It was the sound of a joke passing near-silently over your head...

    5. Re:So where can I download it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah... modded +1: funny means that the poster doesn't get a karma boost. Modded +1: informative means that the poster does get a karma boost. Some people have decided a while back to circumvent this by modding anything they find particularilly funny as informative, insightful, etc.

      I personally think that insightful has a slightly more poetic justification than informative. Basically, a joke often is looking at a situation and seeing things slightly different than everyone else. Insight is the ability to look at a situation and see things slighty different than everyone else. So, it takes some level of insight to make a really good joke.

      Although the joke in question didn't really particularilly insightful to me, there are some that actually take a deeper understanding of the situation to make. This joke was just funny because of the level of... I suppose the emotion would be close to sarcasm. Humerous exaggeration, maybe. And comic timing did help. In this case the timing happened to come from not actually reading the article, but instead skimming the slashdot blurb, and then getting a first post. Not necesarilly the work of a troll, but a tactic often used by them.

    6. Re:So where can I download it? by dextroz · · Score: 1
      yeah... when is the worldwind plug-in for it coming :-)

      ...and while you're at - set me up with some cache-packs please!

      --
      Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
    7. Re:So where can I download it? by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Facetiousness aside, I've created a torrent of the rather large movies and still images available for download. Get the torrent file here.

      The originals site for these very beautiful, almost awe-inspiring images is here.

    8. Re:So where can I download it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was the one who modded it informative. (logged out now so this post doesn't retract my mod points). I thought it would be somewhat of a funny joke to mod it that way.

      Usually when I make questionable moderations, I do a small check of the users comment history to make sure that they aren't "serial repeaters" so to speak, of the particular style of comment they are making.

      Uppity Nigger seemed to be somewhat of a troll (go figure), but he hadn't been modded down before (that I could see), and I thought my mod would be as funny as the post.
      I always find those type of moderations to be funny themselves -- to mod funny & false posts as insightful or informative (assuming the post itself is trying to impart some sort of relevant information). Sure it creates some minor imbalance in the whole mod system, but oh well.
      It gives a little bit of humor to those paying attention.

    9. Re:So where can I download it? by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      Well it's all in his head, in the mean time typing 42 takes not that much resources.

    10. Re:So where can I download it? by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      Glad I'm not the only one :) There've been a few clever mods that have made me laugh harder than a fantastically clever comment.

      Sadly, it usually inspires a slew of "Man, the mods must be on crack." and "Holy crap are the mods ever stupid." comments from users who missed the joke entirely.

    11. Re:So where can I download it? by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Due to overwhelming non-demand (not even one hit to my tracker), the torrent is closed. Oh well.

    12. Re:So where can I download it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heheh, good to see there are other people beside me engaging in "mod-trolling", watching the confusion and reactions can be even funnier than regular old trolling.

      Kiss my ass, meta-mods!

  2. 25 TB? That's nothing. by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

    The University of Wisconsin has deployed 200 TB of storage for support of similar types of experiments as part of the Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin.

    Brief article, with pictures:

    University of Wisconsin deploys nearly 200TB of Xserve RAID storage (Google cache)

    The storage is used for, among other things, particle physics simulations in support of research projects at sites such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. More information on GLOW and its initiatives can be found here.

    Text of the above article:

    The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed 35 5.6TB Xserve RAID storage arrays in a single research installation as part of an ongoing scientific computing initiative.

    The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays. As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000 Wikipedias.

    The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core 3 via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.

    The storage is primarily used to act as a holding area for large amounts of data from experiments such as the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

    Aside from the GLOW initiative, the university also has Xserve RAID storage systems in use in other areas as well.


    Full disclosure: I am the administrator of alienraid.org and am affiliated with the University of Wisconsin.

    1. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm pretty sure that they're talking about RAM. And yes, 23 terrabytes of RAM is a ton.

    2. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by kyle90 · · Score: 1

      I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.

      --
      Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
    3. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      And 200TB of disk isn't.

      In the theoretical research community, 200TB is peanuts anymore. I could walk into the server room at work and point out double that.

      We're already talking about getting over 200TB this year alone in new hardware.. and we're just a single department. ;)

    4. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by bryan8m · · Score: 1

      "25 Terabytes (25 million Megabytes) of stored output"

    5. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by CommanderTaco · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      By applying sophisticated modelling techniques to the 25 Terabytes (25 million Megabytes) of stored output...
      So it does appear that they are referring to 25 terabytes of storage, not RAM.
    6. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by andyh1978 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.
      This was on Newsnight a couple of days ago; the researcher said their machine had 1TB of RAM.

      That's confirmed in page 18 of their paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/050409 7.pdf
      The calculation was performed on 512 processors of an IBM p690 parallel computer at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. It utilised almost all the 1 TB of physically distributed memory available. It required about 350000 processor hours of CPU time, or 28 days of wall-clock time.
      The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops, so the total number of floating point operations carried out was of order 5x10^17.
    7. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jeez.

      Yeah, I can point out more that that too in our facilities.

      After all, UW-Madison is one of the largest research universities in the world.

      The point is that:

      - They were talking about 25TB of disk, not RAM
      - 200TB in a single installation for a single project is hardly "peanuts"; it's actually quite a bit by enterprise storage standards, but that's neither here nor there
      - Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
      - 200TB of Xserve RAIDs in one place is, I believe, the largest Xserve RAID installation at a single site (save perhaps Apple), and that was really the thrust of the article anyway

      So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment. The comparison is still apt because the submission and the press release and articles are talking about 25TB of disk like it's a shitload, and I'm just pointing out that it's not in this environment (particle physics).

    8. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      >So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment.

      Well, yes. I didn't state as much but my reply was a nitpick on the article as much as it was the parent posts. ;)

      25TB can be stuffed into a single machine these days, it's like bragging about how awesome a Voodoo3 card makes games look.

      That they made it sound bigger by expressing it as megabytes was laughable.

    9. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      That's why I assumed the article was justpoorly written. I couldn't imagine anyone would think 25TB was a big deal.

      I have 3.5 terrabytes (as of last weekend) at home, sitting on my desktop. And yes, 90% of it is porn. And no, I'm not being funny.

    10. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      Yeah mate whatever. Im sure you use the king size condoms as well...

    11. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I assumed the article was justpoorly written.


      It's always safe to assume that articles are justpoorly written. Even on Slashdot.
    12. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      23 terrabytes of RAM is a ton.

      No silly, 2000 pounds is a ton.

      23 terrabytes of RAM is.. one "fucking shitload", at least in the SI system.

    13. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 3.5 terrabytes

      The prefix is Tera! TERA!! For fucking fuck's fucking sake.

    14. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      - Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project

      Nitpicky point, Oracle databases are happy about 50TBs, because they are indexing and effectively managing that much data across a complex enterprise architecture. In comparison, 50TB for a single experiment may be just a single data blob of far less management complexity (just a LOT of data). So, in fact, the two don't really compare.

    15. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't hold back now. Tell us how you really feel.

    16. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I salute you sir. I have a measly 200 gig of pr0n, and I thought I had a collection to brag about.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    17. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I was too busy whacking off to pay attention.

    18. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I love that a guy with a "Christian Science" link in his tagline is bragging about his porn collection. :D

    19. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the Xserve is a piece of shit.

      Apple... LOL

    20. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Too bad this is Xserve RAID, which is a fibre channel-attached storage cabinet and has nothing to do with Xserves or Mac OS X.

      Clueless dipshits posting to slashdot... LOL

    21. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      getting clueless dipshiats to respond to obvious trolling (by an AC even! ha!): priceless

      moron

    22. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, it sounds all right wing, but I am yet to find a more liberal or at least balanced news outlet (next to NPR I guess.)
      And I'm not really christian, but their mag is really good. Check it out.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    23. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by stinkbomb · · Score: 2, Informative

      The real amount of RAM used is ~1 TB according to the Max Planck Institute: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/curren t_research/hl2004-8/hl2004-8-en-print.html

    24. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by marimbaman · · Score: 1

      If one assumes that a gig of ram weighs 50 grams, then according to Google, 23,000 gigs is indeed approximately 1.27 tons.

    25. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops"

      Pfff that's nothing. They should have just waited to get a PS3 and had 2.18 TFlops.

    26. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by ninewands · · Score: 1

      Your literacy quotient is absolutely amazing. It just so happens that the Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. It's writers have won several times as many Pulitzers as the NYT.

    27. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say when you assume, jackass.

      Yeah, I've never heard of the CSM. In fact, that's exactly why I mentioned it. Because I had no fucking clue what it was. What is it - One of them Watch Tower thingies the suits on bikes hand out at your doorstep on the weekend?

      Jesus christ, are you always so anal-retentively uptight or has the inbreeding just sucked out all of your humor?

    28. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by kyle90 · · Score: 1

      Whenever people compare the flops value of a graphics card or gaming console to a supercomputer, I just shake my head. If a PS3 could get 2.18 Tflops of universal (not pipelined) processing power, that would put it in the list of the top 100 existing supercomputers - which is clearly not the case. Actually the first 1 Tflops pipeline was built back in the 80's, so it's not really particularily impressive. The average home computer has about 1-2 Gflops, IIRC.

      --
      Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
    29. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, seriously - all trolling aside, it's a really good paper. I'm a left-wing atheist and I respect it's journalistic integrity. The fact that it has that name was an explicit wish if it's founder, and it really is unrelated to the actual content of the paper.

    30. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone points out my ignorance to me, I shut up and be thankful for it. I guess you were brought up in a different way.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    31. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Ignorant? Ignorant in what respect? And no, I wasn't brought up to be thankful to someone when they point out "ignorance" in a tongue-in-cheek or clearly snyde/silly remark. Ya stupid dick.

      Yes, ninewands - I'm so very grateful to you for pointing out that the Christian Science Monitor is a respected periodical. Why, I would have never guessed that, what with having it delivered to the house I grew up in for a number of years and reading it in the public library that I volunteered at for several years as a kid.

    32. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by OllieG · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be pedantic (and I am, too) learn how to spell terabyte!

    33. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm pretty sure that they're talking about RAM. And yes, 23 terrabytes of RAM is a ton.
      Article says:
      By applying sophisticated modelling techniques to the 25 Terabytes (25 million Megabytes) of stored output, Virgo scientists are able to recreate evolutionary histories for the approximately 20 million galaxies which populate this enormous volume and for the supermassive black holes occasionally seen as quasars at their hearts.
      Article says nothing about RAM.
    34. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by kyouteki · · Score: 1

      What the heck are these terrabytes I keep hearing about?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    35. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you're so funny! You aren't the 20th person to say that!

    36. Re:25 TB? That's nothing. by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      I actually don't like the CSM, but I had some time over lunch, it turns out that they have one 7 Pulitzers: 3 for International reporting: Edmund Stevens in 1950 R. John Hughes in 1967 David Rohde in 1996 2 for National Reporting: Howard James in 1968 Robert Cahn in 1969 1 for Editorial Cartooning: Clay Bennet in 2002 1 Special Award, a Citation for Journalism: Richard Lee Strout in 1978

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
  3. "25 million megabytes of memory" by brickballs · · Score: 3, Funny

    "25 million megabytes of memory"

    man, just when i thought 2 gigs was a lot...

    --
    "What does slashdotting mean?"
    "You've never heard of slashdot?"
    "I know it makes websites not work."
    1. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by mlrtime · · Score: 1


      Wouldn't that be 25 Terra bytes?

    2. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by brickballs · · Score: 1

      only if your lucky

      --
      "What does slashdotting mean?"
      "You've never heard of slashdot?"
      "I know it makes websites not work."
    3. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by dhakbar · · Score: 1

      Only if his lucky? Only if his lucky what?

    4. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by brickballs · · Score: 1

      maby his girlfriends lucky:

      <berzerker> my girlfriend is lucky because i enjoy giving oral sex
      <Ash> She likes to watch, eh, berzo?

      --bash.

      --
      "What does slashdotting mean?"
      "You've never heard of slashdot?"
      "I know it makes websites not work."
    5. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 25 Terabytes, dimwit.

    6. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      man, just when i thought 2 gigs was a lot...

      And I thought 25 terabytes was a lot. But 25 million megabytes sounds so much more.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" by matt+me · · Score: 1

      The Guardian. Selling a thousandth of 0.001 million issues a day. We have no command of units.

  4. 25 Million Megabytes by 823723423 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoa this is slashdot - news for nerds, convert to metric please,
    or least use Giga or Tera :P

    1. Re:25 Million Megabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. It is in metric. And the proper scaled metric would be Tera, so leave Giga out of this.

    2. Re:25 Million Megabytes by Adrilla · · Score: 1

      Tera is the correct prefix, but I think Mega was used more for effect. "WOW! 25 Million! That's amazing!"

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    3. Re:25 Million Megabytes by turkeyphant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use SI units - tebibytes.

    4. Re:25 Million Megabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only they had stuck with the common names, SI would've caught on. It's sad they had to come up with some whacked out names, which is why no one ever uses them.

    5. Re:25 Million Megabytes by Billygoatz · · Score: 1

      I use Roman numerals which would be twenty-five thousand million "M"s

    6. Re:25 Million Megabytes by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Please type that out. Using "twenty-five million 'M's'" is mixing units. A real no-no.

      I will check back in a few days to see what real roman numberals would look like...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:25 Million Megabytes by CellBlock · · Score: 1
      I use SI units - tebibytes.
      Actually, you don't. From your link:
      It is important to recognize that the new prefixes for binary multiples are not part of the International System of Units (SI).
  5. SECRET CHEAT by rebug · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just type "FUND" a few hundred times.

    Do it before you build anything, because it causes earthquakes.

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
    1. Re:SECRET CHEAT by brickballs · · Score: 1

      Which one is it that brings in the alien spaceships?

      --
      "What does slashdotting mean?"
      "You've never heard of slashdot?"
      "I know it makes websites not work."
    2. Re:SECRET CHEAT by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      porntipsguzzardo

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:SECRET CHEAT by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Classic. Don't think it worked on versions greater than 3, did it?

    4. Re:SECRET CHEAT by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      Shift+prescilla for a nice menu item called debug...

    5. Re:SECRET CHEAT by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      oops... it's priscilla...

    6. Re:SECRET CHEAT by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      Excellent. I really need to find the disk and re-install that game.

    7. Re:SECRET CHEAT by JonXP · · Score: 1

      You could use this: http://simcity.ea.com/play/simcity_classic.php
      But it only works in IE. *sigh*

    8. Re:SECRET CHEAT by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      ETPHONEHOME

  6. longhorn by systemofadown · · Score: 3, Funny

    isn't how much memory longhorn need to run?

    --
    Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity. -Nikola Telsa
    1. Re:longhorn by qualico · · Score: 1

      and yet they mod you Offtopic?

  7. I thought by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought that they really hadn't even figured out how the universe worked. They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age, and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for. How are they supposed to simulate the universe, if the model they have is so badly flawed.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age

      No, they don't. This has happened a few times in the past, e.g., when they didn't know about the different populations of stars, but currently there isn't an age problem.

      and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for

      We don't know what dark matter is, but we know enough about its gravitational properties -- that's why it was postulated to exist, after all -- to simulate its effects on these scales.

      How are they supposed to simulate the universe, if the model they have is so badly flawed.

      The models we have are not as badly flawed as you think they are. But even if they are flawed, that's the point of the simulation: to test the validity of the model. If the simulation's results don't agree with observations, then that tells us about where the model fails.
    2. Re:I thought by willpall · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's probobly why they didn't name it, "Super Duper Accurate and Exact Precision Model of the Universe".

      Welcome to science, where no matter how far you come along, there's always a ways more to go. Today's models are flawed, but not nearly as much as yesterday's. And even if the Dark Matter mysteries or older-than-time star mysteries are resolved, I'm sure there will be other mysteries we have yet to discover. These simulations are a part of that process.

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    3. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't know what dark matter is, but they know how it behaves. In fact I believe in this simulation they only tracked dark matter.

    4. Re:I thought by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They haven't, that's why you build a simulator.. to explore various ideas.

      A flight simulator does not perfectly simulate flight, but it does let you see what effect different changes have based on your mathematical models. Same idea here..

    5. Re:I thought by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age, and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for.

      Don't forget about accelerated expansion (dark energy), and time-varying (or even space-varying) constants. It'd be interesting if they could get this thing to spit out something even close to what we see now.

    6. Re:I thought by RWerp · · Score: 1

      If the simulation's results don't agree with observations, then that tells us about where the model fails.

      Or the simulation...

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    7. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simulation is the model.

    8. Re:I thought by TMB · · Score: 1
      No, not quite. The model is:
      • the universe is made up of: 25% non-relativistic matter that only interacts gravitationally and has particle mass much less than one million solar masses, 5% normal baryonic matter, and 70% cosmological constant
      • after inflation, the overall density was almost completely smooth except for very small random perturbations with a power spectrum of -1 and amplitude such that if all of the gravitational growth was linear, the current rms amplitude in spheres of radius 8/h Mpc would be 0.9
      • after inflation, the universe was expanding at a rate such that the current rate of expansion is 70 km/s/Mpc
      • the universe as a whole and all of the matter which makes up the universe obeys General Relativity


      That's the model. The simulation is what we use to turn that model into a set of predictions about the structure in the universe that we can test (and it's not the only tool we have for doing that - for the sake of predicting the properties of galaxies, so-called "semi-analytic models" are just as popular). But the simulation can be wrong without the model being wrong... in the trivial case, if there was a bug in the code or in the initial conditions, but more seriously if there are numerical problems that we don't understand whereby the process of turning a fluid into a set of discrete much-more-massive particles means that the output of the simulation is not the same as the actual behaviour of the model!

      [TMB]
    9. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the simulation is a model of the physical system, and it is the model being used by this research group.. It's is approximation to a different model (an analytic one), true, but that model isn't the one being actually used: the simulation is the model that is being used. And the analytic model you describe itself contains many approximations to an even more exact analytic model of all the quantum fields, etc.

      The model you describe is neither the "true" model nor the model being used to extract predictions.

      The simulation model does have artifacts of its computational representation -- quite apart from any unknown source of numerical error; there are known numerical errors -- so it's important to note that the model being used is a numerical one, not analytic.

  8. Here's the top output by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Funny

    #top

    PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
    561 ganesh 13 0 58876 25000000M 1044 S 0 0.7 95.1 68:51 universe

    1. Re:Here's the top output by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the TIME column read something a little bit larger than 69 hours? Like, oh, 10 billion years or something like that? ;)

    2. Re:Here's the top output by iibagod · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not on Ganesh's system. Top expresses TIME in Kalpas. You're still using the year? How provincial.

    3. Re:Here's the top output by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      the pid should be 42 as well.

    4. Re:Here's the top output by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      In this case, a "qstat" or "usage" would have been more appropriate, depending on the queuing system they used, of course. You wouldn't just want to know the load on a single node, or possibly just the frontend, would you?

      --
      This comment does not exist.
  9. The digital inhabitants won't believe in us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think they deserver a good smiting.

  10. Google Maps by msbmsb · · Score: 4, Funny

    So when will Google Maps be available for this universe?

    1. Re:Google Maps by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In all seriousness, the interface used by Google Maps seems like it would be well-suited for dealing with astronomical imaging data.

    2. Re:Google Maps by Satai · · Score: 1

      Funny you should bring that up. My advisor, a well-respected astrophysicist, was making a lengthy joke about extending google maps / keyhole all the way out to the local group. I'm not sure that it would work so well, because it's necessarily a two-dimensional interface, and the data is 3-d. If you mean as a planetarium interface, I think I could agree with you there.

      Right now, the best 3-d data viewer that I've seen is Partiview which was designed by Stuart Levy at NCSA and is hosted by AMNH with a couple data catalogs. I'd recommend checking out the Extragalactic catalog and the Milky way catalog. The button bar isn't as nice as in celestia, but the data is extremely extensive and I find the 3-d manipulation to be much more intuitive.

    3. Re:Google Maps by f00zy · · Score: 1

      except that there would be no continuity between images. and very limited resolution. as an idea, very cool. in practice, not today. how much black space do you want to see today?

  11. Dudes... by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes?

    Whoaaa.

    Pass the bong, dude.

    1. Re:Dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if c-a-t really spelled "dog"?

    2. Re:Dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      otto backwards is... otto!

    3. Re:Dudes... by sharkey · · Score: 1
      What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes?

      Yeah, the Earth could be, like, a giant computer, and we're just the bits flowing through it.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Dudes... by Feyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      have you read neal stephenson's "diamond age"? he has one of those, they do computation by fucking wildly (and i mean that quite literally)

    5. Re:Dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Dudes... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Or how about ...
      The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect
      http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/

    7. Re:Dudes... by Sam+Nitzberg · · Score: 1

      Thorem 4.5.3 covers this.
      http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/theory-bk/th eory-bk-fourse5.html
      Just read up to Th. 4.5.3.
      QED.

    8. Re:Dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be accurate, wouldn't the simulation have to simulate the simulation, and so on?

      *passes the bong back*

    9. Re:Dudes... by tooth · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I read it, but IIRC they "fucked wildly" too pass on genetic "memes"... or I could be getting it confused with snow crash.

    10. Re:Dudes... by dlippolt · · Score: 1


      i know you were just kidding, but i wasn't.

      check the last few paragraphs of this post:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151032&cid=126 81975

    11. Re:Dudes... by niteice · · Score: 1

      Duh. We're the best computer in the universe, trying to find the question.

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    12. Re:Dudes... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      nop you got it. though iirc it was nanobots they passed along

    13. Re:Dudes... by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      So the entire universe could be like... a tiny speck in some guy's thumb?

    14. Re:Dudes... by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

      So who will be the first to break free of our new found Matrix?

    15. Re:Dudes... by frakir · · Score: 1


      See http://www.simulation-argument.com/ for some insightful articles about that.

      And they mod you funny?

    16. Re:Dudes... by d474 · · Score: 1
      "What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes? Whoaaa. Pass the bong, dude."
      Bro, that means this bong is a simulation of a bong in some higher reality.
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    17. Re:Dudes... by bonglord · · Score: 1

      no worries dude!

      --
      2 + 2 = 5
    18. Re:Dudes... by burdalane · · Score: 1

      I think it's very likely that we live in a simulated universe. Other people have already posted links to websites that also argue in favor of a simulation. I don't know whether the universe was created by a higher power, but if it was, who's to say this higher power isn't some civilization running a simulation of a universe? The question is, will our simulation of a universe one day evolve life, and if so, will those creatures develop intelligence? Personally, I believe it's unethical and immoral to let intelligent creatures develop unless we make life perfect and potentially eternal for them and let them know of our true nature.

    19. Re:Dudes... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What if we're in a simulated universe

      I for one would like to give a simulated warm welcome to our simulated overlords.

    20. Re:Dudes... by zevans · · Score: 1
      And for more of that, see several Greg Egan novels / stories, particularly "Diaspora."

      See also the Manifold novels by Stephen Baxter.

      This was pretty much the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the article... is there anyone in there, wondering who this god person is anyway and why he has such a shabby lab coat on?

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  12. Oh, great by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we're going to /. the cosmos.

    --
    Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
  13. This is a problem for BlueGene by a3217055 · · Score: 1

    This seems like a problem for BlueGene to solve, lets email the raw data input files to the group at LLNL they can do all the calculations in a matter of seconds and then tell us why the answer is 42...! There seems to be too much data involved, seems like a plot by the storage companies to sell crapp SATA disks and bad RAID cards.

    1. Re:This is a problem for BlueGene by red990033 · · Score: 0

      I was talking to a mouse friend of mine about why he believed the answer was 42, he simply replied "I'll tell you if you buy a ticket to Disney Land, I could use the money." Just then.. I saw impossibly huge yellow somethings hanging in the air.

      --
      Do what I say, cuz I said it.
      -Meatwad
    2. Re:This is a problem for BlueGene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, DeepThought!

  14. Predicting the future by XXIstCenturyBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always though that a computer large enough to handle a simulation of the universe would allow us to predict the future, even at individual level if the simulation was advanced enough.

    And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.

    It got very confusing at that point.

    1. Re:Predicting the future by csbrooks · · Score: 1

      Plus, wouldn't the simulation have to include itself?

      Also, is the universe, at the tiniest level, really deterministic?

      And how would you take an initial measurement of the state of every particle?

    2. Re:Predicting the future by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      That's right. A simulation of the universe would only allow you to 'predict the future', if the underlying physics of the universe, (& hence the physical laws/ 'rules of the simulation' that where programmed into that simulation), where deterministic in nature. So I don't think we'll be able to gain any advice from this new simulation of the universe, about when Michael Schumacher will be making his return to form, in this years Formula 1 season. Personally I'm hoping for a Ferrari 1-2 at Silverstone :)

    3. Re:Predicting the future by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      Also, (quickly), if you're looking at Quantum Mechanics, this theory says that you can't fundamentally know, (measure), all the properties of a particle at the same time. For instance- if you absolutely know a particles position, then you can know absolutely nothing about its velocity at the same instant- & visa versa- the Uncertainty Principle. So from the 'know the initial state of all' & predict via the laws of physics hence forth approach, you aren't predicting any race winners there :) Extract from.... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ "One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that one can assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a particle, quantum mechanics denies this possibility. Instead, according to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position of a particle is given, the less precisely one can say what its momentum is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle. This principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and on the consistency of the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation."

    4. Re:Predicting the future by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      Is that not a map making fallacy?

      You cannot make an overly accurate map, because the more accurate of a map you construct, the larger it becomes, and eventually it will be the size of what you are mapping!

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    5. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, as far as we know, you can only make measurements once, but if you set up many copies of the system in the exact initial state you could develop a probability distribution.

    6. Re:Predicting the future by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.


      Bah... the universe is mostly empty space. It would compress nicely.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:Predicting the future by Ed+Thomson · · Score: 1

      I always though that a computer large enough to handle a simulation of the universe would allow us to predict the future, even at individual level if the simulation was advanced enough.
      And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.
      It got very confusing at that point.


      Pass the bong, dude.

    8. Re:Predicting the future by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      Wake up it's the car not the driver. Or to be more correct the tyres.

      Schumi is still the cheating lying genius he always was.

      Personally I think this is the best saeson in years.

    9. Re:Predicting the future by Mathonwy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it actually (or perhaps also?) falls under the pigeonhole principal. In order to fit x seperate pidgeons, you need at least x holes. Or, in data storage terms, to be able to always represent x bytes worth of data, you need at least x bytes worth of data. (Compression sometimes seems to get around this, but with compression, it's almost always a tradeoff: It can store certain configurations of data (usually the most common) in less than x bytes, but other configurations (random noise, for example) almost always takes more. In order to ALWAYS be sure of being able to store x bytes, you need at least x bytes to store it in.)

    10. Re:Predicting the future by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Chaos has pretty much destroyed these possibilities.

    11. Re:Predicting the future by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Bah... the universe is mostly empty space. It would compress nicely."
      In truth, no space is empty; and you can compress the data, but then you will not have a perfect simulation; your computer will take longer to process the data than the span of the events which are occuring. As far as predicting the future goes, it would be useless, because the real universe would complete its 'calculations' long before your more space-efficient machine did--you would in effect only be able to 'predict' the past.

    12. Re:Predicting the future by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Informative

      The uncertainty principle makes this an impossibility. Even if you could somehow simulate everything you could never get the exact initial conditions of even one particle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think this is the best saeson in years.

      AOL!

      The race @ Nurburgring was exciting/heartbreaking. Go Kimi!

      Wait, what does this have to do with quantum indeterminacy?

    14. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you start the universe simulation before the big bang, it could be that the uncertainty principle is not relevant. Perhaps there is a structure of nearly infite density that is required at this state. You could then take that initial configuration, run the GUT forward, and voilah.

      Of course, you'd have to have the correct amount of matter to run the simulation...

    15. Re:Predicting the future by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, totally!- MS & Ferrari fam here :) I can see how that came across wrong. Bridgestone really dropped hte ball this year. What's worse though is that the other non-bridgestone teams complain that Ferrari test more then they do- well yes, since there'e what 2 teams running bstone tires, I think then it's more then fair to match all the R&D Mitchellin do with the other teams. Best in years? Will be as soon as that come back is made. & if not, well he's 7 times champion- like anyone can touch that. C.

    16. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps there is a structure of nearly infite density that is required at this state.

      That doesn't mean that the uncertainty principle isn't relevant. Even if you knew the initial configuration exactly, you still can't predict the future with certainty in a quantum theory.
    17. Re:Predicting the future by tooth · · Score: 1

      The trick would be to put the computer doing the simulated universe into it's own buble universe and that would take care of those "it would have to be the same as the universe to simulate it" problems...

    18. Re:Predicting the future by gfody · · Score: 1

      the universe simulator works great up until the point where humans invent the universe simulator then it gets stuck in an infinite loop. so you can only predict the past with it, and even then only up to the point where the universe simulator is created

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    19. Re:Predicting the future by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the enthropy is the killer here. The more you compress it, the more volatile it becomes.

      Compress it too much, and it might just explo ...

      Wait ... maybe that's what REALLY happend just prior to the big bang?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    20. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always though that a computer large enough to handle a simulation of the universe would allow us to predict the future, even at individual level if the simulation was advanced enough.

      It does. Show me a large enough compuer to simulate the universe . . . and I can predict large future electric bills.

    21. Re:Predicting the future by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      --then it gets stuck in an infinite loop

      WHo says we arent in one now?

      --
    22. Re:Predicting the future by Mahler · · Score: 1

      This applies to the 4 dimensions of space-time.
      We will be able to make it possible if we find a catalyst to be of no significant influence on our Universe, but is still connected.

    23. Re:Predicting the future by Decameron81 · · Score: 1
      In truth, no space is empty; and you can compress the data, but then you will not have a perfect simulation; your computer will take longer to process the data than the span of the events which are occuring


      Maybe they could use another 25 million megabytes of RAM to fix that... and overclocked CPUs or something.
      --
      diegoT
    24. Re:Predicting the future by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      It depends to what level you wish to simulate it. If you only care about the motion of galactic clusters, then you only need to model them. There are lots, but I imagine that it's a tractable problem (given sufficient time, tech, etc)

      If you want to model the motion of every subatomic particle, then you need to be able to store the position, mass, velocity, etc of every subatomic particle. There isn't enough matter in the universe to do that.

    25. Re:Predicting the future by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      Hari Seldon? Multivac? Asimov was contemplating this idea since the 40's.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    26. Re:Predicting the future by noodler · · Score: 1

      "There isn't enough matter in the universe to do that."

      one could argue that there is EXACTLY enough matter in the universe to simulate itself.

    27. Re:Predicting the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --then it gets stuck in an infinite loop

      WHo says we arent in one now?

    28. Re:Predicting the future by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      This is an ancient idea, embodied by Laplace's Demon. This would be a very intelligent creature with a perfect knowledge of the whole universe. Laplace thought such a creature would be able to predict everything, because it knows the mechanics and the initial conditions of the system. Einstein, Heisenberg et al later showed that this could not work, because at small scale Newton's laws don't apply anymore.

    29. Re:Predicting the future by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      Sine we don't currently have a complete theory of everthing & hence are not able to fully program a simulation of the entire history of the development of the univers, then I don't think we'll be having any problems anytime soon :) Besides it's a simulation- so all the scaling problems about how can all the little people in the little universe be SOOOOoooooooooooo little- don't really crop up :) C.

    30. Re:Predicting the future by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      ""And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe."" The smallest PHYSICAL simulation of the universe is perhaps more accurate. However if we could program all the laws of physics into a computer then the smallest THEORETICAL simulation of the universe wouldn't really have any physical size at all really- it would just be code & messy computer algorithms. Actually I guess there could be a Physical simulation of the universe that wasn't the size of the universe, thought it would have to be contained somehow within a distorted region of spacetime that would have the interior size of what 15-ish billion light years, but viewed externally was relatively small to its internal dimensions. I don't even want to start calculating the mess involved there- let alone think about the energies involved :)

    31. Re:Predicting the future by pizzarobot · · Score: 1

      > you would in effect only be able to 'predict' the past.

      Predicting the past could still be useful. For instance it takes 20 million years minimum for information (such as the position of stars) about a galaxy 20 million light-years away from us to get to us. If a computer could do the calculations for that in less than 20 million years, then it would be useful.

    32. Re:Predicting the future by zevans · · Score: 1
      Bah... the universe is mostly empty space. It would compress nicely.

      Does the 'brane filing system support holes then?

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  15. Heh... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    They can simulate the universe but can't withstand a slashdotting? ...

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  16. This thing could get out of control! by kc32 · · Score: 0

    I suggest we scorch the sky now to keep this machine from ruling us.

  17. Long POST by pnatural · · Score: 1

    25 Million MB? And you thought *your* machine took a long time to POST!

  18. This is nothing .... by xqcom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ho Hum ..... If you REALLY want to impress people, then design a simulation of how corporate management ( and IT in particular) thinks and behaves.

    --
    Denial is not a river in Egypt
    1. Re:This is nothing .... by zojakownith · · Score: 0

      i thought that was called chaos theory.

      --
      I have bad karma....

      Open source is heavenly, Microsoft is the devil, SCO is going to hell

    2. Re:This is nothing .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Dilbert already beats any computer simulation in both predictive accuracy and sarcastic irony.

    3. Re:This is nothing .... by Shazow · · Score: 1
      Ho Hum ..... If you REALLY want to impress people, then design a simulation of how corporate management ( and IT in particular) thinks and behaves.

      Once you realize that they don't think, their behavior becomes trivial.

      - shazow
    4. Re:This is nothing .... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Windows does a pretty good job of simulating corporate management.
      Has a false sense of security, frequently crashes and never efficient enough when it comes to decision making.

  19. it certainly is something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're talking about 25 TB of RAM, not storage. 25 TB of core is pretty damned huge even if it is spread across a giant cluster.

    200 TB of online storage isn't that impressive. Sorry.

  20. word of the day by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

    Terabyte

  21. Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

    --From the article... "It is the biggest thing we have ever done," said Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham. "It is probably the biggest thing ever in computational physics." --I would have thought so :) "For the first time we have a replica universe which looks just like the real one. So we can now for the first time begin to experiment with the universe." --Exxxxxcelllllllent!! That sounds like my kind of experiment. Seriously though, this looks like it will finally help us make progress on the Dark Matter/ Negative Energy questions.

    1. Re:Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      What if our universe is actually the one they're simulating? So in essence, our universe contains itself?

      -Z

    2. Re:Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      "" What if our universe is actually the one they're simulating? So in essence, our universe contains itself?"" Well the current universe simulation they have created isn't of the entire universe just a chunk a certain width cubed. Besides what they have created is just a simulation of our universe- NOT a mini physical universe, so there is not universe within a universe situation going on. Of course there is the philosophical ideas based around the Plato's Cave, but that's a whole other Matrix style discussion.

    3. Re:Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Of course... my post was more of a joke than anything else...

      But hearing this did remind me of that old joke that our entire universe is really some student's doctoral thesis, and that he's just about to graduate. }:)

      -Z

    4. Re:Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy by Craig+Crennell · · Score: 1

      "" that old joke that our entire universe is really some student's doctoral thesis, and that he's just about to graduate. }:)"" Let's hope he continues on in the same field of research & doesn't go on to program video games- though we might get a graphics upgrade & a few space ships to shoot down :)

  22. Zarniwoop will be delighted... by hazee · · Score: 1

    It'll save him having to leave his desk.

  23. 3D Google Maps? by msbmsb · · Score: 1

    I think they still have some work on that one, but maybe.

  24. 25 million megabytes by ThinkTiM · · Score: 1

    They should invent some word to make it easier to say 25 million mega..oh, don't worry.

  25. Somehow I have this vision of .... by UberGeekEdward · · Score: 0

    The Total Perspective Vortex, (Retaurant at the End of the Universe for the uneducated) wherein we are a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot. Are we sure we can handle this concept?

    --
    Talking to geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
  26. Douglas Adams by KefabiMe · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Douglas Adams by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, i'm sure this machine doesn't extrapolate the universe based off of a piece of fairy cake.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  27. Don't tell MOG and Rob by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    Journalists will use it to work up stories without having to leave their offices. The only thing we need now is a piece of fairy cake.

  28. 25 TB? meh by krunchyfrog · · Score: 0

    I got more pr0n than that.

    --
    printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
    -- myself
  29. And the final answer to the universe probably will by lee1026 · · Score: 0

    be 42

  30. No, it's not RAM, it's disk by daveschroeder · · Score: 1
  31. Total Perspective Vortex by Speare · · Score: 1

    And when you realize that you're an infinitesimal dot on an infinitesimal dot, you'll go completely stark raving mad. Unless you're in a personal pocket universe, of course, in which case you're the most important thing in it.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:Total Perspective Vortex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in MY universe, bub!

  32. No, it's disk by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    RTFA.

    25TB of *stored output*.

    http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/millennium_sim.asp

    1. Re:No, it's disk by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Would you be impressed if it was put on a bunch of USB sticks?

      --
      What?
  33. I for one... by CarlJagt · · Score: 1

    ...am glad Slashdot doesn't specify "timely" in the service mark "News for Nerds." This was posted on at the BBC days ago. Otherwise, I'd have to say 'Sheessh.' Shee-

  34. It's been done... by nxtr · · Score: 1

    Microsoft calls it Windows XP. What? You're telling me it's not an actual universe simulation? Based on the system resources it uses, I thought it was!

  35. We've been looking for you, Neo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you take the red pill or the blue pill...?

  36. But... by morelia_nut · · Score: 1

    Uuuuhhhh... wouldn't the simulation have to contain the simulation? Isn't that an infinite loop? Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.

    If nothing else, it sounds like a memory leak waiting to happen.

  37. The new sequel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA announces!

    The Sims: Universe!

  38. Recently upgraded by y2imm · · Score: 1

    I just scored 2100 in 3DMark, can I run it?

  39. Voodoo science here, I think. by Nutria · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Recent advances in cosmology demonstrate that about 70 percent of our Universe currently consists of Dark Energy, a mysterious force field which is causing it to expand ever more rapidly. About one quarter apparently consists of Cold Dark Matter, a new kind of elementary particle not yet directly detected on Earth.

    This is stated as fact, not theory, but how can it be a scietific fact if it can not be detected, measured, and independetely verified?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That why they said "apparently". Sheesh.

    2. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      There are no scientific facts, only theories that haven't been falsified yet.

      Saying "Cold Dark Matter" exists, or "Dark Energy" is just saying "our formulas work if there is such a hting as dark energy with such-and-such a property involved here."

      What is detection but observing something's effect on something else? if the only weay we can explain the universe expanding at a certain rate is that there is more energy out there than we can detect (other than by the rate of expansion, of course), that's a valid observation, and for as long as it explains the universe and no data contradicts it, it's the best we can do, just like any other observation.

    3. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      What is detection but observing something's effect on something else?

      When you observe an apple falling off a tree, are you observing it's effects on the air molecules as it falls to the ground?

      that's a valid observation

      I say that it is a valid hypothesis.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
      "In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it."

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Zsinj · · Score: 1

      Any fact is nothing more than a theory with lots of evidence. The border between fact and theory is a fudgeable, smudgeable, lovabely blurred boundary. Saying something like "The Earth Orbits around the Sun" is no worse than saying "Cold Dark Matter is a new type of elementary particle...."

      Of course, they do say "appareantly cosists of", based on "Recent advances in cosmology." So they *do* mention some uncertainty, unlike with my Earth example. But the fact : theory comparison remains the same.

    5. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      You seem to be a bit hard-nosed about the distinction between "fact" and "theory". There's not such a hard line between the two.

      Calling something a scientific fact makes it sound like there's no way to disprove it ever. It's Truth with a capital T. Calling something a theory makes it sound like you're talking about something extremely uncertain. In reality there isn't such a thing as a fact (at least in Science, maybe there is in Perry Mason). Even newtons laws of gravity is just a theory. It's true within certain parameters, but Einstein later showed that it's not a "fact" (that is, always true).

      How well proven is dark matter? I don't really know. But I think your arguments against it aren't terribly valid. The article only said it hasn't yet been detected on earth. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have stars, supernovas, or black holes on earth either, but yet we still believe they exist.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      The same way evolution is proclaimed to be a "fact".

    7. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that God must exist becuase no one can prove his non-existence.

    8. Re:Voodoo science here, I think. by Nutria · · Score: 1
      What I was taught is that a Scientific Fact is a Hypothesis that has been
      1. it's hypothesis fits "all" observed "reality"
      2. experimentally verified
      3. and that the experiment has been repeated multiple times, giving the same results.

      As for stars, supernovas, and black holes, the reason we say that their existence is Scientific Fact is that
      1. the hypothesis that they are stars, supernovas, and black holes, instead of Angels in Aristotle's celestial spheres, fits "all" observed "reality", and is a simpler explanation than said spheres.
      2. experimentally verified (Copernicus taking observations)
      3. and that the experiment has been repeated multiple times, giving the same results. (everyone else since him taking observations, building bigger telescopes, radio telescopes, spectral analysis, etc)


      Of course, when some new bit of "observed reality" comes along that doesn't fit into the theory underpinning a Scientific Fact, obviously the Fact must be challenged.
      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  40. obgliatory by brickballs · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Simulated Overlords.

    --
    "What does slashdotting mean?"
    "You've never heard of slashdot?"
    "I know it makes websites not work."
  41. Molest me not... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...with this pocket calculator stuff.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  42. Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet in some 20 years we will be able to build an incredible Beowulf with thousands of cell processors to do an even more detailed simulation -- one that would, e.g., include an Earth simulation!

    Just imagine simulating Earth's formation, Prehistory, even History. It would be very cool...

    Imagine simulation the events that made the 20th century... we could even simulate all the people like a giant The Sims. I bet the simulated dorks wouldn't be able to tell they were living in a simulation.

    Hahaha, the fools!

    Hey, wait a minute... what if... doh!

  43. Next Windows Mem Requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing 25TB is just about right for the next version of Windows after Longhorn. Gotta keep up with the times ya know? ;-)

  44. the simulated universe includes the simulator? by Garabito · · Score: 2, Funny

    And if it does, the simulator in the simulated universe simulates other universe?

    And if it does, does it include the simulator?

    And this simulator...

    1. Re:the simulated universe includes the simulator? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      No wonder it requires so much RAM. That's one hell of an infinite loop.

      Turtles all the way down indeed.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    2. Re:the simulated universe includes the simulator? by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. The entire x Terabytes of data is on a paper tape that is formed into a mobius loop. Therefore it actually simulates itself in the previous 2-dimensional universe that is made of vibrating silly-string(s).

  45. Press ESC to cancel memory test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Press DEL to enter setup.

  46. In Soviet Russia by brickballs · · Score: 0


    In soviet Russia, the Universe simulates YOU!

    --
    "What does slashdotting mean?"
    "You've never heard of slashdot?"
    "I know it makes websites not work."
  47. 25 million megs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats about the size of the pc that holds my tv and movie downloads!

  48. Are you educated stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The simulated universe represents a cube of creation

    It represents 4 simultaneous cubes of creation. Dumbass!

  49. Life, the universe and everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the answer of the simulation be 42?

    We can only hope...

    Eric C.

  50. One small detail by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "but it offers the tantalising opportunity to fast-forward in time to the slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now"

    Assuming your assumptions and input are correct, of course.

    1. Re:One small detail by Satai · · Score: 1

      True, but one of the virtues of this type of science is that the initial conditions are extremely well known from WMAP and other CMB data. The in between stuff, from the dark ages up through reionization or thereabouts are not well known -- for example, the first generation of stars. (A problem this simulation is many, many orders of magnitude from resolving, but a problem I work on for a living.)

    2. Re:One small detail by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Otherwise thats one extremely expensive computer game.

      Hardly even a strategy game. Hell, not even real time!

      Maybe the graphics are decent though, they've obviously found someone willing to pay to watch other people play it.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:One small detail by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Hardly even a strategy game. Hell, not even real time! Maybe the graphics are decent though, they've obviously found someone willing to pay to watch other people play it.

      In about 10 years, it'll make one hell of an xlock screensaver. ;)

      --

      -Turkey

  51. The 13th Floor by KillerBob · · Score: 1

    Have you ever been to The 13th Floor?

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  52. Shades of Greg Egan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For anyone who has read Permutation City by Greg Egan, in the book a computer simulation like this ends up continuing to run in an alternate universe after the computer simulation is stopped in this universe; in this book, simulations like this end up creating new universes.

  53. No Designer? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

    But this simulated universe has an intelligent designer, for sure!

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  54. Does it..... by cruc · · Score: 1

    Does it simulate millions of geeks not having sex? :P

  55. 20 million galaxies...BAH! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    That's like asking 100 Chinese what they think of blue tablecloth. I think I'll go watch the downloads now. Which brings up another point. How come the site hasn't been /.ed? I thought "nerds" were into science. Or is that "geeks"?

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    It's been 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

    Q? Is that you?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:20 million galaxies...BAH! by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      They got 1TB of memory and 25TB of drivespace.

      There's the slightest possibility that they might also have webservers capable of withstanding the onslaught of the Geekish Horde.

  56. 2006 by egburr · · Score: 1

    Who cares about the end of the universe? Fast forward it to 2006 so I can make plans for next year.

    --

    Edward Burr
    Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
  57. IBM was doing this in the '70s... by argent · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least this was going around when I was at Berkeley:

    NEW OPERATING SYSTEM:

    Because so many users have asked for an operating system of even greater capability than VM, IBM announces the Virtual Universe Operating System --- OS/VU.

    Running under VU the individual user appears to have not merely a machine of his own, but an entire universe of his own, in which he can set up and take down his own programs, data sets, system networks, personnel and planetary systems. He need only specify the universe he desires, and the OS/VU system generation program (IEHGOD) does the rest. This program resides in SYS1.GODLIB. The minimum time for this function is 6 days of activity and 1 day of review. In conjunction with OS/VU, all system utilities reside in SYS1.MESSIAH. This program has no parms or control cards, as it knows what you want to do when you execute it.

    Naturally, the user must have attained a certain degree of sophistication in the data processing field if an efficient utilization of OS/VU is to be achieved. Frequent calls to non-resident galaxies can, for instance, lead to unexpected delays in the execution of a job. Although IBM, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, the United States, is working on a program to upgrade the speed of light and thus reduce the overhead of extraterrestrial and metadimensional paging, users must be careful for the present to stay within the laws of physics. IBM must charge an additional fee for violations.

    OS/VU will run on any IBM x0xx equipped with the Extended WARP Feature. Rental is 20 million dollars per cpu/nanosecond.

    Users should be aware that IBM plans to migrate all existing systems and hardware to OS/VU as soon as our engineers effect one output that is (conceptually) error free. This will give us a base to develop an even more powerful OS, target date 2001, designated as 'Virtual Reality'. OS/VR is planned to allow the user to migrate to totally unreal universes. To aid the user in identifying the difference between 'Virtual Reality' and 'Real Reality', a file containing a linear record of multisensory total records of successive moments of now will be established. It's name will be SYS1.EST.

  58. Obligatory Matrix Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Woah"

  59. Think about one hundred hard drives at 250GB each by NextGaurd · · Score: 1

    One hundred drives at 250GB each would be 25TB... what do they cost now, about $150 each or $15,000 for the lot. But then in research, it's really quality not quantity that's important.

  60. Not even enough to hold "Spider-Man 2" by Apotsy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to this, "Spider-Man 2" employed a 4K digital intermediate, resulting in nearly 40 terabytes of data for just the completed footage (without sound).

    25TB ain't enough to even hold a single feature film, let alone the universe.

    1. Re:Not even enough to hold "Spider-Man 2" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're modelling events on a cosmologic scale, I don't think you're really too concerned with simulating flat, substanceless storylines and wooden actors unconvincingly attached to dodgy CGI.

      You do understand what abstractions are, right?

    2. Re:Not even enough to hold "Spider-Man 2" by Apotsy · · Score: 1
      You do understand what abstractions are, right?

      You do understand the point of my post and its parent had nothing to do with the level of simulation detail in question, it was simply "25TB ain't that much anymore; why are they bragging as thought it were", right?

  61. I already have one of these.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and you fuckers are standing on it!

  62. Interesting... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    But does it explain why number 42 is so important?

  63. Long DL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're telling me, I just hope enough people seed the torrent for the next month or so.

  64. That's right by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Now imagine applying that computer to the question, "What will your next result be?" The universe just ceased to exi

  65. I wonder if you looked hard enough by cranos · · Score: 1

    Would you find a giant turtle with four elephants on its back bearing the Discworld

  66. Give it a few year and its worthless by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

    When you simulate stuff as complex as our universe with the precision of such a project, if only one theory is wrong, one small theory, the entire set of conclusions will have to be revised or worse, tossed aside.

    1. Re:Give it a few year and its worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it probably won't become worthless. More accurate simulations usually refine the results of earlier, cruder simulations rather than invalidate them completely.

  67. Goodbye cruel world... by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

    Goodbye cruel world, hello Otherland. :D

    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  68. So they want to... by smartsaga · · Score: 1

    simulate something they don't know the measurements of? Ha!!!!

    HA!!!

    Your simulated-universe are belong to nothingness... get it?

    Have a good one.

    --
    ===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
  69. MOD Parent UP!! by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

    Here here here!!!

    Might need to start with brain scans of mgmt. Brain DUMPS of the core... yummeh.

    But seriously. At some point, someone's got to put together a crash IT course or something for new/relatively new managers and directors (especially) in IT. We're a different lot... not bad, but we're not accountants or worse, fry vat engineers. *sigh*
    Been a rotten week, can ya tell? :P TGIF.
    Back to Pariah.......

    --
    Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  70. Soo... by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

    How many libraries of Congress is that?

  71. GAY AIDS by liljenny · · Score: 0, Troll

    I INVENTED NIGGERS IS THIS SCIENCE? rslrfoijeroijeorjfoerjfojerjfoierwefwefwef

  72. Brahma by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Also, I think Brahma might be insulted with Ganesh claiming to be the creator.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Brahma by iibagod · · Score: 1

      Brahma wrote the source code. Ganesh isn't claiming anything....he just happened to be the first to logon that cycle.

  73. But my question is this... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

    Will it find the Question? I mean, honestly, if Earth won't do it, the whole goddamn Universe ought to have a crack at it.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  74. One Mellion Dollars... by musicscene · · Score: 1

    Was it so hard to just say 25 terabytes?

    --
    "I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
  75. Not earthquakes by bluGill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry, typing "FUND" does not cause earthquakes. In fact if you do it early enough there is no earth to quake. However does cause 'big bangs', which can be devastating to an established universe.

  76. At last! by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    A really massive MMORPG engine. Now, what about the storyline?

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  77. In all seriousness... by SiMac · · Score: 1

    Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument offers pretty good proof for this idea. According to Bostrom, if simulation is indeed possible, then the odds that we're not already running in thousands of layers of simulation is next to nil.

    Check it out. It's cool.

    1. Re:In all seriousness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument offers pretty good proof for this idea.

      If this is a simulation then whoever started it are some cruel motherfuckers.

    2. Re:In all seriousness... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that if we are in a simulation, then it's impossible for us to leave it or to realise that we are in a simulation. (Since we would mistake flaws in the simulation for laws of nature. QM could just be a memory leak or something.) Therefore, the distinction between 'real' and 'simulated' becomes utterly meaningless.

    3. Re:In all seriousness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that mean time stands still?

      Think about it:

      Obviously one doesn't create a simulated universe to watch it develop at the normal speed, but wants to fast-forward to the good stuff, whatever that is. So let's say that the root beings develop a simulated universe where time goes 1 million times faster than real-time, so that 1 year @ root means 1 million years @ level_1.

      Now, level_1 develops a simulated universe of their own, with the same speed-increase of 1 million. 1 year @ root == 10^12 years @ level_2.

      Do that an infinite amount of times, that means that 1 time unit @ root == infinite amount of time @ level_infinite. So before 1 time unit passes @ root, an infinite amount of time has passed @ level_infinite.

      An infinite amount of time cannot "pass", thusly, time stands still.

      Scary...

    4. Re:In all seriousness... by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Why? Is life really that bad? To be really cruel, everyone would have to be suffering all the time. And believe me, even those of us who are worst off have slight reprieves along the way.

      -Nano.

    5. Re:In all seriousness... by SiMac · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Except it's not impossible for us to realize we're in it. That's the whole point of the Simulation Argument. Of course, it's probabilistic, but everything is probabilistic. It's truly impossible to know anything for certain, because the human mind is an imperfect mechanism. The Simulation Argument proves that, if it is possible simulate life, it is extremely probable that we are ourselves simulated.

      You also say it's impossible to leave it. If our simulation were perfectly designed, then yes, this is true. But you also mention the possibility that QM is a memory leak, so perhaps our simulation is not perfectly designed.

      I'd love to chat for longer, but I'm afraid I must get back to auditing the universe for buffer overflows.

  78. M-Theory by Talinth · · Score: 1

    From what I understand, which isn't much... While attempting to emulate the universe using small scale quantum theory, M-Theory, or any string theory would be next to impossible due to the fact these equations just don't work on such a large scale. However, using special relativity I believe, and all the equations we have regarding larger scale spacial stuff, the law of large numbers causes everything to average into a realistic model. While you can't guarantee 100% accuracy I'm pretty certain that it'd come damn close. --- Not yet cool enough for a sig

    --
    71.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    1. Re:M-Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget relativity, this simulation is probably strictly Newtonian n-body. General relativity isn't relevant on these scales and special relativity isn't relevant at these speeds. The expansion of the universe only shows up on (hard to believe) even larger scales.

    2. Re:M-Theory by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Special relativity is far from being enough. You need general relativity. And even then, it's not simple. General relativity is all about nonlinear partial differential equations (feel impressed? I do!). What it means that you can't just toss any starting conditions and see what happens afterwards. In a general case, you'll get shit. In fact, people have built their careers on studying the "Cauchy problem of Einstein equations" and the "boundary conditions problem".

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  79. 25 M MB of information about the "initial" state? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    It required 25 million megabytes of memory to take our universe's initial conditions along with the known laws of physics to create this simulated universe.

    That's quite a bit of information pulled out of their a... about the initial state of the universe. Wanna bet the filled a few billion blanks?

  80. How about giving me an accurate weather report? by Proudrooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let me get this straight. We can put together enough hardware to simulate the universe, YET WE ARE UNABLE TO PREDICT THE FREAKING WEATHER.

    Instead, put all those computers together to model the earth's weather and use the laws of physics to tell me if I should take off next Friday to play golf or schedule a trip to Disney in late August. Geez........

    1. Re:How about giving me an accurate weather report? by lee1026 · · Score: 0

      I think that if you are trying to simulate the universe we would not have to worry about lots of little stuff that we would have to worry about if we are talking about the weather or if we are talking about what I'm going to eat for lunch. the simulator only have to worry about gravity and fusion and supernovas. that is alot simpler then weather.

    2. Re:How about giving me an accurate weather report? by fbform · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We can put together enough hardware to simulate the universe, YET WE ARE UNABLE TO PREDICT THE FREAKING WEATHER.

      Not sure if you were trolling, but simulating the universe requires only the equations for gravity and relativity to be simulated (physicists, please correct me if quantum mech is also required). Either way, those are non-chaotic systems. Weather prediction (fluid mechanics) involves solving the Navier-Stokes equations, which is computationally difficult.

      You can however make better predictions regarding the climate (the average weather over longer time periods in a particular place). You can say with high certainty that it won't snow in Singapore this winter, but you don't know if it will rain there on Dec 24 at 2 PM. The universe simulation is somewhat like that - simple equations over reasonably large time steps. Weather prediction is not like that - difficult equations over short time steps.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    3. Re:How about giving me an accurate weather report? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you were trolling, but simulating the universe requires only the equations for gravity and relativity to be simulated (physicists, please correct me if quantum mech is also required) It requires gravity and hydrodynamics (gas pressure). Relativity and quantum mechanics aren't important.

  81. Maybe one of these days... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    We can conclusively dis/prove the existence of god, when all simulation model successfully/fail to produce "intelligent life" as we know it in the simulated universe.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Maybe one of these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, here's one - what happens if it *DOES* create intelligent life, or at least the beginnings of intelligent life?

      Are you gonna feel guilty hitting ctrl-c to tweak your code if it kills off whatever lifeforms have evolved at the current stage of the simulation?

      Could be the shortest creation-extinction of a species ever!

  82. scientific dogma by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    If the earth simulator presupposes that the universes are slowly going to decay into entropy, what about the "force" that is causing the galaxies to accellerate away from each-other? I'd like to see it's prediction of what would happen on the other side of the asymptote.

  83. 25tb? by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 1

    Well, if we clustered several hundred thousand PS3's, we may reach Adams' 42(tb).

    --
    Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
  84. Does it fork() a lot? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    I have a Macintosh. Will my slow thread-spawning hinder this simulation?

  85. So this explains... by glenebob · · Score: 1

    Since building a computer to simulate the universe would require more matter than is available in the entire universe (which would entirely ignore the computer itself and the effect it has on the containing universe), the physical resolution of this particular simulation must be much less than that of the real universe.

    Which could explain why the /. karma system is the way it is :-)

    1. Re:So this explains... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Err, why?

      Couldnt you just slow down the matter emulation to a speed like... 1/10^1000 and watch in slo-mo?

      --
    2. Re:So this explains... by glenebob · · Score: 1

      How would you store the state and location of every single partical and photon in the universe?

    3. Re:So this explains... by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

      obviously. they simulated a portion of the universe and didnt even get enough "resolution" to make out individual single stars. we would need a computer from the future to simulate every atom that makes up the earth.

    4. Re:So this explains... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Quantum entangled matrix.

      And you dont have to keep track of every particle in the universe... Just the opposite, you have to only keep track of those entangled with each oter (assumption that max entanglement rate is C away per second from all particles in entanglement with each other).

      Well, that and Im sure you could eliminate many 'variables' by compressing them completely and inserting null fields.

      --
    5. Re:So this explains... by glenebob · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really make sense... You're saying that particles not entangled with others can be ignored altogether?

    6. Re:So this explains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's saying that when a set of particles are entangled, you can consider the entangled set as a single entity, rather than as individual particles. However, this doesn't really save you anything, simulation-wise, because an entangled state is not any easier to represent or simulate than the states of the particles of which it is comprised.

  86. When you get to the computer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When coding the simulation of the universe you come across the simulating computer itself, you'd have to start all over and code the universe into the code of the computer.

    So you'd never finish.

  87. Simulated Universe? by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    I thought that was EVE ONLINE....

    --
    MadOgre.com
  88. Movie torrents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone set up a torrent for millennium_flythru.avi and millennium_sim_1024x768.avi? I will when I get them, but it's looking like an hour or more.

  89. which begs the question.... by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    ....how long does it take to crash the heap with 25 terabytes to play with?

    #: java -Xmx25000000m Universe | /dev/null

    public class Universe() extends Thread {

    public Universe() {
    this.start();
    }

    public void run() {
    while(!totalSystemicEntropy){
    Universe nextUniverse = new Universe();
    }
    }

    }

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  90. How did this get modded up to +5? by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    It's NOT RAM, it's DISK, as I said an hour ago to this same post.

    The linked article clearly says the simulation was run against "25TB of **STORED OUTPUT**", e.g., DISK, not RAM.

    1. Re:How did this get modded up to +5? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Hey, output is stored in RAM. Just not for long. ;)

      Don't expect sensible modding on Slashdot, dude.

  91. Omega Point by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1
    What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes?

    Whoaaa.

    Pass the bong, dude.
    Apparently, others have been smoking that same stuff and taking it pretty seriously.

    Take a look at Tipler's website on the Omeha Point.. As bizarre as it may sound, there just might be something there.
    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:Omega Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm going to take aguy seriously who starts quoting the bible only two paragraphs in.

    2. Re:Omega Point by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm going to take aguy seriously who starts quoting the bible only two paragraphs in.

      Read more carefully. Tipler is a physicist, not a priest. He has constructed arguments that can be argued with other scientists and with professors of Theology. He is attempting to show that there may be reason to believe that religious mythology could be explained by a possible real phenomena.

      If you are not willing to critically examine work like this, then your *faith* in your own bais is no different than that which you clearly despise. Be prepared if you do dig in, this is not religious gobbledygook...

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    3. Re:Omega Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ahhh, but scientists don't argue with professors of Theology. It's a waste of time. Tipler's not just quoting from the bible, he's asserting that it provides evidence for his argument.

    4. Re:Omega Point by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1
      Ahhh, but scientists don't argue with professors of Theology. It's a waste of time. Tipler's not just quoting from the bible, he's asserting that it provides evidence for his argument.
      Really? Is this your theory? If you bothered to read anything he links to on his page, you will see math and physics in one set of links and theology and philosophy in another. It is very traditional for well respected scientists to address philosophy and sometimes theology (which is a form of philosophy) when pondering profound topics. But he is certainly not using theological arguments to form a foundation for his arguments, that is a mistake in your perceptions.

      As a side not (and I don't mean to be rude - it is just an observation), you sound like my bible-beater sister who will make wild claims without bothering to do any research whatsoever. Her claims sound just like yours, except they are typically directed at scientsts (which word she uses with the same scorn that you attach to theologeans).

      You do understand the difference between a bible-beater and a professor of theology, right? It is much like the difference between a slashdotter and a well published physics professor, such as Tipler ;-)
      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    5. Re:Omega Point by VirtualLemming · · Score: 1
  92. Seems kinda wasteful by moogleii · · Score: 1

    I kinda feel like we really don't have all/most of the rules of physics down to accurately model the universe yet. I mean, sure the initial conditions we might have, but it just seems to me that, given how old the universe is, any off calculations will just compound and diverge are results from reality. Of course, I'm not sure how far or how detailed their modeling. I'm probably completely wrong.

  93. Try it with 2 first. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    A two galaxie simulation would produce a figure 8.Just a thought.They can never stop moving.

    1. Re:Try it with 2 first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would produce an ellipse.

    2. Re:Try it with 2 first. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      If there were only 2 particles both equal in mass and traveling at the same speed.maybe you are right.I think three particles is more realistic .Since all things are made of three other things.Cant have just two they would cancel each other out producing a black hole.

    3. Re:Try it with 2 first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't have to be equal in mass or speed. Any two (point) particles in a bound system (under Newtonian gravity), regardless of speed or mass, will orbit each other elliptically. They do not "cancel each other out"; they can collide, but they usually don't (unless the initial conditions are just right, or there's drag causing the orbits to decay), and even if they do collide they needn't form a black hole.

  94. So that's what it was... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    And when they shut down the universe there was a great disturbance in the Force.

  95. Oh shit. It begins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point, we probably don't have nearly enough understanding about the nature of the universe to construct an accurate simulation. But if the technology behind this simulation is sound, then we're doomed.

    It will be an instant testing ground for new physical theories, to see if the make the simulation more or less consistent with what we know about the real universe. Over time, our knowledge of physics will be precise to the point where this simulation will be so accurate that it will provide the ability to look at any point in the history of the universe, at any point in space, at any time, including the future. Now, first of all, what if it falls into the wrong hands? What if it's used for massive invasions of privacy, where you can look at what anyone has done at any time? Hell, what if the researchers creating it happen to be voyeuristic? Furthermore, what if we look into the future with it, and that causes the future to change? What the fuck happens then? This is seriously scaring me.

    I'm not joking at all. It seems that's precisely their objective-- to refine the simulation until it's 100% accurate. I hope quantum theory (the part with the simultaneously alive and dead cat) is true, so that there's true randomness, which, orchestrated with Chaos theory, would make the universe totally unpredictable after a while. If not, and it's all deterministic and predictable, then, fuck. This thing (and anything like it) needs to be destroyed before it's too late.

    On the plus side, they could solve all sorts of historical mysteries, like whether Jesus actually performed miracles (or even existed). That would make many spiritual quests a lot easier. But I'd prefer to keep my privacy, even if we can find out the answers to many great questions.

    1. Re:Oh shit. It begins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over time, our knowledge of physics will be precise to the point where this simulation will be so accurate that it will provide the ability to look at any point in the history of the universe, at any point in space, at any time, including the future.
      [...]
      I'm not joking at all.

      Wow. Anonymous Cowards are idiots. (/shoots self in head)
  96. It isn't 25 TB. by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

    25 million megabytes does -not- equal 25 terrabytes. That is marketing droid logic.

    1. Re:It isn't 25 TB. by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Technically, 25 million megabytes equals exactly 25 terabytes. The SI prefixes specify that mega means million, aka 10^6, and tera means trillion, aka 10^12.

      The proper binary prefixes you should be using are mebi and tebi, meaning 2^20 and 2^40 respectively.

      (I can't believe that /. won't let me use the <SUP> tag.)

  97. Bah by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
    I don't see how accurate this simulation can be when it only takes into account 10b particles. The Milkyway alone consists of approx 100b stars. If you take a 2bly x 2bly square you could expect to find 300,000 trillion stars!

    I believe the purpose of the simulation is to try to gain a better understanding of the distribution and nature of dark matter/energy. To do this though surely you'd want to be mapping all the luminous matter and then work out what the dark stuff is doing from there? Why didn't they plot a smaller blob of the universe.

    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how accurate this simulation can be when it only takes into account 10b particles. The Milkyway alone consists of approx 100b stars.

      It treats each galaxy as just a few particles. If you only care about how galactic clusters form, and not the internal dynamics of galaxies themselves, this is fine.

      Your complaint is like complaining that we can't simulate a block sliding down a ramp without taking into account every atom in the block and ramp.

      I believe the purpose of the simulation is to try to gain a better understanding of the distribution and nature of dark matter/energy. To do this though surely you'd want to be mapping all the luminous matter and then work out what the dark stuff is doing from there?

      Yes. That's what they did.
      Why didn't they plot a smaller blob of the universe.
      Because they were interested in larger blobs.
  98. NO IT IS HAPPING!!!! by quickbasicguru · · Score: 1

    Why did this remind me of The Matrix?

  99. Can't really work by archnerd · · Score: 1

    In order to create an accurate simulation of the universe, the simulation would have to be as complex as the universe itself. That means it has to be able to store as much data as the universe is capable storing, ergo, the only possible simulation of the universe is the universe itself.

    1. Re:Can't really work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, like N billion Slashdotters haven't already made this dumb facile observation, which misses the point: the researcher's aren't trying to create a perfect simulation of the entire universe, they're trying to simulate the gravitational dynamics of a small part of it at a coarse scale. We bow before your nerdly irrelevant nitpicking.

  100. GIGO by Bit_Squeezer · · Score: 1

    Garbage in...

  101. Re:Think about one hundred hard drives at 250GB ea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quality? So why'd they go with Xserve then instead of quality like EMC or Xiotech? Xserve is nothing but inexpensive SATA disks in a cheap RAID enclosure.

  102. So you read Macroscope too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was it "A Sound of Thunder"...

    But I'd prefer to keep my privacy, even if we can find out the answers to many great questions.

    Trust me, no one is interested in whatever it is you're doing...

  103. obg... by kagelump · · Score: 1

    but...
    can it make tea?

  104. lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i totally built one of those on my apple ][+ like, 25 years ago. it's so been done to death.

  105. Universe in a cube by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

    It's only 2bn light years across but Professor Moriarty will never know the difference.

    --

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
  106. An incredibly stupid story by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

    They are going to tell us how the universe ends with 25 million megabytes and the kmown laws of physics when it's not possible to just break one decently encrypted message with all the computer power in the world in less than expected remaining life of our solar system?

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    1. Re:An incredibly stupid story by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      It's New Scientist. I haven't actually clicked the link because I don't want to taint my eyes with their bullshit, but I suspect the article is surrounded by ads for Ab-Toners, magnetic healing rings, and pyramid power keychains.

  107. Fast Forward by Braf · · Score: 1
    slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now

    And this is where they find: "Oops, the universe ends in 12 years. We wouldn't have ever noticed the singularity in the array of interrelated equations without this simulation, but additional analysis and observations suggest it is accurate. The fundies and the doomsday psychics were pretty accurate with their estimates."

    And so many Slashdot readers still won't have been laid.

  108. The answer is 42. Didn't they read the book? by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sheesh!

  109. Only 1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one universe in the multiverse? Big Deal...

  110. 25,000,000 MB != 25 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless my math is off, it's equivalent to 25,000 TB... and thus goes up to the next level 25 petabytes which is still signifigantly less than a yottabyte because of it's lack of "The Force."

    1. Re:25,000,000 MB != 25 TB by Abtev84 · · Score: 1

      25'000'000MB = 25'000GB = 25TB (or around 23.8TB, depending on which method of conversion you use).

  111. 500 particles per galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The "Millennium Simulation" employed more than 10 billion particles of matter to trace the evolution of the matter distribution in a cubic region of the Universe over 2 billion light-years on a side."
    "...able to recreate evolutionary histories for the approximately 20 million galaxies..."

    10B / 20M = 500 particles per galaxy... is it just me, or is that a bit thin?

  112. No, they don't have "25 million megabytes" of RAM by Animats · · Score: 1
    That's how much log file data they kept, not how much RAM they have.

    That's just a few hundred disk drives. Any medium sized hosting facility has more disk than that. 25TB isn't that much any more. Here's 100TB in one rack at the Internet Archive. With servers. Draws 6 kilowatts. Put together by some people I know.

  113. The Answer by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    For $50, I would have told them "42", too.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  114. infinite loop issue by sciguy125 · · Score: 1
    I was pondering something about this not too long ago. Let's say we can program the ENTIRE universe into this thing. Everything down to the smallest level. Oh yeah, we also have to assume that everything is governed by strict rules, none of this quantum mechanics stuff that allows for weird things to happen with probability. The computer would essencially be able to track all of history. Here's the problem:

    When the program gets to the point that the computer was turned on, it would have to start taking the entropy it generates into account. In doing so, it alters it. And would have to also take the new alterations into account. It would get stuck in an infinite loop and never be able to progress into the future. Actually, it'd be stuck a little in the past (whenever it was turned on).

    --
    GE/S/P a- e++ y-- r-- s:++ d+ h! X+++ t++ C+ P+ L++ E W++ w M-- V? PS+ P+
  115. Dumb objection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weather prediction has been done. Now stop screaming like a retard on AOL.

  116. Shoot things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It has been designed to answer questions about the past, but it offers the tantalising opportunity to fast-forward in time to the slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now.


    Does it offer the tantalising opportunity to fly through it and SHOOT things?
  117. 42, no wait! 43... by BlueJay465 · · Score: 1

    I remain skeptical. The known laws of physics in the universe seem to be changing on a daily basis, like stars orbiting planets now? If it takes this massive amount of computing power and time to calculate the state of a universe (mind-boggling in itself) wouldn't all that work be wasted by one little twist that God or whoever decides to throw into the equation to prove us humans are more clueless than we already are?

    1. Re:42, no wait! 43... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The known laws of physics in the universe seem to be changing on a daily basis, like stars orbiting planets now?

      What the hell are you talking about?
  118. Simulated Universe by Adelbert · · Score: 1
    This New Scientist article suggests we may live in a simulated reality, similar to described in this thread.

    If memory serves (I'm not a NS subscriber, so I can't actually read the article now), the argument goes "If intelligent life evolves in a Universe, sooner or later it will have the technological capacity to simuate a Universe. Now, they will inevitably model their own Universe. Since they want to see events relevant to them, they will run time faster than their own Universe. Consequently, in a very short period of their time, there is another intelligent species in the simulated Universe, simulating their Universe, with time running faster. Very quickly, you have an infinite progression of simulation Universes."

    I must admit, I didn't think simulating a Universe, thus providing the conditions for such a series of events, would be possible anywhere near my lifetime. But if the tech is developing already..

  119. Meaning of life by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

    So essentially it's a supercomputer designed to calculate the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

    pphffft. Everyone knows the answer is 42.

  120. Simulation is part of checking the model by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    I thought that they really hadn't even figured out how the universe worked.

    Of course they haven't figured out how the universe works. Science isn't about that.

    It's about creating mathematically precise models of reality that predict the same behaviour that the real world actually exhibits through testing and observation. The two things are entirely different. The real, hidden structure of reality may be utterly different from the models, but as long as she behaves in exactly the way that they predict, the proposed models earn their tick of acceptance just fine. That's how Science works.

    The simulation work comes into this by helping both to generate and to check predictions.

    It's not too surprising that the general public gets confused about this, since scientists don't go around prefixing every sentence with "It's just a model" disclaimers. But you can't really blame them for the lack of insightful science in most school curricula.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  121. Type "SOL PLEASE" to include us in sim by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    10 billion particles, 20M galaxies ... so that's just 500 particles per galaxy.

    Since our little G2 sun isn't among our galaxy's top 500 stars on mass or luminosity, I guess it's not represented by even one particle in the simulation ... how sad. :-(

    Of course, that's where the "SOL PLEASE" cheat code comes in ... ;-)

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  122. So the real question is... by master_p · · Score: 1

    ...is our universe a simulation?

  123. TeRRabytes? by mangu · · Score: 1
    23 terrabytes of RAM is a ton


    If it bites earth it's a worm. And a pretty big one too, if it gulps 43.5 kilograms of earth in a single bite.


    Sorry for being a spelling fucktard, but I couldn't resist...

  124. And the Simulated People? by dgenr8 · · Score: 1

    And the simulated People that evolve inside this simulated universe... How shall we communicate with them?

    Maybe we can identify their primary (simulated) food production areas and tweak the simulation to create meaningful geometric patterns when they aren't looking. Circles, conjoined lines, etc.

  125. Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640K should be enough for anybody.

    1. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die horribly you sad linux fa[ggot|nboy] he never said that.