Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Complete Universe Millennium Simulation
james tech writes "The Virgo Consortium recently completed its massive "Millennium Simulation", tracing the universe's evolution from its early origins to present day. To simplify the computations, they considered only dark matter which composes most of the universe. Using a 512-node cluster with IBM processors, the group produced over 20 terabytes of data with some of the most breathtaking images of the universe never seen. A visible matter simulation is underway, at a lower resolution."
Definitely. They just assume a dark matter model. How do we know dark matter is there? Why, because without it, visible matter would be moving differently, of course. And the strange paths of the planets are simply because we haven't included enough epicycles in their attachments to God's crystal spheres of heaven, right?
Besides the argument that stars orbiting around the fringes of galaxies appear to be moving too fast to stay in orbit without extra mass, what other observable evidence of dark matter is there?
You're assuming that they know why visible matter moves the way it does. Again, it's all just a theory in the end.
You can pretty much come up with a mathematical equation to explain anything. That's the beauty of math. It is the essence of perfection as we know it. But in the end, math is still a man-made concept applied to real world physics. That doesn't mean that the universe exists in such terms or recognizes our simplistic definitions of it.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B015.662'N+11% C2%B040.282'E&spn=0.006686,0.004974&t=k&hl=en
If we can't get them pretty pictures of the universe we can at least have a look at where they are.
A supercomputer with a serious sense of humour :)
It would be cool to imagine that during the above experiment, in what for us seemed a few days, an entire universe came to be, evolved and faded away.
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
I am far from a Holy Roller but there is one thing that the current theories about the creation of the universe fail at miserably.
The theories can tell you what happened a split nanosecond after the big bang and can track the expansion of the universe.
One of the basic principals all these theories hold common is that energy can never be created nor destroyed, only change form.
What I really want to know is what was the universe like a split nanosecond before the big bang.
That's a great quote, and yes, Astronomy/Cosmology aren't really 'experimental' sciences in the true sense of the word. But there are observations that can be made to attempt to validate/invalidate the model. It's difficult, because we are stuck with the few photons that happen to make it to vicinity of our planet. Regardless, such observations can still be powerful enough to dethrone one model of the universe and suggest another
The best we can eventually hope for is a comsological model that agrees with all known astronomical observations. Which of course buys no guarantee than the next, bigger, supper telescope won't see something that proves the entire theory is crap.
The sciences are evolutionary. We need the early, shitty models to direct and focus ensuing research and modeling. In the beginning of the research cycle for every branch, all of it amounts to guesstimated shots in the dark. Fine tuning then comes from that, then more spohisticated models, etc.
Re: just because we can. That's the greatest and best reason to do anything.
I think you make a salient point though, in that the publication of such preliminary research tends to be injurious to the general public... especially medical research.
un burrito me trampeó.
Actually, this is not completely true. There are certain special conditions under which energy can be created, similar to the vacuum energy phenomenon. Furthermore, the big bang, specifically the first 10^(-43) seconds of the universe, is certainly another kind of special condition, the physics of which are not fully understood. The reason the conditions are not fully understood is that there is currently no comprehensive theory of quantum gravity. There are a lot of things that have not been resolved in that regard. Even string theory, despite its current age, is still basically in its infancy.
My point is that the situation at the moment of the big bang is a very complicated issue from a physics perspective and cannot thus be couched in such simplistic terms.
"Prior" to the big bang is about as meaningful as asking what point on the Earth's surface is the center of the world.
How is your analogy even remotely correct? I am not asking a question which has already been proven to be false, I am simply asking science to explain, even a tiny amount, the origin of the whole basis of their theory.
The analogy the GP poster made is quite valid. Asking what happens before time begins is a meaningless question, like asking "how high is up?" There is no meaningful basis by which an answer can be made. Furthermore, the physics as currently understood predicts back to the first 10^(-43) seconds of the universe. As I stated above, the problem with the first 10^(-43) seconds is that there is currently no complete theory of quantum gravity. Additionally, and I know I am probably nit-picking at this point, there is no "science" to ask questions. There are individual physicists (the most appropriate type of scientist to consult for this kind of question) and there is the accumulated science physics.
I personally believe in the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe, I also admit it is based on faith. (I have heard it called the 'cult of scientism')
There is no known way--and likely never will be--to know anything about existence outside of the post-big bang observable universe, other than indulging in wild and baseless speculation.
EXACTLY! But ever notice how most of the science community refuses to even address this issue (kinda like you are now by hurling random insults). While the big bang is not based on speculation, EVERYTHING that happened before it is. If you are comfortable with an explanation that refuses to address anything prior to its own existence and attempts to dissuade people from even asking questions about it, more power to you brother. (most people call it religion but I guess you can call it science)
No offense intended, but I have only heard the word "scientism" from fundamentalists. I guess the reason they use the word is so that they can make the scientific method sound as though it is simply another tiny philosophy or ideology, like being a Democrat or a Republican or a Rotarian. As to your other point, it is generally understood by physicists that the first 10^(-43) seconds of the universe, including the precise way in which the universe came into being, is not currently known or understand. There are a lot of hypotheses (to use the proper terminology), but there is nothing definitive. There is certainly nothing to defeat any kind of religious view (such as my own) with regard to the beginning of the universe and time, but again, to ask the question "what happened before the beginning of time" is not really meaningful.
I personally think, and this is just my opinion naturally, that even if the physical theory necessary to fully understand the pattern of the physical universe back to the very instant of the big bang (or whatever it was that began all this silliness we call a universe) is fully developed, we will still be left with many more questions. This has simply been the pattern of human knowledge. But then the more questions we have, the more there is to learn.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Does anyone have an idea what the copyright on these images is? That is, how difficult will it be for me to go to my local Kinko's or Staples and have them make me a nice A0 poster out of one of these pictures?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
IANAW(eatherman), but clearly I know a lot more about weather prediction than you, given your posts consists of 99% ignorance.
People get information about the current weather using weather balloons, satellites, everyday weather instruments and whatever else. Then they can use that data to pretty accurately predict what's going to happen next. If you see a bunch of hot air, clouds, cold air, you know where winds are coming from, the temperature of them, the speed, etc. and you know from past experience what happens when such and such occurs, it's not surprising that you should be able to build up a picture of what's going to happen within the next hour. Now keep the prediction going, but instead of using the facts about current weather, they will have to use their future prediction as fact and do the same as before with the new data. Carry this on for a few days and the chances are your data is going to lose some accuracy, but it's still going to be a rough guide to what will happen. The longer you try to predict, the less accuracte the prediction will be. That's not to say the model is wrong.
It's like calculating the distance the Earth takes as it moves around the sun - to calculate the exact distance you would need to know the exact gravitational pull from *everything* in the universe, shove it into a huge calculation and you have your answer. This is obviously a hell of a lot of work and probably couldn't be done for a lot of reasons. So instead, we ignore pretty much everything in the universe and imagine only the Sun and the Earth exist. The formula would still be pretty complex, but it gives an answer that's very accurate.
It's not wrong, it's just not 100% right because to do that would require an immensely huge (and therefore unreasonable) amount of data and computer power.