Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Full Observable-Universe Simulation

Posted by timothy on from the not-counting-the-big-blue-room dept.

First time accepted submitter slashmatteo writes "The goal of the DEUS project (Dark Energy Universe Simulation) is to investigate the imprints of dark energy on cosmic structure formation through high-performance numerical simulations. In order to do so, the project has conducted a simulation of the structuring of the entire observable universe, from the Big Bang to the present day. Thanks to the Curie super-computer, the simulation has made it possible to follow the evolution of 550 billion particles. Two other complementary runs are scheduled by the end of May. More details in the press release."

28 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. FULL universe simulation by Narrowband · · Score: 5, Funny

    When in the simulation does it reach the point where it starts simulating the Curie supercomputer simulating it?

    1. Re:FULL universe simulation by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's right there, in particle 4153341989.

    2. Re:FULL universe simulation by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I once heard that to have a real simulation of the universe, you would need to have a computer the size of the universe

      Not if we use winzip to compress it.

    3. Re:FULL universe simulation by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Could be. It's undecidable from within the simulation itself.

    4. Re:FULL universe simulation by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is Jenny represented by particle #8675309?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:FULL universe simulation by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Look there- that one is petitioning his local school board to keep intelligent design out of the curriculum! Isn't that adorable? Let's simulate some lightning bolts and a flood and see what he does.

    6. Re:FULL universe simulation by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      The universe compresses so much better if you just pipe it to /dev/null, and if you want to get it back you just do the reverse.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    7. Re:FULL universe simulation by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Well I once heard that to have a real simulation of the universe, you would need to have a computer the size of the universe

      Not if we use winzip to compress it.

      I prefer 7-Zip - smaller files when done right.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  2. I hope it isn't labeled by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

    All we need is a pointer to Earth that says 'You are here.' and it's game over for us all!

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  3. DEUS... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't RTFA, but DEUS sounds like the perfect name for this project.

    1. Re:DEUS... by thomst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nrrqshrr noted:

      I didn't RTFA, but DEUS sounds like the perfect name for this project.

      In fact, running on the Curie supercomputer makes it a DEUS ex machina!

      --
      Check out my novel.
  4. Has someone asked it... by stox · · Score: 2

    if there was a way to reduce entropy in the Universe yet?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Has someone asked it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Insufficient data for a meaningful answer

    2. Re:Has someone asked it... by Sduic · · Score: 3

      I hear that Maxwell's got someone on it.

      --
      *this space intentionally left blank
      "One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
    3. Re:Has someone asked it... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      +1 Demonic.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:Has someone asked it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For all that don't know it,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

    5. Re:Has someone asked it... by Genda · · Score: 2

      Only if parent adds wry comment by Richard Feynman...

    6. Re:Has someone asked it... by scottrocket · · Score: 2

      Insufficient data for a meaningful answer

      It's ironic that AC should post that response...

    7. Re:Has someone asked it... by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      And then have zillions of forks creating a true multiverse?

  5. The Multiverse Apocolapse by NetFusion · · Score: 2

    Gradually the multiverse calculations our universe spawns will become more complex and longer lived until the secret of a self sustaining calculation that uses the very fabric of space time as its compuational engine is found and grows rapidly with inflation to consume our universe and give birth to new ones. /tin foil

  6. Only 550 billion particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Wikipedia's page "Galaxy":
    "There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 1011) galaxies in the observable universe."

    550 billion particles to simulate the observable universe means just over three particles per galaxy. I don't know exactly what they're doing but it doesn't sound like much of a simulation..?

    1. Re:Only 550 billion particles? by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      550 billion particles to simulate the observable universe means just over three particles per galaxy. I don't know exactly what they're doing but it doesn't sound like much of a simulation..?

      That really depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are not interested in the interactions going on inside each galaxy, but rather the interactions between galaxies themselves as well as things like filaments and clusters and or superclusters, this is more than enough particles to use. In fact, if each particle is assumed to be a galaxy, then the surplus may well have been introduced to see failed galaxies or to find where initial seeds may not have turned into fully fledged galaxies. They may also account for a small portion of the vast numbers of dwarf galaxies to see how these interact with larger objects.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Only 550 billion particles? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      I'm not impressed. Now, when they can run a simulation with more particles than the atoms in the computer, I'll be impressed. Heck, I'll make it easy, when they run a simulation more particles than transistors in their CPUs, I'll be impressed. Let's see, 92,000 CPUs @ ~ 2B/cpu = ~184T. Now that's a simulation.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:Only 550 billion particles? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2

      http://www.deus-consortium.org/a-propos/dark-energy-universe-simulation-full-universe-run/ says each particle has the mass of the Milky Way.

  7. I believe it is "Now" by Brad1138 · · Score: 3, Funny

    (obligatory Space Balls reference)
    You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
    What happened to then?
    We passed then.
    When?
    Just now. We're at now now.
    Go back to then.
    When?
    Now!
    Now?
    Now!
    I can't.
    Why?
    We missed it.
    When?
    Just now.
    When will then be now?
    Soon.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  8. Nice Machine by kramulous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interesting to note that they didn't bother with too many gpu nodes. Reflects what we see with our users despite the abundance of marketing material from Nvidia.

    5040 'standard' compute nodes: dual E5-2680 processors; 64GB RAM
    360 'bulk' compute nodes: quad EX-X7560; 128GB RAM
    144 GPU nodes: dual M2050

    Another 90 'super' nodes on order: 128core, 512GB RAM

    Cores: 103,680
    GPUs: 288

    Almost token GPU offering. These guys must do real work on it.

    --
    .
    1. Re:Nice Machine by kramulous · · Score: 2

      Sure. You can quote whatever numbers you like.
      CPU Cores: 103, 680
      GPU Cores: 129,024

      Total machine is 2PetaFlop and the GPUs contribute less than 10% of that.

      Look, I realise that for the right job, the GPU is superior. But it is not anywhere near what we are being led to believe (again, according to the marketing material). I sure the people commissioning this machine knew what they were doing and what they needed was raw x86_64 grunt.

      I'm not interested in a single program's performance on the GPU. I'm interested in the average use case. Specific cases will always require specific hardware. Even then, I don't believe it until I see the source code of each. Techniques people use on the GPU are somehow not used when it comes to the CPU.

      GPUs: "We must use single stride arrays."
      CPUs: "We must use templated codes where memory is fragmented on the heap cause stl performs error checks."

      I'm sick of it man. Sick of it :-)

      --
      .
  9. Re:Sounds a bit small... by KingofSpades · · Score: 2

    The number of particles is not relevant.
    You can do a one billion simulation of a single galaxy or of the whole universe. The purpose is different.
    In this respect, a particle can represent a single star in one galaxy or a single galaxy in the universe. Large scale structures in the universe don't depend on the exact location of each star in each galaxy.