Slashdot Mirror


Astrophysicists Build Realistic Virtual Universe

sciencehabit writes "In the most detailed effort yet, astrophysicists and cosmologists have modeled the evolution of the universe right down to the formation of individual galaxies. The results of the mammoth computer simulation neatly match multiple astronomical observations, ranging from the distribution of galaxies in massive galaxy clusters to the amounts of neutral hydrogen gas in galaxies large and small (abstract). The findings once again neatly confirm cosmologists' standard theory of the basic ingredients of the universe and how it evolved—a result that may disappoint researchers hoping for new puzzles to solve."

17 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cool! Where can I get one? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Well, you got to start with building the universe so you have some place to put your dollhouse, duh.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. internal detection by RichMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    the big question is are entities in the simulation able to detect it is a simulation.

    1. Re:internal detection by Immerman · · Score: 2

      You are presuming, of course, an absence of sentient galactic clusters. Why must you be such a scale-ist?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. simulating a phenomena does not validate the model by jclaer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Choosing parameters that best simulate a model does not mean that model is correct.

  4. Re:Why are these simulations impressive? by supertall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought the same thing at first. However, assuming that the simulation implements only the very fundamental building blocks of physics at it's core, it is interesting to see that they translate to match our observations on a macro scale. Given that, it's just a matter of what else we can glean from the simulation runs that we have yet to observe IRL. These new insights don't have to be taken as truth, but rather lead us to new observations.

  5. Re:Simalted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, it is how science works? You want to check that current theories are consistent with what you observe. If they had found a large disagreement, then they would know to try something else. If they find agreement, then they know they need to look closer from both theory and observation ends for any other sources of disagreement.

  6. Re: Simalted? by Scowler · · Score: 2

    We are trying to understand those things we can observe. That doesn't preclude us from trying to observe more stuff.

  7. Re:Cool! Where can I get one? by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  8. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love the part about "new questions to answer". As if "Where did the super dense mass the universe came from, come from, wouldn't be a good question to answer...

  9. Re:really? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and apparently also know (without sharing) why the observed mass of the Higgs boson is so tiny even though the max energy times the fermion/boson sum should be huge. wow they have it all figured out...or they "cooked the books"

  10. Re:simulating a phenomena does not validate the mo by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

    If there are no parameters for a model that allow the model to simulate reality, then the model must be incorrect.
    If there are parameters for a model that allow the model to simulate reality, then the model may be correct, but may still be incorrect.

    This work moves us from the first state to the second, at least when it comes to simulating rather large scale structure.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  11. Re:Why are these simulations impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    After all the equations are all fully reversible.

    Most likely not in this case. I don't have access to the original article at my current location, but many other hydrodynamic cosmology models are not reversible because they result in an increase of entropy and a smoothing process that does not allow that to work backwards, which is kind of how reality is unless you are modelling every particle of gas clouds.

  12. Re:So ... it covers these things? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    TFA mentioned that they included Dark Matter in the model . . . which is quite bold, considering that we are still quite clueless as to what exactly that actually is . . . except that we need Dark Matter to keep our other equations from breaking . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  13. Re:Keep adjusting until it looks right by ColdGrits · · Score: 3, Informative

    Meanwhile, all you ever needed to do was read Genesis to understand what really happened.

    Meh, Genesis were never the same since Peter Gabriel left...

    --
    People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
  14. Title overstated by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Probably a better one is "Simulation from the Big Bang results in output that looks like our universe at the galactic scale"

    To suggest that this equals "Astrophysicists Build Realistic Virtual Universe" more than a touch hyperbolic.

    --
    -Styopa
  15. Re:while digging through the simulation... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    And it's only six thousand years old! ;-)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  16. Re:Cool! Where can I get one? by michelcolman · · Score: 2

    O, come on, this has literally been available since the beginning of time. Even before.