Slashdot Mirror
Simulation Suggests 68 Percent of the Universe May Not Actually Exist (newatlas.com)
boley1 quotes a report from New Atlas: According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. A new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes. According to the new study from Eotvos Lorand University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter. The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model. If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy. "The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dr Laszlo Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy." The study has been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. You can view an animation that compares the different models here.
then i remembered what day it was. ughghg
That is new for an April Fool's prank :D
It seems the sims are running simulations in my simulated universe.
- The creator.
This was published March 30, 2017 so it's not a April fools joke.
Suck it, dark matter! You ain't real, bro! *High-fives girlfriend* Aww, she's not real either. ;(
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This was published March 30, 2017 so it's not a April fools joke.
In your face, dark matter! You ain't real, bro! *High-fives girlfriend* Aww, she's not real either. ;(
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Nah, it is the Zigerions. They nest 3 simulations just to be extra safe. And still fail.
Instead of blaming the flawed simulation, the unbelievably arrogant "scientists" behind this decided that 68% of the universe does not exist.
...really doesn't have a heart, just like I suspected? Not that I'm bitter or anything.
Why does everyone think it is hilarious to post bullshit on April Fools Day?
I was frantically trying to get my young daughter to a Hospital and accidentally hit the "Game" icon in Google Maps.
Anyway, it worked out well, my daughter died, and I am saving at least $5,000 to $10,000 a year!
Thanks Google!
INB4:
Black Matter Lives!
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Can you make it brighter, so it makes my eyeballs bleed?
thank goodness its april 1st, I was just heading back to soylentnews.org
If the expansion of the universe is not consistent, what causes the variation?
Anybody who understands science and the scientific method, and isn't just an acolyte of the One True Religion of Science, must have surely seen something like this coming. Think about the reasoning:
1. Our mathematical models of the vast and ancient universe, invented by us bald apes that are lucky to live a century, do not fully agree with observation.
2. Therefore, to account for this discrepancy, the universe must consist primarily of unknown, invisible substances whose only interaction with our visible universe just so happens to cause precisely the behavior you would expect if our models were completely accurate.
In software engineering, this is known as "wishful thinking", like when we swap out hardware and say "this hardware performs the same function, surely the drivers cannot be that different."
The difference between software engineering and physics is that software engineers can use the compiler and debugger to verify their wishful thinking is fantasy, whereas physicists must often come to this conclusion through a pure application of the intellect (or, more often, never at all; it is easier to shout down the unbelievers when they can't easily prove you wrong).
It sounds like you only read the first word of the title and got triggered.
a very questionable understanding of this reality
Wait, do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation? That would be revolutionary.
what happened *prior* to the "Big Bang"
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There didn't seem to be enough matter to explain the evolution of the universe, so scientists guessed at what might be causing it. It looked like there was more matter that we couldn't see, so they invented the idea of 'dark matter', which was something that had mass but was otherwise pretty inert so we didn't see it. BTW: 'dark' here is an old use meaning 'unable to be seen', such as 'the dark side of the moon' being the side that faces away from earth, not the side that is not lit by the sun. The other possibility was that gravity was somehow slightly different when operating over very large distances and times. This was settled because astronomers got better at calculating the distributions of mass in the universe when they thought there was something interesting to find, and found there were cases, such as the 'bullet nebula' where there were very significant amounts of mass in different places to the star-like matter we could see. This gives credence to the idea that 'dark matter' is a real sort of 'stuff', our can be treated as a sort of stuff, rather than just an systematic difference in the equations.
Okay, suppose we assume for now there is lots of invisible stuff that has mass and momentum, but otherwise does not interact with anything else much (think of neutrinos, but more so). If we take our best assumptions as to the right amount of dark matter, then there is a slight error which means something else is pushing the universe apart. If it looks like extra energy, we call it 'dark energy' and astronomers start looking for ways to detect it. In the meanwhile, other people look for a rival model where there is a systematic error in the equations for very large distances and times. That's pretty much where we are now. Indeed, the two explanations are not different - one just describes the error as 'extra energy' and the other one does not - until we get some new experimental evidence that shows which explanation is more useful.
Dark energy is a small correction term to our universe. If you want something we really don't understand, try the inflationary period of the early universe. We know it got really big, really fast, but really evenly; but we don't have any of the details.
"Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. "
Of course it did. What preceded Big Bang was Seinfeld.
Or to be very specific, 68% of the researchers doing This Particular Study do not exist. That means the ones that DO just got a raise!
Sounds like fraud to me. Call the Science Police!
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Then 68% of my fat ass may not exist either.
Still better than news here!
Er, no - that's not entanglement. In quantum entanglement changing the state of one particle instantly changes the state of the other.
This simulation is based on the global warming model. It has consensus, so it must be true.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"New Simulation Suggests 68 Percent of the Universe incorrectly evaluated by previous simulation / model."
Consensus doesn't mean true, it just means that it's our best bet with current insight.
The study showed that the "Dark" energy is not necessary to explain the expansion of the universe. Since they have never "proved" it existed, how can it "disappear"?
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
Ergo, it's fucking stupid. If you suppose that some initial state of the Universe existed at some fundamental T0, before the clock started ticking, then:
How was it set into motion? Who created the initial state? Why does the Universe exist at all?
These aren't questions for science to answer. This is the realm of religion. To suggest that the universe we're in is a simulation is no different than suggesting some deity created everything. These questions are by their nature unanswerable. If we pierce the veil and escape from our simulation, meet some god, ascend to another plane, etc., we'll just be at level 2 wondering if there's a level 3. There always exists the possibility that there's something beyond your bubble that is influencing your bubble in ways you can't perceive.
Im starting my new religion thanks to you. We pray to the god of simulation! Im going to make scientology look like a fool. and disprove aliens or us for that matter really exist. and we can do anything we want and it will have no effect on the simulation running on the next thread of the master machine that controls the universe. We need to find a way to injecting a patch into the simulator that gives us interstellar transportation so we can get tho the edge of the memory we reside in to be able to inject our code into the main machine so that we can gain control over the simulator and monitor and effect other simulations.
If you are stating that "hidden information" is possessed by the entangled particles, Bell's Inequalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... refutes that. Or at least it refutes "local hidden variables".
IOW, Bell's experiment showed that the entangled particles can't be established as opposites at the time of creation.
(||) Nehmo (||)
If this is true, then I just lost 145 pounds. Yipee!!!
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Tell that to the AGW crowd and watch them go into a frenzy.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Regardless of conflicting theories, Dark Energy will live on. This is for two reasons: 1- Dark Energy is rather essential to some science fiction fantasy; and 2- Dark Energy is not copyrighted by Disney or any other litigious entity. Try using 'the Force', 'the Spice Melange', 'Sonic Screwdriver' or 'the One Ring' to explain your scifi miracles and legal problems arise.
And, hey, It's Dark, and it's Energy; what's not to like?
...omphaloskepsis often...
I have never encountered an atheist who has any understanding of philosophy. They never realize that literally ever atheistic argument merely pushes the problem of a necessary first cause back one step. I wish every atheist would take at least one philosophy and one logic class. Or at least read Trent Horn's Answering Atheism. It would blows their minds.
I applaud your strategy of getting the hard stuff done first.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I sure hope we're part of the other 32 percent.
Maybe that's because Bertrand Russell died 40 years before you were born.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
These 'suggestions' allow you certainty? You understand he could be wrong, correct? Kinda like the physicists suggesting dark energy could be wrong.
You're a friggin' idiot. I'm atheist and you can check my posting history here to see that I hold exactly those views. Read it, interesting, didn't blow my mind. Don't project fragility.
Doesn't even mean that. It means a group of people agree, nothing more. What they agree on might be something as stupid as demons causing illness. There's no "insight" in that belief, it was made up to explain something they couldn't figure out.
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. If that's literally all the research you've bothered to do into the phenomenon, you're a complete retard to even begin to have an opinion on it. Your "lead scientist" was clearly has also not done any astrophysics.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The shit I come up with when im drunk and stoned on the weekends is always the best! lol i vaguely remember typing that dont remember whats all in it. dont know if i want to even read it O.o
If it doesn't exist, then by definition it's not part of the universe.
Better title. Researchers estimate the mass of the Universe be be 32% of the previous consensus models.
If the universe is a simulation, proof will need to be found first. If it is, I could accept that the universe was created but that wouldn't mean I believe in a god, just a technologically advanced being or beings that created a simulation of which I am a part of. If I wrote an AI, I still would not be a god, just the creator of an AI.
Religious people believe in faerie tales and have zero evidence for anything. They believe in magic, not technology.
Subject development needs open-minds
ignorance and Super-imposition does not help - rather it damages spirit of science.
why not create East-west Interaction.
cosmic function of the Universe helps in time- for prime concepts.
Cosmos Quest -cosmology vedas interlinks
Have you ever modelled a foam?
As a creator of a simulation, you are that simulation's god.
Technology outside of the simulation that is able to affect it, is both unattainable and impossible to model by those within the simulation. It is magic.
Musk is apparently convinced everything is just a simulation. He seems to be right about sooooo much... he could be right. I'm just a figment of his imagination.
Username checks out .. wait isn't this reddit?
My wife would've said Friends, but your point is a decent one.
She has an illogical, almost pathological hatred of Seinfeld, which stands in stark contrast to actually like Jerry Seinfeld's standup.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So at a coffee counter, does she stick cash in the tip jar without making sure the barista is looking her way?
No, she doesn't drink coffee.
But she does seem to enjoy it when associated with comedians driving cars to get it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What's a Reddit and does it get you stoned?
I have never encountered an atheist who has any understanding of philosophy. I wish every atheist would take at least one philosophy and one logic class.
As a lover of logic and philosophy, I'm going to start off by suggesting your premise is flawed. There's little reason to think that atheists as a group have less exposure to philosophy than the general population. Limiting analysis to the sample of those you have encountered is neither representative nor logical. If anything, I would wager the opposite: my guess is there's at least a slight correlation between people who have thought about the world enough to come to an atheist stance and those who have also explored philosophy.
That said: hi. I'm an atheist who not only took a few philosophy classes in school, including one on logic, but also still pursues an occasional book or audio-lecture on the subject. In fact, my college Philosophy of Mind class first really pushed the idea onto me that a supreme being wasn't very probable, and also limited the powers or likely area of interest and involvement of that supreme being to the point that it wasn't really supreme, and possibly not a being.
They never realize that literally ever atheistic argument merely pushes the problem of a necessary first cause back one step.
My understanding was that the fixation on first causes was primarily from the religious side, particularly that a first cause is "necessary" at all. I can't recall much from the atheist side suggesting it's even needed. The current scientific consensus seems to be that a first cause either isn't necessary or may have been an accident, and I think most atheists are comfortable-ish with that. Or at least more comfortable saying they don't know, or calling it unknowable, than saying "I know God did it," as if that explains anything.
Or at least read Trent Horn's Answering Atheism. It would blows their minds.
Always appreciate reading suggestions, always willing to entertain suggestions that come from a different perspective. Obviously I haven't seen anything too convincing yet, or I wouldn't still call myself an atheist, but it never hurts to gather input and improve the discussion.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Even God has deficit problems.
Table-ized A.I.
As I interpret this, they really did "assume a spherical cow" at first.
The old models assumed uniform expansion of the universe (a 4D sphere) because apparently that either makes the math easier, or we didn't have the computing power back then to "do it right". But that required "dark energy" to explain some oddities we observe in the current universe.
Then these guys looked at expansion rates and patterns with lumpy matter (uneven aggregation), found it made a big difference, and now we allegedly don't need "dark energy" to explain current observations anymore.
Thus, they simulated with a more realistic cow shape instead of with a spherical cow, and got results that fit observations without inventing extra factors (dark energy).
Table-ized A.I.
Same ac here. Sorry I didn't mean to say 'atheist' I meant to say 'cat'. I must have dribbled on my keyboard. I have never met an atheist, they don't go to my church . However I have met many cats, and they don't know shit about philosophy.
Member of the AGW crowd here. When does the frenzy start? Haven't had a good frenzy in ages
Wait until they find out that Dark Matter is is a similar aberration!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.