Slashdot Mirror
'BlackHoles@Home' Will Use Your PC For DIY Gravitational Wave Analysis (phys.org)
West Virginia University assistant professor Zachariah Etienne is launching "a global volunteer computing effort" analyzing gravitational waves from colliding black holes, reports Phys.org:
"As our gravitational wave detectors become more sensitive, we're going to need to greatly expand our efforts to understand all of the information encoded in gravitational waves from colliding binary black holes," Etienne said. "We are turning to the general public to help with these efforts, which involve generating unprecedented numbers of self-consistent simulations of these extremely energetic collisions. This will truly be an inclusive effort, and we especially hope to inspire the next generation of scientists in this growing field of gravitational wave astrophysics."
His team -- and the scientific community in general -- needs computing capacity to run the simulations required to cover all possibilities related to the properties and other information contained in gravitational waves. "Each desktop computer will be able to perform a single simulation of colliding black holes," said Etienne. By seeking public involvement through use of vast numbers of personal desktop computers, Etienne and others hope to dramatically increase the throughput of the theoretical gravitational wave predictions needed to extract information from observations of the collisions.
Etienne and his team are building a website with downloadable software based on the same Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, or BOINC, system used for the SETI@Home project and other scientific applications. The free middleware system is designed to help harness the processing power of thousands of personal computers across the globe. The West Virginia team has named their project BlackHoles@Home and expects to have it up and running later this year.
They have already established a website where the public can begin learning more about the effort.
His team -- and the scientific community in general -- needs computing capacity to run the simulations required to cover all possibilities related to the properties and other information contained in gravitational waves. "Each desktop computer will be able to perform a single simulation of colliding black holes," said Etienne. By seeking public involvement through use of vast numbers of personal desktop computers, Etienne and others hope to dramatically increase the throughput of the theoretical gravitational wave predictions needed to extract information from observations of the collisions.
Etienne and his team are building a website with downloadable software based on the same Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, or BOINC, system used for the SETI@Home project and other scientific applications. The free middleware system is designed to help harness the processing power of thousands of personal computers across the globe. The West Virginia team has named their project BlackHoles@Home and expects to have it up and running later this year.
They have already established a website where the public can begin learning more about the effort.
The hecklers on this one
More like brown holes though. Not as tight as it used to be. Still fun though.
Knows a thing or two about black holes at home.
There's a little black spot out in space today
And a chick's algorithm helped us see it OK
I'm not wearing down my PC and paying electricity, you can use AWS instances for that instead. Fuck you.
Using the laptop to help measure gravitational waves is a pretty nice way to help, although I have to say after the forth or fifth drop the screen started acting up a bit so I had to discontinue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...about all of these efforts. Given the speed of modern computers, is this reasly needed? Or is it make-work, for publicity?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'll be glad to contribute but not until it comes out on BOINC so that it can be easily balanced with other projects. Also hopefully it has a decent amount of ARM work units so that my Pi cluster can participate.
Result from running blackholes@home.
Fuck. Off.
just asking, is all
Yeah this.
Outside of finding prime numbers, nothing ever comes out of these distributed computing projects.
As an idealistic teen I might have done a few work units, but now it's a waste of electricity (+fan noise etc), and only one rung above slacktivism.
Sorry, my attention span's just too short for that random link-vomit of a page.
You can have my PC time when you pay my bills.
Did we ever figure how to fold a protein?
Colliding black holes are a lot more interesting than finding aliens.
I could use spare cycles to increase scientific knowledge. Nah. I'll just mine bitcoin instead.
Its fun with all this energy drain but where is the hurry? Hold off on unimportant shit like this until we have a plan for saving the planet. This only pushes us closer to the climate "event horizon".
Your endless weeping makes my day brighter.
there's no getting through the firmament
i remember back in 2006-2008 we were doing some Folding@Home testing. Can't remember super computing university or center that was running it. it was cool.
Honestly I found the article at the link hard to parse to find out if you could even do anything now - I thought the whole point was they were developing a client, that would run on BOINC - there was a link to submit your email to be notified with progress (and I guess when it was ready).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now say it with me..."Because black holes matter"
Just another day in Paradise
All these GPGPU science projects. Does anyone benchmark them across different video cards? I'm sure some CPU/GPU combinations are better than others.
BlackHoles@Home...insert obligatory _Your Mom_ joke here
Gravity affects African americans more than it affects whites and Asian Americans. We need to ban it.
Also why is it a black hole. Why can it be a asian American whole. I hope all these racist scientist die
They should just collaborate with Einstein@Home (formerly Pirates@Home) which is already doing gravity wave stuff with BOINC.
My question is: is it CPU only or can it be run on the GPU? And multi threaded or single threaded?
One of the main reasons I stopped running BOINC and switched to Folding, is that BOINC projects are almost all single threaded CPU tasks, they just decide to run multiple tasks at the same time. I'd much rather complete a single task in 2 hours and get a new one immediately, than run 8 tasks for the next 16 hours.
So I asked my girlfriend if I could take a peek, but she wouldn't let me into the event horizon. It's still a great mystery
I honestly don't get what's so hard here, I use barely 240 cores to model [peasoup] gloop. The limit on processing, is the interval between getting an idea and seeing how it behaves in simulation. I am dumb, I cannot see magical solutions to things and fill whiteboards with equations, you are smart, write a better algo FFS!
Postulate Friction and Heat
Friction seems to be trivial to understand.
1. Heat is any oscillation that takes an oscillating dipole away from resonance point.
2. Velocity is also a component of oscillation that shifts it from resonance too, described in Postulate V1. e.g. in single axis consider an oscillation that's perfectly in resonance, each 1F oscillation it returns to the same place and it sits stationary cancelling the oscillating field underneath it. Now suppose a component of oscillation is pushed into another axis, each 1F oscillation it also processes around another axis, and is now out of phase by a small delta. Each oscillation it shifts across to the nearest point in resonance it and matches. So it processes across the field.
3. More complex motions involve oscillations across the direction of motion too.
4. So heat is motion and motion is heat.
Friction
5. Consider two blocks of matter touching each other but not in motion.
6. You start moving one against the other, you are pushing a component of oscillation into the direction of travel, the top block slide over the lower block as you transfer energy into it. Tha initial energy is the energy of static friction.
7. Each block was in 1F resonance together, when the top and bottom blocks were stationary, they were resonant and cancelling out.
8. As you move the top block, you put in energy needed for the velocity in the top component (i.e. the static friction), and once you've overcome that static friction, at the interface between the top and bottom blocks you have a field oscillating with a component that is the difference of the top and bottom fields.
8. That electric oscillation is heat, it's an oscillation out of resonance. It propagates through the block shifting other dipoles out of their 1F resonance and they in turn shift others oscillations and so on. i.e. the block gets hot.
Light EM energy is also heat
1. Light is trying for the 1W per oscillation resonant point. It's also in resonance, but traveling the field 1W for each oscillation.
2. Its EM frequency is the difference between the 1F oscillation of the matter it hits and its own oscillation. (described in Postulate V2).
3. Since heat is any component of oscillation that takes an oscillating dipole away from resonance....The energy of light is also heat.
4. Literally, take 2 resonant wavelengths of this light, wrap it around into a donut shape, the difference in resonance due to the slight sub 1W per oscillation velocity that was the EM wavelength becomes the difference in resonance due to the slight sub 1W per oscillation that is heat. THEY ARE THE SAME.
5. i.e. Electromagnetic photon energy doesn't magically change to heat when absorbed into matter, it is heat, its the same energy.
The energy in an electron is heat too
1. Electron is an F2 donut / -ve monopole / F2 anti-donut (a donut is a strip of resonant oscillations forming a close loop of n wavelengths... see Postulate N).
2. The donut is propagating a resonant wave, if you think of light travelling 0W,1W,2W,3,4,5.... across the field, that F2 donut is doing 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1... the oscillation on the left swaps with the one on the right, and back again. This electron is 'stationary' in that resonance mode.
3. Slice the donut in section and consider the velocity along the plane of the donut. If you have a component of oscillation into the cut surface, then the donut no longer returns to the same resonance point each time. The point in the resonance field it matches is shifted along.... so the electron processes across the resonance field. i.e. velocity/heat.
Add more heat to this electron
4. Add more hea
If you want to keep relativity, then you need to redefine mass.
Imagine the world is all oscillating resonant gloop.
Light is gloop, matter is gloop, everything is gloop.
Mass is the measure of how tightly bound the gloop is.
Mass energy equivalence is just a change of units, how tightly bound the gloop is a proxy for the binding energy.
-----
Look at it in more details.
1. You have oscillating dipoles.
2. Those form ribbons oscillating at the same rate, i.e. the oscillations even out
3. The wavelength of that ribbon is W.
4. Take 2 wavelengths of that ribbon, wrap it around into a donut.
5. That donut is also in resonance, its circumference is 2W, but it's oscillating in the same linear axis as the original ribbon.
6. So its the diameter of that donut that matters, scaled by 2/Pi. It's more compact.
7. So organized like that, oscillating gloop has a shorter local resonant wavelength W.
i.e. the organized gloop has a shorter resonant wavelength than disorganized gloop.
8. Look at that donut, it has a shorter wavelength than the field it is in. W is shorter. Which means it doesn't not return to the same point at each oscillation, and it is out of phase each oscillation.
9. So it moves across the field, each oscillation causing it to move to the nearest matching resonance point, i.e. there is energy here.
The tighter binding corresponds to energy.
10. You've seen relativity in light....
11. Light is a ribbon travelling bound to the 1W per oscillation resonance point
12. Shine light into glass, and it slows down. It must stay in resonance, so the rate of oscillation cannot change. So it must be W that changes. So W must be shorter in glass. It's still travelling 1W per oscillation, but W is shorter in matter.
13. Shine the light along one face of the glass and it still bends.
14. So the shorter field extends outside of the glass.
15. Move it further away from the glass, and it bends less.
16. So the further away from matter you are, the longer the resonant wavelength.
So, does 'mass' bend space?
17. Tighter binding (i.e. mass) results in shorter resonant wavelength W.
18. Since light propagates over W, you can say that space is shorter due to mass.
Does mass bend time?
19. That's a bit more of a struggle, you need a concept of time based on space.
20. You are an observer. You are viewing an electron moving from A to B.
21. To observe that electron, an electron in your head needs to move a comparable distance A2 to B2.
22. We can eliminate time in this system, and replace it with distance.
23. If A and B are in a system with shorter resonant wavelength, then it takes more oscillations to go from A to B, than the electron in your brain goes from A2 to B2.
24. So time (in terms of resonant oscillations) appears to go slower for the electron you are observing.
So with this new definition of time (as a count of the number of oscillations), it if distorts space, it also distorts time.
What about Gravity?
25. You are the light from (13), on your left is glass, on your right is nothing.
26. You are oscillating just short of 1W per oscillation.
27. The difference in velocity causes your Electromagnetic wavelength. It results in an oscillation across velocity as you stay in resonance.
28. W is shorter to the left where the glass is, than to the right where a vacuum is.
29. All resonance states exist within W distance.
30. You will always move to the nearest corresponding resonance point.
31. Which will be more often nearer to the left, (shorter W) than to the right.
32. i.e. gravity is a minor clumping force.
Gravity does not bend space, it is the result of the bent space.
So it's all hunky dory? A few definition changes, and a bit of rethinking and Einstein is right? Not quite, there are a bunch of caveats.
The biggest caveat here is mass energy equivalence is a unit change. Mass is a measure of how tightly bound the gloop is, and energy is simply that measure in units of energy, caused by the shorter W in two axis across the donut... E~ Mc^2 just a scale by a constant.
You are not making mass when you accelerate particles. Mass in this system is a measure of binding and you are not making gloop more tightly bound.
1. You have an oscillation
2. You distort the field it oscillates over to push a component of the oscillation into the axis of travel
3. Imagine you could *infinitely* distort the field and push *all* of the oscillation into velocity.
4. There is no more oscillation left to push into velocity, even if you could push infinitely hard there is nothing to push against.
When you accelerate something, it just gets harder to accelerate the further from resonance it is. For matter it gets harder to accelerate from the zero resonance point, for light it gets harder from the 1W per oscillation resonance point.
You're not making matter in a particle accelerator.
Particles are complex with lots of properties. Where does all that complexity come from?
Your god particle would have more than simply mass, where did its complexity come from?
Do you think if you have a big enough accelerator, you can make an Ikea wardrobe?
Do you think you can get a budget to make a BRYGGJ or PAX accelerator? Smash things together, poof, ready assembled furniture? You're ignoring all the complexity in matter.
--------
1. Look at the electron, it must have orientation because of Flemings left hand rule.
2. There must be some property of that links velocity to magnetism to electric force.
3. Hypothesizing a 'hole' in matter its moving towards does not work.
4. Because the electron also generates a magnetic field in a vacuum where there is no matter.
5. So the hole also would have to exist in a vacuum.
6. If you put matter in that vacuum, are there now two holes? One from the vacuum and one from the matter? How does the universe know which hole to connect to which electron? Does it ask the physicist?
7. Or perhaps the holes always overlap, and the vacuum contains an identical hole to the hole in the version of the matter I place?
8. So if the electron is moving in say, an Ikea wardrobe, the vacuum contains a set of holes shaped like a BRYGGJ corresponding to it.
I mock, but the point is there, the electron has orientation relative to velocity, the quasi particle theory is just a hack to add the missing property of orientation.
So the electron has structure, a direction, and a mechanism for velocity in that structure. Complexity, not just 'mass'.
You do not make this structure and complexity by accelerating particles and smashing them into each other.