"" that old joke that our entire universe is really some student's doctoral thesis, and that he's just about to graduate. }:)""
Let's hope he continues on in the same field of research & doesn't go on to program video games- though we might get a graphics upgrade & a few space ships to shoot down:)
""And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.""
The smallest PHYSICAL simulation of the universe is perhaps more accurate.
However if we could program all the laws of physics into a computer then the smallest THEORETICAL simulation of the universe wouldn't really have any physical size at all really- it would just be code & messy computer algorithms.
Actually I guess there could be a Physical simulation of the universe that wasn't the size of the universe, thought it would have to be contained somehow within a distorted region of spacetime that would have the interior size of what 15-ish billion light years, but viewed externally was relatively small to its internal dimensions.
I don't even want to start calculating the mess involved there- let alone think about the energies involved:)
Sine we don't currently have a complete theory of everthing & hence are not able to fully program a simulation of the entire history of the development of the univers, then I don't think we'll be having any problems anytime soon:)
Besides it's a simulation- so all the scaling problems about how can all the little people in the little universe be SOOOOoooooooooooo little- don't really crop up:)
C.
"" What if our universe is actually the one they're simulating? So in essence, our universe contains itself?""
Well the current universe simulation they have created isn't of the entire universe just a chunk a certain width cubed. Besides what they have created is just a simulation of our universe- NOT a mini physical universe, so there is not universe within a universe situation going on.
Of course there is the philosophical ideas based around the Plato's Cave, but that's a whole other Matrix style discussion.
Oh yes, totally!- MS & Ferrari fam here:)
I can see how that came across wrong.
Bridgestone really dropped hte ball this year.
What's worse though is that the other non-bridgestone teams complain that Ferrari test more then they do- well yes, since there'e what 2 teams running bstone tires, I think then it's more then fair to match all the R&D Mitchellin do with the other teams.
Best in years? Will be as soon as that come back is made. & if not, well he's 7 times champion- like anyone can touch that.
C.
Also, (quickly), if you're looking at Quantum Mechanics, this theory says that you can't fundamentally know, (measure), all the properties of a particle at the same time.
For instance- if you absolutely know a particles position, then you can know absolutely nothing about its velocity at the same instant- & visa versa- the Uncertainty Principle.
So from the 'know the initial state of all' & predict via the laws of physics hence forth approach, you aren't predicting any race winners there:)
Extract from....
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
"One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that one can assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a particle, quantum mechanics denies this possibility. Instead, according to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position of a particle is given, the less precisely one can say what its momentum is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle. This principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and on the consistency of the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation."
That's right.
A simulation of the universe would only allow you to 'predict the future', if the underlying physics of the universe, (& hence the physical laws/ 'rules of the simulation' that where programmed into that simulation), where deterministic in nature.
So I don't think we'll be able to gain any advice from this new simulation of the universe, about when Michael Schumacher will be making his return to form, in this years Formula 1 season.
Personally I'm hoping for a Ferrari 1-2 at Silverstone:)
--From the article...
"It is the biggest thing we have ever done," said Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham. "It is probably the biggest thing ever in computational physics."
--I would have thought so:)
"For the first time we have a replica universe which looks just like the real one. So we can now for the first time begin to experiment with the universe."
--Exxxxxcelllllllent!! That sounds like my kind of experiment.
Seriously though, this looks like it will finally help us make progress on the Dark Matter/ Negative Energy questions.
Slashdot Mirror
"" that old joke that our entire universe is really some student's doctoral thesis, and that he's just about to graduate. }:)"" Let's hope he continues on in the same field of research & doesn't go on to program video games- though we might get a graphics upgrade & a few space ships to shoot down :)
""And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe."" The smallest PHYSICAL simulation of the universe is perhaps more accurate. However if we could program all the laws of physics into a computer then the smallest THEORETICAL simulation of the universe wouldn't really have any physical size at all really- it would just be code & messy computer algorithms. Actually I guess there could be a Physical simulation of the universe that wasn't the size of the universe, thought it would have to be contained somehow within a distorted region of spacetime that would have the interior size of what 15-ish billion light years, but viewed externally was relatively small to its internal dimensions. I don't even want to start calculating the mess involved there- let alone think about the energies involved :)
Sine we don't currently have a complete theory of everthing & hence are not able to fully program a simulation of the entire history of the development of the univers, then I don't think we'll be having any problems anytime soon :)
Besides it's a simulation- so all the scaling problems about how can all the little people in the little universe be SOOOOoooooooooooo little- don't really crop up :)
C.
"" What if our universe is actually the one they're simulating? So in essence, our universe contains itself?"" Well the current universe simulation they have created isn't of the entire universe just a chunk a certain width cubed. Besides what they have created is just a simulation of our universe- NOT a mini physical universe, so there is not universe within a universe situation going on. Of course there is the philosophical ideas based around the Plato's Cave, but that's a whole other Matrix style discussion.
Oh yes, totally!- MS & Ferrari fam here :)
I can see how that came across wrong.
Bridgestone really dropped hte ball this year.
What's worse though is that the other non-bridgestone teams complain that Ferrari test more then they do- well yes, since there'e what 2 teams running bstone tires, I think then it's more then fair to match all the R&D Mitchellin do with the other teams.
Best in years? Will be as soon as that come back is made. & if not, well he's 7 times champion- like anyone can touch that.
C.
Also, (quickly), if you're looking at Quantum Mechanics, this theory says that you can't fundamentally know, (measure), all the properties of a particle at the same time. For instance- if you absolutely know a particles position, then you can know absolutely nothing about its velocity at the same instant- & visa versa- the Uncertainty Principle. So from the 'know the initial state of all' & predict via the laws of physics hence forth approach, you aren't predicting any race winners there :)
Extract from....
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
"One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that one can assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a particle, quantum mechanics denies this possibility. Instead, according to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position of a particle is given, the less precisely one can say what its momentum is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle. This principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and on the consistency of the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation."
That's right. A simulation of the universe would only allow you to 'predict the future', if the underlying physics of the universe, (& hence the physical laws/ 'rules of the simulation' that where programmed into that simulation), where deterministic in nature. So I don't think we'll be able to gain any advice from this new simulation of the universe, about when Michael Schumacher will be making his return to form, in this years Formula 1 season. Personally I'm hoping for a Ferrari 1-2 at Silverstone :)
--From the article... "It is the biggest thing we have ever done," said Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham. "It is probably the biggest thing ever in computational physics." --I would have thought so :)
"For the first time we have a replica universe which looks just like the real one. So we can now for the first time begin to experiment with the universe."
--Exxxxxcelllllllent!! That sounds like my kind of experiment.
Seriously though, this looks like it will finally help us make progress on the Dark Matter/ Negative Energy questions.