Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Full Observable-Universe Simulation

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the not-counting-the-big-blue-room dept.

Space 95

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."

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FULL universe simulation (5, Funny)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#39766193)

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

Re:FULL universe simulation (4, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 2 years ago | (#39766205)

It's right there, in particle 4153341989.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766651)

Don't you mean particle #39766205?

Re:FULL universe simulation (2)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766945)

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

Re:FULL universe simulation (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767047)

Is Jenny represented by particle #8675309?

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

twdorris (29395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768127)

Wow. That's bad. I mean real bad.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39769195)

Thank you, I try :)

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772795)

/thread

Re:FULL universe simulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766277)

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. So this is more a rough simulation of the the visible Galaxies.

Re:FULL universe simulation (5, Funny)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766679)

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.

Re:FULL universe simulation (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767521)

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.

Re:FULL universe simulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39773603)

Your /dev/null is executable?

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39767857)

Sounds like you need the black hole edition. Best compression IMO

Re:FULL universe simulation (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39769227)

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.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768671)

This is pretty similar to the information theory proof that if a god exist, he cannot simultaneously be omniscient and be a part of the universe. It still leaves the possibility of a god outside the universe (ie, lacking full self-awareness), like a programmer watching a simulation from outside a computer.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770117)

Did this information theory proof include rule out the possibility that the part of the universe that the omniscient god is is the whole universe?

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770547)

We just do bulk simulations of everything when no one is looking at the details.

Which means that we just need to simulate one really stupid human instead of an individual most of the time.

We had somewhat of a crisis when genius scientists were around and people wanted to observe the universe and every second required several clock cycles. We solved that with a really nice optimization patch; all the visionaries and scientific geniuses died of pancreatic cancer, entertainment media got a lot better and most people got a lot more stupid, nowadays we do several years per cycle as opposed to just a few days.

It almost got to the point where we had to simulate actual planetary bodies and celestial mechanics instead of just displaying a high-resolution animated skybox. Now of course if you start to measure it doesn't work out properly but it's not like anyone will have funding for doing anything accurate enough to blow our cover anytime soon.

Meanwhile, we're watching you masturbate.

Sincerely.
The God Commitee.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Sam Nitzberg (242911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771303)

It's just going to come back with 42 anyway...

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779165)

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. So this is more a rough simulation of the the visible Galaxies.

All models are simpler than the thing being modeled.

However, you can think of the universe as a gigantic computer that is running a program to... compute its future states?

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766603)

Forget that, what happens when it starts simulating thousands of gaming machines running Crysis on Vista?

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766907)

Forget that, what happens when it starts simulating thousands of gaming machines running Crysis on Vista?

Bingo.

The performance of universe rendering (a clever particle/wave algorithm) will start degrading.
Now, our lead developer chose to degrade the rendering of the details in a proportional way with the distance to the observer (they call it Hubble constant)... Anyway, rendering the details far away will be done with lower priority, thus they'll see the results later; also, when considering the radiosity rendering part (the part that deals with wave nature of rendering), they'll see the light waves with a red-shifted frequency... (actually, we are generating them at a slower rate).

Now, if they believe the speed of light is constant, they'll interpret the above as the universe in expansion, with the farthest region expanding faster. They'll come with the hypothesis of the dark energy to explain it and attempt to validate the hypothesis by simulating their simulated universe on a simulated Curie-supercomputer.

They can't be helped, we coded the AI of their scientist to follow almost rational methods... they won't be able to comprehend that Macrosoft developed such a bloat as Vista.

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766691)

The Thirteenth Floor, anyone?

Recursion is a bitch.

I believe it is "Now" (3, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767145)

(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.

Re:FULL universe simulation (2)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767365)

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.

Re:FULL universe simulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768525)

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

It just did.

One day there will be a million programs running around the world, simulating universes at a level where the inhabitants of those universes are simulated so they think they are real living people.

You think we are living in the real universe now? The chances are infinitesimally small. There are just too many simulated universes for every real one, and too many simulated people for every real person, for us to be that lucky.

Let's just hope that the kids who are playing our SimUniverse don't suddenly get called to supper and they click the quit bu

Re:FULL universe simulation (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768877)

Let's just hope that the kids who are playing our SimUniverse don't suddenly get called to supper and they click the quit bu

We would never know anyway.

And for all we know, they may well quit the game every day (whatever a day is for them) and then restart it afterwards to resume from the saved state. Maybe they'll even play certain parts over and over again. We would never be able to tell.

I hope it isn't labeled (5, Funny)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 2 years ago | (#39766195)

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

Re:I hope it isn't labeled (1)

Sduic (805226) | about 2 years ago | (#39766409)

It's all right, they used éclair instead of fairy cake.

DEUS... (2, Insightful)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | about 2 years ago | (#39766217)

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

Re:DEUS... (3, Funny)

thomst (1640045) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768063)

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!

Re:DEUS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768195)

You can't beat astronomers in coming up with the most apt but highly contrived acronyms.

Re:DEUS... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779173)

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

DEMIURGE [wikipedia.org] would have been better.

Has someone asked it... (2)

stox (131684) | about 2 years ago | (#39766219)

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

Re:Has someone asked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766245)

Open source the code of the universe?

Re:Has someone asked it... (2)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768947)

And then have zillions of forks creating a true multiverse?

Re:Has someone asked it... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766281)

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer

Re:Has someone asked it... (2)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766917)

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer

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

Re:Has someone asked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770505)

LET THERE BE LIGHT!

Re:Has someone asked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768773)

computer says no

Re:Has someone asked it... (3)

Sduic (805226) | about 2 years ago | (#39766337)

I hear that Maxwell's got someone on it.

Re:Has someone asked it... (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#39766389)

+1 Demonic.

Re:Has someone asked it... (2)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766767)

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

Re:Has someone asked it... (1)

eriqk (1902450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785735)

I think I can safely say that no one would really understand that comment.

Re:Has someone asked it... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766403)

For all that don't know it,

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

Re:Has someone asked it... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779183)

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

Yes, put it in the fridge.

The Multiverse Apocolapse (2)

NetFusion (86828) | about 2 years ago | (#39766239)

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

Only 550 billion particles? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766265)

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..?

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39766317)

It's a simulation; the map is not the territory.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39769989)

It's a simulation; the map is not the territory.

No, but if you simplify a map too much it becomes useless. For example if you draw a big circle on a piece of paper and label it "the world", it's not going to help you circumnavigate the globe, although it's not actually wrong.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#39766323)

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.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766741)

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.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

doshell (757915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766923)

FWIW, "more particles than the atoms in the computer" would be impossible with current technology since (presumably) you'd need to store at least one bit of state per particle, and current computers need more than an atom to store a single bit.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (0)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766959)

Woosh! Guess I didn't trigger your sarcasm detector.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

doshell (757915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773355)

Indeed, you did not. Blame it on the ever decreasing quality of Slashdot comments; these days, some people here actually mean stuff like that when they say it. I do apologise for misjudging your intelligence.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773701)

I actually had a concern as I typed it that including the second sentence would detract from the sarcasm, guess I should have left it off.

Great sig.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779195)

FWIW, "more particles than the atoms in the computer" would be impossible with current technology since (presumably) you'd need to store at least one bit of state per particle, and current computers need more than an atom to store a single bit.

All you need is two bits. Map all the ones in your data to one location and all the zeros to the other.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767999)

Perhaps the most important question is that what are we doing with the particles/waves/quantum states that we've got in our disposal.

I mean I'm able to run a perfect simulation by crunching it with my 4 core CPU: the crunching of a CPU with an object modeled from metal and wood.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768603)

when they run a simulation more particles than transistors in their CPUs, I'll be impressed.

That's not difficult at all, it's just slow. You can store loads of data in RAM and on disk. Most of the transistors in current CPUs are used for cache. If you could find a CPU without cache, it would be easier to simulate more particles than transistors in the CPU.

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39767607)

"Hmmm, we can't simulate the Climate for shit. Hey! let's simulate the Universe! Data? We don't need no stinking data! We'll make it all up just like before."

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768985)

Next thing you know, they'll come up with "Universal Warming" and create a new tax on space ships...

Re:Only 550 billion particles? (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770121)

As another comparison an average grain of salt contains around 1.2x10^18 atoms verses this simulation's 5.5x10^11 particles. (source [physlink.com] )

Disappointed. (1)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | about 2 years ago | (#39766303)

I was lead to believe there would be faerie cake.

Re:Disappointed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768481)

The fairy cake is a lie^H^H^Hsimulation.

Sounds a bit small... (0)

RedBear (207369) | about 2 years ago | (#39766311)

550 billion particles? That's it? How exactly does that equate to a "full observable-universe simulation"? Last I checked, the minimum estimate for our galaxy alone was 100 billion stars. Multiply that by at least 100 billion other *galaxies* and we're looking at... uh... a much larger number to even begin to simulate the entire observable universe.

I'm sure I'm significantly misunderstanding something about the simulation parameters though.

Re:Sounds a bit small... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39766717)

They're examining the large-scale structure, not the structure of individual galaxies.

Re:Sounds a bit small... (2)

KingofSpades (874684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768475)

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.

Re:Sounds a bit small... (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770287)

Large scale structures in the universe don't depend on the exact location of each star in each galaxy.

Let's do a simulation to check your hypothesis! We'll only need a few billion more DEUSs.

50 billion is like nothing (-1, Redundant)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39766555)

500 billion? That hardly qualifies as a simulation of "the whole universe."

Heck they don't even know how manty particles there are in the whole universe has but conservatively, they're off by a factor of greater than 10^70.

Re:50 billion is like nothing (1)

troon (724114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768159)

You're assuming they're using particles to represent atoms / quarks / whatever, in which case they'd be way short of simulating a speck of dust.

They're using a particle to represent a galaxy, which is a slightly lower resolution but still a valid simulation.

Re:50 billion is like nothing (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778435)

So intergalactic space is modeled as what, completely empty? And dark matter and dark energy are modeled as what?

But maybe more interesting than that is how do you model the boundary conditions? What's beyond the end of simulated space and how do you model that? How do you model the fact that the universe has no fixed frame of reference?

Recursion (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766665)

Does the simulated universe contain intelligent lifeforms who have built universe-simulating supercomputers?

Re:Recursion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39766919)

No why should it? This one dosnt either

Re:Recursion (1)

jim_deane (63059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39766949)

Why not? This one does.

Re:Recursion (1)

user flynn (236683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767839)

Fortunately the universe is simulated on windo..... Wow, I didn't know the last thing I saw would be white writing on a blue background.

    In other news. I kind of doubt these muckabouts considered running the simulation with 4+ dimensional dark matter/energy.

          It's like they don't even know that non-3d matter cannot interact directly with 3d matter except through gravitation! Ric Romero reporting...

Re:Recursion (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779205)

Does the simulated universe contain intelligent lifeforms who have built universe-simulating supercomputers?

Current replies:

No why should it? This one dosnt either

Why not? This one does.

I suppose that covers all the bases.

Sorry guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39766819)

Sorry guys, this isn't the first 'full observable universe simulator'.

I made one back in the 1980s. It only used one particle, but that's a difference in /resolution/, not scope.

And when it returns a response of... (1)

cranky_chemist (1592441) | more than 2 years ago | (#39767073)

And when it returns a response of "42," Douglas Adams will die laughing...

no, wait...

quantum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39767207)

But if you observe it won't it alter the simulation?

Nice Machine (4, Interesting)

kramulous (977841) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768023)

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.

Re:Nice Machine (1)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768233)

Unless of course you count the 896 GPU cores per GPU node ( 448 cores per card, x2 per box, x144 boxes, for a cool 129,024 GPU cores).

Yeah, token GPU work... Seems to me like they appropriately sized the compute capabilities of what could be accellerated by cuda rather appropriately considering it's only a specific set of operations which can be accelerated by it in the first place.

Take a look at what gets accelerated by BOINC projects on NVIDIA / ATI GPU cores. Some projects cannot be sped up at all by CUDA or OpenCL, others like PrimeGrid (some sub-projects) are accelerated heavily by it (20x+ speedup over CPU IIRC). It all depends on the specific work-load involved and the family of cards chosen.

- Toast

Re:Nice Machine (2)

kramulous (977841) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768917)

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 :-)

First simulate a paperclip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39768215)

A paperclip is about a gram and has lots of particles in it. If you want to find the number of supercomputers it would take to simulate a paperclip you take the number of particles and divide it by the number of particles the super computer can simulate you get a large number. 1g/26 * Avogadro's number / 550 billion = 1.09493482 × 10^12, which means that if you wanted to simulate a paperclip you would need around 10^12 supercomputers. Last time I checked the universe was much more complex than a paperclip...

Re:First simulate a paperclip... (1)

KingofSpades (874684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768489)

And that's not enough... if you want to simulate each quark individually (after all, you wrote "you take the number of particles").

Re:First simulate a paperclip... (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39776659)

We have a pretty good grasp on the physics of a paperclip, even at the subatomic level. Since we know most of the rules, we can simplify the interactions. Eventually this kind of simulation the article talks about will be able to be run on a desktop computer once we can 'compress' it enough.

So this is where DEUS begins... (1)

Raved Thrad (1864414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768463)

...and now I'm on the lookout for a girl with purple hair named Miang.

If one of those particles is inside my body (1)

Anonymousslashdot (2601035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768727)

then they probably know where I'll be tommorow (just don't tell my girlfriend)

Is this real science? (1)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39768763)

Is any genuine science being done here? Running simulations to model, say, the weather or ocean currents makes sense. You can calibrate them to past data and use them predictively. How does a simulation of the "universe" tell you anything?

Re:Is this real science? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779227)

Is any genuine science being done here? Running simulations to model, say, the weather or ocean currents makes sense. You can calibrate them to past data and use them predictively. How does a simulation of the "universe" tell you anything?

Take the starting state and mechanisms suggested by theory, run it, compare the result to the actual universe now.

let's say simulation produced a result (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39769021)

How are they going to verify it experimentally?

I call BS (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773237)

There are 3.34E22 molecules of H20 in one gram of water. That is a hundred billion or so times more particles that are in this simulation. Astro calcs have just been including more and more particles since the first one with 2 interacting particles. The number of (stars/solar systems/galaxies/clusters/super clusters etc) that each of those particles is supposed to represent has just been getting smaller as we have faster and faster computers.

possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778611)

the laws of emergent properties say we can model the macro universe to a pretty fine degree. we dont need to track the position and velocity of every atom, or their constituent subatomic particles, and every photon, to accurately portray the universe at the scale of stars up. HOWEVER, the law of sensitive dependence on initial conditions allows for small, subtle effects at the subatomic level to have huge effects on the macro level. so, the answer to whether we can model the universe to create the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything is: Splunge.
I have now crossed the streams of adams and python, thus destroying the universe.
Can i have this program on my Iphone now?

extreme audiophiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39856047)

capable of storing the equivalent of 7 600 years of MP3 files (15 PBytes)

So apparently they encode the harmony of the spheres to 550 kbit/s MP3. At such a high bitrate they could as well use a lossless codec. And if they are such audiophiles why are they using MP3 at all?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>