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!

Simulated Universe

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the not-the-matrix dept.

Supercomputing 332

anonymous lion writes "A story in the Guardian Unlimited reports on The Millennium Simulation saying that it is 'the biggest exercise of its kind'. It required 25 million megabytes of memory to take our universe's initial conditions along with the known laws of physics to create this simulated universe." From the article: "The simulated universe represents a cube of creation with sides that measure 2bn light years. It is home to 20m galaxies, large and small. It has been designed to answer questions about the past, but it offers the tantalising opportunity to fast-forward in time to the slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now."

cancel ×

332 comments

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

So where can I download it? (3, Informative)

Uppity Nigger (889082) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719525)

I think my PC can handle it.

Informative?!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719801)

I'd say "MOD ON CRACK" but that'd be an insult to crack addicts. Unless that PC's one of those Windows Server Datacenters or something.

Re:So where can I download it? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719877)

Yeah, where is the torrent?

-pingu

25 TB? That's nothing. (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719526)

The University of Wisconsin [wisc.edu] has deployed 200 TB of storage for support of similar types of experiments as part of the Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin [wisc.edu] .

Brief article, with pictures:

University of Wisconsin deploys nearly 200TB of Xserve RAID storage [alienraid.org] (Google cache [google.com] )

The storage is used for, among other things, particle physics simulations in support of research projects at sites such as the Large Hadron Collider [web.cern.ch] at CERN [cern.ch] . More information on GLOW and its initiatives can be found here [wisc.edu] .

Text of the above article:

The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed 35 5.6TB Xserve RAID storage arrays in a single research installation as part of an ongoing scientific computing initiative.

The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays. As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000 Wikipedias.

The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core 3 via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.

The storage is primarily used to act as a holding area for large amounts of data from experiments such as the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Aside from the GLOW initiative, the university also has Xserve RAID storage systems in use in other areas as well.


Full disclosure: I am the administrator of alienraid.org and am affiliated with the University of Wisconsin.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (5, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719541)

I'm pretty sure that they're talking about RAM. And yes, 23 terrabytes of RAM is a ton.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719636)

And 200TB of disk isn't.

In the theoretical research community, 200TB is peanuts anymore. I could walk into the server room at work and point out double that.

We're already talking about getting over 200TB this year alone in new hardware.. and we're just a single department. ;)

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (3, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719734)

Jeez.

Yeah, I can point out more that that too in our facilities.

After all, UW-Madison is one of the largest research universities in the world.

The point is that:

- They were talking about 25TB of disk, not RAM
- 200TB in a single installation for a single project is hardly "peanuts"; it's actually quite a bit by enterprise storage standards, but that's neither here nor there
- Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
- 200TB of Xserve RAIDs in one place is, I believe, the largest Xserve RAID installation at a single site (save perhaps Apple), and that was really the thrust of the article anyway

So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment. The comparison is still apt because the submission and the press release and articles are talking about 25TB of disk like it's a shitload, and I'm just pointing out that it's not in this environment (particle physics).

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719770)

>So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment.

Well, yes. I didn't state as much but my reply was a nitpick on the article as much as it was the parent posts. ;)

25TB can be stuffed into a single machine these days, it's like bragging about how awesome a Voodoo3 card makes games look.

That they made it sound bigger by expressing it as megabytes was laughable.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719805)

That's why I assumed the article was justpoorly written. I couldn't imagine anyone would think 25TB was a big deal.

I have 3.5 terrabytes (as of last weekend) at home, sitting on my desktop. And yes, 90% of it is porn. And no, I'm not being funny.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719845)


That's why I assumed the article was justpoorly written.


It's always safe to assume that articles are justpoorly written. Even on Slashdot.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719836)

Yeah mate whatever. Im sure you use the king size condoms as well...

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

bryan8m (863211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719654)

"25 Terabytes (25 million Megabytes) of stored output"

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

CommanderTaco (85921) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719670)

From the article:
By applying sophisticated modelling techniques to the 25 Terabytes (25 million Megabytes) of stored output...
So it does appear that they are referring to 25 terabytes of storage, not RAM.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (1)

kyle90 (827345) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719552)

I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.

Re:25 TB? That's nothing. (4, Informative)

andyh1978 (173377) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719704)

I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.
This was on Newsnight a couple of days ago; the researcher said their machine had 1TB of RAM.

That's confirmed in page 18 of their paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/050409 7.pdf [arxiv.org]
The calculation was performed on 512 processors of an IBM p690 parallel computer at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. It utilised almost all the 1 TB of physically distributed memory available. It required about 350000 processor hours of CPU time, or 28 days of wall-clock time.
The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops, so the total number of floating point operations carried out was of order 5x10^17.

it certainly is something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719606)

They're talking about 25 TB of RAM, not storage. 25 TB of core is pretty damned huge even if it is spread across a giant cluster.

200 TB of online storage isn't that impressive. Sorry.

No, it's disk (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719697)

RTFA.

25TB of *stored output*.

http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/millennium_sim.asp [pparc.ac.uk]

Re:No, it's disk (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719786)

Would you be impressed if it was put on a bunch of USB sticks?

"25 million megabytes of memory" (3, Funny)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719528)

"25 million megabytes of memory"

man, just when i thought 2 gigs was a lot...

Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" (1)

mlrtime (520968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719547)


Wouldn't that be 25 Terra bytes?

Re:"25 million megabytes of memory" (1)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719713)

only if your lucky

25 Million Megabytes (2, Funny)

823723423 (826403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719530)

Whoa this is slashdot - news for nerds, convert to metric please,
or least use Giga or Tera :P

Re:25 Million Megabytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719550)

Um. It is in metric. And the proper scaled metric would be Tera, so leave Giga out of this.

Re:25 Million Megabytes (2, Interesting)

turkeyphant (648612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719648)

I use SI units - tebibytes [nist.gov] .

Re:25 Million Megabytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719696)

If only they had stuck with the common names, SI would've caught on. It's sad they had to come up with some whacked out names, which is why no one ever uses them.

Re:25 Million Megabytes (1)

Adrilla (830520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719626)

Tera is the correct prefix, but I think Mega was used more for effect. "WOW! 25 Million! That's amazing!"

Dark Matter/ Negaitve Engergy (1)

Craig Crennell (884386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719628)

--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.

SECRET CHEAT (5, Funny)

rebug (520669) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719535)

Just type "FUND" a few hundred times.

Do it before you build anything, because it causes earthquakes.

Re:SECRET CHEAT (1)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719727)

Which one is it that brings in the alien spaceships?

Re:SECRET CHEAT (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719831)

porntipsguzzardo

Re:SECRET CHEAT (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719835)

Classic. Don't think it worked on versions greater than 3, did it?

longhorn (3, Funny)

systemofadown (885733) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719544)

isn't how much memory longhorn need to run?

Re:longhorn (1, Offtopic)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719603)

How the fuck can anybody still mod this as funny?
It should be (Score:-1, Puerile).

Re:longhorn (1)

qualico (731143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719837)

and yet they mod you Offtopic?

I thought (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719548)

I thought that they really hadn't even figured out how the universe worked. They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age, and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for. How are they supposed to simulate the universe, if the model they have is so badly flawed.

Re:I thought (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719594)


They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age

No, they don't. This has happened a few times in the past, e.g., when they didn't know about the different populations of stars, but currently there isn't an age problem.

and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for

We don't know what dark matter is, but we know enough about its gravitational properties -- that's why it was postulated to exist, after all -- to simulate its effects on these scales.

How are they supposed to simulate the universe, if the model they have is so badly flawed.

The models we have are not as badly flawed as you think they are. But even if they are flawed, that's the point of the simulation: to test the validity of the model. If the simulation's results don't agree with observations, then that tells us about where the model fails.

Re:I thought (3, Insightful)

willpall (632050) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719627)

That's probobly why they didn't name it, "Super Duper Accurate and Exact Precision Model of the Universe".

Welcome to science, where no matter how far you come along, there's always a ways more to go. Today's models are flawed, but not nearly as much as yesterday's. And even if the Dark Matter mysteries or older-than-time star mysteries are resolved, I'm sure there will be other mysteries we have yet to discover. These simulations are a part of that process.

Re:I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719693)

They don't know what dark matter is, but they know how it behaves. In fact I believe in this simulation they only tracked dark matter.

Re:I thought (2, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719790)

They haven't, that's why you build a simulator.. to explore various ideas.

A flight simulator does not perfectly simulate flight, but it does let you see what effect different changes have based on your mathematical models. Same idea here..

Here's the top output (3, Funny)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719560)

#top

PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
561 ganesh 13 0 58876 25000000M 1044 S 0 0.7 95.1 68:51 universe

Re:Here's the top output (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719716)

Shouldn't the TIME column read something a little bit larger than 69 hours? Like, oh, 10 billion years or something like that? ;)

The digital inhabitants won't believe in us (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719562)

I think they deserver a good smiting.

Google Maps (4, Funny)

msbmsb (871828) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719563)

So when will Google Maps be available for this universe?

Re:Google Maps (2, Interesting)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719620)

In all seriousness, the interface used by Google Maps seems like it would be well-suited for dealing with astronomical imaging data.

3D Google Maps? (1)

msbmsb (871828) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719632)

I think they still have some work on that one, but maybe.

Dudes... (5, Funny)

GeorgeMcBay (106610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719574)

What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes?

Whoaaa.

Pass the bong, dude.

Re:Dudes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719601)

What if c-a-t really spelled "dog"?

Re:Dudes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719771)

otto backwards is... otto!

Re:Dudes... (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719846)

What if we're in a simulated universe, simulating other universes?

Yeah, the Earth could be, like, a giant computer, and we're just the bits flowing through it.

Oh, great (3, Funny)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719575)

Now we're going to /. the cosmos.

This is a problem for BlueGene (1)

a3217055 (768293) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719580)

This seems like a problem for BlueGene to solve, lets email the raw data input files to the group at LLNL they can do all the calculations in a matter of seconds and then tell us why the answer is 42...! There seems to be too much data involved, seems like a plot by the storage companies to sell crapp SATA disks and bad RAID cards.

Predicting the future (5, Interesting)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719583)

I always though that a computer large enough to handle a simulation of the universe would allow us to predict the future, even at individual level if the simulation was advanced enough.

And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.

It got very confusing at that point.

Re:Predicting the future (1)

csbrooks (126129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719617)

Plus, wouldn't the simulation have to include itself?

Also, is the universe, at the tiniest level, really deterministic?

And how would you take an initial measurement of the state of every particle?

Re:Predicting the future (1)

Craig Crennell (884386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719702)

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 :)

Re:Predicting the future (1)

Craig Crennell (884386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719748)

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/ [stanford.edu] "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."

Re:Predicting the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719756)

Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, as far as we know, you can only make measurements once, but if you set up many copies of the system in the exact initial state you could develop a probability distribution.

Re:Predicting the future (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719749)

Is that not a map making fallacy?

You cannot make an overly accurate map, because the more accurate of a map you construct, the larger it becomes, and eventually it will be the size of what you are mapping!

Re:Predicting the future (2, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719809)

And then I realized that the smallest simulation of the universe would probably be the size of the universe.


Bah... the universe is mostly empty space. It would compress nicely.

Heh... (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719587)

They can simulate the universe but can't withstand a slashdotting? ...

This thing could get out of control! (1)

kc32 (879357) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719590)

I suggest we scorch the sky now to keep this machine from ruling us.

Long POST (1)

pnatural (59329) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719591)

25 Million MB? And you thought *your* machine took a long time to POST!

Press ESC to cancel memory test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719776)

Press DEL to enter setup.

This is nothing .... (2, Funny)

xqcom (786610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719592)

Ho Hum ..... If you REALLY want to impress people, then design a simulation of how corporate management ( and IT in particular) thinks and behaves.

Re:This is nothing .... (1)

zojakownith (718327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719685)

i thought that was called chaos theory.

Re:This is nothing .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719811)

I think Dilbert already beats any computer simulation in both predictive accuracy and sarcastic irony.

word of the day (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719625)

Terabyte

Zarniwoop will be delighted... (1)

hazee (728152) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719629)

It'll save him having to leave his desk.

25 million megabytes (1)

ThinkTiM (532164) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719643)

They should invent some word to make it easier to say 25 million mega..oh, don't worry.

Somehow I have this vision of .... (1)

UberGeekEdward (857976) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719653)

The Total Perspective Vortex, (Retaurant at the End of the Universe for the uneducated) wherein we are a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot. Are we sure we can handle this concept?

Douglas Adams (1)

KefabiMe (730997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719667)

Prophet [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Douglas Adams (2, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719698)

No, i'm sure this machine doesn't extrapolate the universe based off of a piece of fairy cake.

Don't tell MOG and Rob (1)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719668)

Journalists will use it to work up stories without having to leave their offices. The only thing we need now is a piece of fairy cake.

25 TB? meh (1)

krunchyfrog (786414) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719669)

I got more pr0n than that.

And the final answer to the universe probably will (1)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719676)

be 42

Total Perspective Vortex (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719687)

And when you realize that you're an infinitesimal dot on an infinitesimal dot, you'll go completely stark raving mad. Unless you're in a personal pocket universe, of course, in which case you're the most important thing in it.

I for one... (1)

CarlJagt (877688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719706)

...am glad Slashdot doesn't specify "timely" in the service mark "News for Nerds." This was posted on at the BBC days ago. Otherwise, I'd have to say 'Sheessh.' Shee-

It's been done... (1)

nxtr (813179) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719717)

Microsoft calls it Windows XP. What? You're telling me it's not an actual universe simulation? Based on the system resources it uses, I thought it was!

We've been looking for you, Neo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719718)

Do you take the red pill or the blue pill...?

But... (1)

morelia_nut (889232) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719722)

Uuuuhhhh... wouldn't the simulation have to contain the simulation? Isn't that an infinite loop? Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.

If nothing else, it sounds like a memory leak waiting to happen.

The new sequel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719724)

EA announces!

The Sims: Universe!

Recently upgraded (1)

y2imm (700704) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719739)

I just scored 2100 in 3DMark, can I run it?

Voodoo science here, I think. (1, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719742)

Recent advances in cosmology demonstrate that about 70 percent of our Universe currently consists of Dark Energy, a mysterious force field which is causing it to expand ever more rapidly. About one quarter apparently consists of Cold Dark Matter, a new kind of elementary particle not yet directly detected on Earth.

This is stated as fact, not theory, but how can it be a scietific fact if it can not be detected, measured, and independetely verified?

Re:Voodoo science here, I think. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719754)

That why they said "apparently". Sheesh.

Re:Voodoo science here, I think. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719820)

There are no scientific facts, only theories that haven't been falsified yet.

Saying "Cold Dark Matter" exists, or "Dark Energy" is just saying "our formulas work if there is such a hting as dark energy with such-and-such a property involved here."

What is detection but observing something's effect on something else? if the only weay we can explain the universe expanding at a certain rate is that there is more energy out there than we can detect (other than by the rate of expansion, of course), that's a valid observation, and for as long as it explains the universe and no data contradicts it, it's the best we can do, just like any other observation.

obgliatory (1, Funny)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719744)

I, for one, welcome our new Simulated Overlords.

Molest me not... (3, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719746)

...with this pocket calculator stuff.

Amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719747)

I bet in some 20 years we will be able to build an incredible Beowulf with thousands of cell processors to do an even more detailed simulation -- one that would, e.g., include an Earth simulation!

Just imagine simulating Earth's formation, Prehistory, even History. It would be very cool...

Imagine simulation the events that made the 20th century... we could even simulate all the people like a giant The Sims. I bet the simulated dorks wouldn't be able to tell they were living in a simulation.

Hahaha, the fools!

Hey, wait a minute... what if... doh!

Next Windows Mem Requirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719766)

I'm guessing 25TB is just about right for the next version of Windows after Longhorn. Gotta keep up with the times ya know? ;-)

the simulated universe includes the simulator? (2, Funny)

Garabito (720521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719773)

And if it does, the simulator in the simulated universe simulates other universe?

And if it does, does it include the simulator?

And this simulator...

In Soviet Russia (0)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719782)


In soviet Russia, the Universe simulates YOU!

25 million megs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719787)

Thats about the size of the pc that holds my tv and movie downloads!

Are you educated stupid? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719791)

The simulated universe represents a cube of creation

It represents 4 simultaneous cubes of creation. Dumbass!

Life, the universe and everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719795)

Will the answer of the simulation be 42?

We can only hope...

Eric C.

One small detail (2, Insightful)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719829)

"but it offers the tantalising opportunity to fast-forward in time to the slow death of the galaxies, billions of years from now"

Assuming your assumptions and input are correct, of course.

The 13th Floor (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719849)

Have you ever been to The 13th Floor [imdb.com] ?

Shades of Greg Egan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12719852)

For anyone who has read Permutation City [amazon.com] by Greg Egan, in the book a computer simulation like this ends up continuing to run in an alternate universe after the computer simulation is stopped in this universe; in this book, simulations like this end up creating new universes.

No Designer? (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719860)

But this simulated universe has an intelligent designer, for sure!

Does it..... (1)

cruc (599914) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719864)

Does it simulate millions of geeks not having sex? :P

20 million galaxies...BAH! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 9 years ago | (#12719878)

That's like asking 100 Chinese what they think of blue tablecloth. I think I'll go watch the downloads now. Which brings up another point. How come the site hasn't been /.ed? I thought "nerds" were into science. Or is that "geeks"?

--
Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Q? Is that you?
Load More 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>