Big Blue Designing Chip to Decode the Big Bang 149
Jerry Beth writes "IBM is working with European astronomy organization Astron to design a chip that will be used to help gather billions-of-years-old radio signals from deep space in the hopes of learning more about the origins of the universe. From the article: 'It's part of Astron's Square Kilometer Array (SKA) radio telescope project. The SKA will be linked to millions of antennas collecting radio signals from space. The antennas will be spread over a large surface area of the globe but, in the aggregate, they will form a square kilometer's worth of collection area. [...] The microprocessors will essentially help the antennas capture the signals, filter out extraneous data and then convert the signals into data. Astrophysicists will then analyze the data to look for patterns. The weakest signals are the prize in this project, because they will be the oldest.'"
They will call it.. (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you, exit to the right, have a great evening
Side jobs (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Wanna bet on which'll happen first?
Re: (Score:1)
Intelligent Life? Myspace (Score:2)
Intelligent Life and MySpace (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most over-desgined chip ever (Score:2, Funny)
42 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't think our descendants w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not intend to offend the original poster. In fact, I chuckled lightly when I read his post, and said to myself "Well, I'm glad there's others out there that think like I
Defence of Magrathea Concealment Act (Score:2)
A spokesomaan from the AUPSLOPTP is reported to have said, "What's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that the
Molest me not (Score:2)
...with this pocket calculator stuff.
How else can it be applied? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is very interesting, but it doesn't explain what is being filtered, and how it is being filtered. Assuming the signals that are being filtered are radio waves, that would indicate that the processor would need to be powerful enough to catch the weak waves (as indicated in the article), while still providing enough power to filter out the noise.
I trust the astronomists already know how to do this, but it would be interesting to see what the process would be.
Then it brings up the other question:
Re:How else can it be applied? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I visited the Parkes radio telescope in Australia about two y
Some filtering amplifies signals (Score:2)
If you don't (as with space), then you need to make some guesses and do a whole lot more searching with a lot more patterns to find a match. That's no doubt where BigIron comes into the equation.
A better headline (Score:4, Funny)
Impressive tech (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be interesting to actually know the performance of the chips. From the article,
The chips will be made on IBM's silicon germanium process and have a typical peak frequency, or speed, of around 200GHz. They will be made on the 130-nanometre process.
Bearing in mind that these are ASICs and they run at 200GHz each this should allow for an incredibly detailed model to be formed. Can anyone hazard a guess to how the performance would compare to
Re: (Score:2)
SKA? (Score:1)
DAMN! (Score:2)
pissed off (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
What are they saying here? That there is a mass that existed, or was created.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Bang! Light
The Gist of It - (Score:1)
It's a chip that is designed to have little noise while operating at super high frequencies (~ 200GHz) so that the faint noise of the universe can be properly detected. Cool!
The uses for this, shall I say "ultra low noise", technology could be highly valuable in the sensor and biometrics market. Less noise or interference is always better for any pattern recognition... ok, ok, except in chaos theory.
Still, I'd really like to see something on the software they will use to model the universe's noise data.
Decoding is all fine and good, but.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Decoding the Universe (Score:1)
IBM should name their computer "42".
Not necessary... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Gui
One big question (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand it in this compressed state the atomic matter was present but basically had no space between the pieces? The protons/neutrons/electrons? or what ever they were made of, and at the time of the BANG something caused this mass to decide "it needed some space" and the atoms were formed which caused enough presser to force everything to expand.
I am not trying to be foolish here I am, unfortunat
Moo (Score:1)
IBM blew past the idea to go by the book and use OCR on a Bible to get an old testament about this instead of channeling their radical (radiocal) efforts to chip away at this spacey idea of extratextual evidence.
Isn't this already being done? (Score:1)
No direct big bang data... (Score:2, Insightful)
I Predict (Score:1)
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! (Score:2)
how does the microprocessor really help? (Score:1)
Oldest Radio Signal Decoded (Score:2)
"Hello? Tech Support? Yea, the box you sent me says 'Gravity Stabilizer' but inside there is just a ball with a little switch. It says 'consult manual before operation' but I presume I should just flip the switc
Bad idea? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Okay, maybe I just don't get it... I'm not religious, but I don't buy into the big bang theory either... Why can't we just theorize that time is not finite - there's no beginning and no end...
Seriously, someone explain to me why time MUST have a beginning? Can't we just accept some things as being infinite?
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a big bang (VERY likely), then it also started what we know as "time".
But this doesnt exclude a bigger picture.
---
And nobody says time MUST have a beginning. Its just part of a scientific process about what we observe in the universe.
"accepting some things as being infinite", otoh, would be just that kind of dogma religious dimwits seem to like.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason humans concocted religion in the first place: it comforts them. Just as we're always looking and hoping for a parent-analog to take care of us.
We can't know, or even imagine, non-existance, because we've never experienced it. For many, it's too scary and awful to even contemplate. It's why when you ask them to try to imagine and describe death, they always say things like "black" and "cold". They have no other frame of refence to desc
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you cannot experience non-existence.
You simply cannot, because otherwise you would be experiencing some type of existence.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
That said... On the bright side, you won't notice yourself not existing or wanting to exist and a minute or a millennium or a trillion years will be the same to you.
That said... Given infinite time (or time beyond our comprehension rather) the probability f
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we can. Before you were conceived, you did not exist. How was that "experience" for you? I think it's safe to say that death will be like that too.
Re:Look and calculate all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason science exists is that some people cannot just "accept" things. They must ask why. They must have proof to back up their assumptions. From what I understand about the Big Bang, these scientists have reason to believe that time DOES have a beginning.
If there are scientists with evidence that time is not finite, then it would be helpful if someone provided a link.
Re: (Score:1)
The only way I can imagine time ending is in a big crunch and from what we know about the universe now, it doesn't seem possible..so, time pretty much has no end, and is thus infinite
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a saying in Algebra, as x approaches infinity y approaches 0 or maybe that's tangents in Geometry or maybe I'm off my rocker!
I think Einstein was on to something with that relativity thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that were supposed to "prove" the Big Bang Theory were more in line with static universe predictions. The Big Bang predictions ranged from 5 to 7 and then to 50 Kelvin, whereas the static un
Re: (Score:1)
God & the Big Bang (Score:2)
See, God invented Mexican food first, and after that, well the Big Bang was pretty much inevitable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Can't have an infinite inside of an infinite? Ever heard of the Real number line?
How many numbers do you suppose fit between 0 and 1? (Hint: there are enough that they cannot be enumerated using integers, even though there are an infinite number of integers.)
Now, how many numbers do you suppose fit between 0.5 and 0.6? (Hint: the same answer is correct.)
Re: (Score:1)
You are correct, though, that the expansion of the universe is one of the main reasons to infer a big bang. The
Re: (Score:2)
Integer and real number sets are bit different. One can argue that there are 'more' real numbers than integers, but this isn't necessarily true either. Because integers go on forever, just like the amount of real numbers between 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The reason scientists believe there must've been a big bang, or something very like it, is because of entropy. Time only flows in one direction, and as far as we can tell, there is no good reason why it should. Anyways, one way of figuring out which way time is flowing is the direction where entropy, or disorder, increases. I.e. you see an apple, fresh and organized, rot into indistinct mush, but never the opposite, though it is perfectly possible under the laws of physics, just not plausible. So as time fl
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you look out at the universe, it seems that everything is moving away from each other. (I'm talking about inter-galactic scales here.) You can tell because everything is slightly redder than it should be, and the further away it is, the redder it is. The effect is not unlike the way an ambulance changes pitch when it gets closer and then goes away: as it recedes, the additional distance that the source moves be
Re: (Score:2)
That may be an assumption made a priori, but I'll challenge that... Just because we observe bodies moving away from a point doesn't necessarily mean that they started there or even had an explosion there... It could be anecdotal evidence...
Re: (Score:2)
1. The Earth is in an unusual place in the universe, from which everything else is moving away, but not necessarily the center. Mathematically, it could happen, but only at a select number of spots in the universe, and physicists usually assume that there's nothing special about the Earth. Any observations we make here are about the same as we'd make anywhere else, and we're not special. Assume the Earth is special and the whole theory falls apart.
2. Galaxies could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time in that sense is relative to now. One minute ago. yesterday. Five years ago. Two years in the future.
Our calendar is based on relativity - cycles of the earth, cycles around the sun. Every unit of time is simply relative. Time can best be expressed as a function from now, not so easily as a function from the beginning of time.
We express our calendar as a function of time from the birth of Christ.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The current evidence shows that the Universe is expanding [ucla.edu]. We do
Re: (Score:2)
The big bang is still just a theory, unproven. I'm merely asking why it's one of the more accepted theories out there - I'm getting some great responses thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
The Big Bang theory uses the best hypothesis that fits the empirical data and that can be used to predict phenomena before it is even observed, no other hypothesis today can fit the empirical data and make future predictio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the human mind and computers cannot actually calculate infinity.
There is not enough brainpower nor matter in the observable universe to calculate such an amount.
Rather than to go insane at the thought of infinity or to try to create a machine that consumes all matter outside the observable universe, we simply create a placeholder.
Secondly, infinity does not actually exist in the physica
Re: (Score:1)
Someone said something about the Oscillatory Universe and though at one time it was the hot new thing, when they started looking they found there to be to little mass in the universe to stop the "expansion". But expansion is not the only answer to the red-shift in light.
The first answer most people give is stellar motion (expansion). Which is the loss of light energy and its wavelength stretched or red
Re: (Score:1)
Using the cyclic model which is a unproven theory to try and debunk the laws of thermodynamics is foolish I believe. In theory it may be able make up for it, but it is far from being proven, and until then the known laws take precedence for me. But I guess you like me, were just giving other choices.
Re: (Score:1)
That comes from observing the universe, and, particularly, from the observed fact that stars are moving away from each other in a "uniform" manner. "Uniform" is in quotes because some stars tend to clump together, e.g. in globular clusters, and galaxies. Now, there are movements that wouldn't imply a beginning. Asymptotic ones don't. However, the movements of the stars aren't any of thes
Re: (Score:1)
(Yes, I'm joking)
Re: (Score:2)
I got a Physics degree in my attempt as a teenager to find out how I got to be. I lost interest in Physics as a path when I discovered this saying when I was in college:
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on this though...I don't care where we have been, I care where we are GOING
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you know where you are going, unless you understand where you come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people say that, but I've never understood it. Mind explaining why it is that you need to know where you were in order to know where you are going to end up? Maybe knowing where you were is nicer or helpful in some way, but that is not the question - why it is necessary to do so?
Basically, why is it that your question is not in the same category as:
How can you know that you car is pink, unless you understand why your mot
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Let me explain my reasoning this way: I am a fan of history. I just finished reading Alexander the Great by Peter Green. Now Dr. Green COULD have started with the birth of Alexander. But, he didn't. He went back about 100 years prior to the birth of Alexander to give a background of the ancient Macedonians. What was the history of the Macedonian state? What were it's leaders like? What was the poli
Re: (Score:2)
My question was a bit more demanding than that, though. The question I responded to gi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have a clue about what science is (Score:1, Insightful)
If you think trying to find why the world exists and how it works is a waste of time you must clearly already know why we exist and what is the purpose of the human species. Please enlighten us because since the dawn of time nobody knows how the hell we should use our lives for.
Also many discoveries are useful after 50-100 years.
Look at how Maxwell lost his time finding formulas to calculate and study very abstract electromagnetic waves. Well you k
Re: (Score:2)
practical research won't work without basic research.
Re:Is it just me, or is this a waste? (Score:4, Insightful)
At some point, doesn't it make sense to stop spending Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on Big Bang research?
At some point, yes. Diminishing marginal returns eventually bring down everything. But I wouldn't say we've gone too far; this program doesn't sound like it would cost anywhere near a billion dollars and the chips will probably be useful in other weak-signal applications.
How much does it benefit us to know what happened
Newton couldn't have developed his universal law of gravitation without the observations of Galileo and Kepler that planets are attracted to each other. But now we use his law of gravity all the time. Relativity drew on the results of experiments that involved light reflecting back from the moons of Jupiter; now we need relativity to calibrate the electron guns in our televsion sets. Our understanding of nuclear physics got a huge boost from studies of the stars and the fusion processes going on out there. And nuclear power (and weapons) have impacted society in a grand way. How much does it benefit us to know what happened 0.3 seconds after the Big Bang? It helps us because the closer we get to the Big Bang, the closer we get to observing quantum gravity (in whatever form it takes). And while quantum gravity might not seem terribly useful right now, I have little doubt that it will have useful applications eventually. Basic research is important.
I'd rather see all this money fund research into advanced propulsion systems, robotics, and solar power technologies that will help us explore the Universe, rather than just gaze at it with ever more powerful equipment.
I can't help thinking "why?". At some point, doesn't it make sense to stop spending Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on Space exploration? After all, if looking at the universe with a cheap telescope is a waste of time, wouldn't going out and touching it in an expensive spaceship be an even bigger waste?
Re: (Score:2)
All of the "be an individual" and "don't conform" marketing seems to neglect the point that societies are hard.
They're hard to build and hard to maintain but they have some pretty increadible advantages.
We arguably have the technology to begin colonizing other solar systems right now (Ion drive, artificial wombs, computer control systems, etc.) and in the meantime the threat of people who don't think of the common good gaining the power to destroy everyone remains.
It's just you. (Score:3, Informative)
At some point, doesn't it make sense to stop spending Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on Big Bang research?
It sounds like it's more European countries funding this. I don't see the US mentioned anywhere, so at best the US is but one funding contributor.
How much does it benefit us to know what happened
I dunno.. how much did it benefit us more than 180 years ago when Michael Faraday was screwing around with magnets? How much did it ben
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Remember kids: You not "getting it", that doesn't imply "it"'s bad. It just means that you don't "get it".
There are lots of things which I consider a waste.. But I'm also aware of that since my interest lay elsewhere, I'm probably not qualified to have an informed opinion.
Expensive wines, for instance.
Re: (Score:1)
1) It's part of Western culture in investigate the universe and not be satisfied with "God did it."
2) If you want a "practical" reason, signal processing chips like this would help the GNU software radio project.
3) Going to the moon wasn't practical, but it got me interested in science when I was a kid.
What got you interested in science and technology?
This is a double-coupon (Score:2)
Although the chances of near-term applications developing from the science are slim, it could lead to the developments in quantum communications, subatomic "rocket" engines, and spaceships that "surf" on the gravitational waves to get around the galaxy.
Okay,
Re: (Score:2)
Because we are human beings and it in our nature to question.
Because as a sentient species, we strive to find purpose in our existence, and the existence of all things around us.
Because there is more than one way to find the truth - theoretical physics, experimental simulation, exploration using spacecrafts etc.
See, at the end of the day, there is no one methodology set in stone. It does not matter how we do it, what matters is that we are doing it. That you consider Big Bang research a waste is an
Re:Is it just me, or is this a waste? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I *hope* it's just you. Just like I don't get what makes a cat do particular things from time to time, I don't get people who aren't fundamentally *curious*. Even stipulating that there may *never* be a single practical application or utility derived from cosmology, it speaks poorly for our species if we have the capability to probe our fundamental origins from our little speck in the cosmos but lack the effort. In all cases, when we probe the Universe with more precise instruments, we find mysteries that we not only cannot explain, but that we never before *imagined*. The subtlety and beauty of the Universe demands enough respect for it that we at least peer through the crack in the door.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that more and more of the research is being done by computers with a few experts analysing new findings.
One of the elements of science that people don't really appreciate is that it needs to be predictive, theories need to predict results and then find them upon testing to be accepted.
The feeling of ennui and knowing everything is setting in because researchers don't have a theory to cling to anymore (String theory went Kaput).
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed -- it's being called the "golden age" of cosmology. It was a little staid when I was studying it in grad school, but then came the COBE results, the preliminary high-redshift supernovae hints at acceleration, and then WMAP. What a remarkable and explosive 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more with that guy. Finding another Earth is a pressing need...we do not realize it yet, but perhaps in a few hundred years we will.