It'd be pretty cool for us to discover that there are tiny virtual humans in that simulation, complete with consciousness, contemplating their own existence.
But what if they are wicked?
That would just show how realistic the model is...
Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
41–50 of 70 posts
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#42I wonder if any aliens out there have taken pictures of the real deal yet.
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#43I'm always a bit uncomfortable when I read about findings from these simulations. To say they have "answered questions" about galactic evolution seems to strong a statement. How about, "created a more accurate model"?
The article does not mention answering questions about anything. It pretty much just says that they created a more accurate model.
"The simulation solves a decades-old mystery"
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#44Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#45Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Molecules are tricky. They're obviously machines, but you're dealing with Quantum Mechanics if you go to first principles.
Which is why, for nearly all simulations, you use Born-Oppenheimer approximation and molecular dynamics using force fields derived from QM, but without the full explicit QM treatment. This is fine because with only rare examples (as far as modern science knows), QM treatment is not necessary for most molecular machines.
> QM treatment is not necessary for most molecular machines
Still largely true, but more exceptions are being found all the time.
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#47Title should be: "Creating a Model of the Known Galaxy in a Supercomputer"
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate you probably put a lot of effort out but your post largely sums up to "They are wrong, I've done extra curricular research to prove it, I have no alternative" While noble, I cant help but wanting to understand what alternatives you were leading yourself done. As an example, light can arguably simplified to intersecting cylinders and spheres that bounce off surfaces to create new 3d shapes. Each shape als…
We can come up with hundreds of simplified lighting models. Have you tried the one you mentioned? Does it correspond to photographs, video? That's the hard work, and it's why I listed none. Here's something specific: What did you mean by "multiply"? You cannot "multiply" colors. Not unless you concede that your model has nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. And at that point, why not use a photo of nature…
so you want to store an amplitude and wavelength along with your shapes instead of color? Go for it. You want to add in psychological factors? Sounds wasteful.
Your type of examples seems like uts more useful for machine learning. Collect enough samples, build enough models, run enough tests and youll get something accurate-ish.
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#49I think Stephen Wolfram is right; Physics is going through a paradigm shift, albeit one that might last decades. Digital Physics is here!
Re: Recreating Our Galaxy in a Supercomputer
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate you probably put a lot of effort out but your post largely sums up to "They are wrong, I've done extra curricular research to prove it, I have no alternative" While noble, I cant help but wanting to understand what alternatives you were leading yourself done. As an example, light can arguably simplified to intersecting cylinders and spheres that bounce off surfaces to create new 3d shapes. Each shape als…
We can come up with hundreds of simplified lighting models. Have you tried the one you mentioned? Does it correspond to photographs, video? That's the hard work, and it's why I listed none. Here's something specific: What did you mean by "multiply"? You cannot "multiply" colors. Not unless you concede that your model has nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. And at that point, why not use a photo of nature…
Do a search for photorealistic ray tracers. Photorealism is inevitable as we are only projecting onto finite displays. Enough samples from an accurate enough model will result in bits that are indistinguishable from a live capture.
Light can be multiplied, in a way, through interference.