81–90 of 104 posts
That's awesome! My project inspired by the Game of Life is quite a bit less ambitious (and still incomplete) - http://nickknowlson.com/projects/conways-revenge/ It lets multiple cell colonies fight against each other using a modified ruleset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not instantaneously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
So the Schrodinger equation isn't quite accurate then? Does the Dirac equation take this into effect?
1/3_____1/2/3
/| /|
/ | / |
1------1/2 |
| 3____|__2/3
| / | /
|/ | /
0-------2
It branches out along the three axes:
1) Add mutual gravitation, giving you the theory of Newtonian celestial mechanics (in which gravity acts instantaneously)
2) Add relativistic effects, giving you Einstein's theory of special relativity (there is a finite upper limit to all communication, the speed of light)
3) Add quantization, giving you 1920s era quantum mechanics, as described by the Schrodinger equation.
We know how to combine any two of these:
1/2) Combining gravitation and relativistic effects gives you Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In this theory, gravitational effects travel at the speed of light.
2/3) Combining relativity and quantum mechanics gives you quantum field theory and the Standard Model. This encompasses the Dirac equation, which is a quantum relativistic theory of fermions (i.e. matter particles).
1/3) Combining gravity and quantum mechanics gives you... well, it's kind of boring and we don't talk about it much, but you get a quantum theory with gravitation, but no relativistic effects. No one really studies this.
Combining all three is the holy grail of physics:
1/2/3) Often called `quantum gravity` or the `theory of everything`, this is the as yet nonexistent theory that can explain both very small and very massive (in the sense of having a large mass) objects, like black holes or the early universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ready is using OpenCL. But Stephan is using FFT for the convolution with a disk filter, which is a big win for large radii.
As far as I'm aware OpenCL performance, while portable, is still somewhat inferior to that of straight CUDA on NVIDIA GPUs, hence my CUDA suggestion. I didn't actually look at the algorithms used in either so I can't comment, perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. What do you mean by using an FFT "for" a convolution? The algorithm is convolving the (presumably 2D) FFT of the game board with a disk filter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution
As it says on that page, FFT is often used for convolution because it is fast: after applying a discrete Fourier transform to the kernel and the image, the resulting images must only be multiplied together before applying an inverse FFT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. Still I think the point of game of life is not to look organic but to make complex thing from very simple rules. Like supposedly the universe we live in. Conway's game of life would look organic if you zoomed out enough, no computer can do that of course.
no computer can do that of course. we are getting there - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
I'm not a fan of electronic music but the music that was picked for the video was perfect.
Watching this video makes me wonder if Wolfram's "New Kind of Science" is more worthy of study. There was so much controversy about the book and Wolfram's claims, that I didn't bother with it.
I think the concepts are fascinating but the representation is somewhat meh. Wolfram seems to be quite fond of himself. That ebing said I don't understand why people would not want to read the book because they "don't like" Wolfram.
I recommend it to anyone really it got me thinking about some pretty interesting ideas. Just be open minded and treat it as a "creative tickler" and not a ridid new science :)
Does anyone have a JavaScript implementation of the paper? It looks like it would be really fun to play with in . Edit Quoth YouTube: "74 minutes on an nVidia GeForce GTX 460" ... maybe not so fun.
But you missed the most important part of that quote. >"(in Ready, Stephan's software at the sourceforge link above runs much faster)" So using Ready it took a long time, but the actual code is much faster. I'd imagine you could write something in CUDA that would run this (and only this, not something generalized like Ready) plenty fast to do real time rendering on a new system, especially considering a GTX 680 has a…
HTML5 gives you WebGL support, which allows you to compile and run GLSL shaders from JavaScript. For something that is heavily shader-oriented like this, it might be possible in the browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the Schrodinger equation isn't quite accurate then? Does the Dirac equation take this into effect?
You can think of modern physics as a bit like a cube: 1/3_____1/2/3 /| /| / | / | 1------1/2 | | 3____|__2/3 | / | / |/ | / 0-------2 0) At the bottom left corner you have "classical mechanics" - the theory that explains pendulums, bouncing balls and spinning bodies. It branches out along the three axes: 1) Add mutual gravitation, giving you the theory of Newtonian celestial mechanics (in which gravity acts instantan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can think of modern physics as a bit like a cube: 1/3_____1/2/3 /| /| / | / | 1------1/2 | | 3____|__2/3 | / | / |/ | / 0-------2 0) At the bottom left corner you have "classical mechanics" - the theory that explains pendulums, bouncing balls and spinning bodies. It branches out along the three axes: 1) Add mutual gravitation, giving you the theory of Newtonian celestial mechanics (in which gravity acts instantan…
Could you elaborate a bit on your point 1/3? How come the little interest in this subject? Even though it contains no relativistic effects it would seem to have some importance in filling out the complete 'cube' of theories?
I'm not an expert, but possible reasons for the relative lack of interest in these equations include:
1. It doesn't produce many interesting predictions (possible exception: it might be useful for explaining how gravitational effects can induce wavefunction collapse, but this appears to be highly speculative.)
2. There isn't a natural domain of applicability. For example, combining 1/2 (gravity and relativity) has a natural applicability to things that are heavy and move fast (i.e. stars, galaxies, the universe). Combining 2/3 (relativity and quantum mechanics) applies to things that are small and move fast (electrons and other fundamental particles). The domain of applicability of 1/3 would be things that are small and heavy, but move slowly. I can't think of any examples of things that fit the bill (note that 1/2/3 applies to things that are small, heavy and move quickly, i.e. black holes).
When I say "move quickly" here I don't necessarily mean that the object you're modelling must be moving quickly - just that there are speeds in the problem that are appreciable fractions of the speed of light.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%E2%80%93Newton...