New universe simulation supports Big Bang and theories of universal evolution

The most sophisticated, data-intensive and complex model of the Universe ever simulated produces results stunningly similar to what we actually see in the skies above us. The model simulates universal evolution according to current cosmological theories, starting with the Big Bang as currently understood and incorporating the effects of cosmic inflation, the Dark Ages, the emergence of dark matter and conventional matter, the era of black hole disruption, etc., etc. It produces a result that looks exactly like the real universe we observe today.

This correspondence strongly indicates — although it does not absolutely prove — that our current ideas about cosmology are correct. We understand how the universe evolved.

According to Dr Mark Vogelsberger of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who led the research, the simulations back many of the current theories of cosmology. 'Many of the simulated galaxies agree very well with the galaxies in the real Universe. It tells us that the basic understanding of how the Universe works must be correct and complete,' he said.

In particular, it backs the theory that dark matter is the scaffold on which the visible Universe is hanging. "If you don't include dark matter (in the simulation) it will not look like the real Universe," Dr Vogelsberger told BBC News. Source

Here's a picture for comparison purposes. Can you tell which shows the real universe, and which the simulation?


I wonder what the various constituencies of ATS will have to say about this. Well, I can mostly guess, but I'm still interested.

a reply to: Astyanax
Know what I think? Some dude programmed the simulation to support his theory. That is all.

What is dark matter? LOL

ETA: Why are there chicken feet on a plate? ROFL

a reply to: Astyanax

S&F!

At face value I can not tell the two side by side pictures apart ... however I'd like to suggest that the picture on the left is the simulation and the picture on the right is the picture of reality. (based purely on a gut instinct here)

If the boffins can simulate this then maybe they can simulate life's creation on this planet as I am sure it is in the same realm of complexity.

Should probably change your thread title. The simulation sheds light on cosmological evolution. To say it supports "Universal Evolution" would suggest that these models somehow shed light on biological evolution, which they don't.

As far as science is concerned, there is no evidence for how life itself appeared. Chemical soup hasn't been proven, and panspermia only pushes the question back further. This is not some sort of proof for "how everything evolved", but rather a model of how cosmological evolution evolved out from the big bang.

Two different things.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Astyanax
Know what I think? Some dude programmed the simulation to support his theory. That is all.

What is dark matter? LOL

ETA: Why are there chicken feet on a plate? ROFL

What if we just created a universe with that very simulation?

a reply to: Astyanax

If "many" meaning "not all" , agree " very well" meaning " not exactly"....

How does confirm their understanding?
It only "sorta kinda" confims it.

a reply to: muzzleflash

We trust 3d simulation for many important things like simulating aerodynamics instead of using a wind tunnel.

But ultimately it is but an abstraction. To rely totally on simulation is to miss the point of science, which is about testing it for oneself.

originally posted by: Astyanax

The model simulates universal evolution according to current cosmological theories...

If they used the theories in programming the simulation, then of course the simulation would come out looking like what the theories predict.

What they've created is essentially a really expensive screensaver.

And more positivist brow-beating.

Big Bang??? which big bang .At the moment there are a few of them .Only in theory

a reply to: the2ofusr1
good question

The problem with these simulations is that they will always be very high level simulations which simplify the underlying mechanics. To simulate every single atom in a single living cell with real physics, requires a computer 1000x more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer on Earth (I can find a source for that claim if anyone wants it). To simulate every particle in our observable universe would require an unfathomable amount of computing power. In fact, by the laws of thermodynamics, if we wanted to simulate our universe with 100% accuracy, it would require all the energy in our entire universe to do so, which is impossible. Of course you might be able to simulate small parts of the universe, but that will still take a tremendous amount of energy if you want to do it accurately.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not so hard to create a model which looks like the phenomena you're trying to simulate. Procedural video games can generate entire landscapes randomly, and it can appear to be very much like real life, but of course in real life our landscapes are created over millions of years and it involves many complex processes like wind and water erosion, tectonic plate shifts and earthquakes, etc. So even though the end result can look the same as our procedurally generated landscapes, the actual process behind their generation was entirely different and worked according to very different rules. These simulations are essentially the exact same thing, they are producing an end result which mimics nature, but the process they used to generate the simulation doesn't reflect how nature really works.

It is true every human was created from a Big Bang. Also everyone believes in the Cosmic Big Bang, you just need to allow me to twist your words enough to realize there's not really much any difference between apples and oranges. I compare them accurately.

Both are Fruits. They grow on Trees. Flowers.
Edible. Juicy. Seed bearing. Taste good. Staple Earth crop.
Roughly the same size/weight on average.

We can compare apples and oranges all day.
The actual difference is only few characteristics, while the similarities outnumber them greatly.

So, God and the Big Bang are pretty much the same hypothesis the main difference being the letters that spell the words.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

What if we just created a universe with that very simulation?

Well I don't think it's possible that way.
The materials used in the computer's construction remained stable and didn't "create new energy", did they?

Where is this "new universe" located physically? Does it have a weight or size?
See where I'm going with this?

Sorry I have no idea why I'm in this mood today.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Does it have a weight or size?

Photons does not exist according to your reasoning. where is your universe located physically? could not your mass, energy and all in the universe not being expressed as an mathematical formula? what is the difference of a model to your universe them.

I wonder if something inside a simulation, created by the simulation, would question the effects of the laws of nature it observe inside the simulation as real, after all its what define it. Its easier to say its fake when you can see it all from the outside, can you do the same with our universe?

a reply to: muzzleflash

So, God and the Big Bang are pretty much the same hypothesis the main difference being the letters that spell the words.

The main difference is that one happened entirely randomly and without cause due to a quantum fluctuation, the other was the intentional will of a conscious and intelligent being.

a reply to: Astyanax

From the bottom of the article,
"Cosmologist Dr Robin Catchpole of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, added a note of caution, however.

Although he hailed the simulation as "spectacular", he added, "one must not be taken in by the sheer visual beauty of the thing. You get things that look like galaxies without them being much to do with the physics of how galaxies emerged"."

I like this, simulations are always good but this is only showing how we can simulate the visual properties and when you look at the two pictures on the BBC as they are bigger, you can see the simulation straight away - it looks fuzzier, more blobby less formed. Good stuff tho!

a reply to: muzzleflash
i do not agree totally with this nonsense:

It is true every human was created from a Big Bang. Also everyone believes in the Cosmic Big Bang, you just need to allow me to twist your words enough to realize there's not really much any difference between apples and oranges. I compare them accuratel

i do not believe in Cosmic Big Bang, do You?
i dont think we are the same "frequency" even we are both humans...
so, thanks, but NO
and God? please, give me a break!

originally posted by: ZakOlongapo

i dont think we are the same "frequency" even we are both humans...

I have some links for you to look at that show we are pretty much the same "frequency":

Matter wave

Maybe this Yahoo Question can help too, the poster was asking if Matter has a Fundamental Frequency.

Yes, matter does have a frequency. It's found from Mc^2 = hf; so that f = Mc^2/h is the "fundamental frequency" where M = m/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) is relativistic inertia, m is rest mass (your matter), v is the speed of m, and c is light speed. h is Planck's Constant.

You can investigate and read the rest. Pretty heavy stuff.

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: muzzleflash

Does it have a weight or size?

Photons does not exist according to your reasoning.

I never said that.

But I'll say this : Law of Conservation of Mass

a reply to: muzzleflash

could you elaborate what you mean with that? do you know that has 0 relation to anything right? big bang = all was in a infinitesimal point and expanded from it. simulation = all in simulation was... (the same)

Where does they are creating energy when they defined it existed from time 0. do you know big bang don't cover anything before 0 or 0, it just explain the expansion after 0 right?