For the First Time, We Have a Detailed Model of the Universe

Atlantic ^ | May 8 2014, | Megan Garber

[lbryce]

It is, if you except the powers of human memory, the closest thing we have to a time machine.

Scientists have created the first realistic model of the universe, capable of recreating 13 billion years of cosmic evolution. The simulation is called “Illustris,” and it renders the universe as a cube (350 million light-years on each side) with, its creators say, unprecedented resolution: The virtual universe uses 12 billion 3-D “pixels,” or resolution elements, to create its rendering. And that rendering includes both normal matter and dark matter.

The rendering, importantly, also includes elliptical and spiral galaxies—bodies that, because of numerical inaccuracies and incomplete physical models, we'd been unable to see with such detail in previous simulations of the universe. It also does a better job than previous renderings of modeling the feedback from star formation, supernova explosions, and supermassive black holes.

YouTube:Illustris Simulation: Most detailed simulation of our Universe

[lbryce]

It would be a much more appreciated as a tool in which to actually navigate the vast, infinite oceans of cosmic time/space.

[lbryce]

Warp Drive Map of the Universe Ping

[Zeneta]

What is “Dark Matter/Energy” ?

Why is it called “Dark” ?

Can they create this model without it ?

[Dalberg-Acton]

"We Have a Detailed Model of the Universe"

No we don't.

[driftdiver]

Yes, but can you get it folded back up after using it.

[null and void]

ping

[mosaicwolf]

Nicely done illusion. Just like the illusion we perceive.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Tis ‘dark’ because we cannot observei it.

[Cboldt]

Dark Matter gets that name because its interactions appear to be limited to gravity, and so far, no lab experiment has observed any of this "stuff." The supposed function of dark matter is to explain why galaxies appear to rotate as a unit. Our solar system, in contrast, has slower moving planets in the more distant orbits.

Dark Energy gets that name for a similar reason, no observation of it. It is invoked to explain why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.

[Zeneta]

Can they create this model without it ?

BTW, all my questions are rhetorical.

[Mariner]

"It would be a much more appreciated as a tool in which to actually navigate the vast, infinite oceans of cosmic time/space. "

Maybe we should figure out how to travel such distance first.

According to Einstein's Relativity models nothing can travel faster than light.

Quantum Physics has show "effect" on one body from another at faster speeds but has not shown the movement of matter/mass any faster.

That I know of, and I know jack.

[circlecity]

"What is “Dark Matter/Energy” ?"

They are phrases used to avoid the fact that the standard cosmological models don't conform to the actual data.

[Mariner]

"why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating"

Yep, we're just one big explosion that hasn't stopped yet. Still in the momentum phase, but can that ever stop in infinite space?

[Carl Vehse]

driftdiver @5: "Yes, but can you get it folded back up after using it."

Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics: Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can.

[circlecity]

"Yep, we're just one big explosion that hasn't stopped yet. Still in the momentum phase, but can that ever stop in infinite space?"

Not just momentum, the expansion is accelerating and at an exponential rate

[JDoutrider]

Bookmark

[Cboldt]

The model doesn't work without those fudge factors, at least the dark matter one.

There are other ways to get to a similar result. I'm poking around in www.ipod.org.uk/reality/, web pages of Andrew Thomas (author of a series of books titled "Hidden in Plain Sight"), recalling that he created a model that supposedly does similar, by making a modification to the law of gravity. The modification only works on objects that are massive compared with their volume (black holes; galaxies).

I can't find it in a google search, would have to find the reference in the book - anyway, Dr. Thomas posits no big bang, but a sort of "big pushout," and that everything strives for a surface area commensurate with its mass. For a black hole, that area is the event horizon.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article lbryce. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

I like science and am intrigued with the information presented by this thread. But my basic reservation about the referenced computer model of the universe is the following. Since computer models don't agree on things like climate predictions, I'd be careful about putting too much faith into the computerized model of the universe.

FR: Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: ‘the day of reckoning has arrived’

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following. Political activists are successfully exploiting the tendency of us humans to unquestioningly accept anything that computers are programmed (ahem) to tell us as the gospel truth.

[Cboldt]

The prevailing physics says space isn’t infinite. That concept is difficult to take in, because we are biased to think of a big bang as happening in space; and to think that space (and time) exist independently of the universe.

[Zeneta]

Thanks for the links.

An honest question;

Can the Universe exist without expansion ?

I’m not prepared to support a “Steady State” model, however there was recently some data that may call into question the expansion model.