The cosmological supercomputer
October 3, 2012

The Bolshoi simulation models the evolution of dark matter, which is responsible for the large-scale structure of the universe. Here, snapshots from the simulation show the dark matter distribution at 500 million and 2.2 billion years [top] and 6 billion and 13.7 billion years [bottom] after the big bang. These images are 50-million-light-year-thick slices of a cube of simulated universe that today would measure roughly 1 billion light-years on a side and encompass about 100 galaxy clusters. (Credit: Simulation, Anatoly Klypin and Joel R. Primack; Visualization, Stefan Gottlöber/Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam)
When astronomers look out into the night sky with their most powerful telescopes, they can see no more than about 10 percent of the ordinary matter that’s out there.
To identify the hidden dark matter and dark energy, cosmologists need theoretical models of how the universe evolved and a way to test those models. Fortunately, thanks to progress in supercomputing, it’s now possible to simulate the entire evolution of the universe numerically.
My colleagues and I recently completed one such simulation, which we dubbed Bolshoi, the Russian word for “great” or “grand.” We started Bolshoi in a state that matched what the universe was like some 13.7 billion years ago, not long after the big bang, and simulated the evolution of dark matter and dark energy all the way up to the present day.
We did that using 14 000 central processing units (CPUs) on the Pleiades machine at NASA’s Ames Research Center, in Moffett Field, Calif., the space agency’s largest and fastest supercomputer.
To simulate the universe inside a computer, you have to know where to start. Fortunately, cosmologists have a pretty good idea of what the universe’s first moments were like. There’s good reason to believe that for an outrageously brief period — lasting far less than 10-30 second, a thousandth of a trillionth of a femtosecond — the universe ballooned exponentially, taking what were then minute quantum variations in the density of matter and energy and inflating them tremendously in size. According to this theory of “cosmic inflation,” tiny fluctuations in the distribution of dark matter eventually spawned all the galaxies.
It turns out that reconstructing the early growth phase of these fluctuations — up to about 30 million years after the big bang — demands nothing more than a laptop computer. That’s because the early universe was extremely uniform, the differences in density from place to place amounting to no more than a few thousandths of a percent.
Over time, gravity magnified these subtle density differences. Dark matter particles were attracted to one another, and regions with slightly higher density expanded more slowly than average, while regions of lower density expanded more rapidly. Astrophysicists can model the growth of density fluctuations at these early times easily enough using simple linear equations to approximate the relevant gravitational effects.
The Bolshoi simulation kicks in before the gravitational interactions in this increasingly lumpy universe start to show nonlinear effects.
Once the simulation began, every particle started to attract every other particle. With nearly 10 billion (1010) of them, that would have resulted in roughly 1020 interactions that needed to be evaluated at each time step. Performing that many calculations would have slowed our simulation to a crawl, so we took some computational shortcuts.
As Bolshoi ran, we logged the position and velocity of each of the 8.6 billion particles representing dark matter, producing 180 snapshots of the state of our simulated universe more or less evenly spaced in time. This small sampling still amounts to a lot of data — roughly 80 terabytes. All told, the Bolshoi simulation required 400 000 time steps and about 6 million CPU-hours to finish — the equivalent of about 18 days using 14 000 cores and 12 terabytes of RAM on the Pleiades supercomputer. But just as in observational astronomy, most of the hard work comes not in collecting mountains of data but in sorting through it all later.
As you might imagine, no one simulation can do everything. Each must make a trade-off between resolution and the overall size of the region to be modeled. The Bolshoi simulation was of intermediate size. It considered a cubic volume of space about 1 billion light-years on edge, which is only about 0.00005 percent of the volume of the visible universe. But it still produced a good 10 million halos — an ample number to evaluate the general evolution of galaxies.
One of the biggest hurdles going forward will be adapting to supercomputing’s changing landscape. The speed of individual microprocessor cores hasn’t increased significantly since 2004. Instead, today’s computers pack more cores on each chip and often supplement them with accelerators like graphics processing units. Writing efficient programs for such computer architectures is an ongoing challenge, as is handling the increasing amounts of data from astronomical simulations and observations.
Despite those difficulties, I have every reason to think that numerical experiments like Bolshoi will only continue to get better. With any luck, the toy universes I and other astrophysicists create will help us make better sense of what we see in our most powerful telescopes — and help answer some of the grandest questions we can ask about the universe we call our home.
Comments (29)
by Tom Loomis
To get the “0.00005% of the volume of the universe” calculate as follows: assume that the 1 billion ly figure is the diameter of a spherical volume of space that is used for the simulation, and assume that the 13.7 billion light-years figure is the radius of the (spherical again) observable universe. Then, doubling 13.7, you get 27.4 billion Light-years for the diameter of the spherical observable universe.
The ratio of the two volumes then is simply one over 13.7 cubed, or in other words, 4.8613×10 to the minus fifth, or approximately 5×10 to the minus fifth, i.e. about 0.00005 as written in the text of the article.
I rest my case.
by Editor
Your figure for the diameter of the observable universe is not supported by any citations I’m familiar with. Could you provide a citation?
by vaidy bala
How does these number matter except knowing the we can only see extended by technology, 5 % of the observable universe. While the 95 % black matter is constantly changing into the 5 %, what can we do about it on Earth?
How do we trust modeling as accurate, is it free from bias and technical flaws? I do not know the answers but questions, for sure !
by Elliot
“It considered a cubic volume of space about 1 billion light-years on edge, which is only about 0.00005 percent of the volume of the visible universe.”
I haven’t been able to read the rest of the article, because I’m unable to process this sentence.
by Allanx
It’s exactly as it said; the simulation only covered a volume of a cube one billion light years in height, width and depth, which is one two-millionths the volume of the observable universe.
In other words, in order for the simulation to cover the entire observable universe, it would have to be at least two million times more complex and take over 100,000 years to complete with current technology. Assuming that Moore’s Law holds, we’ll have the tech to do an actual simulation of the whole universe in a reasonable time frame by about 2032 or so. Huh, interesting. That also seems to coincide with my estimate for the year when we’d finally be able to simulate the human brain. It’s almost like the mind is a universe all its own, in computational terms.
by Editor
A light-year (distance that light travels in one year) is 9×10^15 meters (let’s round it off to 10^16). So a billion light years is 10^25 meters (16+9) and the cube (3×25) of that distance (10^75 cubic meters) is 0.00005 percent of the size of the visible universe (3×10^80 cubic meters).
by Bri
You see, this is where you lose me. I’m really bad at math, so please excuse my ignorance. If the survey is looking at a cube of space , one billion light years across, I think of it as a sugar cube. If the visible universe is twenty six light years across, then to me it would be 26 times 26 times26. That comes out to a little over fifteen and a half thousand, and so one cube would be one fifteen and a half thousanth the visible universe. I’m so confused. That’s a big difference.
by Bri
Let me rephrase that, since I’ve got the one plus one thing down. It’s my understanding that the visible universe is twenty six Billion light years across. If you turn that into a square also , it’s a square that’s twenty six billion light years on a side. If you count the number of square billion lightyears in that volume, it would be 17,576. So one square would be one 17,576 th of the whole.
by Editor
Not sure how to help. Not sure what your math background is. Do you understand exponential notation?
by Editor
The diameter of the observable (visible) universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), and your metrics are incomensurate (you’re mixing 1D, 2D, and 3D metrics together).
by Etched
The universe is nearly 14 billion years old. By definition we can not possibly see objects further away than 14 billion light years because the light has not had time to reach us. This means our particle horizon is 14 billion light years away giving the observable universe a diameter of 28 billion light years. Objects we presently see as being at the edge of our observable universe may now in fact be beyond that particle horizon of 14 billion light years as the expansion of the space between now accumulates faster than the light can traverse the new space (such objects are effectively moving faster than light in relation to us, they are red shifted down to invisibility. We will no longer see any emissions from them).
How did you get your figure of 93 billion light years for the diameter of the observable universe?
by Editor
The 93 billion light-years number is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe, which explains the paradox of the observable universe as larger than 28 billion light-years: because of expansion. The 93 is a consensus number; it ranges from 91.4 to 94 billion light-years in various sources, such as these: http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/edactivity1.html, and http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/edactivity1.html
by Bri
As far as I know that number refers to the actual size, not the observable size. It also varies quite a bit since there is no way to confirm. I’ve users of it as being closer to 54 billion, but I’ll accept 94 billion. Until we understand the development of the observable, it’s really just an educated guess, how far the actual goes. Heh, it just means more chances for super intelligent life!
by Bri
Too early and in too much of a rush to express clearly. Hubble can only observe about 13 bly. It’s been on a tread mill of expanding space, so it’s actually closer to 45bly. So did this study use a reduced observable 1bly or what we see in Hubble like telescopes. If they used a unit of space that we observe with those telescopes, then it would still be in relation to the 26bly. Otherwise they would have had to start with a mere couple of hundred million light years on a side, to account for the actual expansion. Since what we see is not the actual distance, then there would be less of a chance for SETI to reach a civilization and less likely for it to send something back.
by Editor
“that number refers to the actual size” Nope, we can only see a tiny part of the universe. See http://www.kurzweilai.net/cosmos-at-least-250x-bigger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists
by Editor
“I’ve [seen] it as being closer to 54 billion”: bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong again.
by Marcos Marin
The Russian word for ‘great’ sounds a lot like an English word ending in ‘T’.
Its non dynamical resolution implies garbage out no matter what you put in, no amount of memoization will save you from wrong results, it will only get you there faster.
For those who dont get 1+1 but nevertheless beg for specifics, here is a somewhat disconcerting incoherence: “distribution at 500 million” + “It considered a cubic volume of space about 1 billion light-years on edge” = 3
by Mike Archbold
It seems fine to say the universe expanded suddenly, but the question is: expanded into what? There had to have been some property already in place which allowed expansion ~into it~. If you don’t account for this it seems like you have your foot only halfway into a theory’s door.
by Bri
That’s the sixty four thousand dollar question. What was there for it to expand into. I say you can keep asking that question an infinite number of times. That it came from an infinitely subdividable space and expanded into an infinite space.
by Marcos Marin
where do I collect?
by Vin
Musing aloud coz I like your question :D, Maybe the universe generates the property that allows more expansion before or as it expands. And if the ability to do that increases with the amount of expansion achieved, it would end up being an exponential process? I think the computer people would call it a bootstrap.
by Gabor
Yes, we have reached the speed limit. Now it’s time to work towards…say a 100GC (for GigaCores). That would be a human on a chip… only better. ;)
by Craig
I am pretty sure Moore’s Law had to do with doubling the number of transistors on a chip not clock speed.
by Editor
Right, density, not speed. Clock speed has generally maxed out. Thus the move to multiple cores to increase performance.
by Gorden Russell
“The speed of individual microprocessor cores hasn’t increased significantly since 2004.”
Can this be true? What about Moore’s Law?
by Bri
Yup! That’s why they don’t advertise the CPU speed anymore. It’s been talked about for some time now. That’s why some of the articles here, about alternate materials and atomic processors have been so important. The extenuation of Moores law into another medium will achieve the desired increases in processing power. I think Ray mentioned this gap coming up in SN. Carbon and graphene are likely candidates for some of the next generation processors.
by Bri
What??? No waiting approval??? I’m disappointed!!!! LOL!!!!
by Marcos Marin
Why should you get it? You are immaculate, remember?
by Marcos Marin
Weren’t YOU the expert? Mwahahaha
Don’t laugh, it will happen ;-)