Comments on: The cosmological supercomputer http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer Accelerating Intelligence Thu, 23 May 2013 21:58:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-43449 Editor Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:36:35 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-43449 Your figure for the diameter of the observable universe is not supported by any citations I'm familiar with. Could you provide a citation? 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: Tom Loomis http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-43402 Tom Loomis Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:15:29 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-43402 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. 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: vaidy bala http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38636 vaidy bala Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:10:41 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38636 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 ! 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: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38542 Editor Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:47:33 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38542 "I’ve [seen] it as being closer to 54 billion": bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong again. “I’ve [seen] it as being closer to 54 billion”: bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong again.

]]> By: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38537 Editor Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:45:05 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38537 "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 “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: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38492 Bri Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:44:43 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38492 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. 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: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38465 Bri Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:43:10 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38465 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! 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: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38344 Editor Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:24:38 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38344 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 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: Etched http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38167 Etched Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:59:05 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38167 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? 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 http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38124 Editor Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:36:36 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38124 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). 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: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38100 Editor Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:40:30 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38100 Not sure how to help. Not sure what your math background is. Do you understand exponential notation? Not sure how to help. Not sure what your math background is. Do you understand exponential notation?

]]> By: Marcos Marin http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38086 Marcos Marin Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:41:05 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38086 where do I collect? where do I collect?

]]> By: Vin http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38057 Vin Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:38:09 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38057 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. 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: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38054 Bri Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:27:53 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38054 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. 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: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38052 Bri Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:15:12 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38052 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. 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: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38042 Bri Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:05:19 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38042 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. 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: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38015 Editor Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:50:22 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38015 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 (3x25) of that distance (10^75 cubic meters) is 0.00005 percent of the size of the visible universe (3x10^80 cubic meters). 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: Allanx http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-38012 Allanx Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:26:14 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-38012 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. 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: Elliot http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37937 Elliot Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:05:01 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37937 "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. “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: Marcos Marin http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37824 Marcos Marin Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:23:03 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37824 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 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 http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37814 Mike Archbold Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:09:44 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37814 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. 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: Gabor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37674 Gabor Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:27:27 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37674 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. ;) 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: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37641 Editor Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:50:38 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37641 Right, density, not speed. Clock speed has generally maxed out. Thus the move to multiple cores to increase performance. Right, density, not speed. Clock speed has generally maxed out. Thus the move to multiple cores to increase performance.

]]> By: Marcos Marin http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37631 Marcos Marin Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:39:06 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37631 Why should you get it? You are immaculate, remember? Why should you get it? You are immaculate, remember?

]]> By: Marcos Marin http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37627 Marcos Marin Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:35:26 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37627 Weren't YOU the expert? Mwahahaha Don't laugh, it will happen ;-) Weren’t YOU the expert? Mwahahaha

Don’t laugh, it will happen ;-)

]]> By: Craig http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37626 Craig Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:35:24 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37626 I am pretty sure Moore's Law had to do with doubling the number of transistors on a chip not clock speed. I am pretty sure Moore’s Law had to do with doubling the number of transistors on a chip not clock speed.

]]> By: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37581 Bri Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:03:01 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37581 What??? No waiting approval??? I'm disappointed!!!! LOL!!!! What??? No waiting approval??? I’m disappointed!!!! LOL!!!!

]]> By: Bri http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37579 Bri Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:59:41 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37579 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. 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: Gorden Russell http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-cosmological-supercomputer/comment-page-1#comment-37564 Gorden Russell Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:33:02 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=165764#comment-37564 "The speed of individual microprocessor cores hasn’t increased significantly since 2004." Can this be true? What about Moore's Law? “The speed of individual microprocessor cores hasn’t increased significantly since 2004.”

Can this be true? What about Moore’s Law?

]]>