Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: How exascale computers can verify the universe
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.science20.com/mark_pierce/ho...rse-255717

EXCERPT: . . . the National Academy of Sciences notes, the future of computing may be in exascale computers, with the capability of doing one quintillion operations per second. The US Department of Energy's exascale computing project intends to use exascale computing to verify the reality of nature that we see around us. [...] By using Hybrid Accelerated Cosmology Code (HACC) and adaptive mesh refinement cosmology code (Nyx) on GPU-accelerated hardware, the assumption is that we can simulate reality. Doing so allows us to see the underlying forces of nature that shape the world around us in action and trace the universe back to its starting point.

The team tasked with investigating the nature of the universe using these exascale computers is known as ExaSky. Their mandate is to figure out what exactly is causing the universe to expand at such a rate. The expansion of the universe is nothing new. [...] The thing that Hubble (and generations of scientists since him) failed to account for was the force causing this expansion. If you ask any scientist in the field today, they'll probably tell you that "dark energy" causes that expansion, but the truth is that no one knows what this "dark energy" is. Cosmology has advanced from its early days, but this particular point of contention remains...

[...] Simulations through an exascale computer would allow us to examine many things we assume about the universe's birth and early life. The density of energy within the universe tends to increase as one goes back in time. Using this basic premise, scientists can examine the fundamental properties of particles, such as the mass of a neutrino. However, ExaSky isn't limited to simply looking at the fundamental formation of primary particles in the universe. They might even be able to pin down one of the most elusive things that physics has wondered about for years - the nature of dark matter and the primordial fluctuations within the background radiation left over from the formation of the universe. This information has the potential to unlock many doors about the nature of the universe and its composition.

[...] The ExaSky team has progressed quite well in the time they've been at this project. ... The team's latest advancements include incorporating gas physics and subgrid models inside its code... (MORE - missing details)
Will these computers eliminate the lie and will there be more truth? They should be able to tell BS from fact, no?
(Oct 19, 2021 01:35 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Will these computers eliminate the lie and will there be more truth? They should be able to tell BS from fact, no?

I have doubts that the "real-world" data they configure it with will be accurate or complete enough to literally simulate either the progress of this universe or its regress to the beginning. Probably more like imitating parallel versions of it. OTOH, like computer weather forecasts, the results could still be in the useful neighborhood and suggest hypothetical discoveries and explanations about this one that could be tested other ways.
(Oct 19, 2021 03:26 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]
(Oct 19, 2021 01:35 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Will these computers eliminate the lie and will there be more truth? They should be able to tell BS from fact, no?

I have doubts that the "real-world" data they configure it with will be accurate or complete enough to literally simulate either the progress of this universe or its regress to the beginning. Probably more like imitating parallel versions of it. OTOH, like computer weather forecasts, the results could still be in the useful neighborhood and suggest hypothetical discoveries and explanations about this one that could be tested other ways.

Isn’t it all about probabilities? Machines that can operate intelligently and quickly should be able to rank the chances of one event happening over the other, eventually coming up with a ‘most likely’. That should change the focus for cosmologists I would think. Concentrate collecting data on the most worthy and go from there.