Maybe it's naive for me. Every time we talk about a simulation, we got an accurate model and we have some model validation to run our model. The next big question is, okay, what can we do with those models? If we can do CFD simulations, we can use that tools to build fast car, to build efficient SpaceX rocket to reduce the cost, but in terms of this cosmology galaxy formation, what can we do with this model?
One simple idea for me is to, okay, is there any significant difference from a large-scale model with at the galax scale and the model we have, let's say, simulating a von Karman vertices because both of them are showing very similar structure. Yes, that's an idea of comparison.
The model in question is physics laws and values for parameters therein, including evolving parameters. The purpose of running the simulation is to produce a state that matches cosmological observations: e.g. are stars indeed forming galaxies, are those galaxies distributed as we see (like the films in a foam)? The simulation thus (in)validates basic assumptions of the model. The model in turn can generate features that can be clues to what to look for in cosmological observations: are planets for more proliferated than we've seen so far and should we really spend money on the MostBiggestTelescope to observe them? Even better: can we derive the parameters for the telescope that can definitively confirm or rule out their existence? If we found good agreement on parameters, what does the early universe look like in the model? The future universe?
The answer to your first question is more philosophical, and I think outside the scope of what I am able to reply to here.
But for the second, I think while there are similarities, the details are awfully important for galaxy formation simulations. That being said, there have been comparisons between large scale structure and things like slime molds [1], but beyond techniques we do not expect identicality to the level of precision that is the current state of the art.
With anything cosmological, what we can do is make predictions, and find interesting things the universe does when our predictions fail. Those failures often cascade back into practical outcomes here on earth.
Think of generations of scientists observing orbits, painstakingly recording their measurements by hand, building books of tables, until finally someone was able to put it all together into a comprehensive theory that gave us the ability to predict the effects of gravity.
If we build what's supposed to be a valid model of a galaxy, but we look out and a galaxy we see violates what we expect, we have an interesting place to explore.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Cosmological models are used to study cosmology, no more no less. They modelise the physics of the universe as much as we can understand it, and are used with observations.
I was thinking about a use case for this device. First thing, it's about water resistance. Is this waterproof? So I'm thinking about its relation to, let's say, a smart glass you have. I mean, they both can take a picture on camera. They can both understand your voice. You can use it as a microphone. So what's the thing that a smart glass is not able to provide?
Current smart glasses (like those AR glases from Meta) doesn't provide any screen output. Also not everyone want to wear glasses (and many that do need prefer contact lenses).
But I agree with your point that some combination of Apple Watch, AirPods, Meta AR could provide a better experience and probably future AR glasses will have better display technologies.
I wish though pico projectors got more maintstream in devices such as laptops, tablets - there could be many useful applications for indie devs.
Well, it looks like something, but if you're not talking to me that it's water, I can not say. I just have a strange feeling about it. It's not water, it's something different. I don't know why, maybe it's the way you visualize, or maybe it's just the two-dimensional nature of the simulation. Or maybe it's the reflection, maybe it's the post-processing procedure. We don't have some ray tracing, we don't have those normal calculations, reflection index, all those crazy stuff.
It really depends on what data you're processing with. For someone whose data is hundreds of tetrabytes, the workflow to saving those data and manipulating or retrieving those data as request becomes very tricky, very hard task, especially when you think about the backup time. Maybe you can scale down the concept of L1, L2, L3 cache but at a higher, bigger scale. And always figure out what's the most important things to you at different stages and make those choices. You definitely compromise something in order to have large scale of data. So, again, it's about figuring out what's most important to you.
I do see your point and it is true that every product is going to be more mature, more complete for the later publication. But things of a first generation product like this is going to be a huge risk for a lot of people. But the things I want to talk to myself is probably if I can pick up one thing or maybe one or two things that this device can solve that probably doesn't have a good solution in the market, then just go for it. And if it is affordable, then go definitely do it. The upside of doing this is you cannot change your workflow in the early stages. So if you consider the time you put into that product in this new workflow, the things or the productivity you gain from this early experiment is going to be more productive. But gain, it's a risk.
Yeah I think first generations of apple products are for the curious, the rich, and the engineer seeking to build the next generation of apps on their new platform. I never look at them as “a good deal,” or a mature product. I think that’s foolish for any 1.0 of anything. Generally 3.0 is where maturity begins, and 5.0 is where incrementalism starts.
I see the pattern is that C is complained by most of people. And there is another type of programming that is that, which people never talk about. So just by talking about, regardless it's positive or negative, there is a tension in there and it's expectation, it's our will to kind of devices or this technology came into being. So eventually it will become part of our life and I hope that day comes sooner and this company will not disappoint us.
One simple idea for me is to, okay, is there any significant difference from a large-scale model with at the galax scale and the model we have, let's say, simulating a von Karman vertices because both of them are showing very similar structure. Yes, that's an idea of comparison.