Can we simulate the Universe?

Daniel and Kelly talk about what a recent simulation project can tell us about how the Universe got so clumpy. See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Daniel Whiteson?

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.

• 0:05Speaker 01

  If you're a custodial supervisor at a local high school, you know that cleanliness is key and that the best place to get cleaning supplies is from Granger. Granger helps you stay fully stocked on the products you trust, from paper towels and disinfectants to floor scrubbers. Plus, you can rely on Granger for easy reordering, so you never run out of what you need. Call 1-800-GRANGER, click Granger.com, or just stop by. Granger, for the ones who get it done.

• 0:34Speaker 02

  Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities, and drive growth. Chase for Business helps business owners like you with personalized guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place. With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business further and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com/business. Chase for Business, make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase and Company.

• 1:16Speaker 03

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, meeting some of today's coolest and most fascinating artists. We'll explore the stories before the moments that changed everything. Because every musician remembers the moment where it all began. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln Original Series, on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:48Speaker 04

  Are you looking for support in your weight management journey? Zepbound Terzepatide may be able to help. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with obesity, or some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to lose excess body weight and keep the weight off. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15-milligram injection. Zepbound contains terzepatide and should not be used with other terzepatide-containing products or any GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles.

• 2:30Speaker 04

  Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer, or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop Zepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills. Taking Zepbound with a sulphonal urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor.

• 3:11Speaker 04

  Call 1-800-545-5979, or visit zepbound.lily.com.

• 3:17Daniel Whiteson?

  How did the universe get this way? It's got all these beautiful stars and galaxies and quasars and flamingos and bicycles. Why is it this way and not some other way? Do we understand that? How could we possibly explore that question without seeing it happen in real time or making universe-sized experiments? That's where the simulation comes in. Computers these days can do your homework and read your emails, but they can also answer tough science questions like, why is the universe this clumpy?

• 4:00Daniel Whiteson?

  Why doesn't it have more stars or more flamingos? Today, we'll dig into how to study the universe on a computer. And yes, of course, we'll talk about whether our universe is someone else's homework problem. Welcome to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary, maybe simulated, universe.

• 4:20Kelly Weinersmith?

  Hello, I'm Kelly Wiener-Smith. I study parasites and space, and I sometimes wonder if we live in a simulation, only because of the kinds of nerds I hang out with.

• 4:43Daniel Whiteson?

  Do you ever wonder if the flamingos are simulated?

• 4:48Kelly Weinersmith?

  Whoa, I hope they are. Actually, I hope they're robots, you know, collecting data on us. Nobody would suspect it.

• 4:54Daniel Whiteson?

  Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, and I write books about aliens, and I make heavy, heavy use of simulations in my science.

• 5:02Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, I have done some simulations for my work as well. But my question for you, Daniel, is if tomorrow you received incontrovert-- oh, good word, incontrovertible.

• 5:14Daniel Whiteson?

  Inspellable.

• 5:16Kelly Weinersmith?

  If you found out you definitely live in a simulation, 100%, what would you change about your life?

• 5:24Daniel Whiteson?

  Wow. Am I given access to the source code so I can change? Or is it just the kind of changes one could normally make, like eat a sundae every day?

• 5:32Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yes, that kind of thing.

• 5:33Daniel Whiteson?

  All right, so I don't get godlike powers in this question, Kelly?

• 5:37Kelly Weinersmith?

  Nope, nope, sorry. You'd kill us all. You'd bring the aliens and you'd trade us all for parts.

• 5:44Daniel Whiteson?

  That's true. No, if I had access to the source code, I wouldn't need the aliens. I'd have the source code. But it's a good question. You know, if I'm limited to living in this universe anyway with its rules, then I guess I would probably make a lot of the same decisions I make. But really, your question is like, yeah, but you're always saying if you understood the context of our lives, it could change how you live your life. And I'm always saying that, which is true. So if I got a big update on the context of our lives, would that make me change how I lived it? I don't think so. I think I live anyway with the uncertainty of, are the people around me actually real? Do they have a first-person experience? Or are they philosophical zombies?

• 6:26Daniel Whiteson?

  And I don't think the answer matters to me, because I feel like I love them and I feel their pain and their joy, and that matters to me, even if they're philosophical zombies or real flesh and blood creatures or simulation artifacts.

• 6:41Kelly Weinersmith?

  All right.

• 6:42Daniel Whiteson?

  How's that for an answer?

• 6:43Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah, no, that's a good answer. I also revealed that you think about stuff like this often, it sounds like. I don't. I'm just like, I'm doing what I need to do. Here's my to-do list. I gotta get through it, simulation or not. I want to get this stuff done. I don't know.

• 6:59Daniel Whiteson?

  I think you are, you just don't realize it. Like, aren't you always thinking about, like, what are my goats feeling? Do they want to be crushed or not want to be crushed?

• 7:06Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, no. Back to that. But does that-- would that matter? I guess I'm not thinking, is their pain real, or are we all just source code? I'm thinking, this is a real universe that I live in, and there are decisions I need to make that will, you know, determine whether or not I look back at the end of my life and think, did I live a good life or not? But I never think, you know, the source code is making these decisions or something.

• 7:34Daniel Whiteson?

  All right, well, if you found out that your goats were just source code, would you treat them differently?

• 7:40Kelly Weinersmith?

  No.

• 7:41Daniel Whiteson?

  No? All right.

• 7:43Kelly Weinersmith?

  No, it's a really good simulation. I'm-- I think I might enjoy life less if I knew that. So I think I'd be like, all right, take that information away from me if you can. I'm just gonna keep going on and enjoying doing what I'm doing, because I can't get out of this simulation, and so I'm just, I'm moving forward.

• 7:59Daniel Whiteson?

  All right, well, today in the episode, we're not just talking about simulating Kelly's goats, and we're not talking about simulating particles of the Large Hadron Collider. We're talking about simulating the whole universe. Can we, in fact, describe the whole universe? Why would anybody ever want to? What can we learn from it? How close are we to being able to do this? And this question is not just something Daniel sits around and thinks about while not smoking banana peels, while Kelly is blissfully free of these philosophical questions.

• 8:31Kelly Weinersmith?

  I think we've discovered that I'm not as philosophically curious as you are. This isn't a good thing, but the good thing is that if we do live in a simulation, we live in a simulation filled with curious listeners who share their thoughts and hopes and dreams and questions with us.

• 8:48Daniel Whiteson?

  That's true. And in real or simulated Ann Arbor is Joe, who sent me this question about a recent universe simulation advance. Here's the question from Joe.

• 8:59Speaker 06

  Hi, Daniel and Kelly, but unfortunately, mostly Daniel. This is Joe from Ann Arbor, and I wanted to know more about the flamingo project done by the Virgo Consortium. They apparently used some wild amount of computing power to simulate the evolution of the universe, and it includes both gravitation and hydrodynamics. Apparently, there are some results about clumpiness that I can help answer, but nothing went on to enough detail to satisfy my curiosity. Could you help?

• 9:30Daniel Whiteson?

  So Joe was talking about a really exciting new result hilariously called Flamingo, and another example of tortured science acronyms.

• 9:38Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, no, it's an acronym? I didn't realize that from the outline. You're gonna have to tell me what the acronym stands for when we get to it, but congratulations, physicists.

• 9:48Daniel Whiteson?

  I know. They call the flamingo has nothing to do with flamingos.

• 9:52Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, I thought surely there was, the universe is pink, there was gonna be something in there.

• 9:57Daniel Whiteson?

  And, you know, I reached out to our listeners to ask them about simulating the universe, and I thought about including flamingo in the question, but I was pretty sure it was just gonna lead them all astray, because the science actually has nothing to do with pink birds that eat shrimp.

• 10:12Kelly Weinersmith?

  And they trust us, so we shouldn't lead them astray.

• 10:14Daniel Whiteson?

  That's right, yes. Instead, I asked folks the question behind the question, which is, can we simulate the whole universe? Think about it for a minute, and if you would like to add your voice to this chorus of curious contributors, we would love to have you please write to us two questions at danielandkelly.org, and you'll get a bunch of weird questions in your inbox that you can either respond to or not, up to you. In the meantime, think about it for yourself for a minute. Do you think it's possible to simulate the whole universe? Here's what our clever listeners had to say.

• 10:49Speaker 07

  I guess the question is, how good do you want the simulation to be?

• 10:55Daniel Whiteson?

  I strongly doubt that we can actually simulate the entire universe with any medium smaller than a universe. Yes, I think it would be possible with a supercomputer.

• 11:07Speaker 03

  Could any advanced civilization simulate the universe? Then maybe yes, maybe we do live in a simulated universe. One, we don't even know what the whole universe is. Two, starting conditions, we've got-- Got to jump in at some point and to, you know, get the simulation right. And three, this is just too much, too much. We would need to simulate the simulation that we are running. So it will be an endless recursion. Things have to be less complicated in the simulation than they are in reality. It would be something like Space Engine, the game. No, we can't simulate the whole universe because we don't know anything about most of the universe.

• 11:45Speaker 04

  Probably not with the technology humans have right now.

• 11:49Kelly Weinersmith?

  Well, the listeners' gut reaction pretty much agrees. I was gonna say pretty much agrees with mine, but then someone said yes on a supercomputer. And I, I am not convinced that we have the computing power to simulate the entire universe, but maybe, maybe the question is like, on what level? Like, are you just simulating the movement of some planets? Is that what you mean? Or are we talking about like down to the level of atoms? Cause that sounds nuts.

• 12:15Daniel Whiteson?

  Even on a supercomputer? What about a super duper computer?

• 12:18Kelly Weinersmith?

  Whoa, whoa. I don't, I don't know. Do we have super duper computers yet? How far out is that technology, Daniel?

• 12:27Daniel Whiteson?

  I don't know, but now I want to write a grant proposal and use that phrase.

• 12:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  I would fund that grant, no doubt.

• 12:36Daniel Whiteson?

  Or maybe, you know, hyper computers. What other prefix is gonna be added?

• 12:39Kelly Weinersmith?

  Hyper super duper, hyper super duper fragileistic.

• 12:47Daniel Whiteson?

  Queen of the Latin names. I thought you were gonna go with something more scientific sounding, but I like that.

• 12:52Kelly Weinersmith?

  No, no, I'm having fun this morning. So let's, let's start by talking about what is a simulation? We've talked about this before, but I think, yeah, let's do like a brief explanation of what a simulation is. And then dig into like, what level of detail is really being asked for in this question?

• 13:07Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, I think that's a good idea because you already raised a lot of the issues that we need to tackle. You know, how much do you need to simulate? Why do you do it? Et cetera, et cetera. So what is a simulation? It's some kind of program run on a computer that uses usually step by step methods to describe the approximate, very keyword, approximate behavior of a mathematical model, which resembles a physical system.

• 13:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay.

• 13:34Daniel Whiteson?

  So let's say, for example, you want to describe a ball getting thrown across your backyard and you want to know where it's gonna land. You know, and so you can change the velocity or change the angle and you want to know where is this ball gonna go? Is it gonna go into my friend's hand or am I gonna miss them or something? So the first thing you can do is say, well, I'm gonna make it very, very simple. You know, there's just gravity and there's just the ball and there's no air resistance or anything. And which case you can just calculate it. You can use Newton's laws. You can say F equals ma. It's a very simple problem. Boom. You can do it in one step. You can do it on a computer. You can also just do it on pencil and paper. Either way, it's still technically a simulation because you've taken your physical system, the ball and the backyard, and you described it with a mathematical model, right?

• 14:19Daniel Whiteson?

  You said, there's mass, there's gravity, there's a few components. Here's how they interact. There are rules for how things happen. And then you've used your mathematical model to make a prediction about the actual physical system, the thing in your backyard. So the mathematical model is the simulation of the thing in your backyard. And if everything is very, very simple, the model can be very, very simple. Good so far?

• 14:41Kelly Weinersmith?

  We are.

• 14:41Daniel Whiteson?

  All right. So maybe you say, well, but it gets it wrong. It doesn't exactly drop where I predict. You think, well, that's probably because my simulation is too simple. I'm assuming there's no air resistance, that there's no wind, that this is a very simple problem. And so if I want a more accurate answer, then I add more to my simulation. And some people might not. They say, I'm fine with this answer. This is all I need. And already we've learned something crucial, which is how much detail you add, how much accuracy you have depends on the question you're asking. Right? And if you are asking a question that doesn't need to be very, very precise, then you're done. You don't need to add bells and whistles and simulate everything in great detail. But if somebody really wants a super precise description for whatever reason, then they gotta add more.

• 15:27Daniel Whiteson?

  And in physics, we're always playing this game. We're saying, what's the simplest useful model? Because adding more costs resources and brain power and everything. So let's say you needed more, right? You wanted to also include air resistance. Well, you can add that to Newton's laws and you can make that work. And you have a more complicated equation to solve, but you can still get it to work. But what if you want to also add like the pattern of wind across your backyard? And you set up a bunch of sensors to measure like exactly what is the flow of wind across my backyard? And you measure this in great detail and you want to incorporate that into your model. Well, now you don't have a simple equation anymore, but you can still solve something. You can say, well, I'm gonna move the ball one centimeter at a time and I'm gonna count for the wind at that location.

• 16:12Daniel Whiteson?

  I'm gonna let it push. And so I don't have a single equation that's gonna describe what happens to the ball across the whole backyard. But I can slice it in time and solve an approximate version of it each step. And I can measure where the ball goes and I can correct it. Now I have a very elaborate, very complicated simulation of something pretty simple, just throwing a ball across your backyard. And so all of those are simulations, but they're at varying levels of fidelity, right? The model becomes more and more accurate, becomes closer and closer to the physical system. And so its answers are more precise.

• 16:46Kelly Weinersmith?

  Got it. And is every mathematical model a simulation?

• 16:51Daniel Whiteson?

  I think a simulation is using the mathematical model to make a prediction. And that can be on a computer, but it can also be a physical system itself, right? Like you can build a little model, like a physical model of like how water flows in a river. You can make a miniature version of it and you can pour water into it and see what happens, right? That's a simulation. Like you can simulate the Hoover Dam, you know, with a small version of it before you build it to see like, hmm, have I misunderstood anything? Is there anything I'm missing, right? And so you can use the universe to simulate other parts of the universe. Or you can do it on a computer, or you can do it on pencil and paper, which is how they used to do it. Like in the beginning, when they were trying to predict the weather, it was like a whole bunch of calculations, pencil and paper.

• 17:36Daniel Whiteson?

  And to predict the weather six hours in advance took like six weeks.

• 17:40Kelly Weinersmith?

  Which is not helpful anymore. And folks should check out the amazing weather episode that you did to see how we ended up getting a lot better at that.

• 17:47Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah. And there's other examples, like sometimes we want to understand what happens in black holes. There's certain relationships between what happens around a black hole and what happens in certain fluids that are spinning really, really fast. And so, for example, people have made like sonic black holes as an analog of black holes in order to try to understand black holes. They're not actual black holes you've built in the laboratory, not yet, unfortunately.

• 18:12Kelly Weinersmith?

  Unfortunately. Oh my gosh, Daniel. You are looking for ways to kill us.

• 18:18Daniel Whiteson?

  No, we just want to learn about the universe, you know?

• 18:21Kelly Weinersmith?

  Humans be darned. I will learn about the universe.

• 18:23Daniel Whiteson?

  Consequences irrelevant, but you can build something which has a mathematical relationship. Like if the mathematics of your fluids and sound waves are similar to the mathematics of general relativity, then by building this system, you can learn something about black holes as described by general relativity. So you're always making this analogy. You're saying, I want to learn about X. I'm gonna build system Y, which is similar to it in the ways that's important to me. But you're never gonna get all the details right. Even if you describe the air molecules in your backyard, there's still something you don't know. There's uncertainty in the measurements of those things. You're making assumptions about how you move your simulation forward in time. There's always gonna be some imprecision. You can never get everything exactly right.

• 19:05Daniel Whiteson?

  But often you don't have to, because you're asking a science question. You're not just like, I must describe the universe at the most granular level. People don't simulate just to simulate. People simulate to answer questions like, how much dark matter do we need in the universe? Or how important is air resistance to throwing a ball? Or can I build this dam or will it collapse? Or what happens if I throw a goat into a black hole, right? People have a science question they want an answer to and they use simulation to answer that question.

• 19:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  No, no spaghetti my goats.

• 19:38Daniel Whiteson?

  Goats like spaghetti, Kelly. That's what I hear.

• 19:40Kelly Weinersmith?

  Do they? Who, who are you talking to? Cause my goats are very picky eaters.

• 19:44Daniel Whiteson?

  What? I thought goats would eat anything. Don't they eat like cans and car bumpers and stuff?

• 19:49Kelly Weinersmith?

  This is why stereotypes are harmful, Daniel.

• 19:51Daniel Whiteson?

  Oh my gosh.

• 19:52Kelly Weinersmith?

  You can't just drop them in a junkyard and watch them thrive and flourish. No, they don't eat cans.

• 19:58Daniel Whiteson?

  I've just been slandering goats. Oh my gosh.

• 20:01Kelly Weinersmith?

  I mean, that's what I've been saying, but so, so, okay. So what you're saying is we can, we can specify narrow questions. We can answer them accurately. We decide what we want to have in the model and what we leave out. And sometimes we even leave out important stuff just because we're like, well, you know what? We don't have enough computing power.

• 20:20Daniel Whiteson?

  Yes.

• 20:21Kelly Weinersmith?

  What would you say is like the biggest simulation or biggest thing we've ever tried to simulate?

• 20:28Daniel Whiteson?

  Bigger than the universe? I don't know.

• 20:30Kelly Weinersmith?

  Or most detailed.

• 20:31Daniel Whiteson?

  You know, in particle physics, we simulate all sorts of stuff down to the particle level. You know, what happens when a muon slams into our detector and it's made of copper and there's layers of uranium there? We model all of those details down to the atom. The muon emits a photon, which then slams into a nucleus, which then emits this particle, which then emits that particle. And that's why our simulations are so computationally expensive and so slow. It can take like tens of minutes to simulate an individual collision at the Large Hadron Collider, because we gotta track all those details, because we're interested in like, well, how many photons ended up on this one part of this one detector, because that's what we measure.

• 21:15Daniel Whiteson?

  And we want to compare the simulations to reality and we can't skip any details. So from my point of view, those are some of the most involved simulations. But I'm also really in love with these physical simulation models. Like there's this working hydraulic scale model of the San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin River Delta system that the Army Corps of Engineers built like in the 50s to study engineering interventions in the bay, like what to build and how to change the currents and stuff like that. It's super awesome.

• 21:44Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, I worked on the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta Systems POD problem.

• 21:49Daniel Whiteson?

  Oh my gosh, what's the problem?

• 21:51Kelly Weinersmith?

  The POD problem is pelagic organismal decline. Uh, there are all of these.

• 21:55Daniel Whiteson?

  Nothing to do with podcasts?

• 21:57Kelly Weinersmith?

  No, I know.

• 21:58Daniel Whiteson?

  Like we don't have enough podcasts about the river system?

• 22:00Kelly Weinersmith?

  I mean, probably we could use a podcast about the river system, but no, the, the fish that lived in like the big open water area, that used to dominate this ecosystem, but over time they started disappearing. And people were trying to figure out what was the cause of the loss of all of these native fish. Uh, and I was trying to figure out if the problem was that a bunch of invasive species had been added to the system. And so now you've got these invasive plants and largemouth bass and all these other fish in the system that didn't use to belong there. And so I spent a significant amount of my PhD on boats riding around the River Delta system. And I kind of, on some of those days, would have preferred if I could have just been moving a boat around a little hydraulic model. And being like, this is the same thing.

• 22:44Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, and a simulation could really help you in that kind of situation. You have a hypothesis like, I think this is because of this endangered system. How would you test that hypothesis? Well, if you had access to a simulation of the system and you could, in simulation, inject your invasive species and see what happens and see if it lines up with reality, then you could confirm or reject that hypothesis without doing any actual physical experiments. These are like virtual experiments that help us understand what might be happening in the real world.

• 23:16Kelly Weinersmith?

  Well, and ecologists do this kind of thing all the time. And just like you were saying, you know, the goal is to try to figure out what are the important features of the system that we need to understand better? What can we ignore? How can we sort of tinker with the system to get it in a better state? Yeah, these, these are all things ecologists do as well.

• 23:33Daniel Whiteson?

  And those are great examples of the kind of questions you can ask of a simulation. The reason a simulation is useful is that you have higher level questions, emergent questions, right? Like, why did this species die off? Or where did this ball go? And you don't know how to model that directly. You can't like write down equations to tell you exactly what's gonna happen. It's too complicated. Instead, what you can do is model the lower level stuff. This fish will eat that fish. This air molecule will bounce off the ball. That lower level stuff we can model. And then if we can describe enough of it, we hope that the higher level questions emerge from that system, right? So simulation is very useful when you have a handle on the lower level details and you

• 24:14Daniel Whiteson?

  have questions about the bigger picture, but you don't have equations that describe it. In the same way that like on the weather episode, we talked about, we're interested in, is that hurricane gonna hit Alabama? Yes or no? And we don't have an equation that can tell us that. Instead, we have equations to tell us what water droplets do in certain velocities of wind. So we can model a bunch of water droplets in simulation and get answers to the bigger questions that we have. But in order to do that, simulation only works when you have two things. One, you understand the lower level details, like you can describe the physics of water droplets or air molecules, or you know, fish eating fish or whatever. And this is probably what Kelly was involved in, the data, right?

• 24:57Daniel Whiteson?

  This only works, you can only describe what's happening in your backyard if you know the wind patterns. You can only describe what's happening in your river delta if you know the crucial information, the shapes of it, the current flows, where the fish are, for example. So you need the initial conditions and you need to know how things evolve. Those are two crucial ingredients in making a simulation.

• 25:16Kelly Weinersmith?

  Well, I managed to get fish into this conversation, so I know that no one is simulating being interested in what we're talking about. And so let's take a break and when we get back, we will talk more about simulations.

• 25:38Speaker 03

  Hey, it's Niall Rogers, host of Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series. I'm driving across the country, meeting some of today's most fascinating artists. We're exploring the stories before the moment that changed everything. This week, I'm joined by Miguel.

• 25:56Speaker 06

  Man, I'm a black and Mexican kid from San Pedro, and I grew up in Inglewood as well. I never liked to be like boxed in. Both of my parents colored outside of the line. I mean, even them being together at the time in LA was just not typical. And so I think that has always been a part of my DNA. There's a defiant something in me that feels like what we get to do with, with what we're given that's greater than us is to maybe connect people to ideas that they wouldn't naturally, you know, connect to. That's really me. I'm just kind of like defiant with love, though.

• 26:32Speaker 03

  Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Shirley Strawberry from the Steve Harvey Morning Show. Buy smart, drive for less, and trade for more. That's Toyota affordability. And it starts with a great deal on an all-wheel drive Camry, Corolla Cross, or a Corolla sedan with the latest features and tech. Or test drive a spacious Grand Highlander or adventure-ready RAV4. And with so many hybrid models available, you can enjoy longer trips without all the stops. While Toyota's legendary resale value means you could get more at trade-in, get a great deal today and a great value tomorrow.

• 27:16Speaker 03

  Shop toyota.com for deals and details. Toyota, let's go places. The biggest game of the season, right here, right now. Starts Saturday strong. It's Big Noon Saturday on Fox. And here we go. It all starts at 10 Eastern with Big Noon Kickoff, live with an epic pregame. The crowd, the atmosphere, this is what makes it special. Then it's America's number one game. What a hit. The best pregame, the best announcers, the biggest games. Down the sideline touchdown. It's Big Noon Saturday, noon Eastern on Fox.

• 27:52Speaker 06

  This is Hoda Kotb from Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb. Halloween has a funny way of making you buy things you'd never normally buy. A 10-foot skeleton? Sure. A full-size fog machine? Why not? Three bags of candy that somehow become six bags of candy? It happens. Which brings me to the Chase Freedom Flex Card, the savvy decision that will earn you more cash back on the everyday purchases, plus the extraordinary Halloween tricks and treats. With Freedom Flex, you earn even more treats on your Halloween and everyday needs. You get 5% cash back on popular rotating quarterly categories, 3% on dining and drugstores, and 1% on all other purchases. More ways to earn, more ways to get rewarded. That's no tricks, all treats.

• 28:37Speaker 06

  More ways to earn, more ways to get rewarded. So sign up for the Chase Freedom Flex Card. Learn more at chase.com/getflex. This is a paid collaboration with Chase Freedom Flex. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N A member FDIC. Subject to credit approval. Offer subject to change. Terms apply.

• 29:08Kelly Weinersmith?

  And we're back. Okay, so we are talking about simulations. And Daniel, I have heard that quantum computers are going to help us simulate things in better ways. Quantum computers, I think when you listen to pop articles about quantum computers, they're able to do all kinds of amazing things. And I'm not actually sure that they're able to do all of the things that they are said to be able to do. And so.

• 29:31Daniel Whiteson?

  You don't think they can quantum balance your checkbook?

• 29:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  I, I'm, I do a fine job at, you know what? Actually, I don't have a checkbook. I just every once in a while, open up my bank account and I'm like, that's what's happening there.

• 29:42Daniel Whiteson?

  You're like, oh, I hope the number's not negative. Yay, it's not negative.

• 29:45Kelly Weinersmith?

  Still not negative. We don't buy a lot of stuff. But anyway, so, okay, so would quantum computing make it easier for us to simulate the universe? Or is it essentially no different than a classical computer in this regard?

• 29:57Daniel Whiteson?

  I mean, yes and no. The no is because anything a quantum computer can do, a classical computer can also do, right? So there's no problems that quantum computers can solve, the classical computers can't. Can they do it faster? And so not in general. It's not like quantum computers are faster at everything than classical computers. You know, there are a few cases where we think quantum computers could be faster than classical computers. But so far, those are like really, really specialized cases, you know, like one factoring algorithm here, or another mathematical algorithm there. So, so far, it's still like at the, ooh, this would be cool. And maybe it's the harbinger of things to come and eventually everybody will have a quantum computer on their wrist.

• 30:42Daniel Whiteson?

  That would be cool. And it's exciting because it's like another way to do computing, which is fascinating from a philosophical point of view. But practically, it's not going to speed up our simulations at the Large Hadron Collider. It's not going to help us predict the weather. It's not going to balance your checkbook. There is one way in which it's cool. And this is one of the initial, I think, impetuses for quantum computing, which is, look, a lot of the physics we do is quantum, right? And so doesn't it make more sense to have a quantum computer to model quantum processes rather than a classical computer? You know, in some sense, the universe is quantum, so why are we building classical computers onto it to then model quantum processes? And so, you know, there are ideas about building mini quantum systems to describe

• 31:27Daniel Whiteson?

  those quantum systems, the same way like you build a mini river delta with real water to describe the real water in the actual river delta. You could build a little mini quantum system that has quantum properties and help you model a bigger or more complicated quantum system you're interested in. But it's not a general, overall simulation is now going to be instantaneous or anything like that.

• 31:49Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay. And just to sort of bottom line, the problem that we're trying to solve here, when someone says, we're gonna simulate the universe, do they mean like at the quantum level? Like everything at the quantum level and up? Is that what you would need to create a simulated universe? Or could you? Create a simulation at like a higher level, but just let the quantum stuff happen to produce the higher level stuff without modeling it. Does that make sense?

• 32:15Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, well, the answer is always you're doing a simulation to answer a specific question. Nobody's out there being like, let's simulate the whole universe, man, just because I mean, it would be massively complicated and expensive.

• 32:28Kelly Weinersmith?

  But isn't that what we're talking about today? We're not talking about trying to simulate the whole universe. I made it.

• 32:32Daniel Whiteson?

  No, well, we are because we ask questions about the universe like we ask, how old is the universe or how did galaxies form? And will they continue to form? And why are galaxies distributed in this way? And that way, those are questions about the universe. And so to answer those questions, we need a simulation of the universe. That simulation doesn't have to include everything in the universe because some details about the universe don't change the answers to that. Like if you bought your kid a red bicycle or a blue bicycle for their ninth birthday, doesn't change the answer to isn't drama that are going to smash into the Milky Way? Or why is this galaxy bigger than the other galaxy? Your kid's bike is awesome, but really it's kind of irrelevant on the cosmic scale.

• 33:15Daniel Whiteson?

  And in the same way, lots of stuff is irrelevant. And so we don't include it in the simulation because we don't need it to answer that question. So there's no general purpose simulations. So just like simulate everything just because we're always building simulations to answer science questions. And often it's the only way we can answer a question. Like you want to know what's going on inside the sun or at the heart of neutron stars? We can't yet observe that stuff. And so the only way to think about it is using simulations, also because we don't have equations that describe it. There's no like F equals MA emergent physics that describes the turbulence inside the sun. And so we can simulate it and build models of it, but we don't have any exact solutions.

• 33:58Kelly Weinersmith?

  Right, but that's, that's the human limitation. If we were living in a simulation created by aliens much smarter than us, would their simulation have to include everything from the quantum scale to your son's bike?

• 34:11Daniel Whiteson?

  If we're living in a simulation run by super intelligent or just hilarious aliens, then you know, whatever their simulation includes is our reality. And so really then you're asking me like, you know, are they modeling everything down to the quantum level? Well, like if that exists, then they're modeling it, assuming our universe is a simulation, right?

• 34:35Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay, yeah, I think so.

• 34:36Daniel Whiteson?

  So the answer to that is yes. But we can dig into that question at the very end after we talk about the Flamingo project.

• 34:42Kelly Weinersmith?

  What? All right, we're back to animals. No, I know you told me it's a tortured acronym. What is the tortured acronym here?

• 34:49Daniel Whiteson?

  So the Flamingo project stands for Full Hydro Large Scale Structure Simulations with All-Sky Mapping for the Interpretation of Next Generation Observations.

• 35:01Kelly Weinersmith?

  Holy cow, wait, but I thought you said Full Hydro. So is it the Flamingo project? And I lost track of the rest of it after that.

• 35:09Daniel Whiteson?

  No, no, you can just pick letters from your name to make an acronym in physics, apparently. F from Full Hydro, L from Large Scale Structure Simulations with A from All-Sky, M for Mapping for the I from Interpretation of G from Generation, O from Observations, Flamingo. I told you it's nothing to do with birds.

• 35:30Kelly Weinersmith?

  Wow, okay, nothing to do with birds. And that, I think that actually wins the most tortured acronym that I have come across award. But, but anyway, I'm glad that they had animals on the brain.

• 35:41Daniel Whiteson?

  I love an acronym that's tortured, but then also manages to actually be related to the topic at hand, you know? Like if it's just totally irrelevant, then I don't think it's very impressive.

• 35:52Kelly Weinersmith?

  But to be, Flamingo doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand, right? Okay.

• 35:56Daniel Whiteson?

  Absolutely nothing, other than there are flamingos in the universe and they are simulating the universe. But that's a stretch.

• 36:01Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay, fair enough. And they are probably one of the better parts of this universe because who doesn't love a flamingo? All right, so what is this project working on?

• 36:09Daniel Whiteson?

  This project wants to understand, how did the universe get the way that it is? Like we look out in the universe and we see there's structure there, right? There are stars, there are galaxies, there are clusters of galaxies. And there's dark matter laying behind all of it, right? Everywhere there's a galaxy, almost there's a big halo of dark matter surrounding it. There's dark matter between the galaxies. There's streams of matter and dark matter between clusters of galaxies. How did everything get into this configuration? Well, we have an idea about that. We have these theories that 14 billion years ago ish, the universe was filled with a hot dense plasma with small fluctuations in density. And we say, well, gravity, gravity clumped

• 36:54Daniel Whiteson?

  those things together, a little bit of density here, a little bit of density there, had more gravity, which pulled on more things, dot, dot, dot, you get galaxies. Well, what we really want to do is flesh out the dot, dot, dot part and understand, does our physics predict that when you go from a universe filled with plasma with slight over densities and under densities, that you get the large scale structure that we see? And if we run the simulation and it disagrees, that tells you that either something is wrong with our picture of the initial conditions of the universe, or something is wrong with our understanding of how things evolve in time. Super duper useful, right? Because it gives you a handle on something that's going on in the universe.

• 37:35Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah, but just to, what does agreement look like? Like would agreement mean like every star, for example, needs to be in exactly a predictable place? Or just like sort of it generally has the same shape? Like what would we consider to be a model that had simulated the universe?

• 37:51Daniel Whiteson?

  Great question. And I think a lot of people imagine that when you simulate in the universe, you're predicting the outcome for our exact universe, that you should like be able to predict exactly the stars in the sky and this galaxy and that galaxy. And in principle, you might be able to do that if you knew the exact initial conditions of our exact universe, like where every particle was 14 billion years ago and where all the densities were, et cetera. You might be able to do that. We don't know that specifically. We only know it statistically. Like we know on average, what was the density of stuff? How big were the fluctuations, right? We can't see the whole early universe. We can look out in the sky and we can see light from the very early universe, but we're just getting one slice of that light.

• 38:35Daniel Whiteson?

  You know, the universe is 14 billion years old. And so we're getting the light that has just now arrived to us from that plasma in every direction. Imagine like a huge, but very thin shell of plasma really far away, 14 billion years ago, all emitting light towards where we are now. We're here, it arrives here. So we see that little slice of the universe. And as time goes on, we see a different slice. That shell grows as the time goes on, but we never see the whole initial slice of the universe. So we don't know enough to predict our specific universe. Instead, what agreement looks like is, well, here's what we think the distribution of stuff looked like statistically. So do we get galaxies of the same size? Do we get galaxies in the same kind of arrangements?

• 39:20Daniel Whiteson?

  Not specifically this galaxy, that galaxy, but like what's the distribution of galaxy sizes? What's the typical distance between galaxies? This kind of stuff. So it's more a statistical comparison than a specific one, which is kind of unfortunate. It would be awesome to simulate our exact universe and be like, look, that's where Kelly appears.

• 39:38Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah, but you know, it, it would not make it more useful to know where Kelly appears, even if it would make it more awesome to know where Kelly appears.

• 39:47Daniel Whiteson?

  But it does allow you to ask really cool questions like what would happen if you had a universe without dark matter? Like take the universe as we know it, fill it with the photons and the protons and the neutrons that we think were there, but don't put in the dark matter. What happens? Well, we can answer that question. You do that simulation and you don't get galaxies. Like 14 billion years is not enough time for gravity to pull protons and neutrons together to make stars and galaxies without the help of the gravity from dark matter. So that's already like a really interesting result. It says that the structure we see, the fact that we have galaxies and stars is itself evidence for dark matter

• 40:31Daniel Whiteson?

  or evidence for something out there helping pull stuff together because the visible matter doesn't have enough gravity to do it on its own.

• 40:39Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay.

• 40:40Daniel Whiteson?

  And so I think that's really cool because it shows you the power of simulations. It says if your initial conditions and the rules to evolve it are inconsistent with what we see, right? Then something is wrong with one of those two. And so if you put in no dark matter and you run the rules, you get something which looks very much not like our universe. So that's probably wrong. But if you put dark matter in, then you do see formation of galaxies. Dark matter itself clumps. Remember, there's a lot more dark matter than anything else. And it pulls those stars together and it pulls those galaxies together. And so if you put in the dark matter we think was there and it's measured independently in like nine other ways, then you get the formation of structure, just like the structure that we see.

• 41:23Kelly Weinersmith?

  And I assume this is something we've simulated before the Flamingo project? Is that right?

• 41:27Daniel Whiteson?

  Yes, that's right. And people have played with it. They've been like, well, what if we put in more dark matter? Let's double the amount of dark matter. What happens? Well, the universe collapses, there's too much gravity and things get squished and it doesn't look like our universe. So you can use this to measure the amount of dark matter in our universe by tuning the simulation, the initial conditions, until you get an outcome that matches what we're seeing today, right? It's like if you didn't know how much salt Zach put in dinner, but you ate the dinner and you were like, okay, let me try, you know, I'm gonna try it without salt. No, it comes out bland. I'm gonna try it with, you know, a pound of salt. No, that comes out too salty. And you refine it, comparing your experiments to your memory of dinner that Zach made

• 42:10Daniel Whiteson?

  until you figure out how much salt Zach put in his dinner. It's just like that with dark matter in the universe.

• 42:16Kelly Weinersmith?

  Got it. Okay, let's take a break. And when we get back, we will find out what the Flamingo project did in particular to create a newsworthy simulation.

• 42:34Speaker 03

  Hey, it's Nile Rodgers, host of Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series. I'm driving across the country, meeting some of today's most fascinating artists. We're exploring the stories before the moment that changed everything. This week, I'm joined by my friend, John Legend. How does music actually enter your mind?

• 42:57Speaker 06

  I'm not sure why or how the music comes to me, but I think people who love music and write music, our brains are just filled with music. Like, we have listened to so much music, we've been a part of so much music. I think of the story that I want to tell, the mood that I want to create with the music, start playing chords, see where they lead me.

• 43:18Speaker 03

  Sometimes, I'm just not even thinking about music, right? And I hear this little thing, and I go, oh, that could be this.

• 43:28Speaker 06

  You know, you just have to be ready for when the inspiration hits.

• 43:31Speaker 03

  It comes.

• 43:31Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 43:32Speaker 03

  Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Jason Timp from Hoops Tonight with Jason Timp. Buy smart, drive for less, and trade for more. That's Toyota affordability. And it starts with a great deal on an off-road ready Tacoma or half-ton Tundra, two of Toyota's longest-lasting trucks, combining power for work, tech for adventures, and style in between. Built on a reputation for quality and reliability, Toyota trucks are known for holding their value, which can mean big savings when it's time for your next Toyota. So get a great deal today, and great value tomorrow. Shop toyota.com for more. Toyota, let's go places. The biggest game of the season, right here, right now.

• 44:16Speaker 03

  Starts Saturday strong. It's Big Noon Saturday on Fox. And here we go. It all starts at 10 Eastern with Big Noon Kickoff, live with an epic pregame. The crowd, the atmosphere, this is what makes it special. Then, it's America's number one game. What a hit. The best pregame, the best announcers, the biggest games. Down the sideline, touchdown. It's Big Noon Saturday, noon Eastern on Fox.

• 44:43Speaker 06

  This is Hoda Kotb from Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb. Halloween has a funny way of making you buy things you'd never normally buy. A 10-foot skeleton? Sure. A full-size fog machine? Why not? Three bags of candy that somehow become six bags of candy? It happens. Which brings me to the Chase Freedom Flex Card, the savvy decision that will earn you more cash back on the everyday purchases, plus the extraordinary Halloween tricks and treats. With Freedom Flex, you earn even more treats on your Halloween and everyday needs. You get 5% cash back on popular rotating quarterly categories, 3% on dining and drugstores, and 1% on all other purchases. More ways to earn, more ways to get rewarded. That's

• 45:26Speaker 06

  no tricks, all treats. More ways to earn, more ways to get rewarded. So sign up for the Chase Freedom Flex Card. Learn more at chase.com/getflex. This is a paid collaboration with Chase Freedom Flex. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Subject to credit approval. Offer subject to change. Terms apply.

• 45:59Kelly Weinersmith?

  All right, and we're back. And Daniel, in closing, I said that this was a newsworthy simulation, but maybe it only appears newsworthy to me because it's got the word flamingo in it, and so I feel like it should be in the news, because that's awesome. Did this simulation tend to make the news?

• 46:13Daniel Whiteson?

  Well, I mean, the news that I read, of course, and the emails I get from listeners, I definitely heard a lot about it. It was in Sky and Telescope and a bunch of other pop side places. So

• 46:23Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay, cool.

• 46:23Daniel Whiteson?

  It was a step forward. I don't always understand why a particular piece of science gets a bunch of attention, and another piece of science I think is really cool doesn't. But, you know, that's just the way the pop side cookie crumbles. But this is legitimately a really cool piece of science. One, because it's huge. Like, they took on a really big task. They wanted to simulate a big chunk of the universe, so not the whole universe. But they described a cube of universe with sides 10 billion light years on a side.

• 46:54Kelly Weinersmith?

  Wow.

• 46:55Daniel Whiteson?

  So like, that's a lot of stuff. And in that are a lot of particles. They couldn't model all of them with their computing budget. What they could do is describe particles with masses like 130 million times the mass of our sun. So basically, like, they could zoom into, like, mini galaxies. They couldn't describe individual stars, or individual planets, or flamingos, or podcasters. They could only have granularity down to, like, mini galaxies. But in a cube of universe that big, there's like 300 billion of those. So that's what they described, like 300 billion clumps of matter, each about as massive as a mini galaxy.

• 47:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  And for reference, do you have like a sense for how much of an advance in, like, specificity this is relative to prior models?

• 47:43Daniel Whiteson?

  This is a big chunk of compute, but the real step forward is not that they zoomed in more, or they had a bigger slice of the universe. The specificity is that they made the rules much more realistic. So previous simulations were like, let's model the dark matter, and we'll also put the protons in, but we won't let the protons interact with each other, because, ooh, that's really complicated. Like, dark matter is very simple. It doesn't really interact with itself. It's just gravity, and it flows around, and it clumps, and we can handle that. Protons are hard, because they have the strong interaction, and they have the weak interaction, and they generate other kinds of particles, which are really complicated. And we know because we eat them every day, and that's why they're delicious, because of all their complexity. And so most simulations have the atoms, the baryons, in

• 48:28Daniel Whiteson?

  them, but don't let them interact, because that's too complicated. And so what the Flamingo Project did was they included the baryons and their physics. So they have things like gas flows, and hydrodynamics, and, you know, how do winds get generated? All these things are really important for the structure of galaxies. You know, like, when there's massive radiation from the central black hole that blows out stars in the centers of galaxies, and it changes how stars form in galaxies. And you have, like, active galactic nuclei that can shape the structure of nearby clusters. So they included all of those details in the simulation, and they included neutrinos. So previous simulations at this scale hadn't

• 49:11Daniel Whiteson?

  included the baryonic physics, like, you know, all the interactions between protons, or the neutrinos.

• 49:17Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay, awesome. That seems like quite a big step forward. Did they have access to a hyper, super-duper computer that we didn't have access to before?

• 49:26Daniel Whiteson?

  They got time on a very fragileistic computer at Durham University. They ran it on 30,000 CPUs using 50 million compute hours. So this is a computer that existed. It wasn't built specifically for them, but they got a bunch of time on it. So, you know, people always want time on these computers. It's very valuable. And you're competing with folks who, like, want to simulate hurricanes, or want to simulate nuclear weapons, or want to simulate other stuff. So it was awesome that they got all this compute time to answer this question, because there are really interesting open puzzles. Like, we talked about modeling how dark matter changes the structure of the universe, and we described it as if it sort of works. And it does mostly work, and it's cool. But the more we study

• 50:09Daniel Whiteson?

  it, the more we see discrepancies. Just like when we were talking about throwing a ball, and you use your first model, and it mostly works, but then you notice, hmm, it's not exactly right. What are we missing? As we get more and more specific, we can look more and more carefully at the discrepancies and wonder, what are we missing? And you've probably heard of the Hubble tension, you know, this discrepancy between how rapidly the universe was expanding at early times, like 14 billion years ago, as measured in the cosmic microwave background radiation, and how rapidly it seems to be expanding today, as measured by, like, supernova and other things. There are other tensions in cosmology, places where our models of the universe don't quite agree with our observations. And one of them is called the S8 tension. It's not as sexy, or doesn't get as much press as the Hubble

• 50:54Daniel Whiteson?

  tension, but it's really important. This S8 is a measurement of, like, how clumpy is the universe? Has stuff pulled together into big clumps, or is it still mostly spread out? And just like with the Hubble tension, we have two measurements from the CMB and from late times, and those disagree. So the CMB says the universe was clumpier, and the late time says, no, the universe was less clumpy. And we want to understand like which of these measurements is wrong. Can you build a model of the universe that's compatible with both of them? So far, we haven't been able to. And so this simulation thought, well, let's study this question. Let's include as all the physics that we can, because we know

• 51:33Daniel Whiteson?

  that protons and neutrinos affect clumpiness. And they ran 28 slightly different simulations, tweaking cosmic parameters like the dark matter fraction, or how massive is the neutrino, or how important are these active galactic nuclei, this hydrodynamics of the baryons we're talking about? How big are stars when they're formed typically? You know, which percentage of stars fall in which mass ranges? They ran 28 different versions to see if they could understand this problem.

• 52:01Kelly Weinersmith?

  I bet they agonized over the 28 different simulations. When you're doing, I remember when I used to do simulations, the hardest part was figuring out what part of the parameter space am I going to explore? And yeah, trying to figure out like the, you know, values of the variables for those different simulations was probably painstakingly done.

• 52:19Daniel Whiteson?

  Oh, you know, they argued, they had meetings, they had disagreements.

• 52:23Kelly Weinersmith?

  More meetings.

• 52:24Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, people suggested stuff, other people asked their suggestions, you know, there was grumbling and teeth gnashing. And, you know, these are important decisions because later, when you get the results, you're like, oh, that's interesting. I wish we had another point with this other tweaked value. But, you know, you used up all your time. Sorry.

• 52:40Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yep, yep.

• 52:41Daniel Whiteson?

  Or one answer comes out really boring. You're like, well, that was a big waste of a zillion hours of computing.

• 52:47Kelly Weinersmith?

  Thanks, Joe.

• 52:49Daniel Whiteson?

  Great idea, Joe. So yeah, exactly. It's definitely very painful when that happens. But they ran these simulations. And what they found is that the baryonic effects, including all these protons, does change the clumpiness, but not enough to explain this S8 tension. And so the question they went in with was, does adding the protons, making the simulation more realistic, does this solve the problem? Is the problem just an artifact of our simulation being too simplistic and not including all the physics we love? And no. And the answer to the question is no, it's not an artifact of the simulation being too simplistic in this one way.

• 53:30Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay.

• 53:30Daniel Whiteson?

  So that would have been very cool if it solved that problem. Like, oh, look, the universe now makes sense. But now it's very cool, because it means, oh, the universe doesn't fully make sense, which means there's something to learn, right? Either maybe there's some kind of dark matter that has its self-interaction that's not being included in these models, right? We describe usually dark matter just as having gravity and no other kind of interaction. But maybe dark matter is complicated, and there's lots of different kinds of it. And some of it has interesting interactions with other kinds. And that's not being included in the model. And that's why the models don't agree with reality. That's just like one hypothesis. So there's a lot still to learn here.

• 54:08Kelly Weinersmith?

  It's such a roller coaster doing science, because like, you know, obviously, you set out to do an experiment, you, you kind of think you know what the result's going to be, or at least that's what you say in your grant.

• 54:16Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah.

• 54:17Kelly Weinersmith?

  And if you get the result, you're like, what? Yay. But then if you don't get the result, you're like, but this could be equally as interesting, or maybe even more interesting, especially if it sets you on like, gives you a little bit of a hint for what you were maybe missing that you should think more about. But like, yeah, this, so this sounds like something where the result would have been fascinating, no matter what.

• 54:38Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, exactly. I think it made news because it's a big, awesome piece of computing, like, wow, what a cool project. But unfortunately, it didn't get the answer they were hoping for. But, you know, we learned something. We crossed something off of our list of hypotheses, and we're still on the hunt to understand the universe and figure out why it is exactly as clumpy as it is today. I think it's wonderful. I don't think it's too clumpy. I don't think it's overly clumped. I don't think it's under clumped. I think it's just right. What do you think, Kelly?

• 55:08Kelly Weinersmith?

  I think you are a very accepting universe partner. And, you know, I haven't thought too much about the universe's clumpiness. I like it for its personality. And so I'm, I'm totally okay with the universe as its clumpy self, you know?

• 55:21Daniel Whiteson?

  You're making me sound superficial here. I'm only into the universe because of its clumpiness.

• 55:26Kelly Weinersmith?

  I mean, you are the one who was focusing on the clumpiness. I'm just, just saying.

• 55:30Daniel Whiteson?

  I didn't say it's the only thing I like about the universe, Kelly.

• 55:34Kelly Weinersmith?

  The universe is multifaceted.

• 55:36Daniel Whiteson?

  Yes, it is. So I think that answers Joe's question, and we'll send this to him and hear if he has any follow-ups. But, you know, the episode as posed sort of asks a bigger question, like, all right, this simulates a bunch of stuff in the universe, but it glosses over a lot of details. If the smallest thing in your simulation is a particle with 130 million solar masses, then you're not describing little Timmy's bicycle. Is it red or is it blue? And I think it's an interesting question that the listeners were responding to, and that you were asking about earlier, like, is it possible to describe the whole universe? And I think that the answer to that question has to be no, because a simulation

• 56:17Daniel Whiteson?

  containing the complete quantum state of the universe would require at least as much information as the universe itself contains, right? And so like,

• 56:26Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah.

• 56:26Daniel Whiteson?

  A smaller computer cannot contain a lossless description of a larger physical system. And if that computer is in the universe, then it has to be smaller than the universe. You can't use the whole universe to simulate the universe. And even if you did, right, there are parts of your computer which are not being described in the simulation. And so I think there's like, this cool recursive issue. You know, your simulation would have to conclude a description of the simulation. And so I don't think it's possible to describe the whole universe within the universe, right?

• 56:58Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh.

• 56:58Daniel Whiteson?

  The simulation hypothesis is another question. It's like, is our universe a simulation? That implies that our universe is running on a computer in some larger universe. The same way that like, you know, we describe Super Mario Brothers in a simulation, we create a universe and it has its own rules, and that exists within our universe. And in our universe is a little piece of the universe, we call a Nintendo system, which is complicated enough to describe the Super Mario universe, right? And so if our universe is a simulation, then that implies that there's a computer out there capable of describing all of these details, that must be within another universe that's at least as big.

• 57:40Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah. So I was going to ask, why would anybody want to simulate our universe? But now that you've used Super Mario Brothers as an example, our universe is clearly better with it in it. And so now I, maybe we are the fun part of some other creature's universe. I dig.

• 57:54Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah. But I want to point out some fun loopholes here. Like, you know, people talk about looking at the way our universe operates, and looking for evidence that it is a simulation. I think that's really dangerous and misleading, because what you're looking for is evidence that the universe operates the way our simulations operate. But if our universe is a simulation in some other universe, we have no idea what the physics is of that universe. The same way that Mario has no idea what the rules of physics as Newton and Einstein have developed are. His universe has different physics. And so if he's looking for hints in the Mario universe as to how our universe operates, he's not going to

• 58:36Daniel Whiteson?

  mind anything. And so if we're looking in our universe for evidence that operates like our computers, we're on the wrong track. We need to look in our universe for evidence that operates like the meta-universes computers, about which we have no information, because they follow other laws of physics we don't know anything about. And so I think that's a little bit hopeless.

• 58:58Kelly Weinersmith?

  Okay. So just to be clear, Daniel is being the wet blanket today and is essentially saying, there's nothing in this universe that can answer the question, are we living in a sim or not?

• 59:08Daniel Whiteson?

  I think that's true. Yeah.

• 59:09Kelly Weinersmith?

  Oh, man.

• 59:10Daniel Whiteson?

  But there are some other fun loopholes, like, you know, can you simulate a whole universe? I don't think you can, but you can simulate large parts of the universe, right? Like, you could, a big chunk of the universe, really high fidelity, and that can answer a lot of physics questions. Often, you don't need to simulate the whole universe. Like, to answer this question about dark matter, you don't need to add Timmy's bicycle and whether it's red or blue. It doesn't change the answer.

• 59:33Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yeah.

• 59:34Daniel Whiteson?

  And so the fact that the universe breaks into these levels of emergence, where you don't need to know all the lower level details to make chicken soup, for example, like, you can make chicken soup without knowing quantum gravity or string theory. That's great. Chicken soup is delicious, but it also means we can do science at various scales without knowing all the details. That's a blessing. So it's good, actually, that our simulations don't have to include everything in the universe. And then the other thing is that sometimes you can get away with not describing the universe in all of its gory detail, because there are patterns. So we have laws of physics, we have symmetries that tell us, constrain what can happen. So for example, say you're simulating a particle,

• 1:00:15Daniel Whiteson?

  and it decays into two other particles. Well, conservation of momentum tells you that if the first particle was at rest, the next two particles have to be back to back. They have to have momentum that's exactly opposite each other, so that the total momentum is still zero. What does that mean? How's it help you? It means you only have to store in your simulation, one of the momentum. You don't have to store both, because the other one, you can derive instantly from your rule. So symmetries and rules mean you don't have to store the full state of the simulation in your computer. You only have to store enough information to derive it when you need it. And so these symmetries, these constraints, essentially are like a way to compress your knowledge of the universe

• 1:00:58Daniel Whiteson?

  more compactly and losslessly. So there are some loopholes here, too. You have to have a computer the size of the universe in order to describe the universe.

• 1:01:07Kelly Weinersmith?

  Yes. Like, what if we are one run out of 10,000 of a simulation that's testing five rules, and we are the result of testing some of those rules? Would that, would that work?

• 1:01:20Daniel Whiteson?

  Yeah, that could work. And I wonder if our universe is one that like somebody fought for in inclusion, you know, like, thank you, Cosmic Joe, for including our universe.

• 1:01:30Kelly Weinersmith?

  Our Joe totally messed it up. Yeah, but Cosmic Joe. Thank you, Cosmic Joe.

• 1:01:38Daniel Whiteson?

  All right. So we'll send this episode to Joe from Ann Arbor to hear if we've answered his question about the Flamingo simulation and about simulating the universe in general. Here's Joe's answer.

• 1:01:49Kelly Weinersmith?

  I totally forgot that the listener's name was Joe when I picked Joe as the, uh, maybe that was in the back of my brain, subconsciously, the whole episode. Sorry, Joe. We didn't mean to blame you for the bad run of the simulation.

• 1:02:01Daniel Whiteson?

  It just goes to Joe, you.

• 1:02:03Speaker 06

  Uh huh. Thank you so much. I really loved that episode. Daniel, I know that you would especially like to contact the being running the simulation, but I can neither confirm nor deny whether I am Cosmic Joe. I can confirm, however, that the universe is overly clumpy in the vicinity of my desk. But seriously, thank you both for the thorough explanation of simulations and the Flamingo project. Emergent properties at different scales seem to be a major theme on the podcast lately, and I am fascinated of the idea of simulations being a way to probe from one layer of abstraction to the next. I don't have a follow-up question, but I do want to urge everyone to ask their own questions. Listening to the raw audio

• 1:02:47Speaker 06

  was a treat, especially right after listening to the episode with Matt Kesselman. Daniel and Kelly are somehow even more charming in real time. My only complaint is that I didn't hear a single goat. Thanks for answering my question. I love getting smarter with you.

• 1:03:01Daniel Whiteson?

  Thanks very much, everybody, for taking this trip down the simulated universe to understand how we think about the universe, how we understand it, and how simulation is an absolutely vital part of modern science.

• 1:03:13Kelly Weinersmith?

  May your simulation be a good one.

• 1:03:21Daniel Whiteson?

  Thanks, everybody, for listening. Please go and do us a favor and rate the show on whatever podcast app you're using. It really helps people find us.

• 1:03:29Kelly Weinersmith?

  Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary universe is edited by the amazing Matt Kesselman.

• 1:03:34Daniel Whiteson?

  He really is a wizard. You can also find us online on Blue Sky, Instagram, and X, D and K Universe. Come engage with us.

• 1:03:44Kelly Weinersmith?

  You can email us at [email protected]. We really do want to hear from you.

• 1:03:49Daniel Whiteson?

  And you can find our website, www.danielandkelly.org, where you'll also find an invitation to join our Discord, where everybody comes and talks about the amazing universe.

• 1:04:00Kelly Weinersmith?

  And we also have the most amazing moderators. This is an iHeart Podcast. Thanks for joining us.

• 1:04:10Speaker 03

  This is Jason Timp from Hoops Tonight with Jason Timp. Buy smart, drive for less, and trade for more. That's Toyota affordability. And it starts with a great deal on an off-road ready Tacoma or half-ton Tundra. Two of Toyota's longest-lasting trucks, combining power for work, tech for adventures, and style in between. Built on a reputation for quality and reliability, Toyota trucks are known for holding their value, which can mean big savings when it's time for your next Toyota. So get a great deal today and great value tomorrow. Shop toyota.com for more. Toyota, let's go places. The biggest game of the season, right here, right now.

• 1:04:45Daniel Whiteson?

  Starts Saturday strong. It's Big Noon Saturday on Fox.

• 1:04:49Speaker 03

  And here we go.

• 1:04:51Daniel Whiteson?

  It all starts at 10 Eastern with Big Noon Kickoff, live with an epic pregame.

• 1:04:57Speaker 03

  The crowd, the atmosphere, this is what makes it special.

• 1:04:59Daniel Whiteson?

  Then it's America's number one game.

• 1:05:02Speaker 03

  What a hit.

• 1:05:03Daniel Whiteson?

  The best pregame, the best announcers, the biggest games.

• 1:05:06Speaker 03

  Down the sideline touchdown.

• 1:05:07Daniel Whiteson?

  It's Big Noon Saturday, noon Eastern on Fox. Hey, I'm Niall Rogers. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, meeting some of today's coolest and most fascinating artists. We'll explore the stories before the moments that changed everything, because every musician remembers the moment where it all began. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln Original Series on the iHeart Radio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:05:43Kelly Weinersmith?

  Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities, and drive growth. That's why Chase for Business helps small business owners like you by offering personalized guidance and digital tools that can help your business grow. With our guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com/business. Chase for Business, make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026 JP Morgan Chase and Company. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.