Human brain, internet, and cosmology: Similar laws at work?

Nov 20, 2012 by Jan Zverina
Simple mapping between the two surfaces representing the geometries of the universe and complex networks proves that their large-scale growth dynamics and structures are similar. Credit: CAIDA/SDSC

(Phys.org)—The structure of the universe and the laws that govern its growth may be more similar than previously thought to the structure and growth of the human brain and other complex networks, such as the Internet or a social network of trust relationships between people, according to a new paper published in the science journal Nature's Scientific Reports.

"By no means do we claim that the universe is a global brain or a computer," said Dmitri Krioukov, co-author of the paper, published by the Cooperative Association for (CAIDA), based at the (SDSC) at the University of California, San Diego. "But the discovered equivalence between the growth of the universe and complex networks strongly suggests that unexpectedly similar laws govern the dynamics of these very different complex systems."

Having the ability to predict – let alone trying to control – the dynamics of complex networks remains a central challenge throughout network science. Structural and dynamical similarities among different real networks suggest that some universal laws might be in action, although the nature and common origin of such laws remain elusive.

By performing complex of the universe and using a variety of other calculations, researchers have now proven that the causal network representing the large-scale structure of space and time in our is a graph that shows remarkable similarity to many complex networks such as the Internet, social, or even .

"These findings have key implications for both network science and cosmology," noted Krioukov. "We discovered that the large-scale growth dynamics of complex networks and causal networks are asymptotically (at large times) the same, explaining the structural similarity between these networks."

"This is a perfect example of interdisciplinary research combining math, physics, and computer science in totally unexpected ways," said SDSC Director Michael Norman. "Who would have guessed that the emergence of our universe's four-dimensional spacetime from the quantum vacuum would have anything to do with the growth of the Internet? Causality is at the heart of both, so perhaps the similarity Krioukov and his collaborators found is to be expected."

Of course the network representing the structure of the universe is astronomically huge – in fact it can be infinite. But even if it is finite, researchers' best guess is that it is no smaller than 10250 atoms of space and time. (That's the digit 1 followed by 250 zeros.) For comparison, the number of water molecules in all the oceans in the world has been estimated to be 4.4 x 1046.

Yet the researchers found a way to downscale this humongous network while preserving its vital properties, by proving mathematically that these properties do not depend on the network size in a certain range of parameters, such as the curvature and age of our universe.

After the downscaling, the research team turned to Trestles, one of SDSC's data-intensive supercomputers, to perform simulations of the universe's growing causal network. By parallelizing and optimizing the application, Robert Sinkovits, a computational scientist with SDSC, was able to complete in just over one day a computation that was originally projected to require three to four years.

"In addition to being able to complete these simulations much faster than previously ever imagined, the results perfectly matched the theoretical predictions of the researchers," said Sinkovits.

"The most frequent question that people may ask is whether the discovered asymptotic equivalence between complex networks and the universe could be a coincidence," said Krioukov. "Of course it could be, but the probability of such a coincidence is extremely low. Coincidences in physics are extremely rare, and almost never happen. There is always an explanation, which may be not immediately obvious."

"Such an explanation could one day lead to a discovery of common fundamental laws whose two different consequences or limiting regimes are the laws of gravity (Einstein's equations in general relativity) describing the dynamics of the , and some yet-unknown equations describing the dynamics of ," added  Marián Boguñá, a member of the research team from the Departament de Física Fonamental at the Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Explore further: Motion of two electrons in helium atom can be imaged and controlled with attosecond-timed laser flashes

More information: www.nature.com/srep/2012/12111… /full/srep00793.html

Related Stories

Physics rules network dynamics

Dec 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- When it comes to the workings of the Web, the brain, or a social network, physics finds universal truths.

Mapping new paths for stressed-out Internet

Sep 10, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The San Diego Supercomputer Center and Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) at the University of California, San Diego, in a collaboration with researchers from Universitat ...

Recommended for you

What's next for the Large Hadron Collider?

Dec 17, 2014

The world's most powerful particle collider is waking up from a well-earned rest. After roughly two years of heavy maintenance, scientists have nearly doubled the power of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2012
There are many scales. Just assume you will always find the pattern you seek when scales exist that are too numerous to count.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2012
There are many scales. Just assume you will always find the pattern you seek when scales exist that are too numerous to count.


Right. Provide enough dots and you can draw any figure you want. Unfortunately, this little epiphany has nothing to do with the article.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2012
You interpreted my words as disassociation from what was written.
Your interpretation disappointed you.

In your own words what does the article have to do with?
DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2012
From the perspective of the facts that networks and 3 dimensions are both parts of this universe, there may be a mathematical model to infer prediction, correction, comparison, and testing of any network. I agree with the direction of this study. Everything is linked in the total of everything somehow. It makes perfect sense the formulas used in math to describe geometry could/should/maybe fit exactly, if applied correctly, to networks exactly or as close to exactly as possible.

Sometimes we talk about a geometry "point" as being 3 numbers in x,y,z space. We also have a "point" when we try to communicate a position. Both "points" require another point, and then a third to be properly understood at 3 dimensions. Around us we have a plane defined by 2 vectors perpendicular to each other and a third perpendicular to both of them (which can also be described as normalized points).
DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2012
With opposing points of view that are normalized (scaled equally), when we add a third point of view that is completely unbiased(perpendicular to the other 2 points) normalized (scaled equally), we can generate a much better approximation of reality with the precision of PI.

Understanding the basics of any network may be as simple as the math that describes a circle as one point viewed from afar, a line on edge, and as a circle perpendicular to the points that define the line. The very same formulas that produce PI and angles probably apply to everything we can do or observe somehow.

Getting this right could allow us to make some very accurate predictions. We would need only rotate the matrix forward in time or compare it against known data points to establish with certainty where other data on the network is and/or whether the other data on the network is valid.

This could lead to, your agrument is BS because the math says so. Virtually flawless lie detectors too!
MrVibrating
4 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2012
All dynamically self-organising networks are optimised for efficiency by the conservation laws governing their various options. Similar selection pressures evolve convergent solutions... same reason we get common graph curves like the bell, normal distribution etc., no?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2012
While interesting it's not really surprising that structures which form due to

a) forces with different strengths at different ranges
b) forces with different speeds at which they act
c) a limited set of raw materials

will produce similar (looking) structures.

I'm all with the researcher when he says:
By no means do we claim that the universe is a global brain or a computer

We definitely shouldn't fall for the 'doctrine of signatures' fallacy again.
vlaaing peerd
4.3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2012
Wasn't this what fractals was all about?
DavidW
not rated yet Nov 21, 2012
I'm all with the researcher when he says:
We definitely shouldn't fall for the 'doctrine of signatures' fallacy again.


Nor should we dismiss the results of repeated observations with a wide brush. That would be like saying we don't understand PI so therefore we should not use it in any formula. As long as testable results are returned and verified there is probably something there.
Tausch
2 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2012
All dynamically self-organising networks are optimised for efficiency by the conservation laws governing their various options.- Vib

Can you make optimization work without the laws of conservation?
Do you have alternatives for conservation laws?

The researchers of the article only have eyes for symmetries.
The focus of present day attention is where symmetries fail.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2012
...may be a mathematical model to infer ... -DW

All mathematical models infer. Your word "may" implies an option that does not exist.

It makes perfect sense the formulas used in math to describe geometry could/should/maybe fit exactly, if applied correctly, to networks exactly or as close to exactly as possible.-DW


..."the formulas used in math to describe geometry" ... you subject yourself to circular logic again.
Formulas are math.
Geometries are math.
Formulas and Geometries are math descriptions.

With math you will never "communicate" your "point".
"Flawless" math does not exist.
No description is complete.

Ask yourself the purpose of prediction when all predictions lead to end results where life can not exist as you know it.

What is the "importance" of that?
Your assertion that "life" takes on the greatest "importance" of anything contemplated is false.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2012
The "doctrine of signatures" is correct.
The metrical one.
:P
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2012
At no time has 'lite' received a favorable response from anyone anywhere. The purpose of the holder of such an profile account remains unknown.

At this point you have nothing more to lose, lite.
The best I can offer you now is indifference.
A subject of which you are second to none.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2012
In AWT the Universe is random system of space-time curvatures similar to Boltzmann gas and we are forming one of most complex fluctuations in it (Boltzmann brains). There are two zones at the dimensional scale, when the positive curvature of space-time prevails: the size scale of atoms and stars, formed with spheres. The human distance scale is the zone, where negative curvature of space-time is dominant and the universe appears here like the free space between spheres, i.e. like the foam. It's highly dimensional emergent geometry, which can be modeled like the geometry of particle packing. Human brain is sorta emulator of hyperdimensional aether foam - it enables us to anticipate the deterministic processes around us. Which is the reason why its composed of fibers enabling the mutual collisions of solitons which are spreading along it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2012
such an explanation could one day lead to a discovery of common fundamental laws whose two different consequences or limiting regimes are the laws of gravity describing the dynamics of the universe
IMO this perspective is fringe in similar way, like the concept of beginning of Universe. This deterministic approach is given with gnoseologic bias of contemporary science: the deterministically oriented people cannot imagine anything than just another underlying law. But the concept of "universal underlying law" actually doesn't explain anything - it just brings the questions for explanation of this universal law.

Instead of it, the AWT follows Occam razor criterion and it doesn't consider anything about Universe, its dynamics and geometry. Therefore in AWT the Universe is as random, as possible for its deterministic description. The chaotic gas is one of possible physically relevant models of such randomness and whole the determinism of Universe just follows from this randomness.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2012
At this point you have nothing more to lose, lite.
The best I can offer you now is indifference.
The admins of the site should expunge lite and all accounts with zero posts. Most sites have a requirement of ten posts before likes and attachments are allowed.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2012
IMO nothing like the "Universal law" therefore doesn't exist - such a vision is just an analogy of "Philosopher stone", the main social purpose of which was to generate jobs and salaries for highly intelligent people, who did spend substantial portion of their life with studying of formal math and now they're seeking for social credit and reward of their effort. But IMO their effort just did hit its limit - the geometry and behavior of our Universe is actually relatively easy to understand even with people of the average intelligence and imagination - but quite difficult to model with low-dimensional deterministic math models. The bottom-up modeling of the Universe would therefore face a strong psycho-social opposition from the side of experts, who just tend to perceive the Universe increasingly complex instead of simpler. The simple explanation of Universe would actually mean the end of their safe existence.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
This doesn't mean, that the geometry of particle packing doesn't hide many deep algebraic rules, which are already recognized in obscured form with sacred geometry and Kabbalah. Here are many numeric approaches (like the Heim's theory), which could lead to prediction of particle mass spectrum a more effectively, than the approaches based on combinations of general relativity and quantum mechanics. These connections are currently revealed with many "crackpots" (1, 2, 3, ...). They're ignored with mainstream physics in the same way, like the nonformal models, though. It means, the contemporary physics is hostile toward more effective description of reality with both formal, both intuitive way.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
The adherence of theoretical physics on formal models based on combinations of general relativity and quantum mechanics is not accidental, though. In context of AWT it can be understood quite easily, that these two theories really represent most effective description of hyperdimensional reality with low-dimensional math. It corresponds the fact, the Universe appears composed of very regular spheres at both dimensional scale of atom nuclei, both large stars. These theories work really very well at both these scales. The problems is, they're representing intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives of foamy hyperdimensional reality and they're separated with high number of dimensions each other. They both fail at the human observer scale completely, as their predictions contradict mutually here. Even at the dimensional scale smaller than atom nuclei and larger than the stars another optimized models may become more effective, than the blind combinations of GR and QM.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
This essentially means, in future physics every dimensional scale would have developed its own set of rules and laws, which will describe this scale most effectively. The simpler and more general these laws will be, the lower predictability and exactness they will exhibit outside the scope of their validity. You cannot have simple/universal and exact law at the same moment - a generalized uncertainty principle applies here. The AWT is based on very simple and singular particle concepts, so it can be very general - but it remains fuzzy at the same moment. The quantum mechanics and general relativity theories are very exact at the dimensional scales of atoms and stars composed of atoms - but between and outside of these zones they become poorly conditioned and as fuzzy and uncertain, like the nonformal models. You're required to introduce another and another ad-hoced parameters and formal tricks outside of these two scales to keep these theories predictable at least a bit.
DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2012
@Valeria,
I would disagree with "You cannot have simple/universal and exact law at the same moment..."

I agree pretty much with what come before that. Scalers are required it keep things in proper perspective. The only limit I see in scalers is limiting then two or at all.

DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2012
@Tausch

All mathematical models infer. Your word "may" implies an option that does not exist.

The word may was use from a humility stand point. The truth is what it is, regardless of what you or I say. We cannot be above the truth.

…you subject yourself to circular logic again.

Circular logic makes perfect sense to me when other points of circular logic are used and placed perpendicular and infer direction.
With math you will never "communicate" your "point".

My point is at 0,0,0, or my point is at 0,0,1, or my point is at the center of the circumference planer to the quadrants. I completely disagree with your assertion, as it is not always in factual observation.
DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2012
@Tausch
Ask yourself the purpose of prediction when all predictions lead to end results where life cannot exist as you know it.

Sure, to be used as a tool to stop or minimize all unnecessary suffering and death for all life.
Your assertion that "life" takes on the greatest "importance" of anything contemplated is false.

The truth says that the most important thing in life is life. We cannot contemplate what is of the most importance outside of life without life. Life and truth are the gifts that have saved the world and only they ever will. All life is important, regardless of what you or I say. Not because I say so, but because the truth says so.
Tausch
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2012
@DW
You victimize yourself and hold yourself hostage to your own religious fervor/fervour!
Holding you hostage to whatever your mind associates with the label and word "truth".

There exists treatment for you.
Seek it.

DavidW
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
Just because I can accept the fact that we are equal and truth exists does not mean you can't. If all you have are insults in the pretence of caring... I would have to say, stop killing. Humble yourself before the truth and life. You are not above these and neither am I. The words you speak, as well as others, where there is truth, are meant for ourselves as well as others. Chew on that. You pinned it on yourself. Try checking the ego a the door the next time and you might just find we can do better.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.