(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 Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), based at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (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 supercomputer simulations 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 accelerating universe is a graph that shows remarkable similarity to many complex networks such as the Internet, social, or even biological networks.

"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 10^{250} 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 10^{46}.

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 universe, and some yet-unknown equations describing the dynamics of complex networks," added Marián Boguñá, a member of the research team from the Departament de Física Fonamental at the Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

**Explore further:**
Popularity versus similarity: A balance that predicts network growth

**More information:**
www.nature.com/srep/2012/121113/srep00793/full/srep00793.html

## Tausch

## Tektrix

Right. Provide enough dots and you can draw any figure you want. Unfortunately, this little epiphany has nothing to do with the article.

## Tausch

Your interpretation disappointed you.

In your own words what does the article have to do with?

## DavidW

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

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

## antialias_physorg

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:

We definitely shouldn't fall for the 'doctrine of signatures' fallacy again.

## vlaaing peerd

## DavidW

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

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

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

..."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

The metrical one.

:P

## Tausch

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

## ValeriaT

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

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## DavidW

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

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.

Circular logic makes perfect sense to me when other points of circular logic are used and placed perpendicular and infer direction.

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

Sure, to be used as a tool to stop or minimize all unnecessary suffering and death for all life.

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

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