Was thinking more like satellite imagery as background. I feel like there’s no way such faint an object would be visible through the atmosphere. But maybe I’ve just never been far enough away from civilisation.
The Webb produces some beautiful pictures, as always, but identifying 800k galaxies in an area 2 1/2 times the size of the moon is hard to conceive. Both how good a telescope it is, and the scale of the universe.
Don’t think it says it in the link, but if you assume that all galaxies are randomly oriented, then in the places when the distribution isn’t quite average, you can assume that light has been pulled by gravity’s ‘hidden hand’. And with nearly a million galaxies to analyse, you get a very good picture of how sources of gravity are distributed.
Headline suggests that this is an observed fact, rather than the result of a simulation based on a model created by several EU scientists.
Furthermore the article asserts that “The observed motions … can only be properly explained with this “flat” mass distribution.” That premature assertion, based on this paper
I remember Angela Collier talking about this topic, but basically: the “AI” in question is a different beast from the “AI” in chatbots and image generators. The underlying tech is the same (artificial neural networks), but instead of making the bot mimic human output, you’re asking it to point out stuff.
So for example, you feed it with two sets of data:
a bunch of pics of completely normal astronomical objects
a bunch of pics of anomalous astronomical objects
Then you “ask” the bot to assign new pictures (not present in either set) to one of those sets.
In my opinion it’s one of the best ways to use the new tech. If there’s a false positive, nobody is harmed — the researcher will simply investigate the pic, see there’s nothing worth noting there, say “dumb clanker”, and move on. Ideally you don’t want false negatives, but if they do happen, you’re missing things you’d already miss anyway — because there’s no way people would trial down all those pics by hand.
It also skips a few issues associated with chatbots and image generators, like:
since it’s “trained” for a specific purpose, it isn’t DDoSing sites for training “data”. It’s all from the telescope, AFAIK in the public domain.
no massive training = no massive water/energy cost.
It blows my mind that they were able to simulate the big bang well enough that running the simulation for a while resulted in stars in the same places as in present reality. That’s crazy.
It’s wild to think that literally every human being who ever lived—all our history, drama, and breakfast plans—is tucked away in that tiny blue sliver disappearing behind the moon. It’s the ultimate "blue marble" moment, but even surge credit card pre approval more lonely.
astronomy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.