Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#2> With PRIMO, computers analyzed over 30,000 high-fidelity simulated images of black holes accreting gas.
That means that the new image better conforms to the simulated data. I understand why it makes sense to do this (simulated data generated following the laws of physics, etc.) but it seems to me that the original point of the EHT was to experimentally verify that black holes actually look as we've modeled them for decades, so sharpening images using modeled data seems somewhat backwards.
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#3> With PRIMO, computers analyzed over 30,000 high-fidelity simulated images of black holes accreting gas. That means that the new image better conforms to the simulated data. I understand why it makes sense to do this (simulated data generated following the laws of physics, etc.) but it seems to me that the original point of the EHT was to experimentally verify that black holes actually look as we've modeled them for…
Didn’t the original image also have a lot of designer choices made which, in some sense, contaminate the results?
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#4> With PRIMO, computers analyzed over 30,000 high-fidelity simulated images of black holes accreting gas. That means that the new image better conforms to the simulated data. I understand why it makes sense to do this (simulated data generated following the laws of physics, etc.) but it seems to me that the original point of the EHT was to experimentally verify that black holes actually look as we've modeled them for…
Didn’t the original image also have a lot of designer choices made which, in some sense, contaminate the results?
I can only assume so, given the nature of the experiment. But it seems counterintuitive to add yet more of it. Naively speaking, it feels a bit like the actual data is being "guided" towards the simulation.
However, I have zero subject matter expertise with physics, so my intuition is probably not worth much.
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#5[deleted]
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#6Is it just me or the 'new' image looks like it's mirrored w.r.t the old one?
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn’t the original image also have a lot of designer choices made which, in some sense, contaminate the results?
I can only assume so, given the nature of the experiment. But it seems counterintuitive to add yet more of it. Naively speaking, it feels a bit like the actual data is being "guided" towards the simulation. However, I have zero subject matter expertise with physics, so my intuition is probably not worth much.
Since the EHT is an interferometer, the observations contain less information than what would be available from a single telescope of the same equivalent size. Therefore to reconstruct the 'full image' you need to find the model which best fits your interferometric observables. As far as I can tell, what they've done with PRIMO is basically a fancy version this kind of modelling. The data isn't necessarily being guided towards the simulations, it's more like we have a better computational technique to precisely fit the data.
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#8The way I read this:
"Our imaging system lacks sufficient resolution to confirm or disprove our theories. But we can achieve better resolution by generating images based on our theories, and combining those generated images with the data from the imaging system. We are astonished to find that the resulting high-resolution images confirm our theories."
Isn't this some kind of anti-science?
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#9> With PRIMO, computers analyzed over 30,000 high-fidelity simulated images of black holes accreting gas. That means that the new image better conforms to the simulated data. I understand why it makes sense to do this (simulated data generated following the laws of physics, etc.) but it seems to me that the original point of the EHT was to experimentally verify that black holes actually look as we've modeled them for…
Didn’t the original image also have a lot of designer choices made which, in some sense, contaminate the results?
The data clearly supported the hole in the middle, and only reconstructions with a hole did fit the data. The data support the hole and that one side is brighter, but not much more than that. Thus a blurred image does not make one believe that we know more than we do.
Re: Taking a sharper look at the M87 black hole
#10> With PRIMO, computers analyzed over 30,000 high-fidelity simulated images of black holes accreting gas. That means that the new image better conforms to the simulated data. I understand why it makes sense to do this (simulated data generated following the laws of physics, etc.) but it seems to me that the original point of the EHT was to experimentally verify that black holes actually look as we've modeled them for…
Literally erecting the matrix through self fulfilling prophecies predicated on models as a consequence of dogma. Oh holy simulacrum.