It's blocked by "EasyList – Newsletter Notices", the annoyances lists are often a bit too aggressive."
It links to a doi.org URL which directs the browser to what you linked.
> The DOI for a document remains fixed over the lifetime of the document, whereas its location and other metadata may change. Referring to an online document by its DOI should provide a more stable link than directly using its URL. But if its URL changes, the publisher must update the metadata for the DOI to maintain the link to the URL. It is the publisher's responsibility to update the DOI database. If they fail to do so, the DOI resolves to a dead link, leaving the DOI useless.
More about it at Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Under the Context of Research Data Librarianship - https://doi.org/10.7191%2Fjeslib.2021.1180
which reminds me, who has control over DOI.org ... eg. is it DOGE-safe ? likewise arXiv .. can it easily be co-opted / subsumed ?
It’s an independent foundation and they have backups/contingency plans established with major universities to preserve the DOI records in the event the foundation fails.
(Third foundation?)
DOI must die
But magnet links and the BitTorrent mainline hash-table are a better DOI than DOI.
* An auto increment ID is just as human non-readable as a UUID, it's just easier to get silent collisions from typos.
* The Source is metadata that belongs in a metadata system, not into the ID itself
* the veracity is worthless without verifiability
* gated-ness is just an anti-feature caused by the lack of verifiability
If you you classify identifiers along different axis of their properties, you'll notice that DOIs actually inhabit the completely wrong quadrant for their use-case. (https://docs.rs/tribles/0.5.1/tribles/id/index.html)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they exist, but they appear to guard against humans who are lazy and make mistakes sometimes rather than against a powerful adversary motivated to interfere with science. It might be time for an upgrade.
detect-ability of state-actor post-facto editing : DEI related or otherwise
The last thing we need is hallucinations fucking up the more grounded astrophysics. I'm not saying that is what is happening, I just worry about stuff like this. AI causing us to bark up the wrong tree, and so forth.
What if we had that view with microscopes, back when?
I see the point being made above fully. If ai takes over it's because we are every day it seems like slowly placing that faith.
It's our wow. It's the future generations taken for granted.
"Much more in-depth" ways now just "the way".
Like telescopes?
But yes, like telescopes. Or microscopes. Those still bind us to using our built in sensors that we 'trust'.
Then we obviously get into radio telescopes, or down to electron microscopes, etc and we start having to believe in the tech to get our new found understandings.
My mental hesitation lay in trusting AI to get to that level of belief -- if/when that happens, what do we really know or trust?
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but you definitely seem to be confusing generative AI here. What's being discussed here is not generative AI. It's just a very refined algo searching for patterns in images. This is not "artist conception" type of content like the image of the black hole. So until you accept the difference, you're just spinning your wheels
You're thinking of the wrong ML. Generative models "hallucinate" and it's as much a feature as it's a bug. ML in astrophysics is not generative. They use it for flagging, "binning" data and in general (simplified) classification.
1st image of our Milky Way's black hole may be inaccurate, scientists say
For another ML-assisted science thing, there's the LHC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Findings_since_201...
Clustering alone is machine learning and has been taught as such to innumerable people.
I have deep feelings about this, someone in management taking exactly one Kaggle course managed to wield this knowledge to great damage.
But it is machine learning.
Additionally, it goes far beyond clustering: the article you linked describes training an image recognition model, which also seems to be heavily stressed in the article linked on HN.
Let's keep AI for vibe coding, cat images and memes etc.
But they're (sadly?) much simpler: Spitzer bubbles 'are formed by radiation and winds from massive stars, which carve out holes within surrounding dust clouds.'
So really just the blast radius!
-- https://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/image/ssc2013-05a1-bubbles-w...
I would _love_ it if either of both these comments were true, by the way. Space-time can be boring and restrictive. What if...? I love the idea of bubbles reflecting a smaller universe and what it might hint about FTL, for example, and I live in hope that we'll find abberations and abnormalities like this.
If you shine a laser through a mass of soap bubbles it will unsurprisingly split into lots of smaller beams due to a mix of refraction and reflection. I have long held the suspicion that there's an isomorphism between gravitational and surface tension structures, that the multiplicity and distance of galaxies may be somewhat illusory, and that many of them are translated/rotated reflections of nearer ones. Laugh now, perhaps gasp in wonder later.
Sounds like domain walls.
Simply put, it's a topological defect or discontinuity, but that makes it sounds worse than it really is. I find it easiest to visualize with magnets. They want to align with their neighbors, so in general you get big blocks (domains) where all particles are aligned. What happens at the border when blocks with different alignments meet? We call that a domain wall. That's literally all it is!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_domain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_wall_(magnetism)
You can find domains walls in magnets, metallic crystal grain structures, liquid crystals, pretty much anything that wants to self-align. One issue: gravity doesn't particularly want to self-align. Or does it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking
I've only got a surface understanding of this stuff myself. Best of luck in your research!
Intuitively I'd say if there was curvature or topological irregularities at the furthest distances we can observe, there wouldn't be a consistent redshift observed on far objects because some of them would be coming towards us instead of pulling away.
My hunch is that rather than space being a contiguous void with isolated mass of gravity behaving like tiny monopolar magnets, at the intersection between different mass systems there are 'surfaces' of some sort like the walls of a bubble in a pile of foam, and that if you could encounter this 'surface' you would either be repelled by it (most likely) or make contact and be able to slide around on it, and then once you got to the angles where walls joins, you would be able to zip along the intersections at great speed in ways that defy conventional physics. I can't really explain it in greater depth, it's an intuition that's half lifelong fascination with looking at soap films and what foam does, and half 'it came to me in a dream.'
I don't know where or when it was taken, or what part of the sky that happens in. Maybe it's just a really long lens, so it's seeing "through" the galaxy we normally see "stars" from?
Anyhow, how do you think you could prove this or how someone could prove it? Is it like, two observers on opposite sides of the planet observing the same thing, say during an eclipse or something? Maybe radioastronomy?
We see stars in our galaxy because they are close enough to us that we see them as individual stars. Compare that to the Andromeda Galaxy, which is far enough away that without intense zoom, it looks like a single source of light. There are galaxies even farther away, which we cannot see with the naked eye at all, but zooming in on them like Hubble did means we eventually get enough resolution to see they are individual galaxies, unfathomably far away.
JWST being able to see infrared means we'll see galaxies that are so far away, their light is redshifted so we (and Hubble) cannot even see them at all.
With regards to your question about how to test the bubble hypothesis posted by parent, we would be limited by how variable our point of view can be. We can gather what data we can at one end of Earth's orbit, and then try to see from the opposite end and compare what we see, comparing data sets to see if certain galaxies or stars are in different positions. We already do some of this when dealing with gravitational lensing and I believe it's one of the primary ways we can detect black holes, as they bend light a lot.
this is what i was thinking of; thanks for the hubble reference, though!
Hyperspace lanes!
https://x.com/jharohit/status/1479100020049678339?s=46
Great use of AI!
> In 2010, Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the BOOMERanG experiment contained an excess of concentric circles compared to simulations based on the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, quoting a 6-sigma significance of the result.