Astrophysicist Tries Machine Learning To Generate a Black Hole Movie (hpe.com) 70
One of the scientists who worked on the black hole picture is now pursuing an even more ambitious visualization, this time for the super-massive black hole at the center of our own galaxy.
Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler shares this report from Hewlett Packard Enterprise's Insights blog: Lia Medeiros, a physicist, astrophysicist, and National Science Foundation fellow, is working to put together a movie of sorts of a black hole, using data from the Event Horizon Telescope, a global telescope array that gave scientists the data needed to capture that first black hole image. And she's going to do it using machine learning... Scientists basically will be pitting Einstein's theory of general relativity, which tells us what we know, or think we know, about gravity, against the most powerful gravitational forces in the universe. It's about comparing these new black hole observations with predictions based on our mathematical models of them. And if general relativity doesn't fully hold up at the event horizon, then the theory may need to be rethought.
Her work also could tell us more about how quantum mechanics, which is still quite mysterious to the best physicists, interacts with the theory of gravity... Having a black hole movie could be a scientific game changer because they are one of the only types of objects in the universe that scientists need both theories to explain. Black holes, simply put, live at the intersection of quantum and gravity. Movies of a black hole could give scientists the information they need to see if they behave the way we expect them to, helping them figure out the complicated intersection of two major scientific theories.
Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler shares this report from Hewlett Packard Enterprise's Insights blog: Lia Medeiros, a physicist, astrophysicist, and National Science Foundation fellow, is working to put together a movie of sorts of a black hole, using data from the Event Horizon Telescope, a global telescope array that gave scientists the data needed to capture that first black hole image. And she's going to do it using machine learning... Scientists basically will be pitting Einstein's theory of general relativity, which tells us what we know, or think we know, about gravity, against the most powerful gravitational forces in the universe. It's about comparing these new black hole observations with predictions based on our mathematical models of them. And if general relativity doesn't fully hold up at the event horizon, then the theory may need to be rethought.
Her work also could tell us more about how quantum mechanics, which is still quite mysterious to the best physicists, interacts with the theory of gravity... Having a black hole movie could be a scientific game changer because they are one of the only types of objects in the universe that scientists need both theories to explain. Black holes, simply put, live at the intersection of quantum and gravity. Movies of a black hole could give scientists the information they need to see if they behave the way we expect them to, helping them figure out the complicated intersection of two major scientific theories.
Intersection (Score:1)
The intersection of quantum and gravity. Is that like being at the corner of 1st and 1st. The nexus of the universe!
I always thought of it like this. (Score:3)
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole but the thing is
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.
TRILLIAN:
Piss poor English, above par (Score:1)
"they are one of the only types of objects in the universe"
This conveys zero information. My taint is one of the only things in the universe made of atoms. For fuck's sake can we get some proof reading here?
IDGAF if it's a quote, fix it or mark it sicunt est, or otherwise don't repeat language abuse.
Character development (Score:3)
Machine learning will never successfully generate a movie. Is the black hole the hero, or the villain? What's its motivation? Will the audience sympathize with it? A black hole would be the worst Mary Sue in the history of fiction. What kind of adversary will it face? What kind of challenge would a black hole struggle to overcome, and what will it learn?
Still, they can't do worse than Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood didn't do too badly [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of challenge would a black hole struggle to overcome....
Self esteem issues from always having everyone tell it it sucks, obviously.
And when you click on their "Black Hole" link ... (Score:1)
. . . all you get is Goatse.
Damn, I fell for it again!
Please edit for accuracy (Score:2)
Her work also could tell us more about how quantum mechanics, which is still quite mysterious to the best physicists ...
Last time I checked, quantum mechanics was well-enough understood that it gets taught in 2nd year undergraduate physics classes. That's not quite what I'd think of as mysterious.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not well enough understood that they can explain how it interacts with gravity.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not well enough understood that they can explain how it interacts with gravity.
You are assuming that it interacts with gravity.
"This dinosaurs are not well enough understood that they can explain how they interacted with humans."
See how assumptions can generate nonsense questions?
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that it interacts with gravity.
That's what the article says, dummy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, gravity is the least known and least understood force. We don't even know if it is quantized. Or it could be that it is, but mankind will never have sufficiently advanced mathematics to model it. Heck, we can't even analytically model 3 gravitation ally interacting bodies, we can only approximate or do numeric methods solutions (that are approximations)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the more advanced QM topics, such as QED use very dodgy tricks in their derivations that mathematicians say aren't valid, though they give useful results.
adding relativity to basic quantum mechanics makes things get hairy too, spin pops up
Re: (Score:2)
Math makes the useful models we do have of reality, we have more understanding with it even if not full understanding.
Our maths are strained a bit by for example three or more objects of various masses interacting gravitationally, though we can still arrive at prediction of motion to any wanted degree of precision regardless.
We have a useful model of gravity with general relativity that breaks down in certain edge cases, one of those being the quantum realm. Another case is for the formation and interiors
stupid hyperbole (Score:2)
Scientists basically will be pitting Einstein's theory of general relativity, which tells us what we know, or think we know, about gravity, against the most powerful gravitational forces in the universe. It's about comparing these new black hole observations with predictions based on our mathematical models of them. And if general relativity doesn't fully hold up at the event horizon, then the theory may need to be rethought.
Been there,done that. https://www.eso.org/public/new... [eso.org]
GR has held up everywhere, every single experiment on it for the last 100+ years. How fucking stupid, or egotistical, do you have to be to ignore that track record without having any evidence to suggest an alternative (one that actually has any evidence itself)?
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly the goal is to produce a theory which gives almost identical predictions to GR on the scales where GR is successful, but gives better predictions when you take things to extremes.
This is like the relationship between Newtonian gravity and GR. The successes of Newton's theory in explaining the motions of Uranus and Neptune are replicated by GR, but the small variation in Mercury's orbit is better described by GR. It's interesting to read about an alternative theory: Vulcan [nationalgeographic.com].
Lord knows... (Score:2)
...they can't do worse than Disney.
Bah Humbug (Score:1)
Already saw that movie back in the 80's. (Score:2)