vlaiv

You have to separate two things: - singularity - event horizon and us as external observers Singularity is mathematical concept that arises when you project some lines in curved space time and is beyond event horizon. For all intents and purposes - it does not exists, it is just artifact of our math. With collapse itself - it will happen very quickly for star itself, but we will see it slowly fading out of view as time dilates and light shifts towards lower frequencies due to gravitational red shift.

It is special type of debayering that works a bit like super pixel mode (thus keeps lower sampling rate of bayer matrix instead of doing interpolation) - that splits channels in the process. It produces 1 red, 1 blue and 2 green subs from each of the raws (do that after calibration), but each x2 smaller in width and height. You end up with red, blue and green subs after that (green subs will be 2 times as many as subs you recorded). Then you stack them like you would normally do with mono/(L)RGB - you stack each of colors to separate stack - but you align them to same reference frame. After you finish stacking - bin x2 each of the subs while still linear. First part - split debayer will produce 0.66"/px from 0.33"/px data, and second x2 bin will turn that 0.66"/px data into 1.33"/px data. By the way - operation in PI that does split debayering is called SplitCFA - here is forum post about it: https://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?threads/splitcfa-mergecfa.14494/

I would go about it like this: - shoot regularly without binning. Make sure you that you swamp the read noise with LP signal / background - do split debayer (I think there is script for PI that does this) - integrate - bin x2 resulting integration This will produce very respectable ~1.33"/px sampling rate (and hopefully your sky and mount will support it for the night).

Thing that we measure is not complete picture of reality. It is only part of underlying reality. Similarly you can say for particle that it's motion is not predictable (as we can't be sure of its momentum and position) and hence not deterministic - but it is deterministic in the way wave function evolves. Bell's inequality shows that underlying wave function is in fact element of reality - despite the fact that we don't know if particle is spin up or spin down (it is both at the same time and that is fine). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nxnoTVbNGM (Time evolution of electron spin state) I agree - but it shows time evolution of system starting with decay as it evolves into superposition of states (this is used as starting part of argument to point out that final superposition never happens). Similarly - if you look at tunneling - we can say that particle tunnels at some random point - but what really happens is that wave function (or vibration in quantum field of QFT) splits into two parts - one in potential well and one outside. At that time we can't say that particle is either in potential well nor that it is outside - best description is simply that it is both - or rather super position of positions and will stay that way until (something magical happens) we determine its actual position - either still in potential well or tunneled outside. All of that does not exclude time evolution of wave function

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/258256/how-can-quantum-tunnelling-lead-to-spontaneous-decay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission#Theory What happens is that given initial state of atom - it evolves into superposition of decayed + not decayed states (depending on surrounding field vacuum states). There is time evolution of this process and from that you can calculate probability of finding atom in decayed state at some time. It is wave function that is used to calculate probability. It is also foundation for Schrodinger's cat thing - atom is both decayed and not decayed which leads to cat dead and alive thing.

QED?

From what I understand - there is not really branching as such. It seems that popular explanation fail to convey essence of this interpretation. Many worlds just says there is universal wave function - and it can - like any other wave function be in superposition of states (like single electron can be in superposition of spin up and spin down). "Branching" (in the lack of better term) - happens when entangled states loose phase and can no longer interfere. So we have electron that is both spin up and spin down (super position) - and we measure it. It gets entangled with measuring device and new state is superposition of two states spin_up and measured spin up, and spin down and measured spin down - but because of decoherence - these two no longer interfere. They are part of same wave function - but we have "branch" of sorts as these are now separate parts that no longer interfere. In this view, when you say that you prepared dice 6 up and measured it - then you did not start in superpositioned state and did not further entangle dice with environment (it was already entangled by preparation and decohered) - and in that sense - there is no branching. What is interesting is that when there is branching - like when spin of electron is slightly misaligned with direction of measurement - we have branching to two distinct new states - but these states don't have equal probability. Now, in order to verify that probability - "our branch" must end up in respective state on each branch - and that can never happen for some cases (irrational probability), or is generally very small probability of it happening.

I think that it is obvious that we don't live in deterministic universe. Problem is that our equations depict one.

They are however equivalent. Initial conditions + transition function is equally deterministic as having two states and path between them that minimizes some quantity (after all - there is one and only one path that minimizes some quantity - otherwise it would not be minimal). After all - that is why two formulations are equivalent as well.

Yes, but, like I said - I don't think that many worlds is the solution. I still haven't found answer to my objection to it, and it is fairly simple one. If we prepare electron with spin 1 degree of vertical and then measure it in vertical direction - we have achieved following setup: experiment with only two outcomes has probability that is not 50:50. Not sure how many worlds can explain that we end up being a copy with spin up majority of the time. It also implies that opposite copy (or rather all other copies for repeated experiment) have different rules of physics. I wonder how come that our branch always follows same set of physics rules (or has in past 100 years of knowledge of QM).

I guess there is some variation. Not sure how much, but I can name two factors that will change eye relief and depend on person. First is any sort of dioptre. As we get older - we get farsighted, and although we might not need glasses in everyday life or just for observing - we don't all have same ideal focus position when observing relaxed. Change of focus position will change eye relief somewhat. Second thing of course is position of eyes with respect to eye sockets. Some people have gentler facial features / less pronounced bones / eye sockets - and others are different in that respect.

Both of these are deeply deterministic.

It is deterministic in the state of the system - but not measurement. We are used to thinking in terms that state of the system is the complete set of measurements - but QM thought us differently - there is state of the system that is unique and describable but not necessarily measurable. I must admin that here we have to subscribe to particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. I tend to subscribe to following: - wave function is element of reality (not merely tool for calculation) - or rather QM fields are fundamental building blocks - there is no spontaneous collapse of wave function, lack of superposition can be explained by decoherence - there is universal wavefunction This all sounds very similar to many worlds interpretation - but I'm not 100% on board with that, so don't just assume that I subscribe to that. With above - we have deterministic evolution of wave function. No probabilities involved at all. It does not however explain why do we get one particular measurement over others (and again, I don't think that many worlds is the answer - but something close to it).

where does it say that initial conditions are fundamentally indeterminable? Take for example following: "If we prepare electron in spin up configuration .... bunch of calculations follow" - in our calculations we start from well defined initial conditions. Then we do experiment like this: Pass electrons thru oriented magnetic field and we select those with spin up to test our prediction given by above. Only thing that is questionable in the whole process is our ability to measure precisely (and the fact that we can't measure some things at the same time - but that does not mean that wavefunction itself is not in exact state).

No, not really. It is phenomena like any other around us. We do have them, we do have at least basic understanding of what hunger is. It is something that is evolved with complexity. I doubt that plants have hunger / urge, but dogs and cats certainly do seem to have it. Imagine a robot that is programmed according to set of rules - like, "when battery is low, find nice sunny spot and deploy your solar panel". Will "robot feeling hungry" make it more likely to do that if it already has a rule for it? Under what circumstances can you see "robot deciding" not to deploy solar panel and instead perform another task. Only if it is programmed to do so. We can add randomness in all of that (random component in rules) - and I still don't see reason for feeling hungry.

This statement does not make sense. If something is deterministic - then it is predictable. Can we predict it with 100% certainty? That really depends if: 1) we can determine initial conditions with sufficient precision 2) we can determine physical laws with sufficient precision Something being deterministic does not depend on our ability to predict its course (law of gravity or electromagnetism worked the same at the time when it was mystery to us - it did not change because we managed to write down laws for them). Scope of physics is a bit more then just being good enough approximation. It also aims to describe the world around us and help us get deeper insight in how things work. That is one of the reasons why we want to, for example, interpret QM instead of just shutting up and calculating ... Sometimes it is very beneficial to ask - what is it that equations are in fact telling us. I'm simply going from very basic and using induction (maybe this is where there is an error in my thinking / understanding). We formulate all laws of physics as initial condition + transition function. Even Quantum mechanics does that even if it does not appear so with probabilities included. Our model assumes that we have initial state and we have evolution of wave function which produces wave function and some future time. Is there randomness in how that function evolves? No, not really - it is deterministic in nature. We can look at this from two different vantage points. 1) There is nothing in inherent determinism of universe (if it really behaves that way) to prevent emergent properties. That is not paradox / contradiction. We might be just "watching a movie" unfold in front of our eyes because we are emergent awareness from very large number of neurons - that just simply act out according to physics laws given initial conditions 2) Maybe we don't have physical theory because we are stuck with current paradigm - but instead of paying attention to signs that it might be flawed - we press on?

Deterministic system is - well deterministic and hence predictable 100%. We are not talking here about chaos theory - fact that very small change in initial conditions will lead to large differences after evolution of system for some time. I'm trying to point out that our understanding of physics on fundamental level can't produce phenomena that we experience in every day life (or it is very very unlikely). If what we perceive free will as being product of deterministic system - no matter how complex, then future state of system is simply function of initial conditions and transition function (physics laws). In such system there is simply no need to feel hungry in order to eat. Eating will happen or not - based on initial system state and transition function. All our physics laws are formulated in "initial conditions + transition function" fashion. I think that is problem - that is what is wrong with physics.

Well, I've come to a conclusion that something is seriously wrong with physics. Everything about physics tells us that "free will" is all but illusion, and I'd be fine with that - except there are some fundamental things that can't be explained by it being merely an illusion. I'll list 3 types of things in ascending order of "weight". First would be "Beerman's argument" that I formulated like this: "I decide to go out for a beer with some of my friends. We set a time and we end up on that beer together". Now, I find that it is very unlikely that two would match - my idea of going out for a beer and actually going out for a beer at agreed time. It only gets "worse" - with more people involved (less odds). It is not impossible in deterministic / stochastic universe for this to happen as we know of mathematical structures with large amount of self similarity (fractals). Similarly - idea and actual drinking of the beer could be parts of self similar set - one realized in brain - other in world. But I find that to be very unlikely. Second argument would be - judiciary system and for example upbringing / education Both are created under impression that punishment / reward will have an effect on our decision making. We teach our children how to behave and we "correct" behavior of adults when not in line with what is expected. Now, if free will is an illusion - I'd be happy to accept that either of two mentioned things is nonsensical - no point in doing as physical system will evolve according to its own rules and punishing man for a crime is as efficient as punishing a tree for falling onto a car and destroying property. Third argument is probably the strongest one. We have feelings. Why do we feel hungry? Why do we feel pain? Why do we feel love? In deterministic universe - these mechanisms absolutely make no sense. Why do I need to feel hungry when I'm about to eat because physical system will evolve in that way according to its own rules (no really other option as everything is deterministic). In stochastic system - well things will evolve in random manner, again - I don't see much room for being hungry or in love. I think it would be wise to try to understand the way we thing about natural world in terms of these phenomena that we often "push aside" to other sciences.

Here is what I've managed to do with the data and Gimp/ImageJ for processing: OIII is very very faint. We tend to spend same amount per filter - but that is often not good decision for NB imaging as Ha tends to be much much brighter than other wavelengths, and needs much less total exposure. In this case, image would benefit from more OIII time.

I downloaded the data, but no dice. Don't do xisf as I don't have PI. Here is something that you can try instead of your normal workflow: Stretch each channel individually until you get pleasing image / you bring out the detail. Keep in mind that Ha is strongest so don't over do it with Ha. Then do RGB combine for SHO palette.

Not really, at least not recently. I had this idea for quite some time - to build one that will have cycloidal drive (after seeing some 3d printed ones in action), instead of popular options like worm, or belt / gear system, or even strain wave (which seems to be popular at the moment). Math is straight forward - Say we want something like 1" per step resolution and we work with 32 micro steps. One revolution will have 200 steps with 32 micro steps - that gives 200 x 32 = 6400 steps per revolution. On the other hand we have 360 degrees x 60 arc minutes x 60 arc seconds = 1296000 arc seconds in one revolution. 1296000 / 6400 = 202.5 We need something like 200:1 reduction to be able to do that. Belt and pulley can be used as final reduction - something like 5:1 or 7:1, which leaves "primary" reduction at something like 40:1 or 30:1 - ideal for cycloidal drive. I think it will also be low backlash (not very important for star tracker, I know) - and should be smooth if printed correctly. I have to say - that I'm surprised by how much I enjoy designing this stuff and yes, there is real risk of over "engineering" things (as if it can be called engineering - not really an engineer here).

Here is little update - prototype of polar alignment wedge azimuth assembly: Vid 20220801 215151.mp4 This is just to test out worm/worm gear geometry and assembly. Worm gear shaft will still use 608 bearings but worm itself will be resting on 51108 axial ball bearing and will be supported with 6006 radial ball bearing (both rather cheap). Worm is running rather smooth without any grease applied to it. There is some backlash as I added 0.1mm distance between nominal shaft positions. Maybe that won't be needed for final version, or maybe I should work on some sort of spring loaded auto backlash adjustment? I'm not yet sure what sort of design to go for - for worm gear itself. As is - it is rather difficult to print and very good dimensional accuracy is needed. I also needed to beef up some sections of it to make it rigid enough (5 perimeters and 55% infill) - last one broke in couple of places due to stress from over tightening the knobs. I'm thinking of adding M5 threaded core (running all the length of worm and bearing shafts) and some nuts instead of current arrangement. 1 meter of M5 threaded rod is something like 0.5e in hardware store here - but from what I can see online - quite a bit more expensive elsewhere (for some reason). It would involve also sawing it to right size and using socket wrench to tighten up m5 nuts to hold knobs in place and push against ball bearings (just a bit of pressure to keep everything in place in above prototype. Where should I draw the line? What sort of complexity will make this "advanced" rather than "easy" build level?

I think that dog is much more advanced than most AIs out there. It is really down to size of neural network - number of neurons and connections. Most AI neural networks are rather small in size compared to living beings, but they are sort of optimized for particular task.

So are we, aren't we? It's all about pattern matching. Level of sophistication is just how deep pattern matching goes (or IQ for that matter).

I think that AI is in fact doing the "discovery" - in the same sense humans are doing the discovery. Looking at outputted data and interpretation of it - is actually more like "translation" from foreign language of AI then discovery. AI is actually neural network that is trained to anticipate how the system will behave. This is something similar to human standing there and concluding - look if apple detaches from the tree - it will always fall straight down with accelerated motion. That is step one - finding repeating phenomena and understanding sequence of events that describes that phenomena. If either we or AI can then say - ok, if system is in state A - it will be in state B after given amount of time - then we have variables and equations (of some sorts). Given that AI can predict how system will behave in future time - means it has variables and equations in one form or another (It performed the discovery). Interesting part is assertion that there is minimum amount of variables that describe certain system (degrees of freedom) and that those don't change whatever framework you put them in - a bit like vectors - they don't change regardless of how you express their coordinates (polar, euclidean, ....) These variables and equations are "encoded" in neural network of AI in this example and trick is to "translate" or "read the brain" of AI in order to try to understand - how many variables there are, what they represent and what are the equations.