Do we see what we expect to see?

[westmarch]

This is a question I cannot expect to answer but I’m going to ask it.

How much of what observers see is influenced by what others tell us we should see.  I yearn for the darkest site, clearest seeing, best transparency, optimum eyepieces and aperture. (Oh! and eyesight)  Am I, sometimes with averted vision, interpreting vague shapes according to what imagers tell me is there.

I am sure that imagers ask of themselves the same question: give me ideal conditions, better mounts and refractors, more software manipulation and I will obtain that definitive Hubble view.

I suppose the question is, are we all trying to see; or just confirm what others see.

John

[tooth_dr]

I am simply amazed at the talent and skill of the observers on here .  I have observed myself just a handful of times and I think that with having imaged the target, I know what to look for.  In a way it's like reading the book and then watching the film (whichever way you choose to view this).  I never aspire to get hubble like images, but I try to achieve similar results to people with similar equipment.

[Scott]

30 minutes ago, westmarch said:

This is a question I cannot expect to answer but I’m going to ask it.

How much of what observers see is influenced by what others tell us we should see.  I yearn for the darkest site, clearest seeing, best transparency, optimum eyepieces and aperture. (Oh! and eyesight)  Am I, sometimes with averted vision, interpreting vague shapes according to what imagers tell me is there.

I am sure that imagers ask of themselves the same question: give me ideal conditions, better mounts and refractors, more software manipulation and I will obtain that definitive Hubble view.

I suppose the question is, are we all trying to see; or just confirm what others see.

John

I think we've all suffered from averted imagination at one time or another.

[Sunshine]

There’s no doubt that averted vision has worked for me, takes some practice but especially on globulars it does slightly increase the overall density of stars. If it doesn’t then don’t burst my bubble and let me have my illusion please lol.

[Stu]

I think there is always a temptation or risk that we do end up using averted imagination to fill in the blanks a bit, based on what we have seen in images. It is helpful to a degree in that it shows what there is to look for, but all you can try to do is be honest with yourself and where possible verify observations on different occasions.

I have observed Jupiter pretty intensively over the years, particularly when it was higher, and have always tried to see white ovals but have never managed to, so have successfully resisted any false observations!

[vlaiv]

I think it is essential process of seeing (not atmospheric one ), that is how we see faint stuff.

Our brain is very good at filtering of all sorts - just look at psychology to see many examples of it. It is also good at suppressing noise inherent in natural world when we observe. In doing this it will sometimes "show" us some features just to have them disappear again (famous popping in and out of the view). But once we know it's there this plays significant part in our brain putting some breaks on filtering - once we spot it we tend to see more of it.

So it's not necessarily case of someone telling us what we should see, it can well be case of ourselves telling us what we should see, and I think it is integral and even essential part of observing.

And then there is famous case of : Once you see it, you will not be able to "unsee" it again.

[westmarch]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

So it's not necessarily case of someone telling us what we should see, it can well be case of ourselves telling us what we should see, and I think it is integral and even essential part of observing.

I suppose the Martian canals is the most famous example of seeing what we want to.

John

[westmarch]

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

I think there is always a temptation or risk that we do end up using averted imagination to fill in the blanks a bit, based on what we have seen in images. It is helpful to a degree in that it shows what there is to look for, but all you can try to do is be honest with yourself and where possible verify observations on different occasions.

I have observed Jupiter pretty intensively over the years, particularly when it was higher, and have always tried to see white ovals but have never managed to, so have successfully resisted any false observations!

Then the question is, do we all end up chasing the observation or manipulated image that has not shown the same integrity?

John

[Stu]

21 minutes ago, westmarch said:

Then the question is, do we all end up chasing the observation or manipulated image that has not shown the same integrity?

John

For me, no. I just observe to the best of my ability, and within the limitations of my skies. I use reports from others to encourage me to observe different targets and images to verify what I've seen.

[Relpet]

It's an intriguing question.  On a recent visit to the Observatory Science Centre at Herstmonceux the guide showed us the 26" Thompson refractor in operation there, one of the telescopes installed when the Royal Observatory moved from Greenwich.  This telescope can be used by the public on open evenings.  Cloud-free open evenings at Herstmonceux will be rare as hen's teeth, I should think, but though the prospect of driving forty miles to observe Saturn through a 26" refractor would have me in the car in a flash nothing will ever take away from me my first sight of that wondrous planet through my first modest 8" reflector.  The same goes for Jupiter and I never tire of looking for identifiable features on the moon.  In my 80th year time is against me but I shall still be wanting to see things through my own eyes, however dim they may be and however hazy the objects they are seeking.  If I want to see them in glorious Technicolor in the comfort of my living room there are piles of coffee table books to choose from and wonderful images taken by amateurs and professionals alike on YouTube.  But no matter how poor the experience it's seeing for oneself where the magic lies.  If we find ourselves Photoshopping in our mind's eye afterwards to embellish the memory that just emphasises we are human beings, not scientific instruments.  We can marvel at the Mars landing yesterday and look forward to amazing images in the coming months but seeing features on the red blob for the first time in my life last summer was as personally satisfying for me as the excitement everyone felt in the control centre yesterday.  Every time we go out under the night sky we travel in hope and are often disappointed but every now and again there's  something to take our breath away.  If we keep our expectations in check the more likely we are to be satisfied with what we see.  im - rather lengthy - ho.

[maw lod qan]

While I am so amazed and impressed with everything I have seen that has been done with seemingly unlimited resources (like the Hubble) I am just as thrilled when I glimpse the tiny specks of moons around Jupiter and Saturn.

To know I'm seeing something that BILLIONS of humans might never see with their own eyes makes it special to me.

And thanks to this group here, my bucket list has grown much larger.

[mikeDnight]

Its very easy to delude ourselves and imagine subtle detail that's on the edge of discernibility. It's best not to view dso images or drawings made by others prior to observing the same object ourselves. Even checking out the longitude of the central meridian of Mars prior to observation can influence our hopes and imagination, so that we see what we expect to see. 

However, really studying an object, even a lunar crater that thousands of observers have viewed countless times, you can make your own personal discoveries. I've seen rills that don't show in lunar orbiter images and which seasoned lunar observers have never seen, even in much larger scopes. Yet despite claims that they don't exist or that they are merely an alignment of features too small for my scope to see, they have- after my sketches came to light- been imaged by another amateur. Then other observers intrigued by the suggestion of these rill systems in the crater Werner, have searched through orbiter images and eventually found the rills, though very poorly displayed due to the high angle of the Sun. So if you do see something that others have not seen, or that some dispute the reality of, don't be too quick to doubt yourself as there's a high probability you are right. 

 

[Moonshane]

I once showed someone the Pacman nebula from a darkish site and in my 16" dob.

He commented that he could not tell whether he as seeing it or imagining it which I suppose in a nutshell is what you are asking. As suggested by Mike, a great thing to do is sketch what you actually see as well as you can. Even if it's not your strong point, and do this before you look at images. Planets are great examples of this, especially Mars and Jupiter. I often sketch what I see and then compare with e.g. https://www.calsky.com/ and see if what I drew remotely, or hopefully accurately represents what's there. With practice, it will.

Here's one of my first sketches which encouraged me to keep going. It actually confirmed that I had misidentified a cluster albeit still a new one to my list. A photo nicked from the web is also below.

 

[westmarch]

18 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

Here's one of my first sketches which encouraged me to keep going. It actually confirmed that I had misidentified a cluster albeit still a new one to my list. A photo nicked from the web is also below.

 

Interestingly and slightly off subject, I now sketch the star hopping route as well as the target.  It has helped me reacquire the target and surrounding targets so much more easily.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I'll admit that i havent read all replies but what i can say is that a good number of people new to astronomy expect to see Hubble-like images through their telescope. This simply isnt the case because the human eye is not sensitive enough to detect much colour over vast distances. 

Most of the universe is 50 shades of gray to the naked eye through a scope (no pun intended).

What amazes me is that when i observe is that the light from an object has traveled through space for millions of years to reach my eye. Most of what we look at today has probably changed vastly in that time.

Astronomy is like having your own time machine.

[reezeh]

On 28 November 2018 at 20:57, LukeSkywatcher said:

What amazes me is that when i observe is that the light from an object has traveled through space for millions of years to reach my eye. Most of what we look at today has probably changed vastly in that time.

 

I sometimes wonder if we live in a Hall of Mirrors universe of a couple or so billion lightyears radius; might it be very difficult to tell if we are?

Sorry to go off-topic but it's an interesting thought, even if just as pondering material.

[humblepigeon]

2 hours ago, reezeh said:

I sometimes wonder if we live in a Hall of Mirrors universe

Agreed, especially with gravitational lensing, the shear weight of forces out there must be deflecting and giving us false images of some objects. Possibly bending things to a completely different shape or flipping the objects view inside out before it reaches us.
We may find in time that the universal positions we give to some DSOs are 'way out' also due to this phenomena, just a thought.

[Hawksmoor]

The more you think about the night sky and what we see, the more complex the question becomes. One night's naked eye observations of stars reveals few clues as to their relative distance and therefore their relative size. In fact our dynamic universe appears static once you discount the rotation of the earth and a few naked eye planets. So what we learn and know about the universe interacts to inform our direct senses and on some nights in my backyard for me the night sky appears to have perspective.  I'm glad our brains work in this combinative and subjective way and that we look for patterns to give meaning amongst the stars.  Astronomy would be diminished without constellations and asterisms many of which have no connection other than in our minds.

A trained  and disciplined observer, George Alcock comes to mind, can achieve extraordinary results but we should also celebrate the value of the informed view.  

George ready for sleep in Lowestoft