• onyxjet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    In my eyes

    Indisposed

    In disguise

    As no one knows

    Hides the face

    Lies the snake

    The sun

    In my disgrace…

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      🎵 🎶Boiling heat

      Summer stench

      'Neath the black

      The sky looks dead

      Call my name

      Through the cream

      And I’ll hear you

      Scream again 🎶 🎵

  • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The title is misleading. It’s not “discovered”, but rather “observed for the first time”. Since black hole stars have been theorized for a while now. And they’re actually the only “accepted” explanation for the origins of super massive black holes holding galaxies together.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Not even observed for the first time, it’s more like one group of scientists believe that they have observed one with one publication.

  • melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wow! JWST is paying dividends like this on a regular basis. It’s amazing what can happen when humans around the world collaborate on something instead being at odds.

  • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I read something a while ago speculating that black holes, and thus the singularity and infinity problems inherent with their existence, may not actually exist.

    Rather, they were proposed to be basically this, stars which are super dense, and do cause light to fall back into them, but rather than reaching a point of infinite density, the stars themselves lie just beyond the event horizon, so we can’t see them. Totally normal physics, just super hugely massive objects.

    They called them gravetars, I believe.

    Edit: gravastar, it turns out. The paper I read was something more recent than 25 years ago, however…

    • solrize@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The GR (general relativity) equations predict a singularity so it’s a big theoretical puzzle. I don’t think anyone believes there’s really a singularity. They just think GR needs correction at the microscopic scale (i.e. quantum gravity) and no one currently knows how to do that. Progress is being made though.

      Look up “ultraviolet catastrophe” for a historical analogy from thermodynamics.

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      I suppose it depends on what kind of AI we’re talking about. If you mean LLMs, then I certainly hope no one is trying to do something as foolish as that.

      A lot of the stuff from James Webb is truly novel, as well, which no AI technology would be useful in understanding.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      At least in my field people work with AI to write code and find information, so I assume whoever is making the data analysis for James Webb has done the same.

      For using neural networks to actually analyse the data I’m not sure, because the goal of these analyses is to understand, and not just to classify. That being said, for known phenomena with lots of training data, neural networks may help. But (not really knowing, but based on my hunches) I would say that they use some explainable and understandable stochastic methods to find candidates for something that was never observed before, such as a black hole star.

      Feel free to do a literature search and prove me wrong though :)