[HN Gopher] Gravitational wave researchers cast new light on Ant...
___________________________________________________________________
Gravitational wave researchers cast new light on Antikythera
mechanism mystery
Author : ulrischa
Score : 101 points
Date : 2024-07-04 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gla.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gla.ac.uk)
| bbor wrote:
| This is cool (lots of necessary context) but the paper itself is
| downright _gorgeous_
|
| https://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/07-HJJuly24-AOT...
|
| Oh and quick timesaver for all the dubious people like me: they
| applied general statistical techniques from their gravity work to
| parsing the fragments of the computer we have. There's no direct
| connection between the two subjects, otherwise.
|
| EDIT: some kinda humorous scientific meta-commentary at the very
| bottom of the paper: they were able to get the anthropology paper
| _based_ on these findings peer reviewed and published in print
| well before this technical paper finished peer review. If I were
| an Academia pen tester, this is the kind of race condition that
| I'd look for!
| bloopernova wrote:
| I'd like to see the LaTeX that generated that paper, it does
| look really nice.
| Schiphol wrote:
| The paper [here](https://bhi.co.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/06/07-HJJuly24-AOT...) makes it clear that
| these researchers (whose main topic is gravitational waves) have
| used Bayesian analyses to estimate how likely different counts
| for holes present in the full calendar ring are. This is cool,
| but the bit about "techniques developed to analyse the ripples in
| spacetime" is, well, making reference to Bayesian analysis.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Why is science reporting such irredeemable clickbaity trash?
| Not just from the mainstream media with commercial motive, from
| whom I naturally expect trash, but also from nonprofit
| _universities_ of all places.
|
| Seriously, who is the intended audience of this headline?
| People who _only_ read the headline and think _" Woweee science
| is amazing!"_ before scrolling down? Anybody who reads the
| article will roll their eyes at the headline, and the publisher
| isn't even getting ad revenue from this shit. Why are they
| pandering to the most base idiots like this?
| generalizations wrote:
| > Seriously, who is the intended audience of this headline?
| People who only read the headline and think "Woweee science
| is amazing!" before scrolling down?
|
| That's a bigger fraction of the population than we might like
| to think...and probably the majority of the eventual readers
| of that headline (as it trickles through to other
| publications). I'd bet your sarcasm is actually correct
| there.
| itronitron wrote:
| So, I have some competing thoughts on this. On the one hand,
| science is tedious and boring but people often pursue it as a
| career because it is in some way inspirational or
| aspirational. Students in science programs aren't just
| yearning for the mines. Also, science is highly repetitive
| and yet all grant money is scoped as pursuing something new
| and innovative.
|
| When I worked at a research lab, the communications folks
| would often ask me, can we call it AI? They were almost
| begging to put that label on it, I suppose they new that
| would be high quality bait. But no, sorry it's just
| statistics and computational methods.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I don't understand what you mean, I think the headline must
| have changed?
|
| It is currently (4:50 PM EST) "GRAVITATIONAL WAVE RESEARCHERS
| CAST NEW LIGHT ON ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM MYSTERY" both in the
| article, and on the HN item.
|
| If it didn't change, I guess my confusions stems from this is
| an extremely straightforward way to state it.
|
| Two gravitational wave researchers wrote the paper, and the
| paper gave us more certainty about whether the Antikythera
| mechanism represents 354 or 365 days.
|
| I can't envision how to make it less sensationalist.
| lupusreal wrote:
| That's clickbait. I suppose you think it isn't clickbait
| because it isn't lying but I classify it as such because it
| seems intended to give wild impressions which are contrary
| to truth, namely that the mechanism had anything to do with
| gravitational waves. Clickbaiting without lying is a common
| technique among science reporters, _almost_ as common as
| clickbaiting with lies.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm sorry if I'm coming off as combative, I'm
| legitimately, genuinely, confused: what part is
| clickbait? They are gravitational wave researchers.
|
| Poking around this:
|
| I have a test for myself before I rant about science
| journalism: "would it be confusing _without_ the thing my
| rant is angry about? "
|
| Answer here is yes, I'm very familiar with this sort of
| thing from the astrophysics people in my physics
| department 18 years ago (monte carlo, bayesian), but it
| would be bizarre from archaeologists.
|
| Poking around this, again:
|
| If that isn't convincing: the unwashed masses who we are
| worried being betrayed by clickbait don't know what
| "gravitational waves" are, there's no reason for them to
| be unduly attracted to it.
| lupusreal wrote:
| _" it seems intended to give wild impressions which are
| contrary to truth, namely that the mechanism had anything
| to do with gravitational waves"_
|
| It's not technically lying but it will nonetheless induce
| people to think something which isn't true. If this
| confuses you, consider this article/example:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171114-the-
| disturbing-a...
|
| > _" A classic example might be if your mum asks if
| you've finished your homework and you respond: "I've
| written an essay on Tennessee Williams for my English
| class." This may be true, but it doesn't actually answer
| the question about whether your homework was done. That
| essay could have been written long ago and you have
| misled your poor mother with a truthful statement. You
| might not have even started your homework yet."_
|
| When you say something which is true but say it in a way
| or context which you know will cause somebody else to
| believe something which isn't true, that's a form of
| lying.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Running through this in my head again and again, and
| editing 500 times along the way, apologies. I'm done now:
|
| You believe that it is _narrowly_ true gravitational wave
| researchers did this, like a kid saying they "wrote
| their essay" in response to whether they "did [completed]
| their homework"
|
| I believe it is _wholly_ true.
|
| I believe we agree on the narrow truth that they are
| gravitational wave researchers.
|
| I believe we disagree on the wider truth.
|
| I believe you believe its a wider lie, in that it
| indicates they used gravitational wave-style techniques
| in this endeavor.
|
| I believe it is widely true, because they're using the
| specific techniques that I saw astrophysicists use in
| grad school.
|
| Is it possible you saw "Bayesian", assumed that was the
| extent of their expertise applied, then noted that it has
| no relation to their expertise, since that's entry-level
| stats, not physics?
| drexlspivey wrote:
| The "Gravitational Wave" part is clickbait. It could have
| said "Researchers cast new light...". Also the first
| paragraph is clickbait
|
| "Techniques developed to analyse the ripples in spacetime
| detected by one of the 21st century's most sensitive
| pieces of scientific equipment have helped cast new light
| on the function of the oldest known analogue computer."
|
| it elaborates further down: "Professor Woan used a
| technique called Bayesian analysis, which uses
| probability to quantify uncertainty based on incomplete
| data, to calculate the likely number of holes in the
| mechanism using the positions of the surviving holes and
| the placement of the ring's surviving six fragments."
|
| Bayesian analysis has nothing to do with gravitational
| waves, it's a statistics paradigm. It was not "developed
| to analyse the ripples in spacetime". The whole
| gravitational angle is totally superfluous and is only
| there to get more clicks.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It's not just Bayesian analysis. I'm beginning to get a
| distinct impression people saw "Bayesian" and did a quick
| scan of the paper. To this graduate school physics
| dropout, this is an astrophysics-style paper on an
| archaeological artifact.
| gumby wrote:
| > what part is clickbait? They are gravitational wave
| researchers.
|
| They are physicists who are in practice data scientists.
| They are both male, presumably have experienced no
| amputations, and look like they were born in the 20th
| century. Their "day job" is in gravitation. They both
| likely speak English.
|
| The only part of which which has even the slightest
| bearing on their work is that they are of late de facto
| data scientists, among their (presumable) other skills.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Seriously, who is the intended audience of this headline?
|
| The headline seems fine to me. You might mean the synopsis
| after it?
| lbourdages wrote:
| I haven't read through the paper but it seems that it comes to
| the same conclusion as this prior paper: https://bhi.co.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/12/BHI-Antikythera...
| MontagFTB wrote:
| I would love a website with a 3D breakdown of the Antikythera
| mechanism that let one peruse it in space, (dis)assemble it, and
| see how it functions (at least, to be best of our understanding.)
| Are we far enough along in what we know of it to have such a
| resource?
| drexlspivey wrote:
| This guy is re-creating using only materials available at the
| time:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZioPDnFPNsHnyxfygxA0...
| wildekek wrote:
| Clickspring is the most skilled machinist of youtube.
| Watching him work is so incredibly satisfying.
| detourdog wrote:
| Definitely the most interesting to me.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| What about the bald dude with the moustache?
| ink_13 wrote:
| For anyone who's not familiar, "this guy" is Chris Budiselic
| of Clickspring, who's mentioned as an inspiration for this
| research:
|
| > In 2020, new X-ray images of one of the mechanism's rings,
| known as the calendar ring, revealed fresh details of
| regularly spaced holes that sit beneath the ring. Since the
| ring was broken and incomplete, however, it wasn't clear how
| just how many holes were there originally. Initial analysis
| by Antikythera researcher Chris Budiselic and colleagues
| suggested it was likely somewhere between 347 and 367.
| yinser wrote:
| Greeks were cooking with gas (from the paper): "However, we note
| that the degree of manufacturing precision is remarkable, with
| standard errors in hole positions of only 0.028mm radially, and
| 0.129mm azimuthally. Budiselic et al. quote a standard deviation
| for their individual position measurements of 0.037 mm, so a good
| deal of the radial error may come from the measurements of the
| X-ray images themselves."
| api wrote:
| It seems like the high ancient world was so close to
| industrializing. Just a few missing pieces, probably a more
| rigorous scientific method and mathematics. Maybe some economic
| inventions too like the stock corporation to enable venture
| investing.
|
| I also wonder about the abolition of slavery. It was normal
| through pretty much all of human history up to the last 200
| years or so. Why build machines at great scale when there is so
| much almost free human labor?
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >Why build machines at great scale when there is so much
| almost free human labor?
|
| It's crazy that to some extent this is still true today.
| Automation could go a lot further with existing technologies
| and make many workers' lives easier or safer. But it is often
| cheaper to hire humans and burn through them instead of
| spending the money to implement new kinds of robotics.
| Especially when companies only think until the next quarter.
| typon wrote:
| As someone who works in a robotics company, our biggest
| competition is minimum wage Latinos working in warehouses.
| itronitron wrote:
| This is probably the best argument in favor of universal
| basic income (UBI). Any nation that leans into that can
| then focus on innovation.
| skirge wrote:
| People who will depend on UBI won't innovate. People who
| innovate don't need UBI. Slavery was expensive (guards,
| low productivity). In USSR Soviets realised that in
| Gulags it's more effective to pay Zeks regular salary and
| treat them as contractors than keep them as slave work
| force.
| holoduke wrote:
| The American way of thinking. Meanwhile half the
| workforce essentially still works as a slave.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| why do you say folks who depend on UBI won't innovate?
| Logically speaking it almost seems more probable they
| would since they wouldn't need to devote time and energy
| to a job.
| K0balt wrote:
| Umm... I think you are deeply misguided on this.
|
| Earlier in life I created something that has generated a
| minimal stipend every month. That small security has
| enabled me to take risks, produce art, create technical
| processes, construct the water, power, data, and physical
| infrastructure for a private sustainable community, take
| a couple of years off to educate my children in
| technology, and, in short, prosper. It is life changing
| to know that the worst that can happen if you fail is
| that you will be mildly uncomfortable for a period of
| your choosing.
|
| OTOH I see a lot of wasted potential, talented people
| working banal 9 to 5 jobs because they can't risk
| failure, forgoing learning opportunities because they
| can't take the time, and in general stuck in employment
| traps that prevent them from ever refining their natural
| talents.
|
| Sure, some people will do nothing with their lives
| despite the opportunities presented to them... but many,
| many people would do much, much more if they weren't
| trapped in a system designed to harvest, under duress of
| homelessness, the vast majority of their useful time in
| exchange for the lowest possible compensation.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| UBI and better healthcare would allow me the freedom to
| innovate. Right now it's a much more significant barrier
| to strike out on my own and build something. So it makes
| more sense to me to just have a 9-5 job, but if there was
| a bit more wiggle room I'd certainly try it.
| bluGill wrote:
| Would you innovate or just play minecraft/guitar or read
| books about innovation but never innovate.
| ordu wrote:
| _> It seems like the high ancient world was so close to
| industrializing._
|
| Bret Devereaux proposed that Industrial Revolution was due to
| a highly improbable coincidence of circumstances.[1] It all
| started with a steam engine, and very inefficient one at
| first[2]. But it had found it place, and then James Watt made
| the better engine and it also found its uses. It gave time
| for material science and thermodynamics to catch up, and then
| steam engines became light enough to power ships and then
| locomotives.
|
| Industrial Revolution, if we look closer took a lot of
| relatively small steps, and some of these steps made sense
| only because the stars lined up. Now people consciously "line
| up stars" to move progress forward, but then it was really a
| coincidence.
|
| [1] https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-
| indus... [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| These statements are 100% pseudo-scientific woo. If you look at
| the mechanism, you can't measure anything on it even with 1mm
| precision, let alone 0.037mm.
|
| https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/AF613...
|
| I can't believe so many people people for for that kind of woo.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Bro. "Aliens" ;D
| dsalfdslfdsa wrote:
| Good job we have something a bit better than human eyes:
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258728873_X-
| ray_Tom...
| swells34 wrote:
| As someone who spent a decade doing precision metrology with
| optical devices... there isn't a way to correctly measure that
| part with the precision they indicate in the measured values.
| dsalfdslfdsa wrote:
| It's not _that_ precise.
|
| As for the method:
|
| https://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BHI-
| Antikythera...
| kryptiskt wrote:
| The measurements were done on X-ray images, not optical.
| triyambakam wrote:
| Is there evidence that it was actually made in Greece or could it
| simply have ended up there?
| nine_k wrote:
| Where else, at the time?
| brchr wrote:
| My understanding of the evidence is that it suggests the
| mechanism was made in Rhodes.
| coldtea wrote:
| You mean besides being found in Greece, made at a time range
| where Greeks were both powerful in the context of the
| hellenistic empire and had important mathematicians and
| astronomers like Archimedes and Hipparhos, the labels being in
| Greek, and the whole on-device manual being in Greek?
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| This is a cool statistical paper, one of many depressing papers
| that makes me wish I knew more math. The "gravitational wave"
| angle is apparently that it uses some statistical methods that
| originated in gravity wave research. There are no ultra-sensitive
| new measurements or anything like that. They use the same X-ray
| measurements as the Clickspring article from a few years ago
| (https://bhi.co.uk/antikytheramechanism/) and basically support
| Clickspring's conclusion (that the Antikythera was a lunar
| calendar) with increased statistical confidence.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| The paper notes a (to me) amazing thing. The object of the
| researchers' Bayesian analysis is the number of holes likely to
| have been made in a metal ring, of which only a fragment remains.
| They think either 354 or 355 holes, on a 77.1mm radius.
|
| The amazing thing is that the holes were placed with an average
| radial variation of only 28um. This is about 0.001 inches. 2000
| years ago. Our ancestors had some serious skills.
| gumby wrote:
| > Gravitational wave researchers _cast new light_ on...
|
| Seems like they are a bit out of their lane, as light is an
| electromagnetic phenomenon, a completely different force from
| gravitation.
|
| More seriously: the fact that the two scientists happen to have
| been doing data analysis on gravitational data isn't really
| relevant to the work, rather it was pulled out to make us click
| on the article title.
|
| Super interesting work though, and not what I would have
| expected!
| IvyMike wrote:
| I'm currently building this 3d printed version of the Antikythera
| mechanism. It's not easy:
|
| https://www.printables.com/model/284372-antikythera-mechanis...
|
| It is _insane_ how complicated this is, and this is a simplified
| version of the actual thing. This schematic of the proposed full
| mechanism (I think it 's hypothesizing some of the missing parts)
| blows my mind:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Antikyth...
|
| If you have a 3d printer, I really am enjoying the project and
| recommend it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-04 23:00 UTC)