Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday October 08 2018, @05:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the Open-the-pod-bay-doors-HAL dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Artificial intelligence in space exploration is gathering momentum. Over the coming years, new missions look likely to be turbo-charged by AI as we voyage to comets, moons, and planets and explore the possibilities of mining asteroids.

AI is already a game-changer that has made scientific research and exploration much more efficient. We are not just talking about a doubling but about a multiple of ten, Leopold Summerer, Head of the Advanced Concepts and Studies Office at ESA, said in an interview with Singularity Hub.

The history of AI and space exploration is older than many probably think. It has already played a significant role in research into our planet, the solar system, and the universe. As computer systems and software have developed, so have AI's potential use cases.

The Earth Observer 1 (EO-1) satellite is a good example. Since its launch in the early 2000s, its onboard AI systems helped optimize analysis of and response to natural occurrences, like floods and volcanic eruptions. In some cases, the AI was able to tell EO-1 to start capturing images before the ground crew were even aware that the occurrence had taken place.

Other satellite and astronomy examples abound. Sky Image Cataloging and Analysis Tool (SKICAT) has assisted with the classification of objects discovered during the second Palomar Sky Survey, classifying thousands more objects caught in low resolution than a human would be able to. Similar AI systems have helped astronomers to identify 56 new possible gravitational lenses that play a crucial role in connection with research into dark matter.

[...] As is often the case with exponential technologies, there is a great potential for synergies and convergence. For example with AI and robotics, or quantum computing and machine learning. Why not send an AI-driven robot to Mars and use it as a telepresence for scientists on Earth? It could be argued that we are already in the early stages of doing just that by using VR and AR systems that take data from the Mars rovers and create a virtual landscape scientists can walk around in and make decisions on what the rovers should explore next.

One of the biggest benefits of AI in space exploration may not have that much to do with its actual functions. Chew believes that within as little as ten years, we could see the first mining of asteroids in the Kuiper Belt with the help of AI.

I think one of the things that AI does to space exploration is that it opens up a whole range of new possible industries and services that have a more immediate effect on the lives of people on Earth, he said. "It becomes a relatable industry that has a real effect on people's daily lives. In a way, space exploration becomes part of people's mindset, and the border between our planet and the solar system becomes less important."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @05:53PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @05:53PM (#746043)

    No, the angle is that the nature and magnitude of the deviations between the predictions of GR based on visible matter mass estimates, and the actual observations, will give insight into the quantity and distribution of the Dark Matter in the lensing galaxies involved

    This presumes dark matter exists. Actually, it is just you using the term so loosely as to be meaningless.

    Actual matter that only interacts via gravity? Artifacts of an imperfect theory? We just don't know - that's why we call it "dark".

    Dark matter means there is literally stuff of some sort that interacts with visible matter via gravity, hence "matter" in the term. It doesn't refer to an imperfect theory.

    At this point the amount of unrelated evidence suggests that there *is* something there

    I have never heard about any evidence for dark matter besides that GR predicts the wrong thing. Eg,

    The latest results from an experiment called XENON1T at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, published on October 30, continue a dry spell stretching back 30 years in the quest to nab dark-matter particles. An attempt by a Chinese team to detect the elusive stuff, the results of which were published on the same day, also came up empty-handed. Ongoing attempts by space-based telescopes, as well as at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, have also not spotted any hints of dark-matter particles.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles/ [scientificamerican.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 08 2018, @06:48PM (18 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday October 08 2018, @06:48PM (#746068)

    Dark Matter was originally a "here there be dragons" fudge factor to make GR consistent with large-scale observations. As time went on, and evidence mounted that there actually *was* something there, rather than just systematic inaccuracies in the predictions of GR, opinion has moved towards it being actual "stuff" of some sort, but it's still very much in debate what that "stuff" might be. Small black holes and other dense, non-luminous objects made of normal matter are still a possibility, though observations increasingly narrow the constraints on the allowable sizes and numbers of objects, to the point that they are becoming a little implausible, but still very possible.

    And yes, all evidence is that GR fails to predict observations - what else could it possibly be when talking about "stuff" that only appears to interact with the rest of the universe by gravity? However, there are numerous, apparently unrelated inconsistencies that all point to there actually being "stuff" of some sort, rather than just an imperfect predicting formula.

    There's the original observation that lead to the coining of "dark matter" - galactic spin inconsistencies in the outer stars, suggesting that either there's a lot more matter beyond the visible galactic rim, or that gravity behaves differently over long distances (or that F=ma itself breaks down at extremely low accelerations, as in MOND).

    And of course there's the very anomalous distribution of visible matter in the universe, all strung out into clumps and filaments stretched across vast empty voids, which shouldn't have happened under the influence of just normal matter and the known laws of physics - though again, perhaps an imperfection of GR might explain that. Or as-yet unimagined properties of the starting conditions.

    Then there's the Bullet Cluster - where two galaxies collided, and the gravitational lensing is centered well outside the extents of the visible matter - probably the single strongest argument that dark matter actually exists, as no amount of fudging the details of the formula will get you to "there's a big gravitational concentration very separated from the mass associated with it" (well, maybe some of the more out-there theories, like gravitational polarization of space might. Maybe. But you'd probably need several drinks first). I assume they've gone looking for evidence of an unusually large galactic-core black hole at the center of the displaced lens, as well as trying to come up with theories as to how such an oversized black hole could be separated from all of its orbiting stars.

    And there's several more, but those are some of the most dramatic ones. The fact that we get so many different unexplained anomalies, all consistent with the existence of invisible matter, and only a very few explained by any given alternate gravitational formula, is why "dark matter" is taken seriously among experts, despite its superficial implausibility.

    Meanwhile experiments like XENON1T aren't looking for "dark matter" in general - they're looking for evidence of one very specific kind of dark-matter candidate, a particular kind of WIMPs, that *might* be barely detectable under just the right circumstances. Assuming there's a significant density of dark matter in our immediate neighborhood, and that WIMPs aren't actually much less interacting than their optimistic predictions. The telescopic search is probably for MACHOs, which I made reference to in my first paragraph. Basically all the dark-matter searches boil down to taking optimistic assumptions for their nature, which would make them detectable under sufficiently large and sensitive experiments. A different set of assumptions could easily push most of them well beyond our ability to detect - but you look for what you might be able to detect, because they very well might be there, and there's no point in looking for what you couldn't possibly detect.

    All in all, I'd *love* to see a credible alternative to Dark Matter emerge, especially if it could address the Dark Energy problem as well, but for now, Dark Matter is the most plausible hypothesis we have.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:11PM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:11PM (#746085)

      Dark Matter was originally a "here there be dragons" fudge factor to make GR consistent with large-scale observations.

      Not from what I've read. Sounds like the original idea was there was literal unobserved matter

      In 1933, Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who studied galactic clusters while working at the California Institute of Technology, made a similar inference.[26][27][28] Zwicky applied the virial theorem to the Coma Cluster and obtained evidence of unseen mass that he called dunkle Materie ('dark matter'). Zwicky estimated its mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that to an estimate based on its brightness and number of galaxies. He estimated that the cluster had about 400 times more mass than was visually observable. The gravity effect of the visible galaxies was far too small for such fast orbits, thus mass must be hidden from view. Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that some unseen matter provided the mass and associated gravitation attraction to hold the cluster together. This was the first formal inference about the existence of dark matter.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#History [wikipedia.org]

      As time went on, and evidence mounted that there actually *was* something there, rather than just systematic inaccuracies in the predictions of GR, opinion has moved towards it being actual "stuff" of some sort, but it's still very much in debate what that "stuff" might be.

      As mentioned, the ONLY evidence is that GR predicts the wrong thing. It was quite reasonable to think the explanation could be dark matter at the time, but it's becoming an embarrassment. Its still possible that is an explanation, but its literally cringeworthy at this point when people say stuff like "GR is one of the most validated theories in all history". Actually it seems to have been invalidated withing a few decades of being devised but some people are hanging on to it nearly a century later.

      The rest is examples of GR predicting the wrong thing. You don't seem capable of getting it:

      THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DARK MATTER BESIDES THAT GR PREDICTS THE WRONG THING.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:40PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:40PM (#746100)

        THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DARK MATTER BESIDES THAT GR PREDICTS THE WRONG THING.

        Wew lad! That's all you were on about. Here I was afraid the electric universe guy was back at it.

        Carry on.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:47PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:47PM (#746105)

          What is wrong with that statement? All I get in response is long rambling posts that pretend to address it or trolling. Its a simple fact that some people seem incapable of grasping/believing for some reason.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 08 2018, @08:51PM (2 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Monday October 08 2018, @08:51PM (#746125)

            Nothing's wrong with the statement itself - the entire concept of Dark Matter is that it only (obviously) interacts via gravity, so the only possible evidence for it is that GR's predictions are innaccurate without it.

            The problem is that GR makes several *different*, unrelated, predictions that fail to match observations in several different ways. All of those failures can be explained by Dark Matter, and none of the alternative theories can do so. MOND for example does a lovely (if imperfect) job of explaining observed galactic rotation curves - but does nothing to explain the "disconnected" lensing seen in the Bullet Cluster nor the anomalous distribution of normal matter in the universe. It also requires sacrificing one of the fundamental and most thoroughly tested laws of physics, F=ma, at extremely low accelerations. It also depends on an "as yet unknown" interpolation function to transition between F=ma and F=ma^2 around an also-unknown transition acceleration - which throws opens the door to data-fudging and self-deception.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @10:02PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @10:02PM (#746163)

              the entire concept of Dark Matter is that it only (obviously) interacts via gravity, so the only possible evidence for it is that GR's predictions are innaccurate without it.

              Obviously there is "other possible evidence". I already linked to this article that describes the 30 years worth of failed attempts:
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles/ [scientificamerican.com]

              Then the rest of the post is about MOND vs GR...

              Just because there are issues with (barely funded) MOND doesn't help GR in the least. AFAIK there are various implementations of MOND, relativistic vs not, etc.There are also people who think the discrepancy is due to some auxiliary assumption about the distribution of the mass, etc. So the failure of MOND is not a success of GR (not even in an increasing p(H|D) via modifying p(D) sense), and just serves as a distraction here.

              There is no concern for the accuracy (or not) of MOND here:

              AI systems have helped astronomers to identify 56 new possible gravitational lenses that play a crucial role in connection with research into dark matter.

              Translated: AI has helped astonomers identify 56 new deviations from the predictions of general relativity.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 08 2018, @11:56PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Monday October 08 2018, @11:56PM (#746214)

                There is other evidence *possible*, but like evidence for String Theory, even if the theory is valid is no guarantee that such evidence can actually exist - that part depends on optimistic assumptions about the boundary conditions being true. *IF* DM is normal matter within the still-not-ruled-out size ranges for MACHOs, or it's something exotic that nevertheless decays into, or otherwise interacts with, normal matter, AND does so at a rate high enough to be detectable, then yes, there *could be* other evidence. But so far as it's "known" properties are concerned, there's no particular reason to believe that any of that is true. It could easily be completely undetectable except via gravitational interaction, and so diffuse that we will be traveling the width of the galaxy before we've developed gravitational sensors capable of detecting density fluctuations within it.

                And yes, the failure of MOND is not a success for DM. But the fact that GR has perfectly predicted everything we've thrown at it on smaller scales *is* a success of GR, a phenomenal one. And the fact that the addition of DM can explain all the several different kinds of gravitational anomalies makes it a serviceable working theory. Unsatisfying, but until there's a viable competitor we work with what we've got. And no, the "competing" theories don't get much funding to research - but they also don't have any track record to justify more spending. As of yet none of them are even as accurate as the original theory dreamt up by a bored patent clerk with no funding at all.

                Also your translation sucks:
                Translated properly: AI systems have helped astronomers to identify 56 new possible gravitational lenses that play a crucial role in connection with research into gravitational anomalies

                Whether it's due to GR, MOND, or any of the many other alternative speculations, the lensing unquestionably exists, and the details of how it departs from the predictions will be helpful in developing a better theory.

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 08 2018, @09:19PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday October 08 2018, @09:19PM (#746135)

          Electric Universe? It's real alright.

          I have observed it directly that time I grabbed a live wire.

          The Electric Universe hurts.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 08 2018, @07:51PM (10 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday October 08 2018, @07:51PM (#746107) Homepage
        Bollocks. GR predicts that there's mass where the rotation curves show a lack of drop-off that wouldn't be seen in the absense of that mass. We have no evidence that that's wrong., and gravitational lensing can, and does, provide evidence that it's right.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:57PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:57PM (#746110)

          Bollocks. GR predicts that there's mass where the rotation curves show a lack of drop-off that wouldn't be seen in the absense of that mass.

          Yes, and that is the ONLY type of evidence for dark matter. That GR predicts one thing but it doesnt match observations.

          We have no evidence that that's wrong.,

          It is impossible to prove a negative.

          However, if you look at the papers by open minded people (eg MOND) you will see that there are very interesting and simple relationships between the visible and "missing mass" that seem impossible if missing mass is the explanation. This is pure data:
          https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the-acceleration-discrepancy/ [wordpress.com]

          and gravitational lensing can, and does, provide evidence that it's right.

          No, because lensing is also predicted by newtonian mechanics. GR predicts lensing with or without dark matter. Without dark matter it predicts the wrong thing. So once again, the only evidence for dark matter is that GR predicts the wrong thing.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 08 2018, @09:04PM (8 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Monday October 08 2018, @09:04PM (#746127)

            Lensing is predicted by Newtonian gravity, but it predicts less than is seen even around our tiny sun, and MOND doesn't fix that. In fact, at galactic scales it gets even worse, since the amount of lensing seen is far in excess of even what's predicted by GR with just visible matter.

            Lensing is important not because it confirms GR, but (in part) because with enough data we may be able to determine the "shape" of the galactic gravitational lens, and thus the distribution of mass needed to create it. (a point mass will create a perfect spherical lens - anything else will create "imperfections") If that distribution aligns with the visible mass, then that's a point against GR, but if it's different, then either DM is real, or there's something more complex than just MOND at work.

            And also because it gives us a chance to see further/younger galaxies more clearly, and thus get more hints about what galaxies looked like early in the Universe's history, and how gravity and other forces must have shaped them over time to get what we see today. But that's less on-topic to your point, though it may eventually provide important clues to either Dark Matter, or a truly viable modified theory of gravity that doesn't require it.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @10:05PM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @10:05PM (#746166)

              This post picks up where the other left off, and trys to somehow take problems with MOND as successes for GR.

              Nobody who studies MOND thinks they have the correct answer. It is only "dark matter proponents" who make claims like that. This entire line of argument (MOND vs GR) is a non-sequitur strawman.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 08 2018, @11:34PM (6 children)

                by Immerman (3985) on Monday October 08 2018, @11:34PM (#746203)

                The point is, GR has an apparent answer, even if it's an unsatisfying "fudge factor" without non-gravitational confirmation. (though it's perfectly possible that even if Dark Matter really exists, that it will truly be so non-interactive with normal matter as to be undetectable by any means except gravity).

                None of the other theories offer even that much.

                So yes, GR is taken seriously, while the others are mostly ignored. If even one of the others actually gets developed to the point that they make predictions broadly consistent with reality, then they'll start being taken seriously. Until that time, GR+DM is the only game in town. There is currently not even one alternative consistent with observed reality.

                It's not that GR+DM is a huge success, so much as there's no competition, so it "wins" be default. Personally I'm not fond of it, it seems more than a little implausible, but until someone comes up with an alternative, it's the model to use.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:18AM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:18AM (#746221)

                  until someone comes up with an alternative, it's the model to use.

                  I do you even "use" such a theory? Lets say I need to know the acceleration of a star in a nearby galaxy to warp there. How would you use GR + DM to accurately and precisely calculate this? What does the DM add?

                  BTW, MOND will give you an exact answer based on observable light: https://tritonstation.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rar.png?w=700 [wordpress.com]

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:21AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:21AM (#746222)

                    typo: "How do you even "use" such a theory?"

                  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:12AM (3 children)

                    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:12AM (#746231)

                    Except, MOND's answer isn't actually accurate - much closer than GR without DM, but still not accurate (though the inaccuracy could likely be resolved with a light smattering of nonluminous normal matter MACHOs) MOND is also useless for predicting the acceleration of any stars in the "transition region", or even which stars are within it, since both the transition acceleration, and the interpolation function remain unknown, which gives it just about as much predictive power as GR+DM - i.e. very little, since the "fudge factor" can account for anything you encounter. Of course MOND has the advantage that if/when the transition function and critical acceleration are determined, then there's no more room for fudge, and genuine predictions can be made. Until those very critical aspects are resolved however, the whole thing is so covered in fudge it calls out for a cherry on top. But *if* those two factors are determined, and *if* they hold for every galaxy observed, then they would stand as strong support for the theory. But I'm smelling a lot of if coming off of this plan. If instead they work out the necessary factors for one galaxy, and find it doesn't work for most others, then the whole thing collapses completely.

                    How to use it? Look at galaxies, try to describe their behavior using the theory. If you can do it, then you can run a simulation backwards and figure out what the distant past must have looked like. Then look into the distant past and see if you're correct (that's where galactic lensing comes in - it lets you look into the past with far more detail than just the lenses in your telescope allow). If that also matches up, then you can run your simulation forward and get an idea of what the future holds.

                    I'll admit galactic-scale theory doesn't have a whole lot of practical applications at this point - we're "just" trying to understand the forces that shaped out universe. What that might reveal though? GR "reveals" that the universe was very, very different in the first few nanoseconds, and that there are quite possibly a nearly infinite number of other "bubble universes" existing within the false-vacuum. Mostly useless for any practical purpose, other than making anthropocentric conclusions far more reasonable. It also "reveals" that dark matter exists and permeats our universe. Maybe we'll eventually find it, maybe it'll turn out to be incredibly useful. Maybe it will turn out that GR is wrong, and that some MOND variant that actually describes more than one of the major problems "solved" by DM is far more accurate, and reveals completely different oddities about the universe, any one of which might be useful if we can determine how to harness it.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:48AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:48AM (#746285)

                      MOND's answer isn't actually accurate

                      Are you questioning the data and fit I shared?

                      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 09 2018, @05:31AM (1 child)

                        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @05:31AM (#746297)

                        You didn't share any data, just a graph without any details and some ferociously wide error bars.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:25AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:25AM (#746378)

                          Obviously you didnt follow the earlier link to the blog post the figure came from, so meh... your loss.