4 ms·

I'm always a bit uncomfortable when I read about findings from these simulations. To say they have "answered questions" about galactic evolution seems to strong

I'm always a bit uncomfortable when I read about findings from these simulations. To say they have "answered questions" about galactic evolution seems to strong a statement. How about, "created a more accurate model"?

distrill 10y ago
The article does not mention answering questions about anything. It pretty much just says that they created a more accurate model.
- hossbeast 10y ago
  "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery"
Zenst 10y ago
Indeed, and with that it will hopefully expose details in models missing, after all how accurate are weather forecasting models and how quickly do those nuances propagate and yield week ahead forecasts that are totally different. Though if they can run a model and end up billions of year later approximating aspects of today then they must be getting more right than wrong.
dredmorbius 10y ago
There's little difference between the two phrases you're using. More accurate models offer stronger explanatory or predictive capabilities. They answer questions earlier models couldn't.
- a_throwaway3838 10y ago
  It might seem small, but I'd argue that the difference in phrases is pretty stark. Saying we "have a better model of"-something leaves room for further exploration and interpretation. It's admission that there's room for different possibilities, and its not taking an /absolute/ position on something. But saying something "has answered questions" comes off as absolute and final. Is 1+1=2? Yes. Answered. Case closed. If you're going to say that "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery", then you'd better be damn sure that your simulation is correct, your interpretations are correct, your simulation correctly reflects physical reality, etc.
VikingCoder 10y ago
"answered questions" Yes. Like, "Given everything we understand, how could it be that in the physical world, there aren't more dwarf galaxies?" And there was no answer to that question, until now. Now they come up with a new model, and run it, and they end up with a number of dwarf galaxies that much more closely matches the physical world. No one had done that before, so we didn't know how it could be. This has answered the question, "HOW COULD IT BE?" The answer is, "If reality matches this new model."
- a_throwaway3838 10y ago
  Saying "it has been answered" is a strong definitive statement, though. It's rather arrogant to say "Yes, thanks to this model, we absolutely know <xyz>." Are we absolutely certain that this model is correct? Are we absolutely certain that what we can extrapolate from this model accurately applies to the physical world? Granted, yes, questions were answered... I guess. But saying that "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery" is uncomfortably confident and counter to how scientific process works. It's definitely catchy and clickbaity, though
  - lutorm 10y ago
    Some people like to say things like that, but it's more accurate to say "this proves our current model is consistent with data". I only skimmed the article (and haven't read the actual paper) but it focused on surrounding dwarf galaxies which have traditionally been a problem with these simulations. I'm sure there are still plenty of ways in which these sims do not match our actual universe.

distrill 10y ago

The article does not mention answering questions about anything. It pretty much just says that they created a more accurate model.

hossbeast 10y ago
"The simulation solves a decades-old mystery"

Zenst 10y ago

Indeed, and with that it will hopefully expose details in models missing, after all how accurate are weather forecasting models and how quickly do those nuances propagate and yield week ahead forecasts that are totally different. Though if they can run a model and end up billions of year later approximating aspects of today then they must be getting more right than wrong.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There's little difference between the two phrases you're using. More accurate models offer stronger explanatory or predictive capabilities. They answer questions earlier models couldn't.

a_throwaway3838 10y ago
It might seem small, but I'd argue that the difference in phrases is pretty stark. Saying we "have a better model of"-something leaves room for further exploration and interpretation. It's admission that there's room for different possibilities, and its not taking an /absolute/ position on something. But saying something "has answered questions" comes off as absolute and final. Is 1+1=2? Yes. Answered. Case closed. If you're going to say that "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery", then you'd better be damn sure that your simulation is correct, your interpretations are correct, your simulation correctly reflects physical reality, etc.

VikingCoder 10y ago

"answered questions" Yes. Like, "Given everything we understand, how could it be that in the physical world, there aren't more dwarf galaxies?" And there was no answer to that question, until now. Now they come up with a new model, and run it, and they end up with a number of dwarf galaxies that much more closely matches the physical world. No one had done that before, so we didn't know how it could be. This has answered the question, "HOW COULD IT BE?" The answer is, "If reality matches this new model."

a_throwaway3838 10y ago
Saying "it has been answered" is a strong definitive statement, though. It's rather arrogant to say "Yes, thanks to this model, we absolutely know <xyz>." Are we absolutely certain that this model is correct? Are we absolutely certain that what we can extrapolate from this model accurately applies to the physical world? Granted, yes, questions were answered... I guess. But saying that "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery" is uncomfortably confident and counter to how scientific process works. It's definitely catchy and clickbaity, though
- lutorm 10y ago
  Some people like to say things like that, but it's more accurate to say "this proves our current model is consistent with data". I only skimmed the article (and haven't read the actual paper) but it focused on surrounding dwarf galaxies which have traditionally been a problem with these simulations. I'm sure there are still plenty of ways in which these sims do not match our actual universe.