APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

[APOD Robot]

All of These Space Images are Fake Except One

Explanation: Why would you want to fake a universe? For one reason -- to better understand our real universe. Many astronomical projects seeking to learn properties of our universe now start with a robotic telescope taking sequential images of the night sky. Next, sophisticated computer algorithms crunch these digital images to find stars and galaxies and measure their properties. To calibrate these algorithms, it is useful to test them on fake images from a fake universe to see if the algorithms can correctly deduce purposely imprinted properties. The featured mosaic of fake images was created to specifically mimic the images that have appeared on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD). Only one image of the 225 images is real -- can you find it? The accomplished deceptors have made available individual fake APOD images that can be displayed by accessing their ThisIsNotAnAPOD webpage or Twitter feed. More useful for calibrating and understanding our distant universe, however, are fake galaxies -- a sampling of which can be seen at their ThisIsNotAGalaxy webpage.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[alter-ego]

I did find it almost immediately, sort of stood out I thought. Only then did I find the answer right in front of me

Crab Nebula

[Ann]

Hey, alter-ego, I spotted it almost right away and I was right, too!

Ann

[RocketRon]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

And whence where all these obtained ??

(And how did the algorithm(s) do in sorting them ???)

____________________________________________________
The difference between an optimist and a pessimist.
An optimist is one who sez that all that happens is for the better.
A pessimist is the one it happens to ...

[Ann]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

And whence where all these obtained ??

(And how did the algorithm(s) do in sorting them ???)

____________________________________________________
The difference between an optimist and a pessimist.
An optimist is one who sez that all that happens is for the better.
A pessimist is the one it happens to ...

These images are not "obtained". They are "created", using algorithms.

Fake NASA images of a warped galaxy (left) and a warped nebula(???)
Or is that another fake version of a warped galaxy?

True image of a warped galaxy, the Integral Sign Galaxy
or UGC 3697. Photo: DECaLS

The Integral Sign Galaxy, UGC 3697, is for real, and the picture is real, too. In order to figure out how galaxies warp, NASA created the warped galaxy image at left, and they also created something else that is warped, and which looks like a warped nebula to me. Or is that another galaxy?

Anyway. By comparing the fake image of a warped galaxy with a real image of a real warped galaxy, NASA could test how well they understand the processes that cause galaxies to warp.

Ann

[Ironwood]

I recognized the APOD of September 6, 2020.

[Iksarfighter]

CN is real image.

The only one with a good contrast and a deep black.

[stephen ramsden]

ironic that APOD is publishing this as they are
pretty much renowned for both publishing fake images and being the impetus for the silly overcompetitiveness that drives people to fake their images.

[Dan]

I thought at first, oh great... soooo many I might just skip this.

But my eye was immediately drawn to it.

Ya just can't fake nature

[Chris Peterson]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

[orin stepanek]

Nice to look at anyway!

Roaring to go! 'Er; mewing to go!

[ems57fcva]

No trouble finding the real image. But I did enjoy the postcard from Tatooine.

[E Fish]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

[Chris Peterson]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

I think the term is used here simply for its rhetorical value. With a bit of humor.

[Ann]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

Those very strange assigned colors to wavelengths we can see, and which are sufficiently well separated to produce colors that look obviously different to our eyes, or assigning longer-wave colors to shorter wave filter images and shorter-wave colors to longer-wave filter images, are things I really can't deal with. They are needless and provocative violations of chromaticity!

There was such an "unreasonably false color APOD" recently that I decided to have nothing to do with, and say nothing about!

Ann

[neufer]

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fake

fake : of unknown origin; attested in London criminal slang as adjective (1775, "counterfeit"), verb (1812, "to rob"), and noun (1851, "a swindle;" of persons 1888, "a swindler"), but probably older. A likely source is feague "to spruce up by artificial means," from German fegen "polish, sweep," also "to clear out, plunder" in colloquial use. Or it may be from Latin facere "to do."

Even with no black swans to possibly falsify it, "All swans are white" would still be falsifiable—a black swan would still be a state of affairs, only an imaginary one.

---

<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.

Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

[ems57fcva]

The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

With the CN picture, the colors are synthetic, but the phenomena they depict (being the view in wavelengths of light that we both can and cannot see) are real. So that is a "real" image even if it is a view that we cannot see with our eyes. Many APODs are like that: Views of the universe taken in wavelengths that we cannot see and rendered in a form that we can see and appreciate.

The issue with the other pictures is that they are all synthetic: The astronomical parts are all computer-generated. They are not real objects in our sky (or the sky in them is not "real".) So in this APOD, "fake" = "synthetic". Otherwise there are plenty of times that simulations and artist's impressions have become APODs, and on 5th anniversary (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000616.html) and 15th anniversary (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100616.html) the images were quite synthetic.

[alter-ego]

Hey, alter-ego, I spotted it almost right away and I was right, too!

Ann

Yeah, it was an interesting and fast thought/recognition process. At first glance, I thought holy crap! Am I going to have to search for all these APOD look-alikes. When I clicked on the image and zoomed in and looked at subsets of 4 x 3 images, I couldn't recall or identify any of the images except the Crab. When I went back and look at the whole array, it was clear as a a sparkler at night - the Crab stuck out as the only one I could recognize for sure.

[RJN]

FYI this APOD was reported on in the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... t-one.html

[SeedsofEarfth]

I believe the Crab Nebula is real. I have seen this image many times over the years.

[neufer]

I believe the Crab Nebula is real. I have seen this image many times over the years.

Mr. KRABS ticks

---

<<Crab sticks, krab sticks, imitation crab meat or seafood sticks (originally known as kanikama in Japan) are a type of seafood made of starch and finely pulverized white fish (surimi) that has been shaped and cured to resemble the leg meat of snow crab or Japanese spider crab. It is a product that uses fish meat to imitate shellfish meat. Legal restrictions now prevent them from being marketed as "Crab Sticks" in many places, as they usually do not have crab meat. Most crab sticks today are made from Alaska pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) of the North Pacific Ocean. This main ingredient is often mixed with fillers such as wheat, and egg white (albumen) or other binding ingredient, such as the enzyme transglutaminase. Crab flavoring is added (natural or more commonly, artificial) and a layer of red food coloring is applied to the outside.>>

[Ann]

Even with no black swans to possibly falsify it, "All swans are white" would still be falsifiable—a black swan would still be a state of affairs, only an imaginary one.

---

<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.

Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

Verifying the claim "There are no alien civilizations out there" would require observing all habitable planets and moons in the Universe, as well as all other places where a technological civilization might dwell, such as on an advanced space ship , which is not technologically possible.

In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.

Ann

[neufer]

<< Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

Verifying the claim "There are no alien civilizations out there" would require observing all habitable planets and moons in the Universe, as well as all other places where a technological civilization might dwell, such as on an advanced space ship, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.

Verifying the claim "Earth sized planets in the habitable zone are half-full (rather than half-empty) of water" would require observing all habitable planets in the Universe. In contrast, the observation of a single earth sized planet in the habitable zone that is half-full (rather than half-empty) of water is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible.