They are not trying to represent the black hole itself, but the gravitational potential field associated with it. That has the classical 1/r dependence which, when graphed is an hyperbola. A physical funnel is accidentally a good 2D metaphor for the whole 3D phenomenon. The science advisors would be quite wrong to object to the use of the funnel on the grounds of physical accuracy - a compact sphere doesn't transmit anything like as clear an image to someone who hasn't got a physics background.
It is quite easy for a human to observe when the machines are doing the same computation, as in your example. In part, that is because the human brain is superbly adapted to do pattern recognition. It is very difficult to write an algorithm to beat the human eye/brain combination for recognising patterns. I would expect that a speed-up could only be obtained by storing the results of computations that took a long time to occur, because you have to pay the cost of building the database, storing it, and checking against it. In practice, however, the scientists are unlikely to be doing an identical calculation at a high enough level of abstraction to make it profitable.
Ummm, that's how all journals were produced until the last few years. The problem is that low print runs mean high prices. Smaller institutions are increasingly unable to afford a wide range of quality journals. Some journals charge authors per page to publish in them, which futher marginalises work from less well-funded institutions and researchers.
Open journals are a new phenomenon that are not run as a commercial enterprise and (typically) not published on paper.
The scientific process requires frank critical comment by experts after work is completed and before it is deemed worthy of publication. That sort of comment could be carried out at conferences and in face-to-face meetings, but in the journal prduction process it must be achieved through written media. Most people don't interact as well through written communication compared with spoken, and the double-blind anonymity of scientific peer review is a protection for both parties against the development of relationship problems.
Additionally, a reviewer who knows their comments will be published and attributed to them will be far more likely to polemicise their comment, and reduce its critical content (as distinct from being positive or negative!).
Further, not knowing who produced the work or who produced the review acts to prevent the establishment of groups of people who always approve each other's work. Admittedly, the communities in some fields are small enough that reviewers can guess who produced the work!
Slashdot Mirror
They are not trying to represent the black hole itself, but the gravitational potential field associated with it. That has the classical 1/r dependence which, when graphed is an hyperbola. A physical funnel is accidentally a good 2D metaphor for the whole 3D phenomenon. The science advisors would be quite wrong to object to the use of the funnel on the grounds of physical accuracy - a compact sphere doesn't transmit anything like as clear an image to someone who hasn't got a physics background.
It is quite easy for a human to observe when the machines are doing the same computation, as in your example. In part, that is because the human brain is superbly adapted to do pattern recognition. It is very difficult to write an algorithm to beat the human eye/brain combination for recognising patterns. I would expect that a speed-up could only be obtained by storing the results of computations that took a long time to occur, because you have to pay the cost of building the database, storing it, and checking against it. In practice, however, the scientists are unlikely to be doing an identical calculation at a high enough level of abstraction to make it profitable.
Ummm, that's how all journals were produced until the last few years. The problem is that low print runs mean high prices. Smaller institutions are increasingly unable to afford a wide range of quality journals. Some journals charge authors per page to publish in them, which futher marginalises work from less well-funded institutions and researchers.
Open journals are a new phenomenon that are not run as a commercial enterprise and (typically) not published on paper.
The scientific process requires frank critical comment by experts after work is completed and before it is deemed worthy of publication. That sort of comment could be carried out at conferences and in face-to-face meetings, but in the journal prduction process it must be achieved through written media. Most people don't interact as well through written communication compared with spoken, and the double-blind anonymity of scientific peer review is a protection for both parties against the development of relationship problems.
Additionally, a reviewer who knows their comments will be published and attributed to them will be far more likely to polemicise their comment, and reduce its critical content (as distinct from being positive or negative!).
Further, not knowing who produced the work or who produced the review acts to prevent the establishment of groups of people who always approve each other's work. Admittedly, the communities in some fields are small enough that reviewers can guess who produced the work!