I guess I view crunching O3ASE "dummy" data as important as "real" data because you can't usefully crunch the real stuff without first optimizing the application with engineering runs. Besides, it's the same RAC credit either way.
As a former scientist, I'm used to mind-numbing hours and days and weeks of running controls and replicates to be sure that your negative results are real. And then when a positive results pops up, (Wheeee!) the real tedium begins to check that that's real. :-)
Ideas are not fixed, nor should they be; we live in model-dependent reality.
I guess I view crunching O3ASE "dummy" data as important as "real" data ............ "
This is over 100% correct ! :-))
The usual scientific situation is where noise is a fraction of the signal. We have the converse : the signal is a fraction of the noise, where 'noise' is every other reason except the GW wave from a rotating neutron star. This noise is a long and impressive list of influences upon the gravitational strain data from the interferometers. It is prolonged integration times that save the day though, extracting any underlying trend.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Well, some of the noise is random, but it's more that other real GW signals don't contribute to the particular statistic for a given template. One feature of a real continuous GW sky source is that it will have variation with Earth rotation and position in orbit and that is part of what a particular template attempts to match/specify. But I think we may be talking past one another here. :-))
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Is the source of data for this task from the "telescopes" or from some internally generated data set that is not from the "telescopes"?
Please excuse my characterization of the measuring instruments. I know they are not telescopes but my mind is refusing to spit up the correct noun this morning.
Tom M
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
I guess I view crunching
)
I guess I view crunching O3ASE "dummy" data as important as "real" data because you can't usefully crunch the real stuff without first optimizing the application with engineering runs. Besides, it's the same RAC credit either way.
As a former scientist, I'm used to mind-numbing hours and days and weeks of running controls and replicates to be sure that your negative results are real. And then when a positive results pops up, (Wheeee!) the real tedium begins to check that that's real. :-)
Ideas are not fixed, nor should they be; we live in model-dependent reality.
cecht wrote: I guess I view
)
This is over 100% correct ! :-))
The usual scientific situation is where noise is a fraction of the signal. We have the converse : the signal is a fraction of the noise, where 'noise' is every other reason except the GW wave from a rotating neutron star. This noise is a long and impressive list of influences upon the gravitational strain data from the interferometers. It is prolonged integration times that save the day though, extracting any underlying trend.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Mike Hewson schrieb:...
)
Well, noise is about randomness - which is where the law of large numbers comes into the picture. :-)
And the sheer number isn't even enough - there's a bit of additional work to be done:
https://www.autodesk.com/research/publications/same-stats-different-graphs
Well, some of the noise is
)
Well, some of the noise is random, but it's more that other real GW signals don't contribute to the particular statistic for a given template. One feature of a real continuous GW sky source is that it will have variation with Earth rotation and position in orbit and that is part of what a particular template attempts to match/specify. But I think we may be talking past one another here. :-))
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Is the source of data for
)
Is the source of data for this task from the "telescopes" or from some internally generated data set that is not from the "telescopes"?
Please excuse my characterization of the measuring instruments. I know they are not telescopes but my mind is refusing to spit up the correct noun this morning.
Tom M
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Interferometer(s) is the word
)
Interferometers is the word your after. :-)
AFAIK we hadn't started on the O3 LIGO dataset yet. We are testing the methodology first.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I got O3AS1 tasks! Let's hope
)
I got O3AS1 tasks! O3AS All Sky #1 is listed as Beta in Applications. Project Preferences still lists only O3ASE though.
Ideas are not fixed, nor should they be; we live in model-dependent reality.
cecht wrote: I got O3AS1
)
You got gpu tasks, I'm guessing they left off the (gpu) designatior at the end on the file selection list.