That video is very intriguing, but raises some questions to me.
1. what is the input? I notice they show a LOT of moving images on screens, but they never show WHAT those images are coming from. They never show how you put a living cell into the system.
2. the scientist named Susan says, early in the video, that by learning more about the cell, they can make better drugs (my paraphrase), which to me introduces a massive bias into the mix.
3. What is the real coloration of these structures? Those day-glo rainbow colors are surely computer enhancements meant to clarify different densities or some other characteristic sensed by the computer, so how does that change what is seen on the screen?
4. What assumptions are they using to interpret what they see? the "virus entering a cell" is a case in point. We see a tiny globe entering a much larger globe, all of similar coloration, but it is impossible to tell from that moving image what the actual process is. Is it some completely normal process of cell metabolism, or nutrient dispersal? or as they interpret it, some evil outsider spewing its pathogenic contents into the cell?
I understand your comments, but I just thought it's a promising technology that might be able to greatly improve microbiology. And I think the MIT News article proves that current microbiology has its problems. Thanks for the comment.
That video is very intriguing, but raises some questions to me.
1. what is the input? I notice they show a LOT of moving images on screens, but they never show WHAT those images are coming from. They never show how you put a living cell into the system.
2. the scientist named Susan says, early in the video, that by learning more about the cell, they can make better drugs (my paraphrase), which to me introduces a massive bias into the mix.
3. What is the real coloration of these structures? Those day-glo rainbow colors are surely computer enhancements meant to clarify different densities or some other characteristic sensed by the computer, so how does that change what is seen on the screen?
4. What assumptions are they using to interpret what they see? the "virus entering a cell" is a case in point. We see a tiny globe entering a much larger globe, all of similar coloration, but it is impossible to tell from that moving image what the actual process is. Is it some completely normal process of cell metabolism, or nutrient dispersal? or as they interpret it, some evil outsider spewing its pathogenic contents into the cell?
I understand your comments, but I just thought it's a promising technology that might be able to greatly improve microbiology. And I think the MIT News article proves that current microbiology has its problems. Thanks for the comment.