English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

I consider the question posed to me by the scientific organisers of theconference, "Are the modern computer simulations a substitute for physicalmodels? The SKA case." I briefly consider the current knowledge of computersimulations and of physical prototypes in the context of understandinginterferometric radio telescopes. My conclusion is that, "no, computersimulations are not a substitute for physical models when it comes tounderstanding the SKAfurthermore, physical models are not much helpeither." This conclusion is intentionally provocative, designed to promote somediscussion at the conference, which it did. However, the conclusion reflects mybelief that we do not have a deep enough understanding, theoretical orpractical, of how interferometry works, to determine if the SKA will meet thestated specifications or not. I conclude that we need to adopt a qualitativelydifferent approach to dealing with interferometric data. I note that some goodwork is being done on this front, but it is likely a bigger effort is needed inthe SKA era. This is exactly the type of innovation that projects such as theSKA should encourage.

Are the modern computer simulations a substitute for physical models? The SKA case