Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Imagination and Understanding through Astrophysical Imagery

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Stellar Graveyard plot and similar astrophysical figures function primarily as aids to the visual imagination, evoking mental images of merging black holes, rather than as evidence-bearing or model-descriptive…

desk verdict A solid, limited contribution to philosophy of scientific imagery; the Stellar Graveyard argument overreaches on the non-use inference but the broader point about imaginative aids survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08340 v1 pith:UK4Y5ZN4 submitted 2025-05-13 physics.hist-ph astro-ph.IM

Paul H.W. Disberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phastro-ph.IM
keywords scientificimageryvisualimaginationunderstandingStellarGraveyardplotastrophysicsimage-inationphilosophyofsciencegravitationalwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Scientific articles are filled with figures, and philosophers usually ask how figures support the article's argument. This paper uses the well-known Stellar Graveyard plot—a scatter of observed neutron star and black hole masses—to argue that some astrophysical images are not primarily argumentative at all. Drawing on a philosophical account of images as prompts for the imagination, it claims the plot's main function is to help readers form mental images of binary black holes spiraling in and merging, and that this imaginative prompting contributes to scientific understanding by letting readers mentally simulate spatial structure and causal relations. The paper argues this function is widespread in astrophysical literature, giving examples from gravitational-wave detections, binary stellar evolution diagrams, and supernova schematics. The upshot is that such images should not be dismissed as decorative, because they carry part of the work of understanding.

What carries the argument

The central object is the philosophical category of 'imaginative images'—figures whose main job is to prompt the reader's visual imagination, in the sense developed by Letitia Meynell from Kendall Walton's notion of 'props' in games of make-believe. The mechanism is the 'principles of generation': shared cognitive capacities, habits, and background beliefs that let an actual image ignite a corresponding mental image, which the reader can then manipulate, adding motion or running what-if scenarios. The paper applies this machinery to the Stellar Graveyard plot: the plot's circles and merger arrows are a prop that evokes mental imagery of a binary black hole merger, and the claim is that this imaginative prompting is what makes the figure valuable despite its poor performance as a data display.

What would settle it

A controlled study where readers see either the Stellar Graveyard plot or an equivalent histogram of the same black hole masses, then answer questions about the spatial geometry and causal sequence of a merger; if the plot yields no measurable advantage in such mental-simulation tasks, the claim that its main function is to aid the imagination would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Stellar Graveyard plot is best understood not as a propositional image (a truth-bearing piece of evidence) nor as a model or model-description, but as an aide to what it calls the 'image-ination': a prop that prompts readers to form and manipulate mental images of two black holes orbiting, emitting gravitational waves, and merging into a heavier black hole. The author argues that because the plot is a sub-optimal way to display the mass distribution—the horizontal axis is arbitrary and population structure is hard to read—and because authors often cite it without tying it to analysis, its value must lie elsewhere. That elsewhere is the imagination: by showing black holes as individual circles connected by merger arrows, the figure makes it easy to picture the spatial configuration and the causal story behind the observed gravitational-wave signal. This imaginative function is linked to scientific understanding through the idea that understanding consists partly in grasping spatial structures and causal relationships and in being able to run hypothetical 'what if' scenarios; images that spark such mental simulation thereby further understanding. The same function is claimed to appear in other astrophysical figures, including merger schematics accompanying gravitational-wave signals, Van den Heuvel binary-evolution diagrams, and simplified supernova diagrams.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the inference that when a figure is not explicitly used in the text's analysis, its main function must be something other than argumentative—here, the prompting of mental imagery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Stellar Graveyard plot should be recognized as an imagination aid, not a flawed data graphic; replacing it with a histogram would miss its function.
  • A similar reading applies to figures that accompany gravitational-wave signals, Van den Heuvel binary-evolution diagrams, and simplified supernova schematics: they can further understanding even when the text never explicitly uses them in the analysis.
  • Philosophical accounts of scientific imagery that focus only on truth-bearing or model-resemblance will systematically underdescribe a class of images whose value is imaginative.
  • Because mental imagery can support the kind of qualitative understanding the paper describes, including such images is a legitimate way for authors to make theories intelligible to readers.
  • If the account is right, philosophers of science should treat imaginative imagery as a genuine part of scientific communication rather than as decoration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The argument implies a testable empirical prediction: readers given the Stellar Graveyard plot should be better at answering questions about merger geometry and causal sequence than readers given only a histogram of the same masses.
  • The 'absence of explicit reference' criterion could be extended to other fields: any figure that is sub-optimal for data display but consistently included in a literature may be doing imaginative work, offering a heuristic for identifying props elsewhere in science.
  • If the imaginative function is as central as argued, then image choice in scientific papers becomes partly an engineering problem of matching a prop to an audience's existing principles of generation, which could connect to science communication and education research.
  • The claim might be sharpened by asking whether the prop matters most for novices; experts may already have the mental image and may use the figure as a mnemonic or rhetorical marker rather than as a genuine imaginative prompt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the function of astrophysical images that appear in scientific articles but are not evidently load-bearing for the argument, using the 'Stellar Graveyard' plot as the central case. It compares three philosophical accounts: Perini's propositional account (images as truth-bearers), Downes's account (images as models or model descriptions), and Meynell's account (images as aids to the visual imagination, or 'image-ination'). The author argues that the Stellar Graveyard is sub-optimal for displaying the mass distribution, that the citing texts do not use it as evidence in a detailed analysis, and that its main function is therefore to prompt mental imagery of merging black holes, thereby furthering scientific understanding. The paper then connects this function to De Regt's notion of intelligibility and Meynell's account of understanding as manipulation of spatial/causal structure, and offers four further examples of astrophysical imagery allegedly exhibiting the same function. It concludes that such imagery should not be dismissed as decorative because it supports understanding through mental simulation.

Significance. If the argument succeeds, the paper makes a useful contribution to the philosophy of scientific imagery by providing a positive, non-decorative account of figures that are not necessary for an article's propositional argument. It brings a concrete and well-chosen astrophysics case study into the discussion, and its careful comparison of Perini, Downes, and Meynell is philosophically instructive. The author is appropriately cautious in acknowledging that images can have multiple functions and that the categories may overlap. The paper is clearly written and engages seriously with the cited literature. The main weakness is that the central classification of the Stellar Graveyard as primarily imaginative rests on a questionable inference from textual non-use, and the prevalence claim is supported by only a handful of selected examples. These issues are addressable in revision without undermining the broader philosophical point that Meynell's framework illuminates an underappreciated class of scientific imagery.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.4] The central claim that the Stellar Graveyard's main function is to evoke mental imagery depends on the inference that because the figure is not explicitly used in the authors' analysis, it is not part of the scientific argument. The evidence offered from Mandel and Farmer (2022, p. 3) is that they write 'The masses of the black-hole binaries observed to date are shown in Fig. 1, along with masses inferred from X-ray binary observations.' The paper takes this as showing the figure is 'a mere display.' But in a review article, displaying the observed sample is itself a form of evidentiary support: the figure presents the data on which subsequent claims about the population are based. The sentence 'Specific system properties are discussed below' suggests that the figure establishes the sample under discussion, not that the figure is disconnected from the analysis. To sustain the dichotomy between 'propositional' and 'imaginative,' the author would need to show that no inference in the citing papers depends on the figure, or that the figure could be removed without loss. As written, the 'main function' claim is under-supported; at minimum it should be weakened to 'an important function,' or supplemented with direct evidence such as authors' explicit statements of intent or cases where the figure is used with no data-display role at all.
  2. [2.4] The argument that the Stellar Graveyard is not a propositional image because it is 'sub-optimal for scientific purposes' (p. 13) conflates epistemic usefulness with truth-bearing. Perini's account does not require that a visual representation be the best possible display of the data; a figure can be a truth-bearer while being less informative than an alternative. The fact that a histogram better reveals the mass gap does not show that the individual plotted masses in the Stellar Graveyard do not make true claims about the observed objects. Similarly, the appeal to 'significantly greater support' from other displays concerns degrees of evidential strength, not whether the Stellar Graveyard has propositional content. To exclude Perini's account, the author must show that the figure does not represent a state of affairs at all, or that it is never used to support a claim. The current argument risks a false dichotomy between 'optimal evidence' and 'imaginative aid.'
  3. [3.3] The claim that imaginative imagery is 'prevalent in astrophysical articles' (Introduction, p. 4) is not supported by the evidence provided. The paper presents four examples (the Stellar Graveyard, gravitational-wave merger diagrams, Van den Heuvel diagrams, and one supernova schematic), each analyzed through the same inference from textual non-use. This is a selection of case studies, not a survey; it can establish that such imagery exists, but not that it is prevalent across the field. The author's own phrasing elsewhere ('in my estimation', 'appears to exhibit') is more cautious and is consistent with the evidence. To make the prevalence claim, the paper would need a systematic search strategy (e.g., sampling a defined set of journals and classifying figures) or a reframing of the goal as showing that Meynell's account illuminates a class of underappreciated images. Without such support, the prevalence claim should be withdrawn or explicitly reduced to an existence claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [p. 28] There is a typo in the final paragraph: 'this category pf' should be 'this category of.' Also, in the acknowledgments, 'Iacknowledgesupport' is missing spaces and should be 'I acknowledge support.'
  2. [2.4] The phrase 'the figure is designed sub-optimally for this purpose' (p. 12) attributes a design intention that is not established; consider 'the figure is sub-optimal for this purpose' to avoid implying deliberate choice.
  3. [3.2] The claim that De Regt's notion of intelligibility is 'somewhat black and white' (p. 18) is presented as an interpretation, but De Regt's criterion ('can recognize qualitatively characteristic consequences') could itself be read as admitting degrees. The author's proposed modification is reasonable, but it would benefit from a brief acknowledgment that this is a substantive interpretive choice rather than a neutral observation.
  4. [3.3] For Figure 5a, the statement that the authors 'do not even mention the black hole images in their main text' (p. 21) is true of the quoted sentence, but the figure is still part of the paper and is reproduced alongside the waveform. This example illustrates the general difficulty of inferring function from what is said about a figure, and the point would be stronger with a citation to the figure caption or a discussion of how the figure is presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's philosophical argument is interpretive and its self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a philosophy-of-science essay, not an empirical derivation with fitted parameters or predictions. Its central claim—that the Stellar Graveyard plot functions primarily as an aide to visual imagination—is supported by comparing three philosophical accounts (Perini, Downes, Meynell) and by observing how the figure is actually used in astrophysical papers such as Mandel and Farmer (2022). The load-bearing premise that the figure is suboptimal for quantitative mass-distribution analysis rests on independent features of the image (arbitrary horizontal axis, individual circles rather than a histogram), not on a conclusion already built into Meynell's framework. The inference from non-explicit textual use to a primarily imaginative function is contestable, but that is an evidential weakness, not circularity. The paper's self-citations (Disberg and Nelemans 2023; Disberg et al. 2024a,b, 2025) are used only as examples of astrophysical figures, and none is invoked as a premise that presupposes the article's conclusion. No equation is fitted, no prediction is renamed, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work. Therefore no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard can be exhibited; the score reflects only the minor presence of self-citations as examples, not any load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central argument is philosophical, not mathematical. It imports theoretical assumptions from the cited literature: that images can have a dominant function, that Walton's prop theory describes imagination, that mental imagery can yield understanding, and that astrophysics is a visualizable, phenomena-saving science. No numerical free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three accounts of scientific imagery, Perini, Downes, and Meynell, provide a sufficiently exhaustive taxonomy for the figures considered.
    The paper argues that Perini and Downes are inadequate and Meynell is better, assuming no fourth function such as rhetoric or aesthetics is decisive for these images. This assumption structures Sections 2.1 to 2.4.
  • domain assumption Walton's theory of props and 'principles of generation' correctly describes how actual images prompt mental images.
    Adopted from Meynell (2017, 2020) in Section 2.3 to define the imaginative function of scientific images.
  • domain assumption Meynell's and De Regt's accounts of understanding imply that forming mental images can further scientific understanding.
    Section 3.2 uses these accounts to connect imagery to understanding, and the paper's central conclusion depends on this link.
  • domain assumption Astrophysics is a 'phenomena-saving' science whose objects are macroscopic and visualizable, making imagination particularly relevant.
    Section 3.1, following Hacking (1989), motivates why the paper selects astrophysics rather than other disciplines.
  • domain assumption Authors choose images partly to persuade and communicate clearly, so the design and retention of suboptimal figures reflects intended effects on readers.
    Section 3.2 assumes communicative intent when inferring that images included without argumentative use are meant to aid the imagination.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imagination and Understanding through Astrophysical Imagery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UK4Y5ZN4

@misc{pith2026250508340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imagination and Understanding through Astrophysical Imagery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UK4Y5ZN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08340}
}
read the original abstract

Scientific articles, for instance in the field of astrophysics, are often filled with a variety of images. In philosophical studies, these images are usually analyzed in terms of their function within the scientific argument presented in the article. However, not all images that can be found in astrophysical articles are relevant to the scientific argument, which prompts the question of why they are included in the first place. Using the example of the so-called Stellar Graveyard plot, I argue that the work of Letitia Meynell provides a valuable description of this kind of imagery. That is, there are images used in astrophysical literature that may not be necessary for the scientific argument, but function as an aide for the visual imagination of the reader. These kinds of aides can help with mentally visualizing certain spatial configurations and the causal relationships within them, ultimately furthering understanding of the discussed astrophysical concepts or models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Stellar Graveyard plot, displaying the observed neutron stars (yellow and orange) and black holes (red and blue). The horizontal axis is an arbitrary ordering, while the vertical axis shows the masses of the objects. The blue dots show the black holes found in binaries, where two smaller black holes merge into a bigger one. The name “graveyard” refers to the fact that neutron stars and black holes are stellar re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Binary black hole mass distribution as observed through gravitational waves (amended version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model of supernova winds ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Part (a): simulation by Toomre and Toomre (1972, i.e., their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: First observation of a gravitational wave resulting from a black hole merger. Part (a) shows a reconstruction of the signal and predictions made using general rel￾ativity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Van den Heuvel diagram of a binary evolution model that described the formation of two neutron stars (NSs) that eventually merge into a black hole (BH) while producing gravitational waves ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Models of supernova explosions. Part (a) shows the model of Janka (2001, i.e., their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diagram showing the relationship between the central concepts of this article: imagery, image-ination, and understanding, within the context of astrophysics / science. – Imagery can be used to “spark,” or “aid,” the image-ination. Mental images that are important to an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint doi url journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year adsurl label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'be...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Adamcewicz , C., P. D. Lasky , E. Thrane , and I. Mandel (2024, November). No Evidence for a Dip in the Binary Black Hole Mass Spectrum . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 975\/ (2), 253. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea8 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea8 2024

  4. [4]

    Anderl, S. (2016). Astronomy and Astrophysics in the Philosophy of Science . In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science , Chapter 31, pp.\ 652–--670. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199368815.013.45 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199368815.013.45

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Anderl, S. (2018). Simplicity and Simplification in Astrophysical Modeling . Philosophy of Science\/ 85\/ (5), 819–831. doi: 10.1086/699696 https://doi.org/10.1086/699696

    work page doi:10.1086/699696 2018

  6. [6]

    Anderl, S. (2021). Evidence in Astrophysics . In E. Knox and A. Wilson (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics\/ (1 ed.)., Chapter 54, pp.\ 744--752. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315623818 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623818

    doi:10.4324/9781315623818 2021

  7. [7]

    Arcavi , I., D. A. Howell , D. Kasen , et al. (2017, November). Energetic Eruptions Leading to a Peculiar Hydrogen-rich Explosion of a Massive Star . Nature\/ 551\/ (7679), 210--213. doi: 10.1038/nature24030 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24030

    doi:10.1038/nature24030 2017

  8. [8]

    Bailes , M., B. K. Berger , P. R. Brady , et al. (2021, January). Gravitational-wave Physics and Astronomy in the 2020s and 2030s . Nature Reviews Physics\/ 3\/ (5), 344--366. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00303-8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00303-8

    doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00303-8 2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Baumgarte , T. W. and S. L. Shapiro (2011, January). Binary Black Hole Mergers . Physics Today\/ 64\/ (10), 32. doi: 10.1063/PT.3.1294 https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1294

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Heida, M

    Bodensteiner, J., M. Heida, M. Abdul-Masih, et al. (2022, 3). Detecting Stripped Stars While Searching for Quiescent Black Holes . The Messenger\/ 196 , pp. 3--9. doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5255 https://doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/5255

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building . In R. L. Launer and G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in Statistics , pp.\ 201--236. Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-438150-6.50018-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-438150-6.50018-2

    1979 doi

  4. [12]

    Boyd, N. M., S. D. Baerdemaeker, K. Heng, and V. Matarese (Eds.) (2023). Philosophy of Astrophysics\/ (1 ed.), Volume 472 of Synthese Library . Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-26618-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26618-8

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Broadhurst, T., J. M. Diego, and G. F. Smoot (2022). A Uniform Stellar Origin for Binary Black Holes Revealed by Lensing . arXiv preprint\/ , arXiv:2202.05861. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.05861 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.05861

    2022 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cattorini, F. and B. Giacomazzo (2024). GRMHD Study of Accreting Massive Black Hole Binaries in Astrophysical Environment: A Review . Astroparticle Physics\/ 154 , 102892. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102892 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102892

    2024

  7. [15]

    Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science . Philosophy of Science\/ 69\/ (3), 474–496. doi: 10.1086/342455 https://doi.org/10.1086/342455

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    Connors , A., P. J. Serlemitsos , and J. H. Swank (1986, April). Fast Transients: A Search in X-Rays for Short Flares, Bursts, and Related Phenomena . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 303 , 769. doi: 10.1086/164124 https://doi.org/10.1086/164124

    1986 doi

  9. [17]

    De Regt, H. W. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding . Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780197510261

    2017

  10. [18]

    De Regt, H. W. and D. Dieks (2005, March). A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding . Synthese\/ 144 , 137–170. doi: s11229-005-5000-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-5000-4

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Gaspari , and A

    Disberg , P., N. Gaspari , and A. J. Levan (2024a, July). Deceleration of Kicked Objects due to the Galactic Potential . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 678 , A272. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449996 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449996

    doi

  12. [20]

    Gaspari , and A

    Disberg , P., N. Gaspari , and A. J. Levan (2024b, September). Kinematic Constraints on the Ages and Kick Velocities of Galactic Neutron Star Binaries . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 689 , A348. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450790 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450790

    doi

  13. [21]

    Gaspari , and A

    Disberg , P., N. Gaspari , and A. J. Levan (2025, March). A Kinematically Constrained Kick Distribution for Isolated Neutron Stars . arXiv e-prints\/ , arXiv:2503.01429. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01429 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.01429

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Disberg, P. and G. Nelemans (2023, July). Failed Supernovae as a Natural Explanation for the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 676 , A31. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245693 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245693

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Downes, S. M. (2009). Models, Pictures, and Unified Accounts of Representation: Lessons from Aesthetics for Philosophy of Science . Perspectives on Science\/ 17\/ (4), 417--428. doi: 10.1162/posc.2009.17.4.417 https://doi.org/10.1162/posc.2009.17.4.417

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Downes, S. M. (2011). Scientific Models . Philosophy Compass\/ 6\/ (11), 757--764. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00441.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00441.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    Downes, S. M. (2012). How Much Work Do Scientific Images Do? Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science\/ 6\/ (1), 115--130. doi: 10.4245/sponge.v6i1.17154 https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v6i1.17154

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Livio , T

    Eichler , D., M. Livio , T. Piran , and D. N. Schramm (1989, July). Nucleosynthesis, Neutrino Bursts and -rays from Coalescing Neutron Stars . Nature\/ 340\/ (6229), 126--128. doi: 10.1038/340126a0 https://doi.org/10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    Einstein, A. and L. Infeld (1938). The Evolution of Physics . Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0671201565

    1938

  20. [28]

    (2022, May)

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. (2022, May). First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way . The Astrophysical Journal Letters\/ 930\/ (2), L12. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 https...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Feynman, R. (1965). The Character of Physical Law . M.I.T. Press. ISBN: 0262060167

    1965

  22. [30]

    Feynman, R. (2015). The Quotable Feynman . Princeton University Press. Edited by Michelle Feynman. ISBN: 9780691153032

    2015

  23. [31]

    Flannery, B. P. and E. P. J. Van den Heuvel (1975, February). On the Origin of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16 . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 39\/ (1), 61--67. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975A\

    1975

  24. [32]

    Frank , J. and M. J. Rees (1976, September). Effects of Massive Black Holes on Dense Stellar Systems. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 176 , 633--647. doi: 10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/176.3.633

    1976 doi

  25. [33]

    (2018, August)

    Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018, August). Gaia Data Release 2. Observational Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 616 , A10. doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201832843 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832843

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining Science . The University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226292061

    1988

  27. [35]

    Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman . Open Road. ISBN: 9781453210437

    1992

  28. [36]

    (1976, June)

    Goodman, N. (1976, June). Languages of Art\/ (2 ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN: 9780915144358

    1976

  29. [37]

    Goodwin, W. (2009). Visual Representations in Science . Philosophy of Science\/ 76\/ (3), 372–390. doi: 10.1086/649812 https://doi.org/10.1086/649812

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Griffiths, D. (2008). Introduction to Elementary Particles\/ (2 ed.). Wiley-VCH. ISBN: 9783527406012

    2008

  31. [39]

    Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening . Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521238298

    1983

  32. [40]

    Hacking, I. (1989). Extragalactic Reality: The Case of Gravitational Lensing . Philosophy of Science\/ 56\/ (4), 555--581. doi: 10.1086/289514 https://doi.org/10.1086/289514

    1989 doi

  33. [41]

    Sturani , and H

    Isoyama , S., R. Sturani , and H. Nakano (2021). Post-Newtonian Templates for Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Inspirals . In C. Bambi , S. Katsanevas , and K. D. Kokkotas (Eds.), Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy , pp.\ 31. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702...

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    (2001, March)

    Janka, H.-T. (2001, March). Conditions for Shock Revival by Neutrino Heating in Core-collapse Supernovae . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 368\/ (2), 527--560. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010012 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010012

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Toonen , A

    Kummer , F., S. Toonen , A. Dorozsmai , et al. (2025, January). Black Hole--Black Hole Mergers with and without an Electromagnetic Counterpart: A Model for Stable Tertiary Mass Transfer in Hierarchical Triple Systems . Astronomy & Astrophysics\/ 693 , A84. doi: 10.1051/0004-63...

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Lah \'e n , N., P. H. Johansson , A. Rantala , et al. (2018, April). The Fate of the Antennae Galaxies . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 475\/ (3), 3934--3958. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty060- https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty060-

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Levan , A. J., B. P. Gompertz , O. S. Salafia , et al. (2024, February). Heavy-element Production in a Compact Object Merger Observed by JWST . Nature\/ 626\/ (8000), 737--741. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    (2016, February)

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration , Virgo Collaboration , et al. (2016, February). Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger . Physical Review Letters\/ 116 , 061102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    (2023, January)

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration , Virgo Collaboration , KAGRA Collaboration , et al. (2023, January). Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3 . Physical Review X\/ 13\/ (1), 011048. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 https://doi.org/...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    L \"u thy, C. and A. Smets (2009). Words, Lines, Diagrams, Images: Towards a History of Scientific Imagery . Early Science and Medicine\/ 14\/ (1-3), 398--439. doi: 10.1163/157338209X425632 https://doi.org/10.1163/157338209X425632

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    Lüthy, C. (2024). The Late Origins of the Timeline, or: Three Paradoxes Explained . Annals of Science\/ 82\/ (1), 1--43. doi: 10.1080/00033790.2023.2289524 https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2023.2289524

    2024

  42. [50]

    Mandel , I. and S. E. De Mink (2016, May). Merging Binary Black Holes Formed through Chemically Homogeneous Evolution in Short-period Stellar Binaries . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 458\/ (3), 2634--2647. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw379 https://doi.org/10.1093...

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Mandel, I. and A. Farmer (2022, April). Merging Stellar-mass Binary Black Holes . Physics Reports\/ 955 , 1--24. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Renzo, R

    Marchant, P., M. Renzo, R. Farmer, et al. (2019, September). Pulsational Pair-instability Supernovae in Very Close Binaries . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 882\/ (1), 36. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    McGinn, C. (2004). Mindsight . Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674015606

    2004

  46. [54]

    Meynell, L. (2008). Why Feynman Diagrams Represent . International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\/ 22\/ (1), 39--59. doi: 10.1080/02698590802280902 https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590802280902

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    Meynell, L. (2017). Images and Imagination in Thought Experiments . In M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige, and J. R. Brown (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments\/ (1 ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315175027 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315175027

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Meynell, L. (2018). Picturing Feynman Diagrams and the Epistemology of Understanding . Perspectives on Science\/ 26\/ (4), 459--481. doi: 10.1162/posc\_a\_00283 https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00283

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Meynell, L. (2020). Getting the Picture . In M. Ivanova and S. French (Eds.), The Aesthetics of Science: Beauty, Imagination and Understanding\/ (1 ed.)., Chapter 3, pp.\ 36--62. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/ 9780429030284-3/getting-picture-le...

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Miller, A. I. (1984). Imagery in Scientific Thought . Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-0545-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0545-3

    1984 doi

  51. [59]

    Miller, M. C. (2016). Dawn of a New Astronomy . Nature\/ 531 , 40--41. doi: 10.1038/nature17306 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17306

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    Miller, M. C. and N. Yunes (2019). The New Frontier of Gravitational Waves . Nature\/ 568 , 469--476. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1129-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1129-z

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Murphy, A. (2022). Imagination in Science . Philosophy Compass\/ 17\/ (6), e12836. doi: 10.1111/phc3.12836 https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12836

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    Murphy, J. W. and J. C. Dolence (2017, January). An Integral Condition for Core-collapse Supernova Explosions . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 832\/ (2), 183. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/183 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/183

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Perini, L. (2005a). The Truth in Pictures . Philosophy of Science\/ 72\/ (1), 262–285. doi: 10.1086/426852 https://doi.org/10.1086/426852

    2005 doi

  56. [64]

    Perini, L. (2005b). Visual Representations and Confirmation . Philosophy of Science\/ 72\/ (5), 913–926. doi: 10.1086/508949 https://doi.org/10.1086/508949

    2005 doi

  57. [65]

    Perini, L. (2012). Truth-bearers or Truth-makers? Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science\/ 6\/ (1), 142--147. doi: 10.4245/ sponge.v6i1.17357 https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v6i1.17357

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    Rocke, A. J. (2010). Image and Reality . The University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226723327

    2010

  59. [67]

    Salcido , J., R. G. Bower , T. Theuns , et al. (2016, November). Music from the Heavens - Gravitational Waves from Supermassive Black Hole Mergers in the EAGLE Simulations . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 463\/ (1), 870--885. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2048 htt...

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    Santos, G. R., A. de Pádua Santos, P. Protopapas, and T. A. Ferreira (2022). Gravitational Wave Signal Recognition and Ring-down Time Estimation via Artificial Neural Networks . Expert Systems with Applications\/ 207 , 117931. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117931 https://doi.org/10...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Schemmel, M. (2023). Arguing from Appearance . In M. Valleriani, G. Giannini, and E. Giannetto (Eds.), Scientific Visual Representations in History , Chapter 11, pp.\ 315--329. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-11317-8\_11 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11317-8_11

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Schneider , F. R. N., P. Podsiadlowski , and E. Laplace (2023, June). Bimodal Black Hole Mass Distribution and Chirp Masses of Binary Black Hole Mergers . The Astrophysical Journal Letters\/ 950\/ (2), L9. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd77a https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acd77a

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Stuart, M. T. (2017). Imagination: A Sine Qua Non of Science . Croatian Journal of Philosophy\/ 17\/ (49), 9--32. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=537780 https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=537780

    2017

  64. [72]

    Tauris , T. M., M. Kramer , P. C. C. Freire , et al. (2017, September). Formation of Double Neutron Star Systems . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 846\/ (2), 170. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e8 9 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Tauris , T. M. and E. P. J. Van den Heuvel (2023). Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources . Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691179087

    2023

  66. [74]

    Toomre , A. and J. Toomre (1972, December). Galactic Bridges and Tails . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 178 , 623--666. doi: 10.1086/151823 https://doi.org/10.1086/151823

    1972 doi

  67. [75]

    Van den Heuvel , E. P. J. (1981, March). X-Ray Binaries and Stellar Evolution . Space Science Reviews\/ 30\/ (1-4), 623--642. doi: 10.1007/BF01246082 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01246082

    1981 doi

  68. [76]

    Van Son , L. A. C., S. E. de Mink , M. Renzo , et al. (2022, December). No Peaks without Valleys: The Stable Mass Transfer Channel for Gravitational-wave Sources in Light of the Neutron Star-Black Hole Mass Gap . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 940\/ (2), 184. doi: 10.3847/1538-43...

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    Viereck, G. S. (1929, October). What Life Means to Einstein . The Saturday Evening Post\/ , 109--117. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/sateve- post/einstein.pdf https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/einstein.pdf

    1929

  70. [78]

    Vigna-G \'o mez , A., C. J. Neijssel , S. Stevenson , et al. (2018, December). On the Formation History of Galactic Double Neutron Stars . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 481\/ (3), 4009--4029. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2463 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2463

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Breivik , M

    Wagg , T., K. Breivik , M. Renzo , and A. M. Price-Whelan (2025, January). cogsworth: A Gala of COSMIC Proportions Combining Binary Stellar Evolution and Galactic Dynamics . The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series\/ 276\/ (1), 16. doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8b1f https://doi....

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    Waldrop, M. M. (2022). Primordial Black Holes Could Hold the Key to Dark Matter Mysteries . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 119\/ (32), e2211215119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2211215119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2211215119

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe . Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674576195

    1990

  74. [82]

    Woosley , S. E. (1993, March). Gamma-Ray Bursts from Stellar Mass Accretion Disks around Black Holes . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 405 , 273. doi: 10.1086/172359 https://doi.org/10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  75. [83]

    Woosley , S. E., S. Blinnikov , and A. Heger (2007, November). Pulsational Pair Instability as an Explanation for the Most Luminous Supernovae . Nature\/ 450\/ (7168), 390--392. doi: 10.1038/nature06333 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06333

    2007 doi

  76. [84]

    Piran, and R

    Yalinewich, A., T. Piran, and R. Sari (2017, March). Evolution of Supernova Remnants Near the Galactic Center . The Astrophysical Journal\/ 838\/ (1), 12. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d0f https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d0f

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.