|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: How do you know it was one of the authors? The author identified himself/herself as an author without saying exactly which one. Do you require further explanation? No. But if a theory makes a definitive prediction, and then this prediction is ruled out by reasoning in which no-one can point to any logical gaps, then the originator of that theory should acknowledge this and move on, and not continue to cite some obscure/outdated/crackpot/not-taken-seriously-for-other-reasons reference in support of his discredited theory, but should acknowledge defeat and move on (like, say, Bondi and Morrison after the steady-state cosmology was ruled out). Right? NO! You do NOT rule out a definitive prediction with "reasoning", which has a long and well-known historical record of malfunction. You let NATURE falsify or verify the prediction EMPIRICALLY. Do I make myself clear enough on this point? No. There are no "bare facts". By reasoning I mean constructing a theory which makes predictions different from those of the first theory and having these predictions confirmed by observation. In other words, by reasoning that the first theory predicts something, and another theory predicts something else, and it is something else which is observed. If the prediction is falsified empirically in a definitive manner, then and only then should the author accept nature's verdict, and further, not resort to smoke, mirrors, "adjustments" to the theory, mendacity, etc. Yes, but "falsified empirically" implies some reasoning about what the theory predicts. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Jan 12, 7:10 pm, (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote: Yes, but "falsified empirically" implies some reasoning about what the theory predicts. Just out of curiosity: Have you seen any good Definitive Predictions published in any papers posted to astro-ph or hep-phenomenology or hep- theory at arxiv.org since, say, X-mas? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Jan 16, 10:43 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Jan 12, 7:10 pm, (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote: Yes, but "falsified empirically" implies some reasoning about what the theory predicts. Just out of curiosity: Have you seen any good Definitive Predictions published in any papers posted to astro-ph or hep-phenomenology or hep- theory at arxiv.org since, say, X-mas? Why the arbitrary restriction to the last three weeks and in scope? If you just want to see examples of "Definitive Predictions", any kind should do, right? Nonetheless, even keeping close to your criteria, there are plenty of examples. Take a look at this arXiv search query of the gr-qc category, concerning definite predictions of gravitational waveforms from binary astrophysical sources (which are just a subset of all possible sources): http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti.../0/1/0/all/0/1 Once gravitational wave detectors start producing reliable observations, all of these models will go through an honest weeding, as they should. Igor |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
In sci.astro.research Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Just out of curiosity: Have you seen any good Definitive Predictions published in any papers posted to astro-ph or hep-phenomenology or hep- theory at arxiv.org since, say, X-mas? Here are two definitive predictions (I see no need for upper case here). The first doesn't meet your time window, but is otherwise a nice case: http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3779 Authors: Authors: Todd A. Boroson (NOAO), Tod R. Lauer (NOAO) Title: A Candidate Sub-Parsec Supermassive Binary Black Hole System Abstract: We identify SDSS J153636.22+044127.0, a QSO discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, as a promising candidate for a binary black hole system. This QSO has two broad-line emission systems separated by 3500 km/sec. The redder system at z=0.3889 also has a typical set of narrow forbidden lines. The bluer system (z=0.3727) shows only broad Balmer lines and UV Fe II emission, making it highly unusual in its lack of narrow lines. A third system, which includes only unresolved absorption lines, is seen at a redshift, z=0.3878, intermediate between the two emission-line systems. While the observational signatures of binary nuclear black holes remain unclear, J1536+0441 is unique among all QSOs known in having two broad-line regions, indicative of two separate black holes presently accreting gas. The interpretation of this as a bound binary system of two black holes having masses of 10^8.9 and 10^7.3 solar masses, yields a separation of ~ 0.1 parsec and an orbital period of ~100 years. The separation implies that the two black holes are orbiting within a single narrow-line region, consistent with the characteristics of the spectrum. This object was identified as an extreme outlier of a Karhunen-Loeve Transform of 17,500 z 0.7 QSO spectra from the SDSS. The probability of the spectrum resulting from a chance superposition of two QSOs with similar redshifts is estimated at 2X10^-7, leading to the expectation of 0.003 such objects in the sample studied; however, even in this case, the spectrum of the lower redshift QSO remains highly unusual. since published in Natu http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07779.html Their assertion that this is a binary system with an orbital period of ~100 years is implicitly a prediction of its future evolution, and in particular of strong and relatively easily-measured time-dependent Doppler shifts for the two emission-line systems. [N.b. I think, but am not sure, that further research has found other more-prosaic explanations for their observations, but I don't know the details -- this isn't my research area. Typing "J1536+0441" into the "object name" box at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html yields 15 abstracts. But the outcome 1-year-later doesn't matter for Robert Oldershaw's request: he asked for *predictions*, not for *predictions that are un-refuted 1 year later*.] Here's another "definitive prediction" which *does* fall within Robert Oldershaw's (quite arbitrary IMHO) time window: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1426 Authors: M. Fridlund, G. Hebrard, R. Alonso, M. Deleuil, D. Gandolfi, M. Gillon, H. Bruntt, A. Alapini, Sz. Csizmadia, T. Guillot, H. Lammer, S. Aigrain, J.M. Almenara, M. Auvergne, A. Baglin, P. Barge, P. Borde, F. Bouchy, J. Cabrera, L. Carone, S. Carpano, H. J. Deeg, R. De la Reza, R. Dvorak, A. Erikson, S. Ferraz-Mello, E. Guenther, P. Gondoin, R. den Hartog, A. Hatzes, L. Jorda, A. Leger, A. Llebaria, P. Magain, T. Mazeh, C. Moutou, M. Ollivier, M. Patzold, D. Queloz, H. Rauer, D. Rouan, B. Samuel, J. Schneider, A. Shporer, B. Stecklum, B. Tingley, J. Weingrill, G. Wuchterl Title: Transiting exoplanets from the CoRoT space mission IX. CoRoT-6b: a transiting `hot Jupiter' planet in an 8.9d orbit around a low-metallicity star Abstract: The CoRoT satellite exoplanetary team announces its sixth transiting planet in this paper. We describe and discuss the satellite observations as well as the complementary ground-based observations - photometric and spectroscopic - carried out to assess the planetary nature of the object and determine its specific physical parameters. The discovery reported here is a `hot Jupiter' planet in an 8.9d orbit, 18 stellar radii, or 0.08 AU, away from its primary star, which is a solar-type star (F9V) with an estimated age of 3.0 Gyr. The planet mass is close to 3 times that of Jupiter. The star has a metallicity of 0.2 dex lower than the Sun, and a relatively high $^7$Li abundance. While thelightcurveindicatesamuchhigherlevelof activity than, e.g., the Sun, there is no sign of activity spectroscopically in e.g., the [Ca ] H&K lines. Their equation 1 gives the time at which past eclipses have occured, and is also a definitive prediction of the times at which future eclipses will occur. The orbital parameters given in Table 2 of this paper also provide many other definitive predictions of the future motion of this planet. ciao, -- -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Jan 16, 5:09?pm, Igor Khavkine wrote:
| | http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti.../0/1/0/all/0/1 | | Once gravitational wave detectors start producing reliable | observations, all of these models will go through an honest weeding, | as they should. In sci.astro.research Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: So are you saying that the detection of gravitational waves is a foregone conclusion? Is a non-detection due to non-existence of gravitational waves not considered a permissible observational outcome? I hereby publicly assert that if following statements are all true: (a) Our basic theoretical models of nearby close binary stars are correct. (These models are underpinned by a wide variety of quite uncontroversial optical, UV, and X-ray astronomical observations.) (b) General relativity correctly describes gravitation in nearby close binary stars. (c) The proposed LISA spacecraft mission flies and works properly. [I mean "works" in the engineering sense, i.e., the launch rocket doesn't explode, the lasers don't malfunction, the proof masses are released properly, etc etc. This sort of "works" is normally tested by monitoring various telemetry signals from the spacecraft, and by injecting synthetic signals into various parts of the interferometer optical trains and checking that the appropriate results show up in the data stream.] then (d) LISA will detect gravitational waves at close to the predicted frequency, amplitude, and waveform from at least the strongest 4 "verification binaries" discussed in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605227 Therefore, if (a) and (c) hold, but the LISA data don't show (d), i.e., LISA flies and works properly, but fails to detect the predicted gravitational waves from the strongest of the verification binaries, then we must conclude that (b) fails, i.e., general relativity is wrong (at least for these systems). -- -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA "If the triangles made a god, it would have three sides." -- Voltaire |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
Thus spake "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
I hereby publicly assert that if following statements are all true: (a) Our basic theoretical models of nearby close binary stars are correct. (These models are underpinned by a wide variety of quite uncontroversial optical, UV, and X-ray astronomical observations.) (b) General relativity correctly describes gravitation in nearby close binary stars. (c) The proposed LISA spacecraft mission flies and works properly. [I mean "works" in the engineering sense, i.e., the launch rocket doesn't explode, the lasers don't malfunction, the proof masses are released properly, etc etc. This sort of "works" is normally tested by monitoring various telemetry signals from the spacecraft, and by injecting synthetic signals into various parts of the interferometer optical trains and checking that the appropriate results show up in the data stream.] then (d) LISA will detect gravitational waves at close to the predicted frequency, amplitude, and waveform from at least the strongest 4 "verification binaries" discussed in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605227 Therefore, if (a) and (c) hold, but the LISA data don't show (d), i.e., LISA flies and works properly, but fails to detect the predicted gravitational waves from the strongest of the verification binaries, then we must conclude that (b) fails, i.e., general relativity is wrong (at least for these systems). Okay, then I will publically assert the contrary. That is to say I hold that (a) and (b) are true, but, even assuming that it works properly, Lisa may not detect gravitational waves at the predicted amplitude. Reason being that in relational quantum gravity gtr correctly describes gravitation in a binary star system, but I cannot predict the transmission of gravitational waves through a vacuum according to the equations of gtr. Just to make this clear, I cannot predict what happens in this situation at all. I think we will find that gravitational waves are transmitted but at a lower amplitude, but I am guessing. Maybe gravitational waves do exist at the predicted amplitude of gtr, but I very much doubt it. That doesn't look right in rqg. Maybe they don't exist at all, but I also doubt that. Just for fun, I will put money on it. 50 quid says we don't find gravitational waves at the expected amplitude according to gtr. Let me emphasize again, this is a gamble for me, because I can't actually make a prediction, but I am 100% sure of rqg, and I think it is a good gamble that gravitational waves have a lower amplitude, if they exist at all. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces) http://www.rqgravity.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
Thus spake "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
I hereby publicly assert that if following statements are all true: (a) Our basic theoretical models of nearby close binary stars are correct. (These models are underpinned by a wide variety of quite uncontroversial optical, UV, and X-ray astronomical observations.) (b) General relativity correctly describes gravitation in nearby close binary stars. (c) The proposed LISA spacecraft mission flies and works properly. [I mean "works" in the engineering sense, i.e., the launch rocket doesn't explode, the lasers don't malfunction, the proof masses are released properly, etc etc. This sort of "works" is normally tested by monitoring various telemetry signals from the spacecraft, and by injecting synthetic signals into various parts of the interferometer optical trains and checking that the appropriate results show up in the data stream.] then (d) LISA will detect gravitational waves at close to the predicted frequency, amplitude, and waveform from at least the strongest 4 "verification binaries" discussed in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605227 Therefore, if (a) and (c) hold, but the LISA data don't show (d), i.e., LISA flies and works properly, but fails to detect the predicted gravitational waves from the strongest of the verification binaries, then we must conclude that (b) fails, i.e., general relativity is wrong (at least for these systems). Okay, then I will publically assert the contrary. That is to say I hold that (a) and (b) are true, but, even assuming that it works properly, Lisa may not detect gravitational waves at the predicted amplitude. Reason being that in relational quantum gravity gtr correctly describes gravitation in a binary star system, but I cannot predict the transmission of gravitational waves through a vacuum according to the equations of gtr. Just to make this clear, I cannot predict what happens in this situation at all. I think we will find that gravitational waves are transmitted but at a lower amplitude, but I am guessing. Maybe gravitational waves do exist at the predicted amplitude of gtr, but I very much doubt it. That doesn't look right in rqg. Maybe they don't exist at all, but I also doubt that. Just for fun, I will put money on it. 50 quid says we don't find gravitational waves at the expected amplitude according to gtr. Let me emphasize again, this is a gamble for me, because I can't actually make a prediction, but I am 100% sure of rqg, and I think it is a good gamble that gravitational waves have a lower amplitude, if they exist at all. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces) http://www.rqgravity.net |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
In article
, "Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: So are you saying that the detection of gravitational waves is a foregone conclusion? Is a non-detection due to non-existence of gravitational waves not considered a permissible observational outcome? If gravitational waves are not observed, like the non-detection of "free quarks", will theoreticians decide that they must exist, but are confined to imaginary dimensions? Or perhaps that they were absorbed by all the magnetic monopoles and, poof!, they annihilated each other and their non-existence will be cited as proof of their previous reality. It's possible to be healthily sceptical, and it's possible exaggeratedly position oneself as to be always contrary to prevailing wisdom. If we knew the outcome of the experiment in advance, then we wouldn't do the experiment. Gravitational waves are based in GR, and we have no reason to doubt GR in this regime. I'm willing to bet all I own that gravitational waves will be detected; are you willing to bet all that you own that they won't? But seriously, we again see the pre-determination of how the experiments are "supposed" to come out. We should say: IF AND WHEN the detectors start producing reliable observations/non-observations... . Note that newsgroup language is not the same as that used in legal contracts etc. :-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
[Moderator's note: Posted to only sci.astro.research. -P.H.]
In article , Oh No writes: Okay, then I will publically assert the contrary. That is to say I hold that (a) and (b) are true, but, even assuming that it works properly, Lisa may not detect gravitational waves at the predicted amplitude. Reason being that in relational quantum gravity gtr correctly describes gravitation in a binary star system, but I cannot predict the transmission of gravitational waves through a vacuum according to the equations of gtr. Then, in this respect at least, rqg is not a good theory. (A good theory---one which makes testable predictions---can of course be wrong.) Just for fun, I will put money on it. 50 quid says we don't find gravitational waves at the expected amplitude according to gtr. Let me emphasize again, this is a gamble for me, because I can't actually make a prediction, but I am 100% sure of rqg, and I think it is a good gamble that gravitational waves have a lower amplitude, if they exist at all. Do you pay 50 quid to all who claim it? We will all pay you 50 quid if your hunch is right. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: (1) If anyone chooses to argue that the binary pulsar observations have aready verified gravitational waves, I offer the following assessment by an independent party. to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor. But it did not give direct evidence of gravitational waves!" I hope we are very clear on this last point. I don't think anyone, ever, has claimed this. However, it is HUGE indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves. Think of the current financial crisis, where billions and billions were lost. Does anyone have any DIRECT evidence of that? That is, seeing physical money moving from one account to another? Few, if any. However, the indirect evidence is sufficient. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo? | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 1 | December 11th 09 10:06 AM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
the "magical" Space forums that make MY "unfeasible" and "non | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | August 27th 08 12:04 PM |
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... | OM | History | 21 | July 5th 06 06:40 PM |