"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?

[[Mod. note -- Two comments:
1. This article was submitted to sci.physics.research (only), but an
identical article was recently submitted to (and approved by the
moderator and hence posted to) sci.astro.research.
Please don't duplicate-submit like this -- crosspost instead!
[That is, if you want your article to appear in both
s.p.r and s.a.r, edit the "Newsgroups:" line of your
submission to say
"Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research".
Note that there is NOT a space after the comma!]
Crossposting allows news-reading software to "know" that the
same article appears in both places, so (for example) if you
(a human reader of both newsgroups) have read the article in
one of the newsgroups, the software can avoid showing it to
you again in the other newsgroup. Similarly, crossposting
ensures that any followups should be seen by readers of both
newsgroups.

Moderators will often reject articles which are identical to
those already posted elsewhere (telling the author to crosspost
instead), but in this case I'm approving this article. However,
I've taken the liberty of editing the "Newsgroups:" header to
make this article crossposted to both newsgroups. Hopefully
any followup discussion thread will then be properly crossposted...

2. The paper being discussed is
arXiv:0912.0004
C.B. Jackson, Geraldine Servant, Gabe Shaughnessy, Tim M.P. Tait, Marco Taoso
"Higgs in Space!"
Sean Carroll describes this paper as
Winner of the coveted "Best Paper Title Among Today's arXiv Postings."
at
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...iggs-in-space/
-- jt]]

A new submission to hep-th at arxiv.org presents an interesting
challenge: Sort of a 'Where's Waldo?' except that instead of 'Waldo'
we are hunting for a Definitive Scientific Prediction.

Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...912.0004v1.pdf

We remember that a Definitive Prediction is:

1. feasible
2. made prior to the tests
3. quantitative [an exact number or very restricted range of numbers]
4. non-adjustable [fudging and excessive hedging not allowed]
5. unique to the theory being tested

We also remember that the mass of the putative Higgs particle is
highly uncertain, except for a reasonable lower limit already set by
previous testing. There is no definitive upper limit that cannot be
circumvented, to my knowledge. Lattice theories can generate very
heavy putative Higgs particles. So it would appear that the predicted
putative Higgs masses might vary by factors of 3 or more.

Given the above, can anybody identify a truly Definitive Scientific
Prediction by which we might define this paper as science, as opposed
to effectively untestable pseudoscience?

Yours in traditional science and its time-honored methods,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[Moderator's note: Irrelevant quoted text snipped. -P.H.]

A new submission to hep-th at arxiv.org presents an interesting
challenge: Sort of a 'Where's Waldo?' except that instead of 'Waldo'
we are hunting for a Definitive Scientific Prediction.

Here is the paper:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...912.0004v1.pdf

We remember that a Definitive Prediction is:

1. feasible
2. made prior to the tests
3. quantitative [an exact number or very restricted range of numbers]
4. non-adjustable [fudging and excessive hedging not allowed]
5. unique to the theory being tested

We also remember that the mass of the putative Higgs particle is
highly uncertain, except for a reasonable lower limit already set by
previous testing. There is no definitive upper limit that cannot be
circumvented, to my knowledge. Lattice theories can generate very
heavy putative Higgs particles. So it would appear that the predicted
putative Higgs masses might vary by factors of 3 or more.

Given the above, can anybody identify a truly Definitive Scientific
Prediction by which we might define this paper as science, as opposed
to effectively untestable pseudoscience?

Yours in traditional science and its time-honored methods,
RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Well, we can pick ranges for where the Higgs may exist, then look for
it there. I know Tomasso Dorigo had a post on his new blog about this
exact topic a week or so ago. Here is the post:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/qu..._tevatron_hig=
gs_limits_got_worse_115_gev_excess_growing

Tomasso hopes for a light 115 GeV Higgs, and some MSSM models predict
that. Other MSSM models predict much heavier Higgs, 160+ GeV; other
non-MSSM models predict truely massive (720 GeV) Higgs, while some of
the more convoluted models predict multiple Higgs.

Some scientists, myself, and Stephen Hawkings (AFAIK), prefer not to
see a Higgs at all. Stephen because it would be more "interesting",
and myself because I have a feeling deep in my gut that a Higgs will
complicate the relationship between inertial and gravitational mass,
whatever that may be.

The search for the Higgs, and other particles, relies much more on
data from experiments to be conducted, rather then experiments already
done. This lack of data is why we cannot nail down the Higgs right
now, and all these predictions would fall under "Definite Scientific
Prediction". They all make a prediction about the range of the Higgs,
and this prediction can be tested. (I think I wrote about this issue
on my blog some time ago, but a quick google search brings up
nothing. If you want to look, go ahead, but I make no statements of
accuracy, nor of existence. http://www.aitj-co.com/gcsgz5/blog)

Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb:

Given the above, can anybody identify a truly Definitive Scientific
Prediction by which we might define this paper as science, as opposed
to effectively untestable pseudoscience?

Forgive if I ask this:
is that paper really meant seriously?
(To me it looks like kind of elaborated parody.)
Is that the way science works? They combine three speculative items -
Higgs, WIMPs and Dark Matter - and combine them to super-speculation
about dark matter annihilation.

Quote:
"We consider the possibility that the Higgs can be produced in dark
matter annihilations, appearing as a line in the spectrum of gamma rays
at an energy determined by the masses of the WIMP and the Higgs itself"

TH

On Jan 9, 3:44*am, Thomas Heger wrote:

Forgive if I ask this:
is that paper really meant seriously?
(To me it looks like kind of elaborated parody.)


Yes, it is most certainly intended to be taken seriously.

One of the authors contacted me, anonymously of course, and criticized
me for having advocated sobriety at their analytical bacchanal. He/she
tried to convince me that they did make predictions, although about
four of the variables are completely adjustable, and virtually any
gamma-ray line found by the Fermi team, arising from any number of
physical causes, could be interpreted as evidence for some variation
of their "Higgs annihilation toy idea".

Only Definitive Predictions [prior, testable, unique, non-adjustable
and rigorously quantitative] count in science.

Pseudo-predictions [towers of if/then reasoning, adjustable variables,
after-the-fact reasoning, unfeasible, non-unique to the theory being
tested, etc.] are not scientific. They can seriously mislead and
divert attention from serious science.

Theorists should feel free to speculate wildly in search of useful
ideas, but the broader physics community should realize that this
stuff is pseudoscience until it can produce Definitive Predictions.
The physics community, and especially editors of scientific
publications, need to make critical distinctions between science and
pseudoscience. If the distinction continues to be ignored, science is
in jeopardy. This is something that those who value science highly
cannot tolerate. Junk-bond science is not acceptable.

Yours in science,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article
,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

On Jan 9, 3:44*am, Thomas Heger wrote:

Forgive if I ask this:
is that paper really meant seriously?
(To me it looks like kind of elaborated parody.)

Yes, it is most certainly intended to be taken seriously.

One of the authors contacted me, anonymously of course,

How do you know it was one of the authors?

Only Definitive Predictions [prior, testable, unique, non-adjustable
and rigorously quantitative] count in science.

Theorists should feel free to speculate wildly in search of useful
ideas, but the broader physics community should realize that this
stuff is pseudoscience until it can produce Definitive Predictions.
The physics community, and especially editors of scientific
publications, need to make critical distinctions between science and
pseudoscience. If the distinction continues to be ignored, science is
in jeopardy. This is something that those who value science highly
cannot tolerate. Junk-bond science is not acceptable.

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?

On Jan 10, 6:40 pm, (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:

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?

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?

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.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

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.

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

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

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