"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obscure/outdated/crackpot/not-taken-seriously-for-other-reasons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.

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

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

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

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

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. :-)

[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.

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.