Fantastic News

Fantastic news!

Discrete Scale Relativity predicted, before exoplanets were first
discovered, that the mass function of the exoplanet masses would
have its main peak at 17 Earth masses, i.e., the mass of Neptune.

No other theory made this *definitive* prediction, and most
astrophysicists expected that the peak would either be much lower
(small rocky planets) or far larger (Jupiter mass giants).

Just today at arxiv.org the premier microlensing team posted their
latest results on exoplanet masses, and guess what they found. Their
exoplanet mass function peaks "at ~ 20 Earth Masses".

That's what I'm talking about!

Read all about it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03939v1 . Bottom line
in title or on page 38. No charge.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[[Mod. note --
1. I have rewrapped over-long lines and inserted line breaks between
what appear to be paragraphs.

2. The discussion on page 38 of the cited paper notes that the break
(peak) in the estimated planetary mass distribution corresponds to
~ 20 Earth masses "with an uncercentainty of about a factor of two."
Figure 18 on page 67 shows results from the Kepler mission, with a
broad peak around 7-8 Earth masses (full-width-at-half-maximum is
on the order of a factor of 2).
-- jt]]

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:07:10 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw w=
rote:
Fantastic news!
Read all about it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03939v1 . Bottom line
in title or on page 38. No charge.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[[Mod. note --

2. The discussion on page 38 of the cited paper notes that the break
(peak) in the estimated planetary mass distribution corresponds to
~ 20 Earth masses "with an uncercentainty of about a factor of two."
Figure 18 on page 67 shows results from the Kepler mission, with a
broad peak around 7-8 Earth masses (full-width-at-half-maximum is
on the order of a factor of 2).
-- jt]]
---------------------------------------------------------

(1) You might try reading the last sentence of the abstract for the
take home message.

(2) There are not yet quite enough representative exoplanet mass
data to fully test this prediction, but the inferred mass spectrum
for exoplanets with periods less than 100 days is strongly peaked
at roughly the mass of Neptune [M. Mayor and D. Queloz, New Astronomy
Reviews, 56(1), 19-24, 2012; Figure 7]. Also, the Kepler mission
has found that the thousands of candidate exoplanets it has identified
so far have a radius function that is strongly peaked in the Neptune
range.

I think these pieces of empirical evidence, while not yet quite
conclusive, certainly are highly supportive of the specific and
non-adjustable and unique prediction of Discrete Scale Relativity.

Would you agree? Or not? I would appreciate some succinct answers
from readers, without undue equivocation. In the interest of science.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
"It's A Fractal World"

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Discrete Scale Relativity predicted, before exoplanets were first
discovered, that the mass function of the exoplanet masses would
have its main peak at 17 Earth masses, i.e., the mass of Neptune.

Can you give us a pointer to the paper where "17" is mentioned? Also,
was an indication of the width of the distribution at the maximum
predicted?

No other theory made this *definitive* prediction,

Whether it's definitive and whether it was confirmed depend on details
(see above and below).

Just today at arxiv.org the premier microlensing team posted their

Why are they the premier team?

latest results on exoplanet masses, and guess what they found. Their
exoplanet mass function peaks "at ~ 20 Earth Masses".

Jonathan Thornburg writes:

2. The discussion on page 38 of the cited paper notes that the break
(peak) in the estimated planetary mass distribution corresponds to
~ 20 Earth masses "with an uncercentainty of about a factor of two."

So "10--40". Sounds different than "confirms the peak at 17".

Figure 18 on page 67 shows results from the Kepler mission, with a
broad peak around 7-8 Earth masses (full-width-at-half-maximum is
on the order of a factor of 2).

Presumably Kepler are not the premier microlensing team, since they got
the wrong result.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:07:10 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Fantastic news!

Discrete Scale Relativity predicted, before exoplanets were first
discovered, that the mass function of the exoplanet masses would
have its main peak at 17 Earth masses, i.e., the mass of Neptune.

Can you cite the main "Discrete Scale Relativity" (DSR) paper, and
the one in which this prediction is made (if they're not the same),
please?

No other theory made this *definitive* prediction, and most
astrophysicists expected that the peak would either be much lower
(small rocky planets) or far larger (Jupiter mass giants).

Just today at arxiv.org the premier microlensing team posted their
latest results on exoplanet masses, and guess what they found. Their
exoplanet mass function peaks "at ~ 20 Earth Masses".

That's what I'm talking about!

Read all about it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03939v1 . Bottom line
in title or on page 38. No charge.

It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line".

Le 14/12/2016 =E0 21:53, Robert L. Oldershaw a =E9crit :
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[[Mod. note --

2. The discussion on page 38 of the cited paper notes that the break
(peak) in the estimated planetary mass distribution corresponds to
~ 20 Earth masses "with an uncercentainty of about a factor of two."
Figure 18 on page 67 shows results from the Kepler mission, with a
broad peak around 7-8 Earth masses (full-width-at-half-maximum is
on the order of a factor of 2).
-- jt]]
---------------------------------------------------------


Don't you think that the peak is skewed because our scopes detect
bigger planets more easily than smaller ones?


Just wondering...

[[Mod. note -- The MOA authors have corrected for that. See, for
example, figure 8 on page 57, or figure 14 on page 63 of the MOA paper
(arXiv:1612.03939). I presume the Kepler results have been similarly
corrected -- that's standard practice in such plots.
-- jt]]

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:07:58 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
Le 14/12/2016 =3DE0 21:53, Robert L. Oldershaw a =3DE9crit :
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


Don't you think that the peak is skewed because our scopes detect
bigger planets more easily than smaller ones?
Just wondering...


Fantastic news!

It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line".

I tried to respond yesterday to jean... and you, but the post has not appea=
red and perhaps the SAR gatekeepers have "lost" another of my posts.

Here is a capsule summary.

(0) DSR paper and many other are available at arxiv.org.

(1) From the peak of the q distribution, the authors use a reasonable
assumption about the host stars typical mass to derive an estimated
peak of the mass function.

(2) The abstract of the Suzuki et al paper ends with the following
sentence. "These results imply that cold Neptunes are likely to
be the most common type of planet beyond the snow line". That seems
fairly clear to me.

(3) Now carefully read the paper: M. Mayor and D. Queloz, New
Astronomy Reviews, 56(1), 19-24, 2012; Figure 7. Take a look at
that Fig. 7 and note where the reasonably sharp peak occurs (~
Neptune mass), and MOST IMPORTANTLY note that they are the only
researchers I am aware of who have made a concerted effort to correct
the mass function for biases in various exoplanet observations,
especially for RV observations.

Hope this one gets through the gauntlet.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:

It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line".

Hi Jean... and Jacob,

If you look at: https://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1.html you will find the
most relevant papers, including the published DSR paper.

If you look at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , you will find many
references to the prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass as one of the most
fundamental masses characterizing the stellar scale of nature's
self-similar hierarchy. The two introductory papers, #1 and #2 in the
"Selected Papers" section, would be a good place to start learning about
this and many other predictions.

Speaking of definitive predictions, here is a link to 14 others:
http://www.academia.edu/2917630/Pred...ale_Relativity

You questions regarding confusion about what is being claimed and what
is not are address in my 2nd comment posted at SAR at 3:55PM today. The
paper by Mayor and Queloz takes pains to remove the various biases in
estimates of the exoplanet mass function. Their graph of the resulting
MF speaks volume= s to those willing to listen.

Nice to see some participation.

RLO

{snip}
It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line"=
..
{snip}
Here is a capsule summary.

(0) DSR paper and many other are available at arxiv.org.

Thanks.

I found 18 entries in arXiv with author R.L. Oldershaw or Robert L.
Oldershaw. I didn't check thoroughly, but ~half seem to have been
published in journals (I didn't check which journals are quality,
peer-reviewed ones).

One, published in Astrophysics and Space Science, is titled "Discrete
Scale Relativity", https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701132

According to ADS, it is cited by six other papers, all of which
apparently have the same, single, author (you?). None seems to contain
any planetary mass function prediction.

So, I ask again, can you please cite the paper(s) in which this
prediction = of yours is published?

{snip}

None of the rest of your post directly addresses any of the three points
I made in my earlier post.

For example, as of today, there is (AFAIK) essentially no observational
data on the distribution of ~Mercury-mass exoplanets, by (projected)
separation distance, much less anything on whether a mass function has a
peak ~there. Likewise, there is essentially no observational data on
planets with separation distances of ~100-1,000 au, and so nothing on
their masses.

Only a very small part of the (q, s) space has been explored - by
observations - so far.

In article ,
writes:

It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line"=
..
{snip}
Here is a capsule summary.

(0) DSR paper and many other are available at arxiv.org.

Thanks.

I found 18 entries in arXiv with author R.L. Oldershaw or Robert L.
Oldershaw. I didn't check thoroughly, but ~half seem to have been
published in journals (I didn't check which journals are quality,
peer-reviewed ones).

ADS lists 51 entries for "Oldershaw", all but two of which are
single-author papers by "Robert L." or "R. L.". (The other two are
geology papers by Alan E. Oldershaw and collaborator(s).) Of these 49
papers, only two are published in what are generally recognized as
respected refereed journals, Astronomy and Astrophysics and The
Astrophysical Journal. Almost all of the 115 citations to these 23
papers are self-citations. (Most of those which aren't are by similar
authors.)

One, published in Astrophysics and Space Science, is titled "Discrete
Scale Relativity", https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701132

According to ADS, it is cited by six other papers, all of which
apparently have the same, single, author (you?). None seems to contain
any planetary mass function prediction.

So, I ask again, can you please cite the paper(s) in which this
prediction = of yours is published?

I also asked in which paper the specific Neptune mass is mentioned. No
answer. If the prediction is really confirmed, why not cite chapter and
verse, rather than pointing us to dozens of papers?

None of the rest of your post directly addresses any of the three points
I made in my earlier post.

Indeed.

For example, as of today, there is (AFAIK) essentially no observational
data on the distribution of ~Mercury-mass exoplanets, by (projected)
separation distance, much less anything on whether a mass function has a
peak ~there. Likewise, there is essentially no observational data on
planets with separation distances of ~100-1,000 au, and so nothing on
their masses.

Only a very small part of the (q, s) space has been explored - by
observations - so far.

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:09:12 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wr=
ote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-5, =
wrote:
=20
It's an interesting paper, but I'm struggling to see how it provides
anything but the most indirect of support for the DSR prediction.
For example:
* a peak is not a mass function
* the MOA paper explicitly rules out detection of exoplanets beyond
a fairly narrow range of (q, s) (the mass ratio and the projected
separation)
* even the abstract contains this key qualifier: "beyond the snow line"=
..
=20
Hi Jean... and Jacob,
=20
If you look at:=20

{snip}

RLO, our posts crossed, so there's some ambiguity and apparent
'talking past each other'. I will spend some time investigating the
sources you cite, but as some point I will lose interest if I find
myself chasing mirages, moving targets, etc.

In the meantime, I do hope you will also spend some time writing a
concise and direct response to the points I raised in my first post
in this thread. Maybe this will help:
1a) what is the (functional) shape of the mass distribution, as
predicted by DSR? For example what is its FWHM (or some other
quantitative measure of its width)?
1b) The MOA (Suzuki+ 2016) paper takes pains to present the key
results in terms of q (mass ratio) rather than planetary mass. Ditto
re the limitations of this finding in terms of galactic planetary
systems. Converting their 'peak q' to an estimate of planetary mass
requires a slew of additional assumptions, none of which seem
particularly robust. What work have you done to show that these
assumptions etc are indeed robust?
2a) Suzuki+ (2016) does not cite Mayor&Queloz (2012), which seems
odd in light of what you write. Why do you suppose it is not cited?
3) What does DSR predict re the mass distribution of planets within
the snow line?