|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
[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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Dec 6, 10:54 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Gordon Stangler wrote: 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 [snip] Name one "prediction" you refer to that would stand the test of being a truly Definitive Prediction. Specifically name the prediction/test and show exactly how it would constitute a definitive verification/ falsification of something/anything. Yours in more than arm-waving, RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Ok, let us take two models, which I shall call "Light Higgs Model (LHM)", and "Multiple Higgs Model (MHM)", for lack of better names. The LHM predicts a Higgs boson at 116 GeV. This satisfies 1, as beam strength in the LHC will reach 7 TeV per beam. 2 is automatically satisfied. To satisfy 3, we have to look for particles with a mass of 116 GeV/c^2. If it is there, we found it. If not, the model is discarded. 4 is satisfied to within experimental error. (The mass could be 116 GeV/c^2 +/- 5 GeV/c^2 kind of stuff.) The LHM is the only model that predicts a Higgs at 116 GeV. Thus, it is unique to the model, and hence, the model is falsifiable. The MHM predicts a Higgs boson at 150 GeV, one at 200 GeV, and one at 240 GeV. These Higgs shall be called H^-, H^0, and H^+, and they are all unique. 1 is satisfied, as beam strength in the LHC will reach 7 TeV per beam, which means it can find one, two, or all three of the higgs. 2 is automatically satisfied. To satisfy 3 and 4, we have to look for particles with the above masses (to within experimental error). If all three are there, great! We can then move on to testing other aspects of the model, such as neutrino masses, spins, etc. If not, the model is discarded, like so many before it. The MHM is the only model that predicts multiple Higgs. Thus, it is unique to the model, and hence, the model is falsifiable by virtue of any one of the Higgs not existing. While models of this form do exist, the details are slightly different for each model, yet they all follow the same basic outline as the two I have mentioned above. Please do not press me for specifics, as I am not a particle physicist, and do not know them [models]; I only know the basics, and what I read from particle physics blogs. I hope this helps. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Dec 7, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: jt - I would prefer that your not change the title of this thread. [Mod. note: posters are of course free to change the Subject: line if they think it's appropriate to do so -- mjh] The argument was not that theoretical physics and astrophysics have been devoid of definitive predictions. Obviously not! The point was that specific areas of theoretical physics, such as abstract string theory, multiverse speculation, hypothetical WIMP/ magnetic monopole/axions... conjectures, the amusing Boltzmann Brains scenario, the very dubious Anthropic "reasoning", SUSY, etc., etc., etc... , do not appear to be definitively testable and one has a hard time even finding pseudo-predictions associated with many these very fashionale, ah, things. If someone thinks they can successfully refute the specific point I made, please fire away! I'm all ears. Hope this helps, Robert L. Oldershaw www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
On Dec 7, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: Name one "prediction" you refer to that would stand the test of being a truly Definitive Prediction. Specifically name the prediction/test and show exactly how it would constitute a definitive verification/ falsification of something/anything. Widening the topic of discussion a bit, let's talk about the entire "standard" model of HEP and the entire "standard" model of cosmology. Can anyone, as in anyone at all, identify some candidates for Definitive Predictions made by these major paradigms, and specifically DFs that are not invalidated by failing to meet one or more of the defined criteria for DFs. [ Mod. note: Presumabely, DFs should be DPs = Definitive Predictions. -ik ] Let's say predictions made after 2000, i.e., 21st century predictions. We know SUSY, string/M theory, multiverse "theory", etc. cannot pass this test, but what about the standard models? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: Name one "prediction" you refer to that would stand the test of being a truly Definitive Prediction. Specifically name the prediction/test and show exactly how it would constitute a definitive verification/ falsification of something/anything. Widening the topic of discussion a bit, let's talk about the entire "standard" model of HEP and the entire "standard" model of cosmology. Can anyone, as in anyone at all, identify some candidates for Definitive Predictions made by these major paradigms, and specifically DFs that are not invalidated by failing to meet one or more of the defined criteria for DFs. [ Mod. note: Presumabely, DFs should be DPs = Definitive Predictions. -ik ] Let's say predictions made after 2000, i.e., 21st century predictions. We know SUSY, string/M theory, multiverse "theory", etc. cannot pass this test, but what about the standard models? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw A candidate prediction would be neutral pion detection (67.5 Mev) in the Moon Albedo. http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2742v1 FERMI should be able to do this. Dimensionally, an argument can be made for 56 Mev gamma ray detection and this 56 Mev being ubiquitous. Results are currently being correlated. Richard D. Saam |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
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 |