"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
Robert L. Oldershaw
challenge: Sort of a 'Where's Waldo?' except that instead of 'Waldo'
we are hunting for a Definitive Scientific Prediction.
The paper deals with cosmology, dark matter, the putative Higgs boson
and the Fermi satellite.
Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0004v1.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
Robert L. Oldershaw
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/cosmicvariance/2009/12/01/higgs-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/0912/0912.0004v1.pdf
Gordon Stangler
> 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/0912/0912.0004v1.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/quantum_diaries_survivor/new_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
>
> > 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
>
> 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.
-----------------
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,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > 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
>
> data from experiments to be conducted, rather then experiments already
> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name one "prediction" you refer to that would stand the test of being
Gordon Stangler
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Ok, let us take two models, which I shall call "Light Higgs Model
> (LHM)", and "Multiple Higgs Model (MHM)", for lack of better names.
>
>
> 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.
The definitive predictions/testing that is so crucial to the
scientific method can be short-circuited in several ways.
One classic way is by having plastic predictions, which can be
deformed/adjusted to fit any data.
A variant on the plastic predictions gambit is the Sorcerer's
Apprentice strategy. Here the pseudoscientist employs an unbounded
set of pseudo-predictions instead of a single definitive prediction.
If one prediction of the "Higgs" mass is falsified, then four more
quickly take its place, and these iterations can go on indefinitely.
Result: science short-circuited.
If you take a close look at many very fashionable areas of theoretical
physics these days, you will see either no testable predictions at all
in numerous cases, and/or a huge number of Sorcerer's Apprentice
pseudo-predictions, which cannot test anything definitively.
Result: you tell me.
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
It's a completely different area of physics, but I think a nice example
of a successful "truly Definitive Scientific Prediction" by the above
criteria was (is) the orbital decay of a binary pulsar due to the
emission of gravitational radiation:
The detailed prediction was published in 1963
Peters & Mathews,
"Gravitational Radiation from Point Masses in a Keplerian Orbit"
Physical Review volume 131 (1 July 1963), page 435-440
free online at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963PhRv..131..435P
although various parts of the theoretical puzzle (i.e., the calculation
of what general relativity predicts for a binary system) were assembled
earlier than that, and debates continued into the 1980s on rigorous
mathematical proof of the underlying result (known in the general
relativity community as "the quadrupole formula").
The Peters-Mathews prediction contains NO adjustable parameters apart
from the masses and Keplerian orbit of the binary system. In practice,
these aren't known a priori, so they're treated as adjustable parameters
in a fit to the data, and the observed orbital-decay rate is then
compared to the theoretical prediction.
The first system suitable for these measurements (i.e., the first
system where these effects were likely to be large enough relative to
other "noise" sources so as to be measurable to reasonable accuracy)
was discovered by Hulse and Taylor in 1974
Hulse & Taylor
"Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system"
Astrophysical Journal volume 195 (15 Jan 1975), pages L51-L53
free online at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195L..51H
and the first observational measurement of the orbital decay was
published in 1979
Taylor, Fowler, and McCulloch
"Measurements of general relativistic effects in the binary pulsar
PSR 1913+16"
Nature volume 277 (8 Feb 1979), pages 437-440
NOT FREE online at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.277..437T
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5696/pdf/277437a0.pdf
(I *hate* scientific publishers who keep 30-year-old papers behind a
pay wall!! I couldn't even access this paper from a university IP
address.)
That observational measurement agreed with the theoretical prediction
to within the observational error (which was something like +/- 20%
at that time). Today (with 30 years of further data and improved
analysis) the observational result remains consistent with the
theoretical prediction to within the observational error, which is
now around 0.25%.
I think this clearly satisfies #1-#4 of the above list of 5 criteria.
As for #5: In the 1970s there were lots of other relativistic gravity
theories "competing" with general relativity. They fell (fall) into
3 broad classes:
(a) Theories which give predictions for binary-pulsar orbital decay
which are identical to those of general relativity.
(b) Theories which give predictions for binary-pulsar orbital decay
which differ from those of general relativity by a factor
(1+epsilon), where epsilon is a free parameter in the theory;
the binary-pulsar observations can be interpreted as putting
a limit on |epsilon| in such a theory. The Brans-Dicke
scalar-tensor theory is such a theory.
(c) Theories which give predictions for binary-pulsar orbital decay
which are *very* different from those of general relativity.
For example, Rosen's bimetric theory predicts an orbital "decay"
rate of the opposite sign (in this theory the binary-pulsar orbit
*gains* energy) and about 10^4 times larger in magnitude than
the general-relativity prediction. The binary-pulsar observations
clearly refute this theory.
[It's perhaps also worth noting that for the past 30-ish years, the
orbital motion of the binary star system DI Herculis has appeared to
contradict the (quadrupole-formula) general-relativity prediction.
However, a recent paper
Albrecht, Reffert, Snellen, and Winn
"Misaligned spin and orbital axes cause the anomalous precession
of DI Herculis"
Nature volume 461 (17 Sept 2009), pages 373-376
preprint free online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
paper NOT FREE online at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461..373A
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/nature08408.html
has found a "classic astronomy" explanation for the discrepancy:
Here we report that both stars of DI Herculis rotate with their
spin axes nearly perpendicular to the orbital axis (contrary to
the usual assumption for close binary stars). The rotationally
induced stellar oblateness causes precession in the direction
opposite to that of relativistic precession, thereby reconciling
the theoretical and observed rates.
So the general-relativity prediction's 100%-agreement-with-observations
track record remains intact.]
[Three other examples of successful "definitive predictions" in other
areas of science were the predictions of the behavior of the first
nuclear reactor by Fermi et al prior to its operation on 2 Dec 1941,
and the predictions (by large teams of scientists) of the behavior
of the first atomic and hydrogen bomb prototypes prior to their tests
on 16 July 1945 and 1 Nov 1952 respectively.]
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Space travel is utter bilge" -- common misquote of UK Astronomer Royal
Richard Woolley's remarks of 1956
"All this writing about space travel is utter bilge. To go to the
moon would cost as much as a major war." -- what he actually said
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
Robert L. Oldershaw
> 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
Richard D. Saam
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
Thomas Heger
> 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
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> 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
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<a2327ceb-7dca-4489...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> On Jan 9, 3:44�am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> 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?
Robert L. Oldershaw
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
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
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?
Igor Khavkine
wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:10 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (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:+binar*+abs:+waveform/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
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
> 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 Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/full/nature07779.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]"
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
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
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti:+binar*+abs:+waveform/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
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.
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... .
IMHO
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
|
| http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti:+binar*+abs:+waveform/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 <rlold...@amherst.edu> 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]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"If the triangles made a god, it would have three sides." -- Voltaire
Oh No
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
>
>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).
>
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)
Oh No
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
>
>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).
>
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<e2b6713b-ac62-4f12...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> 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. :-)
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
In article <mt2.0-17369...@star.bris.ac.uk>, Oh No
<No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jan 19, 9:36 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My, this is getting interesting!
Charles Francis bets "50 quid" that GWs do not exist.
Now you bet "all that [you] own" that GWs exist.
Me? I remain neutral, of course, since it is the scientifically proper
attitude while one is waiting for definitive empirical evidence to
settle a scientific issue. Were I to hazard a guess, I would go with
Einstein's intuition.
Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jan 19, 9:36 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Oldershaw
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> wrote:
>
> 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).
>
Three quick comments.
(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.
Physicist Hans Christian von Bayer, in a review that concerned the
existence of gravitational radiation, put it scientifically as
follows. "[T]he story finally passed over to the
experimentalists...with the discovery of a pair of neutron stars
revolving around each other in an inward spiral, presumably losing
energy to gravitational radiation. The agreement between their
observed orbital motion and the Einstein-Eddington quadrupole formula
provided an exquisitely precise test of GR and brought a Nobel prize
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.
(2) In 1936, after nearly 30 years of intense thought about
gravitation, Einstein and an assistant published a paper which argued
that gravitational waves probably do not exist. Amusingly, a referee
at Physical Review panned the paper. With significant irritation
Einstein withdrew the paper and [I believe] published it at the
Journal of the Franklin Institute.
(3) Your reasoning seems to rely heavily on the "excluded
middle" [either/or and nothing in between allowed]. I think that
Einstein would not have agreed with you that "if GWs do not exist
then
GR is wrong". There is the valid possibility that GWs do not exist
and
that either we still have new things to learn about classic GR, or
that GR is basically right but needs some kind of modification.
I would argue that we should remain scientifically open-minded until
nature reveals more clues. In other words, let's try to be a bit less
dogmatic.
Best,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
undress to
>
> I don't think anyone, ever, has claimed this. �However, it is HUGE
> indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves.
There is a good reason for the exclamation point at the end of von
Bayer's comments. Many physicists have mistakenly assumed that
gravitational waves have been proven to exist. As direct evidence of
this I can report that when the topic came up earlier in the past
year, one of the SPR/SAR academic physicists insisted that GWs had
been observed in the binary pulsar observations.
>
> 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This analogy is not apt or appropriate, in my opinion. Gravitational
waves have a distinctive physical quadrupole signature. If they exist,
then this distinctive feature will be observed.
Were the retrograde motions of various planets "sufficient" "indirect
evidence" to prove that the Ptolemaic universe was a good description
of reality? Just so!
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are not able to make a definitive prediction but you are 100%
certain about "rqg"
I see.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> (2) In 1936, after nearly 30 years of intense thought about
> gravitation, Einstein and an assistant
Nathan Rosen
> published a paper which argued
> that gravitational waves probably do not exist. Amusingly, a referee
> at Physical Review panned the paper. With significant irritation
> Einstein withdrew the paper and [I believe] published it at the
> Journal of the Franklin Institute.
But between the time it was submitted and the time it was published,
Einstein realized -- at least partly as a result of discussions involving
Howard Percy Robertson -- that the referee was right and the original
conclusion was wrong. The published version is J. Franklin Inst 223
(January 1937) 43-54. The abstract reads
The rigorous solution for cylindrical gravitational waves
is given. For the convenience of the reader the theory of
gravitational waves and their production, already known
in principle, is given in the first part of this paper. After
encountering relationships which cast doubt on the existence
of rigorous solutions for undulatory gravitational fields, we
investigate rigorously the case of cylindrical gravitational
waves. It turns out that rigorous solutions exist and that
the problem reduces to the usual cylindrical waves in
euclidean space.
There is a note at the end in which Einstein writes
The second part of this paper was considerably altered by
me after the departure of Mr. Rosen for Russia since we had
originally interpreted our formula results erroneously. I
wish to thank my colleague Professor Robertson for his
friendly assistance in the clarification of the original
error.
Incidentally, the paper also explicitly argues that an isolated system
"in sending out gravitational waves, must send out energy which reacts
by damping the motion" -- as we see in binary pulsars.
Steve Carlip
Oh No
ax.de>
>[Moderator's note: Posted to only sci.astro.research. -P.H.]
>
>In article <mt2.0-17369...@star.bris.ac.uk>, Oh No
><No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> 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.)
rqg makes other testable predictions. I would say that, as a matter of
principle, it also makes testable predictions here. It is my own failing
that I am not smart enough to work out what they are.
>
>> 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.
>
I'm only offering one 50 quid. First someone must take on the bet. If
more than one do, the pot must be split.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> But between the time it was submitted and the time it was published,
> Einstein realized -- at least partly as a result of discussions involving
> Howard Percy Robertson -- that the referee was right and the original
> conclusion was wrong. �The published version is J. Franklin Inst 223
> (January 1937) 43-54. �The abstract reads
>
> "in sending out gravitational waves, must send out energy which reacts
> by damping the motion" -- as we see in binary pulsars.
Excellent sleuthing!
We have the smoking gun. All we need now is to observe the speeding
bullet so that we know it wasn't a blank that was fired, so to speak.
I am persuaded that everything [theoretical and empirical] appears to
point to the existence of GWs. But as a scientist I must put that
"appears" in there until I see evidence that is more direct.
Perhaps the new observations using simultaneous timing measurements
for large numbers of millisecond pulsars, or the ground-based efforts,
or future space-based efforts, will provide that more direct evidence.
Will I get $50 quid if GWs actualy exist?
Oh No
the existence of galaxies at the redshifts at which they have now been
observed by Hubble (z~8), and I am predicting the existence of galaxies
at redshifts up to about z~20 to 30. Hopefully Herschel with push the
limit beyond Hubble in the near future, and the James Webb Space
Telescope will push the limit beyond that, so it won't be too long
before this prediction is tested. I have also made definitive
predictions about certain results from Gaia.
Oh No
Robert L. Oldershaw
Finding galaxies in the z ~ 20-30 range would be quite amazing.
It would tell us that several cherished cosmological assumptions are
wrong.
However, your prediction, while admittedly impressive in boldness,
would have to be more specific to meet the criterion: "unique to the
theory being tested", if the prediction is to specifically support
rqg.
I say this because other, and quite different, theories also predict
galaxies, or at least galactic nuclei/quasars, as far back in time as
we can observe.
Bottom Line: Even if your predictions are not perfect, they are a big
step in the right direction and we will learn from their testing. If
no galaxies are found beyond z = 10, we definitely learn something. If
galaxies are found at z = 20-30, we definitely learn something.
Definitive dark matter predictions that are prior, feasible,
quantitative, non-adjustable and unique, are highly desirable from all
those claiming to have a good working understanding of the cosmos.
Oh No
>
>
>Finding galaxies in the z ~ 20-30 range would be quite amazing.
>
>It would tell us that several cherished cosmological assumptions are
>wrong.
>
>However, your prediction, while admittedly impressive in boldness,
>would have to be more specific to meet the criterion: "unique to the
>theory being tested", if the prediction is to specifically support
>rqg.
>
>I say this because other, and quite different, theories also predict
>galaxies, or at least galactic nuclei/quasars, as far back in time as
>we can observe.
Not really. There are many theories, but to be acceptable as scientific
a theory must be consistent, both internally consistent and consistent
with observation. From this point of view the only acceptable scientific
cosmologies are those which incorporate general relativity. RQG does
include classical general relativity, but incorporates quantum theory as
well. The difference in predictions is entirely due to the fact that the
transmission of light is treated as a quantum process, which leads to an
alteration in predictions for cosmological redshift. The result is that
a process taking place at z=3 in the standard model, when the universe
was a quarter its current size, is found to take place at z=15 in rqg.
One which takes place at z=4 in the standard model is found to take
place at z=24 in rqg. I confess I don't know exactly when the standard
model predicts the earliest galaxies, but I believe z=6 is already
problematic, so I am estimating that z=4 is probably about right.
>Bottom Line: Even if your predictions are not perfect, they are a big
>step in the right direction and we will learn from their testing. If
>no galaxies are found beyond z = 10, we definitely learn something. If
>galaxies are found at z = 20-30, we definitely learn something.
>
>Definitive dark matter predictions that are prior, feasible,
>quantitative, non-adjustable and unique, are highly desirable from all
>those claiming to have a good working understanding of the cosmos.
I am able to say that no cdm is required in rqg. I have already verified
statistically that there is an unmodelled component in spectral shifts,
consistent with the prediction that galaxy rotation curves are not in
fact flat. Within three or four years at most we will be able to test
this prediction from direct measurements on individual stars.
Robert L. Oldershaw
> fact flat. Within three or four years at most we will be able to test
> this prediction from direct measurements on individual stars.
> --
> Charles Francis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be refreshing to steer this discussion away from such
provincial matters and back to the original and far more general
theme: What do readers think of the "Higgs In Space"-type of papers
that seem to dominate cosmology and particle physics these days.
Is this untestable postmodern pseudoscience that threatens the
integrity of science?
OR:
Is this the standard pipe-dreaming that theoretical physicists do
while they wait for new empirical data to sober them up and lead them
on more useful paths? Therefore it is nothing about which to get your
knickers bunched.
It would also be interesting if a more diverse group of lurkers were
to chime in with some opinions, and if the familiar noble warriors
whose scientific beliefs and philosophies are EXCEEDINGLY well-known
would let others have a chance to express an opinion without fear of
put-down. [author's note: I am already fully aware of the self-
referential potential of the last statement, thank you.]
If no one offers an opinion, well, I guess that tells us something
too.
Yours in science,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> It might be refreshing to steer this discussion away from such
> provincial matters and back to the original and far more general
> theme: What do readers think of the "Higgs In Space"-type of papers
> that seem to dominate cosmology and particle physics these days.
Dominate? No.
> Is this untestable postmodern pseudoscience that threatens the
> integrity of science?
>
> OR:
>
> Is this the standard pipe-dreaming that theoretical physicists do
> while they wait for new empirical data to sober them up and lead them
> on more useful paths?
Neither. False dichotomy.
> It would also be interesting if a more diverse group of lurkers were
> to chime in with some opinions, and if the familiar noble warriors
> whose scientific beliefs and philosophies are EXCEEDINGLY well-known
> would let others have a chance to express an opinion without fear of
> put-down. [author's note: I am already fully aware of the self-
> referential potential of the last statement, thank you.]
>
> If no one offers an opinion, well, I guess that tells us something
> too.
The same could be said about the discrete fractal paradigm.
RobS
wrote:
> Is this untestable postmodern pseudoscience that threatens the
> integrity of science?
>
> OR:
>
> Is this the standard pipe-dreaming that theoretical physicists do
> while they wait for new empirical data to sober them up and lead them
> on more useful paths?
I lurk more towards the latter choice. Scientists -- not just
physicists -- can get comfortable with the current well-supported
theories, but if you smack them upside the head with new facts they
tend, as a group, to get all excited and active and start throwing off
all sorts of new theories until one seems to fit the new facts better
than the others.
In short, not to worry.
Rob Stevenson