"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
Robert L. Oldershaw
interesting 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.
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
<rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
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, 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
Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jan 10, 6:40 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
(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
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
> Here is another example of the type of papers that are popping up at
> arxiv.org like psychedelic mushrooms.
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4082v1.pdf
>
> There are no testable predictions identifiable in this paper,
> speculation. The question then becomes: how much untestable
> speculation do we allow before science becomes saturated with it in
> an unhealthy manner that drowns out good testable science, and in the
> long run causes the public to lose faith in the rigor of science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means take a look at Craig Callender's review:
of Sean Carroll's new book, and of the whole anthropic multiverse
gambit.
The review provides a much need bromide for the indigestible stew of
untestable anthropocentric, Ptatonic "pseudoscience" that is much in
vogue today.
Thank you Dr. Callender!
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
Dennis Overbye had a very entertaining and insightful essay in the NY
Times regarding a recent "fantasy physics" conference held, where
else, in the La-La land of LA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html?ref=science
All the fashionable post-modern pseudoscientists were in attendence.
Actually, a small number are starting to lay the groundwork for their
"plausible denial" of any culpability in the pseudoscience bacchanal
that has been going on in theoretical physics for decades.
Very interesting reading!
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
616
I mean, one of your two options is 'untestable pseudoscience', or
'religious babble' as I choose to call it (show me a religion which is
testable...).
The other option you put forth is 'pipe-dreaming while waiting for
empirical data leading to more useful paths'.
Now, we all know where you stand on this issue, but your query only
contains one real alternative: "I find Higgs bosons et.al. a ridiculous
idea."
I personally would love to see CERN not finding any Higgs particles and
the world of theoretical physics panic as it dawns on them (correct, I'm
not part of the field) that we are at the present only barely closer to
understanding the universe than we were 150 years ago, just for the
hell of it (we are a much too arrogant species).
But I think it is a necessity to embrace patience!
We'll soon find out, there is no point in arming oneself to the teeth
and falling into the old trap of defending ones convictions for the sake
of keeping ones convictions... in that case, one is not a scientist, but
a religious zealot and fanatic...
Just my two cents...
---
Barney G.