[[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

[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)

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
>
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------------

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

On Dec 5, 8:18am, 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
>
> 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. Â*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On Dec 6, 10:54 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...*amherst.edu>
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
>
[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.

On Dec 9, 1:56 am, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang...*gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, let us take two models, which I shall call "Light Higgs Model
> (LHM)", and "Multiple Higgs Model (MHM)", for lack of better names.
>
>
> 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Dec 7, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...*amherst.edu>
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

On Dec 7, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...*amherst.edu>
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

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...*amherst.edu>
> 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

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

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

In article
<a2327ceb-7dca-4489-a07b-940e2403005d*v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw*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?