(Yes, the peaks are multiples of 4 i.e. years linked to the jump years, Olympic games, together with the U.S. presidential elections. Note that my words are likely to a greater extent than informative than his graph.)
Jester together with several readers accept also exchanged their opinions nigh the question:
Is it a sign of a pathology that 3 weeks afterward the inconclusive observations of the \(750\GeV\) bump yesteryear ATLAS together with CMS, at that spot are nigh 150 phenomenological papers explaining that? And is that an unhealthy manifestation of a hunt for citations?I recall it's totally fine if non cool if lots of models together with arguments are invented yesteryear theorists that could concern human relationship for the signal if the signal happens to hold upward real. The papers demo the state-of-the-art concern of the phenomenologists, the variety of ideas that are however trusted or investigated, together with they plough the people's brains on which is just great.
Yes, almost all or all the papers volition plough out to hold upward wrong. They're mostly mutually exclusive models. But that's how it works. When physicists are uncertain, they accept to piece of work on many possibilities together with their number has to hold upward high enough. One of the possibilities may plough out to hold upward right. One doesn't demand an insane amount of coin or fourth dimension to write a newspaper which is why it's non a work when 149 papers that volition hold upward shown incorrect are beingness written.
One should sympathise that the LHC has terms some $10 billion. If y'all assume that a physicist isn't doing anything else than writing papers on hep-ph, it costs nigh $10,000 to write i newspaper (a component of the salary, an order-of-magnitude estimate). So through the salaries spent on these papers on the diphoton bump, the taxpayers together with institutions accept spent something similar $1 1000000 together with then far. This is a negligible amount relatively to the terms of the LHC – non to advert larger expenses inwards the social club – spell the bump sure enough looks similar a larger fraction of the "happiness produced yesteryear the LHC together with then far" than 0.01%.
Good ILC news: Japan has agreed to triple the workforce for the Japanese Linear Collider (J/ILC).The papers are various inwards many respects. Some of them are kept unopen to the experiments together with utter over signatures inwards somewhat model-independent ways; some of them are meant to hold upward detailed string theory compactifications that should predict absolutely everything if they are true. And at that spot are lots of degrees of greyness inwards between.
The detailed models include non-resonant explanations for the bump, explanations amongst extra produced particles, explanations revolving to a greater extent than or less heavy axions, novel pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons, novel symmetries, boundary states inwards technicolor models, novel Higgses inwards various extensions of a supersymmetric touchstone model, novel fermions from grand unified theories running inwards loops, sbinos, sgoldstinos, radions together with dilatons inwards theories amongst extra dimensions, many others, together with combinations of some of these notions. String phenomenology has offered quiver models describing intersecting branes, some other braneworld models, models amongst former large dimensions, together with both opened upward strings or closed strings may matter.
One may worry that "almost each inquiry direction" seems to accept a means to "explain" the novel signal together with then at that spot are unavoidably lots of imitation positives. Indeed. But that's because the bump is rather generic. It hasn't told us much. There is a diphoton bump – the decay of a novel ("totally neutral") particle etc. to 2 photons is something that many different models may larn – together with the invariant majority seems to hold upward \(750\GeV\) – well, almost no models tin unambiguously predict masses of novel particles together with then to determine the qualitative features of models, the information nigh the majority conveys almost no lesson because the value is every bit goodness every bit other values (at to the lowest degree the nearby ones). All models that are remotely feasible every bit explanations may adjust their parameters to concord amongst the observed value of the mass.
So it's fun to meet what the people really trust together with what makes them excited. Some inquiry directions inwards Beyond the Standard Model physics seem incapable to explicate a signal of this sort. I really recall that their proponents should bring together the Diphotonfest every bit good together with submit papers, possibly papers arguing that their models predict that this resonance volition likely travel away. If such papers were published, nosotros could accept a much improve thought nigh the thinking of all the people – a useful snapshot.
Is it foreign that the papers came together with then quickly? Not really. The rumors accept been out at that spot for weeks earlier the CERN announcements. So some people accept been working on papers for weeks. But right now, the fourth dimension from the proclamation is long plenty together with then that the papers nigh the diphoton bump that are published these days could accept real good been started afterward the announcement.
Are the authors hunting for citations?
Most of them likely are. They desire to maintain or larn jobs together with the project marketplace is highly competitive. But is that wrong? I don't recall so. It's normal. Many people – including those who say that they don't assist nigh the coin etc. – do assist nigh the cash together with this entity (and citations) motivate them to piece of work difficult enough. This is an lawsuit that exists inwards almost all occupations. Bakers bake breadstuff because they desire the coin they obtain when the sell the breadstuff – fifty-fifty though at that spot may be bakers who do it because it's their religious mission. While nosotros similar to say that most/all physicists are idealists, together with some of them sure enough are (do I accept to tell y'all nigh a smashing example?), at that spot are lots of people for whom it's a job, a means to brand living, too.
Are the citation counts getting distorted?
Not much. Some bad papers may larn a few citations just for "being a component of the avalanche" of the diphoton papers on phenomenology. But I don't recall that people essay to cite "all" other papers on the diphoton bump. At some moment, a choice unavoidably starts. The improve papers do larn a higher number of citations – at least, at that spot volition hold upward a correlation making this proffer closer to "true" than to "false".
There is i cry for I desire to make. The citation counts bring some information inwards high-energy theoretical physics. They're non perfect together with no i believes they're perfect. But I recall that all competent physicists concord that the citation counts are significantly positively correlated amongst papers' together with people's contributions to the field. Those who deny whatsoever correlation similar that or who recall that the correlation is negative are just outright cranks. They accept totally different opinions nigh everything only because they don't sympathise physics at all.
Now, the correlation isn't perfect. And inwards some cases, most people could fifty-fifty concord nigh some mechanisms that distort the citation counts. But no i knows the "right" amount of credit that papers together with people should hold upward getting, anyway. If I – or someone else – accept some see that the numbers should hold upward much higher or much lower, it may real good hold upward because I – or that someone else – misunderstand something; or accept a distorted see nigh something. I recall it's right for many physicists to hold upward interested inwards "understudied" inquiry directions – together with to inquire some brilliant folks together with exceed large shots what is their see nigh the identity of these "cinderellas". But on the other hand, every bit long every bit the arrangement basically keeps "at to the lowest degree mostly smart" people, it's just inappropriate for whatsoever private to say that he or she has the "right opinions" nigh the value of all papers, dissimilar the residual of the community.
Researchers must hold upward allowed to report things fifty-fifty if they disagree amongst each other. And indeed, if their disagreement becomes well-defined, they should give away papers nigh their option views, too. Such confrontations should maintain according to the standards of the adept community, non yesteryear some behind-the-scenes assassination attacks inwards the laymen's media etc. The experimental results together with successes should however impact – and, assuming natural mechanisms, does impact – how much time, effort, together with coin is invested into the inquiry of different ideas. But that doesn't hateful that at that spot should be some "totalitarian" filter that allows specific people to completely suppress some kinds of research. Everyone should hold upward small-scale plenty to realize that when her opinions nigh the relative value of a inquiry management differ from the average "opinions of the community", it may hold upward the community together with non her who is closer to the fairest possible appraisal, afterward all.
(I used the word "her" inwards monastic enjoin to hold upward politically right together with for i to a greater extent than ground – because I can't avoid thinking nigh Ms Sabine Hossenfelder who is just the variety of a mortal who isn't competent plenty to jurist the papers but who repeats that she would honey to gain the might to kill whole inquiry directions.)
Fraction of hep-ph papers that are nigh the bump
On many days, the papers nigh the bump may correspond 1/3 of the hep-ph papers. Is that also much? Too little? I don't know how to compute the absolute "right" percentage. But I recall I know how to jurist the coefficient yesteryear which the activity focusing on some models should increase. If at that spot is a feasible signal of the global significance 2 sigma, i.e. 95%, it may hold upward reasonable to say that the a posteriori probability of the models predicting such a thing increases yesteryear a component of 20 relatively to the prior probability. For this reason, yesteryear Bayes' theorem, the number of papers nigh such models may increment yesteryear a component of 20, too. As long every bit the probability is depression enough, the number of papers dedicated to a sure possibility should hold upward proportional to its probability (you larn such rules from a cost-and-benefit analysis, I think).
If y'all assume that earlier the announcement, at that spot could accept been 1 newspaper nigh a model that would hold upward making similar diphoton predictions below \(1\TeV\), it is justifiable to accept 20 papers of this type a twenty-four hours afterward the announcement. I recall that at this level, I concord amongst Jester's reader kal who also wrote:
I really don't sympathise the appal sparked yesteryear the amount of theory papers on the di-photon resonance? What's the large deal? There is a speculative signal out at that spot together with people are working on it. If y'all inquire me, this is much improve than adding some other prefix to MSSM or mentally masturbating nigh the holographic regulation inwards 2+1 dimensions.Kal also wrote some other paragraph that I completely concord with: 50% of papers are good, 50% are not, together with this seems to hold upward the instance fifty-fifty inwards the diphoton subset. And doing things that collect citations together with jobs is legitimate.
Concerning the paragraph above: Well, adding a prefix to MSSM may hold upward fun but it's safer to add together the prefix just to SSM, similar inwards E6SSM because the really interesting, stringy, together with capable of explaining the bump supersymmetric models are non really minimal together with the focus on minimality is misplaced.
Also, I recall it's to a greater extent than desirable to clarify the holographic regulation every bit it affects the full-fledged, realistic spacetime nosotros inhabit – the 10- or 11-dimensional one. So there's some ground why I would tend to concord amongst the specific criticism of the masturbations nigh 2+1 dimensions. Those 2+1D models are only non quite realistic together with they're toy models that belong to "mathematical physics" to a greater extent than than they belong to the touchstone particle physics.
But maybe kal would accept included the 10- together with 11-dimensional holography amid the types of intellectual masturbation, too. Well, he or she would hold upward completely incorrect because these are some of the most of import insights – together with continuing inquiry – inwards the physics of recent decades. However, this is the variety of the inquiry that doesn't larn direct amplified when a bump (or fifty-fifty a discovery) at the LHC is made.
Rastus Odinga Odinga wrote:
I concord that people writing papers nigh this is non a problem, though the speed amongst which the papers appeared was pretty laughable. What is really disturbing is that it is evidently together with then slowly to come upward up amongst an explanation. As they say nigh religions, they can't all hold upward right, but they tin all hold upward wrong.... the other disturbing thing is how tedious all these papers are. Do nosotros really desire to accept to start thinking nigh sgoldstinos? Is that a prospect that makes your pulse race? Do nosotros really desire something similar technicolor to rising from the grave? YAWN!I completely concord amongst an anonymous particle physicist's reply:
Holy cow, Rastus, if you're non excited yesteryear the possible regain of the sgoldstino together with what it implies y'all likely chose the incorrect job.Absolutely. The regain of a sgoldstino would hold upward absolutely stunning. Even the remote possibility makes my pulse race. Doesn't Rastus sympathise how completely amazing it would be? LIGO is likely going to denote the regain of the gravitational waves – together with people volition concord that this is likely a clear Nobel-prize candidate. But it's however far from detecting private gravitons. Sgoldstinos would hold upward fifty-fifty to a greater extent than amazing, if they were discovered together with shown to hold upward almost certainly sgoldstinos, because they would hold upward superpartners of superpartners of the gravitons.
It's greater than the regain of gravitational waves yesteryear LIGO because i detects private quanta; together with i implicitly discovers supersymmetry, a totally novel symmetry of Nature that would correspond a comparable revolution inwards physics similar Einstein's special together with full general relativity. And sgoldstinos would likely tell us something beyond the Yes/No response nigh SUSY – something nigh the dynamics that breaks SUSY inwards Nature.
I am less excited nigh technicolor (because it's also similar a theory to those nosotros know, similar QCD) together with I recall it's less probable at this cry for (because the Higgs is calorie-free plenty but non also calorie-free together with because the substructure searches accept shown no signals etc.). But if experimental evidence emerged that technicolor is relevant for particle physics, it would however hold upward extremely important. What else Rastus is expecting or dreaming nigh if neither sgoldstinos nor technicolor accept anything to do amongst the variety of insights that would brand his pulse race? What makes his pulse race? And if null inwards particle physics does, why does he maintain on appearing on particle physics websites?
Jester's give-and-take covers other topics, too. The \(2\TeV\) diboson signal isn't excluded yet but it doesn't seem "exciting" at this point. If nosotros exclusively had the aggreggate information amongst the twelvemonth 2015 included, nosotros wouldn't accept gotten excited inwards the start place.
But dorsum to the master copy topic.
I do recall that the influence of the experimental hints on the phenomenologists' piece of work is totally good for y'all – it's what i expects from a similarly large good for y'all subset of the scientific community. The bump has created an understandable excitement fifty-fifty at nowadays when it's inconclusive. And a meaning fraction (a 10th or a quarter?) of the phenomenology community has already released a newspaper addressing the bump inwards i means or another. That's how things should be. Many physicists should really accept the expertise to react to actual questions that are of a precipitous posed to them (not questions they invented for themselves) such every bit "what is the most probable explanation of this bump if it is real?". And many of them do react.
Even if the bump volition travel away, this explosion of the activity volition aspect similar a good for y'all episode together with fun. One may meet how his colleague recall nigh a rather well-defined problem. ATLAS together with CMS accept basically managed to persuade a large percentage of the hep-ph community to solve the same homework practice together with it's goodness because people may straight off know how others recall nigh just the same things.
Movements searching for non-existent diseases of scientific discipline together with the West
More generally, I recall that also many people honey to spread the "lousy mood" nigh ordinary things together with business-as-usual inwards scientific discipline together with many other sectors of the human activity together with it's just wrong. When it comes to high-energy physics, people should hold upward excited instead of spreading their "lousy mood" together with unjustified accusations nigh pathologies.
Let me advert i to a greater extent than recent instance of the obsessive propagation of the "lousy mood". The notorious crackpot John End-of-Science Horgan wrote a tirade against Bayes' theorem. This is rather amazing because Bayes' theorem is null else than a quantitative explanation of the rational reasoning – peculiarly nigh highly uncertain questions. Bayes' formula may hold upward de facto rigorously proven. But Horgan doesn't similar it because it "enables confirmation bias". What?
The whole theorem is nigh calculating the modify of the probabilities that results from some novel evidence or arguments. The theorem isn't just nigh the priors; it's nigh the ratio of posterior together with prior probabilities. For example, above, I sketched a "Bayesian" jurist how much the number of papers nigh diphoton predictions should natural springtime afterward the LHC diphoton announcements. This is a variety of an declaration that wasn't mutual – it's nigh a vague, partly sociological issue.
But it's appropriate to operate it if nosotros desire the most quantitative explanation why we're thinking inwards the ways nosotros do. I mentioned that 20-fold increment exclusively every bit a reaction to some claims that the avalanche of the diphoton papers was unjustified. I recall it's justified together with the Bayesian declaration is an argument, something that my opponents don't seem to accept at all. So I recall that my arguments are inwards improve shape.
Similarly, Joe Polchinski presents his Bayesian jurist that the probability that the multiverse is needed inwards physics is 94%. I wouldn't larn the same figure. But I concord that the probability that some multiverse is needed cannot hold upward correctly argued to hold upward vastly smaller than 1%, for example. For him, it's greater than 50% which is sure enough a goodness ground for a fraction of the physics community to report this possibility. He exclusively resorted to the Bayesian declaration because it's a quantitative formulation of some arguments he is really using or feeling – together with because he wanted to demo that his reasoning is to a greater extent than rational than the reasoning of the mindless anti-multiverse jihadists – together with inwards this case, I sure enough concord amongst this "advantage Polchinski" fifty-fifty if my probability for the multiverse is below 50%. What he does may hold upward described every bit ground – dissimilar what the critics do.
No comments:
Post a Comment