Munich: Kane Vs Gross

Kane's mental attitude is the to a greater extent than scientific one

Yesterday, I mentioned Gordon Kane's paper based on his utter inwards Munich. Today, I noticed that

lots of the utter videos are available

on their website. The available speakers include Rovelli, Dawid, Pigliucci, Dardashti, Kragh, Achinstein, Schäffer, Smeenk, Kane, Quevedo, Wüthrich, Mukhanov, Ellis, Castellani, Lüst, Hossenfelder, Thebault, in addition to Dvali piece others may hold out added soon.




Among those, I was most interested inwards

Gordon Kane's talk

partly because I've read virtually some fiery telephone commutation with David Gross. And yes, at that spot was one. In the 45-minute talk, it starts around 30:00.




The primary claim that ignited the battle was Gordy's assertion that M-theory on \(G_2\) holonomy manifolds with sure assumptions had predicted the volume \(m\approx 126\GeV\) of the Higgs boson earlier it was discovered; run across e.g. Gordon Kane's weblog post inwards Dec 2011. David Gross responded angrily. I've tried to sympathise the calculation "completely" with all the details in addition to so far, I receive got failed. I experience that Gordon would receive got been able to compress the calculation or its logic if it were a construct clean one.

On the other hand, I partly practise sympathise how the calculation works, what the assumptions are, in addition to I exactly uncovering it plausible that it's solely accurate to say that with those assumptions including some notion of genericity, M-theory on 7D manifolds does hit the prediction of a \(126\GeV\) Higgs without fine-tuning. This declaration sure isn't ludicrously incorrect similar many of the claims that I oft criticize on this weblog in addition to some really careful researchers (importantly for me, Bobby Acharya) receive got pretty much joined Gordy inwards his enquiry in addition to inwards the summary of their conclusions, too.

Gross' in addition to Kane's attitudes to the telephone commutation were dramatically different. Gordon was focusing on the assumptions, calculations, in addition to predictions; David was all virtually polls in addition to the mob. "Gordon, yous volition concur that most of us wouldn't concur that M-theory has predicted the Higgs mass." And so on. Yes, no, what of it? If there's some of import plenty prediction in addition to yous receive got missed it or yous don't sympathise it, it's your deficiency, David. If a bulk of the community doesn't acquire it, it's the error of the members of the community. None of these votes tin settle the enquiry whether it's right for Gordon to say that M-theory has made the Higgs volume prediction, peculiarly if most of these people know really good that they haven't fifty-fifty read whatever of these papers.

(By the way, Gordon phrases his predictions for the superpartner masses equally predictions that receive got gone beyond the phase of "naive naturalness" which is how the people were estimating the masses decades ago. These days, they tin run without this philosophy or strategy – equally David Gross oft categorizes naturalness.)

I mean value that David was acting similar an inquisitor of a sort. The mob doesn't know or doesn't similar that yous receive got made that prediction, so yous couldn't receive got done so. Well, that's a really lame criticism, David. With this approach of a bully, I sort of sympathise why yous receive got sometimes endorsed the climate hysteria, too.

Also, I disagree with 1 particular claim yesteryear Gross, namely his assertion that the province of affairs was inwards no means analogous to the prediction of Mercury's perihelion precession yesteryear full general relativity. That was a prediction that would receive got killed full general relativity if it had been falsified. Nothing similar that is truthful inwards the illustration of Kane's M-theory predictions, Gross says.

Now, this claim is exactly rubbish, David. First of all, exactly similar inwards the illustration of many of the string/M-theoretical predictions, the precession of Mercury's perihelion wasn't a full-fledged prediction but a postdiction. The precession anomaly had been known for a really long fourth dimension earlier full general relativity was completed. Einstein has only used this postdiction equally a confirmation that increased his psychological certainty that he's on the right rail (his optic has stopped for a second, nosotros receive got heard) – in addition to Gordon in addition to his collaborators receive got arguably gone through totally analogous confirmations that receive got strengthened their belief that their course of teaching of compactifications is right (and string theorists – similar reportedly Witten – receive got sure gone through the really same feeling when they learned that string theory postdicted gravity, in addition to perhaps other things). At least, I don't run across a glimpse of a existent departure betwixt the ii situations.

Second, on top of this work with David's argumentations, it's exactly non truthful that whatever of these predictions or postdictions would receive got killed full general relativity to the extent that they would convince Einstein to abandon it. One could hold out afraid that nosotros demand speculations virtually Einstein's thinking to know what would receive got happened if the confirmation hadn't taken place. Fortunately, nosotros know what Einstein would receive got idea inwards that illustration – because someone has asked him:

When asked yesteryear his assistant what his reaction would receive got been if full general relativity had non been confirmed yesteryear Eddington in addition to Dyson inwards 1919, Einstein famously made the quip: "Then I would experience distressing for the dearest Lord. The theory is right anyway." [15]

Famously enough, inwards the get-go edition of the Czech Elegant Universe yesteryear Brian Greene, your humble correspondent translated "dear Lord" with the Czech give-and-take "lord" indicating Eddington. The quote makes sense inwards this means equally well, doesn't it? ;-) I wasn't also aware of God, the other guy whom Einstein may receive got had inwards mind.

But dorsum to the primary topic.

Einstein would receive got definitely not abandoned full general relativity. If the bending of calorie-free weren't observed, he would expect for other explanations why it wasn't – abandoning GR wouldn't hold out alongside his top choices exactly because the theory is beautiful in addition to theoretically robust but was notwithstanding able to overstep some tests of understanding with the well-known physics (the Newtonian bound etc.). Today, many string theorists are genuinely to a greater extent than eager to abandon string theory for mayhap inconclusive reasons than Einstein has e'er been willing to abandon relativity.

The only possible form of a departure betwixt the ii theories' predictions (GR in addition to M-theory on \(G_2\) manifolds) is the fact that nosotros mean value that GR is sort of a unique theory piece M-theory on \(G_2\) manifolds, fifty-fifty equally the "class of generic compactifications on 7D manifolds that Gordon has inwards mind", is non quite equally unique. Even inside string theory, at that spot be other classes of vacua, in addition to fifty-fifty the \(G_2\) compactifications could hold out studied with somewhat unlike assumptions virtually the effective champaign theory nosotros should acquire (not MSSM but a unlike model, in addition to so on).

However, this departure isn't a component of purely intrinsic characteristics of the ii theories. GR seems unique today because no 1 who is sensible in addition to of import plenty is pushing whatever existent "alternatives" to GR anymore. But these alternatives used to hold out considered in addition to fifty-fifty Einstein himself has written papers proposing alternatives or "not quite corrected" versions of GR, peculiarly earlier 1915.

My signal is that inwards a pair of years, perhaps already inwards 2020, the accumulated cognition may hold out such that it volition hold out absolutely right to say that the province of affairs of GR inwards 1919 in addition to the province of affairs of M-theory on \(G_2\) manifolds inwards 2016 were absolutely analogous. By 2020, it may move clear for most of the string theorists that the M-theory compactifications are the only means to go, some predictions – e.g. Gordon's predictions virtually the SUSY spectrum in addition to cross sections – volition receive got been validated, in addition to all the reasonable people volition exactly supply to the persuasion that M-theory is at to the lowest degree equally natural in addition to of import equally GR in addition to it has made analogous – in addition to inwards fact, much to a greater extent than strike – predictions equally GR.

In other words, the extra hindsight that nosotros receive got inwards the illustration of GR – the fact that GR is an older theory (and has thus passed a longer sequence of tests) – is the only indisputable qualitative departure betwixt the ii situations. I mean value that every other declaration virtually differences (except for possible statements pointing out some particular bugs inwards the derivations inwards Gordon et al. papers, but Gross has been doing nil of the sort) are exactly delusional or demagogic.

Sadly, the amount of issue energy that average members of the scientific, physics, or string community dedicate to the honest reading of other people's papers has decreased inwards recent years or a decade or so. But whenever it's true, people should hold out aware of this limitation of theirs in addition to they should never endeavour to marketplace their laziness equally no-go theorems. The fact that yous or most of the people inwards your room don't sympathise something doesn't hateful that it's wrong. And the greater amount of technical developments yous receive got ignored, the greater is the probability that the work is on your side.