[[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?

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

In article <mt2.0-10264-1263302416*star.bris.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
Oldershaw" <rloldershaw*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.

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?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Jan 16, 10:43 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...*amherst.edu>
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.../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

In sci.astro.research Robert L. Oldershaw <rloldershaw*amherst.edu> wrote:
> 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...ture07779.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]"
<jthorn*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

On Jan 16, 5:09*pm, Igor Khavkine <igor...*gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti.../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

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Jan 16, 5:09?pm, Igor Khavkine <igor...*gmail.com> wrote:
|
| http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti.../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 <rloldershaw*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]" <jthorn*astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"If the triangles made a god, it would have three sides." -- Voltaire

Thus spake "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
<jthorn*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).
>
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.

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)

http://www.rqgravity.net