So, are any physicists going to rerun the numbers of that paper with modern knowledge to see if the higgs mass
then gets correctly predicted?
Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#52“My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much less competition there.” (Indira Gandhi)
There are unfortunately a lot of hard workers who think credit magically appears when you are smart enough, valuable enough, etc., and that seeking appropriate credit is beneath their dignity. This attitude often nicely coincides with their complete lack of skill at sticking up for themselves. There is no shame in shining a bit of light on your own value. Just don’t make it blazing sun pointing at a small accomplishm…
There also shouldn’t be any shame in focusing on the work, if that’s what you want.
It follows that shining light on value should be a shared responsibility. It’s not just the creator that’s negatively impacted when we fail to do so. We all are.
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I actually disagree with Gandhi here. Lol. There are a lot of people that do the work. The numbers of those who take the credit are much less. However, there is usually a power imbalance that yields to their ability to do so. So it's not about numbers. It's about power.
For every Elon Musk there are hundreds or even thousands of engineers with actual degrees and experience relevant to the thing that was built.
And yet Elon outcompeted them all… ;)
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#54Like most pop-sci, there's enough nuance to be found in the papers to tell its own story. I wasn't familiar with the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper, or asymptotic safety in general, and that 126 GeV Higgs mass prediction is the best I've seen. Their paper ends with "Detecting the Higgs scalar with mass around 126 GeV at the LHC could give a strong hint for the absence of new physics influencing the running of the S…
Without the new error bounds it’s a bit hard to know what to think.
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, but this means that if you divide people into those with controversial opinions, and those without, you should direct 100% of your listening to the first group. at some point you will have to be more selective than that, but that's clearly the first step
I said “many”, not all. There’s plenty of leeway to listen to established experts on boring things. You don’t have to be at the cutting edge of every single field, all the time. Nobody needs to listen to controversial opinions about the shape of the planet.
i've known a number of established experts in different fields, and they all had controversial opinions. sometimes not in the fields they were recognized in, but somewhere
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#56Like most pop-sci, there's enough nuance to be found in the papers to tell its own story. I wasn't familiar with the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper, or asymptotic safety in general, and that 126 GeV Higgs mass prediction is the best I've seen. Their paper ends with "Detecting the Higgs scalar with mass around 126 GeV at the LHC could give a strong hint for the absence of new physics influencing the running of the S…
And here a prediction from M-theory/string theory on that same mass-range that also predates the Higgs discovery.
Prediction: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1059 Review and discussion: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2231
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#57Like most pop-sci, there's enough nuance to be found in the papers to tell its own story. I wasn't familiar with the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper, or asymptotic safety in general, and that 126 GeV Higgs mass prediction is the best I've seen. Their paper ends with "Detecting the Higgs scalar with mass around 126 GeV at the LHC could give a strong hint for the absence of new physics influencing the running of the S…
Without the new error bounds it’s a bit hard to know what to think.
You can calculate the error yourself for the most recent experimental values of the Higgs vacuum combined with the numerically calculated lambda from the paper linked above. You get a Higgs mass of 129.6 ± 1.0 GeV at two loops. That's more than three standard deviations from the current Higgs mass measurement. So Hossenfelder's video is - as often - some outdated half-truth. At the current level of research, these values very much suggest that there is more to the Standard Model than we know below the Planck energy. Her whole shtick of bashing CERN always falls apart when you look a bit closer, which is why she only does popsci now and noone in the field listens anymore.
That being said, I still believe that asymptotic safety in quantum gravity is a really cool idea and it's well worth pursuing. It deserves better than to be used as a hammer for people bashing other legit science.
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without the new error bounds it’s a bit hard to know what to think.
You can calculate the error yourself for the most recent experimental values of the Higgs vacuum combined with the numerically calculated lambda from the paper linked above. You get a Higgs mass of 129.6 ± 1.0 GeV at two loops. That's more than three standard deviations from the current Higgs mass measurement. So Hossenfelder's video is - as often - some outdated half-truth. At the current level of research, these va…
Thanks. But weird… The previous error bounds on the top quark mass were grossly incorrect then? I mean a new estimate for the top quark mass, which is within the bounds of the previous estimate, shouldn’t make the predicted mass of the Higgs jump out of its error bounds, right?
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sabine is, uh, somewhat controversial.
> Sabine is, uh, somewhat controversial. At the same time people never really seem to be able to give a reasonable explanation as to why, beyond that they disagree with some of her takes.
Depending on what counts as “reasonable” (the bar seems rather high for you, as I’ve seen plenty of laymen-friendly explanations reasonable to me, e.g. the sibling comment), you may need to have at least been to a PhD program in high energy physics to understand the explanation.
From someone who happens to have been to one.
Re: Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can calculate the error yourself for the most recent experimental values of the Higgs vacuum combined with the numerically calculated lambda from the paper linked above. You get a Higgs mass of 129.6 ± 1.0 GeV at two loops. That's more than three standard deviations from the current Higgs mass measurement. So Hossenfelder's video is - as often - some outdated half-truth. At the current level of research, these va…
Thanks. But weird… The previous error bounds on the top quark mass were grossly incorrect then? I mean a new estimate for the top quark mass, which is within the bounds of the previous estimate, shouldn’t make the predicted mass of the Higgs jump out of its error bounds, right?
The top quark mass itself was much, much more uncertain back then. The original paper referred to a mass with an error of 2.4GeV[1], while the latest direct measurements give an uncertainty of 0.3GeV[2]. That's an order of magnitude improvement thanks to new data collected by the LHC over the last decade. Also bear in mind that these uncertainties are given as standard deviations. Almost a third of all statistical measurements will fall outside one standard deviation, while less than 0.3% will exceed three standard deviations. Anything less than two standard deviations is usually considered not statistically significant in most scientific fields. The new value is not surprising at all in that light.