tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post7938769310339800889..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: After the hangover Jesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-87429324361655406092016-08-29T12:21:56.471+01:002016-08-29T12:21:56.471+01:00harmless > harmfulharmless > harmfulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-14198041158485972322016-08-28T17:37:46.771+01:002016-08-28T17:37:46.771+01:00Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say ...Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today my friends.<br /><br />And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the grand unification dream.<br /><br />I have a dream that one day the physics nation will rise and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all gauge coupling constant values of the fundamental interactions were created equal.<br /><br />I have a dream that one day, once dark matter and dark energy have been revealed as the black gold of the sky, the sons of spectral geometry and the sons of M(atrix)-theory will be able to work together through the brotherhood network.<br /><br />I have a dream that one day even the Planck scale, a scale sweltering with the heat of raging speculations, will be transformed into an oasis of tamed abstraction and testable phenomenology.<br /><br />I have a dream that our four current fundamental forces will one day live in a spacetime where they will not be judged by the classical physical dimensions of their coupling constants but by their real quantum geometric nature.cbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349828290008437401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-66038485634634960502016-08-28T05:05:29.189+01:002016-08-28T05:05:29.189+01:00"The point is that the LHC experiments perfor..."The point is that the LHC experiments perform gazillion different measurements, thus they are bound to observe seemingly unlikely outcomes in a small fraction of them." No. This interpretation is wrong. Distributions, taken from either frequentist or from a Bayesian perspective, require two things: large numbers of trials to establish the distributions and identical experiments. The lack of the latter (identical experiments) obviates your intimation. The lack of the former indicates the real problem with 750 GeV. For ambulance chasing theorists -- well, they got their just desserts.Mark Parishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01853291860022211828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-75614195983108628822016-08-27T11:14:33.793+01:002016-08-27T11:14:33.793+01:00Dear Anonymous of 10.23,
I'd like to offer a ...Dear Anonymous of 10.23,<br /><br />I'd like to offer a few opinions concerning the important points you raise.<br /><br />1) I am less certain than you do about what are the needs of experimentalists working in particle physics. In the past, experimentalists expected that the papers of the theorists concern something with a chance to be seen. Nowadays, the community admits that a lot of mess is made, to increment the volume of the business. The conferences are full of people piling up speculations over speculations, calling themselves "theorists", as Feynman, Einstein or Dirac. Scientists are positively judged if they publish a lot, independently on whether their work has been supported by some fact or not. I am not sure this is a progress, even because, nowadays as yesterday, the new experiments in particle physics are built considering the proposals of the theorists.<br /><br />2) You speak of "harmless work", in connection to the activity of model-building. The question that comes to my mind is whether the activity of the theoretical physicists is really harmless or not. The fuss around the 750 GeV thing had a big impact on popular science journal, newspapers and tv as well. Similarly for the story of superluminal neutrinos, that surely everybody knows, and that was preceeded by a lot of theoretical activity on Lorentz invariance violation and all that. Also the black-hole-at-LHC connection was triggered by PRL 87 (2001) 161602. In my view, what theorists do has positively an impact on the young people interested in science, on the educational system and also on the future of particle physics.<br /><br />3) Any scientist wants to be recognised for his/her findings. This is normal and fair, but I deem that this implies that they should also take responsibility of what they do. Incidentally most scientists are payed by the taxes of citizens. <br /><br />4) Perhaps we should read once again Feynman, http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm<br />Or perhaps, this theorist should be blamed, since he was against string theory. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-36148490193700450532016-08-27T00:28:19.837+01:002016-08-27T00:28:19.837+01:00Well said!Well said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-75376397624617600372016-08-26T10:23:21.207+01:002016-08-26T10:23:21.207+01:00Well, a large percentage of working people out the...Well, a large percentage of working people out there do things that are harmless for the economy, the planet and the lives (and intelligence) of others and themselves, so model building is not a bad thing considered globally. <br /><br />Now, there is always the danger that a smart ass like you comes along when the final outcome is known (or so you think) to throw garbage on the honest work of other people, but model builders can live with it because they are used to this kind of talk from other particle physicists that consider themselves better.<br /><br />However, looking for something that you don't know what it is requires this kind of work and experimentalists need this kind of work. And I'm sorry to say, but whatever work you do and no matter how smart you think you are you will never ever do anything 1% more relevant to the advancement of particle physics than what experimentalists do.<br /><br />There is your answer, and in enjoying it take into account that I'm no model builder myself. It's just that I never needed to downgrade the work of others to feel that my work is valuable and I really hate to see this done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-90617803436364135132016-08-24T19:05:18.009+01:002016-08-24T19:05:18.009+01:00Water is a chemical substance that is well underst...Water is a chemical substance that is well understood. It's used ubiquitously and successfully daily in massive number of applications and projects from your washroom to grand electric dams.When temperature falls below freezing point, water freezes into snowflakes whose shape and other parameters are yet to be fully cataloged. The final and complete theory of snowflakes does not yet exist.<br /><br />Every student of modern physics by second (or even first) year learns two rock solid facts: 1) there is the maximum speed in the physical space that is finite and 2) entangled particles exercise mysterious and instant action at any distance. Most are quite fine with it except when trying to put them together side by side: if the space in a field theory is a physical substance, then there are situations where something, at least information can move in it much faster than the ultimate speed limit. How? Can we use the same or similar mechanism in everyday practice if not to move physical objects then for instant communications? And if the space is only our acronym for the combined effects of some yet unknown forces and interactions, then we already know that those do not need to comply to the speed limit. Why? Can we use it?<br /><br />Yet we write 500+ papers about non existing resonance and complain about the end of particle physics. Are we cataloging snowflakes? RBShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05190152376766693948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-69666697519626989972016-08-23T10:26:15.896+01:002016-08-23T10:26:15.896+01:00"In addition of my being skeptic against the ...<i>"In addition of my being skeptic against the expectations as supersymmetry will one day be an elementary ingredient of particle theories I would find even more unlikely that the mass values would be just small enough to allow detection of such a symmetry in the next range of experiments. That really sounds a bit too much like wishfool thinking. I do know the arguments I just think they are far too optimistic.<br />However let me end with a positive note. You see supersymmetry refers to the spin of particles, a property involving rotations in space. If proven true - contrary to my expectations- supersymmetry would be the first major modification of our views of space and time since Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1915..."</i> from 't Hooft recorded message at the "event adjudicating the bet on SUSY first made in 2000" (to quote a Not Even Wrong post on Monday August 22, 2016) that took place yesterday in Copenhagen (see video www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfLNVeHX_wA, quote starts at 18:25). <br />I find it interesting that he underlines through SUSY the need for a better geometric vision. I guess he has in mind his research program on the quantum description of black holes and his recent results in "removing" the Firewall problem with "higly non-trivial topological space-time features at the Planck scale" (1605.05119).<br />Time for another bet with a different perspective on the proper new geometric tools build from the multi-TeV data already understood? Well, a more interesting question is what could be the crucial experiment to untie the abstract nodes of space-time-matter models in my opinion.cbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349828290008437401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-64851540548509455542016-08-22T20:10:59.553+01:002016-08-22T20:10:59.553+01:00Now it is time for GW150914 correlated with ELF wa...Now it is time for GW150914 correlated with ELF wave in ionosphere ...<br /><br />http://inspirehep.net/record/1467196?ln=pl<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-9528256304580468272016-08-22T19:24:41.618+01:002016-08-22T19:24:41.618+01:00I am convinced some noncommutative geometers would...I am convinced some noncommutative geometers would be happy to hug the BSM community Jester (o_~) but could you explain (in an update of your 11 February 2007 post) why the princess is so reluctant to kiss the frog? <br />Is it because of its abstract operator algebraic formalism? Well if you want to guess how a Higgs boson at 125 GeV could be a hint of "gravity" at the electroweak scale from a "discrete" dimension of spacetime you need to have some good geometric hindsight and vision I suppose. But I am sure physicists will tailor their own analogies to built a proper intuition.<br />Now as far as model builders are concerned one can trust their mathematical skills to understand the prescriptions in 1004.0464 and 1507.08161, check them with up to date phenomenology and explore seesaw intermediate scales and gauge unification territories with more than the extended survival (hypothesis) guide to guess the scalar spectrum... providing the spectral action principle and the axioms of noncommutative geometry can do the job. This would be my nagging question to Jester and others.cbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349828290008437401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-71902732680927392842016-08-22T17:32:26.733+01:002016-08-22T17:32:26.733+01:00Honest question to model builders in general.
Do ...Honest question to model builders in general.<br /><br />Do you ever feel bad about the fact that when all is said and done, 99.99% of you will have worked all of your life in useless and meaningless models that will have contributed zero to the advancement of science? Indeed you all could have gone play soccer as AlessandroS suggested, and nothing would have changed (oh well, we learned that nature isn't like this nor like that... yeah yeah, the feel good about your life argument).<br />Are you just doing physics as if you were chess players? not very meaningful, not very useful, but still quite fun?<br /><br />It is a genuine question. If you don't agree with the assumptions also I'd like to know your take, trying to be a bit provocative. Answers appreciated!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-26049861132464983452016-08-22T07:40:37.014+01:002016-08-22T07:40:37.014+01:00For Anonymous 18:55:
I agree that the principles,...For Anonymous 18:55:<br /><br />I agree that the principles, the foundations, need to be assessed more seriously but I am not optimist. I tried so many times to discuss the naturalness fine-tuning hierarchy stuff, very rarely I see useful reactions. Some people do not listen or shout; other ones want to stay in the group; there are people who have opinions, but keep them for themselves. <br /><br />E.g., here above, I proposed to have a more detailed discussion of the comparison of finetuning principle and the theory of antimatter. No reaction, silence, the important thing is that somebody wrote it somewhere that "finetuning" principle has the same rank that antimatter theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-23620154083944731902016-08-21T18:04:15.321+01:002016-08-21T18:04:15.321+01:00@ highsciguy
"Shouldn't we sit down, tak...@ highsciguy<br /><br />"Shouldn't we sit down, take time, and ask what should be done to progress, is e.g. naturallness the proper guiding principle, do we understand the foundation well enough ...?"<br /><br />Progress in fundamental science is driven by unexpected events and happens through trial and error. BSM theories are built, confronted with experiments and either found acceptable for future developments or refuted. There is no other way around. Hep-th committees are usually uncertain in deciding which priorities are worth pursuing, with so many open questions and "gray" areas in our current understanding of high-energy phenomenology.Ervin Goldfainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07585008304556273617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-86452588286189753192016-08-21T17:19:02.800+01:002016-08-21T17:19:02.800+01:00@11:21 "Shouldn't we sit down, take time,...@11:21 "Shouldn't we sit down, take time, and ask what should be done to progress"<br /><br />Socioeconomics of HEP and circlejerking within subfields makes it impossible. Publish or perish + quality over quantity doesn't incentivize sitting down and taking time either.<br />hep-ph as a whole is in the forefront of most enlightened communities in science's history. /sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-40653585891977860722016-08-21T11:21:17.537+01:002016-08-21T11:21:17.537+01:00"Not agreeing with this! Why finding the mode..."Not agreeing with this! Why finding the model that describes new physical phenomena shouldn't be seen as a success?? Imagine finding the model that describes how transistors work. Would you care if there had been 10.000 guesses before finding the right one?"<br /><br />You slightly over-interpret me there. Of course we need phenomenology. And we absolutely should celebrate what we got as a result of previous model building (we hardly did; a lot of people call the SM the 'most boring' theory).<br /><br />I am only questioning if this type and amount of phenomenology is appropriate, if it is apparent that the principles used to construct models leave obviously so many degrees of freedom that we can't pin it down. What are the odds to discover a BSM, if any, without new experimental input, if we proceed this way?<br /><br />Sure, the community needs to decide what experiment to build next, but we may need to explain better for the next collider, why we think that this one is going to really really discover more particles.<br />I said earlier that more speculation may be necessary to find that theory if the new energy scale leaves a big gap, but is it necessary to explore each and every model in all its unobservable detail, even if the experimental evidence is marginal?<br /><br />In my experience phenomenologists, when they start some new work they browse the internet and look for what has not been done, to fill that gap in the arxiv. Shouldn't we sit down, take time, and ask what should be done to progress, is e.g. naturallness the proper guiding principle, do we understand the foundation well enough ...?highsciguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991497396454497592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-61356355214266055692016-08-21T03:14:58.004+01:002016-08-21T03:14:58.004+01:00"We have spent too much energy on model build..."We have spent too much energy on model building" <br />> agree.<br /><br />"Even if any of the models had been (or will be) discovered at LHC it can hardly be celebrated as a success of theory, because a prediction is not a prediction if you make hundred different ones." <br />> Not agreeing with this! Why finding the model that describes new physical phenomena shouldn't be seen as a success?? Imagine finding the model that describes how transistors work. Would you care if there had been 10.000 guesses before finding the right one? <br />In the case of new physics, you would be discovering new laws of nature; if that is not worth celebrating in physics then I don't know what is worth celebrating then...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-9986460239982662016-08-20T18:55:03.400+01:002016-08-20T18:55:03.400+01:00Dear homonymous Anonymous of 09:30 (I am the one o...Dear homonymous Anonymous of 09:30 (I am the one of 16:28) I agree that supersymmetry is a nice and deep symmetry, but I am not sure how we should qualify the field theoretical models that are based on this symmetry.<br /><br />First of all, the mass of the supersymmetric particles is not predicted, as you yourself recognize when you say "It might turn out that supersymmetry is irrelevant at the Fermi scale". By contrast,<br />the mass of the antiparticles is neatly predicted; the difference between these two situations cannot be starker.<br /><br />Another issue that I find very annoying is the carelessness on the hierarchy problem of the cosmological constant, that affects also supersymmetric models. Even admitting that there is a "problem" to be addressed, it is difficult to admit the "problem" with the higgs mass-scale can be definitively solved in a model where the analogous "problem" with the cosmological constant mass scale remains unsolved. <br /><br />But, ok, let us sidestep all these questions. Please tell me one single good prediction of supersymmetric models that is useful for experimentalists. Or I misunderstand your position, and you want simply to suggest that we should just proceed till we find something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-73947709876962917952016-08-20T11:06:43.470+01:002016-08-20T11:06:43.470+01:00@09:30
I don't know anyone who thinks that the...@09:30<br />I don't know anyone who thinks that the target of supersymmetry is to introduce more particles. The paragraph you wrote is a tautology, since 'supersymmetry' says it all. Whether it is aesthetic is subjective. I think that over time we got too used to accepting extra particles. Nobody, I think, would argue to dismiss supersymmetry as a theoretical concept.<br /><br />The case of anti-particles is similar but different too. They sort-of had to be accepted as a consequence of the extension of the quantum theory to the relativistic regime. For both of those theories there was already large experimental evidence. As far as I know, its introduction was precisely not guided by the sort of aesthetic argument you give.<br /><br />@09:31<br />"What a load of crap."<br />Well that's an argument that speaks of a qualified opinion ...<br /><br />@Jester How did that get through the filter?<br />highsciguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991497396454497592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-30405495899150985772016-08-20T09:31:54.992+01:002016-08-20T09:31:54.992+01:00"We have spent too much energy on model build..."We have spent too much energy on model building. It was so cheap. Even if any of the models had been (or will be) discovered at LHC it can hardly be celebrated as a success of theory, because a prediction is not a prediction if you make hundred different ones."<br />What a load of crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-58374688236975251082016-08-20T09:30:53.010+01:002016-08-20T09:30:53.010+01:00"even if it introduces tons of extra particle..."even if it introduces tons of extra particles". I assume you have in mind supersymmetry when you say this, right? It is amazing to still hear this at this level of discussion. In supersymmetry you introduce (or rather recognize) a beautiful additional symmetry with very deep roots and this forces upon you a doubling of your espectrum. You never "introduce tons of extra particles" and if you view it this way it means you haven't even started to understand the idea, sorry. It might turn out that supersymmetry is irrelevant at the Fermi scale, fine, but at least understand what you're discussing. If you don't complain about antiparticles introducing tons of extra particles you have no right to complain about supersymmetry introducing them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-15807248489556514222016-08-19T19:11:24.572+01:002016-08-19T19:11:24.572+01:00Trying to absorb some operator algebra formalism (...Trying to absorb some operator algebra formalism (not to mention KO theory ;-) to model the geometry of spacetime in a more subtle way than the standard classical commutative differential way is probably not the best medical prescription for a hangover. But may be one could expect from some high energy physicists some discussion about the spectral action principle devised by Connes and Chamseddine as a possibly interesting tool (1004.0464) for model building beyond our beloved (and up to the TeV scale efficient) renormalizable local quantum field theory practice... <br /><br />In the light of :<br />i) the "special singlet scalar model where the SM instability is avoided by a tree level effect with small couplings" that is canonically derived from the spectral action with SM fermions + right handed neutrinos as input (see chap 6 of 1303.7244) and is essential to postdict the correct masses of the Higgs boson and the top quark (provided a unification scale in the range 10^13−10^17 GeV see 1208.1030);<br /><br />ii) the existence of particular Pati-Salam models with gauge coupling grand unification and scalar spectrum derivable as an output provided spacetime is modelled as a specific noncommutative manifold (1507.08161);<br /><br />iii) the former specific noncommutative geometry is a natural "solution" of an operator theoretic equation describing volume quantised 4D manifolds (1409.2471); <br /><br />iv) the mimetic dark matter model of Chamseddine and Mukhanov can be derived from a quantisation condition on ordinary 3d space in the noncommutative geometric framework<br />(1606.01189);<br /><br />it appears to me legitimate to wonder if there is not a piece of physical insight to distill from these theoretical developments mostly based on and compatible with current phenomenology ... waiting for harvesting time that will come sooner or later (o_~)cbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349828290008437401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-63476319665570694402016-08-19T15:30:31.023+01:002016-08-19T15:30:31.023+01:00Is the Higgs naturalness problem not the tale of t...Is the Higgs naturalness problem not the tale of the electroweak scalar frog that wished to be as big as the cosmological constant bull ghost hunting the China shop of renormalizable quantum field theories at the daunting Planck scale? <br />This last scale is not well defined indeed since we do not know (if/how it makes sense to discuss) the running of the gravitational constant at the anticipated unification scale of Yang-Mills gauge interactions of the Standard Model. Or is it?<br /><br />I wish some astrophysics data in the future give us better clues to test (quantum) gravity models at ultra-high energy scales inaccessible to man-made colliders. LHC run 2 could also provide us with some help to test seesaw leptogenesis so let's way and see at what scale it could most probably occur provided general relativity is safe enough against "quantum fluctuation" effects.<br /><br />For the time being I find it interesting to underline that some minimal nonsupersymmetric SO(10) models "can (i) fit well all the low energy data, (ii) successfully account for unification of the gauge couplings, and (iii) allow for a sufficiently long lifetime of the proton ... [and] once the model parameters are fixed in terms of measured low energy observables, the requirement of successful leptogenesis can fix the only one remaining high energy parameter" (arxiv.org/abs/1412.4776).<br />Note that this quoted article does not address dark matter issue but one has to keep in mind that as several people believe, and I share this view, dark matter could be just a convenient parametrisation of our ignorance concerning the dynamics of gravitation beyond the solar system and elementary dark matter particles might not exist if I may divert a famous quote of Jean Iliopoulos referring to the Higgs scheme in 1979... I may be wrong like the latter statement proved to be in 2012. Let's see next decade the outcomes from the Euclid mission, Darwin experiment and the like. <br /><br />Meanwhile spectral noncommutative geometers and more physicists may have better understood the fin(it)e (operator algebraic) structure of spacetime that the Higgs boson might have uncovered according to their claim. Then they would have polished a testable mimetic gravity scenario and have something to say about the flavour structure of the Standard Model that could be falsified as well...cbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349828290008437401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-34499898325413357292016-08-19T09:38:40.267+01:002016-08-19T09:38:40.267+01:00@05:35 and @16:28
I completely agree with you.
E...@05:35 and @16:28<br /><br />I completely agree with you. <br />Except, that I don't think that a statement like "Fine-tuning arguments are plain common sense" can still come as a surprise.<br /><br />It is precisely the problem that some of us are debating. The community has talked itself into believing that solution to fine-tuning problem + perhaps possible dark matter candidate is sufficient motivation for a BSM theory, even if it introduces tons of extra particles (which we haven't seen a trace of) and has a loose end (that needs another explanation to fix).<br /><br />The argument has been repeated over and over again. It can't come as a surprise now that some think that it can't be questioned. <br /><br />We have spent too much energy on model building. It was so cheap. Even if any of the models had been (or will be) discovered at LHC it can hardly be celebrated as a success of theory, because a prediction is not a prediction if you make hundred different ones.<br /><br />Quite on the contrary the SM Higgs. The theory community agreed, experimentalists found it, excellent job.<br />highsciguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991497396454497592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-73798094946904585362016-08-19T05:35:00.646+01:002016-08-19T05:35:00.646+01:00@16 August 2016 at 09:13
Fine tuning is not a prin...@16 August 2016 at 09:13<br />Fine tuning is not a principle of QM/QFT nor GR, so it is not clear to me that it is "common sense". A possible guiding principle? Maybe... LHC will tell.<br /><br />If one talks common sense, then the Anthropic principle may be more appealing: Universe where the Higgs mass is order Mp, not suitable for life ergo nobody discussing about fine tuning. Universe with with MH<<Mp, suitable for life, lots of hep-ph doing models using "common sense" to explain it for 30+ years without results.<br /><br />Not saying fine tuning arguments shouldn't be taken into consideration, could be that like speed of light being fixed, no-fine-tunning is a property of our universe, but it may well not be. I just don't understand why anyone trying to think that it may not be a good guiding principle should be dismissed as not thinking/having common sense... why do you think that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-82443936235558372592016-08-17T16:28:23.888+01:002016-08-17T16:28:23.888+01:00I am confused by the comment of "Anonymous 16...I am confused by the comment of "Anonymous 16 August 2016 at 09:13". <br /><br />I do not see a clear connection of the statement "Fine-tuning arguments are plain common sense" with the subsequent statements. From what I studied, antimatter is a property of relativistic wave equation; the one implied by Dirac equation was seen 5 year after. The prediction of 2 neutral kaons is due to Pais and Gell-Mann (1955) and proved two years later. The 4th quark was mentioned in a paper by Maki Sakata Nagakawa (1962) because of quark lepton symmetry, it was mentioned again by Bjorken and Glashow (1964) and its mass was calculated by Glashow Iliapoulos Maiani (1970); then it was discovered in 1974. <br /><br />In all these cases, a new particle was predicted, with known mass (Dirac, Pais&GM, GIM). Did we learn something similar from "Fine-tuning arguments"? Maybe we know the mass of a single new particle for sure in advance (which one)? Or did we know the higgs mass? Or these arguments helped us to say that the 750 GeV thing was not a particle? Or we predicted the size of the cosmological constant? It seems to me that the answers is a heap of "no".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com