My Superparticle Bet with Frank Wilczek - Comments

[garrett]

garrett submitted a new PF Insights post

My Superparticle Bet with Frank Wilczek

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

 

[Spinnor]

You should make more bets! Pay up Frank!

Would you give back the money if super-particles are eventually found?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Really interesting! Would love a follow up sometime!

 

[Demystifier]

The fact that Frank accepted the bet demonstrates that being intelligent and being rational are two different things.

 

[garrett]

You should make more bets! Pay up Frank!

Would you give back the money if super-particles are eventually found?

I would happily make another bet on it.

 

[garrett]

The fact that Frank accepted the bet demonstrates that being intelligent and being rational are two different things.

I think it speaks more of the importance of personal perspective in physics. When you personally first do a calculation, as Frank did for supersymmetric coupling unification, and it produces a result that appears to be true and important about nature, when there was no reason it had to be, it's a bit of a shock. That personal experience gives you a lot of confidence in that idea. That is the way I feel about the match of GR and Standard Model structure to the E8 Lie group. And I suspect that's the way Frank Wilczek feels about supersymmetry. This is one of many reasons why it's good to have physicists searching along different paths.

 

[Robert Buschel]

As Garrett's lawyer I would argue to the arbitrator
Detect is defined as "discover or identify the presence or existence of."

Even though the potential to comprehend the discovery must occur at a later time, the data was still detected. Indeed, the collection of the data is the detecting process; the discovery, is the comprehension or understanding that the data proves the scientific point being reached. In this case, the existence of superparticles.

 

[ZapperZ]

Betting? Really? Have we sank to THAT level?

I find that all these "betting" is irrelevant to the physics. This is nothing more than a "My Ego Is Bigger Than Your Ego" demonstration.

Zz.

 

[garrett]

Betting? Really? Have we sank to THAT level?

I find that all these "betting" is irrelevant to the physics. This is nothing more than a "My Ego Is Bigger Than Your Ego" demonstration.

Zz.

Betting in physics is a sideshow.

 

[ZapperZ]

Betting in physics is a sideshow.

Unfortunately, it appears that the sideshow is a major distraction and has occupied center stage. Would you have created this if it weren't for the "sideshow" to attract an audience?

And what exactly do you hope to accomplish with this bet, regardless of who "wins"?

Zz.

 

[garrett]

Unfortunately, it appears that the sideshow is a major distraction and has occupied center stage. Would you have created this if it weren't for the "sideshow" to attract an audience?

And what exactly do you hope to accomplish with this bet, regardless of who "wins"?

Zz.

Yes, I made this bet, and this post, to attract attention, so that people would think more about whether or not supersymmetry exists, and the implications of that.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I made this bet, and this post, to attract attention, so that people would think more about whether or not supersymmetry exists, and the implications of that.

Do you think this is a wise avenue to pursue, and how it is usually done when there is a pursuit for knowledge? Have we still not learn of what can happen when science seeks publicity to do its work?

And since when does it require people to "think more" to determine if this exists or not? Isn't the final arbiter will be experimental verification, or non-verification?

Zz.

 

[marcus]

I don't know any "better" way to ascribe operational meaning to probabilities than to use the example of a rational bettor--probabilities are the odds.

what we call verification and non-verification are defined in terms of odds, i.e. probabilities.

 

[marcus]

I suppose that scientific research can be understood as decision-making under uncertainty, maybe even game theoretically or within a BAYESIAN framework.
We are never completely sure that any theory is 100% correct, or that it cannot be improved on, but we bet on it every time we make a calculation that matters. People routinely make decisions in the face of incomplete knowledge and can be said to bet their credibility, bet their careers, funding, professional standing, perks, on the which lines of research they choose to pursue.
There is nothing immoral or frivolous about this, AFAICS.

 

[garrett]

One of the reasons I went into physics is because I didn't want to deal with people. Almost all human endeavors are centered around interactions with, or the whims of, other people. I was delighted to be able to study mathematics and physics that has an existence independent of humanity. But the idea that scientific opinion changes based on experiment alone was, and is, naive. People, including me, are rationalizing animals. When evidence starts to build that our opinions are wrong, we first respond by slightly tweaking our theories... "oh, we haven't seen those particles yet because they must have higher masses," until doing that gets so ridiculous that we are forced to confront reality, and change our minds. I think betting is an important part of that process. It does cater to a low-brow audience, and draw attention. But it also forces people to confront reality, so I think betting is a good thing.

 

[marcus]

Sorry, post crossed,. this is in response to something Z said:
"Do you think this is a wise avenue to pursue, and how it is usually done when there is a pursuit for knowledge? Have we still not learn of what can happen when science seeks publicity to do its work?"

Well there are issues of taste. Tokens of honor like bottles of wine might seem more genteel than large dollar amounts. Humorous stakes like encyclopedias might be just as instructive to the public as large dollar amounts.

But other things being equal I think the spectacle of a few scientists with name-recognition making public wagers can be educational.

It makes the uncertainty and the suspense REAL for members of the public. IMHO the mind better grasps the issue to be resolved when it is put in those terms.

I like the fact of wagering better than some other kinds of publicizing: groundless claims, hype, oversimplified metaphors, rhetoric.

 

[atyy]

The fact that Frank accepted the bet demonstrates that being intelligent and being rational are two different things.

I once heard a lecture by Steven Weinberg, in which he explained that that is called "hedging". Of course, we know how well that has worked out.

Edit: Oops, actually Frank did the opposite of what Weinberg and Hawking did, which is to bet against their own favourites.

 

[garrett]

The other good thing about bets is that it brings peoples' attention to important changes. How many famous physicists thought superparticles would be seen at the LHC? Almost nobody goes back and looks at old predictions like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3337193/The-Big-Bang-what-will-we-find.html

 

[atyy]

@garrett, but if they have detected and not discovered, won't that take some months or years to decide after analysis of the data?

 

[garrett]

@garrett, but if they have detected and not discovered, won't that take some months or years to decide after analysis of the data?

Well, the meaning of the bet was about superparticles being discovered. But I messed up in my tweet, so the decision is now up to Max.

 

[atyy]

Well, the meaning of the bet was about superparticles being discovered. But I messed up in my tweet, so the decision is now up to Max.

You are probably getting paid in at least one of his worlds.

 

[ZapperZ]

One of the reasons I went into physics is because I didn't want to deal with people. Almost all human endeavors are centered around interactions with, or the whims of, other people. I was delighted to be able to study mathematics and physics that has an existence independent of humanity. But the idea that scientific opinion changes based on experiment alone was, and is, naive. People, including me, are rationalizing animals. When evidence starts to build that our opinions are wrong, we first respond by slightly tweaking our theories... "oh, we haven't seen those particles yet because they must have higher masses," until doing that gets so ridiculous that we are forced to confront reality, and change our minds. I think betting is an important part of that process. It does cater to a low-brow audience, and draw attention. But it also forces people to confront reality, so I think betting is a good thing.

But are you drawing attention to the matter in question, or are you actually drawing attention to YOU?

Let's be frank here. Your notoriety has more to do with you, than with what you have produced. The media jumped on the sexy story of a "surfer" who suddenly came up with an idea that prominent physicists suddenly took notice. If this were someone else with less intriguing of a background, I would put it to you that it would gather very little traction in publicity.

So are you really drawing attention to supersymmetry? Does it REALLY need this kind of attention, considering that the LHC has been in the front pages, and the publicity surrounding its search for supersymmetric particles has been in the news prominently? Or are you drumming up cheap publicity?

Zz.

 

[atyy]

I see ZapperZ put "surfer" in quotes. Does the mean garrett isn't a real surfer? Surely this video isn't video faked?

 

[ZapperZ]

I see ZapperZ put "surfer" in quotes. Does the mean garrett isn't a real surfer? Surely this video isn't video faked?

What's next? Where I put the period and question marks will also be examined this closely?

Maybe you should try reading my post backwards. There might be hidden messages in them.

Zz.

 

[ChrisVer]

To the question what someone wins by betting:
FUN
and money if you are on the winning side... it has little to do with science, since we are all subject to what nature shows us...
It can be the same if you bet that "tomorrow it'll rain in NYC"...you are not going to understand the weather physics any better :P

 

[atyy]

OK, to bring this back to something serious, can I ask garrett what his take on naturalness is?

That really was the deeper reason for thinking there is something else, not necessarily supersymmetry, but something that will make physics natural.

And naturalness seems a reasonable, if not absolute requirement. It is also the spirit that lies behind the cosmological constant problem.

It comes from the belief that our current theories are effective theories, and probably wrong. So it is the opposite of egoistic thinking. This comes out of the Wilsonian understanding of quantum field theory, which was a revolution in that after that physicists said "we understand quantum field theory". In fact naturalness seems like a rather "humble" position, because after Wilson physicists no longer "arrogantly" think that our tremendously successful theories hold at all energies.

As Preskill wonders in his blog, "Could Wilson have steered us wrong?" http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/18/we-are-all-wilsonians-now/

 

[lethe]

Do the right thing and graciously extend the term of the bet a few more years to the end of the LHC run.

 

[marcus]

That 40 second surfing YT that atyy pointed out
connected to a nice YT about "kiting"
and to a 90 minute graphic lecture to general Maui audience about unification in E8, good visuals, intuition, lively tone, questions from audience

 

[strangerep]

Do the right thing and graciously extend the term of the bet a few more years to the end of the LHC run.

IIUC, Garrett is doing the "right thing", as you put it. I.e., offering a new bet. For now, it is Frank's job to do the "right thing", and pay up. Then a new bet could be made.

@garrett : if Frank does pay the current $1K, and you both feel like increasing the new wager amount to $10K, I'll underwrite $8K of your side of the new bet. Oh, but the new bet needs to be phrased more carefully, mentioning "5-sigma", etc, and "found by at least 2 independent experiments". There's some knowledgeable experimental particle physicists around here who could probably help to tighten up the wording of the new bet.

 

[arivero]

But are you drawing attention to the matter in question, or are you actually drawing attention to YOU?

Let's be frank here. Your notoriety has more to do with you, than with what you have produced. The media jumped on the sexy story of a "surfer" who suddenly came up with an idea that prominent physicists suddenly took notice. If this were someone else with less intriguing of a background, I would put it to you that it would gather very little traction in publicity.

So are you really drawing attention to supersymmetry? Does it REALLY need this kind of attention, considering that the LHC has been in the front pages, and the publicity surrounding its search for supersymmetric particles has been in the news prominently?
Zz.

I'd say, it needs exactly THIS KIND of attention. For one thing, susy in 30 years has been ritualised and there is no way to approach the topic from fresh point of views; and this is the thing that we need. So histories that revolve about alternative thinking can be at the end, if they inspire the adequate random student, more profitable that the histories about the standard view of susy coming from the LHC.

It is true that Garrett's models, as Connes's or Furey's and of course a lot other "alternative", have failed to be super symmetric. This is M-isterious; how can they always come to the same kind of structures that SUSY, to objects, such as triality, that actually are in the core of the requisites for a theory to be supersymmetrical, and end which a theory which is unable to exhibit susy?

 

[Jeff L Jones]

"And, many years previously, I had won a bet with two string theory grad students (who have since left the field) about superparticles showing up."

I think technically, our bet expired Burning Man 2010, so it was still open as of the time you made the bet with Wilczek ;-p

Also, I never worked directly on string theory, just supersymmetry. (Although Sean did a bit.)

Incidentally, the last paper I published was a 2-loop analysis of how the SUSY partners affect SU(5) gauge coupling unification in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model that go beyond the ordinary minimal one people call the MSSM.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2106

I have to admit, by the time I was done with this paper, I had realized that the case for supersymmetric gauge coupling unification is a bit weaker than I'd once thought. (For the most basic case, it works better at 1-loop than 2!) But it's nevertheless an interesting coincidence; taken together with how naturally it solves the hierarchy problem and provides an easy dark matter candidate, I still think there's a decent chance we may yet find it at LHC.

I'm happy to settle our bet next time I see you, unless you want to go double or nothing? I guess you've got bigger fish to fry now, but I'm still game if you want to make it 2 margaritas ;-) I hope Wilczek also goes double or nothing with you!

 

[arivero]

I think you should be more concrete about the kind of particle. As some of you can remember, my opinion is that the first charged slepton was discovered in 1947, and the last of the six was nailed by 1985. So it should be clear that composite theories, including composite higgs, are out of the question, even if technimeson loops were able to cancel the fermion loops of the cuadratic divergence of the Higgs. Only genuine susy particles should score in the bet.

On other hand, you can not claim the Higgs scalar sector to be susy, because N-doublet models can also generate it without supertpartners. It should be clear if the players are going to accept any new scalar as a susy particle.

At the end of the day, perhaps a bet for new physics is easier to settle than a bet for susy.

 

[garrett]

There are physicists of all different races, genders, sexual orientations, proclivities, shapes, sizes... I don't see how it is at all relevant to this discussion that I like to surf for fun and exercise.

 

[garrett]

I think you should be more concrete about the kind of particle. As some of you can remember, my opinion is that the first charged slepton was discovered in 1947, and the last of the six was nailed by 1985. So it should be clear that composite theories, including composite higgs, are out of the question, even if technimeson loops were able to cancel the fermion loops of the cuadratic divergence of the Higgs. Only genuine susy particles should score in the bet.

On other hand, you can not claim the Higgs scalar sector to be susy, because N-doublet models can also generate it without supertpartners. It should be clear if the players are going to accept any new scalar as a susy particle.

At the end of the day, perhaps a bet for new physics is easier to settle than a bet for susy.

I agree that there's a lot of wiggle room. In fact, a semi-humorous possibility is that a new particle is seen and declared to be the superpartner of an unknown particle.

It was easiest to put it in the hands of a reasonable arbiter.

 

[garrett]

Jeff Jones! It's pretty funny that you would show up to comment here, as one of the previous superparticle bettors. I didn't know you had done further research on SUSY --- interesting paper. I'll bet you're one of the first in what will be a growing population of people denying they were previously string theorists. ;) But, from what I remember, you had drunk quite a bit of the cool-aid. Thanks for coming and commenting here on this PF thread. I might be willing to take on more superparticle bets, but for higher stakes. :)