SelfAdjoint declared winner of first forecast poll

[marcus]

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/0507235 [Broken]

sA predicted that Smolin "The Case for Background Independence" would garner 50-69 UK downloads thru end September 2005

that is essentially in the first two full months (aug and sept) that it was posted it would be downloaded by that many people from the UK mirror site (which is the only one that keeps count and publishes how many)

IT TURNED OUT so far THERE HAVE BEEN 57 UK downloads

sA was the only PF person who guessed the correct range, other people (I think we were 5 in all) guessed other things like "below 50" and "70-89"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83578

I think, if no one objects to my announcing a winner even tho it is not yet the end of the month, that there probably aren't going to be significantly more UK downloads, so sA gets the 3 cheers and the JimmytheGreek prize.

 

[ohwilleke]

I don't know. It's not over until the fat lady with a computer sings. Think of all those British grad students jamming the lines on September 30 looking deparately for their next presentation topic.

 

[marcus]

I don't know. It's not over until the fat lady with a computer sings. Think of all those British grad students jamming the lines on September 30 looking deparately for their next presentation topic.

OK, it is not over till September 30. (I know enough to concede though)

 

[Kea]

And what about the potential for cheating...

 

[marcus]

And what about the potential for cheating...

it's all on the honor system, Kea

 

[marcus]

BTW Ohwilleke, and Kea,

how many citations do you think this will have by yearend?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508202
Fractal Spacetime Structure in Asymptotically Safe Gravity
O. Lauscher, M. Reuter
20 pages

"Four-dimensional Quantum Einstein Gravity (QEG) is likely to be an asymptotically safe theory which is applicable at arbitrarily small distance scales. On sub-Planckian distances it predicts that spacetime is a fractal with an effective dimensionality of 2. The original argument leading to this result was based upon the anomalous dimension of Newton's constant. In the present paper we demonstrate that also the spectral dimension equals 2 microscopically, while it is equal to 4 on macroscopic scales. This result is an exact consequence of asymptotic safety and does not rely on any truncation. Contact is made with recent Monte Carlo simulations."

Right now it has only one citation. It was posted 26 August 2005, just a few days ago.

I expect it will have 4 citations by 31 December.
Maybe that just reflects the fact that I find the paper so interesting. I think one or both of you may also have commented to that effect, which is why this Reuter paper comes to mind.

 

[Kea]

How many citations do you think this will have by yearend?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508202
Fractal Spacetime Structure in Asymptotically Safe Gravity
O. Lauscher, M. Reuter

Hi Marcus

I can't imagine how people estimate these things. I really have no idea: but for fun, I'll guess 10, because I like their work.

Kea

 

[marcus]

Hi Marcus

I can't imagine how people estimate these things. I really have no idea: but for fun, I'll guess 10, because I like their work.

Kea

I like their work too a whole bunch. I will start a forecast poll thread. I think the choices will be

1 (which they have now)
2
3
4 (which I guess, that means three additional citations before yearend)
5
6
over 6 (that would include your guess of ten citations)

 

[selfAdjoint]

BTW Ohwilleke, and Kea,

how many citations do you think this will have by yearend?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508202
Fractal Spacetime Structure in Asymptotically Safe Gravity
O. Lauscher, M. Reuter
20 pages

"Four-dimensional Quantum Einstein Gravity (QEG) is likely to be an asymptotically safe theory which is applicable at arbitrarily small distance scales. On sub-Planckian distances it predicts that spacetime is a fractal with an effective dimensionality of 2. The original argument leading to this result was based upon the anomalous dimension of Newton's constant. In the present paper we demonstrate that also the spectral dimension equals 2 microscopically, while it is equal to 4 on macroscopic scales. This result is an exact consequence of asymptotic safety and does not rely on any truncation. Contact is made with recent Monte Carlo simulations."

Right now it has only one citation. It was posted 26 August 2005, just a few days ago.

I expect it will have 4 citations by 31 December.
Maybe that just reflects the fact that I find the paper so interesting. I think one or both of you may also have commented to that effect, which is why this Reuter paper comes to mind.

He's giving a talk at loops 05 on essentially that topic, and there should be some schmoozing between his people, the CDT people, and anybody inspired by the occasion on it. Result, some new insights. Allow time for earliest publication, I say 2-3 cites by December 31. One of them a forehead smacker ("Why didn't we all see that?").

 

[marcus]

He's giving a talk at loops 05 on essentially that topic, and there should be some schmoozing between his people, the CDT people, and anybody inspired by the occasion on it. Result, some new insights. Allow time for earliest publication, I say 2-3 cites by December 31. One of them a forehead smacker ("Why didn't we all see that?").

Hi sA, congratulations on an accurate forecast in the Smolin poll. I've made a new forecast poll for the Reuter and would welcome it if you would register your guess!

 

[Chronos]

I have friends in England. 10 days left in September?? Skewing the results is not beyond the realm of possibility... Alright already, I'm kidding.

 

[marcus]

I think this poll (Smolin downloads) is essentially over and done with.
Y'all put your bets down on the Reuter cites poll

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89854

Not so prone to skewing (even in imagination) because it is citations not downloads. someone would have to write scholarly papers to fudge the outcome

 

[ohwilleke]

Count me in for two citations for the fractal paper. I don't think that there are many people doing research that could easily cite it.

 

[marcus]

Count me in for two citations for the fractal paper. I don't think that there are many people doing research that could easily cite it.

Hi ohwilleke, please go to
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756702
and click on the "2" button
that will register your forecast
(I can't do it for anyone, or would be glad to---the way it's set up only the person themselves can)

 

[marcus]

I don't know. It's not over until the fat lady with a computer sings. Think of all those British grad students jamming the lines on September 30 looking deparately for their next presentation topic.

I believe she has sung now.

It is September 30 and SELF-ADJOINT IS THE WINNER!

Good astute guess. The actual number turned out to be right in the middle of the range sA chose

He estimated Smolin's paper would get 50-69 hits on the UK arxiv mirror, and as of today it has received SIXTY (that is 60)

it also picked up 5 citations in the first two months it's been posted.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/0507235 [Broken]

the fifth citation came from a curious paper by Lucien Hardy
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509120
Probability Theories with Dynamic Causal Structure: A New Framework for Quantum Gravity


Four others of us registered forecasts in the poll, to see the other guesses go here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83578


----------------------

I would like to put in a plug for the ASHTEKAR AND BOJOWALD poll. So far 3 people have estimated the UK hits on their new paper by year-end and it would be nice to have a few more predictions.

The paper appeared 18 September and in the first 2 weeks of its public existence it got 18 hits (at the UK mirror) and 2 citations.

Please go here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90199
and register how many hits you expect by year-end.
I think some people habitually guess better and I'm curious to know who of us does. Maybe it can be learned?

A curious thing is that the 3 people who already guessed in that poll (A & B hits by yearend) all made the same prediction!
All three of us predicted 60-79 hits. Incidentally that now seems to me clearly too optimistic---or I would call it that anyway.