The trick is, at that time most of the possible mass range was excluded experimentally, so it is a bit less impressive. I'm not sure how much tuning went into it (possibly none)
Even a retrodiction can be impressive and/or interesting if it is a sufficiently "nothing up my sleeve" [1] type of prediction. I don't know enough about this field and the article isn't informative enough for me to guess, but it's possible that they made a retrodiction where they didn't tune the parameters for it explicitly and got near the correct result directly. In that case, it would at least constitute some sort of clue, even if it isn't necessarily correct. Or they could have tuned the heck out of it and glossed over it in the article, I dunno.
> Eichhorn and her colleagues are pursuing a different possibility. In 1976, Steven Weinberg, a theorist who would eventually earn a Nobel Prize, pointed out that if you zoomed in far enough, you might reach a place where the rules of physics would stop changing. New realms would stop appearing; the intensities of the forces would stabilize; and gravity would turn out to make perfect sense after all.
Obviously forces of nature go from strong to weak with scale, and there is probably one that is even weaker than gravity holding galaxies together. Surprised this perplexes people.
Asymptotic Safety also predicted the higgs mass (126 GeV vs the measured value of 125 GeV). https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0208
The trick is, at that time most of the possible mass range was excluded experimentally, so it is a bit less impressive. I'm not sure how much tuning went into it (possibly none)
Read on and see the retropredictions of top and bottom quark energies!
Even a retrodiction can be impressive and/or interesting if it is a sufficiently "nothing up my sleeve" [1] type of prediction. I don't know enough about this field and the article isn't informative enough for me to guess, but it's possible that they made a retrodiction where they didn't tune the parameters for it explicitly and got near the correct result directly. In that case, it would at least constitute some sort of clue, even if it isn't necessarily correct. Or they could have tuned the heck out of it and glossed over it in the article, I dunno.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-up-my-sleeve_number
TL;DR: scientists are still pursuing science.
> Eichhorn and her colleagues are pursuing a different possibility. In 1976, Steven Weinberg, a theorist who would eventually earn a Nobel Prize, pointed out that if you zoomed in far enough, you might reach a place where the rules of physics would stop changing. New realms would stop appearing; the intensities of the forces would stabilize; and gravity would turn out to make perfect sense after all.
>TL;DR: scientists are still pursuing science.
if that is the entirety of what you took away from reading this (or, the entirety of what you think other people should take away), that is a shame.
Obviously forces of nature go from strong to weak with scale, and there is probably one that is even weaker than gravity holding galaxies together. Surprised this perplexes people.
Just hand waving a suppose force isn't going to satisfy anybody in this domain, you've got to back it up with some math at least before anybody cares.
'I just made up some random loose assertions that I am taking to be self evident so that I can feel smug about them'
There is a reason intuition is insufficient at these scales - it's extremely frequently wrong. Your navel gazing is worth only the lint you find.
I will leave the comment up for people to vent at. Perhaps their day will get just a little better.
The
>Surprised this perplexes people
Is just really funny. Peak HN, thank you
I only see varchars sometimes where others see Strings.