I was at a meeting in Princeton a short while ago, a small and focused workshop for people who are working on fundamental questions in inflationary cosmology. I hope to talk more about the meeting once the website is up (talks were not recorded), but here’s a simple question: what is the likelihood you would attach to the idea that some form of cosmic inflation occurred in the early universe?
My answer was 75%, which I thought was generous. It’s very hard to give a high probability to a speculative theory about what happened at energy scales to which we currently have no experimental access. But I found myself on the low end of opinions at the meeting, where the median was about 90% confidence. Of course, these are people who work on inflation professionally, and have chosen to do so. When I came home to ask the same question of my lunch crowd at Caltech, the answers were more like 25%.
An interesting glimpse into the non-unanimity of scientific opinion when it comes to untested theories. So, just for fun, let’s ask what your personal likelihoods are for the following theoretical ideas.
- Inflation
- Supersymmetry
- String theory
- Some form of Higgs boson
- Large extra dimensions
- WIMP dark matter
- Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration
I’m not defining these very carefully, and let’s posit that we’re not interested in weaseling about what the definitions mean. We’re asking what you think the probability is that, if you were to ask an omniscient being who knew everything about the workings of Nature whether these ideas were part of how the world works, would they answer in the affirmative. What do you think? (It’s helpful if you say a bit about what kind of perspective you are coming from.)
In post #4, ossicle Says:
That’s interesting to me, as an ignorant layman. I thought cosmic inflation was much more widely accepted than that, to the point where it was practically considered settled. THAT’S WHY ONE READS BLOGS, though, I guess!
Hi ossicle,
I think the press tends to overstate the degree of consensus among scientists in many areas.
inflation 100%
supersymmetry 100%
string theory 0%
higgs 100%
large extra dimensions 10%
WIMP dark matter 100%
Inflation 33%
Supersymmetry 10%
String theory – what is it? – since it could be anything 100% or 0%. Use of transforms in later model? 60%
Some form of Higgs boson 80%
Large extra dimensions 0.1%
WIMP dark matter 60%
Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration – Don’t know what this means. 0% All explanation of acceleration will relate to CC somehow right?
I have a Ph.D. in hep-th, currently a postdoc.
1.Inflation 50%
2.Supersymmetry 99.9% (gravity mediation 90%, gauge mediation 9%, something else 0.9%)
3.String theory 99.9% (if M-theory is included)
4.Some form of Higgs boson 99.9%
5.Large extra dimensions 0.0000000000000001%
6.WIMP dark matter 50% (I think that DM is multicomponent, axions 100% are a fraction of it)
7.Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration 0%
1. 100%
2. 0%
3. 0%
4. Exists 100%. Detected at LHC 1%
5. 0%
6. 10%
7. 0%
I am yet another retired electrical engineer with a theory of everything.
inflation 60
supersymmetry 95
string theory 95 (Surely correct at its core)
higgs 95
large extra dimensions 10
WIMP dark matter 30
Inflation – > 0%
Supersymmetry – 0%
String theory – 0%
Some form of Higgs boson – > 0%
Large extra dimensions – 0%
WIMP dark matter – > 0%
Given that omniscient beings don’t exist, what does it even mean for something to be X% true? Is Newtonian gravity true? It would be nice to promote these questions to something you can wager on.
1. Inflation: 75%
2. Supersymmetry: 25%
3. String theory: 50%
4. Some form of Higgs boson: 95%
5. Large extra dimensions: 1%
6. WIMP dark matter: 80%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration: 25%
Physicist, made my thesis 1993 on WIMP-detection. but I’m no longer working in this field.
That cosmic acceleration is driven by something other that a pure CC (e.g., a field which can vary over relative small regions of space/time and a local conservation law, or a field that is quantised and has particles): 80%.
That in my lifetime(*) we will find a more or less correct theory of that which will widely recognised as compelling but untested: 10%
That we will have good experimental evidence for that in the next 200 years: 1%
* Footnote: Estimate of duration of “in my lifetime” can be derived from that fact that I can still call myself young and just about keep a straight face.
I’d like to know how Edwin Hubble would score it.
Also, Proton Decay should be #8.
I think it’s disingenuous to encourage rating scientific models by a single number while at the same time scientists are trying to teach policy makers that more often than not there’s not one simple answer, but various levels of uncertainty that shouldn’t just be discarded but acknowledged in their full complexity. There was an excellent article in a recent issue of Nature on this, see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/4681029a.html
1. Inflation: 40%
2. Supersymmetry (~TeV scale): 75%
3. String theory: 90%
4. Some form of Higgs boson: 95%
5. Large extra dimensions: 2% .
6. WIMP dark matter: 70%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration: 1%
I’m rather optimistic and I think that there are many surprising results to discover in a near future, hopefully. Therefore I would say
1. Inflation – 90% (if this means de Sitter phase in early universe)
2. Supersymmetry – 25%
3. String theory – 0% as a unified theory of all interaction and theory of quantum gravity; 50% for string inspired theoretical tools like AdS/CFT, twistors, etc.
4. Some form of Higgs boson – 10%
5. Large extra dimensions – 0%
6. WIMP dark matter – 80%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration – 30%
1. Inflation………………………………………………………………………………… 5%
2. Supersymmetry……………………………………………………………………….10%
3. String theory…………………………………………………………………………..0%
4. Some form of Higgs boson…………………………………………………………75%
5. Large extra dimensions……………………………………………………………..30%
6. WIMP dark matter…………………………………………………………………..25%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration….95%
I think it’s funny asking people what they think the odds are. It’d be like asking people in Ptolemy’s time if they thought the Earth was the center of the universe or not. We don’t know things until we know em. That being said:
1: 0% we’re gonna need a legitimate GUT before we try to describe what happened so soon after the big bang. assuming there was a big bang.
2: 0% you can’t solve all your problems by throwing more particles at them. just way too convenient to be plausible
3. -100% show me an experiment that can test this! stands out from other stuff on the list because it’s unscientific until there are real predictions that can be tested against reality
4: 0% a particle that makes a field that gives things mass? Isn’t that the ether all over again?
5: -1000000% (see response for #3)
6: 50%
7: 100% I’m still holding my breath for a solution that doesn’t involve antigravity
1. Inflation: 60%
2. Supersymmetry: 70% (though not necessarily low energy)
3. String theory: 30%
4. Some form of Higgs boson: 90%
5. Large extra dimensions: 10%
6. WIMP dark matter: 80%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration: 10%
PhD in hep-ex, strong theoretical background, left physics recently.
1.Inflation – likely to be non-dynamic explanation-0%
2.Supersymmetry – go gluino – 100%
3.String theory – Interpretational – It is more of a mathematical framework- 100%
3a. quantum harmonic oscillators – Interpretational – It is more of a mathematical framework – 100%
4.Some form of Higgs boson – If it isn’t there, I’m taking my money back 8) – 100%
5.Large extra dimensions – Yeah, right – 0%
5a. Extra dimensions – Absolutely – 100%
6.WIMP dark matter – If it waves, it’s a particle – 100%
7.Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration – Its driven by quantum noise, and cosmological constant is not a natural feature, only a parameter in a model – 0%
1. Inflation 3%
2. Supersymmetry 1%
3. String theory 0.1%
4. Some form of Higgs boson 5%
5. Large extra dimensions <0.1%
6. WIMP dark matter 5%
7. Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration 85%
All those theories can only flourish because of lack of experimental data, but their explanatory power is way too small when compared with the amount of novel abstract constructs they require – a sure sign of delusion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1.Cosmic inflation 95%
2.Supersymmetry 80%
3.String theory 80%
4.Higgs boson of any type 99.999%
5.Large extra dimensions <1%
6.WIMP dark matter 95%
7.Explanations of accelerated expansion not based on the cosmological constant 50%
In which of the multiverses, are we talking about? 🙂
As a non-physicist, the only sensible answers I can give are 50% (don’t know), >50% (more likely) and 50%
Supersymmetry >50%
String theory 50%
Large extra dimensions 50%
1.Cosmic inflation 75%
2.Supersymmetry 50%
3.String theory 75%
4.Higgs boson of any type 70%
5.Large extra dimensions 1%
6.WIMP dark matter 15%
7.Explanations of accelerated expansion not based on the cosmological constant 75%
2nd year in hep-ph graduate degree
95% – Inflation
45% – Supersymmetry
25% – String theory
99% – Some form of Higgs boson
15% – Large extra dimensions
99% – WIMP dark matter
65% – Any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration
– hope of distinguishing this explanation from a cosmological-constant explanation, 1%
It’s a strange phenomenon that so many people with little-to-no training in physics and maths have really strong opinions about cutting-edge high-energy physics (or indeed, their very own “theory of everything”, about which they are utterly convinced). I’m not talking about the many commenters here who have offered honest, humble opinions, but people like #89. I think it’s an unfortunate side-effect of trying to bring fundamental physics to the masses (get it?) via pop-sci books etc.