Like most pop-sci, there's enough nuance to be found in the papers to tell its own story. I wasn't familiar with the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper, or asymptotic safety in general, and that 126 GeV Higgs mass prediction is the best I've seen. Their paper ends with
"Detecting the Higgs scalar with mass around 126 GeV at the LHC could give a strong hint for the absence of new physics influencing the running of the SM couplings between the Fermi and Planck/unification scales"
which seems surprisingly prescient after a decade of null results from the LHC. So why is this ignored in mainstream (aka not youtube) physics?
Well, a quick search on InspireHEP shows a 2019 paper [1] that adds on Shaposhnikov and Wtterich's. Of note is that an updated top mass value changes the Higgs mass prediction to 132 GeV, rather in tension with 125 GeV. (The paper then cleverly tries to extend the Standard Model to adjust the prediction back to the measured Higgs mass.) The original argument doesn't look like such a slam dunk anymore.
[1] Kwapisz, "Asymptotic safety, the Higgs mass and beyond the Standard Model physics"
You can calculate the error yourself for the most recent experimental values of the Higgs vacuum combined with the numerically calculated lambda from the paper linked above. You get a Higgs mass of 129.6 ± 1.0 GeV at two loops. That's more than three standard deviations from the current Higgs mass measurement. So Hossenfelder's video is - as often - some outdated half-truth. At the current level of research, these values very much suggest that there is more to the Standard Model than we know below the Planck energy. Her whole shtick of bashing CERN always falls apart when you look a bit closer, which is why she only does popsci now and noone in the field listens anymore.
That being said, I still believe that asymptotic safety in quantum gravity is a really cool idea and it's well worth pursuing. It deserves better than to be used as a hammer for people bashing other legit science.
Thanks. But weird… The previous error bounds on the top quark mass were grossly incorrect then? I mean a new estimate for the top quark mass, which is within the bounds of the previous estimate, shouldn’t make the predicted mass of the Higgs jump out of its error bounds, right?
The top quark mass itself was much, much more uncertain back then. The original paper referred to a mass with an error of 2.4GeV[1], while the latest direct measurements give an uncertainty of 0.3GeV[2]. That's an order of magnitude improvement thanks to new data collected by the LHC over the last decade. Also bear in mind that these uncertainties are given as standard deviations. Almost a third of all statistical measurements will fall outside one standard deviation, while less than 0.3% will exceed three standard deviations. Anything less than two standard deviations is usually considered not statistically significant in most scientific fields. The new value is not surprising at all in that light.
Thanks again. But in my mind that doesn’t really explain the Higgs mass prediction/estimate going from 126 +/- 2.2 GeV to 130 GeV… The reason you have that +/- 2.2 GeV is (among other things) that the mass of the top quark mass is uncertain, right? So how could a new measurement of the top quark mass make the prediction for the Higgs mass jump so far (unless the new top quark mass was wildly unexpected)?
“My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much less competition there.” (Indira Gandhi)
There are unfortunately a lot of hard workers who think credit magically appears when you are smart enough, valuable enough, etc., and that seeking appropriate credit is beneath their dignity. This attitude often nicely coincides with their complete lack of skill at sticking up for themselves.
There is no shame in shining a bit of light on your own value. Just don’t make it blazing sun pointing at a small accomplishment.
Sometimes the inability to stick up for themselves is less due to lack of skill than lack of a sense of value in themselves apart from their achievements.
Sure. But I’ve seen a lot of resentment from people that they weren’t being treated well, resentment that was directed at others who should have done this, should have said that, etc. Sometimes that’s correct. But the armchair psychologist in me sees a lot of blame applied to others when it shouldn’t be.
Sure! But be intentional about the cost/benefit of opting out, rather than being pissed that the game-players are getting something you want.
Or find somewhere that operates differently. Some people hope that academia will be different and better than business. From what I can see it is often worse, but ymmv.
There also shouldn’t be any shame in focusing on the work, if that’s what you want.
It follows that shining light on value should be a shared responsibility. It’s not just the creator that’s negatively impacted when we fail to do so. We all are.
I think I actually disagree with Gandhi here. Lol. There are a lot of people that do the work. The numbers of those who take the credit are much less. However, there is usually a power imbalance that yields to their ability to do so. So it's not about numbers. It's about power.
I think that's still consistent though. Lots of people try to take credit, only a few succeed. There is no shortage of work to be done, so there is enough room for everyone to do work.
True, unless you were a child hunted by cannibals during the Soviet era famines.
My observation is simply that giving credit to community-minded scientists costs nothing, but giving credit to psychopaths with the Kings ear can cost everyone their lives. There are always problems with a Meritocracy, as someone eventually has to define what has merit.
I am thankful to have goldfish crackers and jellybeans. Have a wonderful day =)
Well, a quick search on InspireHEP shows a 2019 paper [1] that adds on Shaposhnikov and Wtterich's. Of note is that an updated top mass value changes the Higgs mass prediction to 132 GeV, rather in tension with 125 GeV. (The paper then cleverly tries to extend the Standard Model to adjust the prediction back to the measured Higgs mass.) The original argument doesn't look like such a slam dunk anymore.
[1] Kwapisz, "Asymptotic safety, the Higgs mass and beyond the Standard Model physics"