3 ms·

I'm not a physicist but the discovery of the Higgs boson probably put paid to a number of competing theories [0]. Some papers probably are well-reviewed and ev

I'm not a physicist but the discovery of the Higgs boson probably put paid to a number of competing theories [0]. Some papers probably are well-reviewed and evaluated. But as a small experiment, I picked a paper at random (Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work [1]) from this year's AEA conference and had a look through it. Despite having a promising title, there is (to my mind) no content in there. Nothing but unjustified assumptions about 'production functions' and 'productivity'. I don't see how a paper like that tells us anything about artificial intelligence or automation or work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Higgs_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_H... [1] https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZrKTnsf https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZr...

kurthr 9y ago
Well, kinda. The Higgs and Higgsless proposals mostly go back to the 60s and mid 70s, even if some papers are later. The actual discovery was on 2012 40-50 years later and the Nobel handed out. A random short paper from even a good journal like Phys Rev Letters is unlikely to be Nobel earthbreaking either, much less have effort to debunk it. As an undergrad I had to discover that the 20 year olf PRL used as a basis for the 2 week Lab (Thorium C x-section) actually had an incorrect analysis. All data taken was at the wrong energies so we had to spot the error, rederive the equation and values to measure it correctly before the halflife brought our counts down too low. That PRL was never corrected and the TAs comment was, "that'll teach you to trust some random derivation you found in an article somewhere". Similar story about the incorrect Hydrogen radius expectation value integrating factor in Baym. Even text books aren't always correct.

kurthr 9y ago

Well, kinda. The Higgs and Higgsless proposals mostly go back to the 60s and mid 70s, even if some papers are later. The actual discovery was on 2012 40-50 years later and the Nobel handed out. A random short paper from even a good journal like Phys Rev Letters is unlikely to be Nobel earthbreaking either, much less have effort to debunk it. As an undergrad I had to discover that the 20 year olf PRL used as a basis for the 2 week Lab (Thorium C x-section) actually had an incorrect analysis. All data taken was at the wrong energies so we had to spot the error, rederive the equation and values to measure it correctly before the halflife brought our counts down too low. That PRL was never corrected and the TAs comment was, "that'll teach you to trust some random derivation you found in an article somewhere". Similar story about the incorrect Hydrogen radius expectation value integrating factor in Baym. Even text books aren't always correct.