Who we give prizes to is more a matter of sociology than science. Good science is a prerequisite, but after that it is a matter of which results we value in the here and now. Results that are guaranteed to get a Nobel prize, like the detection of dark matter, attract many suitors who pursue them vigorously. Results that come as a surprise can be more important than the expected results, but it takes a lot longer to recognize and appreciate them.
When there are expected results with big stakes, sociology kicks into hyperdrive. Let’s examine the attitudes in some recent quotes:
In Science, Hunt for dark matter particles bags nothing—again (24 Aug 2024): Chamkaur Ghag says
If WIMPs were there, we have the sensitivity to have seen them
which is true. WIMP detection experiments have succeeded in failing. They have explored the predicted parameter space. But in the same paragraph, it is said that it is too early to “give up hope of detecting WIMPs.” That is a pretty vague assertion, and is precisely why I’ve been asking other scientists to define a criterion by which we could agree that enough was enough already. How do we know when to stop looking?
The same paragraph ends with
This is our first real foray into discovery territory
which is not true. We’ve explored the region in which WIMPs were predicted to reside over and over and over again. This was already excruciatingly old news when I wrote about it in 2008. The only way to spin this as a factual statement is to admit that the discovery territory is practically infinite, in which case we can assert that every foray is our first “real” foray because we’ll never get anywhere relative to infinity. It sounds bad when put that way, which is the opposite of the positivity the spokespeople for huge experiments are appointed to project.
And that’s where the sociology kicks in. The people who do the experiments want to keep doing the experiments until they discover dark matter and win the Nobel prize. It’s disappointing that this hasn’t happened already, but it is an expected result. It’s what they do, so it’s natural to want to keep at it.
On the one hand, I’d like to see these experiments continue until they reach the neutrino fog, at which point they will provide interesting astrophysical information. Says Michael Murra (in Science News, 25 July 2024)
It’s very cool to see that we can turn this detector into a neutrino observatory
Yes, it is. But that wasn’t the point, was it?
On the other hand, I do not expect these experiments to ever detect dark matter. That’s because I understand that the astronomical data contain self-contradictions to their interpretation in terms of dark matter. Any particle physicist will tell you that astronomical data require dark matter. But they’re not experts on that topic, I am. I’ve talked to enough of them at this point to conclude that the typical physicist working on dark matter has only a cartoonish understanding of the data that motivates their whole field. After all,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
There is a pattern here. The “first foray” language echos that of Mike Turner from over two decades ago, when he made the excuse that “the dark matter experiments were just getting started.” (CDMS has already been running for over a decade at that point.) Gianfranco Bertone said he’d worry about dark matter if it wasn’t detected in ten years – fifteen years ago. There’s always a new cheerleader to say the same thing and make the same excuses. Yes, it is a hard problem, but the hardest part is admitting to yourself that you might be barking up the wrong tree.