Here are a couple predictions from astrophysics that blow my mind:
In the '40s and '50s, assuming the Universe was something like 10-15 billion years old and that General Relativity worked, Gamow and his students predicted a leftover heat of 5-10K. The real number is 3K, but that was a crazy awesome prediction for the leftover heat of the Big Bang that hadn't been discovered yet.
The other one that doesn't get enough press is the prediction of what elements formed in the first minutes of the Big Bang -- 75% H (by mass), 25% He, 1 atom of deuterium per 100,000, and 1-2 atoms of lithium per 10 billion (along with others). These are specific predictions of what we should see in primordial gas clouds covering 12 orders of magnitude, and it's *what we actually see* with small errors. That it's anywhere in the ballpark for all these elements simultaneously is just astonishing.
"Recency bias" plays a major role in many predictions not working out, because none of us can truly predict or manipulate future events. There are occasions when an individual or a product does live to the prediction of its enduring potential, but that has nothing to do with an early prediction of same.
Which is why the majority of these predictions are merely hype.
The most precise physical prediction in history is the electron anomalous magnetic moment (\(a_{e}\)). Theoretical predictions from Quantum Electrodynamics match experimental results to 11 significant digits (about 0.16 parts per trillion), making it the most stringently tested theory in science.
Here are a couple predictions from astrophysics that blow my mind:
In the '40s and '50s, assuming the Universe was something like 10-15 billion years old and that General Relativity worked, Gamow and his students predicted a leftover heat of 5-10K. The real number is 3K, but that was a crazy awesome prediction for the leftover heat of the Big Bang that hadn't been discovered yet.
The other one that doesn't get enough press is the prediction of what elements formed in the first minutes of the Big Bang -- 75% H (by mass), 25% He, 1 atom of deuterium per 100,000, and 1-2 atoms of lithium per 10 billion (along with others). These are specific predictions of what we should see in primordial gas clouds covering 12 orders of magnitude, and it's *what we actually see* with small errors. That it's anywhere in the ballpark for all these elements simultaneously is just astonishing.
These are great! I don’t know if you can call it a prediction or not, but 2.00231930436… as the value for g is really, really impressive.
Oh, absolutely, that's a great one. Not many predictions are within a ten-trillionth of the measured value!
I mean, it's *pretty* close.
"Recency bias" plays a major role in many predictions not working out, because none of us can truly predict or manipulate future events. There are occasions when an individual or a product does live to the prediction of its enduring potential, but that has nothing to do with an early prediction of same.
Which is why the majority of these predictions are merely hype.
What about the tiny minority? Got any favorites from history?
Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky both became the pro hockey legends everyone at the start of their careers said they were going to be.
This makes me think of Babe Ruth's supposed "called shot" - he pointed to the bleachers and then hit a home run on the next pitch, supposedly.
Yes. He’d be playing long enough by that time to actually be able to do that.
On the other hand, nobody knows if he really did, apparently!
The Babe was an unpredictable guy- a lot of the time you never knew if he was going to show up for a game drunk or sober.
The most precise physical prediction in history is the electron anomalous magnetic moment (\(a_{e}\)). Theoretical predictions from Quantum Electrodynamics match experimental results to 11 significant digits (about 0.16 parts per trillion), making it the most stringently tested theory in science.
Physics always feels like cheating in situations like this.
I mean, you’re right, of course!
Hahaha!
I worked with classification my entire scientific career. A confusion matrix is helpful to see different errors.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Confusion_matrix
Oh and "skin the game" is the true indicator of a serious prediction. See Nassim Taleb.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb
I agree. If you don’t have any skin, you’re speculating. Nothing wrong with that - but there needs to be a distinction drawn.
Soros and the £
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp
Yep, that’s a good one. How about Michael Burry?
Also good but very early
Great point. Maybe Einhorn? Was he a bit later? Either way, I like the finance angle here.
I predict every social platform will build native or integrate existing prediction markets
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/28879761546260-How-do-I-embed-Polymarket-odds-on-Substack
They are everywhere, aren't they?