scientific wager

There are many examples of scientific wagers from the past two centuries, many related to large-scale questions in science at the time.

In 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace bet a flat-Earth theorist named John Hampden that he could prove the flat Earth hypothesis incorrect. The sum staked was {{inflation|UK-GDP|500|1870|fmt=eq|orig=yes|cursign=£|r=-3}}.{{inflation/fn|UK-GDP}} A test involving a stretch of the Old Bedford River, in Norfolk, was agreed on: Wallace measured the curvature of the canal's surface using two markers separated by about {{convert|5|km|mi|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} and suspended at equal heights above the water's surface. Using a telescope mounted 5 km from one of the markers, Wallace established that the nearer one appeared to be the higher of the two. An independent referee agreed that this showed the Earth's surface to curve away from the telescope, and so Wallace won his money. However, Hampden never accepted the result and made increasingly unpleasant threats to Wallace. This test is now known as the Bedford Level experiment.

In 1975, cosmologist Stephen Hawking bet fellow cosmologist Kip Thorne a subscription to Penthouse for Thorne against four years of Private Eye for him that Cygnus X-1 would turn out to not be a black hole. In 1990, Hawking acknowledged that he had lost the bet. Hawking's explanation for his position was that if black holes did not actually exist much of his research would be incorrect, but at least he would have the consolation of winning the bet.{{cite AV media |people=Stephen Hawking |year=1997 |title=Black Holes |medium=VHS |language=English | publisher= New River Media }}

In 1975, Michael Sipser wagered an ounce of gold with Leonard Adleman that the P versus NP problem would be solved with a proof that P≠NP by the end of the 20th century. Sipser sent Adleman an American Gold Eagle coin in 2000 because the problem remained (and remains) unsolved.{{Cite journal|title = Machines of the Infinite|journal = Scientific American|date = 2012-01-01|volume = 307|issue = 3|doi = 10.1038/scientificamerican0912-66|pmid = 22928263|first = John|last = Pavlus|pages=66–71|bibcode = 2012SciAm.307c..66P}}

In 1978, chess International Master David Levy won {{Inflation|UK-GDP|1250|1978|fmt=eq|orig=yes|cursign=£|r=-2}}{{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}} from four artificial intelligence experts by never losing a match to a chess program in a ten-year span from 1968 to 1978.

In 1980, biologist Paul R. Ehrlich bet economist Julian Lincoln Simon that the price of a portfolio of US$200 ({{inflation|US|200|1980|fmt=eq|r=-2}}){{inflation/fn|US}} of each of five mineral commodities (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) would rise over the next 10 years. He lost, and paid the amount the total price had declined: {{Inflation|US|576.07|1990|fmt=eq|orig=yes|r=-2}}.{{Inflation/fn|US}} See: Simon–Ehrlich wager

In 1997, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne made a bet with John Preskill on the ultimate resolution of the apparent contradiction between Hawking radiation resulting in a loss of information, and a requirement of quantum mechanics that information cannot be destroyed. Hawking and Thorne bet that information must be lost in a black hole; Preskill bet that it must not. The formal wager was: "When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state". The stake was an encyclopaedia of the winner's choice, from which "information can be recovered at will".{{cite book|last=Capri|first=Anton Z|title=From Quanta to Quarks: More Anecdotal History of Physics|year=2007|publisher=World Scientific|location=Hackensack, NJ|isbn=978-981-270-916-5|page=139}} Hawking conceded the bet in 2004, giving a baseball encyclopaedia to John Preskill. Thorne has not formally conceded. See: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet

In 2000 roughly 40 physicists made a bet about the existence of supersymmetry, to be settled in 2011, but because the Large Hadron Collider was delayed the bet was extended to 2016. As of summer 2016 there had been no signs of superparticles, and the losers delivered "good cognac at a price not less than $100" each to the winners ({{Inflation|US|100|2016|fmt=eq|r=-1}}).{{cite web|url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/supersymmetry-bet-settled-with-cognac-20160822/|title=Supersymmetry Bet Settled With Cognac|publisher=Quantamagazine|date=22 August 2016}}{{Inflation/fn|US}}

In 2000, Steven Austad and Jay Olshansky bet US$150 ({{Inflation|US|150|2000|fmt=eq|r=-1}}){{Inflation/fn|US}} each on whether anyone born before 2001 will reach the age of 150. They later increased the bet to $300 ({{Inflation|US|300|2016|fmt=eq|r=-1}}){{Inflation/fn|US}} each. The pot is invested in a fund, and could be worth several hundred million dollars by 2150.{{cite journal|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20818|title=Scientists up stakes in bet on whether humans will live to 150|journal=Nature|date=18 October 2016|doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20818 |last1=Fleming |first1=Nic |s2cid=132452686 }}

From 2000 to 2003, scientists placed bets on the number of genes in the human genome in a sweepstakes known as GeneSweep organised by Ewan Birney.{{cite journal|last1=Giles|first1=Jim|title=Wanna bet?|journal=Nature|volume=420|issue=6914|year=2002|pages=354–355|issn=0028-0836|doi=10.1038/420354a|pmid=12459753|doi-access=free}}{{cite journal|last1=Pennisi|first1=Elizabeth|author-link=Elizabeth Pennisi|title=Bioinformatics: Gene Counters Struggle to Get the Right Answer|journal=Science|volume=301|issue=5636|year=2003|pages=1040–1041|issn=0036-8075|doi=10.1126/science.301.5636.1040|pmid=12933991|s2cid=5227212}}{{Cite journal |last=Pearson |first=Helen|authorlink=Helen Pearson (science journalist) |date=2003 |title=Geneticists play the numbers game in vain|pmid= 12789304 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=423 |issue=6940 |pages=576 |doi=10.1038/423576a |bibcode=2003Natur.423..576P |issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free }}

In 2005, British climate scientist James Annan laid bets with global warming denialists concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of US$10,000 ({{Inflation|US-GDP|10000|2005|fmt=eq|r=-3}}){{Inflation/fn|US-GDP}} that the average global temperature during 2012–2017 would be lower than during 1998–2003.{{Cite journal|first=Jim|last=Giles|title=Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down|journal=Nature|doi=10.1038/436897a|pmid=16107801|year=2005|volume=436|issue=7053|page=897|bibcode = 2005Natur.436..897G |doi-access=free}} The bet ended in 2017 with a win to Annan. Mashnich and Bashkirtsev did not honour the bet.{{cite web | url=https://news.yahoo.com/scientist-keeps-winning-money-people-110000608.html | title=This scientist keeps winning money from people who bet against climate change | author=Mark Kaufman | publisher=Yahoo | date=19 October 2018 | accessdate=2019-07-09}} Previously, Annan had directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan says that Lindzen wanted odds of 50–1 against falling temperatures. Lindzen, however, says that he asked for 2–1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4 °C.{{cite web|author=Ronald Bailey |url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html |title=Reason Magazine – Betting on Climate Change |publisher=Reason.com |date=8 June 2005 |accessdate=29 August 2010}} Annan and others state they have challenged other denialists to bets over global warming that were not accepted,{{cite web|first=James|last=Annan|authorlink=James Annan|title=Betting Summary|url=http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html|publisher=James' Empty Blog|date=9 June 2005|accessdate=13 April 2007}} including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by Patrick Michaels in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years.{{cite web|url=http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/yet-more-betting-on-climate-with-world.html|title=Yet more betting on climate with World Climate Report|publisher=James' Empty Blog|date=24 May 2005|accessdate=30 December 2008}} Annan made a bet in 2011 with astrophysicist David Whitehouse that the Met Office temperature would set a new annual record by the end of the year. Annan was declared to have lost on January 13, 2012.{{cite web | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0196v3z | title = More or Less, High Speed 2 and Executive Pay | accessdate = 2012-01-13 | date = 2011-01-13 | publisher = BBC | quote = Tim Harford ... resolves a four year-old bet on climate change between climate scientist James Annan and astrophysicist David Whitehouse}}

In 2005, The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a £5,000 bet ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|5000|2005|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-3}}){{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}} of global warming versus global cooling.{{cite news|first=David|last=Adam|title=Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world|publisher=Guardian|date=19 August 2005|accessdate=13 April 2007|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html | location=London}}

On July 8, 2009, at a FQXi conference in the Azores, Antony Garrett Lisi made a public bet with Frank Wilczek that superparticles would not be detected by July 8, 2015.{{cite web |url=http://sciencepond.com/garrettlisi/statuses/2533216255 |title=Science Pond |accessdate=2009-12-13 |author=A. G. Lisi |date=2009-08-08 }}{{dead link|date=May 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} On August 16, 2016, after agreeing to a one-year delay to allow for more data collection from the Large Hadron Collider, Frank Wilczek conceded the superparticle bet to Lisi.{{cite web|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101550-surfer-physicist-wins-superparticle-bet-with-nobel-laureate/ |title=Surfer physicist wins superparticle bet with Nobel laureate |accessdate=2016-08-22}}

In 2012, Stephen Hawking lost {{Inflation|US|100|2012|fmt=eq|orig=yes|r=-1}}{{Inflation/fn|US}} to Gordon Kane of the University of Michigan because of the Higgs boson discovery.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18708626 Interview with the BBC on discovery of the Higgs Boson]

Zvi Bern has won many bets connected to quantum gravity.{{Cite web | url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140314-betting-on-the-future-of-quantum-gravity/ | title=Betting on the Future of Quantum Gravity| date=14 March 2014}} In 2016 David Gross lost a wager about supersymmetry, but he continues to believe in the theory. In 2017, Daniel J. Bernstein made a bet for US$2,048 ({{Inflation|US-GDP|2048|2017|fmt=eq|r=-2}}){{Inflation/fn|US-GDP}} with Francisco Rodríguez-Henríquez that quantum computers will publicly break the RSA-2048 factoring challenge no later than 2033.{{Cite web | url=https://cr.yp.to/talks/2017.09.20/slides-djb-20170920-quantum-4x3.pdf | title=Quantum Computing: a new record | access-date=20 April 2023 | language=en}} In 2023, John Preuß Mattsson bet $2,050 that the challenge will withstand quantum computing until at least 2050. Daniel J. Bernstein, John Sahhar, Daniel Apon, and Michele Mosca accepted the bet.{{Cite web | url=https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/dezGXaKNNlU | title=$2050 that no quantum computer will break RSA2048 before 2050. Any takers?|access-date=20 April 2023 | website=NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Mailing List}}

In 2021 Alexander Kusenko lost a $10,000 wager to Derek Muller over the possibility of sailing directly downwind faster than the wind as documented on Muller's channel, Veritasium.{{Cite web|last1=Muller|first1=Derek Alexander|last2=Kusenko|first2=Alexander|date=9 June 2021|title=Downwind sailing wager agreement|url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/12XrgPGl_F6zjgiiLG1ksAoM_IvphkSpZDzxwAGM8r3U/edit?usp=embed_facebook|access-date=2021-07-01|website=Google Docs|language=en}}{{Cite web|last=Kusenko|first=Alexander|date=22 June 2021|title=Discussion of the propeller-assisted straight-downwind land sailing faster than wind|url=https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xuN-9C1Gs6MAVTJkhh1vMJw0atmSsTsKDkhEfN898K4/edit?usp=embed_facebook|access-date=2021-07-01|website=Google Docs|language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Woodward |first1=Aylin |title=A YouTuber bet a physicist $10,000 that a wind-powered vehicle could travel twice as fast as the wind itself — and won |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/youtuber-won-10000-bet-with-physicist-over-wind-powered-vehicle-2021-7 |access-date=14 September 2021 |work=Business Insider |date=Jul 28, 2021}}

• {{slink|Long Now Foundation|Long Bet Project}}
• The efforts of photographer Eadweard Muybridge to capture the motion of a galloping horse were not part of a wager, contrary to popular opinion.
• Pascal's wager is not a wager in the sense used in this article.

{{reflist}}

Category:Sociology of science

Category:Wagers