Comments on: Nima Arkani-Hamed’s letter on multi-muons – and my reply http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/ private thoughts of a physicist and chessplayer Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: A chat with Arkani-Hamed at CERN « A Quantum Diaries Survivor http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-102580 A chat with Arkani-Hamed at CERN « A Quantum Diaries Survivor Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:33:12 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-102580 [...] exploited at the LHC. This caused arguments -better call them exchanges- with Neal Weiner and with Nima Arkani-Hamed (see here for the original epistolary). Nima, in particular, had a remarkable incipit in his [...] [...] exploited at the LHC. This caused arguments -better call them exchanges- with Neal Weiner and with Nima Arkani-Hamed (see here for the original epistolary). Nima, in particular, had a remarkable incipit in his [...]

]]> By: Hello world! « Curious Ramblings http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-102393 Hello world! « Curious Ramblings Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:10:59 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-102393 [...] You can read about this confrontation form one of the participants here: Nima Arkani-Hamed’s letter on multi-muons - and my reply [...] [...] You can read about this confrontation form one of the participants here: Nima Arkani-Hamed’s letter on multi-muons – and my reply [...]

]]> By: Just Studying http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101882 Just Studying Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:48:05 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101882 Well it would be a neat way to walk through walls Well it would be a neat way to walk through walls

]]> By: Mauro Da Lio http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101850 Mauro Da Lio Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:12:43 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101850 heh heh heh... it is obvious that I am an engineer :-) my primary interest is: "will we be ever able to exploit this thing?" heh heh heh… it is obvious that I am an engineer :-)
my primary interest is: “will we be ever able to exploit this thing?”

]]> By: Ptrslv72 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101842 Ptrslv72 Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:16:13 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101842 > (nobody makes unnecessary models). heh heh it's obvious from this remark that you are not a physicist... ;-) I would argue however that this was not a debate on physics (I mean, about the validity of some theory or calculation or result). It was a debate on whether NAH et al. had violated an unwritten but widely accepted ethics code, according to which people should not base their research on leaked information (and pretend that they didn't). Honesty, correctness etc. DO have a place in this. Anyway, everybody else (starting with Tommaso) seems to have moved on, and so should we. Cheers, Ptrslv72 > (nobody makes unnecessary models).

heh heh it’s obvious from this remark that you are not a physicist… ;-)

I would argue however that this was not a debate on physics (I mean, about the validity of some theory or calculation or result). It was a debate on whether NAH et al. had violated an unwritten but widely accepted ethics code, according to which people should not base their research on leaked information (and pretend that they didn’t). Honesty, correctness etc. DO have a place in this.

Anyway, everybody else (starting with Tommaso) seems to have moved on, and so should we. Cheers, Ptrslv72

]]> By: Mauro Da Lio http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101837 Mauro Da Lio Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:42:07 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101837 Hi Ptrslv72 It is obvious that there must have been at least one source of inspiration (nobody makes unnecessary models). However, fact 4), strictly speaking, does not prove it was the ONLY source of inspiration. Unfortunately, there is simply no way to rigorously demonstrate that CDF preliminary data were either known or unknwon (unless we call in arguments like authority, honesty, correctness, etc., which I would not like to see in a debate on physics). Hi Ptrslv72

It is obvious that there must have been at least one source of inspiration (nobody makes unnecessary models).
However, fact 4), strictly speaking, does not prove it was the ONLY source of inspiration.
Unfortunately, there is simply no way to rigorously demonstrate that CDF preliminary data were either known or unknwon (unless we call in arguments like authority, honesty, correctness, etc., which I would not like to see in a debate on physics).

]]> By: Ptrslv72 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101836 Ptrslv72 Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:27:35 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101836 Hi Mauro, your reasoning seems fine to me, but for completeness you should throw in another "fact": 4) a completely unrelated experimental result, suggesting the existence of some unknown mechanism that produces an excess of leptons, was announced months before the appearance of the paper 3) Only in this way is the genesis of paper 3) put in the correct perspective. Cheers, Ptrslv72 Hi Mauro,

your reasoning seems fine to me, but for completeness you should throw in another “fact”:

4) a completely unrelated experimental result, suggesting the existence of some unknown mechanism that produces an excess of leptons, was announced months before the appearance of the paper 3)

Only in this way is the genesis of paper 3) put in the correct perspective. Cheers,

Ptrslv72

]]> By: Mauro Da Lio http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101833 Mauro Da Lio Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:02:18 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101833 I am not a physicist. I am an engineer and perhaps I have a different view. I understand that physicists like the idea of being able to develop models that later are successful in explaining new findings. I do not subscribe this point completely: sometimes it looks like the will to predict a puzzle with too few pieces. And here we have very few pieces yet. Unfortunately in modern physics we are facing the limits of knowledge. We see a number of signs with our experiments and we try to infer "what" is causing that. It is somewhat like to try to explain what is inside a black box by the observation of very few outputs of that box. But even if we could have plenty of information about the outputs, we could never be sure of what is really inside, because we can imagine many possible interiors that produce the same exact signs. So, let us try to use the same method to find an explanation to the recent facts. The facts are: 1) we have a paper which report a possible new phenomenon; 2) preprints and other info relative to the observations were not so securely protected; 3) a paper, which might explain it, was published three weeks before; Now these are the facts. We have two "models". The first model says that paper 3) benefited of some hints. This model is consistent with the facts 1-3 and is a possible interior of the black box. Then we have a second "model" which says that paper 3) was prepared without any knowledge of 2). The second model is slightly better in "fitting" the fact that actually theory 3) is not perfectly tailored for experiment 1). However, it is slightly inferior to the first if one considers the tiny time separation of events 1) and 3). Can we conclude which is the correct explanation? No, in my opinion. One might at this point call another argument: the authors of paper 3) say they had no knowledge of 2). Although I perfectly accept that they can claim that, I think this is not a "fact" but a "claim". Evaluating this claim as the facts 1-3 would be equivalent to “believe" in something. This is something that a physicist should not ask ("belive on his words"). So, in my opinion the authors of 3) are allowed to say that they had no knowledge of the CDF experiment. But they should also understand that we cannot weight this claim. There are two possible explanations and it is not offensive (from this point of view) not to rule out the first "model". I am not a physicist. I am an engineer and perhaps I have a different view.
I understand that physicists like the idea of being able to develop models that later are successful in explaining new findings. I do not subscribe this point completely: sometimes it looks like the will to predict a puzzle with too few pieces. And here we have very few pieces yet.
Unfortunately in modern physics we are facing the limits of knowledge. We see a number of signs with our experiments and we try to infer “what” is causing that.
It is somewhat like to try to explain what is inside a black box by the observation of very few outputs of that box. But even if we could have plenty of information about the outputs, we could never be sure of what is really inside, because we can imagine many possible interiors that produce the same exact signs.
So, let us try to use the same method to find an explanation to the recent facts. The facts are:
1) we have a paper which report a possible new phenomenon;
2) preprints and other info relative to the observations were not so securely protected;
3) a paper, which might explain it, was published three weeks before;
Now these are the facts. We have two “models”. The first model says that paper 3) benefited of some hints. This model is consistent with the facts 1-3 and is a possible interior of the black box. Then we have a second “model” which says that paper 3) was prepared without any knowledge of 2). The second model is slightly better in “fitting” the fact that actually theory 3) is not perfectly tailored for experiment 1). However, it is slightly inferior to the first if one considers the tiny time separation of events 1) and 3).
Can we conclude which is the correct explanation? No, in my opinion.
One might at this point call another argument: the authors of paper 3) say they had no knowledge of 2).
Although I perfectly accept that they can claim that, I think this is not a “fact” but a “claim”. Evaluating this claim as the facts 1-3 would be equivalent to “believe” in something. This is something that a physicist should not ask (“belive on his words”).
So, in my opinion the authors of 3) are allowed to say that they had no knowledge of the CDF experiment. But they should also understand that we cannot weight this claim.
There are two possible explanations and it is not offensive (from this point of view) not to rule out the first “model”.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101825 dorigo Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:36:45 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101825 It's ok Andrea, my being pissed off was over the moment it started. No apologies necessary, keep bugging me about the content if you feel the need to. Cheers, T. It’s ok Andrea, my being pissed off was over the moment it started. No apologies necessary, keep bugging me about the content if you feel the need to.
Cheers,
T.

]]> By: Andrea Giammanco http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101823 Andrea Giammanco Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:44:42 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101823 I sincerely apologize. I recognize that I should have expressed my opinion in exactly the same way and tone as Timo, who expressed what I intended to say, but in a much better way. I sincerely apologize. I recognize that I should have expressed my opinion in exactly the same way and tone as Timo, who expressed what I intended to say, but in a much better way.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101821 dorigo Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:17:17 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101821 Dear Timo, thank you for your note. Let me answer to a couple of points in good order. First of all, why did I open a poll on such an issue. It was not exactly a poll in my intention, although I did call it as such. I wanted to understand whether I was the only one, among informed people, who found hard to believe that such detailed predictions for such a non-trivial signature could come out with exactly the timing one would expect from theorists getting to know about the CDF signal when it was made public internally, and working during the summer at producing a tentative model which could fit that in. My reason for wanting to know other ideas was that if I was really alone I would need to apologize more openly than how I did with the authors. Yes, I can be very wrong at times. Maybe it shows more than with others who express their opinion with more scarcity. So, the poll had of course no intention to find any truth, as is self-evident to me, but as may be equivocal to whomever gets too much influenced by the way polls are used nowadays (to create consensus). Second, I was never really upset. Who upset me most in the aftermath of this thread and the former ones was Andrea, whom I consider a friend and who is a regular on this site, and who reproached me for lingering on an issue on which I was wrong rather than discussing details of the physics. I got upset because I am doing my best to produce content here, and if I do not I am the first to regret it, so I do not really feel I need to be patronized about not discussing this or that physics topic. Now, about the issue of the leak: please let's forget it. I know there are many people who feel as I do, and many more who think otherwise and who believe it is offensive to publically express one's opinion on the matter. Too bad, let's move on. As I said, I do not attach particular meaning to the whole issue. I do not think multi-muons are new physics, and I do believe the whole matter will be forgotten next year. If it turns out I am wrong on this one, well, then we will reconsider the matter. Cheers, T. Dear Timo,

thank you for your note. Let me answer to a couple of points in good order.

First of all, why did I open a poll on such an issue. It was not exactly a poll in my intention, although I did call it as such. I wanted to understand whether I was the only one, among informed people, who found hard to believe that such detailed predictions for such a non-trivial signature could come out with exactly the timing one would expect from theorists getting to know about the CDF signal when it was made public internally, and working during the summer at producing a tentative model which could fit that in.
My reason for wanting to know other ideas was that if I was really alone I would need to apologize more openly than how I did with the authors. Yes, I can be very wrong at times. Maybe it shows more than with others who express their opinion with more scarcity.
So, the poll had of course no intention to find any truth, as is self-evident to me, but as may be equivocal to whomever gets too much influenced by the way polls are used nowadays (to create consensus).

Second, I was never really upset. Who upset me most in the aftermath of this thread and the former ones was Andrea, whom I consider a friend and who is a regular on this site, and who reproached me for lingering on an issue on which I was wrong rather than discussing details of the physics. I got upset because I am doing my best to produce content here, and if I do not I am the first to regret it, so I do not really feel I need to be patronized about not discussing this or that physics topic.

Now, about the issue of the leak: please let’s forget it. I know there are many people who feel as I do, and many more who think otherwise and who believe it is offensive to publically express one’s opinion on the matter. Too bad, let’s move on. As I said, I do not attach particular meaning to the whole issue. I do not think multi-muons are new physics, and I do believe the whole matter will be forgotten next year. If it turns out I am wrong on this one, well, then we will reconsider the matter.

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: Timo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101817 Timo Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:52:52 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101817 I am not a physicist, and I really don't understand most of the nice details in this blog. But I really do enjoy reading - most of the time. Tommaso, by reading your blog for a longer time by now I have gained to respect you. So much that when I do see you clearly upset, I have the itch that you probably have a very good reason for that, I mean, you might be right in your claims. However, if I had read the recent discussion from some blog I had not read a lot before, I had felt a bit more uncomfortable. I had wished that there would have been more filtering on personal claims and expression. It just did not quite look professional. Mind you, I have links to both physorg.com and your blog on my homepage. And this time I happened to read first about this on s Physorg. So I was happy to see a link to your blog and the interesting news. I was a bit less happy to read how you got upset. I am sad because you have probably now had lots of visitors, but they get to read about this silly argument instead of physics. Since I have read this blog before, I know you have been upset before, and sometimes you have been wrong. What I do not understand is this poll. Analyzing their paper can not help you figure out if there was a leak or not: if there are similarities, surely it there is a non-zero probability that there actually is common physics that could explain it? Shouldn't underlying physics force scientists to reach similar conclusions naturally? For non physicist, that would make common sense. And the physics are somewhat too hard to understand. I understand that this blog is for physicists, but there are still a lot of other readers as well. Best wishes I am not a physicist, and I really don’t understand most of the nice details in this blog. But I really do enjoy reading – most of the time.
Tommaso, by reading your blog for a longer time by now I have gained to respect you. So much that when I do see you clearly upset, I have the itch that you probably have a very good reason for that, I mean, you might be right in your claims.
However, if I had read the recent discussion from some blog I had not read a lot before, I had felt a bit more uncomfortable. I had wished that there would have been more filtering on personal claims and expression. It just did not quite look professional.
Mind you, I have links to both physorg.com and your blog on my homepage. And this time I happened to read first about this on s
Physorg. So I was happy to see a link to your blog and the interesting news. I was a bit less happy to read how you got upset. I am sad because you have probably now had lots of visitors, but they get to read about this silly argument instead of physics.
Since I have read this blog before, I know you have been upset before, and sometimes you have been wrong.
What I do not understand is this poll. Analyzing their paper can not help you figure out if there was a leak or not: if there are similarities, surely it there is a non-zero probability that there actually is common physics that could explain it? Shouldn’t underlying physics force scientists to reach similar conclusions naturally? For non physicist, that would make common sense. And the physics are somewhat too hard to understand. I understand that this blog is for physicists, but there are still a lot of other readers as well.
Best wishes

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101815 dorigo Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:37:42 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101815 Yatima, true, I took the liberty of modifying the saying - which I used in its original form only a post ago below. Maybe NAH did not mean to insult me, but I cannot imagine a non-insulting comment written in a more aggressive way. Doug -one co-author- has been much, much more pacate, and we left the topic with a smile. Iphigenia, thanks for your comment. I do not know if I did a service to anybody, but I spoke my mind. I wonder how many do the same thing in today's science business, where people are constantly trying to please and lick, to get better positions and improve their careers. Cheers all, T. Yatima, true, I took the liberty of modifying the saying – which I used in its original form only a post ago below. Maybe NAH did not mean to insult me, but I cannot imagine a non-insulting comment written in a more aggressive way. Doug -one co-author- has been much, much more pacate, and we left the topic with a smile.

Iphigenia, thanks for your comment. I do not know if I did a service to anybody, but I spoke my mind. I wonder how many do the same thing in today’s science business, where people are constantly trying to please and lick, to get better positions and improve their careers.

Cheers all,
T.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101814 dorigo Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:32:19 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101814 Andrea, you cannot write a rather aggressive comment and pretend it becomes acceptable because you insert a smiley at the end. 1) how I spend my time is my call, if you are not satisfied I am sorry -really-, but there is not much I can do right now. 2) you already stated your opinion in a former comment above, reiterating it here is not a sign of benevolence. 3) my question in this post aimed at understanding what people thought, because I felt rather uneasy being the only one expressing my views openly. I got what I asked for, now please leave this topic alone, would you ? T. Andrea, you cannot write a rather aggressive comment and pretend it becomes acceptable because you insert a smiley at the end.
1) how I spend my time is my call, if you are not satisfied I am sorry -really-, but there is not much I can do right now.
2) you already stated your opinion in a former comment above, reiterating it here is not a sign of benevolence.
3) my question in this post aimed at understanding what people thought, because I felt rather uneasy being the only one expressing my views openly. I got what I asked for, now please leave this topic alone, would you ?

T.

]]> By: Andrea Giammanco http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101793 Andrea Giammanco Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:18:34 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101793 Hi Tommaso, I understand your point, keeping this blog updated is not a duty nor a "service work", but I estimate that if you integrate all the time that you spent in commenting your suspicions, justifying your previous comments, finding a diplomatic way to answer to people who felt (legitimately) offended, not to mention that you continued to fuel this unpleasant discussion with your proposal of a poll (!) in this post, well, I bet that in the same time you would have been able to write something interesting about at least one of the four sources of background investigated by Giromini's group ;) I have of course no objection if you say that you prioritize real work over divulgating physics on a blog. What I criticize is prioritizing "brown muck" over any of the two. Hi Tommaso,
I understand your point, keeping this blog updated is not a duty nor a “service work”, but I estimate that if you integrate all the time that you spent in commenting your suspicions, justifying your previous comments, finding a diplomatic way to answer to people who felt (legitimately) offended, not to mention that you continued to fuel this unpleasant discussion with your proposal of a poll (!) in this post, well, I bet that in the same time you would have been able to write something interesting about at least one of the four sources of background investigated by Giromini’s group ;)
I have of course no objection if you say that you prioritize real work over divulgating physics on a blog. What I criticize is prioritizing “brown muck” over any of the two.

]]> By: milkshake http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101778 milkshake Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:14:06 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101778 Lubos personality: The tantrum-prone act is the real persona, the polite tone is the crayons and candies. He will switch back to abuse the moment he determines you are unable/unworthy to be converted into jis groupie. Lubos personality: The tantrum-prone act is the real persona, the polite tone is the crayons and candies. He will switch back to abuse the moment he determines you are unable/unworthy to be converted into jis groupie.

]]> By: Iphigenia http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101776 Iphigenia Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:46:24 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101776 TD said: "However, I am starting to believe we must keep the option open that the authors were in good faith, all of them." When everything was on google for months....including, hilariously enough, discussions about the dangers of leaks?!! haha! However, I do believe that three of them were completely innocent. " After all, who cares. " A lot of people care. I understand perfectly that you are getting sick and tired of this business. But if your suspicions about you-know-who are correct [and -- come on! -- who can doubt that?] then it is a very serious matter. Do we really want physics to be run like this? We can all get very "realistic" and declare that we don't care how the truth is found, but I don't want it to be found in a way that makes me sick. Furthermore, if this sort of thing goes on, it will seriously undermine everyone's faith in the whole process. It's highly likely, as a result of this episode, that *every* theoretical paper on this subject that appears in the next few months will be regarded with more or less scepticism, if not contempt. What if one of them actually had the correct explanation? Anyway, TD, you have no reason to reproach yourself. You have done the community a service. TD said: “However, I am starting to believe we must keep the option open that the authors were in good faith, all of them.”

When everything was on google for months….including, hilariously enough, discussions about the dangers of leaks?!! haha! However, I do believe that three of them were completely innocent.

” After all, who cares. ”

A lot of people care.

I understand perfectly that you are getting sick and tired of this business. But if your suspicions about you-know-who are correct [and -- come on! -- who can doubt that?] then it is a very serious matter. Do we really want physics to be run like this? We can all get very “realistic” and declare that we don’t care how the truth is found, but I don’t want it to be found in a way that makes me sick. Furthermore, if this sort of thing goes on, it will seriously undermine everyone’s faith in the whole process. It’s highly likely, as a result of this episode, that *every* theoretical paper on this subject that appears in the next few months will be regarded with more or less scepticism, if not contempt. What if one of them actually had the correct explanation?

Anyway, TD, you have no reason to reproach yourself. You have done the community a service.

]]> By: Yatima http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101773 Yatima Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:08:59 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101773 Dear Tommaso, >> And since extraordinary events require extraordinary explanations to be believed, I think we need more than the outrage of a few distinguished theorists to wipe that cloud off our minds. But the correct citation certainly is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [Sagan]. Extraordinary events however, may require nothing more than selection bias. I'm just saying. >> I did not call him a liar, he called me brown muck. I had the impression that the meaning was that "the blogosphere is brown muck", not you personally. Best regards, Y. Dear Tommaso,

>> And since extraordinary events require extraordinary explanations to be believed, I think we need more than the outrage of a few distinguished theorists to wipe that cloud off our minds.

But the correct citation certainly is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” [Sagan]. Extraordinary events however, may require nothing more than selection bias. I’m just saying.

>> I did not call him a liar, he called me brown muck.

I had the impression that the meaning was that “the blogosphere is brown muck”, not you personally.

Best regards,
Y.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101772 dorigo Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:14:24 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101772 Oh, and - Lubos. You must be kidding me. You certainly well know that NEW is closer to 10, 000 visits a day than to 1000. My blog totals about 1300, yours I would guess about two and a half times as many. These figures are not hard to estimate. It fails me why you derate your own public figure by showing you cannot be objective, at times. Cheers, T. Oh, and – Lubos. You must be kidding me. You certainly well know that NEW is closer to 10, 000 visits a day than to 1000. My blog totals about 1300, yours I would guess about two and a half times as many. These figures are not hard to estimate. It fails me why you derate your own public figure by showing you cannot be objective, at times.

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/nima-arkani-hameds-letter-on-multi-muons-and-my-reply/#comment-101771 dorigo Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:07:30 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1691#comment-101771 Hi Andrea, thank you for your comment, and of course I agree. I have been rather disappointing in the way I reported about this hot new result. If this was my job I would have no excuse but... This is not my job. I sometimes get overwhelmed by other things that are more urgent to deal with than updating this site. Discussing in detail what I think of the CDF excess of multi-muon events takes a huge amount of time, because the analysis is very complex and no, I do not have everything at my fingertips all of the time - I need to study, document myself, read, copy, as any other mediocre being. So please accept my apologies if I disappointed you. I hope I will be able to offer a reparation soon. Cheers, T. Hi Andrea,

thank you for your comment, and of course I agree. I have been rather disappointing in the way I reported about this hot new result. If this was my job I would have no excuse but… This is not my job.

I sometimes get overwhelmed by other things that are more urgent to deal with than updating this site. Discussing in detail what I think of the CDF excess of multi-muon events takes a huge amount of time, because the analysis is very complex and no, I do not have everything at my fingertips all of the time – I need to study, document myself, read, copy, as any other mediocre being.

So please accept my apologies if I disappointed you. I hope I will be able to offer a reparation soon.

Cheers,
T.

]]>