jump to navigation

Still more on Maiani: Parisi, De Rujula… March 4, 2008

Posted by dorigo in Blogroll, humor, internet, italian blogs, news, physics, politics, science.

No, I am not going to comment further on this internet bubble, which will one day blow but which is still continuing to grow. I just wish to direct those of you who want to get a more complete picture to a few sites where the matter is still attended to. In particular, a few sites have published, in original or translated form, a comment left by Alvaro de Rujula to Carlucci’s blog, and another left by Giorgio Parisi. In the meantime, italian newspapers have continued to cover the matter with their usual biased perspective (Libero discussing the many errors of Maiani in his career, others concentrating on the gaffes of Carlucci).

  • Carlucci’s blog has the original comment by Parisi (apparently unaccessible now) and still accessible  answers by Parisi and de Rujula to her further attacks. I bet she will soon close that thread too, because she has not collected a single positive comment in a thread now counting more than 130 contributions.
  • A very complete account can be found in English in Gravitas free zone. There, you will find linked newspaper clips in pdf format among other interesting documentation on the matter.
  • For other sites, just google around – posting on the matter has become an instant pastime among blogging physicists in Italy. If you can read italian, Dr Psycho’s live journal is certainly worth a visit.


1. Thomas Larsson - March 4, 2008
2. Nicola T. - March 4, 2008

Another last email from Glashow:

> From: Shelly Glashow
> Date: 03 March, 2008 17:51:28 GMT+01:00
> To: Gabriella Carlucci
> Subject: Re: Fw: lettera ingl.doc

> Dear Sra. Carlucci:
> Thank you for your letter of inquiry about the paper published in Nuovo
> Cimento by Altarelli et al. just after the Ting-Richter discovery.
> As you are perhaps aware, the authors’ speculation — that the then newly
> discovered boson might be the neutral weak intermediary — is
> false. This is nothing for them to be ashamed of,
> It is the business of theorists to speculate, and we often find that our
> speculations are wrong. I have published more than a few papers that have
> turned out to have been wrong. So have most of my colleagues. That’s the
> name of the game!
> The Altarelli et al. paper is just one of many published but false
> interpretations of the J/Psi particle. For your information, I append below
> the titles of eight papers from the first 1975 issue of Physical Review
> Letters. All these works seek to explain the new particle.
> Two are correct, one is ambiguous, and five are dead wrong. The false
> papers include two by Nobel Laureates (Schwinger
> and Yang) and one by a winner of the Wolf Prize and the National Medal of
> Science (M. Goldhaber). Altarelli et. al are in excellent company.
> Scientists publish speculative results not because they are true, but
> because they may be true, If they refrained from publishing their
> speculations for fear that they may not always be true, there would be
> little progress in science. Even our greatest heroes, Galileo, Newton and
> Einstein, have published speculations that turned out to be quite false. I
> can supply citations, should you wish to to question their scientific
> competence.
> Sincerely
> Sheldon Lee Glashow
> •
> 1. Are the New Particles Baryon-Antibaryon Nuclei?
> Alfred S. Goldhaber and Maurice Goldhaber
> pp. 36-37 [View Page Images , PDF (300 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 2. Interpretation of a Narrow Resonance in e+e- Annihilation
> Julian Schwinger
> pp. 37-38 [View Page Images , PDF (297 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 3. Possible Explanation of the New Resonance in e+e- Annihilation
> S. Borchardt, V. S. Mathur, and S. Okubo
> pp. 38-40 [View Page Images , PDF (483 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 4. Model with Three Charmed Quarks
> R. Michael Barnett
> pp. 41-43 [View Page Images , PDF (530 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 5. Heavy Quarks and e+e- Annihilation
> Thomas Appelquist and H. David Politzer
> pp. 43-45 [View Page Images , PDF (513 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 6. Is Bound Charm Found?
> A. De Rújula and S. L. Glashow
> pp. 46-49 [View Page Images , PDF (653 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 7. Possible Interactions of the J Particle
> H. T. Nieh, Tai Tsun Wu, and Chen Ning Yang
> pp. 49-52 [View Page Images , PDF (641 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]
> •
> 8. Remarks on the New Resonances at 3.1 and 3.7 GeV
> C. G. Callan, R. L. Kingsley, S. B. Treiman, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee
> pp. 52-56 [View Page Images , PDF (906 kB), or Buy this Article (Use
> Article Pack) ]

3. dorigo - March 4, 2008

Thomas, Nicola,

thank you for your input!


4. Nicola T. - March 5, 2008

“Even our greatest heroes, Galileo, Newton and Einstein, have published speculations that turned out to be quite false. I can supply citations, should you wish to to question their scientific competence”
Great! I propose it as the next say of the week 🙂

More seriously, this grotesque story reflects a sad political affair.
Before it blowns off, as Pistella’s story did, someone should collects all the stuff that now is scattered on the web (emails and posts from Glashow, De Rujula, Iliopoulos, Parisi, Cline… but also Carlucci, Boschi et al., news from Libero, Liberazione and l’Espresso, comunications and official reports, the fake “maianierror” website etcetc) and put them on a single “stand alone” website…

5. dorigo - March 6, 2008

Nicola, I agree… But have no time to do that.

On the other hand, so many sites have written about this story and collected the information that I believe it is very hard to scratch it off the web. The comment column in Carlucci’s blog may be the hardest thing to retrieve, but I have the feeling it has been backed up several times already – and the people who dealt with this issue are non-vanishing bloggers.


6. Giovanni - March 11, 2008


ho appena proposto la candidatura di G. Carlucci per il premio IgNobel 2008.

Sito : http://www.improb.com/ig/

Cosa ne dici?


7. dorigo - March 11, 2008

Giovanni, vale per la Carlucci quello che una volta Walter Matthau disse a quell’altro, “tu sei cosi’ imbecille, ma cosi’ imbecille, che a un campionato mondiale di imbecilli arriveresti secondo.” “Come, perche’ secondo??” “Ma perche’ sei imbecille!”.

(translation: Giovanni proposed Carlucci for the IGNOBEL 2008, and I reply: to Carlucci applies what once Walter Matthau says to his pal, “you are such an imbecile, but such a perfect imbecile that a world championship of imbeciles you would get second prize”. “What, why second prize?” “Because you are such an imbecile!”.)


8. Young Saplings « Gravitas Free Zone Weblog - March 16, 2008

[…] than a month ago. Sure enough, most of the traffic is linked to the Carlucci internet bubble (as defined by Dorigo), on which I finished spending more time than I intended and which most likely is due to burst […]

9. Todd R - January 6, 2009

Theory of Everything

The theory of everything is that reality is a true vacuum or nothing.

Once one understands there is nothing, everything makes sense.

Its all an illusion
Thats why the observer can affect the outcome of experiments.Thats a physics theory.

If everything was real and not an illusion everything would be absolute and the observer could never affect the outcome of an

What the theory of everything is, Reality is a true vacuum,that means human beings are capable of anything.

Human beings are part of everything and so we are capable of anything.

We can do the impossible but we do not believe we can.

So we are hindering ourselves with our limiting beliefs.

I understanding everything I am saying to you is very hard to believe.

I became like this accidently through conditioning. This is not about me, I am like this by accident.
I am very aware or perceptive now.
That is really what has happened.
Somehow in this perceptive state i have no sense of time.
Just sense of being in the present.

I believe einstein was in this state to a degree thats why he was able to perceive what he perceived.

This perception of being in the present , allows me to conclude their is no time.
That allowed me to eventually conclude reality is a true vacuum or nothing.

The logical conclusions you come up with based on, Reality is a true vacuum or nothing are not the same conclusions I come up with.

I conclude that is very good news that reality is nothing. Everything makes sense, everything is explainable if reality is true

I am not saying I am smarter than you. That is not logically possible. You know physics I never studied or looked into physics til
about 3 weeks ago ever.

I am only saying my perception of things is not the same as yours.
I used to perceive time as in past and future.
I used to have emotions perhaps to much emotion.

But since this happened about 3 months ago I lost all that and now I have a new perception.

It was an accident.

All of these conclusions I have mentioned in this post are logical conclusions of logical conclusions.

I am aware if i just tell you reality is a true vacuum, it wont make sense unless i explain it fully.
Or explain all the logical conclusions i arrived at to arrive at that final logical conclusion.

I can do that, but I have to first prove or convince someone who believes I am in this very perceptive state first.

I am trying to work on my strategy to reach someone who can accept I am in this extreme logical state as I call it.

Once i accomplish that, everything will change.

Thats is my logical conclusion to proving reality is a true vaccum, thats is, I must reach a physicist you belives I am in this state

of extreme perception.

I am not a physicists I do not have math sklills and I do not have much intelligence , I am just very perceptive due to an accident

Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space

Dark energy is the mysterious stuff in Reality or in the true vacuum.

So dark energy is not mysterious it is in reality nothing.
Dark energy is just another illusion in the true vacuum.

I need an eddington .

Einstein was not a physicist. Eddington was.

Once eddington proved einstein had unique perception or proved einsteins ideas were valid, the rest was history

Once eddington showed einsteins theory of relativity was valid einstein was accepted to be a physicist.

Up until that point einstein was perceived to be a wacko with his ideas.

So einstein needed an eddington

So I need an eddington.

I can help this “eddington” prove my ideas are valid and not wacky ideas, but I need an eddington who the physicists will believe first.

Todd R

dorigo - January 6, 2009

Dear Todd, the best advice I can give you is to try submitting your ideas to Lubos Motl, who is a real expert. His blog is at this link.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: