On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 8:55:01 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/13/21 1:28 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > BOTH the THEORISTS and the EXPERIMENTALISTS have several knobs to
> > tweak so that they agree with one another to as many digits of
> > precision as they please.
> This is simply not true. Why bother to just make things up and pretend
> they are true? What's the point?
>
> (hint: if what you claim were true, they would agree; they DON'T.)
>
> I know a lot more about the Fermilab muon g-2 experiment [#] than about
> the Brookhaven experiment or the theoretical calculation. They added an
> offset to their hardware known only to two people who were not members
> of the experiment [@]. The experimenters completed their analysis
> without knowing how it related to either the older experiment or the
> theoretical prediction. This includes "setting all the 'knobs'" that
> Ravi fantasies about (which are not really "knobs", but rather are
> techniques for evaluating systematic errors [%]). After their analysis
> was debugged, evaluated, and frozen, the offset was revealed and the
> experimental result was calculated. Their current analysis used just the
> first ~6% of their data. The recent Fermilab result agrees with the
> Brookhaven experiment's result to much better than the errorbars, and
> combined they disagree with the current theoretical value by ~ 4.2 sigma.
>
> [@] This is now a standard experimental technique, called
> "putting the result in a box", or "blind analysis". The
> point is to prevent the experimenters from consciously or
> unconsciously steering their result to some previously-known
> value. Revealing the offset is known as "opening the box".
>
> [%] These generally affect the errorbar much more than the
> result itself.
>
> It will be interesting to see what the remaining 94% of their data yield.
>
> Note also that there is a recent, completely different theoretical
> calculation. It is currently available in preprint only; it differs from
> the previous theoretical value and is consistent with the experimenters'
> values. If this value is confirmed, and the two theoretical calculations
> are reconciled, the discrepancy would disappear.
>
> It is interesting to this experimental particle
> physicist that the theorists want confirmation of
> results, just like we experimentalists always did.
>
> Finally, note that this is NOT a QED calculation, the hadrons of the
> standard model are important contributors to the theoretical value, and
> generate most of the theoretical errorbar.
>
> [#] Full disclosure: While I am not a member of the
> Fermilab g-2 collaboration, I did assist them in their
> initial muon beamline design, I am the author of one
> of the particle simulation codes they use, and I built
> it on several supercomputers to support their use.
>
> Tom Roberts

This is outrageous!

Am I led further to believe hadronic physics, muons, and what
results flux in "weak" force what makes muons, all this is a linear
point model free from computing it, otherwise what I would put
in for QED?

I suppose I would usually call this QCD, where, the results what
make these in the quantum chromo dynamics, is that the color
in the dynamics is rather the category in the color force, that is
also the strong nuclear force or under the carriers the nuclear force,
where it's still usually approximate that in transition e = mc^2.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:47 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 8:55:01 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 4/13/21 1:28 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > > BOTH the THEORISTS and the EXPERIMENTALISTS have several knobs to
> > > tweak so that they agree with one another to as many digits of
> > > precision as they please.
> > This is simply not true. Why bother to just make things up and pretend
> > they are true? What's the point?
> >
> > (hint: if what you claim were true, they would agree; they DON'T.)
> >
> > I know a lot more about the Fermilab muon g-2 experiment [#] than about
> > the Brookhaven experiment or the theoretical calculation. They added an
> > offset to their hardware known only to two people who were not members
> > of the experiment [@]. The experimenters completed their analysis
> > without knowing how it related to either the older experiment or the
> > theoretical prediction. This includes "setting all the 'knobs'" that
> > Ravi fantasies about (which are not really "knobs", but rather are
> > techniques for evaluating systematic errors [%]). After their analysis
> > was debugged, evaluated, and frozen, the offset was revealed and the
> > experimental result was calculated. Their current analysis used just the
> > first ~6% of their data. The recent Fermilab result agrees with the
> > Brookhaven experiment's result to much better than the errorbars, and
> > combined they disagree with the current theoretical value by ~ 4.2 sigma.
> >
> > [@] This is now a standard experimental technique, called
> > "putting the result in a box", or "blind analysis". The
> > point is to prevent the experimenters from consciously or
> > unconsciously steering their result to some previously-known
> > value. Revealing the offset is known as "opening the box".
> >
> > [%] These generally affect the errorbar much more than the
> > result itself.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what the remaining 94% of their data yield.
> >
> > Note also that there is a recent, completely different theoretical
> > calculation. It is currently available in preprint only; it differs from
> > the previous theoretical value and is consistent with the experimenters'
> > values. If this value is confirmed, and the two theoretical calculations
> > are reconciled, the discrepancy would disappear.
> >
> > It is interesting to this experimental particle
> > physicist that the theorists want confirmation of
> > results, just like we experimentalists always did.
> >
> > Finally, note that this is NOT a QED calculation, the hadrons of the
> > standard model are important contributors to the theoretical value, and
> > generate most of the theoretical errorbar.
> >
> > [#] Full disclosure: While I am not a member of the
> > Fermilab g-2 collaboration, I did assist them in their
> > initial muon beamline design, I am the author of one
> > of the particle simulation codes they use, and I built
> > it on several supercomputers to support their use.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> This is outrageous!
>
> Am I led further to believe hadronic physics, muons, and what
> results flux in "weak" force what makes muons, all this is a linear
> point model free from computing it, otherwise what I would put
> in for QED?
>
> I suppose I would usually call this QCD, where, the results what
> make these in the quantum chromo dynamics, is that the color
> in the dynamics is rather the category in the color force, that is
> also the strong nuclear force or under the carriers the nuclear force,
> where it's still usually approximate that in transition e = mc^2.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03418-1

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 10:47:17 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:47 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 8:55:01 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 4/13/21 1:28 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > > > BOTH the THEORISTS and the EXPERIMENTALISTS have several knobs to
> > > > tweak so that they agree with one another to as many digits of
> > > > precision as they please.
> > > This is simply not true. Why bother to just make things up and pretend
> > > they are true? What's the point?
> > >
> > > (hint: if what you claim were true, they would agree; they DON'T.)
> > >
> > > I know a lot more about the Fermilab muon g-2 experiment [#] than about
> > > the Brookhaven experiment or the theoretical calculation. They added an
> > > offset to their hardware known only to two people who were not members
> > > of the experiment [@]. The experimenters completed their analysis
> > > without knowing how it related to either the older experiment or the
> > > theoretical prediction. This includes "setting all the 'knobs'" that
> > > Ravi fantasies about (which are not really "knobs", but rather are
> > > techniques for evaluating systematic errors [%]). After their analysis
> > > was debugged, evaluated, and frozen, the offset was revealed and the
> > > experimental result was calculated. Their current analysis used just the
> > > first ~6% of their data. The recent Fermilab result agrees with the
> > > Brookhaven experiment's result to much better than the errorbars, and
> > > combined they disagree with the current theoretical value by ~ 4.2 sigma.
> > >
> > > [@] This is now a standard experimental technique, called
> > > "putting the result in a box", or "blind analysis". The
> > > point is to prevent the experimenters from consciously or
> > > unconsciously steering their result to some previously-known
> > > value. Revealing the offset is known as "opening the box".
> > >
> > > [%] These generally affect the errorbar much more than the
> > > result itself.
> > >
> > > It will be interesting to see what the remaining 94% of their data yield.
> > >
> > > Note also that there is a recent, completely different theoretical
> > > calculation. It is currently available in preprint only; it differs from
> > > the previous theoretical value and is consistent with the experimenters'
> > > values. If this value is confirmed, and the two theoretical calculations
> > > are reconciled, the discrepancy would disappear.
> > >
> > > It is interesting to this experimental particle
> > > physicist that the theorists want confirmation of
> > > results, just like we experimentalists always did.
> > >
> > > Finally, note that this is NOT a QED calculation, the hadrons of the
> > > standard model are important contributors to the theoretical value, and
> > > generate most of the theoretical errorbar.
> > >
> > > [#] Full disclosure: While I am not a member of the
> > > Fermilab g-2 collaboration, I did assist them in their
> > > initial muon beamline design, I am the author of one
> > > of the particle simulation codes they use, and I built
> > > it on several supercomputers to support their use.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > This is outrageous!
> >
> > Am I led further to believe hadronic physics, muons, and what
> > results flux in "weak" force what makes muons, all this is a linear
> > point model free from computing it, otherwise what I would put
> > in for QED?
> >
> > I suppose I would usually call this QCD, where, the results what
> > make these in the quantum chromo dynamics, is that the color
> > in the dynamics is rather the category in the color force, that is
> > also the strong nuclear force or under the carriers the nuclear force,
> > where it's still usually approximate that in transition e = mc^2.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03418-1

"We obtained the same results as Richard Feynman in his parton model,
if the partons are identified with the quarks. It later turned out that the
results of the light-cone current algebra are nearly correct in the theory
of QCD, owing to the asymptotic freedom of the theory." -- https://cerncourier.com/a/the-history-of-qcd/

Vacuum polarization energy seems what is working up "triple point".
I.e. that there are various "vacuum polarization energy" kinds in regimes,
there is more than one vacuum with regards to "singular solutions what
results that something like Higgs field is also vacuum polarization".