We had a very interesting discussion that had sprouted in the wake of a new bump found by the CDF experiment. As usual everyone threw his tantrums at the possible explanations.  (but makes me insanely irksome if the understanding reflects poor or negative “not even wrong” Physics knowledge and/or a propensity to jump the wagon on delicate thoughts)

SO I decided I would put most of the arguments that I came across, given here and there on my facebook and on the online blog-forums and made a title “Remarks about the 144 GeVbump …” in this blog site.

The reason was to go and check back what exactly was discussed once the fog and mist is clear. You have to be an internet novice to realize that most of the internet sites that are there (howsoever authentic) are in someway moderated to hide some one’s or a groups faults as long as that individual or group is connected to the website owner, a friend, a beer partner etc…It goes not only for private blog sites but also sites that are maintained by reputed scientists and their official organization sites (although less so towards the later)

Since it turns out that the 144 GeV excess grew from 3.2 sigma significance to an effect which is now closing to 5 sigma, with less than double the data (from 4.3 inv. fb to 7 inv. fb, but now it looks like this data was already there ?? but there is a little hide and seek some one is playing with the data?? WE first go with 4.3 in. fb, create a furore and then open all of it. If you create more of a furore you gain more of a mileage, but that’s only when we are correct?? Correct me here. (How do I know so much!! Oh well I am an experimental high energy physicist myself except I refuse to take the Pina Colada if it comes with BS. Since I worked with experimental high energy physicists and 100s of them for a decade I know)

As it turns out all the “not even wrong” (and irksome) explanations given (such as changing the energy scale washes the signal of the bump away) have been confirmed to be WRONG. (They still belong in that category of not even wrong) The 7 % change in energy changes hardly within a 0.2 sigma significance of the newly found bump when it’s a 3.2 sigma bump. That’s about a 6% change of the significance. When someone argued the bump was washed away it means at-least a 100% change in the significance. AT-LEAST and it could be more than that. SO people who claim to be Physicists and experts do really speak through their ARSE? Eh !!

My remarks, all of them have come out to be valid (if you can check them in that article and kind enough to read them sincerely)

I will try to put all the comments in this regard later. (in the wake of this new result of increased significance of 7.3 inv. fb data) But for now I will again point out how given a chance at interesting new things, not just in physics though (a general human tendency to be not even wrong??”), the novice rumor monger always jumps his wagon even at formidable explanations. SO you be a judge what is formidable and what is sloppy, I will just put all this here because at other blog sites some of my comments were not allowed to show up while personal remarks such as “your comments are incoherent” were passed. (valid or not they were clear, you will see, and then you can or with the help of someone who knows how to open the PDG you can check if I was correct or not, well then I do not respect everyone that knows how to open the PDG, they know how to BS and then cover up their BS, what are we, in high school??, what a fucking experience.

What was my response? “Well they just did not see it coherent enough to be included.”

I am quoting from this blog called Resonnaces…http://resonaances.blogspot.com/

“…..In a collider experiment, such a huge departure from a Standard Model prediction
is happening for the first time in the human history :-) I don’t have to stress
how exciting it is. However we’re not celebrating the demise of the Standard
Model yet….”

First of all what a WART.


Manmohan Dash  said…

It’s very immature to say the following (in quotes) “In a collider experiment, such a huge departure from a Standard Model prediction is happening for the first time in the human history :-) I don’t have to stress how exciting it is. However we’re not celebrating the demise of the Standard Model yet, ….”

What’s the evidence that this is actually a departure from Standard Model rather than being a new thing. This could very well be a new particle/resonance yet it is not clear it’s a departure from Standard Model. It could be that Standard Model can not explain this. It could also be that Standard Model can explain this. It is not a demise of the standard model. If it’s a new discovery given to explanations of Standard Model then it will be included in Monte Carlo for future studies say in as soon as the next month. And it will certainly be included in the upcoming PDG edition. If it is truly a deviation from Standard Model then it’s a hint of new Physics beyond standard model and reasons for celebration not a demise of Standard Model. We should be as much glad by the discovery of a new particle as we must be by the discovery of Physics beyond our current understanding. It will open a whole new vista for theory and experiment (and phenomenologists will get free salary) The word is REJOICE not demise.

1 June 2011 08:33


I am sure the parrot did not understand this. SO he comes with a remark (legitimate they think since they put a disclaimer to cover up their ignorance “We have sick humor here…we try to entertain” Who are these guys?? )


Anonymous  said…

Prize goes to Manmohan for most incoherent comment…

Also a special mention to Kea for the usual arrogant “Sigh”, followed by crazy babbling.


I posted something that was not allowed to show up, so I am producing from my head

Manmohan said this which was not shown because sick humor is allowed only for blog owner not for all participants (these blog owners are NOT only sick but silly ass morons) SO what did Manmohan say??


Manmohan said…. “Anonymous sucker, it looks like you can not read Roman, so you find it incoherent. Please go to your eye doctor and check your eyes.

(comment not posted)


So I come again

Manmohan said….Anonymous bull-head, I don’t think you can read Roman, go see a doctor and check your eyes.

(comment was not posted but it incited an answer from Anonymous, I am sure this guy is one of the blog managers)


Anonymous writes: (oh what a favor)

Manmohan, if it’s a new particle not in the Standard Model, then it is ipso facto a departure from the Standard Model.  That’s no slight against the Standard Model; it’s still extremely accurate **within its domain of applicability**.  But even before this (possible) discovery, I don’t think anybody really expected that domain to extend to all energies up to the Planck scale.


SO I answered to the above “not even wrong” remarks but my comments hasn’t showed up yet.

SO I will produce the essence from head.


Manmohan Said…Anonymous…As I said earlier you are mistaken. Something new does not necessarily mean it is a departure from Standard Model.

(I did not say ipso-facto reflects how ignorant you are, as I said they know perfectly how to cover up their own BS)

You can not say so. If a new particle is found and if it’s explanable by Standard Model such as the decay product or decay kinematics of another known particle or decay process then it is clearly not a departure. All newly made discoveries are not departure. As such you can say “well it’s a departure from Standard Model monte carlo”

That is why I had said “it will be included very shortly into the Monte Carlo and in the upcoming PDG. (and you find it incoherent) SO there are 3 things here and not an “ipso-facto”

1. Departure from Standard Model Monte Carlo

2. Departure from Standard Model Physics

3. New Physics beyond Standard Model


If only the fellow read and understood the remarks before calling it incoherent and making a remark to the public that Manmohan makes incoheremt remarks…

(well makes it very easy on him since he is anonymous, the cover up is it’s a sick humor, Go pour some sick humor on your mama, deli-boy)

Disclaimer: My explanations retrieved from memory are not exactly what I wrote on the Resonaance blog and pardon my sick sense of humor, I am at-least not anonymous.  Let us see if my comments show up on Resonaance…Blog.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s