While the correspondence between the Hon. Carlucci and Prof. Glashow becomes more 'tight (SEE updates to my previous post), finally get an answer to many questions that have arisen:
and is' clearly documented very nice colleagues = Maiani sent an envelope anonymously?
What you see bet-always-seems simply the result of a discrete ghostwriting. It would be interesting to know exactly who commissioned and wrote this artillery fire.
The answer, implicitly, by 'Prof. Enzo Boschi (president National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology), in a letter entitled avvelenatissima against Maiani A note of pure scientific assessment (*).
careful analysis of style and content makes it possible to recognize the hand that actually wrote the letter (which is probably 'the same who wrote the letters of Hon. Carlucci). Here recopy the letter, highlighting the elements that can help the reader identify the character I have in mind (hints: e 'notoriously pro-clerical, and is' obsessed from having narrowly missed two discoveries by Nobel, what he likes very clear to all, whatever the context):
is for me a duty to explain to those who respect me, why I believe we have committed an act of selection is not based on scientific merits. It has been said that the choice of Professor Luciano Maiani was an obvious choice being the scientific career Maiani above any other candidate. Maiani has been presented as one of the greatest physicists, if not the greatest Italian physicist and perhaps even Europe. It is also the largest manager of national research bodies (INFN) and European (CERN). I will deal first and then the scientific value of the ordinary "manager." Few people know that my own scientific work began in Research where he worked Maiani. I graduated in 1968 and I was the first student to graduate with the University of Bologna Professor Antonino Zichichi who gave me the theme of the thesis the problem of "neutral currents" when no one spoke. The year was 1968 and in the lectures of Professor Zichichi I learned about the work of Weinberg (1967) and Salam (1968) on the unification of electromagnetic and weak forces. After graduation I continued to work with Professor Zichichi and I remember the enthusiasm that we passed on to us young people came out in 1971 when the work of Gerardus' t Hooft to resolve the great difficulty of making renormalizable theory "electroweak" Salam, Weinberg and Glashow.Ebbi the privilege to personally meet the teacher being Salam Zichichi Salam and close friends. The experimental discovery of "neutral currents" at CERN was a great satisfaction for me as this is a subject on which 5 years before I had done my tesi.Questa long introduction to explain that the area where Maiani has worked with Glashow and Iliopoulos was well known to me. In fact, in the professor's lectures Zichichi hours were devoted to the frontiers of physics at that time and the universality of the weak force was a central theme. I learned of the existence of the angle Cabibbo and difficulties related to the fact that they never foresaw the existence of decays observed (the so-called changing neutral weak currents "strangeness" quantum number introduced by Gell-Mann to describe the discovery of the particles "strange", constructed in Professor Blackett's laboratory from which was my teacher Professor Zichichi ). The lessons of Professor Zichichi learned that this was why Gell-Mann and Levy were limited to writing a footnote on page famous in their theoretical model published in 1960. That brief, however, before the introduction of the Cabibbo his "corner" and in fact, that corner should be called Gell-Mann and Levy, Cabibbo, not Cabibbo angle. Angle, however, not allowed to explain why no one had ever seen the jobs generated by the "weak neutral current with changes in strangeness." This explanation is found by Glashow and his collaborators Iliopoulos Maiani. Maiani was indeed fortunate to be in that same year to work with Glashow. It was he, Glashow, who had the idea that there was a new "quark" has a new position called "flavor" subnuclear Glashow which gave the name of "charm". Glashow did his best to convince the scientific community to try to find out experimentally this new type of quark. It was necessary to discover new particles with "charm" so that what is now called GIM mechanism (the initials of Glashow, Iliopoulos and Maiani) may have had the baptism of the experimental evidence. On these issues, Professor Glashow held in those years a number of lessons in the School of Subnuclear Physics world's most prestigious founded and directed by my teacher Professor Zichichi . While physicists were working on these formidable issues comes in a totally unexpected ( are words of Zichichi ) the discovery of a "resonance close" to the mass of 3.1 GeV (three billion one hundred million electron volts). This discovery was made almost simultaneously to the laboratory BNL (New York) by Samuel Ting and SLAC (Stanford) by Burt Richter. We are in the fall of 1974. Note that in 1967 Professor Zichichi had presented a research project in Frascati for the new car in the collision of electrons and antielectrons (known as Adonis) to study "narrow resonances" and the "third lepton" . As wrote in a memorable review the work of Professor Claudio Villa (INFN president in those years) the two greatest discoveries of the second half of the twentieth century could be made if it had been approved in Frascati draft Zichichi . These studies, however, had been stamped by the head of the theoretical research Frascati - Carlo Bernardini, close friend of Maiani in signing the letter raving against Benedict XVI at La Sapienza - with the fateful bar " Zichichi looking butterflies." The facts, however, have shown that these butterflies have produced two Nobel Prize winners not to Ting-Richter (for the narrow resonance) and Perl (for the third lepton) but to Antonino Zichichi who had worked on this research project in which including some technological inventions were made by him to Geneva to demonstrate the feasibility perfect. As I here briefly presented and disclosed in the scientific literature in all dettagli.Torniamo in Frascati in the fall of 1974. Zichichi Laboratories had left because his project to search for "narrow resonances and for the third lepton had been" branded "by Carlo Bernardini," Butterflies. "It is the first of these" butterflies "that Maiani , Cabibbo, Petronzio, Parisi ( another signatory against Benedict XVI ) and Salvini, they lose their scientific credibility. The work published by physicists from Frascati on the discovery of the "narrow resonance" are in fact all wrong. Maiani, Glashow author of the work provided for the existence of a new "quarks" would immediately think of the correct interpretation in terms of a new meson made of a quark-antiquark pair with "charm" as predicted by Glashow. But no: the great physicists from Frascati, Cabibbo, Parisi, Petronzio, Altarelli, they all throw in the incredible failure to explain it as if it were the weak-boson, forgetting that this weak boson should have been at least thirty times heavier. The group of Salvini instead publish a work in which the new particle decays into two "photons" of high energy. In this way, the narrow resonance seemed to be explained as due to electromagnetic forces. Results of other experiments performed at SLAC have shown that the experimental results of Salvini on decays into two photons were (and are) wrong. In short, the physical Frascati ( friends of the 67 famous scientists Carlo Bernardini, Cini, Frova, all signatories to the letter against Benedict XVI delusional ), have taken a number of glaring blunders, with the aggravating circumstance that some of them ( Cabibbo, Maiani and Parisi) should have the right knowledge to correctly interpret the "resonance close" discovered in America. This resonance it has nothing to do with either the weak forces (such as pretending to have understood Cabibbo, Maiani Petronzio et al.) Or with the electromagnetic forces (group Salvini). And do not forget that this "narrow resonance" was discovered at Frascati by Zichichi if he had not prevailed, the theory of "butterflies" imposed by Carlo Bernardini and his companions against Zichichi . The conclusion that emerges from this brief review is that Maiani neither his colleagues nor the authors of the ridiculous interpretation of the "narrow resonance" may be considered great physicists. In physics to get a reputation it takes a lifetime to lose a job just wrong on a crucial problem ( words that my teacher kept saying to us young researchers Zichichi ). Let now the general manager what should be scientific Maiani, who sustained the INFN and CERN. One who did not revive the INFN Maiani but the professor Antonino Zichichi in 1977 opened the new projects INFN, Gran Sasso (Abruzzo), CS (superconducting cyclotron Milan, Catania) LEP (CERN , Geneva) and HERA (DESY, Hamburg). As for the CERN just read what was written in Nature, and other foreign newspapers to know what mistakes have marked the leadership of CERN by Maiani.Due final words: If it were not for the Irpinia earthquake my scientific career was to be held in the same physical where he worked Maiani. And indeed it was from the earthquake that my career has been a breakthrough, thanks to Zichichi and Pertini. But that's another scientific adventure.
The word appears 19 times with Z in this text.
For the complete demolition of this letter, just follow the link already 'given above (ie' this ) and read the comments. Other comments here very clear.
Meanwhile I discover with dismay that the original source of Carlucci, at least officially, it was a hoax website, written in poor English, fraudulently signed David Cline (an important physical), dedicated to defame Maiani e ampiamente pubblicizzato da Libero . Appena l'ha saputo, David Cline si e' arrabbiato, il sito e' sparito, Libero ha pubblicato una smentita .
Qui l'incazzatura di David Cline (quello vero):
Dear Sir,
I have received mail concerning remarks erroneously attributed to me about the appointment of Professor Luciano Maiani as President of the Italian CNR.
I want to state that I am not connected in any way with these comments, nor with the e-mail address they were sent from, nor with the website:
http://maianierror.awardspace.com/
which is fraudulent. I have not been affiliated with the University of Wisconsin for many years and my only email address is from UCLA.
I asked the UCLA HEP/Dark Matter webmaster, D.L. MacLaughlan-Dumes, to request that the web host, Awardspace.com, remove the page. This has been done successfully.
You are welcome to forward this message to anyone in order to clarify my position.
I retain the right of any other action that may be required to protect my reputation.
Sincerely, David B. Cline
UCLA Physics & Astronomy
Il sito non esiste piu' ma niente paura, qualcuno l'ha salvato .
Cascano le braccia, eh?
(*) Il sito su cui e' pubblicato e' il blog dell'associazione Values and Freedom ', which writes the Hon. Carlucci.
I strongly recommend you read the comments linked to the post.
A blog that is following the story very well and 'this:
http://gravitasfreezone.wordpress.com/
[Update 02/25/2008:]
In this post, commenting on the Woods letter, I wrote an evil ': the suggestion that the letter has written Z. and the Woods has just signed.
This would explain not only how he can be so 'on detailed scientific biography of Z, but also how it can be so' vague about the petitioner's! (Who claims to have had the opportunity 'to move to geophysics after the Irpinia earthquake, but the Irpinia earthquake and 'of 1980 and the beginning of career in geophysics of Woods' in the early '70s.)
However, it is confirmed that the theorem to think the worst one guesses:
Among other things, the document is written by Fiorella approximate Ruggiu, Zichichi's collaborator at the Centro Ettore Majorana in Erice, using a registered copy of Word Forza Italy.
[Update 02/28/2008:]
Thanks to a reader can link this letter of Iliopoulos (the third co-author, along with Maiani and Glashow, the 1970 article that you and 'talked continuously in this matter) with a large glossary of a collaborator of the Italian Iliopoulos, Coriano '.
If someone 'really interested in understanding what' that you are talking about (at a level that is still understandable to a layperson), in addition to the historical context (and therefore 'cause Maiani did not steal the fame that has), and' a valuable reading.
[Update 09/03/2008:]
The Hon. Carlucci stressed ad nauseam . Particularly noteworthy in the crash conspiracy: Here is the text of the article published in 1974 and then disappeared in all databases [...] . But
and 'great new answer to the most patient Parisi:
BACK TO THE FUTURE IV.
An article of 1974 would have prevented Zichichi have had funding in 1972 (or even before)! We would have been nearly as good as Woods, who in 1971 decided to do the geophysics because of the Irpinia earthquake of 1980.
THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT.
Article 1974 is not 'never disappeared from the digital data base as it has never been included: in 1974, the digital data base did not exist! Obviously the article is mentioned with the title and authors on Google Scholar, so it's not a big scoop look at libraries.
MINUTES, MINUTES, MINUTES
repeat ad nauseam. As advisory board we have not made formal minutes for the good reason that did not serve them as an informal committee. Only a masochist would unnecessarily minutes. In any case I think the advisory committee was experienced enough to write reports to a strong appeal to the TAR.
dancers
I do not see anything wrong with a dancer.
For example I am part of a group of Greek dances, Kenneth Wilson is a fan of ethnic dances, Feynmann played for a samba group in Rio for the carnival. (They got the Nobel, I did not, shame!)
0 comments:
Post a Comment