[G12] Fwd: Momentum corrections

[Moskov Amarian]

Dear Matt,

I have no intention to undermine your efforts to replicate our analysis.
However, you left a trace of suspicion that even after a long time since,
people have something in their mind.

For different reasons we did not complete the full strength comparison
of our analyses in both data and Monte Carlo. Period, you can't refuse this.
At this stage of our analysis, which you are not following closely enough,
the review committee has accepted our data analysis and the fact that we
see a resonance structure. It doesn't mean yet that our analysis is embraced
and released.

Nevertheless you would probably agree  that any discussion refering
to your analysis has to be abandoned due to memory update if you wish
that followed.

I am inviting our colleagues to start from the end of last review, which took us
one more year of work. We simply can not agree  each time to fall back
to ground zero
and start from "already Matt Bellis has shown..." that MC reproduces
the fake peak.

The last committee was  chaired by Elton Smith and included members of previous
committee to preserve continuity and prevent the loss of information.

All songs have been sung, everything under the sky has been discussed
and questioned and checked and recheked many many times.

If anybody wants to bring new issues it should be something new,
like whether g12 data show the same signal or not, or is a t cut obstacle or
what? Does the fact that in g12 we see a signal even without a t-cut
is sufficient
to remove a barrier to g11 data release.

So, we should keep civility, but we are professionals and we can't accept going
around the circle and this is a reason why we refuse to discuss
validity of our analysis
based on your analysis of two years ago, putting it mildly.

And finally to all recipients, we like Matt Bellis, we do not have
anything personal
against him and let the truth dominate our decisions.

Best regards,

Moskov.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Paul Eugenio <eugenio at fsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Matt <mbellis at stanford.edu>
> Date: April 14, 2010 8:27:53 PM EDT
> To: mamaryan at odu.edu
> Cc: Heghine Seraydaryan <heghines at jlab.org>, g12 at jlab.org, Paul Eugenio
> <eugenio at fsu.edu>, Larry Weinstein <lweinste at odu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [G12] Momentum corrections
>
> Hi all,
>    Paul, this may get bounced from the g12 mailing list, as I am emailing
> from a different address than from which I originally subscribed. Could you
> please forward it to that list as a record of this conversation.
>
>>
>> As for the Bellis analysis, I believe his work was shown to
>> have some problems that were not addressed, including
>> the fact that his proton momenta were not sensible, etc.
>
>    That is absolutely not true, Moskov, and you are trying to either
> misrepresent my work or you are willfully ignoring *multiple* discussions we
> had on this matter and which is documented in emails and on the Wiki. There
> were *never* any issues with any mass plots or cuts that were made in my
> analysis. There was *one* independent set of plots that were made in order
> to compare other momentum distributions to ODU's work and the issue was with
> a definition of transverse momentum in Mike William's 4vec class. This has
> been gone over *MANY* times with you and Larry and Igor and others and it
> was *NEVER* used to make any cuts on the analysis.
>    There were *NEVER* any *physics* issues raised with my analysis, Moskov,
> though this is not the first time that you have tried to misrepresent that
> work. I am disappointed that after we had a similar email conversation last
> year on this *very same issue*, that you try to pull this. I have always
> been as transparent as possible in every step of that analysis and those
> discussions.
>    I have no idea what the ODU group is doing now, so I cannot comment on
> it. But do not think that a plotting issue that was solved *days after* we
> showed it at a meeting, in any way discredits the work that I did, nor that
> it strengthens any of the previous ODU analysis.
> --
> --
> ----------------------------
> Matt Bellis
> Stanford University
> (SLAC office)  650-926-4392
> (cell)    412-310-4586
> ----------------------------
>
> --
> Prof. Paul Eugenio
> Florida State University
> Department of Physics
> Tallahassee, Florida,  USA 32306
> (850) 644-2585
> eugenio at fsu.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> G12 mailing list
> G12 at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12
>
>



-- 
Moskov Amarian
Associate Professor
Department of Physics
College of Sciences
Old Dominion University
4600 Elkhorn Avenue
Norfolk, VA, USA
(757) 683-4614

"if scientists as a whole denounce an idea, this should not
necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd; rather,
one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and
judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Brian Josephson
1973 Nobel Laureate in Physics