Andreas Trautner

I am still puzzled about the exact mechanics of that. Also, it is mysterious who does this, no? Any guesses? It is like shorting that stays "under the radar", at least what reporting is concerned no? It seems like you are looking into this, so if it is too early for definite answers, no problem.

Very curious for this already! :-)

Could it be sells? Also, i noted you stopped showing VALE and JD, don't miss out on the breakouts! Cheers

If any error was underestimated, it would be the systematics in input (R-ratio) data used in the data driven calculation. But it is too early to judge that. In principle all but CMD-3 experiment are consistent on the central value+error+scatter around it, CMD-3 is the outlier here.

Muon g-2 announces most precise measurement of the magnetic anomaly of the muon The third and final result, based on the last three years of data, is in perfect agreement with the experiment’s previous results, further solidifying the experimental world average. This long-awaited...

Big congrats to g-2 for this beautiful result!
And congrats to Theory Initiative arxiv.org/abs/2505.21476

But to ALL who claim "the anomaly is resolved", this is just wrong. The original puzzle of discrepancy between data driven HVP and g-2 measurement remains!

news.fnal.gov/2025/06/muon...

Sorry, aber krasse Fehlinterpretation deinerseits von was hier wirklich passiert ist.

"Die lange diskutierte Diskrepanz gibt es gar nicht!"

DOCH es wurde lediglich nun eine ANDERE Theorievorhersage genommen. Die originale Vorhersage hat bestand und ist diskrepant - Puzzle nicht geloest!

Not a good article. Quote: "CMD-3 collaboration [...] showed an inconsistency [...] pointing out precisely where the flaw in previous data-driven theoretical predictions were."
Quote from CMD-3 publication:"The reason for these discrepancies is currently unknown and is the subject of active studies"

"The puzzle" not solved at all. Lattice computation of hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) seemingly converged and Theory Initiative decided to print this number on the frontpage instead of the previous data-driven value. But the original disagreement of data driven HVP and g-2 measurement remains.

This was a rhetorical question. It is not very nice of you to implicitly accuse me of not having read the paper.

Bottom line: The central TH value did shift by as much as it did because they adopted the lattice average.

No right or wrong in this choice. But if it wouldn't agree with expt., what would they have done? What bugs me is how it is perceived publically as a major gain of knowledge, but the only thing that has changed is the frontpage TH number. Science progresses by resolving puzzles, not by hiding them.

Blinding here should be the standard, of course. Nonetheless, let me just emphasize how incredibly simple the methodology of the data driven approach is - if only the data were consistent... The ultimate verdict on reliability of lattice >>predictions<< for me in this case can only be MUonE.

Which is that they now adopt the lattice average and discard the data driven approach, isn't it?

This is a more agreeable statement but different from your original one. The current situation mainly differs from the one five years ago by the fact that the theory initiative decided to print a different number on the frontpage. Consistency of data with alpha(mZ) still calls for a bigger puzzle.

This is misrepresenting the situation. "Lattice wins in the end" would require an existing lattice prediction before the actual FNAL measurement which was not the case. As is, lattice just comes out with a number that agrees with exp. GREAT. But this does not mean one can just ignore everything else

It is not "gone", strongly disagree. Of course anomalies go away if you throw away the old theory prediction and just replace it by a new one. As long as it is not clarified what causes the discrepancy between data driven approach(es) and measurement the original discrepancy stays;stronger than ever

Thanks vaz! My TA conclusion was that EUR should test ~1.23 level corresponding to ~0.81 in your chart in any case. In your words this would mean recession scenario, but we might as well first go there and then reconsider. I feel yields are still artificially propped up by the talking fruit.

Is this the biggest up day in S&P history? Should be by far, no? Market manipulation 101 xD

You name it! But I somhow was prepared for it due to your earlier post... mighty vaz!

Thanks vaz! You post a lot of these plots recently, could you explain how to read these properly or what exactly they show? (or point me to the explanation if it was posted earlier) thanks a ton!

I'm starting to hear that NSF firings have begun. If you're affected and want to talk, please reach out via signal @jonlambert.12

Thanks for the heads up and safe travels.

Thank you vaz, extremely helpful video.

Thanks vaz! This is my real me, have followed you with different names on different platforms (don't want to dox the other accs) since what i sense was the beginning of this journey. Happy we are here finally, and thanks for all you do. :-)

Sorry für alle nicht deutschsprachigen und noch mehr für alle nicht bayerisch-integrierten (umso mehr solltet ihr versuchen diesen Artikel in seiner Tiefe zu verstehen) aber alleine für diesen Beitrag (von Urheber Hans Well) hat sich mein SZ-Abo gelohnt. @szde.bsky.social

Vielen Dank, spricht mir aus dem Herzen! Die Unterstellung dass jede*r mit permanenter Stelle faul werden würde ist ungeheuerlich. Die "Ausnahme von der Ausnahme" im WissZeitVG gehört abgeschafft, insbesondere wenn das ausgegebene Ziel "mehr Leute in permanenten Stellen" ernst gemeint wäre.

Congrats to my MPIK colleagues from CONUS+ collaboration. They firstly see coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering (CEvNS) at a nuclear reactor with significance of 3.7sigma! Paper should be out tomorrow.

Instead of listing my publications, as the year draws to an end, I want to shine the spotlight on the commonplace assumption that productivity must always increase. Good research is disruptive and thinking time is central to high quality scholarship and necessary for disruptive research.

Backing the support part, it's the #1 feedback from my experience. Most important.

Same question. Where is the paper or patent or technical document which proves this is based on sound technology. Doubt unless proven the opposite.

What is the criterion by which speakers are being invited.