Andreas Trautner
@trautner13.bsky.social
Physicist at CFTP IST Lisbon -- back to social media with advent of bsky.
Ideas are my own. Opt in to any of my ideas and net out -- I'm gonna expect 10% royalties.
Ideas are my own. Opt in to any of my ideas and net out -- I'm gonna expect 10% royalties.
Nice! Why smooth it out though? It is discrete data so I think towers on a 2d plane (basically spread out in the second dimension what you usually code in colors) should look the best. Maybe just my opinion though :-)
November 19, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Nice! Why smooth it out though? It is discrete data so I think towers on a 2d plane (basically spread out in the second dimension what you usually code in colors) should look the best. Maybe just my opinion though :-)
Absolutely amazing vaz! Love to see how far you have gotten and i'm quite excited about trying it out. A "3D" view for OI would still be nice :-)
November 18, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Absolutely amazing vaz! Love to see how far you have gotten and i'm quite excited about trying it out. A "3D" view for OI would still be nice :-)
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.
October 21, 2025 at 1:18 PM
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! :-)
October 1, 2025 at 2:05 PM
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
September 16, 2025 at 9:27 PM
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.
June 9, 2025 at 1:39 PM
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.
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!
"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!
June 4, 2025 at 9:19 PM
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!
"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"
Quote from CMD-3 publication:"The reason for these discrepancies is currently unknown and is the subject of active studies"
June 4, 2025 at 9:09 PM
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"
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.
June 4, 2025 at 8:49 PM
"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.
Bottom line: The central TH value did shift by as much as it did because they adopted the lattice average.
June 3, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
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.
June 3, 2025 at 8:25 PM
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.
June 3, 2025 at 8:16 PM
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?
June 3, 2025 at 8:08 PM
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.
June 3, 2025 at 8:05 PM
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
June 3, 2025 at 5:57 PM
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
June 3, 2025 at 5:53 PM
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.
June 3, 2025 at 1:51 PM
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
April 9, 2025 at 10:08 PM
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!
April 8, 2025 at 8:05 PM
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!
March 20, 2025 at 7:21 PM
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!
Thanks for the heads up and safe travels.
February 13, 2025 at 3:18 PM
Thanks for the heads up and safe travels.
Thank you vaz, extremely helpful video.
February 3, 2025 at 11:57 PM
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. :-)
January 22, 2025 at 8:45 PM
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. :-)