Who Does This Describe?

[Dickie Billericay]

Has anybody ever read Gollin's diss? It would be fun to run that through Turnitin.

Turnitin would fall asleep like I almost did reading the abstract.

Here's a link to Gollin's diss, Charm production by muons and its role in scale-noninvariance, published Jan 1, 1981:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod...id=6090198

The author is shown to be "Gollin, G.D." only (i.e., all by his lonesome self with no help from any pals).

This is the abstract for that dissertation:

Interactions of 209 GeV muons in the Multimuon Spectrometer at Fermilab have yielded more than 8 x 10/sup 4/ events with two muons in the final state.

^After reconstruction and cuts, the data contain 20,072 events with (81 +- 10)% attributed to the diffractive production of charmed states decaying to muons.

^The cross section for diffractive charm muoproduction is 6.9 +- 1.4/sup 1/ /sup 9/nb where the error includes systematic uncertainities.

^Extrapolated to Q/sup 2/ = 0 with sigma(Q/sup 2/) = sigma(0)(1 + Q/sup 2//..lambda../sup 2/)/sup -2/, the effective cross section for 178 (100) GeV photons is 750 +- /sub 130//sup 180/ (560 +- /sub 120//sup 200/)nb and the parameter ..lambda.. is 3.3 +- 0.2 (2.9 +- 0.2) GeV/c.

^The nu dependence of the cross section is similar to that of the photon-gluon-fusion model.

^A first determination of the structure function F/sub 2/(c anti c) for diffractive charm production indicates that charm accounts for approximately 1/3 of the scale-noninvariance observed in inclusive muon-nucleon scattering at low Bjorken x.

Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka selection rules and unitarity allow the muon data to set a 90%-confidence lower limit on the psi N total cross section of 0.9 mb.

Now here's a link to a journal article entitled Charm production by muons and its role in scale-noninvariance (the exact same title as Gollin's diss), published Aug 1, 1981:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod...id=6189297

The journal article is shown to have been authored by:
Gollin, G.D.
Shoemaker, F.C.
Surko, P.
Clark, A.R.
Johnson, K.J.
Kerth, L.T.
Loken, S.C.
Markiewicz, T.W.
Meyers, P.D.
Smith, W.H.
Strovink, M.
Wenzel, W.A.
Johnson, R.P.
Moore, C.
Mugge, M.
Shafer, R.E.

This is the abstract for that journal article authored by sixteen (16) people:

Interactions of 209-GeV muons in the multimuon spectrometer at Fermilab have yielded more than 8 x 10/sup 4/ events with two muons in the final state.

^After reconstruction and cuts, the data contain 20 072 events with (81 +- 10)% attributed to the diffractive production of charmed states decaying to muons.

^The cross section for diffractive charm muoproduction is 6.9/sup +1.9//sub -1.4/ nb where the error includes systematic uncertainties.

^Extrapolated to Q/sup 2/ = 0 with sigma(Q/sup 2/) = sigma(0)(1+Q/sup 2//..lambda../sup 2/)/sup -2/, the effective cross section for 178- (100-) GeV photons is 750/sup +180//sub -/130 (560/sup +//sub -//sup 2//sub 1//sup 0//sub 2//sup 0//sub 0/) nb and the parameter ..lambda.. is 3.3 +- 0.2 (2.9 +- 0.2) GeV/c.

^The ..nu.. dependence of the cross section is similar to that of the photon-gluon-fusion model.

^Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka selection rules and unitarity allow the muon data to set a 90%-confidence lower limit on the psiN total cross section of 0.9 mb.

^A first determination of the structure function F/sub 2/(cc-bar) for diffractive charm production indicates that charm accounts for approximately 1/3 of the scale noninvariance observed in inclusive muon-nucleon scattering at low Bjorken x.

Note that the only difference between the journal article abstract and the dissertation abstract is the juxtaposition of the last two sentences, and some minor differences in numbers (highlighted above) that appear to be two different ways of saying the same thing.

Now I haven't read either one of those documents, nor do I intend to, but it is not entirely clear why the apparent very minor differences (if any) between those two documents required the combined efforts of fifteen (15) extra researchers to accomplish.

Hmmmmmm. Well, perhaps those fifteen (15) extra guys are really just a bunch of slackers who rode the mighty coattails of one brilliant physics genius to snag a little publication credit.

Or perhaps...not? Surely George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) didn't "borrow" a little work from 15 of his dear pals and sign his name on it?

Let's connect the dots, shall we?