Hi all,
Some criticism of the Hungarian experiment : https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160607-new-boson-claim-faces-scrutiny/
Cheers,
Patrick
Fyi, Oscar N is one of the world experts on nuclear decay and to be taken seriously. Perhaps worthwhile to invite for a seminar? Op 8 jun. 2016 7:30 AM schreef "Patrick Koppenburg" < Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch>:
Hi all,
Some criticism of the Hungarian experiment : https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160607-new-boson-claim-faces-scrutiny/
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Patrick, Gerco,
But the only complaint is that the disappearance of the previous claims from Fokke de Boer at 12 and 13.45 MeV is not explained?
I don't read any strong objections against the present experiment itself? (Apart that they would have wished for a blind analysis?)
Cheers, Niels
Hi Niels,
Yes. But that's a strong worry. If an experiment produces flukes that go away and there's no explanation why that happened, my opinion would be to assume the present result is also one.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 08/06/16 10:18, Niels Tuning wrote:
Hi Patrick, Gerco,
But the only complaint is that the disappearance of the previous claims from Fokke de Boer at 12 and 13.45 MeV is not explained?
I don't read any strong objections against the present experiment itself? (Apart that they would have wished for a blind analysis?)
Cheers, Niels
Hi Patrick,
Of course Tjeerd is the best in answering this. However I think that the extra work in making the detector acceptance more uniform/understanding your detector was one of the contributing factors in this. This claim, like any others in physics, should just be checked by a second experiment.
Cheers, Laurent
On 08 Jun 2016, at 10:21, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi Niels,
Yes. But that's a strong worry. If an experiment produces flukes that go away and there's no explanation why that happened, my opinion would be to assume the present result is also one.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 08/06/16 10:18, Niels Tuning wrote:
Hi Patrick, Gerco,
But the only complaint is that the disappearance of the previous claims from Fokke de Boer at 12 and 13.45 MeV is not explained?
I don't read any strong objections against the present experiment itself? (Apart that they would have wished for a blind analysis?)
Cheers, Niels
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hallo all, I read the article some time ago and let it pass: my opinion about it was that of Oscar Naviliat. However, I know Atilla and he is not a joke. He cleaned up the improvised act of the early measurements considerably, he got rid of all bumps and did not get the last one....
Just to recall the past: There is also an article in Nature of this sort by Rudi van Dantzig en Fokke de Boer that was highly lauded by the editor. Also that one passed without trace.
The question is how does this boson so effectively compete with normal EM and why has it not been seen in other studies of e+e- in nuclear decays. It kind of surprises me that the theoreticians have nothing to say about that. It should be possible to say something about the coupling strength.
Hans
On 6/8/2016 10:18, Niels Tuning wrote:
Hi Patrick, Gerco,
But the only complaint is that the disappearance of the previous claims from Fokke de Boer at 12 and 13.45 MeV is not explained?
I don't read any strong objections against the present experiment itself? (Apart that they would have wished for a blind analysis?)
Cheers, Niels
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
H.W.E.M. Wilschut -
Laurent Dufour -
Niels Tuning -
Onderwater, Gerco -
Patrick Koppenburg