Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#31

Post by particleguy »

account73466 wrote: post #25
particleguy wrote: post #17

This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. All of this hype about the X17 particle is coming from a pre-print on the arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459 They claim a 7.2 sigma result, but the distribution of the null-hypothesis (called PDF(exp) in the paper) was determined from simulations of one atomic transition and "external pair creation on the target backing", and the only source of systematic error they took…

>> This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math. >> that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it does say something about the sloppiness of the researcher, I think. Interesting. BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers.

>> ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math.

Correct, and they are usually followed up by a published, peer-reviewed paper as well. I look forward to the day this one also gets reviewed and published.

Higgs boson discovery pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 Higgs boson discovery paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931...

It's essentially the same text.

>> BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers.

Great

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#32

Post by gliese1337 »

account73466 wrote: post #25
particleguy wrote: post #17

This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. All of this hype about the X17 particle is coming from a pre-print on the arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459 They claim a 7.2 sigma result, but the distribution of the null-hypothesis (called PDF(exp) in the paper) was determined from simulations of one atomic transition and "external pair creation on the target backing", and the only source of systematic error they took…

>> This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math. >> that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it does say something about the sloppiness of the researcher, I think. Interesting. BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers.

Yes, they are normal... but they also aren't even peer-reviewed yet.

Ergo, you can treat it as more significant than a random physics crank posting on his blog, but not as trustworthy as something that has in fact been properly vetted.

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#33

Post by dudydidudy »

derefr wrote: post #27
dudydidudy wrote: post #26

That seems more like not speaking English than not being a native English speaker. If you can't be bothered to pay for something until it's published why should the reviewers be obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt?

Because being cheap has no correlation with being a bad scientist?

If you can't be bothered to communicate clearly then you have expressed a lack of interest in being understood clearly. If you don't want to publish in English then don't publish in journals that require English.

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#34

Post by galeaspablo »

dudydidudy wrote: post #26

That seems more like not speaking English than not being a native English speaker. If you can't be bothered to pay for something until it's published why should the reviewers be obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt?

It is possible for researchers to have limited institutional budgets and relatively low wages. Of course, final versions should be properly corrected. But please keep in mind that some might not have the best means / fortunes. Science does benefit from the substance of the paper getting reviews before the final version that will be there for the ages.

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#35

Post by tspiteri »

dudydidudy wrote: post #33
derefr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being cheap has no correlation with being a bad scientist?

If you can't be bothered to communicate clearly then you have expressed a lack of interest in being understood clearly. If you don't want to publish in English then don't publish in journals that require English.

There's a difference between bad grammar/spelling and ambiguity; ambiguity is the worse issue. Some journals have fields in their review report where reviewers can say if the text is unambiguous, but no field about grammar or spelling in general.

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#36

Post by account73466 »

dudydidudy wrote: post #33
derefr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being cheap has no correlation with being a bad scientist?

If you can't be bothered to communicate clearly then you have expressed a lack of interest in being understood clearly. If you don't want to publish in English then don't publish in journals that require English.

The main author has many papers in Physical Review but here it is just arXiv, which journal you are talking about?

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#37

Post by multjoy »

dudydidudy wrote: post #33
derefr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being cheap has no correlation with being a bad scientist?

If you can't be bothered to communicate clearly then you have expressed a lack of interest in being understood clearly. If you don't want to publish in English then don't publish in journals that require English.

Hark at Mr Gatekeeper here. It’s up to the journals whether they’re content to allow the editing once they’ve finished the reviews

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#38

Post by bruckie »

particleguy wrote: post #17

This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. All of this hype about the X17 particle is coming from a pre-print on the arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459 They claim a 7.2 sigma result, but the distribution of the null-hypothesis (called PDF(exp) in the paper) was determined from simulations of one atomic transition and "external pair creation on the target backing", and the only source of systematic error they took…

Username checks out.

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#39

Post by blondin »

dudydidudy wrote: post #26

That seems more like not speaking English than not being a native English speaker. If you can't be bothered to pay for something until it's published why should the reviewers be obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt?

> why should the reviewers be obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt?

because that's what they are supposed to be doing? and beside, i wonder if those reviews are actually free...

Re: New boson appears in nuclear decay, could break standard model if confirmed

#40

Post by ephimetheus »

account73466 wrote: post #25
particleguy wrote: post #17

This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. All of this hype about the X17 particle is coming from a pre-print on the arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459 They claim a 7.2 sigma result, but the distribution of the null-hypothesis (called PDF(exp) in the paper) was determined from simulations of one atomic transition and "external pair creation on the target backing", and the only source of systematic error they took…

>> This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math. >> that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it does say something about the sloppiness of the researcher, I think. Interesting. BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers.

It’s actually two Krasznahorkays on this paper. I know one of them, and he’s very thorough.
Post reply on HN