 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Created talk-page
editCreated the talk-page for the "X17 particle" article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Citations
editCitations 3,5,8,9,10 are to popular news sources rather than to scientific literature. The claims should be verified and the citations replaced with peer reviewed sources. 178.197.225.87 (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC) [added ip s/ Drbogdan (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)]
Protophobic?
editIs it “protophobic” or “photophobic”? 72.66.58.236 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC) [added ip s/ Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)]
- Thank you for your question - seems at least four references[1][2][3][4] note "protophobic X boson" - apparently, "protophobic" refers to "ignoring protons"[2] - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- And yet other sources[5] say They referred to this unseen fifth force in action as a "photophobic force," meaning that it was as though the particles were "afraid of light." It is CNN though, so the writer could have made this thing up based on their own misunderstanding/mishearing of a term. Or maybe they really did say photophobic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: yes - agreed - the CNN News source[5] may have misunderstood the term - esp since the Physical Review Letters source[4] (likely a better source for such a physics-related phrase) seems to say otherwise (ie, in the ref title - "Protophobic Fifth Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in 8Be Nuclear Transitions") - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- And yet other sources[5] say They referred to this unseen fifth force in action as a "photophobic force," meaning that it was as though the particles were "afraid of light." It is CNN though, so the writer could have made this thing up based on their own misunderstanding/mishearing of a term. Or maybe they really did say photophobic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cockburn, Harry (21 November 2019). "Scientists may have discovered fifth force of nature, laboratory announces". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ a b Wolchover, Natalie (7 June 2016). "Evidence of a 'Fifth Force' Faces Scrutiny - A lab in Hungary has reported an anomaly that could lead to a physics revolution. But even as excitement builds, closer scrutiny has unearthed a troubling backstory". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved 20 November 2019.
- ^ Cartlidge, Edwin (2016). "Has a Hungarian physics lab found a fifth force of nature?". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19957.
- ^ a b J. L. Feng; et al. (2016). "Protophobic Fifth Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in 8Be Nuclear Transitions". Physical Review Letters. 117 (7): 071803. arXiv:1604.07411. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117g1803F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803. PMID 27563952.
- ^ a b Prior, Ryan (22 November 2019). "A 'no-brainer Nobel Prize': Hungarian scientists may have found a fifth force of nature". CNN News. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
Properties box
edit@Hadron137: Where did you get these numbers from? If the particle decays to electron+positron it can't have electric charge, B-L must be zero and more. And I don't think we should add quantum numbers of wild speculations (X) to the infobox of an equally hypothetical particle. --mfb (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Admittedly, these values were copied from the infobox at X boson without due diligence. Feel free to delete any values that you find dubious, or add a {{cn}} tag.Hadron137 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- They are completely different things that just happen to share the letter in their name. --mfb (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Status of particle
editThe infobox gives the status as "Unconfirmed". I'm not sure of the degree of uncertainty expressed by the various terms, but this one seems too strong, and it is merely one wildly hypothetical explanation of a possibly erroneous experimental result. Would a better term be "Hypothetical", "Speculative", "Suggested", or something else? —Quondum 20:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)