Fundamental particle found with no charge.

[mfgoode]

PhysOrg is reporting that a tiny
particle
with no charge [0]called an 'axion' has been discovered. From the
article: "The finding caps nearly three decades of research both by
Piyare Jain, Ph.D., [University of Buffalo] professor emeritus in the
Department of Physics and lead investigator on the research, who works
independently -- an anomaly in the field -- and by large groups of
well-funded physicists who have, for three decades, unsuccessfully
sought
the recreation and detection of axions in the laboratory, using
high-energy particle accelerators."

Discuss this story at
Links:
0. http://www.physorg.com/news84633896.html

Mally

[ewmayer]

I'll be more inclined to lend it credence when I see it published in top journal.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

PhysOrg is reporting that a tiny
particle has been discovered.

It's smaller than an atom. Yeah, I'd call that tiny. Personally, I'd replace tiny with either subatomic, or I wouldn't have put an adjective at all.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by jasong

It's smaller than an atom. Yeah, I'd call that tiny. Personally, I'd replace tiny with either subatomic, or I wouldn't have put an adjective at all.

'tiny' R.D. dictionary; very small.

Here relativity comes in; very small is taken from the context. Small relative to what? It has been referred to and called a particle. Particles are generally relative to the electron and are subatomic. So this is sub-particle to a particle if you like.

It is definitely smaller than the electron and equivalent to mesons and baryons or even smaller next to the quark, I would say.

Mally

[ewmayer]

According to the discussion on an online physics forum I found, looks like it's being published in a British Physics journal:

Originally Posted by SimplePie

The Jan. 2007 issue of the British Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics is publishing the research of P L Jain and G Singh from the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/34/1/009

...but that the statistical inferences made by the authors may be rather shaky - note that in no way was this any kind of "direct" or "unambiguous" observation:

Originally Posted by Severian

I am not very impressed with the paper. Looking at their figures it is very difficult to see how they can see any statistically significant peaks at all. for example, fig 4b looks like it has peaks all over the place, indicating that the statistical significance is bad. Unfortunately they don't give any quantification of the statistical significance (or indeed account for systematic errors).

Definitely sounds like an "interesting if true, but before we go handing out the Nobels, let's wait and see" scenario to me.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

According to the discussion on an online physics forum I found, looks like it's being published in a British Physics journal:


...but that the statistical inferences made by the authors may be rather shaky - note that in no way was this any kind of "direct" or "unambiguous" observation:


Definitely sounds like an "interesting if true, but before we go handing out the Nobels, let's wait and see" scenario to me.

I agree with you Ernst entirely.
Jain has worked on his own, used an obsolete optical/visual method and worked out his own theory which is highly suspect.
Like cold fusion lets wait till it is verified/unverified by other competent physicists.
His method takes me back to Wilsons cloud chamber but that gave results of a slower and bigger Particle.
Anyway I am turning a Nelson's eye to it and wont lose sleep over it I can assure you.

Mally