**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[Eric]

The article is publishing the new explanations.
These current explanations have not been interpreted or reviewed by any 3rd parties as of yet.

I see. Hopefully they'll make some clarifications following 3rd party reviews.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I see. Hopefully they'll make some clarifications following 3rd party reviews.

This may not be a flash in the pan.

I'm still tossing this around my dept. and I've found someone who has the experience to understand the original experiment and who has taken the time to analyze their work and get back to me.

Here is the significant quote:
"I have went back and looked at the original exp. Paper. (PRL 116,042501). I thought I could find a hole but cannot.
It actually looks like a good experiment. There is - in principle - a way to make it much better, but it would be a big technical challenge."
-A qualified and credentialed radiochemist, whose permission I have not asked, so I wont state their name.


This is very similar to the response of the UC Irvine group who said the conclusions weren't robust against other experiments. It is worth noting that they didn't discredit the experiment or the data, only the conclusions, and the extent of discrediting was not for mathematical-physical reasoning, but incompatibility with other known experiments.


Fifth force or no, I'm more convinced that there is something going on here that is more than media sensationalism.