Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and this paper doesn't provide it. It's based on a re-analysis of an experiment's data without replicating the experiment or conducting any new ones to address potential sources of error in the first.
The headline is sensationalist and completely premature.
> phys.org
No surprise there. It's almost as bad as IFLS
Exactly. To use the word "confirm" in this context seems to lack journalistic accuracy.
"confirm possible"
100% airtight
What a steaming pile of stercore, what is this doing on HN?
"The experimentalists weren't able to claim that it was a new force," Feng said