> There's a rule in physics that "the impossible doesn't happen very often". What's more likely, a stunning unexpected discovery, or a subtle experimental error?
You're implying that a a subtle error would be sufficient to explain the observations, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
Gross experimental or interpretation errors are a possibility, of course, but are correspondingly less likely.
That's the thing about subtle errors. They never seem to be the case, even when they are the case. Remember the superluminal neutrino claim a few years back? There are endless ways an experiment can go awry and present misleading results.
Here, there's going to be a very large background (of neutrons and photons) from the process they are using. I wonder if they didn't handle background subtraction quite right.
You're implying that a a subtle error would be sufficient to explain the observations, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
Gross experimental or interpretation errors are a possibility, of course, but are correspondingly less likely.