Power Laws and Elementary Particle Decays (Version 3, Approved)
|Reviewer 1 Gaetano Salina INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata||Reviewer 2 Piotr Lebiedowicz Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Krakow, PL||Reviewer 3 Ephraim Fischbach Purdue University|
Approved with revisions
Chiatti, L. Power Laws and Elementary Particle Decays. Sci 2020, 2, 17.
Chiatti L. Power Laws and Elementary Particle Decays. Sci. 2020; 2(1):17.Chicago/Turabian Style
Chiatti, Leonardo. 2020. "Power Laws and Elementary Particle Decays." Sci 2, no. 1: 17.
Article Access Statistics
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata
The paper has interesting results and its publication is recommended. However, I consider some changes necessary to improve the reader's understanding.
a) figure 1 is useless being a duplicate of table1 and can lead to misunderstanding.
b) it may be useful to argue in more detail the interpretation of n as an information measure (eq. 5).
c) I reworked the analysis of chap.3, calculating n from eq.5 and θ from eq.2. From my analysis it emerges that only in the case of θ = k1 Mk2 the data in table 1 form three well separated clusters. I consider it necessary that the author describe his analysis in detail.
Response to Reviewer 1Sent on 13 Jul 2020 by Leonardo Chiatti
Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Krakow, PL
The reported work "Power laws and elementary particle decays" by Leonardo Chiatti concerns correlation between the lifetime and the rest energy of the unstable particle states with a lifetime greater than the zeptosecond. The author claim that the set of a such states seems to be divided into three different "families", in each of which the two quantities can be correlated through a remarkably accurate power law. The mechanism responsible for this, however, remains to be explained. Since the work contains some elements of novelty, I recommend publish it unchanged.
Response to Reviewer 2Sent on 13 Jul 2020 by Leonardo Chiatti
This paper presents an interesting set of patterns in the decay rates of elementary particles which prevail over many orders of magnitude in their half-lives. Given the large number of decays for which they quote data, this pattern is certainly not accidental, and does not have an obvious explanation that I can see.
My general feeling in such cases is that the data deserve to be published in the hope that eventually their availability would stimulate others to pursue an explanation inmate detail.
My recommendation is that this paper be accepted for publication, subject to minor style or language changes that the editors may wish to suggest.
University of Florence
Particle lifetimes are well theoretically predicted in the framework of the Standard Model and found to depend on particle masses. So any systematic correlation between these two quantities, if it exists, can and should be directly derived and interpreted in term of first principles.
The work presented here first introduces arbitrarily defined variables and correlation among them, then arbitrarily includes or excludes particles to be considered in the study. In particular there is not any really physically based motivation to exclude the neutron and all particles with lifetime shorter than 1 zeptosecond.
The fitting procedure bringing to the final results on the power laws parametrization is not properly reported and quantified in its soundness.
The overall impression is that this study is characterize by a strong “fine tuning” of inputs and ansatz, so it is really hard to agree on the final conclusions.
Response to Reviewer 4Sent on 13 Jul 2020 by Leonardo Chiatti
Division of Bioorganic Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Saarland University, D-66123 Saarbruecken, Germany