Krasznahorkay and others from the Hungarian Institute for Nuclear Research, on a very limited budget, recently reaffirmed a spectacular discovery made 4 years ago and partially validated by others. If true, their findings could be complementary and perhaps even more important than the Higgs.
This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens the geniuses at CERN - given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus the lack of enthusiasm from that sector is evident and we can expect intransigence to continue - plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data for confirmation - since it should be there. The mystery finding is apparently best explained as a ~16.7 MeV neutral particle -- not the dark photon, which was an early aim but "dark" nevertheless (weakly interacting). It is yet to be named but could help explain the results of Holmlid's experiments with laser irradiation of dense deuterium - where muons were suspected but not proved. That work is another earth-shaking discovery which is generally ignored by the mainstream, and discovered on even less of a budget. On the off-chance that this Hungarian discovery proves correct and explains Holmlid - here is suggested name for it, and a simple way to validate the connection. The suggested name is the "Zsa boson" in honor of another famous Hungarian. The data supposedly can be explained by a vector gauge boson that decays to e+e− pairs. Others have suggested the new particle cannot be an X boson which would mediate a fifth force. Yet there is one feature of interest that is apparently agreed - that being the coupling, which is present to up and down quarks AND electrons whereas proton coupling is suppressed. Thus a suggestion to Holmlid or replicators who are on a strict budget - look for simple electron coupling at a distance. How? Well one lowest-cost possibility with lots of "impact" so to speak would be simply to place a fully charged ultra-capacitor in various positions around the target and look for the expected explosion (being careful to provide adequate safety). "Duck and cover," as we were taught in the fifties :-)
