Paper detail

A Detailed Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation of the Neutron Lifetime Experiment S. Arzumanov et al., Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 15

We performed a detailed analysis and the Monte Carlo simulation of the neutron lifetime experiment [S. Arzumanov et al., Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 15] because of the strong disagreement by 5.6 standard deviations between the results of this experiment and our experiment [A. Serebrov et al., Phys. Lett. B 605 (2005) 72]. We found a few effects which were not taken into account in the experiment [S. Arzumanov et al., Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 15]. The possible correction is -5.5 s with uncertainty of 2.4 s which comes from initial data knowledge. We assume that after taking into account this correction the result of work [S. Arzumanov et al., Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 15] for neutron lifetime 885.4 +/- 0.9stat +/- 0.4syst s could be corrected to 879.9 +/- 0.9stat +/- 2.4syst s.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.