Comments on "eta -> gamma gamma Decay Width via the Primakoff Cross Section"

TL;DR

This paper critiques a recent analysis claiming to determine the eta to gamma gamma decay width from photo-nuclear data, arguing that the original background modeling was inadequate and questioning the validity of the conclusions.

Contribution

It provides a critical assessment of the previous analysis, emphasizing the importance of proper background understanding in extracting decay widths from experimental data.

Findings

The original background attribution to nuclear incoherent production is disputed.

The fitting procedure used in the original analysis is questioned for its validity.

Proper background analysis is essential for accurate decay width extraction.

Abstract

In a recent article by Rodrigues et al. [1] eta photo-nuclear data taken by Browman et al. [2] in 1974 were refit as a means to extract the eta->gamma gamma decay width. The key assertion in the author's analysis is attributing backgrounds in the eta angular distribution to nuclear incoherent production only. We disagree with this assertion and question the validity of the fitting procedure utilized in [1]. A reanalysis of the Cornell Primakoff data requires a detailed understanding of the hadronic and accidental backgrounds in the data, and the authors of [1] have not accomplished this task. [1] T. E. Rodrigues et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 012301 (2008). [2] A. Browman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 1067 (1974).