I don't understand why they would hold up an announcement of such a significant discovery for three years.
Science or scientific journalism, or even just your everyday MSM journalism love to employ poetic self-aggrandizing descriptions on the subjects they cover that actually describes the phenomena in quite the opposite effect but also merely as means to generate interest in the subject for their own benefit.
If the Arab social phenomena that was going on was "the Arab Spring" (a misnomer of an event that was utterly out of place) why haven't they coined a phrase to describe what ISIS has wrought? Calling the elusive Higgs Boson, God's Particle, was given that distinction because, it was explained, finding it would complete our knowledge of physics in God-like manner.
Well, the problem with journalism's fondness, proclivity for naming events in a romantic manner is what to do when the event you've given such a histrionic-over-the-top description invariably proves to be otherwise. Journalists just simply ignore it hoping no one will notice with nothing to say about it, yet no one to blame the silliness of it.
For example, once Higgs Boson was found, otherwise known as "God's Particle" and you are no closer to understanding the dynamics of physics, or being more God-like in your understanding of creation, you stop making a fool of yourself and abandon these silly, juvenile titles for things you know nothing about.
Another problem is when the most over-the-top blowhard pompous phrases for your exotic scientific endeavors or historic political events end up with another chapter, what will you use as an encore? After "God's "article" when making a new even more elusive discovery, say discovering new sub-atomic particles, where do you go from there?
Journalists seem to have noticed this dilemma and kind of given it all up, just sticking with more mundane phraseology. Having gone from "God's Particle" to "pentaquark" in one single progression would indicate the self-awareness of the problem that their melodramatic well of super-duper titles has met its end.
You have to wonder if they really know what can occur with these tests. See Daghlian and Slotin.
“Reviewal” ?
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Here’s a Polish physicists’s perspective:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/pentaquark-discovery-claimed-by-lhcb.html
If you like your quark, you can keep your quark.
More unsettling of settled science.
I think your conflating MSM with peer reviewed scientific journals, which, particularly within the physical sciences, are usually very demanding of published results.
Some tantalizing 2012 results may have indicated the possible presences in data of the pantaquark. Though the evidence may not have been strong enough to warrant publication, whereas after this more recent run, a team seems to feel strongly enough that the evidence is there and hence, that’s why they are being peer reviewed for publication now.
I think it all very exiting, particularly as I see God very clearly in creation.
NOT NEW - the Pentaquark was discovered by Japanese scientists some time back, confirmed by others and then further experiments weren’t able to reproduce it so it fell off the radar - definitely not “new” though
“But in 1964, American physicist Murray Gell-Mann revolutionized our understanding of matter by proposing that baryons and mesons are comprised of quark and antiquark pairs. In essence, Gell-Mann’s quark model allows, in principle, for particles to be made of up to five quarks (hence the prefix, “penta-“).”
How does a quark and anti-quark pair result in five quarks?
It's the "God particle", not "God's particle", and it was called that because of the particular role it was hypothesized to play in the universe, not because it was the latest and greatest discovery. Also, it's the press that would always use that name. Don't confuse press stories with scientific articles.
What is it you have against particle physicists?