It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes I agree, I'd put this in the same category of the CERN announcement of faster than light neutrinos which needed to be confirmed...and never was. This "fifth force" may also never be confirmed...we shall see. Experimental errors explained the claim of FTL neutrinos and could be responsible for the "5th force" claims also.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So until this is peer reviewed across a wide range it could be just a bad reading or something they won't be able to reproduce in those same conditions.
I don't understand why you'd make such a comparison since the three quarks aren't observed in isolation. The 1836 proton to electron mass ratio is the one most commonly cited. I also don't know the particle size or density of an electron or the quarks in a proton, so I don't really follow your "particle size vs density" comment at all. We have experimental limits on sizes but we don't know the sizes as explained here:
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
The three quarks in a proton weigh 18X an electron. The remaining 'mass' is the gluon binding energy. I was thinking actual particle size vs density.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
These were the two take-aways I read:
During the course of their study, the scientists detected a particle 30 times heavier than an electron.
However, according to Feng’s team, instead of the “dark photon” the Hungarians found a “protophobic X boson.” The existence of this particle is what could indicate a fifth force of nature. It is different from the existing electromagnetic forces that act on protons and electrons, interacting only with protons and neutrons, that too at very short distances.
A proton is roughly 18 times heavier than an electron.
So they are saying they possibly found a particle more massive than a proton, which appears to repel protons (and neutrons?) but does not interact with electrons.
Well in a nutshell its saying there's a force that acts upon the decay rates of radioactive particles.
Without constant decay rates you can pretty much throw all carbon dating methods out the window... like I've been saying all along.
The Hungarian team fired protons at thin targets of lithium-7, which created unstable beryllium-8 nuclei that then decayed and spat out pairs of electrons and positrons. According to the standard model, physicists should see that the number of observed pairs drops as the angle separating the trajectory of the electron and positron increases. But the team reported that at about 140º, the number of such emissions jumps — creating a ‘bump’ when the number of pairs are plotted against the angle — before dropping off again at higher angles. Source
This is a perfect example of how scientific possibility is presented as scientific truth by those with an agenda.
The distance between the Earth and the Sun has no influence on the decay rate of radioactive chlorine. You could ask: "And why should it anyway?", because it is well known that the decay of radionuclides is as reliable as a Swiss clock. Recently, US-American scientists, however, attracted attention when they postulated that the decay rate depends on the flow of solar neutrinos and, thus, also on the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Their assumption was based, among other things, on older measurement data of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). PTB researchers have now definitively refuted the assumption of the Americans.
The half-life of radioactive isotopes, i.e. the period in which half of all atomic nuclei have decayed, is regarded as invariably stable. In the case of the carbon isotope 14C, this period amounts, for example, to 5700 years. This property is, among other things, made use of for the dating of archeological findings. There was great excitement when a group of US-American scientists recently published measurement data of the radioactive isotope 36Cl which showed seasonal variations and explained this with the influence of solar neutrinos. All the more since billions of neutrinos from the Sun hit every square centimetre of the Earth every second and remain almost ineffective (they penetrate the Earth as if it weren't there).
Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."
Read more at: phys.org...
Melvin Schwartz and the Discovery of the Muon Neutrino
Resources with Additional Information
Melvin Schwartz was the co-winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the neutrino beam method and the demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the muon neutrino". 'In 1962, Schwartz, with Leon Lederman and Jack Steinberger … discovered the muon neutrino at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), the then brand-new accelerator at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory. …
First coming to Brookhaven in 1955, Schwartz performed his Ph.D. thesis research through 1956 at the Laboratory's first accelerator, the Cosmotron. While finishing his thesis, he was employed by the Laboratory from 1956-58.
Returning to Columbia University, Schwartz continued to do research at Brookhaven, working at the AGS from 1958-63. After relocating to Stanford University in 1966, he maintained his research ties with Brookhaven.
In 1970, Schwartz founded a major computer-security company, Digital Pathways, Inc., in Mountain View, California. Later, Nicholas Samios, former Brookhaven Lab Director and currently head of the BNL-RIKEN Research Center, encouraged Schwartz to return to physics. He did so in 1991, returning to Brookhaven Lab as Associate Director for High Energy and Nuclear Physics. …
Melvin Schwartz was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS). He received the Hughes Prize from the APS in 1964.'1
1 Edited excerpt Nobel Laureate Melvin Schwartz … Co-Discovered the Muon Neutrino at Brookhaven Lab in 1962
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Did not see this posted here today, but this is fascinating, although my understanding of it is not great.
a move that could completely alter our understanding of the universe, a new study confirmed the possible discovery of a fifth fundamental force of nature.
Published by theoretical physicists from the University of California, Irvine, in the journal Physical Review Letters, the study comes a year after a group of experimental nuclear physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences identified a radioactive decay anomaly in the results of their particle acceleration experiments, pointing at the possible discovery of a previously unknown type of subatomic particle.
“If true, it’s revolutionary,” said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics and astronomy, in a press release.
“For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe, with consequences for the unification of forces and dark matter.”
So according to this they may have found the new subatomic particle responsible for dark matter or dark energy.
Could somebody with a physics background put all this in laymans terms for us?
originally posted by: ismikes
a reply to: tothetenthpower
I'm glad that it was discovered 'over-seas' because if it had been in a US facility I'm sure that it would have been declared classified before anybody could hear about it.