It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists say they have found a ‘fifth force of nature’

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Okay well that makes more sense to me now, thank you for that explanation.

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 would have thought the LHC would have found similar results in their data sets already.

~Tenth




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
:-) may the force be with us...they found intelligence ...the glue of neuron's



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: hunter189

Maybe now someone will find Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhardt, and Planet X ! 😆



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Actually LHC announced at the Chicago conference this month that they did not find anything using the newer power settings (i.e., the data bump).

But not to fear, this being ATS, there is a thread on LHC Scientists Experience Mandela Effect or some such! The bump in the data from last year that could have made for a big shake up of the Standard Model of physics was a resonance that was observed and corroborated in the data set. With the new data set from the first half of this year at the higher energy level they went looking at where the previous data said and found nothing. Not quite an ME but made me chuckle!

And yes, if there is a particle 30 times heavier than an electron I would have thought it would be visible in the LHC traces already too. Maybe they are measuring magnet fluctuations so the X boson would not interact with the detector (?? not sure, would have to research how they are measuring quarks).



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It would be an interesting discovery. If it is real, then it is a force exchange particle that only interacts between neutrons and protons (a neutron is a proton glued togther with an electron and an anti-neutrino. Neutrons will decay if on their own).

The official name is protophobic X-Boson. X and Y bosons are at present theoretical particles to complement the W and Z bosons: en.wikipedia.org...

W bosons mediate the absorption and emission of neutrinos. This results in absorption/emission of electrons and positrons, thus nuclear transmutation. Z bosons mediate transfer of momentum, spin and energy when neutrinos are scattered.
X bosons are needed to explain why there was an imbalance between matter and anti-matter during the creation of the universe.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It would be an interesting discovery. If it is real, then it is a force exchange particle that only interacts between neutrons and protons (a neutron is a proton glued togther with an electron and an anti-neutrino. Neutrons will decay if on their own).

The official name is protophobic X-Boson. X and Y bosons are at present theoretical particles to complement the W and Z bosons: en.wikipedia.org...

W bosons mediate the absorption and emission of neutrinos. This results in absorption/emission of electrons and positrons, thus nuclear transmutation. Z bosons mediate transfer of momentum, spin and energy when neutrinos are scattered.
X bosons are needed to explain why there was an imbalance between matter and anti-matter during the creation of the universe.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

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.
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: 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.
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:

www.physicsforums.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ah, yes, I seem to remember reading something about that theory. So far, it's purely mathematical, though, and to be honest it is not a theory I subscribe to at this time. Quarks have thus far only been isolated for tiny fractions of a second before they 'recombine' or dissipate.

The observations can also be explained through particle/wave identity theory, extended to include harmonics.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

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.



What?

How does it repel a positively charged particle yet does not attract a negatively charged partical?
edit on 16-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added text



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I remember reading a while ago about some dudes were detecting some sort of wave being emitted from the sun that was changing decay rates. Maybe they had the curtains open.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

What?

How does it repel a positively charged particle yet does not attract a negatively charged partical?


Thus the positing of a 'new', 'fifth', force.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
This is a perfect example of how scientific possibility is presented as scientific truth by those with an agenda.

Read the thread/article title. And then read the article itself. They contradict each other.

They haven't confirmed anything yet. And they even say so. This is deliberately misleading clickbait, bordering on propaganda.


edit on 8/17/16 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75


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.

You wish, eh?


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

Absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with the spontaneous decay times of radioactive substances.

*


a reply to: NthOther


This is a perfect example of how scientific possibility is presented as scientific truth by those with an agenda.

You mean like Bone75 just did?

I agree that people with agendas (such as the poster quoted here) misuse and misrepresent science all the time. However, I see no agenda, nor any particular religious or political implications, in reporting an anomaly in subatomic particle decay. Especially since, as far as I can understand it, the ‘anomaly’ has nothing to do with decay times, only with decay products. The article was written by a journalist who is a bit out of his depth with the science but recognizes that a journo’s job is to sell copy.




edit on 17/8/16 by Astyanax because: multiple birds can be killed with quantum-entangled stone pairs.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower
At last someone to find Chuck Norris!



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It's likely this[/]:

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...


But yet, you can find varying information via neutrino effect and the inability to measure neutrinos in any way, and their effect on "realtime" radioactive decay" which is the standard of what REAL TIME, really means....as in the keeping of time depends upon the tracking of the half life decay of several radioactive elements, not solar or lunar effects....

A few years ago, the radioactive differential of decay was tracked as being anomalous, per the neutrino output of the sun, which even I find interesting, as they've said since 1962 they couldn't track nor measure neutrinos in any real way....

What's terribly interesting about this effect, is if it's real, it would flip the "standard model of physics" on its head.....


Melvin Schwartz and the Discovery of the Muon Neutrino
Resources with Additional Information


Melvin Schwartz
Courtesy
Brookhaven National
Laboratory
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
Top



This is the history of neutrino research.. And then:

I suggest reading these links: LINK
LINK



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I've tried to fix my links. Strange, but overtime I try to give evidence of this neutrino stuff and how it changed physics in 1962, from the discovery of muon and lepton particles to how it has continued to effect research today, I can't seem to get my links to ever work.

however, if you research what I've provided, I think you'll find a very interesting puzzle, attendant to what I've suggested here, already....And this should really give us pause as to what is real and what is not, in the question of what is real time, really? And if we cannot account for that scientifically, then what does that suggest about the account of historical content as per a "time-line".......

which is what we base so much of our decisions upon......
regards,
tetra



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Will keep a close eye on this, beat me to it! Just read some today....the force indeed?!?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Did not see this posted here today, but this is fascinating, although my understanding of it is not great.

Source


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?

~Tenth


There are hundreds of papers that come out every year proposing new discoveries or violations of established theories based on results of a particular experiment. Science news sites have to have eye catching stories every day and sometimes regular news sites run them too. Anything to get traffic. It takes time and repeated experiments to really tell if something is worth getting excited about.

What really stuck out for me was:

"Scientists say they have found a ‘fifth force of nature’"

"The experimentalists weren’t able to claim that it was a new force,” Feng said. "



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Well Back in April


CERN Said this A Complete April Fools Day Prank a GAG !! a JOKE LOL a HA HA

CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force
Cian O'Luanaigh
home.cern...


and NOW this ??

Scientists say they have found a ‘fifth force of nature’
International Business Times INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES
16 AUG 2016 AT 09:10 ET
www.rawstory.com...

well kinda Differnt Force ...

Dark matter Force ...



well way beck when .... Strange Happenings from the Back Dates

in March 11
LHC Detects Strange Anomaly In Particle Decay Beyond The Standard Model of Physics

The Large Hadron Collider has detected an anomaly in particle decay that might reveal physics beyond the Standard Model and could tell scientists a bit more about our universe.
Mar 11, 2016 10:15 AM EST
www.hngn.com...


Large Hadron Collider Anomaly Inspires a Zoo of Theories
Four published papers offer diverse explanations for a possible new particle
By Davide Castelvecchi, Nature magazine on April 20, 2016
www.scientificamerican.com...




LHC signal hints at cracks in physics' standard model
Collider spots same anomaly seen by two other experiments, but more data are needed to claim a discovery.

Elizabeth Gibney
03 September 2015
www.nature.com...

Two anomalies worth noticing 7/14/2014
www.quantumdiaries.org...






edit on 42016ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago8230 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

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.


IMO, you're being awful optimistic. What makes you think it's not one of the 5-6000 patents already classified by our completely corrupt gov't? I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't discovered by someone in the deep state of our gov't in the 50s. Someone in my family has direct evidence of how the federal gov't stifles innovation in this country--especially if it has ANYTHING that could mess up the oil monopolists....



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join