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.
“For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma
Ok you a parent ly are clueless on what the strong force does. You have some convoluted idea of what it does.The strong force is what is binding the quarks and gluons into protons and neutrons. Without the strong force we couldn't have an atom we would have a universe filled with fundamental particles that couldn't form atoms. Sonce you seem unclear about what the weak force does this causes radio active decay basically allows nuclear reactions to occur without it we wouldn't have nuclear reactors.
Now a personal question how can you come in here making claims when you don't even understand basic interactions in an atom?? Wow instead of spouting garbage why not pick up a physics book and read about experiments done and how we discovered these things. Until you understand physics arguing against it is pointless. You can't make a valid assessment of something you don't understand. Be like me arguing with an oceanographer a out some fish I've never seen before but he's spent decades studying.
Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain as to how the atomic nucleus was bound together. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge, while neutrons were electrically neutral. By the understanding of physics at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the positively charged protons should cause the nucleus to fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together into protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, and the particle that mediated this was called the gluon.
On a separate note, a quick Google Scholar search for the work of Attila Krasznahorkay, the head of Atomki and the leader of the team that claims to have found the new particle, involving beryllium-8 atoms throws up at least five papers, from 2005, 2008, 2012, 2015 and 2016. Each claims a discovery involving a new kind of boson. Moreover, between 2001 and 2005, Naviliat-Cuncic had found that a previous leader of the Atomki group had found ‘evidence’ pointing to the existence of multiple bosons, but had never directly found any of them.
Now a personal question...
...how can you come in here making claims when you don't even understand basic interactions in an atom??
...why not pick up a physics book and read about experiments done and how we discovered these things...
Until you understand physics arguing against it is pointless
You can't make a valid assessment of something you don't understand.
...but he's spent decades studying.