Are We on the Verge of Discovering a Fifth Force of Nature?

I think most of us with even a passing interest have known about gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. It would appear that there may have been an additional force discovered which they are calling (subject to name change ?) X17 which could tie in and explain Dark Matter..I know many think Dark matter is a real thing even though after years and billions of dollars none has been found in the particle realm that points to its' existence.. Just the effect of gravity on various galaxies and other heavenly stuff that needs some type of additional mass to make the math work out..

From Scrutiny to Breakthrough?

His team first introduced the results, which could mark a breakthrough in physics, in a 2016 paper that was published in the respected Physical Review Letters. At the time, they had observed beryllium-8 decaying with electrons and positrons splitting at an unexpected angle of 140 degrees. However, their conclusion about the new particle and a potential fifth force of nature encountered scepticism in the scientific community, as some suspected that a lab error may have occurred.

"We introduced such a new particle, which nobody saw before, and [whose] existence could not be understood by the widely accepted 'Standard Model' of particle physics, so it faced scrutiny", Attila Krasznahorkay explained to the US broadcaster.

However, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California at Irvine Jonathan Feng was one of those who were impressed by Krasznahorkay’s results and published a paper with his research group. It theorised that this suspected fifth force is a "protophobic force", as the particles are thought to be "afraid of protons".

sputniknews.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

Sorry for my bluntness, but that's a load of bull digested material.

The more "dimensions" or "forces" you need to invent to explain something as a scientist, usually, the more your explanation, is rubbish.

The actual goal of Physics is to simplify the forces and equations, to unite them into more simple descriptions of reality.

That's usually referred to as Occam's Razor.

Of course sometimes reality can be complex; but then, a "protophobic force"? Give me a break. That's just a positive electric charge. The electric force is already a force, you can't just hack it and call it a fifth force.

Still, you took the time to made a proper thread to inform us of that turn of events, so I think it deserves a S+F nonetheless, at least for your time.

Looking at some of Bob Lazar's work, the strong nuclear force is related to a gravity A wave. The gravity B wave is the more common planetary gravity force we know. The size of a stable isotope element 115 is what allows this energy to be harnessed for galactic travel. It is based on the strong nuclear force extending beyond the atomic shell from what I understand.

Could smaller elements like beryllium have a small window it this realm? I don't know, but for the the scientists thinking about it its something to consider.

a reply to: 727Sky

ALL .. All .. all .. all..

Circles.. es...es.. es..

Vanish.. sh...sh.. sh..

a reply to: 727Sky

As long as there is no independent confirmation I'd take the claims with a bucket of salt.

www.quantamagazine.org...

The Atomki group has produced three previous papers on their beryllium-8 experiments — conference proceedings in 2008, 2012 and 2015. The first paper claimed evidence of a new boson of mass 12 MeV, and the second described an anomaly corresponding to a 13.45-MeV boson. (The third was a preliminary version of the Physical Review Letters paper.) The first two bumps have disappeared in the latest data, collected with an improved experimental setup.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: 727Sky



The actual goal of Physics is to simplify the forces and equations, to unite them into more simple descriptions of reality.

That's usually referred to as Occam's Razor.

No, it is not. Occam's Razor is a conceptual filter that can be used to decide between competing theories that explain the experimental data equally well. It has nothing to say about any "grand, unified theory" that incorporates all known (and unknown) forces into a single, mathematical formulism. If nature displays more forces than your brain and education can deal with, so be it. Get over it. Nature is under no compunction whatsoever to require only the forces that you (or anyone else) already understand.

The goal of physics is NOT to simplify forces and equations. It is rather to incorporate them in a single, mathematical formulism that generates their own well-known, mathematical descriptions. Wanting to simplify everything is nothing more than the desperate plea of someone who cannot handle the advanced, mathematical concepts needed to achieve this goal. Occam's Razor is merely a useful rule for deciding between theories that make varying numbers of assumptions and hypotheses. It cannot be used to select the best theory merely on the basis of how mathematically complex the candidates happen to be! That is never done in practice because this is an unreliable guide only a fool would use. At least physicists have learnt that mathematically simpler theories do not necessarily guarantee that they are more likely to be true. That's why they do not look for them. What they do search for is more inclusive theories of ever greater generality, not merely "simpler" theories.

Sounds like they have a stray magnetic field interfering with the test somehow.

a reply to: 727Sky

Since we already have a strong nuclear force and a weak nuclear force, couldn't this be the 'quite apathetic nuclear force'?

a reply to: swanne

Bull Digested Material. Interesting turn of phase.

You don't need to measure or see something for it to be real.

And yes a simple unified theory would be bitch'in however, it needs to predict reality in all cases. If it doesn't, we are missing something and hence do science.

Nice turn of phase back at ya.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Since we already have a strong nuclear force and a weak nuclear force, couldn't this be the 'quite apathetic nuclear force'?

Star for funny.

Are We on the Verge of Discovering a Fifth Force of Nature?

No. However, we may be on the verge of dividing the ONE unified force yet again. I guess dividing 1 into 4 wasn't enough.

Oh, force.. still...

originally posted by: FyreByrd
You don't need to measure or see something for it to be real.

Really? If I have a box and tell you an ice cream sundae is in it, how exactly do you know if it's real or not?

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: 727Sky

As long as there is no independent confirmation I'd take the claims with a bucket of salt.

www.quantamagazine.org...
"The Atomki group has produced three previous papers on their beryllium-8 experiments — conference proceedings in 2008, 2012 and 2015. The first paper claimed evidence of a new boson of mass 12 MeV, and the second described an anomaly corresponding to a 13.45-MeV boson. (The third was a preliminary version of the Physical Review Letters paper.) The first two bumps have disappeared in the latest data, collected with an improved experimental setup."

Yes, bumps appearing, then disappearing with further analysis is not that unusual or unexpected in analyses of particle physics. This is why the physicists generally want their sigmas to be at least 5 and greater than that if possible to reduce the possibility of "false positive" bumps that are merely statistical anomalies in the data.

There are also other candidates for a fifth force, some of which precede this idea, such as dark energy related quintessence.

originally posted by: micpsi
The goal of physics is NOT to simplify forces and equations. It is rather to incorporate them in a single, mathematical formulism that generates their own well-known, mathematical descriptions. Wanting to simplify everything is nothing more than the desperate plea of someone who cannot handle the advanced, mathematical concepts needed to achieve this goal.

You have somewhat of a point but I think you go too far with your claim. For example if you have two ways that predict the results of laboratory experiments equally well, why not have a preference for the simpler approach instead of the more complicated approach? That's essentially the reason why the aether idea was dropped, because Einstein's model explained observations more simply than the Lorentz aether model and both models make the same predictions, though if anybody ever figures out an experiment which can differentiate predictions of those models, that would be a more solid foundation for choosing the model than using Occam's razor as mainstream science has done.

In the words of Albert Einsten, simplicity is a good goal as long as you don't sacrifice a single datum of experience in pursuit of that simplicity:

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

-Albert Einstein, From “On the Method of Theoretical Physics,” the Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford, June 10, 1933. This is the Oxford University’ Press version. The words “simple,” “simplest,” and “simplicity” recur throughout the lecture.

However nature doesn't always comply with our idea of simplicity and some descriptions of nature do indeed become complex and can't be reduced to simpler form without sacrificing accuracy.