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

a reply to: tothetenthpower

“For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

NO!!!
first of all... electromagnetism are two forces.. electric and magnetic... not one
strong and weak nuclear forces are just assumptions.
gravity... I will come to that later...

Why strong and week force ?
Because without them, the theory doesn't work...
in truth, those strong and week forces were invented.

We know the electric force... we know it creates magnetic force...
We know magnetic force, we know it creates the electric force...
We use both all the time every day 24/7
because those are all the forces we can manipulate and really exist.

Strong force ? is just an invention that fits the theory, preventing electrons fall into a proton.
Week force ? another invention to explain what we observe...

Gravity is an observation... things fall... so what ? can anyone manipulate this so called force ? NO.
It is not a force on it's own... it is a result of electric interaction.

so... as I can count, if anything new shall be invented, the math doesn't work

My head hurts after reading this, but i do have one qiestion. If confirmed, are there any practical applications for this?

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.

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.

blah blah blah....

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.

and here comes the invention...

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.[4] 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.

if QM is so right about itself, show me a working model of an atom with more than two charges, smart-ass


using mathematics does not explain the reality at all... mathematical model allows something stupid like this for example....
"If there is 3 persons in a room, and 5 persons go out of the room, you need 2 persons to go into the room, so that the room will be empty"

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.

The Wire, Aug 17, 2016 - The Anomaly at Atomki: Have Scientists Really Found a Fifth Force of Nature?.

So Atomki is the name of the Hungarian facility where the anomaly was spotted. So what their experiment was doing was firing protons into lithium-7 and the ones that stuck created Li-8. Since Li-8 is unstable it would decay giving off a proton. The path of this particle is what deviated from expected measurements (summary of paragraphs 2 and 3 from the article). So after firing more protons and observing the results the team declared "new force" found in nature.

The problem begins to arise because as quoted above, this is not the first time they claimed a new particle or force. Even UC, Irvine has some blame as the "new force" makes one of their theories make sense. In science, hoping to find and observe something is a big no-no (a true "confirmation bias"). And to make the claim of "new force" or "new particle" five times previous and now one more time should be a warning flag.

So now Atomski is almost in a no-win situation. Stand by the results and get disproven? Retract the claim and become a laughing stock? Stand their ground and answer the numerous questions amounting to, "why did you not measure this force (or the boson) during previous runs""?

Magic Eight Ball says: Outlook Not So Good.

a reply to: dragonridr

Now a personal question...

sure...

...how can you come in here making claims when you don't even understand basic interactions in an atom??

and you do ?
seems like the whole QM theory is trying to explain something we can rather see, not touch or properly measure.
you think I don't understand the basic interactions in an atom ? You don't, you just parroting some iffy theory and claim to be the whole knowing person, knowing everything and be smarter than me...

you know what I was about to say right now...

...why not pick up a physics book and read about experiments done and how we discovered these things...

I did, why didn't you ? If you have read and understood the experiments done, maybe you would have seen how the whole theory has been made up, how one leads to another, how assumptions became a physical low, and how something like strong force was invented.

Until you understand physics arguing against it is pointless

sure... until people understand physics, and not just parrot what the books say, arguing against it is pointless

You can't make a valid assessment of something you don't understand.

but you do all the time ... ?!?!

...but he's spent decades studying.

dude, I'm at least twice your age and 100 years longer on this...

peace !

and just to fresh up your knowledge...

like charges repeal, unlike charges attract.
the dilemma is, why protons stay together building up an atom.
someone said ( and I don't use names because he was wrong and not worth to mention ) that on the smaller scale, the electric force must change the sign and become attractive..
nice idea with no physical background, but people have had adapted this idea and so it was invented.
QM is a mathematical calculation, nothing you can really count on, fairy story that grows on and on with people just "jumping on the train" to be "right on time" in the physicist world.

please follow you advise you gave to me, and look up the history, think, not just repeat, maybe you will see how feeble the theory you repeat really is.
good luck !