There may be a fifth force of nature a new study suggests.
"If true, it's revolutionary," study lead author Jonathan Feng, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
"For decades, we've known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces," Feng added. "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.""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.
There may be a fifth force of nature a new study suggests.
"If true, it's revolutionary," study lead author Jonathan Feng, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
"For decades, we've known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces," Feng added. "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.""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.
Why did the sentence need to be repeated a second time.
Kim, unfortunately by the language used in the quote you provided, the article you read really means nothing.
"The discovery of a possible new force" is like saying "a definite maybe", which really just means nothing. It makes the passage you quoted sound like fantasy science and not real evidence based science.
A better article would not have been so evasive on evidence nor on its sources. But the link for us to examine the article it only leaves the post you made open to ridicule.
English is not Kim's first language, so I can see how his best intentions are difficult for him to phrase properly in English.
Kim, I commend you on making a contribution here.
Last edited by mental4astro; 01-10-2016 at 07:47 PM.
Reason: typo
I suspect the OP has been edited, as I had no trouble reading the link to the article. There is an anomaly in some published collider experiments from one group that another group have identified. Everything else is interesting speculation and this is not the first time something like this has occurred. Previously, similar anomalies have been resolved when experimental design or measurement error were analysed in detail, or more data reduced the probability that the anomaly was not just a statistical fluke. This is how science works and progresses, but the science communication industry only reports on the wild speculation and not the slow slog of verifying and checking.
Worth watching to see how it resolves, but I won't be throwing away my textbooks anytime soon.
Cheers
Andrew.
Sad that the discussion is on the media hype title and not the actual published paper itself. Maybe now the Higgs has been "found" people are out trawling old data for oddities that can fit into the theoretical expanded Standard Model that contains particles, anti particles, "dark" particles (to prove/explain dark matter/energy). So they're taking these hypothetical unifying theories and looking for pieces that can fit or pushed into them. Has the Higgs even been found? I thought it was a bump that was in between the two precise energy values it "had" to be in order to support competing theories. I thought they just found an energy bump nearby and called it the Higgs even though it wasnt exactly where the models suggested while other particles were always exactly where predicted. Something seems wrong there or is my understanding out?
