Jump to content

Is there a 5th Force ?


Recommended Posts

Quote

Scientists have 'strong evidence' for new force of nature

 

Scientists say they have found "strong evidence" for the existence of a new force of nature.

They have found that sub-atomic particles, called muons, are not behaving in the way predicted by the current theory of sub-atomic physics.

There are four fundamental forces of nature. One for gravity, another for electricity and magnetism, and two nuclear forces. Together they explain how the world works. But, as the BBC's science correspondent Pallab Ghosh explains, this new discovery could rewrite scientific theory.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56662742

 

From the BBC 1 hour ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah,sure!

Although I can't dominate all the relevancies or not willing to concentrate on the issue,I was already sure that something which are new would be found.

I hope these for future of humanity: currently I am way frightened by the a-bombing potentiality and I hope that something new will eliminate this.

but currently I do not imply the thing you cite above. 

something that might really ensure us feel opening of the pandorra's box. :) 

Edited by ahmet
Link to post
Share on other sites

So they say scientists don't know what the force is, exactly, but imply it will explain dark matter, these muon issues, matter/antimatter asymmetry, etc. Also, they imply this is a revelation, when we know the standard model is incomplete.

 

I saw on twitter where it was stated the g-2 results from today used the same storage ring design as the previous results (which showed a similar disagreement with the standard model), meaning you can't rule out some systematic errors. 

 

edit: the calculations that incorporate better QCD values narrows the discrepancy between theory and experiment

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00898-z

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, swansont said:

So they say scientists don't know what the force is, exactly, but imply it will explain dark matter, these muon issues, matter/antimatter asymmetry, etc. Also, they imply this is a revelation, when we know the standard model is incomplete.

 

I saw on twitter where it was stated the g-2 results from today used the same storage ring as the previous results (which showed a similar disagreement with the standard model), meaning you can't rule out some systematic errors. 

could you provide a bit more details please?

I could not judge these keywords or what had been implied by these keywords does not seem to me clear:

1) revelation   2) asymmetry 3)g-2 

I shall be thankful for explanation.

(or I might need a bit google search)

Edited by ahmet
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Prof Allanach has given the possible fifth force various names in his theoretical models. Among them are the "flavour force", the "third family hyperforce" and - most prosaic of all - "B minus L2"."

 

Please, no. Someone help him with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ahmet said:

could you provide a bit more details please?

I could not judge these keywords or what had been implied by these keywords does not seem to me clear:

1) revelation   2) asymmetry 3)g-2 

I shall be thankful for explanation.

the matter/antimatter asymmetry is the issue of why we have matter and not antimatter around. The amounts are not equal, or symmetric

g-2 refers to the muon magnetic moment experiment, in the nature link I added to my previous post

 

1 minute ago, Ericchiriboga said:

"Prof Allanach has given the possible fifth force various names in his theoretical models. Among them are the "flavour force", the "third family hyperforce" and - most prosaic of all - "B minus L2"."

 

Please, no. Someone help him with this.

I come from atomic physics, which gave us "optical molasses" and "Bose-nova" (both, I think, from the Wieman and/or Cornell research groups) so don't look to me for help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusion:

I do not believe that I would be able to contribute the material when I consider this sentence (which is my target/focal point of aim)

"I need usefulness/efficacious results"

so,moving away for now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

the matter/antimatter asymmetry is the issue of why we have matter and not antimatter around. The amounts are not equal, or symmetric

Isn't this really just a matter of our own defining? What I'm getting at is that if in that first instant of time, there was more anti matter then matter, we would have an excess of anti matter in the universe...wouldn't we then be calling that anti matter, matter, and the matter, anti matter? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Isn't this really just a matter of our own defining? What I'm getting at is that if in that first instant of time, there was more anti matter then matter, we would have an excess of anti matter in the universe...wouldn't we then be calling that anti matter, matter, and the matter, anti matter? 

Yes, but that's not the point about matter-antimatter asymmetry. Call them what we may, the thing is there are considerably more electrons than their counterparts, and protons that their counterparts, and so on. There is an unbalance to one side, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Isn't this really just a matter of our own defining? What I'm getting at is that if in that first instant of time, there was more anti matter then matter, we would have an excess of anti matter in the universe...wouldn't we then be calling that anti matter, matter, and the matter, anti matter? 

The naming isn’t the issue. This is just moving the problem around, but not solving it. You’d need a model that predicts this imbalance, whichever way you label it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yes, but that's not the point about matter-antimatter asymmetry. Call them what we may, the thing is there are considerably more electrons than their counterparts, and protons that their counterparts, and so on. There is an unbalance to one side, so to speak.

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

The naming isn’t the issue. This is just moving the problem around, but not solving it. You’d need a model that predicts this imbalance, whichever way you label it. 

No argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, swansont said:

I saw on twitter where it was stated the g-2 results from today used the same storage ring design as the previous results (which showed a similar disagreement with the standard model), meaning you can't rule out some systematic errors. 

Watched the BBC article on the News tonight.

There they said that the result was abnormal muon rotation found by the Fermilab accelerator near Chicago.
They also said the effect had been recently confirmed at CERN.

From their description I would have said they meant nutation not rotation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve only seen a reference to the Brookhaven result, and it’s not just the same design, it was the same storage ring, shipped to Fermilab and reassembled. CERN did a different experiment with muons which also hints at new physics. https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern

 

It could be rotation. The discrepancy is the decay energy with opposite orientation of the magnetic moment.

Here’s a simplified explanation 

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/47

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they keep saying "muons decay to electrons"?

Only muon- decays to electron..

Muon+ decays to positron..

So actually they should make and compare the results from (at least) four versions of the experiment: muons- spinning in ring in one direction, muons- spinning in the opposite direction, muons+ spinning in one direction and muons+ spinning in the opposite direction.

With particle spin polarized and without.

Compare the results from muons- and + accelerated to different velocities until they decay.

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sensei said:

Why are they keep saying "muons decay to electrons"?

Only muon- decays to electron..

Muon+ decays to positron..

Because the distinction doesn't matter here. They're talking about muons and electrons as generations of leptons. Sorting out whether it's the matter or antimatter particle is a triviality.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me is obvious there is another force not taken into account in current theories: the repulsion force. If a "strong force" attracting elementary particles exist, another strong repulsive force must exist to mantain them appart. If not all particles would "fusion" in something or would annihilate. A repulsive force would allow equilibrium states between elementary particles...

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more inclined to assess this as incontrovertible evidence of new physics beyond the standard model. But I'm reluctant to salute it as incontrovertible evidence of a "fifth force" just yet. For a fifth force to be there beyond any doubt, there would have to be evidence of new decay modes revealing brand-new gauge bosons, with new quantum numbers.

But it is true that it's very difficult to conceive of a different gyromagnetic ratio of higher-generation leptons without anything dynamical being involved. The calculation of g-2 involves radiative corrections, essentially sums on all the gauge bosons "virtually flying around", and it's a dimensionless factor. If the gauge bosons are the same for different families, I see no reason why the gyromagnetic ratio should differ unless there are new radiative modes involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because the distinction doesn't matter here. They're talking about muons and electrons as generations of leptons.

No. That is an error. You want to know whether similar difference is between positron and muon+..

To have full set of information you need the all data from experiments performed on tau-/+, muon-/+ and e-/+.

There is no single way muon can be created. e.g. it cound be result of decay of pion, but it can be also result of decay of tau. Scientists working on the OP experiment should verify whether muons created different paths have the same properites. If they vary, how much they vary.

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

No. That is an error. You want to know whether similar difference is between positron and muon+..

To have full set of information you need the all data from experiments performed on tau-/+, muon-/+ and e-/+.

There is no single way muon can be created. e.g. it cound be result of decay of pion, but it can be also result of decay of tau. Scientists working on the OP experiment should verify whether muons created different paths have the same properites. If they vary, how much they vary.

I think you have a point, @Sensei. I think what you're saying is "it's safer to interpolate a curve with three points than interpolating it with 2". Nobody would expect the results with anti-muons to be any different, though, because the standard model is CPT invariant. If anti-muons gave a disparate result... Now that would be a surprise! What I don't know is how difficult the experiments with taus would be. I'm guessing a lot more difficult, due to masses and lifetimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sensei said:

No. That is an error. You want to know whether similar difference is between positron and muon+..

To have full set of information you need the all data from experiments performed on tau-/+, muon-/+ and e-/+.

There is no single way muon can be created. e.g. it cound be result of decay of pion, but it can be also result of decay of tau. Scientists working on the OP experiment should verify whether muons created different paths have the same properites. If they vary, how much they vary.

Take it up with them; I don’t disagree. I was answering the question of why the explanations aren’t making the distinction between matter and antimatter. (i.e. “Why are they keep saying "muons decay to electrons"?”)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, martillo said:

For me is obvious there is another force not taken into account in current theories: the repulsion force. If a "strong force" attracting elementary particles exist, another strong repulsive force must exist to mantain them appart. If not all particles would "fusion" in something or would annihilate. A repulsive force would allow equilibrium states between elementary particles...

!

Moderator Note

Then start a new Speculations thread. This is being discussed in terms of mainstream science.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, swansont said:

The naming isn’t the issue. This is just moving the problem around, but not solving it. You’d need a model that predicts this imbalance, whichever way you label it. 

Surely this  canNOT  be the standard model  .. . .

8 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm more inclined to assess this as incontrovertible evidence of new physics beyond the standard model. But I'm reluctant to salute it as incontrovertible evidence of a "fifth force" just yet. For a fifth force to be there beyond any doubt, there would have to be evidence of new decay modes revealing brand-new gauge bosons, with new quantum numbers.

But it is true that it's very difficult to conceive of a different gyromagnetic ratio of higher-generation leptons without anything dynamical being involved. The calculation of g-2 involves radiative corrections, essentially sums on all the gauge bosons "virtually flying around", and it's a dimensionless factor. If the gauge bosons are the same for different families, I see no reason why the gyromagnetic ratio should differ unless there are new radiative modes involved.

New radiative modes  ARE  involved. In case the  nutation talked of here has possibly anything to do with the rate of precession of the magnetic moment  around the external magnetic field , then the engaged angular frequency may not in any way pulse thru a non-local submanifold whose fiber vibration does not come in full synchronization with the pulse transmitted thru a  flip-angle or tip-angle manifold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Surely this  canNOT  be the standard model  .. . .

New radiative modes  ARE  involved. In case the  nutation talked of here has possibly anything to do with the rate of precession of the magnetic moment  around the external magnetic field , then the engaged angular frequency may not in any way pulse thru a non-local submanifold whose fiber vibration does not come in full synchronization with the pulse transmitted thru a  flip-angle or tip-angle manifold.

There is a difference between nutation and precession.

The article describes the effect as a wobble which implies nutation.

Wiki offers the following diagram that shows the difference clearly.

image.jpeg.abca783179eebf5b20ad4184ae91ad5a.jpeg
 
Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, studiot said:

There is a difference between nutation and precession.

The article describes the effect as a wobble which implies nutation.

Wiki offers the following diagram that shows the difference clearly.

image.jpeg.abca783179eebf5b20ad4184ae91ad5a.jpeg
 

Dear Friend ! 

I wrote that comment or elucidation or whatever :

Simply  'cauz  nutation and precession are NOT the same . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.