Could Dark Matter Be the Fifth Fundamental Force of Nature?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothesis that dark matter could be related to a proposed fifth fundamental force of nature, as suggested by recent findings regarding a new subatomic particle. Participants explore the implications of this theory, its relation to existing models, and the validity of the experimental evidence supporting it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention a paper by Feng et al. that proposes a protophobic fifth force interpretation related to a 16MeV boson, suggesting it could be evidence for a new fundamental force.
  • Others argue that the proposed particle decays rapidly, raising doubts about its connection to dark matter, as it may not fulfill the criteria typically associated with dark matter candidates.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the timing of the discovery, questioning why such a low-energy particle has not been observed earlier despite the capability to create it since the 1950s.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of peer-reviewed publications over news articles, indicating a preference for rigorous scientific validation.
  • There are references to additional papers and articles that may provide further context or evidence related to the discussion of the fifth force and its implications for the standard model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the proposed fifth force theory or its connection to dark matter. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the findings and the reliability of the experimental evidence.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights uncertainties regarding the relationship between the proposed particle and dark matter, as well as the limitations of current experimental evidence and theoretical models. There are also unresolved questions about the historical context of particle discovery and the criteria for validating new physics claims.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
At last a theory of Dark matter that can be tested, is there a fundamental reason why this theory may be true?

Recent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, IrvineRecent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, IrvineRecent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, IrvineRecent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine
 
Space news on Phys.org
Impossible to judge without a paper reference.
 
The reference is to a paper by Feng, et al, offering an explanation for the 16MeV boson "discovered" by the Hungarian group. The paper, Protophobic Fifth-Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in Be8 Nuclear Transitions, was published in last week's PRL and is on the arXiv.
[PLAIN]http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03591[/PLAIN]
They also have a follow-up paper, Particle Physics Models for the 17 MeV Anomaly in Beryllium Nuclear Decays, also on the arXiv.[PLAIN]http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03591[/PLAIN]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
websterling said:
The reference is to a paper by Feng, et al, offering an explanation for the 16MeV boson "discovered" by the Hungarian group. The paper, Protophobic Fifth-Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in Be8 Nuclear Transitions, was published in last week's PRL and is on the arXiv.
They also have a follow-up paper, Particle Physics Models for the 17 MeV Anomaly in Beryllium Nuclear Decays, also on the arXiv.
Interesting. It looks like this paper mostly looks at a single experimental result. If this idea turns out to also explain multiple additional discrepancies with regard to the standard model (such as the anomalous proton radius from muonic hydrogen measurements), then they might be on to something.

I'm not sure that this model can explain dark matter, however, as the proposed particle decays rapidly. It seems that the only connection this proposal has with dark matter is that it's a proposed new particle beyond the standard model, just as dark matter typically is.
 
The hunt continues. A couple of other recent entries of interest include http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03691, Dark Side of the Standard Model: Dormant New Physics Awaken and http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04056, Interpretations of the possible 42.7 GeV γ-ray line. @wolram try to avoid news articles as references. The gold standard is publication in a peer reviewed journal. Arxiv is usually good providing the paper has at least been submitted to an acceptable journal.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering where the discussion of this experiment was to be found. It's very interesting, and would seriously shake up the standard model. The reason that I'm hesitant though is it's mass. It's very low energy compared to say the Higgs boson. We've had the ability to create energies at the level required to create the particle since the 1950s, why are we just seeing it now?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: newjerseyrunner

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K