Is There a Fifth Fundamental Force in Physics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cubey
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the question of whether there exists a fifth fundamental force in physics, exploring the established four forces: Electromagnetic, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, and Gravity. Participants engage in a debate regarding the definitions and implications of fundamental forces, as well as the semantics surrounding the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that there are only four fundamental forces recognized in physics.
  • Others suggest that the classification of forces may be more semantic than dogmatic, indicating that arguments can be made for both perspectives.
  • One participant emphasizes that any scientific principle should be understood as a consensus of the scientific community, although this may not apply directly to the discussion of a fifth force.
  • Another participant notes that while theories like electroweak unification combine two forces, they do not introduce a new force, suggesting that the concept of a fifth force may not align with current theoretical frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the existence of a fifth fundamental force, with multiple competing views presented regarding the definitions and implications of fundamental forces in physics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying interpretations of what constitutes a fundamental force, with references to specific theories and models that may influence participants' viewpoints. There is also mention of the consensus in the scientific community, which may not be universally applicable in this context.

cubey
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There are only 4, the Electromagnetic Force, the Weak Nuclear Force,the Strong Nuclear Force and Gravity.
And if you yes or no please explain why.
I'm not sure if this is the proper place in this forum or even if this is the proper forum to ask this question,but I'll give it try.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a matter of opinion, I'd call it more semantic than dogmatic... but either one could be easily argued for.
 
I think it should be taken for granted that any general scientific principle statement always carries the caveat: 'it is the consensus of the scientific community that...'
 
russ_watters said:
I think it should be taken for granted that any general scientific principle statement always carries the caveat: 'it is the consensus of the scientific community that...'
While that is certainly true (e.g. inflation, lambda CDM, double compact binaries for shGRBs, etc), its not especially apt for this case in light of electroweak or the GG model, etc.
 
zhermes said:
While that is certainly true (e.g. inflation, lambda CDM, double compact binaries for shGRBs, etc), its not especially apt for this case in light of electroweak or the GG model, etc.
Those combine two forces into one theory,they don't add a new force.

Hey! No fair delteting a post while I am reading it!
 
cubey said:
There are only 4...

HallsofIvy said:
Those combine two forces into one theory,they don't add a new force.

Yes. That is true. (Well, GG goes 3 -> 1).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K