Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A One more force?

  1. May 26, 2016 #1
    In January 2016, Dr. Attila Krasznahorkay (at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’s Institute for Nuclear Research in Debrecen, Hungary) and his colleagues published a paper announcing he had found a dark photon by firing protons at lithium-7, which created unstable beryllium-8 nuclei that then decayed into pairs of electrons and positrons. The particle’s mass was 17 megaelectronvolts (MeV), earning it the name 17-MeV.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2016 #2

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Link to the paper?
     
  4. May 26, 2016 #3

    haushofer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  5. May 26, 2016 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    But 17.6 MeV is so low, shouldn't it have been observed in the last say five decades at various places?
     
  6. May 26, 2016 #5

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'm not a particle physicist, so I'm not quite sure.
    All I know, is that if someone observes something new, and unexpected, they should report the finding.

    I saw the article yesterday, via Scientific American. [ref]

    Fun "Omic" thought process:

    aka, "whackadoodle". Ignore it.

    Yay!

    As a mere intellectual mortal, I have no problem with new "stuff", explaining, or trying to explain, the unexplained.
     
  7. May 26, 2016 #6

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    All I know is that the sciencealert site isn't very trustful. They are a kind of Yellow Press among scientific alerts. I'm curious and open to new stuff as well and think there are really some fundamental discoveries to be made before we can lean on a "final" theory that properly describes spacetime or the symmetry breaks in the SM. I think new ideas are far too often labeled "crackpot" just because it needs an open mind to consider them. But this is probably as old as science itself. Nevertheless, 17.6MeV seems to be a lab size energy and it makes me wonder that something on this scale should have been overlooked by so many and over so many years.
     
  8. May 26, 2016 #7
  9. May 27, 2016 #8

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  10. May 28, 2016 #9

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  11. May 28, 2016 #10
    Fair enough, but be careful of Occam's razor.
     
  12. Jul 24, 2016 #11

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Occam's razor is, however, a human artefact. It is there because we like things that way. Of course, it does seem to work well in practice so we sort of rely on it. But can we always do so?
     
  13. Jul 24, 2016 #12

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The way people use Occam's razor today, makes it indispensable. People don't just say simplest is best, that would be stupid because the main criterion is to explain the experimental observations accurately. So people say among the theories that all explain the data accurately, the simplest should be accepted. In the level that there is no theory that explains the observations, it means you shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions and add unnecessary entities to your theory. But still, the main criterion of explaining the observations is there, its just a criterion to choose between theories that do explain the data. This way, I can't see how using Occam's razor can do any harm!
    Using Occam's razor on this new piece of data means that if existing assumptions and entities in our theories can explain it, we shouldn't add anything, but if they don't, we have to add something but should do it in a minimalistic way.
     
  14. Jul 26, 2016 #13

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    For reference purposes, this paper has been discussed at some length in at least two recent prior threads in this forum:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...new-17-mev-vector-boson-on-higgs-susy.875311/
    and
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/new-particle-to-explain-lithium-7-big-bang-prediction.878545/

    I've discussed the topic there and won't repeat myself. Suffice it to say that I'm highly skeptical and that this hypothesis is not widely accepted at this point.

    Also, for what it is worth, while it is canonical to talk about four fundamental forces (EM, Weak, Strong, Gravity), the Higgs field really deserves "force" status as well, so if there were a new force I think it would be fair to call it a sixth force.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2016
  15. Jul 28, 2016 #14

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted