Physicists confirm possible discovery of fifth force of nature

August 15, 2016
"If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe," says UCI professor of physics & astronomy Jonathan Feng, including what holds together galaxies such as this spiral one, called NGC 6814. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA; Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt

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, Irvine.

"If true, it's revolutionary," said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics & astronomy. "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."

The UCI researchers came upon a mid-2015 study by experimental nuclear physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences who were searching for "dark photons," that would signify unseen dark matter, which physicists say makes up about 85 percent of the universe's mass. The Hungarians' work uncovered a radioactive decay anomaly that points to the existence of a light particle just 30 times heavier than an electron.

"The experimentalists weren't able to claim that it was a new force," Feng said. "They simply saw an excess of events that indicated a new particle, but it was not clear to them whether it was a matter particle or a force-carrying particle."

The UCI group studied the Hungarian researchers' data as well as all other previous experiments in this area and showed that the strongly disfavors both matter particles and dark photons. They proposed a new theory, however, that synthesizes all existing data and determined that the discovery could indicate a fifth fundamental force. Their initial analysis was published in late April on the public arXiv online server, and a follow-up paper amplifying the conclusions of the first work was released Friday on the same website.

The UCI work demonstrates that instead of being a dark photon, the particle may be a "protophobic X boson." While the normal electric force acts on electrons and protons, this newfound boson interacts only with electrons and neutrons - and at an extremely limited range. Analysis co-author Timothy Tait, professor of physics & astronomy, said, "There's no other boson that we've observed that has this same characteristic. Sometimes we also just call it the 'X boson,' where 'X' means unknown."

Feng noted that further experiments are crucial. "The particle is not very heavy, and laboratories have had the energies required to make it since the '50s and '60s," he said. "But the reason it's been hard to find is that its interactions are very feeble. That said, because the new particle is so light, there are many experimental groups working in small labs around the world that can follow up the initial claims, now that they know where to look."

Like many scientific breakthroughs, this one opens entirely new fields of inquiry.

One direction that intrigues Feng is the possibility that this potential fifth force might be joined to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces as "manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force."

Citing physicists' understanding of the standard model, Feng speculated that there may also be a separate dark sector with its own matter and forces. "It's possible that these two sectors talk to each other and interact with one another through somewhat veiled but fundamental interactions," he said. "This dark sector force may manifest itself as this protophobic we're seeing as a result of the Hungarian experiment. In a broader sense, it fits in with our original research to understand the nature of dark matter."

Explore further: Possible case for fifth force of nature

More information: Particle Physics Models for the 17 MeV Anomaly in Beryllium Nuclear Decays, arxiv.org/abs/1608.03591

Related Stories

Possible case for fifth force of nature

May 26, 2016

A team of physicists at the University of California has uploaded a paper to the arXiv preprint server in which they suggest that work done by a team in Hungary last year might have revealed the existence of a fifth force ...

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

February 1, 2016

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of ...

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.4 / 5 (33) Aug 15, 2016
Don't everybody yawn all at once, could cause an oxygen shortage.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (31) Aug 15, 2016
Don't everybody yawn all at once, could cause an oxygen shortage.

You only say this because your head is in a tight dark place.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 15, 2016
It might just be the monster under the bed.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (27) Aug 15, 2016
Citing physicists' understanding of the standard model, Feng speculated that there may also be a separate dark sector with its own matter and forces.

The dark forces are strong with this one.

But really, matter and forces of the dark sector? We're going to need a much bigger shovel to handle all this horseshit poppycockery.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cgsperling
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2016
I bet the folks at Skeptics Guide to the Universe weigh in on this one next week.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (23) Aug 15, 2016
Citing physicists' understanding of the standard model, Feng speculated that there may also be a separate dark sector with its own matter and forces.

The dark forces are strong with this one.

But really, matter and forces of the dark sector? We're going to need a much bigger shovel to handle all this horseshit poppycockery.

Says the Acolyte of the Sacred Rod of Imaginary Lightning. You believe that Venus was spat out by Jupiter to cross paths with the Earth 3600 years ago, but you sit at your computer arguing that years of study done by people actually, you know, studying and researching our universe with the most technologically capable equipment ever available to mankind are making things up to cover some cosmic conspiracy? Wow the dupliciousness is strong in you!
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2016
@cantthink85

But really, matter and forces of the dark sector? We're going to need a much bigger shovel to handle all this horseshit poppycockery.

I found your portrait on the web:
https://www.youtu...5OdguJro
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2016
"this newfound boson interacts only with electrons and neutrons"

-Uh oh. Does this mean that omatumr is going to show up again and claim that the sun is really a big neutron?

Or is he still in jail?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) Aug 15, 2016
Well, this line from the article gave me goosebumps...:-)

One direction that intrigues Feng is the possibility that this potential fifth force might be joined to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces as "manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force."


richardwenzel987
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 15, 2016
@cantdrive85

I've got you figured out-- 85 years old and too many fender benders so they've yanked your license. Mean, constipated, and the brain going bad from senile softening, you've got nothing to do but sit and rant and rave over a lunatic Electric Universe. Electricity! It explains everything! Plasma blobs. Can't have a proper bowel movement, so dream of plasma blobs. AHHHH! What relief. If only.
howhot3
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 15, 2016
So this is the source of the energy for all of those Cold Fusion systems. Protophobic X bosons! Who would have thought?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2016
Well, this line from the article gave me goosebumps...:-)

One direction that intrigues Feng is the possibility that this potential fifth force might be joined to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces as "manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force."



Or is it possible that IT is a manifestation of the em, s & w forces? Maybe it is just another Boson to be considered in the W and Z bosons to make another 'family of 3'.
TransientScream
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 15, 2016
For months now I have witnessed the same trolls commenting on similar subject matter of this article only to see the same people up vote and validate insults and at the same time discrediting anyone that doesn't agree with them. I only make this observation to announce to the trolls that their trolling skills are more weak than the condom that broke when they were accidentally conceived.

To the people who take these debates seriously, I tip my hat. You are the reason why I read the comments. I feel it adds insight that doesn't come through from the abstract.
philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2016
So it is not settled science like climate change?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2016
For months now I have witnessed the same trolls commenting on similar subject matter of this article only to see the same people up vote and validate insults and at the same time discrediting anyone that doesn't agree with them. I only make this observation to announce to the trolls that their trolling skills are more weak than the condom that broke when they were accidentally conceived.

To the people who take these debates seriously, I tip my hat. You are the reason why I read the comments. I feel it adds insight that doesn't come through from the abstract.
I wonder if I might implore from you some examples of the discrediting of which you speak?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (18) Aug 16, 2016
Pretty exciting news. I'm not gonna jump up and down over it yet though.. Once we get independent confirmation from a few other groups I might though. This would be such a huge discovery. I really like that they say it can be tested already.
tinitus
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2016
Not for the faint of heart:
http://arxiv.org/...11v1.pdf
Mimath224
5 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2016
@Phys1 Good paper as it puts 'meat on' their article. It is quite well known that Be has some peculiar properties (although I admit lack knowledge of a complete list) and sometimes resembles Al in reactions (both Carbides produce methane, and Nitrides produce Ammonia under similar conditions) However, I thought this was simply a question of size and high negative ratio but then again I am out of touch with current info. Interesting.
TrollCondensate
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2016
philstacy9 2 /5 (8) 8 hours ago
So it is not settled science like climate change?


Getting real tired of these Georgia rednecks getting liquored up and deciding to go troll a science site. Pick another one.


For 80 years Nuclear Physicists have been looking for spectroscopy evidence of zany Zwicky's evidence for Tired Light, same for his Envelopes of Dark Matter surrounding Spiral Galaxies but can't find that either, all evidence so far is against this stuff.

And so far the only evidence for the existence of Black Holes are the pictures Schneibo has seen but refuses to share with the rest of us to substantiate his claims.............

So, hey TC, fraud is far worse than your baby talk whining about trolls, go somewhere & learn to solve Differential Equations, then come back & try impressing us with your fraudulent rhetoric about who the brightest lightbulbs are in this chat room.
katesisco
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2016
http://milesmathi...orad.pdf
I wonder f the 'successful' discoverers will 'adjust' their figures so that it can be read to support the current understanding and then gradually be 'adjusted' back 20 years from now.
KBK
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2016
@cantdrive85

I've got you figured out-- 85 years old and too many fender benders so they've yanked your license. Mean, constipated, and the brain going bad from senile softening, you've got nothing to do but sit and rant and rave over a lunatic Electric Universe. Electricity! It explains everything! Plasma blobs. Can't have a proper bowel movement, so dream of plasma blobs. AHHHH! What relief. If only.


Don't throw it out yet. Such a 'force' (force, imo, is an idelogical misnomer, more like 'condition', or 'state') would possibly manifest in conditions that would appear to be directly connected to the proposed 'electric universe'.

Photon output as evidence, a precondition is polarized plasma, and so on. The evidential trail for something that is providing for egress.
Azrael
4.2 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2016
Headline is misleading. Physicists haven't "confirmed" this -possible- force.

Though it would be truly fantastic if the results hold up, the groups' work has been fraught with issues, and this result is being heavily scrutinized due to allegations of cherry-picking results, and suspicions of instrumentation and measurement errors.

https://www.quant...crutiny/

The comments section on this article is nuts, and should probably be locked down. Trolls, psuedo-science, and superiority complexes galore. Make use of those ignore buttons, people.
TheMatrixDNA
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2016
Unlike the Higgs boson — the particle discovered in 2012 that was the last missing piece of the Standard Model of particle physics — this unforeseen boson and accompanying force would lead the way to a more complete theory of nature. A kind of universal nature that reveals - at our dimension - life, and why not at the biggest and smallest dimension?
Here, at Matrix/DNA world view and based on the universal formula for all natural systems, we are guessing that has at last seven natural forces that could be seen by Physics and these forces are aligned in a sequence determined by the life's cycle force.

If Physicists and Mathematicians were intelligent aliens microbes studying the human body from inside out like they are studying the Universe, they could only grasp everything about the bone skeleton the mechanic structure of the Universe. But beyond the skeleton begins the real complexity, the dimensions of meat (Biology) and Neurology. Physics needs a new approach...
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2016
The comments section on this article is nuts, and should probably be locked down. Trolls, psuedo-science, and superiority complexes galore. Make use of those ignore buttons, people.


Az.........be more discrete with what you wish for, often one person's pseudo-science is another person's facts.......Remember what Galileo was up against with the Pope?

What do you mean "locked down"?

In this chatroom, the consensus opinion as to whom is a "troll" is anyone who disagrees with an opposing opinion of someone else. If you don't believe that, then just gaze in on who is engaged in the greatest quantity of name calling & profanity here.

What do you define as one with a "superiority complex"? Someone who engages in prolific name calling routines or someone who challenges such an individual to actually study appropriate math so they can come to a science site & actually engage themselves in a fluent manner using the appropriate language of science?

KarlRKaiser
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2016
It is never possible to determine whether any aspect of nature is "Fundamental", so such a term should not be used.

We once thought atoms were fundamental, because they looked that way from our viewpoint. But to then characterize them based on our point of view is logically erroneous and also anthropocentric.

Later we were able to fathom at smaller scales and discovered that atoms were not fundamental. They are also not "a-tomic", alas. You think we would have learned our lesson then.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2016
@Benni
The consensus is that you are a troll,
an emptyheaded poser who copies text from astronomy websites and pastes it here as his own
and who cannot do the simplest calculus while systematically slandering scientists of undisputed, great merit.
An utter fool and a floating turd.
wizardo
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2016
"...confirm possible discovery..."
Oh my! Can they also "confirm" something unlikely or just something that is likely?
Benni
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2016
@Benni
The consensus is that you are a troll,
an emptyheaded poser who copies text from astronomy websites and pastes it here as his own
and who cannot do the simplest calculus while systematically slandering scientists of undisputed, great merit.
An utter fool and a floating turd.


So Az, with the above quote you have a contrasting example of what I was talking about regarding your query regarding TROLLS. Is the above quote a quintessential example of a TROLL? Or is the content that of scientific objectivity?
howhot3
5 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2016
Thanks for the paper's URL @Phys1. To me it brings up the question; if there is a weak boson that is generates an attraction between the electron and neutron and repels electron and proton at short range, would an anti-protophobic X boson exist that attracts the electron to proton and repels the neutron? If anti-mater Be8 decay's will the anti-protophobic X boson response demonstrate it's self similarly?
tinitus
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot3
5 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2016
You should ask why the X boson should be protophobic first, after then to extrapolate this concept further.
Good point. What is the difference between a proton and a neutron besides charge? Be8 is one of those cool perfect testbeds with a perfect balance of protons-neutrons and in the excited state Be8* it's wonderful for exploring all of the quantum steps of nuclear decay. These guys report and 6.8sigma difference in what is commonly expected and what they are seeing. You can't just ignore it in-other-words.
BongThePuffin
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DonCarloFantasia
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2016
We once thought atoms were fundamental,

Just for historic interest. The word atom literally translates to: 'indivisible'.

They are also not "a-tomic", alas. You think we would have learned our lesson then.

It's an easy (and I feel excusable) mistake to make. At the time a deterministic world view was still the only one out there. A deterministic world view requires a fundamental entity. Wrapping our collective heads around the probabilistic universe is still causing a lot of people headaches. (And who knows: maybe not even that is where the fun stops. Though I'll be buggered if I have any idea what could replace a probabilistic view.)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2016
In this chatroom, the consensus opinion as to whom is a "troll" is anyone who disagrees with an opposing opinion of someone else.


Bull shit, which means Benji. No opinion is required. You've freely admitted you dismiss our "textbook knowledge" and "only come here for the humor". You don't accept the premises the site is built around and you come here only for shits and grins. There is no more pure definition of troll.
...........and postings just like this one of yours is the "humor" of which I speak. You don't attempt to have a cogent exchange about the topic, you just launch into the usual foul mouthed routine you've always engaged in while calling somebody else a "troll" for calling you out on it.
ElectricBoobVerses
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2016
I don't debate QCD with my cat, either, and she's more qualified to do it than you. "Cogent" and "an exchange with you" are mutually exclusive sets.


.........then embark on a study of Special Relativity & actually learn something about energy rather than spending your time trolling others who already know far more about it than you've ever been able to demonstrate thus far. If you would actually study the contents of Special Relativity you wouldn't need to depend on someone else to explain it to you.

When you trolls put up rants like you just did, all you're doing is broadcasting to the casual internet readership just how shallow & vacuous you concepts of science really are. Even as you are reading this you falsely imagine I'm writing this to you, I'm not, I'm writing this to the casual reader who never logs in thus never votes but who will read this post thus making a contrasting difference between what you post & what is a normal behavioral response. Got it?
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2016
@Benni
Save your keyboard, Troll.
Nobody should take advise from you.
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2016
What is the difference between a proton and a neutron besides charge?

One quark, so its internal structure is different and its strong field should be different.
A neutron decays by the weak interaction..
Mass and magnetic moment are different.
That sums it up, I believe.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2016
We once thought atoms were fundamental,

Just for historic interest. The word atom literally translates to: 'indivisible'.

They are also not "a-tomic", alas. You think we would have learned our lesson then.

It's an easy (and I feel excusable) mistake to make. At the time a deterministic world view was still the only one out there. A deterministic world view requires a fundamental entity. Wrapping our.... (And who knows: maybe not even that is where the fun stops. Though I'll be buggered if I have any idea what could replace a probabilistic view.)

I rather think the ancient thought is not too far from the truth. Although it does contain more fundamental units, the Atom is still the smallest part that engages in chemical make up etc. Rather like the the smallest em unit that can carry info but isn't necessarily the smallest part of em or the fastest. Just my layman point of view.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2016
There was never a time that we thought fundamental that what we know now as atoms.
From the beginning of atomic physics it was clear that there should be positive and negative charge inside, that is, atoms consisted of still smaller parts.
Enthusiastic Fool
not rated yet Aug 18, 2016
@Phys1
Thanks for the arxiv link!

@Smart People
I recently watched Veritasium's video on the repoducibility crisis in modern science. One of the interesting things was p-hacking. I also found this where you can p-hack real data to make correlations between either party being good or bad for the US economy to 5 sigma:
http://fivethirty...-broken/

This is a 6.8 sigma anomaly but the paper doesnt call it a discovery rather cite it as evidence. Is this because the 6.8 sigma figure is basically p-hacked in that it's reinterpretation of existing data looking for something significant?
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016
I like how we keep finding Proofs of finer and finer grades of matter and energy interactions and how closely they actually resemble the processes we see going on in the outer, mega-scale Universe.

And people laugh at me and downvote me because I have the 'radical' ideas....funny thing how the facts stack up against those doing the downvoting and keep piling up for my Proofs Of Concept with more data to fit into the whole pattern I express. That is OK, laugh and play voting games all ye want, the Data and the Experimental Evidence points fairly clearly to finer matter and energy regimes, and how much those finer details look like the gross details of Globular Clusters of Stars, Galaxies and Galactic Clusters interacting with each other. With clearer Astronomical Data matching up with Particle Physics Data it is really hard to ignore how very close they are once scale is taken into account for time as well as size (using Lightspeed as a constant). Repeating fractal iterations.
bschott
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2016
There was never a time that we thought fundamental that what we know now as atoms.

So we went directly from the creation of fire to quantum mechanics...gotcha.
From the beginning of atomic physics it was clear that there should be positive and negative charge inside, that is, atoms consisted of still smaller parts.

Links to prove this valid? As in the first paper on atomic physics mentioning an atoms internal workings?

More bullshit from moms basement....
tinitus
Aug 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Azrael
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016
Repeating fractal iterations.


@Steelwolf

The randomness/homogeneity of the distribution of matter throughout the universe seems to invalidate this idea: http://www.space....ory.html
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016
@bschott
Thomson's "nebular atom" consisted of many parts bound by electrical attraction and repulsion. After his discovery of the electron in 1897, he changed to the plumpudding model of electrons in a diffuse positive charge. Then came Rutherford, Bohr, Schrodinger and finally Dirac.
"In 1897, Thomson showed that cathode rays were composed of previously unknown negatively charged particles, which he calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms and a very large value for their charge-to-mass ratio. Thus he is credited with the discovery and identification of the electron; and with the discovery of the first subatomic particle. "
https://en.wikipe..._Thomson
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016
Link for Thomson's nebular atom:
https://books.goo...;f=false
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2016
So already in those days, preceding by decades the atom as we know it, physicists considered the atom as composite.
I am always happy to teach you something.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2016
So already in those days, preceding by decades the atom as we know it, physicists considered the atom as composite.
I am always happy to teach you something.

Now go teach YOURSELF about the height of the atmosphere.
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016
@antigoracle
You only change the subject because I am right.
It seems so easy to teach you, as your mind is obviously blank.
The catch is that you reject anything that does not smell bullshit.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2016
So already in those days, preceding by decades the atom as we know it, physicists considered the atom as composite.
I am always happy to teach you something.

For the first time on this forum, you have. Thank you. I have never read up on the history of atomic physics and how the mainstream arrived at todays nonsense, so if you wish to teach me more, who steered everyone in the wrong direction when Thompson:
Thomson's "nebular atom" consisted of many parts bound by electrical attraction and repulsion.

was closer to reality than todays model?
Steelwolf
not rated yet Aug 18, 2016
Az, look at the randomness and homogenicity of our oceans, you will find they are of about the same order as the Above Universe, or of the atmosphere, which has atoms bouncing around with photons zipping though, and the smaller you go, the closer it looks to the observed outer universe so we think off branching lightning or sets of neurons or even a fizzy carbonated drink due to the open spaces being 'gas' and thus fewer atoms. It is not THAT Hard to wrap the brain around, and yes, we do find nearly exact parallels at Macro scales as we do the micro and deep subatomic.

With Infinity, things can be infinitely small, or infinitely large, and still have the same basic structure because that is how this Universe is built. People who will only believe "Solved Mainline Theories" seem to do not understand that NONE of the theories are completely solved. The fact we are still finding new particles and do not know exactly what causes gravity point That out clearly. We Dont Have The Answers.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2016
@bschott
That would be Thompson
as is clear from the text I quoted a few posts ago.
Shall I send it in braille?
Can you even comprehend a single sentence at a time?
Contribute to science and have neurologists study your brains.
You could have been a character from https://en.wikipe...or_a_Hat
Azrael
3 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2016
We Dont Have The Answers.


@Steelwolf

We observe some parallels at different scales, sure. However, the structure of the universe still doesn't seem to fit the actual definition of a fractal structure.
Steelwolf
not rated yet Aug 19, 2016
Az, please take a look at today's article at:
http://phys.org/n...ork.html

Showing a way to correlate and compare Macro, Meso and Micro scale systems. And they find some amazing similarities at all scales.

And remember. by comparison we are seeing just the tiniest bit of our universe, there is a maximum to the distance we can accurately see things extremely far away due to the limitations of redshift: Distance can make even the highest powered Gamma ray into an extremely low energy photon that is no longer travelling in a straight path from it's source, even with gravitational anomalies along the way. So far we are able to see things that are farther away than 19B LY, based on redshift, even though the Universe is only nearly 14B yrs old. But, there is a hard limit to how far we can actually see due to the fact that beyond that light has dropped to so low of energy that detection is difficult and placing location nearly impossible.
Osiris1
not rated yet Sep 10, 2016
Like I said and was repeated here, there may be a whole new plane of forces and bosons of dark sector entities to make the standard model symetrical. However even a modicom of symettry would require a third rank of forces and particles in this Rubik's cube called the 'New Standard' Model.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.