Comprehensive coverage

Theoretical physicists: We discovered a particle that activates the fifth force in nature

According to the researchers, from the University of California at Irvine, the particle, which weighs 30 times that of the electron, which means it is very light and can be detected in laboratories and accelerators, communicates with the electrons and neutrons and may enable the unification of most of the other forces and may also provide an explanation for dark matter. Now we have to wait for its experimental confirmation
Findings indicating the possible discovery of a hitherto unknown subatomic particle may indicate the existence of a fifth force in nature. This is according to an article published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine.

The research was headed by Prof. Jonathan Peng, and partners in it include Bartosh Fournal, Yeftah Galon, Susan Gardner, Jordan Semillonsky, Tim Tait and Philip Tendo.

"If it's true, it's revolutionary," said Jonathan Peng, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine. "For decades we have known the four basic forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force will completely change our understanding of the universe, with implications for the unification of forces and the cause of dark matter.” says Feng.

Galon, a postdoctoral student at the University of California, Irving, whose doctorate he did under Prof. Yael Shadami, explains in a conversation with the science website: "We came across a study published in mid-2015 by experimental nuclear physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences who were looking for "dark photons," particles that would symbolize dark matter, which Physicists say that it makes up over 85 percent of the mass of the universe. "Hungarian researchers have uncovered an anomaly in radioactive decay, which indicates the existence of a light particle only 30 times heavier than an electron."

"The Hungarian researchers, in a facility called Atomic, used a proton generator and shot at a target made of lithium, and as a result of the impact, beryllium 8 was created, a rare isotope produced in nuclear reactions. Like the hydrogen atom, the beryllium atom also has excited states but at much higher energies - a million times that of the hydrogen atom. Because of the level differences, it is possible not only to emit a spectrum of light as in hydrogen, but also electron-positron pairs when the nucleus goes from the excited state to the ground state."

"Before they performed the experiment, they knew how the results of electron-positron emission should look according to the theory, if it is dark photons. They expected to see something smooth, instead they saw a jump in their data, which should be interpreted as a new particle. Our analysis took their results and interpreted what this particle could be. We came to the conclusion that this is indeed a new particle - carrying a fifth force that is mainly protophobic - that is, it does not like to talk to the protons." Galon explains.

We all know the four forces of nature - gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Electric charge involves protons and electrons but not neutrons - the neutral particles in an atom. This force talks to neutrons and electrons but not to protons, with which it talks relatively weakly. The meaning is that if this is indeed true, this will change everything we know about the standard model - which describes three of the four forces - the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force, and if we discover a fifth force we will have to correct our perceptions of how nature behaves - we will have to expand the standard model .”

Galon adds: "What is interesting is that this is done at low energies, a million times that of the atom but much weaker than the energies created in the large hadron accelerator - LHC in Sarn. This is something like six orders of magnitude."

Can the new particle be 'discovered' in data from previous runs of the accelerator in the axis?

Galon: "There is a proposal to search the LHC data of the LHCb experiment, which mainly deals with accurate measurements of B masses, but it has a system with high resolution, so it can detect particles of this type. It is necessary to perform an analysis of existing data and data that comes in all the time. If the resolution is good enough, it will be possible to test the theory. There are experiments in Italy and Russia that are able to detect the particle using electrons or positrons hitting the target.

Like many scientific breakthroughs, the current particle, which is still theoretical, opens up entirely new fields of research. One direction is the possibility that this potential fifth force may be the unifying factor between the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. "Revelations of one more basic glorious power."

What is the probability that this is not a new power?
"As always, it is necessary to verify the result. If our interpretation of the Hungarian experiment concerns the same parameters as we understand it, it will be possible to verify it in future experiments as I mentioned with LHCb. Since the new force also interacts with electrons and positrons there are also experiments in electron-positron accelerators that have the ability in principle to study this particle.

to the notice of the researchers

for scientific research

12 תגובות

  1. Elbentzo Thanks for your answer, the beetle may not produce milk but at least it helped us at Mount Sinai 😉 .
    Another question :
    According to what I understand, scientists came to the conclusion that there was a big bang because in the observations they see that all the galaxies are moving away from each other, usually this is demonstrated on a balloon that draws dots on it and when it is inflated you see the dots move away.
    In the amusement park there is a carousel device with chairs in the air, when you sit on it and the device gains speed you see a similar effect that all the people move away from each other (one more, one less depending on the weight)
    My question: Why did they conclude that the model is an expansion from an infinitesimal point? Why can't it be that the universe rotates quickly and that there is perhaps some force in the center that rotates it and therefore everything moves away from each other?

  2. Albanzo
    Great explanation. And how can it be that there is energy in a vacuum? Unless the vacuum is a kind of field that mediates between the energy that enters, from some place where the information is not usable, into this field of vacuum, through which the energy is converted into usable information and passes on?

  3. monument,

    The answer to your question has several parts:

    1. The Big Bang is not an explosion and therefore any analogy between it and an explosion is fundamentally wrong. It's just a name, and not a good one. Equating the big bang to an explosion is a bit like saying that a certain beetle produces milk, because it is called "the ladybug", and cows produce milk.

    2. Even in an explosion, particles accelerate only as long as a force acts on them - that is, as long as they are pushed. So if the acceleration we observe today is a direct remnant of the Big Bang, there must be some force that continues to push the entire universe outward. For many years physicists have been trying to locate and understand this force, and as of today the only explanation that is consistent with observations is dark energy. If one day a person comes along and finds a force that is not dark and continues to push the universe outwards according to the observations, that will generally pull the rug under some of the evidence for the existence of dark energy.

    3. As stated in the previous section, "part of the evidence", namely that the existence of dark energy has other evidence besides the expansion of the universe. True, accelerated expansion is probably the strongest and most important, but it is not the only one. For example, from quantum considerations alone (which do not relate to the way our universe develops) it can be seen that a vacuum has energy that exerts outward pressure.

  4. a question :
    In every explosion of matter, the particles of the matter accelerate in the initial explosion stages and scatter everywhere.
    From what I understand scientists have concluded that dark energy exists because they see that the universe is accelerating its expansion and therefore there must be energy that makes this happen.

    My question: How do you know that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not the explosion itself? Is it not possible that we are in the first stages of the explosion and hence the acceleration of the expansion?

  5. To Eyal
    Since you agree with me, and I also agree with myself, perhaps it is appropriate that we suggest to Abi Blizovsky to change the name of the site and from now on call it "The Skeptical Scientist".
    I am sure that you are an enthusiastic supporter of my proposal.
    I thank you for that, in advance and from the bottom of my heart.

  6. No. Benner

    Note what I wrote in my first response. Exactly what you stated here. Their role is crucial. we agree

    For me, in science everything is always under doubt. I will always doubt and check myself and others. Theories arise and are replaced by others when new experiments disprove them. This is how science works.

  7. To Eyal
    I do not agree with the point you raised.
    It is true that the results discovered so far do not support the existence of the "new elementary particle", but the theoretical effort is of the utmost importance in that it may lead to new predictions and new experiments.
    Science is a process. There are known cases where what was previously considered "incorrect" is later found to be at least "apparently correct" or "needs re-examination".
    Examples: (*)-Einstein's cosmological constant. (*)-Halmaric theory of evolution
    And there may be other examples.
    Science derives much knowledge and important conclusions from apparent "failures".

  8. A. Bonner,
    very true. What is a bit funny is that in the last year since the publication of the "new elementary particle" at the LHC until the recent announcement that it was a statistical error, several hundreds of theoretical articles have been published that give different explanations and theories about the "new particle". Theorists always jump on these things. Especially in particles and astrophysics.

  9. It is worth mentioning that about a year ago, there was a possibility that a new elementary particle was found in the LHC accelerator in Sarn, but after examining many results of the experiment, it was clarified that this was a statistical error that was canceled with the accumulation of enough results.
    There is, however, probably with a high probability, the possibility that the Hungarian experiment is also a statistical deviation, which may be eliminated when the results of a large number of experiments are examined.
    It is a bit hard to believe that suddenly, after so many experiments with many different accelerators, a new fundamental force was discovered.
    But... as long as the opposite is not proven, everything is open.

  10. The important point in my opinion is the title of the writers: "Gilino".
    Theorists do not discover, but provide predictions and theory that claim experimental substantiation.
    Their role is crucial in formulating new rules of the game for understanding nature just as the experimenters have their own crucial role.
    In the end it is an interpretation of the anomaly, which as of now is as good as any other interpretation. We have to wait for experiments to confirm this. Anything else is a bit of pretension for headlines.

  11. Very interesting!
    Herzl: It doesn't sound like the mistake regarding the faster-than-light neutrinos because in that case, if it turned out not to be a mistake - this would lead to a fundamental change of the standard model, while this time, if it turns out to be correct, it would lead to an expansion, and a better understanding, of the standard model.

  12. Sounds like the faster-than-light neutrinos that were discovered in Italy, and turned out to be a mistake in the experiment. We will wait and see.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.