Scientists at Fermilab close in on fifth force of nature

https://lemmy.zip/post/1293810

Scientists at Fermilab close in on fifth force of nature - Lemmy.zip

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1293808 [https://lemmy.zip/post/1293808] > Archived version: https://archive.ph/fHjNq [https://archive.ph/fHjNq] > Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230810182753/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099 [https://web.archive.org/web/20230810182753/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099]

What’s the other 4? Gravity… and…

Gravity, The weak force, Electromagnetic force, The strong nuclear force

Source: www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html

The four fundamental forces of nature

Facts about the four fundamental forces that describe every interaction in nature.

Space.com
If I remember there’s weak and strong nuclear force, then two others.
No, there’s two others, then the nuclear forces
I think there’s a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong.
Maybe it’s nuclear forces all the way down
Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way.

Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory.

The best ones are all untestable.

  • Strong nuclear force: holds the nucleus of an atom together
  • Weak nuclear force: responsible for radioactive decay
  • Electromagnetic force: of charged particles
  • Gravitational force: attractive force between objects with mass
  • Not all decays are weak-based, though, and not all weak phenomina are directly related to radioactivity. That’s just the only thing a layman has heard of where it’s relevant.

    The strong force only holds atoms together through a sort of trickle-down force, too, but that one feels like splitting hairs.

    The person I replied to wasn’t able to name the forces beyond gravity, so I think over-simplification and reduction to specific phenomena they would have heard of is appropriate.
    Oh, absolutely. I was adding on for anyone else reading who might appreciate answer gravy. Sorry if it came across as critical of what you wrote, my bad.
    Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex.
    Reading it back I don’t blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue.
    The body of the article lists them, they just aren’t listed in the title.
    They’re literally listed in the article

    Well, the article currently lists them as: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force.

    If you’re not familiar, you wouldn’t be able to guess that the last two are nuclear forces and in the context of a new force, that list is rather confusing.