this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
180 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32282 readers
478 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm hoping it turns out to be "funk".

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Indeed. Funk can not only move, it can remove.

[–] WidowsFavoriteSon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I love you'

[–] Skyler@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Have you all not seen Interstellar? Obviously the fifth force of nature is love.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wasn't that the Fifth Element?

[–] troybot@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

[–] Rolive@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Muhl-tee pahsss!

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago
[–] palordrolap@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What are the odds that muons are more sensitive to neutrino interaction and this is what the scientists are seeing? Muons are pretty massive, after all, and neutrinos are literally everywhere. Obligatory: "billions of neutrinos pass through you every second".

Muons are leptons like neutrinos and their electron cousins, and we already know that electrons can be boosted by the occasional neutrino interaction. A free muon in a magnetic field has nowhere to be boosted to, so, coupled with a hypothetically higher chance of interacting with a neutrino, I'd expect something to happen when it does, though not exactly what.

I figure we don't already use muons in neutrino detectors because they don't last very long (about a second) before decaying, and the only way to get them to last longer is to accelerate them to a decent fraction of the speed of light. That way, from our reference frame they can last minutes or more. That's going to be energy-hungry compared to the passive detectors we have.

i.e. the passive detectors which take advantage of the aforementioned electron / atom interaction.

[–] Fisk400@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Did we finally discover slood?

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Interesting. I never expected a fifth. If anything, I've seen a push for reducing the number down to three (gravity, strong and electro-weak) or possibly just two.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/geNMz0J9TEQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] ezures@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

Probably the same force his shotty uses to force people back

[–] Lenguador@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we've found improvements.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

So what? I mean, not to be shitty, but this is important work that allows for this downplayed and pedantic take to even exist.

Experimental verifications should be celebrated, and the fact that they're not is the problem with the current state of science journalism.

[–] crow@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

The 5th force of nature is the machine code.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

What’s the other 4? Gravity… and… Light? Kinetic? Magnetic?

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. Strong nuclear force: holds the nucleus of an atom together
  2. Weak nuclear force: responsible for radioactive decay
  3. Electromagnetic force: of charged particles
  4. Gravitational force: attractive force between objects with mass
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 year ago

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

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

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're literally listed in the article

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Lord_McAlister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I remember there's weak and strong nuclear force, then two others.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, there's two others, then the nuclear forces

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think there's a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way.

[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

The best ones are all untestable.

[–] cwade12c@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The body of the article lists them, they just aren’t listed in the title.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Tangentially related but I can't seem to find the answers and I have a couple questions that perhaps someone can answer:

  1. Do stars actually generate muons directly? From what I understand the muons on Earth are a result of cosmic rays colliding wtih particles in the atmosphere.
  2. If they do, how far do they travel before decaying? Even if they travel at relativistic speeds, they have a mean lifetime of 2.2 ns, so the math seems to say they don't travel very far at all on average.
  3. Either way, are there any other sources of muons in the universe? I'm curious what the muon density distribution in the universe would look like.
load more comments
view more: next ›