Physicists Found a New Clue That Could Reveal the Fifth Force

Here's what you'll learn when you read this story:
The Standard Model of Particle Physics accounts for four fundamental forces—strong, weak, electromagnetism, and gravity—but for decades, scientists have wondered if an elusive fifth force might be at work.
A new study analyzing the atomic transition of five calcium isotopes constrains the mass of a particle that would carry such a force from somewhere around 10 to 10 million electronvolts.
It's still possible that these anomalies could be explainable via the standard model.
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a scientific masterpiece, but even so, it remains unfinished. For example, we still don't know why there is matter at all (a.k.a. matter-antimatter asymmetry), and then there's the whole dark matter and dark energy thing.
Another source of some scientific quandary is whether there might be a fifth fundamental force. You might be familiar with the standard four—the strong force, the weak force, gravity, and electromagnetism—but some physicists wonder if a fifth force that couples together neutrons and electrons could also be at work throughout our universe. Now, an international collaboration of scientists from Germany, Switzerland, and Australia have discerned the upper limit of a particle that could carry such a force by looking at transition frequencies of five calcium isotopes. Those masses were penciled out to around 10 to 10 million electronvolts (yes, electron volts are sometimes used as mass measurements—thanks E=mc2). The results of the study were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
To arrive at this number, the researchers observed the atomic transitions of calcium-40, calcium-42, calcium-44, calcium-46, and calcium-48. An atomic transition occurs when an electron—attracted to the positively charged particles in a nucleus—briefly jumps to a higher energy level. These atomic transitions can vary based on the isotope and are influenced by the number of neutrons present in an atom.
Once the observations were complete, the authors mapped the variations they recorded on what's called a King plot. According to the Standard Model, this should produce a linear plot. However, that is not what the study found. Due to the high sensitivity of the experiment, the plot ended up being nonlinear, suggesting that the deviations detected by the team could be evidence of a fifth force.
That said, as the authors also note, it could also be attributable to something that is explainable within the Standard Model. However, whatever was causing these deviations, it didn't detract from the scientists' ability to set the upper limit of what the mass of the fifth-force boson might be.
The search for this fifth force is a long one, and it's a scientific endeavor that's cast quite a wide net. For a while in the 1980s, scientists at MIT thought antigravity could be a fifth force, and another idea known as 'quintessence' gained popularity at the turn of the century. Recently, Fermilab in Chicago thought that they might be closing in on a fifth force, though their final results of the 'muon g-2' experiment largely confirmed the standard model.
Other efforts have looked at much larger bodies than just atoms for evidence of the fifth force. Los Alamos National Laboratory published a study last year suggesting that by closely analyzing the orbits of asteroids and sussing out any deviations of those orbit, we could learn something about particle forces we don't understand. That team's ultimate aim, much like that of the team behind this new paper, was to understand the constraints on where this fifth force might reside.
For now, the search continues, but scientists are taking more and more steps toward a physics-altering answer.
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Using AI bots like ChatGPTcould be causing cognitive decline, new study shows

A new pre-print study from the US-based Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that using OpenAI's ChatGPT could lead to cognitive decline. Researchers with the MIT Media lab broke participants into three groups and asked them to write essays only using ChatGPT, a search engine, or using no tools. Brain scans were taken during the essay writing with an electroencephalogram (EEG) during the task. Then, the essays were evaluated by both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The study showed that the ChatGPT-only group had the lowest neural activation in parts of the brain and had a hard time recalling or recognising their writing. The brain-only group that used no technology was the most engaged, showing both cognitive engagement and memory retention. Related Can ChatGPT be an alternative to psychotherapy and help with emotional growth? The researchers then did a second session where the ChatGPT group were asked to do the task without assistance. In that session, those who used ChatGPT in the first group performed worse than their peers with writing that was 'biased and superficial'. The study found that repeated GPT use can come with 'cognitive debt' that reduces long-term learning performance in independent thinking. In the long run, people with cognitive debt could be more susceptible to 'diminished critical inquiry, increased vulnerability to manipulation and decreased creativity,' as well as a 'likely decrease' in learning skills. 'When participants reproduce suggestions without evaluating their accuracy or relevance, they not only forfeit ownership of the ideas but also risk internalising shallow or biased perspectives,' the study continued. Related 'Our GPUs are melting': OpenAI puts restrictions on new ChatGPT image generation tool The study also found higher rates of satisfaction and brain connectivity in the participants who wrote all essays with just their minds compared to the other groups. Those from the other groups felt less connected to their writing and were not able to provide a quote from their essays when asked to by the researchers. The authors recommend that more studies be done about how any AI tool impacts the brain 'before LLMs are recognised as something that is net positive for humans.'

Yahoo

9 hours ago

• Yahoo

Researchers Scanned the Brains of ChatGPT Users and Found Something Deeply Alarming

Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found some startling results in the brain scans of ChatGPT users, adding to the growing body of evidence suggesting that AI is having a serious — and barely-understood — impact on its users' cognition even as it explodes in popularity worldwide. In a new paper currently awaiting peer review, researchers from the school's storied Media Lab documented the vast differences between the brain activity of people who using ChatGPT to write versus those who did not. The research team recruited 54 adults between the ages of 18 and 39 and divided them into three groups: one that used ChatGPT to help them write essays, one that used Google search as their main writing aid, and one that didn't use AI tech. The study took place over four months, with each group tasked with writing one essay per month for the first three, while a smaller subset of the cohort either switched from not using ChatGPT to using it — or vice versa — in the fourth month. As they completed the essay tasks, the participants were hooked up to electroencephalogram (EEG) machines that recorded their brain activity. Here's where things get wild: the ChatGPT group not only "consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels," but also got lazier with each essay they wrote; the EEGs found "weaker neural connectivity and under-engagement of alpha and beta networks." The Google-assisted group, meanwhile, had "moderate" neural engagement, while the "brain-only" group exhibited the strongest cognitive metrics throughout. These findings about brain activity, while novel, aren't entirely surprising after prior studies and anecdotes about the many ways that AI chatbot use seems to be affecting people's brains and minds. Previous MIT research, for instance, found that ChatGPT "power users" were becoming dependent on the chatbot and experiencing "indicators of addiction" and "withdrawal symptoms" when they were cut off. And earlier this year Carnegie Mellon and Microsoft — which has invested billions to bankroll OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT — found in a joint study that heavy chatbot use appears to almost atrophy critical thinking skills. A few months later, The Guardian found in an analysis of studies like that one that researchers are growing increasingly concerned that tech like ChatGPT is making us stupider, and a Wall Street Journal reporter even owned up to his cognitive skill loss from over-using chatbots. Beyond the neurological impacts, there are also lots of reasons to be concerned about how ChatGPT and other chatbots like it affects our mental health. As Futurism found in a recent investigation, many users are becoming obsessed with ChatGPT and developing paranoid delusions into which the chatbot is pushing them deeper. Some have even stopped taking their psychiatric medication because the chatbot told them to. "We know people use ChatGPT in a wide range of contexts, including deeply personal moments, and we take that responsibility seriously," OpenAI told us in response to that reporting. "We've built in safeguards to reduce the chance it reinforces harmful ideas, and continue working to better recognize and respond to sensitive situations." Add it all up, and the evidence is growing that AI is having profound and alarming effects on many users — but so far, we're seeing no evidence that corporations are slowing down in their attempts to injecting the tech into every part of of society. More on ChatGPT brain: Nation Cringes as Man Goes on TV to Declare That He's in Love With ChatGPT

Bloomberg

9 hours ago

• Bloomberg

Universities Win Order Voiding Agency's 15% Research Cost Cap

Brown and Cornell universities, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several other US schools won a federal court order striking down a National Science Foundation cap on indirect cost rates for government-funded research. Judge Indira Talwani struck down the cap on Friday, finding it 'arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law,' granting summary judgment to the suing schools plus the Association of American Universities, and denying that relief to the government.