▲ 183 ▼ Scientists at Fermilab close in on fifth force of nature (www.bbc.co.uk) submitted 3 years ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 59 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1293808 Archived version: https://archive.ph/fHjNq Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230810182753/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099
[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago* (16 children) What’s the other 4? Gravity… and… Light? Kinetic? Magnetic? permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 years ago (5 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 years ago* (4 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 years ago (3 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip [S] 10 points 3 years ago Gravity, The weak force, Electromagnetic force, The strong nuclear force Source: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html permalink fedilink source parent [–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) They're literally listed in the article permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Knusper@feddit.de 5 points 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lord_McAlister@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (5 children) If I remember there's weak and strong nuclear force, then two others. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (4 children) No, there's two others, then the nuclear forces permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (3 children) I think there's a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cwade12c@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago The body of the article lists them, they just aren’t listed in the title. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 years ago (5 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 years ago* (4 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 years ago (3 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 years ago* (4 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 years ago (3 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 years ago (3 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago* Reading it back I don't blame you. It does come across as an attempt to argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip [S] 10 points 3 years ago Gravity, The weak force, Electromagnetic force, The strong nuclear force Source: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) They're literally listed in the article permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Knusper@feddit.de 5 points 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Knusper@feddit.de 5 points 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lord_McAlister@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (5 children) If I remember there's weak and strong nuclear force, then two others. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (4 children) No, there's two others, then the nuclear forces permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (3 children) I think there's a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (4 children) No, there's two others, then the nuclear forces permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (3 children) I think there's a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (3 children) I think there's a nuclear force, then two others, then another nuclear force. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Maybe it's nuclear forces all the way down permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yes, but the real nuclear forces were the friends we made along the way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Someone’s trying to connect the dots on a grand unified theory. The best ones are all untestable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cwade12c@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago The body of the article lists them, they just aren’t listed in the title. permalink fedilink source parent