Fermilab may be close to proving that a fifth force exists

[ugordan]

It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel.

It's not hard at all.
Call me a grumpy old man, but I fail to see how a tentative new force of nature would automatically help to advance space travel? For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

Sure it did. The weak force allows us to model fission more accurately, which, while it never flew, full scale prototypes of NTRs were built and tested, and I think someone actually flew a nuclear reactor for orbital power generation (Soviets).

So it didn't help space travel much, but the weak force was involved to some extent.

In the future if we get fusion rockets the weak force will be right there in the models.

Well, sure, but you kind of made my point. As of now, only RTGs have had a big impact on space travel and I don't know about other isotopes that have been used historically, but Pu-238 undergoes alpha decay which, again, is not governed by the weak force.

[laszlo]

It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel.

It's not hard at all.
Call me a grumpy old man, but I fail to see how a tentative new force of nature would automatically help to advance space travel? For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

Sure it did. The weak force allows us to model fission more accurately, which, while it never flew, full scale prototypes of NTRs were built and tested, and I think someone actually flew a nuclear reactor for orbital power generation (Soviets).

So it didn't help space travel much, but the weak force was involved to some extent.

In the future if we get fusion rockets the weak force will be right there in the models.

Well, sure, but you kind of made my point. As of now, only RTGs have had a big impact on space travel and I don't know about other isotopes that have been used historically, but Pu-238 undergoes alpha decay which, again, is not governed by the weak force.

How about the radioluminescent backup lighting in the Apollo spacecraft? Actual engineering based on the weak force.

[ugordan]

How about the radioluminescent backup lighting in the Apollo spacecraft? Actual engineering based on the weak force.

...and a true game-changer in the history of spaceflight... Are we now just relegating ourselves to finding niche roles the weak force has played *anywhere* to counter my example as opposed to the OPs hope that this tentative "fifth force" would be actually *significant* to our space travels?

I swear, if I went back some 11 years on this forum, I'd probably find someone speculating on how the discovery of the Higgs boson would advance space exploration. There is nothing to say that every new physics discovery lends itself to new, practical engineering purposes - that was my whole point to the OP, but now we're side-tracked with nitpicking on the weak force that I picked as one example. NSF forum at its finest.

[ugordan]

It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel.

It's not hard at all.
Call me a grumpy old man, but I fail to see how a tentative new force of nature would automatically help to advance space travel? For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

This is just wishful thinking.

The weak force is entwined with boson production. The Z Boson, with the weak force, is referred to as a mediator in the transfer of momentum. My physics understanding is over 50 years old, and I don't claim to be  anything more than an interested observer. But I have thought that the transfer of momentum is intrinsic to movement. If we could develop a method of creating Z Bosons (a proton sized transitory particle) on demand we would have the beginnings of an impulse drive that would not require the exhaust of a propellant.

We already have much, much simpler means of producing and using bosons that don't require expelling any propellant either and, yet, they also carry momentum. They're called photons. I don't want to sound harsh, but why complicate things by invoking Rube Goldberg-like scenarios, trying to create Z bosons (which, due to them being so heavy will immediately decay into other products, anyway - hence why the weak force is actually weak and is so short-ranged)?

https://atlas.physicsmasterclasses.org/en/zpath_lhcphysics2.htm

Propellantless space propulsion is not about new physics and it's not impossible even now, but it's all about the power available you have to drive your... well, drive. Momentum and energy are conserved in any reaction, be it Z bosons or photons so where does any advantage of using Z bosons come from?

We could have propellantless propulsion even now with giant lasers that would probably gulp gigawatts of power which we're nowhere near at and it would still be simpler than trying to produce weak force bosons on demand (which we don't have a way of doing at a massive scale and probably never will, certainly not in the direction we want them to go - out the engine).

The fact this tentative "fifth force" is so miniscule and elusive in its effects on one of the properties of the muon makes it even less likely that it will be useful for anything practical, if it ever comes to be. That's the beauty with electromagnetism, its effects are manifestly evident in everyday life and on tabletop experiments all the way back to Faraday or even earlier. If you need a huge, expensive particle accelerator to get this "fifth" force to manifest itself, then I say even sustained fusion seems like a walk in the park compared to that.

[Star One]

How about the radioluminescent backup lighting in the Apollo spacecraft? Actual engineering based on the weak force.

...and a true game-changer in the history of spaceflight... Are we now just relegating ourselves to finding niche roles the weak force has played *anywhere* to counter my example as opposed to the OPs hope that this tentative "fifth force" would be actually *significant* to our space travels?

I swear, if I went back some 11 years on this forum, I'd probably find someone speculating on how the discovery of the Higgs boson would advance space exploration. There is nothing to say that every new physics discovery lends itself to new, practical engineering purposes - that was my whole point to the OP, but now we're side-tracked with nitpicking on the weak force that I picked as one example. NSF forum at its finest.

I was the OP and please don’t put words into my mouth. The main thing that caught my attention was the fact that this appeared to be outside the SM. It was others who brought in the matter of its usefulness or not to spaceflight.

[ugordan]

I was the OP and please don’t put words into my mouth. The main thing that caught my attention was the fact that this appeared to be outside the SM. It was others who brought in the matter of its usefulness or not to spaceflight.

I was referring to this post, not yours:

It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel.

As in the OP/original post *I* was responding to. Granted, I should have been more specific from the start, but was too lazy to do so. Mea culpa.

[laszlo]

...and a true game-changer in the history of spaceflight... Are we now just relegating ourselves to finding niche roles the weak force has played *anywhere* to counter my example as opposed to the OPs hope that this tentative "fifth force" would be actually *significant* to our space travels?

I swear, if I went back some 11 years on this forum, I'd probably find someone speculating on how the discovery of the Higgs boson would advance space exploration. There is nothing to say that every new physics discovery lends itself to new, practical engineering purposes - that was my whole point to the OP, but now we're side-tracked with nitpicking on the weak force that I picked as one example. NSF forum at its finest.

Your exact words:

For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

My reply:

How about the radioluminescent backup lighting in the Apollo spacecraft? Actual engineering based on the weak force.

The crew of Apollo 13 would have to weigh in on the utility of being able to see in a powered-down command module.

I get your point that it wasn't a warp drive or something like that. My point is that a new fundamental force would eventually have some kind of application somewhere, even if "only" as an explanation for observed or new phenomena. Right now it's not even at the "What good is a newborn baby?" point since it's unconfirmed, but it's premature to write it off completely. And no, I don't believe it will ever be a warp drive, transporter or anything like that.

[Bob Woods]

It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel.

It's not hard at all.
Call me a grumpy old man, but I fail to see how a tentative new force of nature would automatically help to advance space travel? For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

This is just wishful thinking.

The weak force is entwined with boson production. The Z Boson, with the weak force, is referred to as a mediator in the transfer of momentum. My physics understanding is over 50 years old, and I don't claim to be  anything more than an interested observer. But I have thought that the transfer of momentum is intrinsic to movement. If we could develop a method of creating Z Bosons (a proton sized transitory particle) on demand we would have the beginnings of an impulse drive that would not require the exhaust of a propellant.

We already have much, much simpler means of producing and using bosons that don't require expelling any propellant either and, yet, they also carry momentum. They're called photons. I don't want to sound harsh, but why complicate things by invoking Rube Goldberg-like scenarios, trying to create Z bosons (which, due to them being so heavy will immediately decay into other products, anyway - hence why the weak force is actually weak and is so short-ranged)?

https://atlas.physicsmasterclasses.org/en/zpath_lhcphysics2.htm

Propellantless space propulsion is not about new physics and it's not impossible even now, but it's all about the power available you have to drive your... well, drive. Momentum and energy are conserved in any reaction, be it Z bosons or photons so where does any advantage of using Z bosons come from?

We could have propellantless propulsion even now with giant lasers that would probably gulp gigawatts of power which we're nowhere near at and it would still be simpler than trying to produce weak force bosons on demand (which we don't have a way of doing at a massive scale and probably never will, certainly not in the direction we want them to go - out the engine).

The fact this tentative "fifth force" is so miniscule and elusive in its effects on one of the properties of the muon makes it even less likely that it will be useful for anything practical, if it ever comes to be. That's the beauty with electromagnetism, its effects are manifestly evident in everyday life and on tabletop experiments all the way back to Faraday or even earlier. If you need a huge, expensive particle accelerator to get this "fifth" force to manifest itself, then I say even sustained fusion seems like a walk in the park compared to that.

Photons have ZERO mass. Z Bosons have a mass of 90 GeV/c² . That's a big difference.

[CoolScience]

Photons have ZERO mass. Z Bosons have a mass of 90 GeV/c² . That's a big difference.

It is in fact a big difference, which makes them a terrible idea to use for propulsion.  90 GeV of photons have 90 Gev /c of momentum. a 90 GeV Z boson has zero momentum. In all cases, you are better off turning energy into photons than creating massive particles and accelerating them. The only reason we use massive particles (atoms/molecules) for modern space propulsion is that short of an antimatter drive, we cannot extract more energy from them, and we are not spending energy to synthesize them. Z bosons are simple to extract energy from, just wait a split second for them to decay, or better, don't produce them in the first place.

The general equation:
E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m0 * c^2)^2
p is momentum, to maximize that, you want to minimize m0.

You claimed that your physics understanding is 50 years old, so far between your incorrect claim that Z Bosons have some kind of special relationship with momentum (they only have the standard one that all particles do) and now an implication that more mass would help rather than hurt it, there is no time period where your knowledge would be correct. I suggest you ask more questions and not make assertions on things that you have not researched.

[CoolScience]

...and a true game-changer in the history of spaceflight... Are we now just relegating ourselves to finding niche roles the weak force has played *anywhere* to counter my example as opposed to the OPs hope that this tentative "fifth force" would be actually *significant* to our space travels?

I swear, if I went back some 11 years on this forum, I'd probably find someone speculating on how the discovery of the Higgs boson would advance space exploration. There is nothing to say that every new physics discovery lends itself to new, practical engineering purposes - that was my whole point to the OP, but now we're side-tracked with nitpicking on the weak force that I picked as one example. NSF forum at its finest.

Your exact words:

For example, how did the (already known) weak force help space travel? Answer: it didn't.

My reply:

How about the radioluminescent backup lighting in the Apollo spacecraft? Actual engineering based on the weak force.

The crew of Apollo 13 would have to weigh in on the utility of being able to see in a powered-down command module.

I get your point that it wasn't a warp drive or something like that. My point is that a new fundamental force would eventually have some kind of application somewhere, even if "only" as an explanation for observed or new phenomena. Right now it's not even at the "What good is a newborn baby?" point since it's unconfirmed, but it's premature to write it off completely. And no, I don't believe it will ever be a warp drive, transporter or anything like that.

You should go back and read what was being replied to:
"It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel."
The implication was quite clearly space drives, and was accompanied by unfounded confidence of the utility of any new force. A niche use of glowing paint that could also be handled by flashlights, and which doesn't require any actual knowledge of the detailed radioactive processes to apply is in no way a relevant counter example.

If there is ever a new force discovered, it will almost by definition be fundamental to the universe working the way it does. It will also almost certainly only manifest in some tiny effects like the experiment here and is unlikely to result in any new technology. Also, I haven't read the details of this experiment, is there some particular reason that it is claimed as a possible new force rather than minor refinement of some existing parameter? Or is this a case like the LHC black holes thing where headlines are just grabbing the most attention grabbing, but least likely explanation/result.

[edzieba]

The implication was quite clearly space drives

There is far more to space travel than just the burney bits at the end. A better understanding of subatomic behaviour may allow for (for example) design of more effective physical radiation shielding, more efficient charged particle deflection, novel sensor systems (e.g. more remote mascon sensors, sensors than can perform fine volumetric measurements of the operational state of the inside of your fission or fusion reactor), etc. Even if a 'fifth force' only has notable effects on the strong and weak nuclear forces, that still has implications for nuclear and condensed matter physics that may have applications at the macroscale.
Relativistic physics doesn't just deal with hypothetical c-fractional drives, after all. Without an understanding of relativistic physics there would - for example - be no Sagnac effect, which means no ring-laser gyros, which would mean spacecraft would be stuck using mechanical gimbals with all their associated issues (minimum mass, power consumption, gimbal-lock, etc).

[Mark K]

If there is ever a new force discovered, it will almost by definition be fundamental to the universe working the way it does. It will also almost certainly only manifest in some tiny effects like the experiment here and is unlikely to result in any new technology. Also, I haven't read the details of this experiment, is there some particular reason that it is claimed as a possible new force rather than minor refinement of some existing parameter? Or is this a case like the LHC black holes thing where headlines are just grabbing the most attention grabbing, but least likely explanation/result.

Fermilab have a relatively high sigma value of a basic measurement that falls outside of general ranges of Standard Model calculations. There is a very good chance this discrepancy holds up - that is, their measurement is correct.

The problem is that the "error" could very well be on the Standard Model calculation side. That is it that we are not calculating the value correctly for this experiment and using the correct calculation will bring the values together. They are doing very many loops of Feynman diagrams and many particles. These calculations are very much not trivial and there is an acknowledgement that this may well be the issue. As is classic today people jump on the hype before the work is done.

So there is some chance this is really new physics not predicted, and there is also some chance this is showing us an issue with how we calculate things using our current models. Either will be important to know.

[laszlo]

A niche use of glowing paint that could also be handled by flashlights, and which doesn't require any actual knowledge of the detailed radioactive processes to apply is in no way a relevant counter example.

It was promethium-147 encapsulated in glass capsules sealed inside acrylic toggle switches. It was a backup to the 3 penlights issued to each crewman since back in the 60's they only had a reliability of hours to days. Relevance superbly explained by edzieba above.

[CoolScience]

If there is ever a new force discovered, it will almost by definition be fundamental to the universe working the way it does. It will also almost certainly only manifest in some tiny effects like the experiment here and is unlikely to result in any new technology. Also, I haven't read the details of this experiment, is there some particular reason that it is claimed as a possible new force rather than minor refinement of some existing parameter? Or is this a case like the LHC black holes thing where headlines are just grabbing the most attention grabbing, but least likely explanation/result.

Fermilab have a relatively high sigma value of a basic measurement that falls outside of general ranges of Standard Model calculations. There is a very good chance this discrepancy holds up - that is, their measurement is correct.

The problem is that the "error" could very well be on the Standard Model calculation side. That is it that we are not calculating the value correctly for this experiment and using the correct calculation will bring the values together. They are doing very many loops of Feynman diagrams and many particles. These calculations are very much not trivial and there is an acknowledgement that this may well be the issue. As is classic today people jump on the hype before the work is done.

So there is some chance this is really new physics not predicted, and there is also some chance this is showing us an issue with how we calculate things using our current models. Either will be important to know.

Thank you for the reply. I pretty much assumed that relatively high confidence was obtained, at least assuming no errors were made and given the absurd difficulty of particle physics calculations that is certainly a potential error. What I really want to know, but might not be simple to explain, is why they are calling the new effect a new force rather than a new particle, or possibly more simply a modification to an existing force. A new force would be one of the most extreme changes, implying at least 1 new particle. At a minimum I question the quality of the reporting when the most radical possibility is the first one listed.

[CoolScience]

The implication was quite clearly space drives

There is far more to space travel than just the burney bits at the end.

I know that, but when someone's reaction to a "new force" is that it must be applicable to space travel, it is pretty clear the intent is for propulsion. Bob's reply after that about Z Bosons having some kind of magic use for propulsion makes this even more obvious.

A better understanding of subatomic behaviour may allow for (for example) design of more effective physical radiation shielding, more efficient charged particle deflection, novel sensor systems (e.g. more remote mascon sensors, sensors than can perform fine volumetric measurements of the operational state of the inside of your fission or fusion reactor), etc. Even if a 'fifth force' only has notable effects on the strong and weak nuclear forces, that still has implications for nuclear and condensed matter physics that may have applications at the macroscale.

None of these are plausible, some are straight up sci-fi magic, and even your example of "only" affecting the strong and weak nuclear force is a far stronger statement than what can be expected from something that has never been noticed in any other experiment, except for modifying the wobble of a muon in one specific case.

Relativistic physics doesn't just deal with hypothetical c-fractional drives, after all. Without an understanding of relativistic physics there would - for example - be no Sagnac effect, which means no ring-laser gyros, which would mean spacecraft would be stuck using mechanical gimbals with all their associated issues (minimum mass, power consumption, gimbal-lock, etc).

You are now just bringing up irrelevant things, and also demonstrating your own lack of knowledge. (MEMS gyros are standard and commonly used)

[CoolScience]

A niche use of glowing paint that could also be handled by flashlights, and which doesn't require any actual knowledge of the detailed radioactive processes to apply is in no way a relevant counter example.

It was promethium-147 encapsulated in glass capsules sealed inside acrylic toggle switches. It was a backup to the 3 penlights issued to each crewman since back in the 60's they only had a reliability of hours to days. Relevance superbly explained by edzieba above.

Please go back and read my post because what you wrote here indicates that you entirely missed the point. The specific chemicals or having multiple layers doesn't change that it is basically a paint, but also what you call it doesn't matter, because the point of what you quoted here is that you don't need to know anything about the weak force for this kind of lighting. Even that is not the main point of my post, which was that you simply and plainly ignored the original context so even if you counted this as an application of the weak force, it does not counter what ugordan originally said.

You have actually stated that you agree with what ugordan's point was so why do you keep insisting on misrepresenting things and ignoring anything you find inconvenient in your replies?

[edzieba]

Relativistic physics doesn't just deal with hypothetical c-fractional drives, after all. Without an understanding of relativistic physics there would - for example - be no Sagnac effect, which means no ring-laser gyros, which would mean spacecraft would be stuck using mechanical gimbals with all their associated issues (minimum mass, power consumption, gimbal-lock, etc).

You are now just bringing up irrelevant things, and also demonstrating your own lack of knowledge. (MEMS gyros are standard and commonly used)

MEMS gyros are commonly used for consumer devices in groundside applications, where you have the G-vector to use as a baseline to clamp their poor drift characteristics (and ideally incorporate a 3-axis magnetometer to use the local magnetic field to clamp yaw drift). They are not close to stable enough for satellite use without an independent absolute orientation source to act as a baseline to clamp drift.

[CoolScience]

Relativistic physics doesn't just deal with hypothetical c-fractional drives, after all. Without an understanding of relativistic physics there would - for example - be no Sagnac effect, which means no ring-laser gyros, which would mean spacecraft would be stuck using mechanical gimbals with all their associated issues (minimum mass, power consumption, gimbal-lock, etc).

You are now just bringing up irrelevant things, and also demonstrating your own lack of knowledge. (MEMS gyros are standard and commonly used)

MEMS gyros are commonly used for consumer devices in groundside applications, where you have the G-vector to use as a baseline to clamp their poor drift characteristics (and ideally incorporate a 3-axis magnetometer to use the local magnetic field to clamp yaw drift). They are not close to stable enough for satellite use without an independent absolute orientation source to act as a baseline to clamp drift.

Independent correction sources like star trackers or sun sensors which are standard equipment on satellites? RLGs are not perfect either, and even when they are good enough for a mission duration, absolute starting attitude would still be needed, so absolute references will still be required in general.

Since the only thing you responded to was a side note about an irrelevant off topic statement you made, are you not disagreeing with the actually more relevant portions of my post?

[jimvela]

MEMS gyros are commonly used for consumer devices in groundside applications, where you have the G-vector to use as a baseline to clamp their poor drift characteristics (and ideally incorporate a 3-axis magnetometer to use the local magnetic field to clamp yaw drift). They are not close to stable enough for satellite use without an independent absolute orientation source to act as a baseline to clamp drift.

That's not correct.  As a counterexample, consider the DTU micro Advanced Stellar Compas product.
Inside each of the two independent CHUs (Camera Head Units) in this product, there are MIRUs which are MEMS devices.

These are in use for spacecraft flight applications out to beyond LEO.

These aren't of the same capability of an IMU like an LN200S, but are perfectly capable of supporting spacecraft GNC needs.

Edit: corrected product name.

[edzieba]

Since the only thing you responded to was a side note about an irrelevant off topic statement you made, are you not disagreeing with the actually more relevant portions of my post?

Since "they said X, but they surely must really mean Y" is a basic Straw Man, its not worth considering further.

MEMS gyros are commonly used for consumer devices in groundside applications, where you have the G-vector to use as a baseline to clamp their poor drift characteristics (and ideally incorporate a 3-axis magnetometer to use the local magnetic field to clamp yaw drift). They are not close to stable enough for satellite use without an independent absolute orientation source to act as a baseline to clamp drift.

That's not correct.  As a counterexample, consider the DTU micro Advanced Stellar Camera product.
Inside each of the two independent CHUs (Camera Head Units) in this product, there are MIRUs which are MEMS devices.

These are in use for spacecraft flight applications out to beyond LEO.

These aren't of the same capability of an IMU like an LN200S, but are perfectly capable of supporting spacecraft GNC needs.

I can't find a 'micro Advanced Stellar Camera', though there is the 'micro Advanced stellar Compass', though that contains no IMU (MEMS or otherwise) in either the CHUs or processor box. Its update rate is capped at the star tracker update rate, which is also a dead giveaway that it's a purely imaging system. Is there another system you're thinking of?