Fermilab may be close to proving that a fifth force exists

#40 by jimvela on 21 Aug, 2023 15:49
Quote from: edzieba on 21 Aug, 2023 15:18
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?

I mistyped the uASC product's formal name. It's not a purely imaging system. A CHU can (and does) lose lock on the starfield and will still report rate information from the MIRUs.
#41 by AnalogMan on 21 Aug, 2023 16:01
Some progress is being made with MEMS Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) for spacecraft use:

Navigation Grade MEMS IMU for A Satellite
Wanliang Zhao, Yuxiang Cheng, Sihan Zhao, Xiaomao Hu, Yijie Rong, Jie Duan and Jiawei Chen
Micromachines 2021, 12, 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12020151
Published: 4 February 2021

Abstract: This paper presents a navigation grade micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) inertial measurement unit (IMU) that was successfully applied for the first time in the Lobster-Eye X-ray Satellite in July 2020. A six-axis MEMS gyroscope redundant configuration is adopted in the unit to improve the performance through mutual calibration of a set of two-axis gyroscopes in the same direction. In the paper, a satisfactory precision of the gyroscope is achieved by customized and self-calibration gyroscopes whose parameters are adjusted at the expense of bandwidth and dynamics.

According to the in-orbit measured data, the MEMS IMU provides an outstanding precision of better than 0.02 °/h (1σ) with excellent bias instability of 0.006 °/h and angle random walk (ARW) of around 0.003 °/√h. It is the highest precision MEMS IMU for commercial aerospace use ever publicly reported in the world to date.

[..]

The Lobster-Eye X-ray Satellite employed a MEMS IMU and a navigation grade fiber optic gyroscope (FOG) unit weighing 430 g. The in-orbit data of the MEMS unit transmitted from the satellite and the FOG unit almost completely overlap each other, as displayed in Figure 10, which means that the output and control effect of the MEMS IMU is similar to that of the FOG unit on the same satellite. Meanwhile, the weight and volume of the MEMS unit are only about 1/2 of the FOG unit.

Navigation Grade MEMS IMU for A Satellite - Yuxiang Cheng (et al) Micromachines 2021, 12, 151 - 4Feb21 12pp.pdf
#42 by CoolScience on 21 Aug, 2023 17:39
Quote from: edzieba on 21 Aug, 2023 15:18
Quote from: CoolScience on 21 Aug, 2023 14:25
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.
You and InterestedEngineer are the ones who are trying to assert that Bob Wood's statement "It's hard to think that a new force wouldn't be applicable to space travel." was somehow referring to niche applications. His first reply after that to ugordan was about magic propulsion based on Z Bosons. He clearly was not thinking about something niche. Ugordan has repeatedly made clear the intent as well. My first post here pointed out that Interested Engineer trying to tell ugordan what ugordan meant is clearly inappropriate and wrong, especially given the ignored context.

You are not only trying to invert what I said, accusing me of doing exactly the bad behavior I was pointing out, you are still ignoring the part of my reply where I pointed out your list of supposed applications for the new force that were completely implausible. That part was at least relevant to the thread, unlike the gyro discussion where you are just demonstrating the extent to which you are willing to move goal posts and make assertions on things you haven't actually researched.
#43 by Robotbeat on 21 Aug, 2023 23:06
Quote from: Bob Woods on 12 Aug, 2023 17:32
Sure sounds like "New Physics" to me.
Yeah, and arguably the LK99 thread should’ve been here, too.

Anything that would mean a physics novel prize if proven correct probably belongs here.
#44 by InterestedEngineer on 22 Aug, 2023 03:08
Instead of blaming random parties for stuff being off thread for 3 pages, how about we return to.

Exactly what is this 5th force, and what's the theory behind it, and what implications does this fifth force have besides disturbing the motion, ever so slightly, of muons?
#45 by Bob Woods on 22 Aug, 2023 07:06
Quote from: CoolScience on 19 Aug, 2023 21:42
Quote from: Bob Woods on 17 Aug, 2023 04:12
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.

Speculation is the bedrock of change. Consider you develop a way to repeatedly create Z Bosons, maybe billions, against a substrate using focused, simple, EM radiation, thereby creating a controllable transfer of momentum.

Just because you don't consider it possible is not proof that it is impossible.

It's all about finding a different way, than all the ways we have created in the past.
#46 by CoolScience on 22 Aug, 2023 14:29
Quote from: Bob Woods on 22 Aug, 2023 07:06
Speculation is the bedrock of change. Consider you develop a way to repeatedly create Z Bosons, maybe billions, against a substrate using focused, simple, EM radiation, thereby creating a controllable transfer of momentum.

Just because you don't consider it possible is not proof that it is impossible.

It's all about finding a different way, than all the ways we have created in the past.
It does not matter if you somehow come up with a way to efficiently generate Z Bosons. Something does not come from nothing, and energy does not appear out of nowhere. The energy that goes into creating a Z Boson will always be equal to its rest mass, this is simply fundamental. You keep making up nonsense terms like "controllable transfer of momentum." Rocket exhaust is a controllable transfer of momentum. You seem to be implying that Z Bosons will let you simply ignore conservation of momentum and get a different result, for the third time, they have no relationship with momentum different from any ordinary matter. It is quite simply better in all cases to use the energy that would go into them to emit massless particles like photons, or to accelerate any waste mass (such as burned rocket propellant.)

This is not about what "I consider" impossible. This is you stating things that are simply factually wrong literally on the level of claiming 1+1=3. Ignoring facts like this and trying to dismiss it as opinion frankly demonstrates a contempt for science. If this is not what you meant to communicate, it should be simple for you to apologize and then stop repeating things that you have already been told are simply wrong and contrary to facts multiple times.

Conservation laws are extremely fundamental, they have literally been proven to exist in some form (Noether's theorem) We know the relationships between mass energy and momentum, countless experiments have confirmed this, they aren't going to stop applying just because you wish it.
#47 by JohnFornaro on 23 Aug, 2023 14:03
Quote from: CoolScience on 22 Aug, 2023 14:29
Quote from: Bob Woods on 22 Aug, 2023 07:06
Speculation is the bedrock of change. ...

Just because you don't consider it possible is not proof that it is impossible.

This is not about what "I consider" impossible.

While it is broadly true that speculation is the "bedrock" of change, Bob is making a category error in his attempt to "consider" impossiblility.
#48 by leovinus on 23 Aug, 2023 14:11
Can I share my 2 cents of contribution here? IIRC the discrepancy is in the muon measurement vs traditional Feynman integrations for the standard model. There was a footnote that the newer style lattice calculations DID agree with standard model and measurement. Hence I would expect an improved traditional calculation to resolve all discrepancy. Simplest solution really and happened with other particles as well IIRC.