
New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetical X17 particle - bookofjoe
https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459
======
henearkr
Worth noting: they even propose it could be the sign of a fifth fundamental
force of physics.

~~~
badrabbit
Is it more correct to say interaction instead of force?

Why only 5? Couldn't it be a result of multiple interactions?

One thing I wondered was how it was for long time not possible to measure the
weak and strong force/interaction due to measurement limitations. Perhaps, at
scale there are unmeasured(able) interactions. Like _____ is to our scale as
quantum scale is to ours.

Like a Macro qanta,the maximum scale of all interactions where forces that
cause expansion become too weak and no interaction of any kind,not even
electromagnetism is strong enough to exceed this incomprehensible scale...and
that is the "universe" boundary. Perhaps at this scale gravitation that causes
contraction is stronger and at this boundary and starts "pulling" back all
matter and energy. What if just like there is strong and weak forces at the
subatomic scale, maybe there is similar strong and weak gravitation? Of course
I am asking uneducated questions with no background in science.

~~~
henearkr
Well, each type of force is mediated by some type of boson. And the fact is
that the new particle would be a new kind of boson - not fitting in existing
categories. So it really is a new force that they would have discovered.

As each type of force correspond to one type of boson - which mediates the
interaction - it is indeed right, in this meaning, to call them also types of
interactions.

Also important is the fact that the discovered particle is a fundamental
particule, so it is not a composite of other fermions and other bosons. That
excludes the possibility of mistaking a mixture of existing forces for a new
one.

