Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Fifth force?
Message-ID: <261@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jan-86 20:41:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.261
Posted: Wed Jan 15 20:41:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 07:02:59 EST
References: <459@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 39

Also Time and Newseek this week mention it.  The LA Times had a story on
the front page on 1/9 ( I think ).  It gives a reference to the journal
where this was discussed ( I think it was the Jan. 6 issue of mumble
mumble Phisics mumble mumble Letters ).

Here is a summary of all I have seen:

	The force is weaker than gravity, and short range ( max 600
	ft ).  It is repulsive.  The particles that transmit it are
	( will be? ) called hyperphotons.  There should be enough
	of these to account for a large amount of the "missing mass"
	in the universe ( if one believes that there is any missing
	mass... )  If one dropped a feather and a brick in a near
	the earth ( an airless earth, of course ), from 30ft, the
	difference in the times it would take them to fall would
	be around 10E-9 seconds.  The article in the Times mentioned
	that this force would make protons stable.

	Two experiments are cited as evidence.  The first is from
	1922(?) by Eotvos (sp?), which measured indirectly the rates
	at which several different things fall.  Some differences
	between different objects were attributed to experimental
	error, but new analysis indicated they might be real.

	The second expriment involved measurements of gravity deep
	in an Australian mine.  One of Time or Newseek ( I can't
	remember which, since they are almost the same :-) )
	said experimental results differed from theory by about 1%,
	and that the fifth force would explain these.

It would be funny if this turns out to be correct.  First people thought
that a rock would fall faster than a feather, then they thought they
would fall at the same rate, and now it is the feather that falls faster!

Note: I am not a lawyer ( oops! wrong disclaimer )....
      I am not a physicist.  If you want to know the straigt dope,
      go find the original article.
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim