How to find forces that are not yet known?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

How would one go about to find forces that are not yet known or found?
I've always found that there are at least two or more explanations for most of the things and that is how one should go about to discovering new forces.

If i have a glass that is full of water i can say that the glass is not empty because there is water in the glass.I can also look at an empty glass and say that it is empty because it is filled with air.So I've discovered water and air.Is this how people find new forces?


So if an object is floating in space one explanation for it would be that it is because there is no(or negligible) gravity acting on it.
(Like saying that the glass is full because it is filled with water.)
Another explanation would be that it is because (some unexplained force) is acting on it and that is the reason it is floating?

So how exactly would one go about to find stuff that we don't know yet exists?

[houseofcantor]

Teh maths. 

Have you researched the search for dark matter - that makes for a good example.

[downbeatplumb]

Teh maths. 

Have you researched the search for dark matter - that makes for a good example.

Dark matter hasn't been found just posed as possibility to explain certain things that make the maths wrong and certain phenomena. Like dark energy.

[houseofcantor]

Teh maths. 

Have you researched the search for dark matter - that makes for a good example.

Dark matter hasn't been found just posed as possibility to explain certain things that make the maths wrong and certain phenomena. Like dark energy.

Prolly should clarify for the silly cats in the audience 

The search for dark matter makes a good example of how to find forces that are not yet known

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I've also found that all objects possesses all forces.Like a ball idle on the ground has kinetic energy.I don't know any more examples to show.But all objects possesses all forces at least in miniature amounts.The force that is the most majority on an object would have the most effect on it.
Sometimes I've felt that researchers take an object with ten 1's,two 2's,one 3 and since we haven't yet discovered the 1's and 2's they focus on the 3.Because it's the only thing they can find..
Like if we haven't yet discovered gravity people could think that objects fall because of their (kinetic energy? oh idk,physics nerds fill in the blanks) and then focus on that instead of focusing on gravity.

Dead end researches ;__;

[houseofcantor]

Why am I suddenly thinking you're not qualified to be posting in the science section? 

[robvalue]

As far as I'm aware, we investigate forces by measuring their effects. We then describe these effects that can be separated out by different names, and apply in a particular way, such as gravity.

It's always possible more forces are acting on things, having either no net effect, or effects we aren't aware of. Until they make a measurable difference, it's irrelevant whether these forces are there or not from a scientific point of view.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Why am I suddenly thinking you're not qualified to be posting in the science section? 

Do you want me to sent you my "certificate's" copy

[Alex K]

For example by producing the bosons carrying the force at particle accelerators and observing their decay products. This works best for strong supershort range forces like the misleadingly named "weak" force.

Additional new long range forces generally lead to violations of the gravitational equivalence principle and could become noticeable in precision measurements of gravitational attraction, e.g Eotvos type experiments or measurements of the Casimir effect which have astonishing precision. (For details see e.g. my paper where we demonstrate the virtual theoretical impossibility of superluminal neutrinos because they would have required new forces of this type - and references therein)

[robvalue]

I'd kudos that if I understood it