The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force

Discovery Pursuit and Justification in

Modern Physics 2nd Edition Allan
Franklin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-fifth-force-discovery-pursuit-an
d-justification-in-modern-physics-2nd-edition-allan-franklin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Rise and Fall of Peacebuilding in the Balkans

Roberto Belloni

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-
peacebuilding-in-the-balkans-roberto-belloni/

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow The Companion to the PBS
Television Series 2nd Edition Wormser

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-jim-crow-
the-companion-to-the-pbs-television-series-2nd-edition-wormser/

Introduction to Biological Physics for the Health and

Life Sciences 2nd Edition Kirsten Franklin

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-biological-
physics-for-the-health-and-life-sciences-2nd-edition-kirsten-
franklin/

Canned The Rise and Fall of Consumer Confidence in the

American Food Industry Anna Zeide

https://textbookfull.com/product/canned-the-rise-and-fall-of-
consumer-confidence-in-the-american-food-industry-anna-zeide/
What Makes a Good Experiment Reasons and Roles in
Science Allan Franklin

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-makes-a-good-experiment-
reasons-and-roles-in-science-allan-franklin/

Fall and Rise The Story of 9 11 Chinese Edition

Mitchell Zuckoff

https://textbookfull.com/product/fall-and-rise-the-story-
of-9-11-chinese-edition-mitchell-zuckoff/

Are There Really Neutrinos?-An Evidential History 2nd

Edition Allan D. Franklin (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/are-there-really-neutrinos-an-
evidential-history-2nd-edition-allan-d-franklin-author/

Strongman The Rise of Five Dictators and the Fall of

Democracy Davis Kenneth C

https://textbookfull.com/product/strongman-the-rise-of-five-
dictators-and-the-fall-of-democracy-davis-kenneth-c/

The Rise and Fall of Scottish Common Sense Realism

First Edition. Edition Ferrier

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-scottish-
common-sense-realism-first-edition-edition-ferrier/
Allan Franklin
Ephraim Fischbach

The Rise and Fall

of the Fifth Force
Discovery, Pursuit,
and Justification in Modern Physics
Second Edition
The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force
Allan Franklin • Ephraim Fischbach

The Rise and Fall of the Fifth

Force
Discovery, Pursuit, and Justification
in Modern Physics

Second Edition

123
Allan Franklin Ephraim Fischbach
Department of Physics Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Colorado Purdue University
Boulder West Lafayette
Colorado, USA Indiana, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-28411-8 ISBN 978-3-319-28412-5 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28412-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016933674

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media

(www.springer.com)
Preface to the Second Edition

It might seem odd to publish a second edition of a book that deals with an episode
in science, the existence of a Fifth Force, that was presumably decided more than
20 years ago. The primary reason for this is the availability of a first-person account
of the origin of that hypothesis by one of its proposers. We believe that such an
account provides interesting and important insights into the practice of physics,
which are not usually available in standard historical accounts. This also provides
us with an opportunity to discuss the idea that wrong science is not necessarily
bad science. As the subsequent history shows, that hypothesis led to interesting and
important experiment and theoretical work, even after its supposed demise.

Boulder, USA Allan Franklin

West Lafayette, USA Ephraim Fischbach
October 2015

v
Preface to the First Edition

On January 8, 1986, The New York Times announced, “Hints of Fifth Force in Nature
Challenge Galileo’s Findings.” In January 1990, at an informal discussion meeting,
which included many of those working on the Fifth Force, Orrin Fackler stated,
“The Fifth Force is dead.” No one present disagreed.
In this essay I will examine the short, happy life of the Fifth Force hypothesis.1
This study will allow us to examine the roles that evidence plays in the contexts
of discovery, of pursuit, and of justification.2 We will be able to look at two of the
interesting questions in the history and philosophy of science. How is a hypothesis
proposed, and how and why does it become considered worthy of further theoretical
and experimental investigation by the scientific community? These are the contexts
of discovery and of pursuit.
It may well be that the suggestion of hypotheses or theories is the free creation
of an individual scientist, but I doubt that such creative events occur in a vacuum.
Thus, although Newton’s thoughts on the universality of gravitation may have been
triggered by the apple falling on his head, it seems unlikely that it would have
had that effect had he not already been thinking about gravitation and the motion
of the moon.3 I suggest that when scientists offer hypotheses, they, or the rest
of the scientific community, may have been considering the problem for a time.
In addition to solving the problem, the hypothesis is also likely to be supported
by some existing empirical evidence or has some theoretical plausibility because

1
For a technical discussion of the Fifth Force, see Fischbach and Talmadge (1992). A complete
bibliography of papers on non-Newtonian gravity, including the Fifth Force, is given in Fischbach
et al. (1992).
2
Although the discussion of these contexts is regarded as somewhat unfashionable at the moment,
I believe that this study will show that it can provide a useful framework for approaching not only
this particular episode but for the history of modern physics in general.
3
Professor Sam Westfall, the noted Newton scholar and biographer, believes the story of Newton
and the apple is true. He reports that Newton repeated it on at least four occasions during his
lifetime (private communication).

vii
viii Preface to the First Edition

it resembles previous successful solutions of other problems.4 The scientist may

also consider the interest of and importance of the hypothesis or theory. One might
also require, for both proposing and pursuing, that the hypothesis be consistent
with existing, well-confirmed theories, as well as with existing empirical evidence.5
It may also fit in with an existing research program or look like a fruitful or
interesting line of research. Another factor may be that the theory has desirable
mathematical properties. Thus, for example, the Weinberg–Salam unified theory
of electroweak interactions did not receive much attention until t’Hooft showed it
was renormalizable in 1971.6 These are also reasons why a theorist may pursue a
hypothesis.
Experimentalists planning to investigate a hypothesis may also have similar
reasons for their work. In addition, there may be what one might call experimental
reasons for such pursuit. These may include the fact that the proposed measurement
can be done with existing apparatus or with small modifications of it. The measure-
ment may fit in with an existing series of measurements in which the experimenter(s)
has expertise or the experimenter may think of a clever way to perform the
measurement. If the hypothesis is sufficiently important, the experimenter may even
construct an entirely new apparatus. At this point the cost of the experiment, the
availability of research funds, as well as the perceived interest and importance

4
I do not suggest that these are necessary or sufficient conditions for such hypothesis creation, after
all an individual might come up with a solution on the first try, but my speculation is that these are
the usual circumstances.
5
One should not try to make this concept of consistency too rigorous. One shouldn’t, and in fact
one can’t, require formal consistency when the theory proposed is being offered as an alternative
to an existing, well-confirmed theory. For example, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which
required that the mass of an object be a function of its velocity, was inconsistent with Newtonian
mechanics, in which mass is a constant. There was, however, a kind of consistency at the empirical
level. In the region in which velocities were small compared to c, the speed of light, and in which
Newtonian mechanics had been well-confirmed, the predictions of both theories agreed within
the experimental uncertainties of the results. It was only at higher velocities that the theories
gave very different results, and these had not been tested. Thus, one might require that the two
theories agree with both the data and each other to within the stated experimental uncertainties.
Even here, I believe, one shouldn’t be too strict. After all, Newton’s mechanics which showed that
Kepler’s law that the planets move in ellipses with the Sun at one focus was incorrect because
of the perturbations due to other planets. An examination of the data at the time indicated that
there were such deviations, although they were quite small. The new hypothesis might cause one
to reexamine the evidence. Similarly, in the case of parity conservation (Franklin 1986, Chap. 1),
Lee and Yang reexamined the evidence supporting the hypothesis and found, to their surprise, that
the hypothesis had been tested only in the strong and electromagnetic interactions and not in the
weak interactions. The evidence was not, in fact, what the physics community had thought it was.
I believe, however, that consistency with accepted theory and evidence, in some sort of rough and
ready way, is a criterion for pursuit. One should allow some leeway for the new theory, however.
As will be discussed later, scientists do not even have to believe in the truth of a hypothesis, or in
the evidence supporting it, in order to pursue that hypothesis.
6
Pickering (1984, p. 106) noted that the citation history of Weinberg’s paper clearly shows this.
T’Hooft showed the theory was renormalizable in 1971. The citations were 1967, 0; 1968, 0; 1969,
0; 1970, 1; 1971, 4; 1972, 64; and 1973, 162.
Preface to the First Edition ix

of the experiment and hypothesis will certainly enter into the decision to do the
experiment, but that is left for future discussion.
As we shall see below, the suggestion of a “Fifth Force” in gravitation occurred
after the authors had been worrying about the problem for some time, did have some
empirical support, and also resembled, at least in mathematical form, Yukawa’s
previous successful suggestion of the pion to explain the nuclear force. It also fit in
with the previous work on modifications of gravitational theory by Fujii and others.
A related question is how decisions concerning the fate of such hypotheses are
made. Is their confirmation or refutation, based primarily on valid experimental
evidence, as I have previously argued (Franklin 1990), or do other considerations
enter? This is the context of justification.
In this essay I will consider the history of the Fifth Force in gravitation and offer
tentative and partial answers to the questions of hypothesis creation and pursuit.7
This history will offer a further illustration that evidence is decisive and crucial
in the context of justification. In this episode I will look at how and why Ephraim
Fischbach, Sam Aronson, Carrick Talmadge, and their collaborators came to suggest
modifying gravitational theory by adding such a force.8 I will also examine the
evidential context at the time that led at least a segment of the physics community
to investigate this hypothesis. I will also discuss the subsequent history of this
hypothesis, up to the present. At the present time, I believe it is fair to say that
the majority of the physics community does not believe that such a force exists.
The current experimental limits on the strength of such a force are approximately
104 that of the normal gravitational force (this depends on the choice of coupling,
i.e., baryon, isospin, etc., and on the assumed range of the force). There is also
good evidence that the distance dependence of the gravitational force is 1=r2 .
Although, as discussed below, some experimental anomalies remain, they are not
presently regarded as serious. There are, in addition, other experimental results
which contradict the anomalous results, and the overwhelming preponderance of
evidence is against the existence of the Fifth Force.

7
These answers are necessarily partial because a complete answer would need a worked out theory
of plausibility, how scientists decide which hypotheses should be included in the space of plausible
and interesting conjectures. This is an extremely important issue in both the contexts of pursuit and
discovery. In this particular case there were only two competing theories, (1) existing gravitational
theory and (2) gravitational theory plus the Fifth Force, so the issue of plausibility is simplified. I
will argue below that evidence made the second alternative worth pursuing, at least for a segment
of the physics community.
8
These three physicists played the leading roles in the formulation of the Fifth Force hypothesis. I
will refer to papers written by them and their collaborators by the first author listed. This may give
the impression that only a single author was involved. This is definitely not the case. Virtually all
of these papers had multiple authors.
x Preface to the First Edition

Acknowledgments

One of the advantages of working on the history of a contemporary episode is that

you can speak with the participants. Ephraim Fischbach and Sam Aronson, two
of the originators of the Fifth Force hypothesis, have always been available for
discussion of both technical points and of the history. Ephraim provided a preprint
of his bibliography of articles on the Fifth Force, and his encouragement has been
invaluable. Sam provided me with a copy of the e-mail record, which allowed a
unique look into the private practice of science. Although both of them have read
portions of this manuscript in various forms, neither of them has asked for any
changes or modifications of the story. I take full responsibility for this text.
I have also benefitted from discussions with David Bartlett and Jim Faller, two of
my colleagues at the University of Colorado, as well as with Eric Adelberger, Paul
Boynton, Don Eckhardt, and Riley Newman. David made very helpful comments
regarding the manuscript, and Eric, Jim, and Paul provided me with photographs
of their experiments. Conversations with Mara Beller on both the historical and
philosophical issues were also very helpful. I am also grateful to John Monnier and
Alex Hansen for reading this manuscript and suggesting points that needed further
clarification or explanation.
Part of this work was done while I was a visiting professor in the Department of
History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, and also in the Division of
Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology. I am grateful
to my colleagues at both places for stimulating discussions and to the department
and the division for their hospitality and support. Part of this work was supported
by a faculty fellowship and grant-in-aid from the Council on Research and Creative
Work, Graduate School, University of Colorado, and I thank the Council for its
support. This material is based upon work partially supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. DIR-9024819. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author,
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Boulder, USA Allan Franklin

1993

References

Fischbach, E., Talmadge, C.: The Search for Non-Newtonian Gravity. American Institute of
Physics, Springer (1992)
Fischbach, E., et al.: Non-Newtonian gravity and new weak forces: an index of measurements and
theory. Metrologia 29, 213–260 (1992)
Franklin, A.: The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge University, Cambridge (1986)
Franklin, A.: Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge University, Cambridge (1990)
Pickering, A.: Against putting the phenomena first: the discovery of the weak neutral current. Stud.
Hist. Philos. Sci. 15, 85–117 (1984)
Contents

Part I The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force

1 The Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 K Mesons and CP Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Modifications of Newtonian Gravity .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 The Fifth Force .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 : : : and Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 The Immediate Reaction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 An Electronic Interlude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Is It Rising or Falling? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4 The Force Is Falling .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.5 The Force Is Not With Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.6 Some Reasons Why .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.7 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Part II Additional Material

5 The Fifth Force Since 1991 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.1 The 1990s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2 The Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.3 Discussion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xi
xii Contents

6 The Fifth Force: A Personal History, by Ephraim Fischbach.. . . . . . . . . . 145

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.1.1 Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.1.2 The COW Experiment and Its Impact . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.1.3 Stony Brook Sabbatical (1978–1979).. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.2 Reanalysis of the EPF Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2.1 The Review of Gibbons and Whiting . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2.2 Description of the EPF Experiment .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.2.3 Evaluation of B= for the EPF Samples . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.2.4 Translation of the EPF Paper .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
6.2.5 The Refereeing Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.2.6 An Alternative Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6.3 Immediate Aftermath of Publication .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
6.3.1 Interaction with Richard Feynman .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.3.2 The Talk at Stanford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
6.3.3 Meeting with T.D. Lee.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6.3.4 Some Wrong Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6.3.5 Shortcomings of Our PRL Paper .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.3.6 Experimental Signals for Hyperphotons .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.3.7 Visit to Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.3.8 The Air Force Geophysics Laboratory Tower
Experiments .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.3.9 An Electromagnetic Fifth Force? . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
6.4 Reflections .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
6.4.1 The Moriond Conferences.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
6.4.2 Some Amusing Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
6.4.3 Fifth Force Stories: Journals vs. Magazines .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6.4.4 John Maddox and Nature .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.5 My 1985–1986 Sabbatical at the University
of Washington .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.6 Short-Distance Searches for a Fifth Force . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
6.7 Our Book: “The Search for Non-Newtonian Gravity” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
6.8 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Appendix 1 Fifth Force Phenomenology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Appendix 2 Phenomenology of the Neutral Kaon System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix 3 Dicke Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Appendix 4 Referee’s Reports on Our PRL. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Appendix 5 Feynman Correspondence .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.1 Los Angeles Times Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.2 Feynman’s Letter to the Los Angeles Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.3 Exchange with Feynman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Appendix 6 Boynton Spoof .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Further Reading.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Index . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
 Part I
The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force
Chapter 1
The Rise . . .

1.1 K Mesons and CP Violation

The story of the Fifth Force begins with a seeming digression because it involves
not a modification of gravitational theory, but rather an experimental test of and
confirmation of that theory. In 1975 Colella, Overhauser, and Werner measured
the quantum mechanical phase difference between two neutron beams caused by
a gravitational field. Although these experiments showed the effects of gravity at
the quantum level, they did not, in fact, distinguish between General Relativity and
its competitors, as Fischbach pointed out (1980; Fischbach and Freeman 1979).
This was because these experiments were conducted at low speeds, and in the
nonrelativistic limit all existing gravitational theories, such as General Relativity
and the Brans–Dicke theory, reduce to Newtonian gravitation. Fischbach also
discussed how one might test general relativity at the quantum level by considering
gravitational effects in hydrogen.
In this work, partly as a result of conversations with Overhauser, Fischbach went
on to consider whether or not gravitational effects might explain the previously
observed violation of CP symmetry (combined charge-conjugation or particle–
antiparticle symmetry and parity or space reflection symmetry) in K0L decays.1
He had shown that an external gravitational field resulted in an admixture of
atomic states of opposite parity. For a two-fermion system, such as positronium
or charmonium, this also leads to a change in the eigenvalue of CP. This made “it
natural to attempt to connect (the gravitational effect) with the known CP-violating
K0L decays (Fischbach 1980, p. 371).” Although, as Fischbach noted, there were both

1
There are two different K0 mesons, the short-lived K0S , and the longer lived K0L . CP symmetry
allows the K0S , but not the K0L , to decay into two pions. For a detailed discussion of CP symmetry
and the discovery of its violation see Franklin (1986, Chap. 3).

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 3

A. Franklin, E. Fischbach, The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28412-5_1
4 1 The Rise . . .

experimental and theoretical reasons against gravity as the source of CP violation,

the relevance of the arguments to his case were not clear.
The arguments Fischbach was referring to concerned attempts to explain CP
violation and will be relevant to the later history as well. Bell and Perring (1964) and
Bernstein et al. (1964) had speculated that a long-range external field that coupled
0
differently to the K0 and K , a hyperphoton, could explain the violation. Such a
field predicted that the effect would be proportional to the square of the energy
of the K mesons. Weinberg (1964) pointed out that because neither strangeness
nor isotopic spin, the supposed origins of the field, were absolutely conserved,
the hyperphoton must have a finite mass, related to the range of the interaction.
Assuming that the range of the interaction was the size of our galaxy, he calculated
the ratio .K0S ! 2 C hyperphoton/=.K0S ! 2 / as 1019 . This implied that the K
meson and all strange particles would be totally unstable, in obvious disagreement
with experiment. He could explain the observations if he assumed that the range
of the interaction was the size of the Earth, which he regarded as implausible. The
issue became moot when the experiments of Galbraith et al. (1965) and of DeBouard
et al. (1965) at very different energies from both each other and from the original
experiment of Christenson et al. (1964) failed to show the predicted energy-squared
dependence. In fact, the experiments indicated that the CP violation was constant as
a function of energy for the energy range 1–10 GeV.
Fischbach was also motivated by what he took to be a “remarkable numerical
relation”. Using his calculated energy scale for the gravitational effect,2 m, the
known KL  KS mass difference, and an enhancement factor of mK =m, for which
no justification was given, he found that his calculation of the gravitational effect for
CP violation in K meson decay was equal to 0:844  103 , while the CP violating
parameter3 1/2 Re  was approximately equal to 0:82  103 . This seems indeed to
be a remarkable coincidence because there is no known connection between gravity
and CP violation, or any accepted explanation of CP violation itself. It is made
even more remarkable when one realizes that the enhancement factor mK =m D
1:4  1014 .
Fischbach continued to work on the question of how to observe gravitational
effects at the quantum level. A relativistic version of the Colella, Overhauser,
and Werner experiment using neutrons did not seem feasible, so he turned his
attention to K mesons, where such experiments did seem possible. He began
a collaboration with Sam Aronson, an experimental physicist with considerable
experience in K meson experiments. At this time Aronson and his collaborators had
been investigating the regeneration of K0S mesons (Roehrig et al. 1977; Bock et al.
1979).4 Although the published papers stated that (Bock et al. 1979, pp. 351–352)

2
The scale of the gravitational effect was given by g¯=c, where g is the local acceleration due
to gravity, ¯ is Planck’s constant/2, and c is the speed of light. At the surface of the Earth this
quantity is 2:2  1023 eV.
3
Here , which is a complex number, is a measure of the decay rate of K0L mesons into two pions.
4
The phenomenon of regeneration was one of the unusual properties of the K0 mesons. If one
produced these mesons in an accelerator, one obtained a beam that was 50 % K0S and 50 % K0L .
1.1 K Mesons and CP Violation 5

Fig. 1.1 The phase of the

regeneration amplitude as a
function of momentum (From
Bock et al. 1979)

“the data are consistent with a constant phase [of the regeneration amplitude],”5
Aronson and Bock, two members of the group, were troubled by what seemed to be
an energy dependence of the phase. In fact, Bock had investigated whether changes
in the acceptance could account for the effect. They couldn’t. The data are shown in
Fig. 1.1, along with the constant phase prediction. Although the data are consistent
with a constant phase, there is at least a suggestion of an energy dependence. The
low energy points have a larger phase than the high energy points.
Aronson and Bock then asked Fischbach if there was a theoretical explanation of
the effect. Fischbach had none to offer. This suggested energy dependence led them
0
to examine the possible energy dependence of the parameters of the K0 –K system
in some detail. They found suggestive evidence for such a dependence (Aronson
et al. 1982). They examined m, the KL  KS mass difference, S , the lifetime of
the short-lived K meson, jC j, the magnitude of the CP-violating amplitude, and
tan C , the tangent of the phase of the CP-violating amplitude. They fitted these
parameters to an energy dependence of the form x D x0 .1 C bx N /, N D 1; 2 and
D EK =MK . They found that the coefficients differed from zero by 3, 2, 2, and 3
standard deviations, for the quantities noted above, respectively. One of their fits is
shown in Fig. 1.2.
The fit to C depended on the value one assumed for 21 , the phase of the
regeneration amplitude. (Recall that it was the suggestion of an energy dependence
in this quantity that led to this investigation.) The measured quantity, in fact, depends
on 21  C . One could attribute the energy dependence to either one of them
separately, or to both of them. All theoretical models at the time (see Aronson et al.
(1983b) for details) predicted that over this energy range, 30–110 GeV, the change
in 21 would be less than 2ı . The observed change of approximately 20ı was then
attributed to an energy dependence in C .
The group continued their study and presented a more detailed analysis that
included data from other experiments. The most significant energy dependence,

If one allowed all of the K0S mesons to decay and allowed the remaining K0L mesons to interact
with matter, one found that the beam once again contained K0S mesons. They were regenerated.
See Franklin (1986, Chap. 3) for details.
5
A stronger statement had appeared earlier (Roehrig et al. 1977, p. 1118): “The results are clearly
consistent with constant phase [. . . ].”
6 1 The Rise . . .

Fig. 1.2 Plot of tan C as a function of 2 (energy squared) (From Aronson et al. (1982). The
shaded line is the world average and the solid line was their fit)

Fig. 1.3 Plot of C as a function of momentum (From Aronson et al. (1983a). See discussion in
Footnote 8. For detailed references for the data see Aronson et al. 1983a)

that in C , is shown in Fig. 1.3.6 They concluded (Aronson et al. 1983a, p. 488):
“The experimental results quoted in this paper are of limited statistical significance.
The evidence of a positive effect in the energy dependences of m, S ; jC j,
.N/
and C is extremely tantalizing, but not conclusive. The evidence consists of bx ’s
which are different from zero by at most 3 standard deviations.”

6
The graph actually shows the energy dependence of 21 , assuming C was constant. If 21 is
considered to be a constant, the graph shows the energy dependence of C .
1.1 K Mesons and CP Violation 7

A second paper (Aronson et al. 1983b) examined possible theoretical expla-

nations of the effects.7 They found (Aronson et al. 1983b, p. 495): “Using this
formalism we demonstrate that effects of the type suggested by the data [energy
dependences] cannot be ascribed to an interaction with kaons with an electromag-
netic, hypercharge, or gravitational field, or to the scattering of kaons from stray
charges or cosmological neutrinos.” They suggested that a tensor field mediated
by a finite mass quantum might explain the effects and concluded (Aronson et al.
1983b, p. 516): “It is clear, however, that if the data [. . . ] are correct, then the source
of these effects will represent a new and hitherto unexplored realm of physics.”8
The subsequent history of measurements of these quantities seems to argue
against any energy dependence.9 Coupal et al. (1985) measured jC j at 65 GeV/c
and found a value jC j D .2:28 ˙ 0:06/  103 in good agreement with the
low energy average (5 GeV) of .2:274 ˙ 0:022/  103 , and in disagreement with
.2:09 ˙ 0:02/  103 obtained by Aronson et al. (1982).10 Grossman et al. (1987)
measured S , the KS lifetime, over a range 100–350 GeV/c. Their results, along with
those of Aronson et al. (1982), are given in Fig. 1.4. The fits obtained by Aronson
for possible energy dependence are also shown. They concluded (Grossman et al.

Fig. 1.4 Plot of S , the KS

lifetime, as a function of
momentum (From Grossman
et al. (1987). The curves were
the fits from Aronson et al.
(1982))

7
An earlier paper (Fischbach et al. 1982) had examined the same question, although in less detail,
and reached the same conclusion.
8
These results were not greeted with enthusiasm or regarded as reliable by everyone within the
physics community. Commenting on the need for new interactions to explain the effects, an
anonymous referee remarked: “This latter statement also applies to spoon bending.” (A copy of
the referee’s report was given to me by Fischbach.) The paper was, however, published.
9
This possible energy dependence played an important role in the genesis of the Fifth Force
hypothesis, as discussed in detail below. It may very well have been a statistical fluctuation.
10
There is a further oddity in this history. The six measurements of jC j made prior to 1973 had
a mean value of .1:95 ˙ 0:03/  103 . The value cited by Coupal et al. (1985) was the mean of
post-1973 measurements. For details of this episode, see Franklin (1986, Chap. 8).
8 1 The Rise . . .

1987, p. 18): “No evidence was found for the momentum dependence suggested
by the intermediate-range ‘fifth-force’ hypothesis.” Carosi et al. (1990) measured
the phases of the CP-violating amplitudes for K0 decay in the energy range 70–
170 GeV. Their results were in good agreement with those at low energy and show
no evidence of any energy dependence. Still, at the time of our story, the suggested
energy dependence remained a “tantalizing” effect.

1.2 Modifications of Newtonian Gravity

A second strand of our story concerns the recent history of alternatives to, or
modifications of, standard gravitational theory.11 For a time, at least, this strand
was independent of the K meson story. The Fifth Force story, per se, began when
the two strands were joined. Newtonian gravitational theory and its successor,
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, although strongly supported by existing
experimental evidence,12 have not been without competitors.13 Thus, Brans and
Dicke (1961) offered a scalar–tensor alternative to General Relativity. This theory
contained a parameter !, whose value determines the relative importance of the
scalar field compared to the curvature of spacetime. For small values of ! the scalar
field dominates, while for large values the Brans–Dicke theory is indistinguishable
from General Relativity. By the end of the 1970s experiment favored a large value
of !, and thus, favored General Relativity. For example, the lunar laser-ranging
experiments required ! > 29, while the Viking time-delay results set a lower limit
of ! > 500 (Will 1981).
In the early 1970s, Fujii (1971, 1972, 1974) suggested a modification of the
Brans–Dicke theory that included a massive scalar exchange particle. This was in
addition to the massless scalar and tensor particles of that theory. He found that
including such a particle gave rise to a force that had a short range (of the order
10 m–30 km) depending on details of the model. In Fujii’s theory, the gravitational
potential had the form V D GmM=r.1 C ˛er= /, where ˛ was the strength of the

11
I will be discussing here modifications of the Newtonian inverse square law, and not the well-
established relativistic post-Newtonian corrections, which are of order GM=c2 r.
12
For an excellent and accessible discussion of this, see Will (1984). For more technical details,
see Will (1981).
13
The history of gravitational theory is not a string of unbroken successes. Newton himself could
not explain the motion of the moon in the Principia and his later work on the problem, in 1694–
1695, also ended in failure (Westfall 1980, pp. 442–443, 540–548). The law was also questioned
during the nineteenth century when irregularities were observed in the motion of Uranus. The
suggestion of a new planet by Adams and LeVerrier and the subsequent discovery of the planet
Neptune turned the problem into a triumph. During the nineteenth century it was also found that
the observed advance of the perihelion of Mercury did not match the predictions of Newtonian
theory. This remained an anomaly for 59 years until the advent of Einstein’s General Theory of
Relativity, the successor to Newtonian gravitation.
1.2 Modifications of Newtonian Gravity 9

interaction and its range. The second term was Fujii’s modification. O’Hanlon
(1972) suggested the same potential. This model also predicted a gravitational
constant G that varied with distance.14 Fujii calculated that the gravitational constant
at large distances G1 would be equal to 3=4GLAB, the value at short distances.
Fujii also looked for possible experimental tests of this theory. Most interestingly
for our story, he discussed the famous experimental test of Einstein’s equivalence
principle that had been performed by Eötvös and his collaborators (1922). (This
experiment, which will be very important later in our history will be discussed
below.) He noted that if his new field coupled equally to baryons (in this case the
protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) and leptons (atomic electrons) there
would be no effect, while if the field did not couple to leptons such an effect
would be observed. He calculated that for an Eötvös-type experiment on gold and
aluminum there would be a change in angle of 0:07  1011 , for an assumed range
of 40 km.15 The best experimental limit at the time was that of Roll et al. (1964)
of 3  1011 , although that experiment which measured the equality of fall toward
the Sun cast no light on his short range force. A note added in proof remarked that
he had learned that the best estimate of the range of such a force was considerably
smaller. For an assumed 1 km range he found that the change in angle was 0:5109 .
This predicted effect was smaller than the limit set by Eötvös, whose experiment
was sensitive to such a short-range theory. Fujii suggested redoing the Eötvös
experiment and other possible geophysics experiments, although he noted that mass
inhomogeneities would present difficulties. As we shall see, Fujii’s comments were
prescient.
Other modifications of gravitational theory were suggested by Wagoner (1970),
Zee (1979, 1980), Scherk (1979), and others. Zee’s modification had a much shorter
range than that of Fujii, while Scherk suggested a repulsive force with a range of
about 1 km.
Long (1974) considered the question of whether or not Newtonian gravity was
valid at laboratory dimensions. He found (p. 850) “that past G [the gravitational
constant] measurements in the laboratory set only very loose limits on a possible
variation in G and that present technology would allow a considerable improve-
ment.” He also made reference to the suggestions of Wagoner, of Fujii, and of
O’Hanlon. Long (1976) proceeded to test his hypothesis experimentally, and found a
small variation in G which he parameterized in the form G.R/ D G0 .1C0:002 ln R/,
where R is measured in centimeters.
Long’s work led Mikkelsen and Newman (1977) to investigate the status of
G.16 They used data from laboratory measurements, orbital precession, planetary

14
Some readers might worry that a variable constant is an oxymoron, but it does seem to be a useful
shorthand.
15
The angle referred to is the rotation of the torsion pendulum shown in Figs. 1.6 and 1.7.
16
The influence of Long’s work is apparent in the first sentence of the abstract (Mikkelsen and
Newman 1977, p. 919): “D.R. Long and others have speculated that the gravitational force between
point masses in the Newtonian regime might not be exactly proportional to 1=r2 .”
10 1 The Rise . . .

mass determinations, geophysical experiments, and solar models. They concluded

(p. 919): “Constraints on G.r/ in the intermediate distance range from 10 m < r <
1 km are so poor that one cannot rule out the possibility that Gc ŒG1 differs greatly
from G0 ŒGLAB .” They pointed out (p. 924) that their analysis “does not even rule
out Fujii’s suggested value Gc =G0 D 0:75.”
The experimental study of possible violations of Newtonian gravity continued.
Panov and Frontov (1979) found G.0:3 m/=G.0:4 m/ D 1:003 ˙ 0:006 and
G.10 m/=G.0:4 m/ D 0:998˙0:013. They concluded that, despite the fact that their
experimental uncertainty was larger than Long’s measured effect (p. 852): “These
results do not confirm the data of D.R. Long, according to which spatial variations
of G do exist.” Spero et al. (1980) agreed. Their measurements at distances of 2–
5 cm had the required sensitivity to check Long’s result and (p. 1645): “The results
support an inverse-square law. Assuming a force deviating from inverse square by a
factor .1 C  ln r/ [Long’s suggested form] it is found that  D .1 ˙ 7/  105 .”
Long (1981) surveyed the literature and concluded that within the quoted
uncertainties all the results, including that of Panov and Frontov, were consistent
with his observation. He argued that Spero’s result did not, in fact, contradict
his. This was because his suggested cause of the deviation, a quantum gravity
vacuum polarization effect, would be significant only for a nonzero gravitational
field, whereas Spero’s experiment was conducted in a zero gravitational field.
The most important summary of this work, from the point of view of the
subsequent history of the Fifth Force, was that given by Gibbons and Whiting
(1981). Their results are shown in Fig. 1.5 for both attractive and repulsive forces.
In both cases ˛ is restricted to lie below each curve, except for curve b, which
is Long’s result, and in which ˛ must lie between the two curves. They stated
(p. 636): “However, conventional vacuum polarization effects in quantum gravity
do not lead to the behavior required by Long: such effects are insignificant.” Curve
a was Spero’s data, calculated at one standard deviation (s.d.); c was from Panov and
Frontov; d from Mikkelsen and Newman using lunar surface gravity and Mercury
and Venus flybys; e a comparison of satellite and geodesy data by Rapp (1974,
1977), the upper curve assumed agreement to 0.1 ppm (parts per million) and the
lower curve 1 ppm. Rapp had reported an agreement to 2 ppm.
A different type of experiment, that of measuring gravity in either a mine (Stacey
et al. 1981) or in submarines (Stacey 1978) is illustrated in curve f . The curves
were calculated, not measured, assuming a mine experiment with an accuracy of
1 % (upper curve) and a submarine experiment with an accuracy of 0.1 % (lower
curve), both for a depth of 1 km. Stacey et al. (1981) had measured G and found
it to be G D .6:71 ˙ 0:13/  1011 m3 kg1 s2 , in agreement with the laboratory
value of .6:672 ˙ 0:004/  1011 . Their stated uncertainty included an estimate of
possible systematic effects, which increased the uncertainty by about a factor of 3.
They also surveyed other mine and borehole measurements of G and found them
to be, in general, systematically slightly high but “tantalizingly uncertain” because
of possible mass anomalies. A somewhat later paper (Stacey and Tuck 1981)
gave numerical details of that survey and reported values of G, calculated in two
different ways, based on a comparison of sea floor and sea surface measurements
1.2 Modifications of Newtonian Gravity 11

Fig. 1.5 Plot of log10 ˛ vs

log10 . =1 m/, ˛ is
constrained to lie below the
curves (From Gibbons and
Whiting 1981)

of G D .6:730 ˙ 0:010/  1011 and .6:797 ˙ 0:016/  1011 m3 kg1 s2 , where
the uncertainty is purely statistical and does not include possible systematic effects.
Once again the results were higher than the laboratory value, but because of the
uncertainty about possible systematic effects no firm conclusion could be drawn.
Gibbons and Whiting summarized the situation as follows (p. 636): “It has been
argued that our experimental knowledge of gravitational forces between 1 m and
10 km is so poor it allows a considerable difference between the laboratory measured
gravitational constant and its value on astronomical scales—an effect predicted in
theories of the type alluded to above [these included Fujii and O’Hanlon, whose
work was also cited in the experimental papers] [. . . ] it can be seen that for
3 m < < 103 km ˛ is very poorly constrained.” Although experiment allowed
for such a difference in the laboratory and astronomical values of G, there were
reasonably stringent limits on any proposed modifications of the law of gravity
in the distance range 1 m–10 km (p. 638): “We conclude that there is very little
scope for a theory which allows deviations >1 % from Newton’s law of gravitational
attraction on laboratory or larger length scales [. . . ]. Further large scale experiments
are essential to improve bounds on ˛ between 1 m and 10 km.” There was, however,
a clear, although small, window of opportunity (see Fig. 1.5).
12 1 The Rise . . .

1.3 The Fifth Force

0
Until early 1983 the two strands, that of the energy dependence of the K0 –K system
parameters and that of modifications of Newtonian gravity and their experimental
tests, had proceeded independently. At about this time Fischbach became aware of
the discrepancies between experiment and gravitational theory (the work of Stacey
et al. (1981) and Stacey and Tuck (1981)).17 He made no connection, at this time,
between the two problems because he was still thinking in terms of long-range
0
forces, which produced an energy-squared dependence of the K0 –K parameters,
and was therefore ruled out experimentally. In early 1984, he realized that this would
not be the case for a short-range force, and that the effect could be much smaller.18
At this time he also became aware of the Gibbons and Whiting summary and
realized that such a short-range force might be possible and that the two problems
might have a common solution.
Fischbach, Aronson, and their collaborators looked for other places where such
an effect might be seen with existing experimental sensitivity. They found only
0
three: (1) the K0 –K system at high energy, which they had already studied; (2)
the comparison of satellite and terrestrial determinations of g, the local gravita-
tional acceleration19; and (3) the original Eötvös experiment, which measured the
difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of different substances. If
a short-range, composition-dependent force existed then it might show up in this
experiment. They noted that the very precise modern experiments of Roll et al.
(1964) and of Braginskii and Panov (1972) would not have been sensitive to such a
force because they had compared the gravitational accelerations of pairs of materials
toward the Sun, and thus looked at much larger distances.
0
The apparent energy dependence of the K0 –K parameters along with the
discrepancy between gravitational theory and the mineshaft experiments led Fis-
chbach, Aronson, and their colleagues (Fischbach et al. 1986) to reexamine the
original data of Eötvös et al. (1922) to see if there was any evidence for a
short-range, composition-dependent force.20 By this time they knew of Holding
and Tuck’s (1984) result which gave G measured in a mine as G D .6:730 ˙
0:003/  1011 m3 kg1 s2 in disagreement with the best laboratory value of
.6:6726 ˙ 0:0005/  1011 . This result was still uncertain because of possible
regional gravity anomalies. Fischbach used the modified gravitational potential
V.r/ D G1 m1 m2 =r.1 C ˛er= /. They noted that such a potential could explain

17
Fischbach (private communication) attributes this to a conversation with Wick Haxton.
18
Fischbach’s first calculation was for a ı-function force.
19
Rapp (1974, 1977) had already found g=g  .6 ˙ 10/  107 . For the proposed Fifth Force
parameters (see below) the predicted effect would be approximately 2  107 .
0
20
Because the energy dependence of the K0 –K parameters might have indicated a violation of
Lorentz invariance, Fischbach et al. (1985) had looked at the consequences of such a violation for
the Eötvös experiment.
1.3 The Fifth Force 13

Fig. 1.6 The apparatus used

by Eötvös et al. (1922).
Although a platinum mass is
shown as the standard, this
was not always the case

the geophysical data quantitatively if ˛ D .7:2˙3:6/103 , with D 200˙50 m.

(This was from a private communication from Stacey. Details appeared later in
Holding et al. 1986.) This potential had the same mathematical form as that
suggested much earlier by Fujii. Recall also that Fujii had suggested redoing the
Eötvös experiment. Fujii’s work does not seem to have exerted any direct influence
on Fischbach. No citations of it are given in this paper.21
The apparatus for the Eötvös experiment is shown in Fig. 1.6 and schematically in
Fig. 1.7.22 As shown in Fig. 1.7, the gravitational force is not parallel to the fiber due
to the rotation of the Earth. If the gravitational force on one mass differs from that
on the other, the rod will rotate about the fiber axis. Reversing the masses should
give a rotation in the opposite direction. In Fig. 1.6 the horizontal tube typically
contained a standard platinum mass and the vertical tube contained the comparison
mass, suspended by a copper–bronze fiber. Because the experiment was originally
designed to measure vertical gravity gradients, the two masses were suspended at
different heights, which made the apparatus significantly more sensitive to such
gradients than it was to anomalous gravitational accelerations. To calculate and

21
Fischbach keeps detailed chronological notes of papers read and calculations done. He reports
that he has notes on Fujii’s work at this time, but does not recall it having any influence on his
work.
22
Eötvös was originally interested in measuring gravity gradients so the weights were suspended
at different heights. This introduced a source of error into his tests of the equivalence principle, the
equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
14 1 The Rise . . .

Fig. 1.7 A schematic view of

the Eötvös experiment (From
Will 1984)

subtract the effect of these gradients Eötvös performed four measurements, with the
torsion bar oriented in the North–South, the South–North, the East–West, and the
West–East directions, respectively. A second apparatus used two torsion balances in
tandem, located on the same mount.23 In this arrangement the platinum standards
were located at opposite ends of each of the two torsion bars. (For a detailed
discussion of both the apparatus and the methods of data analysis see Fischbach
et al. 1988, pp. 8–12.)
Fischbach attempted to combine the gravitational discrepancy with the energy
0
dependence of the K0 –K parameters. They found that if they considered a
0
hypercharge field with a small, finite mass hyperphoton (the K0 and K have
opposite hypercharges) they obtained a potential of the same form as shown above.24
They also found that k D a=g, the fractional change in gravitational acceleration
for two substances, would be proportional to .B=/ for the two substances, where

23
According to one source, the torsion balance was suggested by Juan Hernandez Torsión Herrera
(Lindsay and Ketchum 1962):
Of Juan Hernandez Torsión Herrera very little is known. He was born of noble parents
in Andalusia about 1454. He traveled widely and on one of his journeys in Granada with
his cousin Juan Fernandez Herrera Torsión both were captured by Moorish bandits. Herrera
Torsión died in captivity but Torsión Herrera managed to escape after a series of magnificent
exploits of which he spoke quite freely in his later years. During these years he was
affectionately known as the ‘Great Juan’ or as the ‘Juan Who Got Away.’
Although not a scientist in his own right, Torsión Herrera passed on to a Jesuit physicist
the conception of his famous Torsión balance. The idea apparently came to him when he
observed certain deformations in the machinery involved when another cousin, Juan Herrera
Fernandez Torsión was being broken on the rack.
There are some reasons for doubting the veracity of this story.
24
Fischbach noted that in the limit of infinite range their suggested force agreed with that proposed
earlier by Lee and Yang (1955) on the basis of gauge invariance.
1.3 The Fifth Force 15

Fig. 1.8 Plot of k as a function of .B=/ (From Fischbach et al. 1986)

B was the baryon number of the substance (equal, in this case, to the hypercharge)
and  was the mass of the substance in units of the mass of atomic hydrogen.
They plotted the data reported by Eötvös as a function of .B=/, a quantity
unknown to Eötvös, and found the results shown in Fig. 1.8. The linear dependence
visible is supported by a least-squares fit to the equation k D a.B=/ C b. They
found a D .5:65 ˙ 0:71/  106 and b D .4:83 ˙ 6:44/  1010 . They concluded
(Fischbach et al. 1986, p. 3): “We find that the Eötvös–Pekar–Fekete data are
sensitive to the composition of the materials used, and that their results support the
existence of an intermediate-range coupling to baryon number or hypercharge.”25
They calculated the coupling constant for their new interaction for both the Eötvös
data and for the geophysical data and found that they disagreed by a factor of 15,
which they found “surprisingly good” in view of the simple model of the Earth they
had assumed. Not everyone was so sanguine about this, a point we shall return to
later.26

25
In a later paper (Aronson et al. 1986) the group suggested other experiments, particularly on K
meson decay, that might show the existence of such a hyperphoton.
26
An interesting sidelight to this reanalysis is reported in a footnote to the Fischbach paper.
Instead of reporting the observed values of k for the different substances directly, Eötvös and
his colleagues presented their results relative to platinum as a standard (Fischbach et al. 1986,
p. 6): “The effect of this combining say k.H2 O–Cu/ and k.Cu–Pt/ to infer k.H2 O–Pt/ is to
reduce the magnitude of the observed nonzero effect [for water and platinum] from 5 to 2 .”
k.H2 O–Cu/ D .10 ˙ 2/  109 and k.Cu–Pt/ D .C4 ˙ 2/  109 , respectively. Adding
them to obtain k.H2 O–Pt/ gives .6 ˙ 3/  109 .
16 1 The Rise . . .

It seems fair to summarize the Fischbach paper as follows. A reanalysis of

the original Eötvös paper presented suggestive evidence for an intermediate-range,
composition-dependent force, which was proportional to baryon number or hyper-
charge. With a suitable choice of parameters, one could relate this force to anomalies
in mine measurements of gravity and to a suggested energy dependence of the
0
parameters of the K0 –K system.

Fig. 1.9 Plot of k as a

function of .B=/. Circles
are data from Fischbach et al.
(1986). Squares are the final
summary from Eötvös et al.
(1922). The dashed line is the
best fit straight line to
Fischbach’s data. The solid
line is the fit to the original
Eötvös data

Figure 1.9 shows both the final summary reported by Eötvös as well as Fischbach’s reanalysis,
along with best-fit straight lines for both sets of data separately (this is my own analysis). Although
several of the experimental uncertainties have increased, due to the calculation process, the lines
have similar slopes. The major difference is in the uncertainty of the slopes. If one looks at the 95 %
confidence level, as shown separately for the Fischbach and Eötvös data, respectively, in Figs. 1.10
and 1.11, one finds that at this level the published, tabulated Eötvös data is, in fact, consistent with
no effect, or a horizontal straight line. This is certainly not true for the Fischbach reanalysis.
A skeptic might remark that the effect is seen only when the data are plotted as a function of
.B=/, a theoretically suggested parameter. As De Rujula remarked (1986, p. 761): “In that case,
Eötvös and collaborators would have carried their secret to their graves: how to gather ponderous
evidence for something like baryon number decades before the neutron was discovered.” It is true
that theory may suggest where one might look for an effect, but it cannot guarantee that the effect
will be seen. Although one may be somewhat surprised, along with De Rujula, that data taken for
one purpose takes on new significance in the light of later experimental and theoretical work, it is
not unheard of.
There is a possibility that Eötvös and his collaborators might actually have seen something of
this effect, but discounted it. They report (Eötvös et al. 1922, p. 164): “The probability of a value
different from zero for the quantity xŒk even in these cases is vanishingly little, as a review
of the according observational data shows quite long sequences with uniform departure from the
average [emphasis added], the influence of which on the average could only be annulled by much
longer series of observations.” The original summary, given in Table 1.1, gives an average value
for x D .0:002 ˙ 0:001/  106 , which seems to justify Eötvös’ original conclusion (Eötvös
et al. 1922, p. 164): “We believe we have the right to state that x relating to the Earth’s attraction
does not reach the value of 0:005  106 for any of these bodies.”
1.3 The Fifth Force 17

Fig. 1.10 Plot of k as a

function of .B=/ from
Fischbach et al. (1986). The
best fit line along with the
95 % confidence level fits are
shown

Fig. 1.11 Plot of k as a

function of .B=/ (The data
are from Eötvös et al. (1922)).
The best fit straight line along
with the 95 % confidence
level fits are shown

Table 1.1 The value of Substance .x  xPt /  106

x  xPt (k relative to
platinum) for various Magnalium C0:004 ˙ 0:001
substances (From Eötvös Snakewood 0:001 ˙ 0:002
et al. 1922, p. 164) Copper C0:004 ˙ 0:002
Water 0:006 ˙ 0:003
Crystalline cupric sulfate 0:001 ˙ 0:003
Solution of cupric sulfate 0:003 ˙ 0:003
Asbestos C0:001 ˙ 0:003
Tallow 0:002 ˙ 0:003
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"And now she is old and poor, Mary, I should like to be kind to her,"
broke in Mr. Trent, "especially as Janie—but never mind that! Janie
doesn't realise what it is to be without money and friends, so we
mustn't blame her if she appears a little hard. Cousin Becky must be
very friendless, I fancy, or she wouldn't think of coming to Beaworthy.
There are plenty of people who would want her to be their guests if
she was rich, but she is doubtless as poor as ourselves. One more
at our table surely cannot make much difference—eh, Mary?"

The children regarded their mother with expectant eyes, rather

marvelling at the hesitancy they read in her face, for they were not
troubled by thoughts of ways and means. A visitor in the house
would have all the charm of novelty for them, and their father had
told them so many reminiscences of Cousin Becky that they longed
to see her.

"She is awfully nice, isn't she, father?" questioned Roger.

"She used to be very nice, my son, and I don't suppose she has
much altered with age. She was never a fussy old maid, and she
loved children dearly."

"Oh, mother, do write and ask her to come!" pleaded the little boy
coaxingly.

"I certainly will, as you all seem to desire it so much," Mrs. Trent
agreed with a smile, "and if she does come we will do our best to
make her as comfortable and happy with us as possible. I only
hesitated to invite her because I could not quite see how we were to
manage; but since Polly is willing to give up her room, and your
father thinks Cousin Becky will be satisfied with our humble fare—
well, then, I'll write to-night."

Accordingly, as soon as tea was over, Mrs. Trent wrote the letter, and
Roger ran out and posted it; and there was a general sense of
satisfaction that the right thing had been done. In the course of a few
days Cousin Becky's reply was received. It was a brief, grateful note
of thanks and acceptance of the invitation, saying the writer hoped to
be with her cousins in Princess Street the following week.

CHAPTER III
AT THE ROOKERY

"Is that you, Edgar, darling? Come to the fire and warm yourself. It's
snowing, isn't it?"

"Yes, mother. I hope we shall have a good downfall. If it snows like

this all through the night we shall be able to make a snow man in the
playground to-morrow. Won't that be jolly?"

It was an afternoon several days subsequent to the one on which

Mrs. Marsh had called on her relatives in Princess Street; and the
scene was the spacious drawing-room at the Rookery, which, with a
big coal fire burning in the grate, and its handsome, well-chosen
furniture, was a picture of comfort, not to say luxury. Mrs. Marsh sat
near the fireplace, a small table bearing tea-things, a plate of thin
bread and butter, and part of a rich cake in a silver cake-basket at
her side. She had been entertaining callers, but they had left early on
account of the snowstorm which had been threatening. Edgar, who
had just returned from school, flung his satchel of lesson-books into
a corner of the room, and, advancing to the tea-table, helped himself
to a hunk of cake. His mother watched him with an indulgent smile;
she was naturally very proud and fond of her son, who was indeed a
very nice-looking little lad, with his bright blue eyes, fresh
complexion, and curly, brown hair.
"Are your feet wet, dearie?" she inquired anxiously, as she poured
him out a cup of tea.

"No," he answered untruthfully, for he knew they were. He sat down

and tucked his feet out of sight under the chair. "Give me plenty of
cream and sugar, please, mother," he said. "This is a very good
cake."

"Yes; but had you not better eat some bread and butter with it? It is
very rich."

He paid no heed to her suggestion, however, and there was silence

for a few minutes till he cut himself a second slice of cake as large
as the first.

"My dear child—" began Mrs. Marsh expostulatingly; but Edgar

interrupted her:

"Oh, mother, don't fuss!"

"I merely speak for your good, my darling, I—"

"I do wish you wouldn't keep on calling me 'dearie' and 'darling' and
names of that sort; it's so silly, just as though I was a baby, and it
makes people laugh, and I hate being laughed at!" The boy spoke
petulantly with deepening colour, but his eyes drooped beneath his
mother's reproachful glance. "I don't believe Roger's mother would
be so foolish," he added, "and Roger says you treat me as though I
was a girl."

Mrs. Marsh looked both hurt and angry, but she made no response.
Her affection for her son showed itself in words of exaggerated
endearment, and he was now of an age to greatly dislike being made
to appear ridiculous. It had been at his father's wish that he had
been entered as a pupil at the Grammar School; Mrs. Marsh had
wanted to have him educated by a tutor at home, but her husband
had been too wise to listen to her views on the point of their son's
education. Edgar should go to a public school, he had firmly
declared, the boy would soon find his level there; and that he was
certainly doing, the process proving rather a humbling one. Master
Edgar Marsh was not quite such an important person in his own
estimation to-day as he had been at the commencement of the
school only a few weeks previously.

"I walked as far as the corner of Princess Street with Roger this
afternoon," Edgar informed his mother by-and-by. "I should not like
to live where he does, I told him so."

"What did he say?" asked Mrs. Marsh curiously.

"He didn't say anything, but he got very red and looked angry. He
very soon gets angry, you know, and I don't think he liked what I
said."

"I thought you told me the other day that you didn't care for Roger,
and that you never meant to speak to him again," Mrs. Marsh
observed with a slight smile.

"Oh," the little boy exclaimed, appearing somewhat confused, "that

was because he hit me; but—but it was partly my fault for—never
mind about that! Afterwards he said he was sorry, and we've been
better friends since. Roger's all right when you come to know him."

"I'm glad to hear that, because he's your cousin, and though,
unfortunately for him, his position in life will be very different from
yours, I shouldn't like you to quarrel with him. Your Uncle Martin and
I were devoted to each other when we were children; indeed, I've
always been much attached to my brother, and I've always made it
my first duty to be kind to his family."

"It must be very cold travelling to-day," Edgar remarked, glancing out
of the window at the falling snow. "Is it a long journey from London to
Beaworthy, mother?"

"Yes; do you know anyone who is making it?"

"I was thinking of Cousin Becky." "Cousin Becky? What do you
mean? She's not coming here. I never invited her."

"No. But she's coming to stay with Uncle Martin and Aunt Mary.
Didn't you know it, mother? Why, I could have told you that days
ago!"

"Then, pray, why didn't you?"

"I never thought of it. Roger told me, and of course I thought you
knew. She's coming to-night. Roger's going to the station with Uncle
Martin to meet her at seven o'clock and she's to have Polly's room."

"And what's to become of Polly?"

"She's going to sleep in the attic."

"The idea! Mary must be crazy to upset her arrangements for an old
woman she has never seen in her life, one in whom she can have no
possible interest."

"Roger says Cousin Becky is very poor," Edgar observed

thoughtfully. "It must be dreadful to be poor, mother, mustn't it?"

"Yes," she acknowledged, surprised at the unusual gravity of her

son's face.

"That's why they invited Cousin Becky to Princess Street," Edgar

proceeded, "because she's poor and lonely. Roger says now Cousin
Becky's brother is dead she hasn't even a home, and no one wants
her—you know you didn't, mother."

"But to burden themselves with an old woman," Mrs. Marsh was

commencing, when the keen, questioning gaze with which her little
boy was regarding her caused her to break off and leave her
sentence unfinished.

"It's so odd you didn't want Cousin Becky here," he said. "I can't
think why you didn't, because we've lots of spare rooms, and we're
always having visitors. Don't you like Cousin Becky, mother?"

"I have not seen her for many years," was the evasive reply. "Will
you have another cup of tea, Edgar? No, I will not allow you to have
any more cake; you will make yourself ill."

"Give me just a tiny piece, mother. I'm hungry still."

"Then have some bread and butter."

"No," pouted the spoilt child, "I won't have anything more to eat if I
can't have cake."

It ended in his being allowed another slice, and whilst he was eating
it, his father, a short, bald, middle-aged man, entered the room, and
came up to the fire, rubbing his hands and complaining of the cold.

"We're going to have a heavy fall of snow if I'm not much mistaken,"
he said. "You'll like that, eh, Edgar? I remember when I was your age
there was nothing I liked better than a snowballing match with my
school-fellows. Rare fun we used to have."

"Fancy, John, Cousin Becky is coming to Beaworthy after all," Mrs.

Marsh informed him. "She's going to stay with Martin. Edgar heard
from Roger that she is expected to-night."

"Well, I suppose your brother knows what he is about," Mr. Marsh

replied, shrugging his shoulders. "You'll have to ask the old lady to
spend a day with you, Janie."

"And ask Aunt Mary, too," said Edgar eagerly; "I like Aunt Mary. But
don't have Polly, mother."

"Why not?" inquired Mr. Marsh, looking amused.

"She's such a cheeky little girl," the boy replied, recalling how on one
of the rare occasions when he had taken tea with his cousins at their
home, Polly had nick-named him "tell-tale" because he had
threatened to inform his mother of something which had happened to
displease him. He knew better than to do that now, but he seldom
encountered Polly without she addressed him as "tell-tale."

"Edgar, your boots are wet!" cried Mrs. Marsh as, in an unwary
moment, the little boy drew his feet out from under the chair. "I can
see the water oozing out of the leather. Go and change them at
once, or you'll catch a terrible cold. How could you say they were not
wet when you must have known differently? You ought to be
ashamed to be so untruthful."

Edgar was in no wise disconcerted by this rebuke; but he left the

drawing-room and went upstairs to his own room, where he
discarded his snow-sodden boots for his slippers, and then stood at
the window looking out into the garden, which was separated from
the high road by tall elm trees, where the rooks built their nests every
spring. The snow was falling very fast now, covering the world with a
spotless mantle of white; and Edgar's mind reverted to the visitor
whom his cousins expected to welcome to their home that night.

"I suppose mother thought she'd be in the way if she came here," he
reflected shrewdly, "but I should say she'll be much more in the way
in Uncle Martin's poky little house. It's really very kind of Aunt Mary
to have her. Roger says his mother is always kind, and that we all
ought to try to be—for Jesus' sake, because He loves every living
thing, even animals. I suppose that's true, it's in the Bible about His
noticing if a sparrow falls, so it must be, but I never thought much of
it till Roger spoke to me about it the day after I'd hit that dog. I didn't
mean to hurt it—I only meant to frighten it; I suppose it was cowardly.
Well, I won't be unkind to an animal again; and I'm glad I didn't make
a fuss about Roger's having struck me, especially as he was sorry
afterwards."

It was cold in his bedroom, so in a short while the little boy went
downstairs. In the hall he encountered Titters, his mother's favourite
Persian cat; but when—mindful of his resolution to be kind to
animals in future—he essayed to stroke her, she tried to escape from
him, and arched her back and raised her fur in anything but a friendly
fashion. Truth to tell, he had been in the habit of teasing her, and she
consequently mistrusted his intentions. However, he caught her,
picked her up, and was carrying her into the drawing-room in his
arms when she suddenly gave him a vicious scratch on the cheek,
whereupon he dropped her with a cry of mingled anger and pain.

"See what Titters has done to me, mother!" he exclaimed as he

entered the drawing-room.

"What a nasty scratch!" Mrs. Marsh said. "But you should not have
teased the poor creature, Edgar."

"I was not teasing her, mother."

"Now, my dear, I know better than that. How can you tell me such a
naughty story? I do wish you would learn to speak the truth. You are
always teasing Titters—I suppose that's only natural as you're a boy
—so you need not pretend you were not doing so just now."

Edgar did not argue the point, but he regarded his mother with an
injured air which only made her laugh. He was annoyed that she did
not believe him, forgetful that not long before he had told her an
untruth about his boots, and that not without cause had he gained
the reputation of a perverter of the truth.

CHAPTER IV
COUSIN BECKY'S ARRIVAL AT BEAWORTHY
"Isn't it nearly time for you to start, father?" asked Polly, turning from
the window out of which, with her face pressed close to the glass,
she had been watching the falling snow, and glancing at Mr. Trent,
who, during the half-hour which had elapsed since the family had
arisen from the tea-table, had been quietly reading the newspaper.

"Very nearly, my dear," he answered, raising his eyes to the clock on

the mantelpiece, and then fixing them on his newspaper again.

"I believe the clock's rather slow, father, and it will take you quite
quarter of an hour walking to the station. It's half-past six."

"And Cousin Becky's train is not due to arrive till ten minutes past
seven, so there's plenty of time. Where is Roger?"

"Gone to put on his boots, father. Don't you think you had better put
on yours?"

Mr. Trent laughed as he laid aside his newspaper. "I see you will not
be satisfied till I am gone," he remarked. "Fetch my boots, there's a
good girl."

Ten minutes later Mr. Trent and Roger were putting on their
overcoats in the hall, preparatory to braving the snowstorm. The
latter was quite as anxious to start for the station as Polly was to
send him off. In fact, both children were much excited about their
expected guest.

"You won't be able to wear this much longer," Polly observed, as she
assisted her brother into his overcoat, which had become most
uncomfortably tight for him. She buttoned it across his chest with
some difficulty, adding, "You look like a trussed fowl."

"He has grown so much this winter," said Mrs. Trent, overhearing
Polly's unflattering remark on her brother's appearance as she came
downstairs. "I wish he could have a new overcoat, but—" She
paused with a faint sigh, and Roger said quickly:
"Oh, this one will last me a long time yet, and I don't in the least mind
how I look. It's a good warm old coat."

"That's right, Roger, never run down an old friend, especially one
that's served you well," said Mr. Trent, at which they all laughed; for,
poor though they were and obliged to practise many economies,
they were a lighthearted family and happy amongst themselves.

"Surely you are very early in starting for the station," said Mrs. Trent.
"There is half an hour before the train is due."

"Yes; but Polly is anxious to get us off," her husband returned, with a
smiling glance at his little daughter, "and there's sure to be a good
fire in the waiting-room at the station if we have long to wait. I shall
not be surprised if the train is late to-night, the snowstorm will
probably delay it a little."

"It's snowing very fast," announced Roger, as he opened the door

and stepped into the street, followed by his father. "I believe it's
inches deep already."

"We must keep up a good fire in the sitting-room, for Cousin Becky is
sure to arrive very cold," said Mrs. Trent as she closed the front door.
"I wish there was a fireplace in your bedroom, Polly, but the oil-stove
has made it feel very warm and comfortable."

The little girl ran upstairs to the room she had vacated for Cousin
Becky. A heating stove with a crimson glass shade stood on the
floor, and threw a rosy glow around. The apartment was small and
plainly furnished, but it looked very cosy, and Polly thought their
expected visitor would be very hard to please if she was not satisfied
with such a nice little room. She said something of the kind when she
joined her mother downstairs a few minutes later, and Mrs. Trent
smiled, but made no response. She was as curious as her children
to see Cousin Becky, and not a little anxious as well. How the hands
of the clock seemed to drag as Polly watched them! Seven o'clock
struck, and nearly another hour paced before a cab drew up before
the house. Then mother and daughter hastened into the hall, and the
former flung open wide the door, a welcoming smile on her face.

"Here she is, Mary!" cried Mr. Trent, as he sprang out of the cab and
assisted a little lady to alight. He led her immediately into the house,
whilst Roger followed labouring under a bundle of wraps and a rug.
"Here she is," he repeated, "almost frozen with cold, I believe. Becky,
this is my wife, and this is my little maid, Polly. Go into the sitting-
room, out of the draught, whilst I see to the luggage."

Not a word had the stranger spoken yet but she had taken Mrs.
Trent's outstretched hand and warmly returned the kiss which the
latter had given her; then she had kissed Polly, too, and now she
allowed herself to be led into the sitting-room and established in the
big, leather-covered easy chair by the fire.

"How good you all are to me!" she exclaimed at length with a quick
breath, which sounded very like a sob, as she took off her thick veil,
revealing a countenance which, though plain, was redeemed from
insignificance by a pair of bright, observant dark eyes—wonderfully
soft eyes they were at the present moment, for they smiled through a
mist of tears. "Why, you might have known me all your lives by the
warmth of your greetings.'"

"I have heard a great deal of you from my husband," Mrs. Trent told
her. "You do not seem a stranger at all."

"I am pleased to hear that. What a glorious fire! A good fire is always
such a welcome, I think. And what a cosy room!" And the bright, dark
eyes wandered around the apartment with its worn Brussels carpet
and well-used furniture, with appreciation in their gaze.

"I believe you will find the house comfortable, though small, and—I'm
afraid—rather shabby," Mrs. Trent replied.

"It is a home," Cousin Becky declared with a pleased nod. "I've been
in many large, handsomely-furnished houses that have never been
that. Well," she said, turning her glance upon Polly, who had been
watching her intently, "do you think you will like me, my dear?"

"Yes," Polly responded with a smile, by no means abashed at this

direct question. "I am sure I shall. But you are not a bit like what I
expected."

"Indeed! What did you expect?"

"I thought you would look much older," the little girl candidly
admitted.

"I'm nearly seventy, my dear, and that's a good age. But I don't feel
old, and I cannot have changed a great deal of late years—except
that my hair has grown white—for your father recognised me the
minute he saw me on the platform."

At that moment Mr. Trent appeared upon the scene, followed by

Roger. They had been helping to take their visitor's luggage upstairs;
and Mrs. Trent now suggested that Cousin Becky should go to her
room and remove her travelling things, by which time she would be
glad of some tea.

"What do you think of her, Polly?" asked Roger, as soon as their

mother and Cousin Becky had gone upstairs together.

"I think she looks very nice and kind," was the prompt reply; "but
what a little thing she is, Roger! Father, you never told us that."

In truth, Miss Trent was a very little lady, with a slight figure which
was wonderfully upright and agile for one her age. When she
returned to the sitting-room, Roger pulled the easy chair nearer the
fire for her, and Polly placed a cushion behind her shoulders, and
she looked at them both with a very tender light shining in her dark
eyes.

"Thank you, my dears," she said with the smile which made her plain
face look almost beautiful. "I will take the easy chair to-night as I am
weary after my journey, but usually I am not so indulgent to myself.
Roger, you are very like what your father used to be at your age."

"And do you think I am like Aunt Janie?" asked Polly, veiled anxiety
in her tone.

"Slightly, perhaps; but you are more like your mother," was the
decided reply.

"Oh, I am glad to hear you say that!" Polly cried delightedly. "I would
rather not be like Aunt Janie at all; though everyone says she is very
handsome," she added meditatively.

"Polly does not much care for Aunt Janie," Roger explained; "but
she's very nice in her way. And Uncle John's very nice, too, but we
don't see much of him. Oh, here's Louisa with tea—"

"Which I am sure Cousin Becky must be greatly in need of," Mrs.

Trent interposed, not sorry of this opportunity of changing the
conversation, "so hush your chatter, children, for a while, and let her
take her meal in peace."

"I love listening to their chatter," Cousin Becky said. She did full
justice to the chop which had been cooked for her and enjoyed her
tea; and afterwards they all sat round the fire, and the children
listened whilst their elders conversed about people and places they
only knew by name. Then by-and-by Cousin Becky spoke of her
brother's death, and her own forlorn condition.

"I cannot tell you how glad I was to receive your letter, my dear," she
said to Mrs. Trent. "I considered it was especially kind of you to invite
me to visit you as you had never seen me in your life."

"Father wanted you to come, and so did Polly and I," Roger informed
her frankly, "but mother was afraid—" He paused in sudden
confusion.
"Afraid you might not be satisfied with our mode of living, Becky," Mr.
Trent said with a smile, whilst his wife shook her head at him
reproachfully.

"The idea!" cried Cousin Becky with a laugh.

"I told her you had had to rough it in your day," Mr. Trent proceeded,
"and that you were not a fussy old maid. You see we're living in a
small way, and we've had reverses of fortune, as no doubt you have
heard, but I don't think we're a discontented family, and we make the
best of things—eh, my dear?" he questioned, turning to his wife.

"Yes," she answered, "or, at any rate, we try to do so. Children, I

think it is time for you to say good-night; it is long past your usual
bed-time."

"I wonder who put those lovely snowdrops in the vase on the
dressing-table in my room," said Cousin Becky, as the young people
rose obediently to retire for the night.

"Roger did," replied Polly, "he bought them on purpose for you. Do
you like them?"

"Indeed I do. Thank you, Roger, so much; it was a most kindly

thought which prompted you to get them for me."

The little boy blushed with pleasure, for it was nice to know the
flowers were appreciated, and he had been wondering if Cousin
Becky had noticed them. After the children had said good-night and
left the room, they stood a few minutes in the hall, discussing their
visitor in whispers.

"She's awfully jolly," Roger said decidedly, "and she seemed very
pleased that I was at the station to meet her with father."

"I like her," Polly answered. "It must be very bad to be alone in the
world if you're poor," she continued thoughtfully. "Did you see the
tears in her eyes when she talked of her brother and said she had no
home now?"

"Yes," assented Roger; "but she didn't say anything about being
poor."

"No, but we know she is, from what Aunt Janie said. If she had been
rich she'd have been invited to stay at the Rookery." Polly was a
sharp little girl, and often surprised her elders by the clearness of her
mental sight. "I'm glad she's come here instead," she added heartily,
"for we should not see much of her if she was Aunt Janie's visitor."

"I expect not," agreed Roger. "Edgar says he doesn't like Princess
Street, and I suppose Aunt Janie doesn't either. I don't mind, do
you?"

Polly declared she did not, but her heart was hot with indignation; for
she realised, more clearly than did her brother, that Aunt Janie
despised their home.

CHAPTER V
AFTER THE SNOWSTORM

"Oh, I say, Roger, do wait for me a moment! What a tremendous

hurry you're in! I want to speak to you."

Roger Trent paused to allow the speaker—Edgar Marsh—to come

up to him. It was nearly five o'clock on the afternoon subsequent to
the night of Cousin Becky's arrival at Beaworthy, and the cousins
were later than usual in returning from school, as they had lingered
in the playground—a large yard surrounded by high walls at the back
of the Grammar School building, which was situated in one of the
principal streets of the town—to enjoy a good game of snowballing.
Several inches of snow had fallen during the night, but the morning
had dawned clear and fine; there had been only a very slight thaw,
and now the air was keen and betokened frost.

"I'm in rather a hurry, because we have tea at five o'clock and mother
will wonder what's become of me if I'm not home by then," Roger
explained, as his cousin joined him and they walked on side by side.

"What a splendid game we've had, haven't we? I believe it's going to
freeze, and if it does the streets will be as slippery as glass to-
morrow."

"So much the better, then we shall be able to make some slides. I
don't mind the cold, do you? But why don't you do up your coat."

"Because it's so uncomfortable if I do; it's too tight for me, I've grown
out of it."

"You ought to have a new one; it's awfully shabby."

Roger laughed at the critical way in which Edgar was surveying him,
but his colour deepened as he said:

"I shan't have a new one till another winter, that's certain, and
perhaps not then; it will all depend—"

"Depend upon what?" asked Edgar inquisitively.

"Upon whether father can afford to buy me one or not," was the frank
response.

Edgar was silent for a few moments. Accustomed to possess

everything that money could buy, it seemed very dreadful to him that
his cousin should not be well clothed. He reflected that Roger and he
were much the same height and size, and determined to ask his
mother for permission to present him with one of his own overcoats.

"It must be horrid to be poor like that," he remarked; "but, never

mind, Roger, I'll see you have another overcoat soon." This was said
with a slightly patronising air, though it was kindly meant.

"What do you mean?" Roger demanded quickly.

"I'll give you one of mine."

"I won't have it. I don't want it. I'd rather wear my old one." Roger's
tone was distinctly ungrateful, and he appeared vexed. "You'd better
mind your own business, Edgar, and let me mind mine."

Edgar looked considerably taken aback. He saw he had annoyed his

companion, but he had not the faintest idea how he had done so.
However, he was wise enough to let the matter drop.

"Did Cousin Becky come last night?" he inquired. "Mother'll be sure

to ask me when I get home."

"She arrived by the ten minutes past seven train," Roger replied.
"Father and I met her at the station—the train was more than half an
hour late—and we drove home in a cab. I enjoyed it."

"Enjoyed what?"

"The drive."

"Oh!" Edgar exclaimed rather contemptuously. "Tell me what Cousin

Becky's like."

"She's very small, and her hair is quite white, and she has very dark
eyes. Polly and I think we shall like her."

"Will she stay long?"

"I don't know. Mother asked her for a few weeks."

The boys had reached the corner of Princess Street now, and were
about to separate when Edgar impulsively caught up a handful of
snow and flung it in his companion's face. Roger had not expected
this, but he laughed and promptly returned the compliment, and soon
they were engaged in a smart game of snowballing, in which a
couple of errand boys who happened to be passing, joined. By-and-
by Roger unfortunately slipped and fell full length on the sloppy
ground; but he picked himself up, unhurt, though very wet and dirty,
and returned to the battle. The game would have lasted much longer
than it did, had not a policeman come round the corner upon the
combatants and promptly dispersed them.

Of course, Roger was late for tea, for, upon reaching home, he found
it was absolutely necessary to change his clothes. It was little
wonder that Louisa grumbled when he marched into the kitchen,
after having put on a dry suit, bearing his wet garments, which he
begged her to dry and clean for him in time for him to wear next day.
"Of all the thoughtless boys I ever knew, I do believe you are the
worst, Master Roger," she said emphatically as she stuffed paper
into his dripping boots to prevent their shrinking. "You'll soon have no
clothes to wear, and what will you do then?" As the little boy offered
no solution to this problem, she continued in the same scolding tone,
"I don't know what the mistress will say when she sees your second-
best suit in this terrible state. Well, leave the things here, I'll try to get
them dry and do my best with them, for it's certain you can't go to
school to-morrow looking such a sight as that!" And a smile broke
upon her countenance as her eyes travelled over his figure. He had
been obliged to don a much-worn suit, darned at the knees and
elbows, and too small for him every way.

"It's very kind of you, Louisa," he said gratefully, "I'll do you a good
turn some day."

"Will you, Master Roger? Well, I believe you would if you could, so I'll
take the will for the deed. Boys will be boys, I suppose, and I
daresay your clothes are not really much damaged after all."
After that Roger left the kitchen and went into the sitting-room. He
apologised to his mother for being late, and drank his luke-warm tea
and ate several slices of thick bread and butter with relish. Cousin
Becky occupied the seat at his mother's right hand, and Polly sat
opposite. Mr. Trent was not present, for he did not, as a rule, leave
the office till six o'clock.

"I have not been outside the door all day," Polly remarked in a
slightly desponding tone, after she had listened to her brother's
account of the fun he and his schoolmates had enjoyed in the
playground that afternoon, "and I do love walking in snow."

"You know you have a slight cold, my dear," Mrs. Trent said, "and I
did not want you to run the risk of making it worse."

"Besides, my boots leak," Polly muttered under her breath, "so I

could not have gone out anyway."

Mrs. Trent glanced quickly at Cousin Becky, but apparently she had
not heard the little girl's complaint, for she was giving her attention to
Roger, who was answering a question she had put to him about his
school. A look of relief crossed Mrs. Trent's face, seeing which Polly
grew suddenly ashamed of her discontentment, and would have
given anything to have been able to recall the words which she
realised must have grieved her mother to hear; she well knew she
would not have had leaky boots if such a state of things could have
been remedied.

After tea the children sat at one end of the table preparing their
lessons for the following day. Up to the present Polly had been
educated by her mother, but it was hoped she would be able to be
sent to school later on—to which day she was looking forward with
much pleasure, for she had but a dull time of it at home, poor little
girl, and she was far more inclined than her brother to chafe against
the circumstances of her life. On one occasion she had overheard it
remarked to her mother that it was a shame Mr. Marsh did not give
his brother-in-law a larger salary for his services, and she had
secretly felt a deep sense of resentment against her uncle ever
since. Then, too, she disliked her aunt, because that lady did not
own sufficient tact to confer her favours in a different manner; and
she despised Edgar because his mother petted and spoilt him. So, it
must be confessed that poor Polly had but little affection for those
relations outside her own household. But the little girl forgot her
grievances when, later on, and lessons finished, she and her brother
drew their chairs near the fire and Cousin Becky entered into
conversation with them, encouraging them to talk of themselves.
Before the evening was over the visitor had gained a clear insight
into the character of her young cousins, and had learnt a great deal
about the family at the Rookery.

Seeing the children were entertaining her guest, Mrs. Trent by-and-
by left the room in search of Louisa, whom she found in the kitchen
carefully drying Roger's second-best suit of clothes before the fire.

"I'm drying the things slowly so that they shan't shrink," Louisa
explained. "Isn't master come yet, ma'am?" she inquired as she
glanced at her mistress' face.

"No, and I cannot imagine what's keeping him; he generally comes

straight home from the office. I cannot help being nervous, for I know
something unusual must have happened to have detained him. It is
past eight o'clock. Supposing he should have met with an accident? I
expect the streets are like glass to-night."

"I wouldn't go to meet trouble if I were you, ma'am," advised Louisa.

She had been in Mrs. Trent's service for several years, and had
insisted on accompanying the family to Princess Street, having
declared nothing should induce her to leave the mistress to whom
she was deeply attached. "You're too anxious, ma'am, that comes of
having had so many troubles, I expect; but if anything had happened
to the master you would have been the first to have been informed of
it. There! Surely that's his step in the hall."

It was, and Mrs. Trent's face brightened immediately. She hastened

into the hall, where she found her husband divesting himself of his
overcoat.