## Friday, 1 June 2018

### Recanting on Neutrino background in Matter

Ten years on i have come back to the Axial force, (which predates me), my paper,
Axial force on yolasite.
and Axial force on Vixra. predicted the axial force on neuclons in matter, is balanced out by a sea of neutrinos, and the Pauli energy would be quite large. In now believe that to be a mistake. And that the spins on neuclons would cancel out the axial force, in matter. That is a big change, unfortanately, i have lost the latex source for my paper, so a rewrite would take awhile. I still stand by Dark Energy explanation by the axial force, dispite this charge in belief in neutrino background in matter.

### Axial Force - Measuring on Ortho and Para Hydrogen and Deutrium

Interesting discovery this weak, ortho and para water (BBC) has been measured for the first time, i was actually thinking about the Axial force after not posting for many years. And it occurs to me that the axial force would lead to there being different energy for either ortho and para hydrogen or ortho and para deuterium. The para molecule has spins on the neuclei in the same direction while the othro molecule has spins on the opposite directory. Since the axial force reverses when the spin on the either a proton or a neutron or both (we don't know which are charge, but we do know by conversion of axial charge in beta decay, that the axial charged it different by one unit of neutrino charge on the proton and neutron, possible charges are (neutron 1, proton 0), (neutron 0, proton -1), (neutron 1/2, proton -1/2).
Whatever the charges are, we thus know one of the neutron or the proton has an axial charge, and so the energy of the molecule will different, most probably less in the ortho case, and more in the para case, than the standard model predicts.
I asked on Physics Stack Exchange wheather, this could be ditectable, or weather measurement where good enough to rule out an axial force. Rob the moderator, was kind enough to answer, How well are the energy diffences between ortho and para hydrogen and deuterium known, ((License). It seems present state of the art hasn't been very good at measuring or predicting the energy difference, so the axial force is still possible, however a measurement of a anomalous energy difference between ortho and para states would probably be explained by predition errors in the strong force.

## Tuesday, 10 January 2012

### Dark Energy and Expansion 101

BDOA wrote this over at Science 2.0 in reply to an articles on the Einstein plus Higgs expansions paradox. How can space expanded when there's an Aether (except relatisticly invarent) like field of Higgs particle in it. I'll need to dumb this done to the level of the readership.

Space doesn't expand? next you'll be telling me that Hubble was a bungling detective.

Its a good paradox though. Is there an energy cost of free space, as your expand the universe. Especially if that free space has got a 246 GeV Higgs field made out of 126 GeV field particles field in it. Doesn't that Higgs field both cost or gain energy and induce a big cosmological constant. Its like gravity doesn't care about the Higgs field.

Supersymmetry says the energy of the Vacuum is zero. that one of the reasons that physicist like it so much. Add up the vacuum energy from all the fermions and all the bosons and you get zero. of course once you break supersymmetry, and it is broken or they'd be a scalar electron or same mass turning all our molecules into superfluids, all that Vacuum energy comes back, at the breaking scale.

The other pointer, I've seen, is that in a universe with just gravity and photons or massless particles (not sure if this continues with non-abelian or interacting particles), the overall energy is also aways zero. That one of few cases where a definition of global total energy actually works in general relavity, most of the rest of the time they just isn't single definition of energy that works.

The point of the Higg mechanism is a set of massless fields can be redefined as set of massive fields by renaming what you call the particle, then building a Higgs field shouldn't effect the gravity, and the contribution to cosmological constant is zero. What about all the interaction terms though which I question marked above, they need to be proved to not make a difference to the gravity. Begin with a literature search please, and add to a sane distance beyond the current state of the art. Perphaps its already solved, but I tend to look out for that kind of stuff at arXiv and haven't seen it yet.

Now dark energy, that's trickery. Sasha said, the more empty space there is, the more the universe accelerates. That's dark energy with a phantom equation of state, w<-1. If w=-1 is just like a cosmological constant. The observations of dark energy tell us that is w<-.75 and it might even have only switched one recently (six million years, z<2, (z being the redshift factor, used for distance and time in most dark matter literature, which of course get new measurement regularly). Very light particles with very strong self interaction, strong enough to pair create more of themselves would be a good candidate for dark energy for w near to but above minus one. As a model, I gave neutrinos a force like electromagnetism (but not em) between them, expanded the system, and found w to be approximately -17/18 and turned on about z=2.6. There are also good published paper on a QCD ghost dark energy, which only uses standard QCD on a curved background in general relavity (now that really hard math) , but that has w~.75 and turns on around z=2. But it does seem to generate dark energy like expansion from the QCD condensate. The QCD condensate which is another aether like field, that physicist have put in empty space and comes about just breaking the symmetry of the axial color due to the axial anomaly. Can you make a Higgs field from a condensate like the QCD one. Yes, that's called a techicolour Higgs, lots of new physics paper going on there as well. BDOA

Space doesn't expand? next you'll be telling me that Hubble was a bungling detective.

Its a good paradox though. Is there an energy cost of free space, as your expand the universe. Especially if that free space has got a 246 GeV Higgs field made out of 126 GeV field particles field in it. Doesn't that Higgs field both cost or gain energy and induce a big cosmological constant. Its like gravity doesn't care about the Higgs field.

Supersymmetry says the energy of the Vacuum is zero. that one of the reasons that physicist like it so much. Add up the vacuum energy from all the fermions and all the bosons and you get zero. of course once you break supersymmetry, and it is broken or they'd be a scalar electron or same mass turning all our molecules into superfluids, all that Vacuum energy comes back, at the breaking scale.

The other pointer, I've seen, is that in a universe with just gravity and photons or massless particles (not sure if this continues with non-abelian or interacting particles), the overall energy is also aways zero. That one of few cases where a definition of global total energy actually works in general relavity, most of the rest of the time they just isn't single definition of energy that works.

The point of the Higg mechanism is a set of massless fields can be redefined as set of massive fields by renaming what you call the particle, then building a Higgs field shouldn't effect the gravity, and the contribution to cosmological constant is zero. What about all the interaction terms though which I question marked above, they need to be proved to not make a difference to the gravity. Begin with a literature search please, and add to a sane distance beyond the current state of the art. Perphaps its already solved, but I tend to look out for that kind of stuff at arXiv and haven't seen it yet.

Now dark energy, that's tricky. Sasha said, the more empty space there is, the more the universe accelerates. That's dark energy with a phantom equation of state, w<-1. If w=-1 is just like a cosmological constant. The observations of dark energy tell us that is w<-.75 and it might even have only switched one recently (six million years, z<2, (z being the redshift factor, used for distance and time in most dark matter literature, which of course get new measurement regularly). Very light particles with very strong self interaction, strong enough to pair create more of themselves would be a good candidate for dark energy for w near to but above minus one. As a model, I gave neutrinos a force like electromagnetism (but not em) between them, expanded the system, and found w to be approximately -17/18 and turned on about z=2.6. There are also good published paper on a QCD ghost dark energy, which only uses standard QCD on a curved background in general relavity (now that really hard math) , but that has w~.75 and turns on around z=2. But it does seem to generate dark energy like expansion from the QCD condensate. The QCD condensate which is another aether like field, that physicist have put in empty space and comes about just breaking the symmetry of the axial color due to the axial anomaly. Can you make a Higgs field from a condensate like the QCD one. Yes, that's called a techicolour Higgs, lots of new physics paper going on there as well.

Space doesn't expand? next you'll be telling me that Hubble was a bungling detective.

Its a good paradox though. Is there an energy cost of free space, as your expand the universe. Especially if that free space has got a 246 GeV Higgs field made out of 126 GeV field particles field in it. Doesn't that Higgs field both cost or gain energy and induce a big cosmological constant. Its like gravity doesn't care about the Higgs field.

Supersymmetry says the energy of the Vacuum is zero. that one of the reasons that physicist like it so much. Add up the vacuum energy from all the fermions and all the bosons and you get zero. of course once you break supersymmetry, and it is broken or they'd be a scalar electron or same mass turning all our molecules into superfluids, all that Vacuum energy comes back, at the breaking scale.

The other pointer, I've seen, is that in a universe with just gravity and photons or massless particles (not sure if this continues with non-abelian or interacting particles), the overall energy is also aways zero. That one of few cases where a definition of global total energy actually works in general relavity, most of the rest of the time they just isn't single definition of energy that works.

The point of the Higg mechanism is a set of massless fields can be redefined as set of massive fields by renaming what you call the particle, then building a Higgs field shouldn't effect the gravity, and the contribution to cosmological constant is zero. What about all the interaction terms though which I question marked above, they need to be proved to not make a difference to the gravity. Begin with a literature search please, and add to a sane distance beyond the current state of the art. Perphaps its already solved, but I tend to look out for that kind of stuff at arXiv and haven't seen it yet.

Now dark energy, that's trickery. Sasha said, the more empty space there is, the more the universe accelerates. That's dark energy with a phantom equation of state, w<-1. If w=-1 is just like a cosmological constant. The observations of dark energy tell us that is w<-.75 and it might even have only switched one recently (six million years, z<2, (z being the redshift factor, used for distance and time in most dark matter literature, which of course get new measurement regularly). Very light particles with very strong self interaction, strong enough to pair create more of themselves would be a good candidate for dark energy for w near to but above minus one. As a model, I gave neutrinos a force like electromagnetism (but not em) between them, expanded the system, and found w to be approximately -17/18 and turned on about z=2.6. There are also good published paper on a QCD ghost dark energy, which only uses standard QCD on a curved background in general relavity (now that really hard math) , but that has w~.75 and turns on around z=2. But it does seem to generate dark energy like expansion from the QCD condensate. The QCD condensate which is another aether like field, that physicist have put in empty space and comes about just breaking the symmetry of the axial color due to the axial anomaly. Can you make a Higgs field from a condensate like the QCD one. Yes, that's called a techicolour Higgs, lots of new physics paper going on there as well. BDOA

Space doesn't expand? next you'll be telling me that Hubble was a bungling detective.

Its a good paradox though. Is there an energy cost of free space, as your expand the universe. Especially if that free space has got a 246 GeV Higgs field made out of 126 GeV field particles field in it. Doesn't that Higgs field both cost or gain energy and induce a big cosmological constant. Its like gravity doesn't care about the Higgs field.

Supersymmetry says the energy of the Vacuum is zero. that one of the reasons that physicist like it so much. Add up the vacuum energy from all the fermions and all the bosons and you get zero. of course once you break supersymmetry, and it is broken or they'd be a scalar electron or same mass turning all our molecules into superfluids, all that Vacuum energy comes back, at the breaking scale.

The other pointer, I've seen, is that in a universe with just gravity and photons or massless particles (not sure if this continues with non-abelian or interacting particles), the overall energy is also aways zero. That one of few cases where a definition of global total energy actually works in general relavity, most of the rest of the time they just isn't single definition of energy that works.

The point of the Higg mechanism is a set of massless fields can be redefined as set of massive fields by renaming what you call the particle, then building a Higgs field shouldn't effect the gravity, and the contribution to cosmological constant is zero. What about all the interaction terms though which I question marked above, they need to be proved to not make a difference to the gravity. Begin with a literature search please, and add to a sane distance beyond the current state of the art. Perphaps its already solved, but I tend to look out for that kind of stuff at arXiv and haven't seen it yet.

Now dark energy, that's tricky. Sasha said, the more empty space there is, the more the universe accelerates. That's dark energy with a phantom equation of state, w<-1. If w=-1 is just like a cosmological constant. The observations of dark energy tell us that is w<-.75 and it might even have only switched one recently (six million years, z<2, (z being the redshift factor, used for distance and time in most dark matter literature, which of course get new measurement regularly). Very light particles with very strong self interaction, strong enough to pair create more of themselves would be a good candidate for dark energy for w near to but above minus one. As a model, I gave neutrinos a force like electromagnetism (but not em) between them, expanded the system, and found w to be approximately -17/18 and turned on about z=2.6. There are also good published paper on a QCD ghost dark energy, which only uses standard QCD on a curved background in general relavity (now that really hard math) , but that has w~.75 and turns on around z=2. But it does seem to generate dark energy like expansion from the QCD condensate. The QCD condensate which is another aether like field, that physicist have put in empty space and comes about just breaking the symmetry of the axial color due to the axial anomaly. Can you make a Higgs field from a condensate like the QCD one. Yes, that's called a techicolour Higgs, lots of new physics paper going on there as well.

## Wednesday, 4 January 2012

### Hiding a Z'

Just five days ago I posted about results on how the Higgs Boson decayed, and suggested extra pairs of vector like quarks to make the photon signal match. Since then a paper by Radovan Dermisek, Sung-Gi Kim, Aditi Raval has come out showing that a Z' hiding very near in mass to the standard models Z (the neutral particle of the weak force), solves the problem of the forward backward asymmetry in bottom quark creation. The Z' is around 92.5 GeV (just 1GeV more missing than the ordinary Z), interacts with right handed button quarks, and vector like heavy down quarks. Such a particles seem to fit all existing measurement, and improve the fit for forward backward asymmetry, they also need a 0.005 coupling to left handed electron to fit data.

I'm liking this because I need the extra pair of quarks if the axial force is going to exist. When a proton reversing its spin, it axial force charge shouldn't reverse, and that means its right handed version at the same mass can't be the ordinary P reversed quark. That P reverse quark must also exist though and have a different mass. The Higgs decay signal and confirmation of the Z' boson, then are very helpful to the idea of an axial force.

I'm liking this because I need the extra pair of quarks if the axial force is going to exist. When a proton reversing its spin, it axial force charge shouldn't reverse, and that means its right handed version at the same mass can't be the ordinary P reversed quark. That P reverse quark must also exist though and have a different mass. The Higgs decay signal and confirmation of the Z' boson, then are very helpful to the idea of an axial force.

## Saturday, 31 December 2011

### LHC Higgs Boson 125 GeV, and not standard model

On December the 13th 2011, the LHC released the first ever figures showing a Higgs Boson. This the particle (or set of particles) which give rise the mass of all the elementary particles in the universe. The signal was only around 3 sigma, after 5 femtobarnes of collisions, and woundn't ordinarily have been reguards has a proof of exists of the particle, except for the fact the physicists where already so sure that a Higgs Boson does exist. But the Higgs Boson they found does look like one from either the standard model or supersymmetry. The branching ratios for the different decays are different from the predicted values. According to the theory, the rate of the Higgs decay to a particular particle should be proportional to the mass of that particle. Instead CMS found

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → bb)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ττ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → γγ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1.7 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → WW)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.6 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ZZ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$

A factor of a half to the electroweak bosons, and ordinary quarks. About 1.7 for electromagnetic radiation and the standard factor for leptons. If you look back at Axitronics you'll find we quoted a prediction for a mirror-matter Higgs from Robert Foot, for the Mirror-Matter model, that predicted a factor of a half for Higg Boson branches across the board. Well the data we got is similar to that for more complicated, can we find a model to fit it. In fact the data, seems to match my E6 model. Which has as well as 15 particles of the standard model, and additional 12 vector-like quarks in the group.

The number of Leptons is the same so tau figures are identical. This Higgs would decay equally to either the quarks in the 12 or the 15 of E6, so the figure for bottom quarks would be half. There would be an additional W and Z just for the decays to the vector like 12 of E6, so again this figure would be a half. Finally the photonic decays (found by summing the squares of the charges of any pair of particles a Higgs could produce which then annihilate to a pair of photons is.

$$γγ = 3 generations * ( ee + 3 colors * [ dd +uu + DD+ UU])$$

$$B(γγ) = 3 + 9 * (1/9 + 4/9) = 8 [Standard Model] $$

$$B(γγ) = 3 + 9 * (2/9 + 8/9) = 13 [E6 (12+15)] $$

So $$B(γγ) = 1.625$$ Very close the observed figure. Including the normal W its 14/9 or 1.555. Finally if (and we expect one) there's any extra leptophobic right handed W and Z in E6, that will change to 1.666, the closest to the CMS figure.

During 2012, the amount of data with triple, and the mass and branching ratios will get much more accurately. The cross-section compared with the standard model will be known, and we might start seeing invisible decays to mirror matter or SUSY particles, so a deeply interesting year to come for particle physics. The Higgs Boson for a model with additional vector like quarks has been looked at byChacko et al, and would mean SUSY is unnecessary for stabilizing the Higgs Boson mass all the way up to 5+ TeV, so SUSY might well not be found in the 7TeV LHC runs.

Finally the Higgs might be composite, in fact if the color interaction between normal and vector-like quarks, is double the strength of the normal interaction, then these combinations have the right sort of energies for technicolor stuff composites to make up the Higgs.

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → bb)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ττ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → γγ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1.7 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → WW)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.6 $$

$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ZZ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$

A factor of a half to the electroweak bosons, and ordinary quarks. About 1.7 for electromagnetic radiation and the standard factor for leptons. If you look back at Axitronics you'll find we quoted a prediction for a mirror-matter Higgs from Robert Foot, for the Mirror-Matter model, that predicted a factor of a half for Higg Boson branches across the board. Well the data we got is similar to that for more complicated, can we find a model to fit it. In fact the data, seems to match my E6 model. Which has as well as 15 particles of the standard model, and additional 12 vector-like quarks in the group.

The number of Leptons is the same so tau figures are identical. This Higgs would decay equally to either the quarks in the 12 or the 15 of E6, so the figure for bottom quarks would be half. There would be an additional W and Z just for the decays to the vector like 12 of E6, so again this figure would be a half. Finally the photonic decays (found by summing the squares of the charges of any pair of particles a Higgs could produce which then annihilate to a pair of photons is.

$$γγ = 3 generations * ( ee + 3 colors * [ dd +uu + DD+ UU])$$

$$B(γγ) = 3 + 9 * (1/9 + 4/9) = 8 [Standard Model] $$

$$B(γγ) = 3 + 9 * (2/9 + 8/9) = 13 [E6 (12+15)] $$

So $$B(γγ) = 1.625$$ Very close the observed figure. Including the normal W its 14/9 or 1.555. Finally if (and we expect one) there's any extra leptophobic right handed W and Z in E6, that will change to 1.666, the closest to the CMS figure.

During 2012, the amount of data with triple, and the mass and branching ratios will get much more accurately. The cross-section compared with the standard model will be known, and we might start seeing invisible decays to mirror matter or SUSY particles, so a deeply interesting year to come for particle physics. The Higgs Boson for a model with additional vector like quarks has been looked at byChacko et al, and would mean SUSY is unnecessary for stabilizing the Higgs Boson mass all the way up to 5+ TeV, so SUSY might well not be found in the 7TeV LHC runs.

Finally the Higgs might be composite, in fact if the color interaction between normal and vector-like quarks, is double the strength of the normal interaction, then these combinations have the right sort of energies for technicolor stuff composites to make up the Higgs.

## Wednesday, 28 December 2011

### Axitronics Isn't Moving

I'm now writing on Science 2.0 as well as this blog, at science 2.0 I may get actually readers, but I decided to right columns in both places. The reason being that Science 2.0 is general science site suitable for physics that is generally believed to be true. So when I write about my own ideas which may or may not be truth physics I'll place them here.

## Tuesday, 27 December 2011

### Axial force the lost years

The key discoveries in the Axial force actually where done in time period 1970 to 1990, the period before the Internet and exist on paper in science libraries for journals at the time.So when I wrote a paper on the Axial force, it ended up in Vixra the crank science Internet library, because not one person would give me an endorsement for using ArXiv's the mainstream science internet library. Somewhere in lost papers lives or dies the reasons thought at the time, why and axial can't exist. It cannot exist between electrons because of the Axial Anomaly as calculate by Alder. I think it can exist because its adds symmetry, and allows us to explain several so far unexplained facts. John Ellis (Current Head of Cern) paper, think it could exists between neutrinos with a Lifshifz factor fixing a background metric to explain why neutrino travel faster than light. An axial force may exists weather or not neutrino travel faster than light. Somewhere in does Journal are a few papers on the neutrinos with or without an Axial force. I'm going to have to rejoin the British Library to get access to the journals at the time, and scan them onto camera, read them there, to know the thinking on the Axial force from that time period.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)