Monday, 10 November 2008


For anyone following the paper. I have to let know, that is been rejected. Here's
what the review said.

Reviewer #1: The paper investigates the possible existence of a fifth force acting on neutrinos and quarks, generated by a U(1) axial gauge symmetry. It also discusses its implications for dark energy, heating of solar corona, and links to the Tajmar experiment.

In doing so, the author integrates several topics, which however are not appropriately investigated. The model is not well-motivated, has many ad hoc hypotheses, and has to become very complicated in order to fit observations, already at the qualitative level; additional heavy quark states with a mass that changes at high pressure have to be added,
together with a dense sea of neutrinos with low mass right-handed neutrino states. The discussion remains too generic,the feasibility of the construction is not proven in a concrete way, and the many elements added in a rather arbitrary way, reduce predictivity.

There's lot of point there, and I have to concede that there not unfounded, leaving the
question, should I give up on the idea? Is it definitely wrong? Or is the paper rewritable? Giving the idea of the U(1) axial as constructed, I can't see anyway around the neutrino sea nor around having the additional heavy quark state, if those are too much for a publisher to believe, then I've have to let the theory rest, until I can find any evidence of either. One thing I could have done is look in detail at where that idea the heavy quark states, can explain the low mass scalar quark states, like the sigma (555). Of course there I'd be directly against the standard Linear sigma model of QCD, and unlikely to be regarded well by the QCD community. The was also lot to be said about my writing style, and the paper could be much better writing, but if the idea is a step to far, then there's little point.

So, this is what i'll do, let it theory lie, concentrate on my web business, but continue to post, my ideas here, when I have them.

Saturday, 6 September 2008

Varing nuclear decay rates and other strangeness

Here's a strange result, a paper recently sent to ArXiv (which I couldn't call published), Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun?. Has found a very curious thing, that nuclear beta and alpha
decays rates seem to vary with our distance from the sun. This of course is completely contrary to standard quantum mechanic which predict that decay rates are constant and
random. The statistics look good but the phase seems slightly different to earth sun distance. There is a strong annular modulation though. If this isn't just an experimental artifact, (and I suspect most physics will call it one, and ignore it). Then what is it. One suggest is that is an interaction will the solar neutrino flux, which might just fit my theory of an axial force. Perphaps, but I'm not willing to use such strange results to justify the axial force. I'd probably have more luck using orgone energy to justify the axial force, why not orgone energy comes in two types, one which flows in metals and one that flows in organics. The seems is true of the axial neutrino current, the anti-neutrino current lives in hydrogen rich materials, while an neutrino current lives in neutron rich (heavy elements like metal) materials. So there you are the axial force explains orgone energy. By connecting a pseudo-science theory to my well formed but unproven scientific theory, I've probably destroyed all my credibility, but never mind, at least I'll get free publicity from all the orgone crystal sellers.

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Occam's Prior and Bayesian Science

Moving aside from new forces and particle physics for a second. Here i'll talk about the core process for scientific investigation. The traditional view for the last 70 years, is the Popperian view (due to Karl Popper), that science proceeds by falsifing theories. This is all very well, but suppose for than one theory is currently viable. As discussed in new scientist recently, we may use Bayesian Probability theory to assign a probability of truth to each hypothesis. Bayesian theory works using simple maths,

log[P(H_i)] = log[P_0(H_i)] + Sum_evidence[ log(P(E | H_i)) - log(P(E | H_i) ]

Allow one to update our believe in a particular hypothesis upon partial evidence, rather than requiring complete falsification. The first term above, P_0, is the prior probability of the hypothesis being truth. Where should this prior come from however?
One can't scientifical start from our cultural preferences that one thing is true rather than another, rather we should have good a mathematical basis for knowing how likely a theory is likely to be true before we start measuring. One can begin with Occam's Razor. Which states roughly that the more simple a theory is for more like it is to be true. In fact this can be encoded mathematically by the minimum message length (possibly in more than one way), or perphaps by Kolmogorov complexity.
Either way, we get a probability factor from the minimum statement of physics of the theory as some computer program (Kolmogorov), or sent as some message (MML). Its clear that as physicists we should take mathematical truth for free. We do, however, need some optimal or near optimal language for writing or compiling are physics theories down to.

We don't have this optimal language yet, so its difficult to come up with a number for how much adding each extra unknown constant costs to our theories. Or how much adding an extra field (spinor or vector) cost to our theories, what about changing a gauge group from SU(3) to SU(4), how much that cost?. So far we can guess that it does cost, but have no real idea of how much. So there is a case for a inventing whole new scientific field (actually it would be a mathematical subject and pre-physically), for calculating Occam's prior for each particular theory.

This might not be easy, there are all sorts philosophical points to consider. For example do the standard model of physics although fitting experiments nearly perfectly, (only dark energy and dark matter stand out) as unexplained, is considered ugly from Occam's point of view because it has 26 real number constants unexplained by the theory. Surely super-symmetry theory should be considered more ugly, it has about 120 unknown constants. String theory (which is often but not always super-symmetric) is considered beautiful (very high Occam's prior), because it has only one constant, the string tension, some for example Motl Lubos claim it also unique in that it doesn't have any nearby sibling theories. Unfortunately we do need to compactify its 11 dimensions down to our 3+1 dimensions, and this can happen in some 10^120 different ways, do these ways (that have be argued that can be ruled by the anthropoic principle), count to Occam's prior has much as as super-symmetries extra constants, I don't know, but I believe, it would be possible in principle to calculate.

A subject dealing Occam's prior, might in end yield a solution to the problem of what happens after some day, we have a TOE, a theory of everything. Have we then ended science with a perfect theory, or might there be further theory, somehow simpler or more powerful, that we have overlooked. Only by measuring the complexity our TOE, and checking that no simpler theories can fit our measurements, can we know for sure.

Even without a firm way of calculating Occam's prior can be use the idea, to shed light on physics current problems of explaining dark energy and dark matter. I claim that is can, the standard model was nice but its now effectively falsified, it has no explanation for either of the two dark constituents of the cosmos. Supersymmetry with its Lighest symmetric particle (LSP), might be popular, but its a whole family of theories and has nearly a hundred extra unknown constants. So Occam's prior doesn't like it much. Mirror Matter doesn't have that many proponents, maybe as few as twenty physicists have worked on it. It doubles the standard model, to contains second mirror standard model complete with mirror photons and mirror protons etc, which hardly interact with ordinary particles at all. We've just 2 possible mixings between the ordinary interaction and the mirror interactions, and even if we had to count all the constants in the SM twice (rather than assuming they had the same reason behind them so count only once), we'd still have less than half the number of free constants than super-symmetry. Occam's prior says (without attempting to fully calculate it), that mirror matter is what cosmologists should be trying to falsify and not the cold dark matter from super symmetry.

What about dark energy, well, cosmologists have parametrised and produce lots of theories of dark energy. But the only two particle physics motivated theory of dark energy I know, are Mass varying neutrinos, and my own Axial Force theory. MVN theory gets one scalar field was an ad-hoc potential and one coupling constant, while my theory has a stand inverse square potential, and one force constant. So I'd claim (biasedly of course), that the axial force theory wins by one unknown/explained function/functional.

Friday, 2 May 2008

DAMA finds a signal of dark matter. but was has actually seen.

According to most physicist and astronomies the dark matter particle has yet to be found. At yet as early as 2001, Scientists at the DAMA experiment at Gran Sasso had detected a signal of the earth moving past streams of dark matter particles in the galaxy. As the years went on the signal got stronger and stronger. Until mid-way through last month, DAMA announced detection of an annual modulation signal with a confidence level of 8.2 sigma. In science a confidence level of 5 sigma is normally enough to mark a discovery, and since the confidence scales exponentially, 8 sigma is very clear and loud signal indeed.

So are scientist now, proclaiming dark matter as found. No, in fact the reaction has been extremely critical. For example, Juan I Collar, himself a builder on DM detectors, writes critically at Cosmic variance:

There is evidence for a modulation in the data at 8.2 sigma, stop. Compatible with what would be expected from some dark matter particles in some galactic halo models, full stop. Anything beyond this is wanting to believe, and it smears on the rest of us in the field. Of course, of course… there is no other observed process in nature that peaks in the summer and goes through a low in winter, so this must be dark matter, right?

Well that pretty negative, especially as he didn't advance any theory as to what the DAMA signal was. One of the problems with physicists believing in the DAMA signal is that it doesn't match with the negative results from all the other detectors so far. In fact combining the DAMA signal the the negative results from CDMS II pretty much rules out the standard super-symmetric WIMP candidate, the neutralino. The only theory advanced so far, that is compatible with both experiments is Mirror Matter. As described by Robert Foothere. In fact this as an updated version, of his similar paper, based on the older less accurate results from DAMA and CDMS four years ago. As the measurements get more accurate, the evidence for the Mirror Matter dark matter become stronger and for super-symmetricdark matter weaker. Not that most physicists are playing much attention. Or that experiments specifically tuned for mirror matter are being made.

This is a real pity, its not like mirror matter is cranky, in its own way, its far more believable than, say, String theory. It just a second copy of the standard model, with identical particles, except swapping left and right handedness. Mirror Matter, gets its own mirror forces, and mirror light. Only gravity is shared between the two. Also maybe a tiny, about billionth part of the electric forces mix with the mirror electric force, to allow a tiny interaction between mirror particles and ordinary one. I hope the new results will prompt the physics community to put a bit more effort in the mirror matter.

BTW, does the DAMA experiment, mean anything for my pet, axial force theory. Actually, no. The axial force theory has very little to say about dark matter, it only describes dark energy. The only difference the axial force makes to dark matter theory, is that if there is an axial force, and you make a super-symmetric theory with it, you don't need R-parity (an ad'hoc symmetry, where known particle have R=1, and there super-symmertic partners, have R=-1), in order to make the proton stable. Conservation of the electric and axial charges is enough to make the proton exactly stable. No R-parity means, the neutralino probably isn't stable, and so isn't a good WIMP candidate any more. Discovery of a stable neutralino, would be bad news for the axial force. Is this why, I'm touting mirror matter theory. Actually no, mirror matter appealed to my physicists intuition, long before i considered an Axial force.

Thursday, 13 March 2008

CLEO at CERN and a strangely charmed decay

There aren't many observation that contradict the standard model, and finding one that matching your own theory is always a very nice boost for any theory. The CLEO collibration at CERN has just found an excess in leptonic decays of the D_s mesons. These are rare mesons that are made of both charm and stange quarks (one is an anti quark of course).

I found a paper on a peculiar result from CLEO in D_s, (charm, anti-strange mesons) decay, D_s -> muon + (anti) muon neutrino, with a 3.8-sigma increase in decay rate over that predicted by the standard model. Accumulating evidence for nonstandard leptonic decays of D_s mesons, The muon decay is supressed by helicity by around a factor of 2.8*10^-3. This gives room, for my axial force to explain the results, by a helical flipping some neutrinos some of the time. I need the axial force constant to be 1/17 of the electric force at the 2GeV energy scale, to explain the results. This looks easily enough for it to run to, compared with 1/60 of electric force, at low energy when the neutrino are so light. This possible spot of evidence, might be worth a paper, if i can drum up any interest in my model.

Sunday, 24 February 2008

Progress and aligned galaxies

About three months since i last posted to the blog. Meanwhile i've submitted the theory of the neutrinos axial force to one of Elsevier's journals. Where its been sitting under review for the nearly as long. I've been busy on a computer project. But recently another astrophysics observations, which ordinary physics has difficultly explaining, have come to my attention.

The first is spin alignment in distant galaxies. Galaxies all have definite rotational velocity, But it seem there is an axis of alignment, a particular plane in which far more of the galaxies seem to be rotating in one direction then the other. See, Goodness in the axis of evil and, Evidence for a prefered handedness of spiral galaxies.

So can the axial force help explain these mystery, maybe if two problems can be solved. Firstly axi-magnetic field has to travel over galactic distances, despite
the neutrino plasma, normally a plasma will screen out any magnetic field. I'll need to see if there anything special about a neutrino plasma which might be diferent at the time galaxies where forming. Secondly i need to see how the axial force might effect collapse gas. So a project for the future.