Limits on neutrino fifth forces from experiments.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14945, has some recent experimental limits on neutrino new forces.

Discrepency between lepton and baryon asymetries.

In https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16672, ChoeJo, Enomoto et al, look for a solution to a possible discrepency between the ratio of Baryons to photons ((6.14 ± 0.25) × 10−10), the ratio of neutrinos to photons with the EMPRESS, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09617, experiment, suggest is (7.5+4.5−3.0) × 10−2. The sphaleron process suggest Delta B = Delta L. How can the extra neutrinos be explained? We had explained a mechanicism in https://vixra.org/abs/0907.0005, In section 14.2, I describe a cassade of pair production via the axial force increasing the number density of neutrino to aproximately 14 million million per cubic meter. The current Baryon density is approximately 1 proton per cubic meter. So our paper estinated 14,000 times to many neutrinos for a lightest neutrino mass of 0.14 meV and the next state being 8 meV, but it is a very effective mechanism for increasing the lepton assymetry. If the next lightest state was near 0.35 meV, the calculate would be a match.

Recent Neutrino Papers

A recently paper from Datta, Marfatia and Mukherjee and also here looked at the B^0->K^0 +inv decay, and hinted that a light scalar acting on neutrinos might be a solution, our light vector similarly could also be a solution. In Li and Yu look at the effective number of neutrinios in the Big Bang, for various Majoron masses. The Majoron is a light scalar that is a popular but undetected method of giving neutrinos masses. In href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13194">Bisset et al Look at potential exclusion limits for Sterile neutrinos from forthcoming Nucleii scattering experiments. In href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13070">Zhang et al Look at the Reactor Neutrino Anomally.

Invisible Beauty Decay, Diagrams for Resolution by New Neutrinophilic Vector Force

The BELLE collabration, has found the first decays of Beauty Measons to Kaons plus invisble, and its much above the standard model prediction (2.8 Sigma confidence). This anomaly could be solved by Neutrino Non Standard Interactions, NSI, such as the Axial Force that I have published about. I have now drawn the diagrams, which are below.

With a similar diagram but for a different generatrion, I found, there was a also a anomaly for the decay of the Kaon, known as the KOTO Anomaly, which is a about 80 times higher than the standard model.

There may be additional diagrams with the axial vertix on the incoming or outgoing quark leg. To complete the calculation I will need to calculate each of the diagrams, and to total the propability amplitudes, each of which contains a factor of the fine structure constant for the axial force or the force strength constant for the axial force squared.

NSI may explain the hubble tension

A new paper from M. Durhi, Impact of scalar NSI on the neutrino mass hierarchy sensitivity at DUNE, T2HK and T2HKK. It concludes, "In fact, some of the result- ing parameter space of self-interacting neutrino coupling is also in agreement with the parameter space obtained from Hubble tension requirements, allowed (g − 2)μ re- gion and free from other laboratory and cosmology con- straints as well."
The Paper Estimated a force strength of 0.01.

Wow, First Invisible Beauty Decay,

BELLE II and the BaBar Collabrations have found the first 3 sigma, deviations from the SM, BR(B+ → K+ + inv) = (1.4 ± 0.4) × 10−5 Later I will had a possible Feynman Diagram for a 2 W vertix and two Axial Force Vertix, and even later calculate the force strength from the Branching Ratio, and Absolute Magnitude of the Scattering Matrix, Diagram Amplitude. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02940

Missinig Neutrinos and Energy, from the SuperNova of 1987A.

The nearest Supernova to the Earth, in modern times, was the Supernova in the Magellaniic Cloud, 1987a, some 168,000 Light Years Aways from us. A few (25) of the neutrinos emitted by the 1987A, where actually measured on Earth, confirming the theory, that it is the neutrinos from the collapse of the inner core of a super nova to become a neutron star, that blow off the outer layers of the star, resulting in the observed supernova. Recently, Shirley Weishi Li et Al, have reanalysised the neutrino data from 1987, and found a deficit in both neutrino counts and neutrino energies, with the observed data, having significantly less number count and energy than the theorectical models of supernova explosions. The star that became the explosion 1987A was the Blue Supergiant Sanduleak 69-202, with a mass of 20 Solar Masses, via a Type II - Core Collapse Supernova, although there are competing theories of it being a binary pair of stars that merged (Supernova Type IA).

Another paper The result of the Neutrino-4 experiment, sterile neutrinos, dark matter and the Standard Model, from Gallex, Best and Sage are analyzed below, by https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09962962

Back to Neutinos, 3.5keV sterlie ones.

In this week phys-ph paper, authors, Emma L. Horner,1, ∗ Francisco Mungia Wulftange,1 Isabella A. Ianora,1 and Chad T. Kishimoto , https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.1653 investigates, a 3.5KeV line from galatic center, which may be due a decaying, 7KeV neutrino. Have a read.

Costing a UK Power Source Conversion to Solar Energy.

Some Source Statistics,

total energy – combining electricity, transport and heat, UK 2021, 2000 TWh, https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom

Electricity Generation Only, UK 2021, 300 TWh, https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom

Solar Panel Cost UK 2023, System Size 7KW, Costs £8,900, Actual Energy Generated, 4,945 KWh. https://www.fmb.org.uk/homepicks/solar-panels/best-solar-panels/

So Replacement to Solar for Grid Electric, Energy Energy is, Capital Cost is.

Solar, Grid Only, Capital Cost = £8,900 * 300* 10^12 Wh / (4,954 * 10^3 Wh) = 539 Billion Pounds.

All Energy Capital Cost = £8,900 * 2000 * 10^12 Wh /(4,954 * 10^3 Wh) = 3.6 Trillion Pounds.

However Some of both the Electricity Grid and the UK Total Energy is already non fossil fuel.

UK 2021Grid %35 Fossil, https://energyguide.org.uk/electricity-generati

UK 2020 Total energy usage, 78% fossil. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/ukenvironmentalaccounts/2022

So the Cost for the Solar Cells is reduced to. Solar, Grid Only, Capital Cost = £8,900 * 300* 10^12 Wh / (4,954 * 10^3 Wh)* 0.35 = 189 Billion Pounds.

All Energy Capital Cost = £8,900 * 2000 * 10^12 Wh /(4,954 * 10^3 Wh) * 0.78 = 2.8 Trillion Pounds.

There is additional cost from Storage from day to night. We need to know the energy usage per jour and the received solar energy and calculate the percentage of the total solar energy that needed to be stored.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Shows that the Night Minimum Electricity usage versus peak of the day is about 19/28, or aprox 2/3s.

We will then need storage of, 2/3 * 300 TWh * 1/2 * .35 = 35 TWh for the grid.

And Also, 2/3 * 2000 * 1/2 * 0.78 = 520 TWh for the total UK energy.

For Energy Storage we will estimate the cost, using the price of the current Telsa Powerwall 2, which has a Capacity of 13.5 KWh and a price (including installing) of £6,700 to £8700, using the low end price.

Grid Storage Costs is £6,700 * 35 TWh / 13.5 KWh = 17 Trillion Pounds.

Total Energy Storage is £6,700 * 520 TWh / 13.5 KWh = 250 Trillion Pounds.

By Comparison the Current (April 2023), UK Gov Debt is 2.35 Trillion Pounds, and the cost of servicing it is 83 Billion pounds,

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3028/economics/interest-payments-on-uk-debt/ , if we where to not to use storage, then the grid could be converted to Solar, with little economic change, but converting all UK fossil fuels to Solar, would be double the national debt, and doubling the debt servicing charge the government pays, the would then be 5% Tax increase across all UK Taxes.

Converting just the Grid using using Telsa Storage, would add 7.2 times the UK GDP to the debt, increasing debt servicing to 35% of Government Tax revenue, so resulting in a 35% Tax increase across all UK Taxes.

Converting all UK Fossil Fuels to Solar using Telsa Storage, would be impossibly expessive, increasing UK Gov Debt by 107 times, and resulting in an annual debt servicing bill, 3.77 times the UK annual GDP.

Solar Cells have a 15-25 year lifespan, and while Telsa Powerwalls have a ten year waranty, we can assume a 15 year life span. So the capital cost for solar cells and storage would need to be repeated every 15 years.

Currently it is the cost of the storage that destroys any plan of using Solar energy to replace all fossil fuels in the UK. Battery Storage technology is current to expensive by a factor of a hundred, Lithium for Batteries is not likely reduce in price much as it is already in heavy demand, until cheaper grid scale batteries can be developed, solar with battery energy storage is not a fessible solution for all UK energy.

What about pumped hydroelectic storage, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-moves-to-retain-storage-market-leadership gives a cost of $106 - $ 200 per kilowatt hour, so at current pound to dollar rate of £1 = $1.25, hydroelectric is £84 - £160 per KWh.

Then the capital cost for storage is (using the £84 figure),

Grid Storage is = 35 * 10^9 KWh * £84 per KWh = 2.95 Trillion pounds.

Storage to replace all UK Fossil Fuel = 520 * 10^9 KWh * £ 84 per KWh = 43.6 Trilliion Pounds.

So all UK fossil fuels to be replaced with Solar Panels and having Hydroelectric power storage costs 46.4 Trillion, about 20 times UK Annual GDP, with new government debt servicing to around 100% of current UK Government Tax Income. Since Government Tax Income is already half of UK GDP. Complete conversion of UK fossil fuels to Solar Panels with Hydroelectric power storage would require the entire rest of the UK economy to go into the green energy plan.

Does Climate Change - Cause More Extremal Events.

There are always extreme weather events, (1920s dust bowl America for example), there is a claim (very much used by the media and which is unconnected from the claim of increasing global average temperature), that an increase in temperature leads to an increase in variation from the average temperature. This claim entered the popular green culture, via the BBC Chris Packem title, Global Wierdening, but doesn't have much behind it in the Scienfic Literature. For observation, deaths from extreme weather are down hugely over the last 100 years. https://worldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters (mostly due to better shelter and weather managment though). The IPCC does indeed claim, that climate change lead to more extremely events. There are several claims, IPCC make there. 1. That the temperature is observed to be raising. 2. That CO2 is the cause of temperature raise. 3. That if the temperature rises there will be more extreme events of draught and flood. 4. That if the temperature rise there will be more extreme events of both high and low temperature. Each of which could be true of false, seperately, and any one of the statments does not imply any other. Each statement needs to be predicted with both a solid theory, and also match historical observations. The IPCC Summary makes these claims, and states there are high confidence, but instead of listing citation for each of the claim. The citations on the reference pages, with a reference number between the IPCC assertion, and the studies. I looke4d at a few of the papers in the references. For Assert 2, I found, Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes. There it states Solar Variations are a significant contribution (to global temperatures), in one irradiance dataset but not another. It does state CO2 causes some increase. And also finds evidence that a reduction of Volcanic Activity led to temperature increases. No Numbers for the amounts of contribution of each factor, or the statistical or systematic uncertainance of either amount. Please scientists put your claims in the abstract with numbers include statistical and systematic errors. For 3, for Rainfall. Most of the claims of Rainfall increase are based on the CIMP5 and CIMP6 models of future rainfall for a given temperature range. In Agel and Barlow. State the CIMP6 wasn't an improvement on CIMP5, and the models produce more frequent precipation that the observations and

distribution of precipitation does not necessarily correspond to a realistic simulation of the circulation patterns

For 4. for temperature. For example Turkey since 1970. The weather station data finds an increasing (trend in) number of hot days, at 46% of weather stations, and a decrease at 15% of weather stations, (so presumably, no trend at 39%. The number of colder days, should a decrease. So these first checks of references don't show any strong proof, of any assertions, 2-4. But there are lots chapter references to read though and critic.

CONOS Results out.

Any new force between neutrinos and quarks, might be detected in scattering between neutrinos and nuclei - such as coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering (CEvNS) processes. Experiments have recently improved to be able to detected such scattering, and one such experiment CONUS has reported results last month with PDF Presentation. Results include, limits on neutrino magnetic moments, of less than 7.5*10^-11 Bohr Magnetrons at 90% CLL. Also neutrino millicharge less than 3.3*10^-12 of the electron charge at 90% CL. There are also some limits quote on non standard neutrino interactions (which i what am in interested in), but the limits are 90% C.L. limit is factor ~2 above SM prediction.

New Particle Claim, X at 17 MeV.

In my weekly, literature search, I found, the preprint by Denton and Gehrlein, which investiages evidence for a 17 MeV boson, in nuclear decays, which itself decays to an electron position pair. The Authors found, the new particle, could be a mediator for the often suggested (B-L) symmetry (Baryon number minus Lepton Number), which often crops up in grand unification theorys (for example, Patti Salem). However the charges on quarks, electrons, and neutrinos, need to be different to pure (B-L), which may be explained, by breaking the (B-L) symmetry with a new Higgs Boson, and then also introducing Kenetic mixing the EM photon, as explained in Feng et Al. The 17 MeV particles, has previously generated quite a bit of interest, and was reported in scientific journalism, (e.g. physics world).