tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53345954125194436232024-03-12T20:00:51.945-07:00AxitronicsDark energy solved! By giving neutrino there own type of electric and magnetic forces. The force is known as the axial force, thus the title, axitronics, as the equivalent of electronics for neutrinos.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-42761782529987823142023-11-28T19:17:00.000-08:002023-11-28T19:17:05.325-08:00Limits on neutrino fifth forces from experiments.https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14945, has some recent experimental limits on neutrino new forces.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD_BrTPtsBMVIiVqDK6p6y6kzqIcEd-q9VkDdz5gTWM84VtW5y4Mc6m9SQq7a8h2UA7nsa0BSYX8UagWf6td5B0O5LREnmynLVY6TVwUl_hBEh8Gn-WGfoJVNkvvP8__j8EnOCeqtfTBmKiIXKsIiK1nmmeYbUoMyYlXUxVn0HuZ1kU07GXLDqqCws-rw/s809/nu-ex.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="809" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD_BrTPtsBMVIiVqDK6p6y6kzqIcEd-q9VkDdz5gTWM84VtW5y4Mc6m9SQq7a8h2UA7nsa0BSYX8UagWf6td5B0O5LREnmynLVY6TVwUl_hBEh8Gn-WGfoJVNkvvP8__j8EnOCeqtfTBmKiIXKsIiK1nmmeYbUoMyYlXUxVn0HuZ1kU07GXLDqqCws-rw/s320/nu-ex.png"/></a></div>Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-4727378725604172552023-11-28T19:00:00.000-08:002023-11-28T19:17:33.768-08:00Discrepency 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.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCuvbuevkUbo4TdC5GAJ5orwyoXnZrFKwt_mej7K2Gt19-889cz1_JyudD1jcRhNTTIigbMPnFeIR7y9GRMUH1UpAlbpDn5jNh4PgQph-fzwwegNzcHmhWTU7wu2GeuTcvkEh6b4jvAAEN0rcol5zK5YdT6JcWUwZKuPKwRsp0xbLJm0Q7EMtz5Pq2pPU/s590/nu-pair.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCuvbuevkUbo4TdC5GAJ5orwyoXnZrFKwt_mej7K2Gt19-889cz1_JyudD1jcRhNTTIigbMPnFeIR7y9GRMUH1UpAlbpDn5jNh4PgQph-fzwwegNzcHmhWTU7wu2GeuTcvkEh6b4jvAAEN0rcol5zK5YdT6JcWUwZKuPKwRsp0xbLJm0Q7EMtz5Pq2pPU/s320/nu-pair.png"/></a></div>Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-78643687747200489772023-10-24T20:32:00.000-07:002023-10-24T20:32:59.738-07:00Recent Neutrino PapersA recently paper from <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15136">Datta, Marfatia and Mukherjee</a> and also <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08920">here</a> 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 <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13492">Li and Yu</a> 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</a> Look at potential exclusion limits for Sterile neutrinos from forthcoming Nucleii scattering experiments.
In href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13070">Zhang et al</a> Look at the Reactor Neutrino Anomally.
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-2350767218701992732023-10-01T14:13:00.002-07:002023-10-01T14:13:35.761-07:00Invisible Beauty Decay, Diagrams for Resolution by New Neutrinophilic Vector Force The BELLE collabration, has found the first decays of <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02940">Beauty Measons to Kaons plus invisble</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.9734%252Fbpi%252Fnupsr%252Fv14%252F11541d/reader">Axial Force</a> that I have published about. I have now drawn the diagrams, which are below.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB5FwjDgnrdbDzr9js2l7YqHudzXvxd3sn5GKIlyyyg6weI2SI7DRWZdKv6q0WkdmjP0XRsuVnsUujiU6OHi6vUNo71hG8m3Z8LWkXhyphenhyphenKsrlBUJNy5zpWTa-mtesz2iBvhVQe5jVI7Uu28forVG4RGYLk5x0mMSbDXdezn9-l0UfmmHNguPQrG0lyCrtA/s809/inv_beauty_diagram.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="809" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB5FwjDgnrdbDzr9js2l7YqHudzXvxd3sn5GKIlyyyg6weI2SI7DRWZdKv6q0WkdmjP0XRsuVnsUujiU6OHi6vUNo71hG8m3Z8LWkXhyphenhyphenKsrlBUJNy5zpWTa-mtesz2iBvhVQe5jVI7Uu28forVG4RGYLk5x0mMSbDXdezn9-l0UfmmHNguPQrG0lyCrtA/s400/inv_beauty_diagram.png"/></a></div>
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 <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10203.pdf">KOTO Anomaly</a>, which is a about 80 times higher than the standard model.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIX_v7cffe9nGFDWi4NN-6rlrPQ_xhS18zwoijTMwPQNmgS8uBG-t_1iaCAzvkzBoO8T_Q2uuaJmdTQuyf2ZVjEhyphenhyphenyXR4XomYgLVJ9HSWfxFXRNjWh-PQ35D5j67kEmUDu6bXF0cT1xbJUvIiF5l3aWv7fox_g-tB67NBYn_tv_wyRo5TiKB2VfyaPdwk/s809/koto_anomaly.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="809" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIX_v7cffe9nGFDWi4NN-6rlrPQ_xhS18zwoijTMwPQNmgS8uBG-t_1iaCAzvkzBoO8T_Q2uuaJmdTQuyf2ZVjEhyphenhyphenyXR4XomYgLVJ9HSWfxFXRNjWh-PQ35D5j67kEmUDu6bXF0cT1xbJUvIiF5l3aWv7fox_g-tB67NBYn_tv_wyRo5TiKB2VfyaPdwk/s320/koto_anomaly.png"/></a></div>
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.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-23363973226518413472023-09-25T11:44:00.001-07:002023-09-25T11:44:08.170-07:00NSI may explain, SN2201009AA new paper from <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12249">M. Durhi</a>, 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." <br> The Paper Estimated a force strength of 0.01.
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-63413179471152944472023-09-07T03:28:00.003-07:002023-09-17T13:53:08.777-07:00Wow, 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/2309.02940Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-70483090432617074232023-07-13T00:17:00.002-07:002023-07-13T00:17:28.901-07:00Missinig Neutrinos and Energy, from the SuperNova of 1987A. The nearest Supernova to the Earth, in modern times, was the Supernova in the Magellaniic Cloud, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A">1987a</a>, 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, <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08024">Shirley Weishi Li et Al</a>, 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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova">Type II - Core Collapse Supernova</a>, although there are competing theories of it being a binary pair of stars that merged <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova">(Supernova Type IA)</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUrh3yefpI9PXSNJsvOASwtGzQGWSrkAEPW-ImWxCNrUPEfXm4xG1uzm7Qt6SN3tM8EpZZjQjjxueWuLRZNTdqgtbctXVkU7yIGWrlADInn83Q3PQTfMb42fw8YdE9WoL5R-Ns4X4ODqVuVgGxH7wS4p7Aq2VaVwTC_XGlhK6gsCYeFMm9_LPcg_u6pSA/s481/1987A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="481" data-original-width="445" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUrh3yefpI9PXSNJsvOASwtGzQGWSrkAEPW-ImWxCNrUPEfXm4xG1uzm7Qt6SN3tM8EpZZjQjjxueWuLRZNTdqgtbctXVkU7yIGWrlADInn83Q3PQTfMb42fw8YdE9WoL5R-Ns4X4ODqVuVgGxH7wS4p7Aq2VaVwTC_XGlhK6gsCYeFMm9_LPcg_u6pSA/s320/1987A.png"/></a></div>
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-74581769411447387062023-07-12T23:38:00.000-07:002023-07-12T23:38:05.500-07:00Another 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/2306.09962962Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-1972544559918644292023-07-01T07:20:00.002-07:002023-07-01T07:20:59.234-07:00Back 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.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-63063287704103099172023-06-03T11:14:00.002-07:002023-06-04T05:39:08.658-07:00Costing a UK Power Source Conversion to Solar Energy.Some Source Statistics,<p/>
total energy – combining electricity, transport and heat, UK 2021, 2000 TWh, https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom<p/>
Electricity Generation Only, UK 2021, 300 TWh, https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom<p/>
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/<p/>
So Replacement to Solar for Grid Electric, Energy Energy is, Capital Cost is.<p/>
Solar, Grid Only, Capital Cost = £8,900 * 300* 10^12 Wh / (4,954 * 10^3 Wh) = 539 Billion Pounds.<p/>
All Energy Capital Cost = £8,900 * 2000 * 10^12 Wh /(4,954 * 10^3 Wh) = 3.6 Trillion Pounds.<p/>
However Some of both the Electricity Grid and the UK Total Energy is already non fossil fuel.<p/>
UK 2021Grid %35 Fossil, https://energyguide.org.uk/electricity-generati</p>
UK 2020 Total energy usage, 78% fossil. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/ukenvironmentalaccounts/2022<p/>
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.<p/>
All Energy Capital Cost = £8,900 * 2000 * 10^12 Wh /(4,954 * 10^3 Wh) * 0.78 = 2.8 Trillion Pounds.<p/>
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. <p/>
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.<p/>
We will then need storage of, 2/3 * 300 TWh * 1/2 * .35 = 35 TWh for the grid.<p/>
And Also, 2/3 * 2000 * 1/2 * 0.78 = 520 TWh for the total UK energy.<p/>
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. <p/>
Grid Storage Costs is £6,700 * 35 TWh / 13.5 KWh = 17 Trillion Pounds. <p/>
Total Energy Storage is £6,700 * 520 TWh / 13.5 KWh = 250 Trillion Pounds. <p/>
By Comparison the Current (April 2023), UK Gov Debt is 2.35 Trillion Pounds, and the cost of servicing it is 83 Billion pounds, <p/>
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.<p/>
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.<p/>
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.<p/>
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.<p/>
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.<p/>
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.<p/>
Then the capital cost for storage is (using the £84 figure),<p/>
Grid Storage is = 35 * 10^9 KWh * £84 per KWh = 2.95 Trillion pounds.<p/>
Storage to replace all UK Fossil Fuel = 520 * 10^9 KWh * £ 84 per KWh = 43.6 Trilliion Pounds.<p/>
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.
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-15043413676597559242023-05-05T13:58:00.000-07:002023-05-05T13:58:02.122-07:00Does 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 <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter11.pdf">claim</a>, 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, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00007924">Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes</a>.
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 <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/22/jcliD191025.xml?tab_body=pdf">Agel and Barlow</a>. State the CIMP6 wasn't an improvement on CIMP5, and the models produce more frequent precipation that the observations and <blockquote>distribution of precipitation does not
necessarily correspond to a realistic simulation of the circulation patterns</blockquote>
For 4. for temperature. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02723646.2015.1045285">For example Turkey since 1970</a>. 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.
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-84712140863092187842023-04-25T03:40:00.001-07:002023-04-25T03:40:16.559-07:00CONOS 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 <a href="https://indico.cern.ch/event/1215362/contributions/5300024/">last month</a> with <a href="https://indico.cern.ch/event/1215362/contributions/5300024/">PDF Presentation</a>. 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.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-32271124232363951002023-04-25T00:21:00.001-07:002023-04-25T00:21:12.381-07:00New Particle Claim, X at 17 MeV. In my weekly, literature search, I found, the preprint by <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09877">Denton and Gehrlein</a>, 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 <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03591">Feng et Al</a>.
The 17 MeV particles, has previously generated quite a bit of interest, and was reported in scientific journalism, (e.g. <a href="https://physicsworld.com/a/more-evidence-for-a-fifth-force-found-in-radioactive-decay-measurements/">physics world</a>).Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-73052946115299338432022-12-24T04:42:00.005-08:002022-12-25T05:42:45.136-08:00High Energy Gamma Rays found from distance long Gamma Ray Bursters, are they axiphotons.The <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13349">Gamma Ray Burster, GRB 221009A</a> Is mystery to modern physics. Observations found Gamma Rays up to 18TeV in Energy. But above 15GeV, the GZM mechanism, "R. C. Gilmore, R. S. Somerville, J. R. Primack, and A. Dominguez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422, 3189 (2012)." Shows that any higher energy photons would scatter of cosmic background radiation, producing pions. So what was travelling the 645 MegaParsecs from the Gamma Ray Burster if not a photon? <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00634">Suggests</a> a decaying heavy neutrino. While <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06935">Looks at Axion Like Particles.
Could it be a axi-photon, the vector particle associated with the a new axial force between neutrinos. I will have to see if the axi-photon scattering on cosmic background neutrinos, and any other axi-photons is suppressed at higher energies, and get back to you.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-19247581937698549682022-12-24T04:19:00.001-08:002022-12-24T04:19:33.468-08:00Are Volcanos Linked to the Solar Cycles.In <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03637">Arxiv:2203.03637</a>, <a href="https://solargsm.com/terrestrial-volcanic-eruptions-and-their-association-with-solar-activity/">Valentina Zharkov</a> Shows links between the 22-year Solar Cycle, and Volcanic Activity. During Solar Cycle 26, from 2031-2041, Volcanos would be a maximam, cooling the Earth, with possible effects on Food Production, if she is correct. This would mean that any Net Zero Plan, aiming
targets at 2030, would leave the planet cold and hungry. Over the longer term, her mechanism would average out.
I wonder if the effect of the Earths Iron Core, passing through the Suns magnetic field that reverses each 11 years. Could be the mechanism of her effect. The Earth has its own electric current in its magnetic dynamo, and when the
Earths Natural Current is aligned with the current Induced by the Sun, an increased current will heat the Earths Core. If I have time, I will look into quantifying the numbers for this mechanism. Zharkov is a Plasma Physicist, so should also be more than capable of quantifying the numbers.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-1775198464157841912022-11-04T03:28:00.004-07:002022-11-04T03:31:15.717-07:00Ryzen BenchmarksMy Multithreaded integrator (Threaded Simpsons Rule), http://axitronics.blogspot.com/2022/02/need-multithreaded-numerical-integrator.html, is highly parallel. Lets see how it performs on recent processors Ryzen 9, 5900
versus my old processor Ryzen 5, 2600 @3400, 6 Core.
<table border="2">
<tr><th>Processor</th><th>Cores</th><th>Clock Speed</th><th>CPU Threads</th><th>Java Threads set for calculation</th><th>JDK Version</th><th>Time to Run climate calculations - Seconds</th></tr>
<tr><td>AMD Ryzen 5</td><td>6</td><td>3400 MHz</td><td>12</td><td>16</td><td>Oracle JDK 11.0.17</td><td>10332</td></tr>
<tr><td>AMD Ryzen 9</td><td>8</td><td>4600 Mhz</td><td>16</td><td>32</td><td>Oracle JDK 17.0.5</td><td>5959<td></tr></table>
Nice so after 3 years, a new processor performs at double speed (well 75% faster) of the older one, (if a bit more expensive). Moore's Law is still alive in 2022.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-29378344267480955092022-07-23T13:47:00.004-07:002022-07-23T14:42:33.741-07:00Half Up, Half Down Looking at the rainfall effect on climate sensitivity calculation, <a href="http://axitronics.blogspot.com/2022/03/rainfall-energy-input.html">in the early post</a>, we can see if half the energy of condension to rainfall goes up and half goes downwards, the energy emitted to spaces, is on 40.05 W/m^2, and so entering into our formule, the temperature increase due to doubling CO2 from 400ppvm to 800ppvm is 0.39 Degree (K or C).Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-89366932830310199172022-07-07T20:20:00.003-07:002022-07-07T20:21:33.917-07:00Cabibbo Angle AnomalyFound a interesting paper on ArXiv, <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02507">Explaining the Cabibbo Angle Anomaly</a>, in which
A. Crivelin, summaries ways of explaining the matrix of transition amplitudes for up type quarks being turn to down type quarks of the same of different generations. This Cabibbo Matrix is not unitrary at 3 sigma, but it has to be unitary in fact. Crivelin shows that it could be explained as the weak force being strong in muon decay than in interactions between quarks, 3.4 Sigma discrepancy between the Fermi (Weak force strength) Constants.
GCKM F = 0.99925(25) × G muon.
So we need a theory that can give muon weak decay slight stronger amplitude, but be the lower for quark decay. Our <a href="https://stm.bookpi.org/NUPSR-V14/article/view/3165">Axial force</a> does that, the relavent diagram for muon decay, being,
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwal_Ehbk3zXeZ82IKxByLK8zWDZtLBM_OXM7q34x8hZMeccQBv2GHVN-A4_lexgMz6wux3pUJ4LfSTUB5kfH71M0CeenJ_jdlntsRmO6lRWh4TP6NuPbfm92Vbe1O1nSdYxgBAakUBl-SyTyjpmEsnr2bveXV65glj8TJE7Z9_B0YvvYwNxj1XEMB/s888/muon_decay.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="888" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwal_Ehbk3zXeZ82IKxByLK8zWDZtLBM_OXM7q34x8hZMeccQBv2GHVN-A4_lexgMz6wux3pUJ4LfSTUB5kfH71M0CeenJ_jdlntsRmO6lRWh4TP6NuPbfm92Vbe1O1nSdYxgBAakUBl-SyTyjpmEsnr2bveXV65glj8TJE7Z9_B0YvvYwNxj1XEMB/s320/muon_decay.png"/></a></div>
If the axial force constant is A, this makes G muon bigger by (1+A) approximately. We hope to compute the diagram correctly later. The quark decay via the weak force, also picks up an axial force correction. But the correction depends on the axial force charges on the quarks, and for our favourite pick of half on u quarks and minus a half on d quarks, that exactly cancels out. Too explain the muon fermi constant being 1.00075 strong, we need an Axial force constant of one tenth the strength of the electromagnetic field, one tenth the fine structure constant. This is eight time stronger than my guess from renormalation flow, but experimental bound on neutrino neutrino interactions are very weak, and nucleus neutrino interactions, only recently have been measured.
The Cabibbo Angle Anomaly is only 3.4 sigma so might disappear with future measurement. The axial force is not the only explination for it,
Crivelin lists 6 possible BSM physics that might explain, with the axial force falls into 3.5 SU (2)L Neutral Vector Boson (Z′):. Crivellin also, with others, worked on https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.07680.pdf, looking at an extra Z` but that force, was massive and coupled to the charged leptons. The axial force couples to neutrinos and quarks, only in our model, thus escaping experimental constraints.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-16873625485040752692022-04-15T07:10:00.006-07:002022-04-15T17:42:36.282-07:00Climate paper: Published link. Fifth of a Degree for doubling CO2 due to water evaporation absorbing 5.5 parts to 1 of the heat energyGreetings on Good Friday. My climate paper is now, live at <a href="https://www.bookpi.org/bookstore/product/current-advances-in-geography-environment-and-earth-sciences-vol-3/">Current Advances in Geography and Earth Sciences, Vol 3</a>. I will place it on Research Gate, as soon the DOI number becomes live.
Update read it free on <a href=" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359988267_Estimation_of_Atmospheric_IR_Absorption">ResearchGate</a>
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-27298863812121261612022-04-06T15:57:00.001-07:002022-04-06T15:57:27.698-07:00My Climate Paper is accepted for publication.Just fix typos. Will post link and DOI, and upload the free text to research gate, once publication is complete.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-36137206525550752462022-04-06T15:55:00.002-07:002023-06-12T21:24:25.512-07:00Dark Energy from a Neutrino Condensate.My <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Adams/publications">U(1) Axial as a Force Between Neutrinos</a>, showed neutrinos bound by a new force could describe dark energy,
Recently another <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01141">Paper, Neutrino Condensate Dark Energy from TeV Scale Extra Dimension</a> Demostrated the same thing. When bound by a new force, neutrinos can explain dark energy.
In My theory neutrino get a force from group theory condidation. In There's it comes from the universe being a Brane in an larger dimenstional space.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-11745629034830871012022-03-21T13:43:00.002-07:002022-03-21T13:43:42.246-07:00First Draft of Global Warming Paper.Link to the paper <a href="https://cupdf.com/document/global-warming-paper-draft-1">here</a>Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-42168787546485695182022-03-16T07:04:00.002-07:002022-03-16T07:04:32.621-07:00Interesting Artice on Beyond Standard Model experimental Excesses and 7 KeV Sterlie Neutrinos<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.06859">Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Puzzling Excesses in Dark Matter Searches and How to Resolve Them</a>.
Looks at the outstanding terestrial and astrophysics particle excess measurement. The interesting one for me is the 3.5 KeV x-ray line, and the 2-3KeV Xenon 1T electron recoil measurements. This could be one of the sterlie (to standard model) right handed neutrinos, we predicted at 7 KeV. We had it staying stable in matter as the Fermi background to cancel the axial force, but decaying in vacuum. Change in pressure of matter in the central of the galaxy, (upwards, pair producing right neutrinos, one which escapes, or downwards, freeing a right neutrino), would produces right handed neutrinos at 7KeV, which then decay to a left neutrino and an axiphoton. In the presence of matter some of these axial photons could convert to regular photon via interactions with quarks, the amount produced would be rough proportional to the matter density and rate of change in matter density in a region.
The Xenon excess could also be due to right handed neutrino, a the Fermi sea of interacting with electrons, via a virtual axiphoton a virtual regular photon and virtual meson, (mainly PI), this would be quite suppressed but we would expect there to be many right handed neutrino in the presence of a fluid of a heavy atom like xenon.
We may try a calculation of expected excess in the future.Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-82346728959327982692022-03-08T12:18:00.004-08:002022-03-08T12:22:19.676-08:00Rainfall energy input and climate sensitivity byEarth current average annual rainfall is 39inchs. So multiply the volume of water falling per square meter, 970kg, the specific heat of water times the average 82.5 degree plus the heat of vapourization, gets 2.526GJ per year, or 80.11 Watts per square meter. Entering in our formula derived <a href="https://axitronics.blogspot.com/2022/03/form-of-climate-sensitivity-including.html">last time</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhSTm-JdofjinYonrV6ZMUXAVS8Ffx9PKG4R1YmiGS1VeS8_kXvgF9Enw5Jo--W_g9y-x3nQLVV3pUZysRFU7PDGIlyAD-nOURrlj1KOfNuUxiPlklGWOCCuz6CU0CfKjzYxGpB91iX7OH2Xx84yyeV6eBFQ0xuaCtp9hZIFa19Ei5tnzwGA1VeemS4=s384" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhSTm-JdofjinYonrV6ZMUXAVS8Ffx9PKG4R1YmiGS1VeS8_kXvgF9Enw5Jo--W_g9y-x3nQLVV3pUZysRFU7PDGIlyAD-nOURrlj1KOfNuUxiPlklGWOCCuz6CU0CfKjzYxGpB91iX7OH2Xx84yyeV6eBFQ0xuaCtp9hZIFa19Ei5tnzwGA1VeemS4=s320"/></a></div>
Where the 1, is the base climate sensitive as <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj67r6Cqrf2AhVQTcAKHWqxDyYQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FClimate_sensitivity&usg=AOvVaw3yCaAbh7fkeCYvMOh-YGUw">Wikipedia</a>.
The the 0.07, is the exponient of the <a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-06-climate-extreme-rainfall-chance.html">increase in rainfall</a> due to each extra degree of heat increase. Thus for every 6.6 Watts per square meter the atmosphere absorbs due to C02, 1W goes into raising the temperature one degree, and 5.6W goes into increasing rainfall.
Given we before <a href="https://axitronics.blogspot.com/2022/02/a-global-warming-calculation-doubling.html">numerically calculated</a>, that doubling CO2 to 800 parts per million (volume), absorbs 1.1 Watts per square meter. The actually amount of temperature rise is only, 0.167 degrees (Kelvin or Celesis).
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5334595412519443623.post-69854571348015574782022-03-05T20:16:00.003-08:002022-03-05T20:20:46.737-08:00Form of Climate Sensitivity including rainfall.The standard climate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity">sensetivity calculation</a> (See note 2), is depends on T^3. but by Stefan Boltzmann law, but so does the radiation absorbed by any greenhouse gas. This leads to some people worrying about climate runaway boiling off the ocean. But any temperature increase lead to increased rainfall. Wikipedia quotes the sensitivity as about 1 Degree C per (Watt per square meter)). The 80inch of rainfall per year at the equator is equivalent to around 140 W per square meter going into latent heat (and then radiated above the lower atomosphere). Every 1 degree increase in temperature <a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-06-climate-extreme-rainfall-chance.html">increases rainfall by 7% </a>. So the climate sensitivity formule is of the form.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJuNAqVijFxqHpgyHyOcb8kTUFb9QjxneHmqaNLuP-ni-yy5PIb9g4Sztzm7A8L_Z49ahd_aXmxRRiYNh1U1yJjHeSbm2X9ux0t0CUYw63ityBK90KZKYx78HZFvBO-Z8gHqiLIHSnvlmPUmZQOZEssfX-_E3sXuBhwWn-wJmIZNOF92Rc0EvB5k2P=s384" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJuNAqVijFxqHpgyHyOcb8kTUFb9QjxneHmqaNLuP-ni-yy5PIb9g4Sztzm7A8L_Z49ahd_aXmxRRiYNh1U1yJjHeSbm2X9ux0t0CUYw63ityBK90KZKYx78HZFvBO-Z8gHqiLIHSnvlmPUmZQOZEssfX-_E3sXuBhwWn-wJmIZNOF92Rc0EvB5k2P=s320"/></a></div>
Where E_rf is the energy of evapouration of the water returned as rainfall per square meter. Due to the exponiential in temperature, the climate sensitivity rapidly decreases as the temperature increases and will never lead to thermal runaway. It remains to measure the current rainfall by latitude and compute the average over the earth. Which I will post later. If the entire rainfall was at the 80 inch per year, equator level climate would be reduce by a factor of 21, so this is a very significant effect, that greatly lessens the results of emissions of CO2.
Dr BDO Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734160354038667335noreply@blogger.com0