Axitronics

Dark Energy and Expansion 101

2012-01-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Hiding a Z'

2012-01-04T03:48:00.000-08:00

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.

LHC Higgs Boson 125 GeV, and not standard model

2011-12-31T03:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Axitronics Isn't Moving

2011-12-28T20:12:00.000-08:00

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.

Axial force the lost years

2011-12-27T17:05:00.000-08:00

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.

Axitronics Is Moving

2011-11-24T19:15:00.000-08:00

I'm now posting over at Science 2.0

Axial force and Mirror Matter: Stellar Formation

2011-10-25T16:43:00.000-07:00

There are two controversial theories I often write about here: The first, The Axial Force, a force possible between neutrinos which have opposite charges on left and right handed particles. Matter or anti-Matter doesn't seem to matter to the axial force. This follows from the CPT theorem. Combining the three operations, C (swapping matter and anti-matter), P (swapping left and right), T (reversing the direction of time, or equivalently the velocities of all particles), must result in no change to any picture of what has happened. Since most diagrams of an interactions are inverted by time reversal, either C or P but not both are also reversed. I've documented the Axial force in the paper linked from my blog, written here often about its consequences. As far as I know I'm the only current active researcher in the axial force, although the idea may date back to the 1970s. I happen to think the axial force will lead to a good theory of dark energy.

The second theory I often report on is Mirror Matter. Mirror Matter theory, posits a second of copy of mirror versions of all the known particles. Its was introduced because of the bizarre fact that weak nuclear force, between known particle, always acts in a left handed fashion. If there is a righted handed weak force its force carrier is very heavy, to heavy to have been observed. Mirror Matter solves restores the symmetry because its weak force is right handed. The theory also gives a good candidate of dark matter and fitting in with the recent observations from DAMA, COGENT. There are a number of researchers working on Mirror Matter, although only a minority, including Robert Foot and Paulo Cirarcelluti

So what happens between the two theories, are they compatible, indeed do they together lead to further explanations of the universe? Assuming both the axial force and mirror matter are real, we have eight copies of every particle, Matter versus Anti-Matter, Left-Handed versus, Right-Handed, and Mirror versus Ordinary Particles. The Known forces are also copied, with an electromagnetic force, and an mirror-electromagnetic force. Because the mirror-electromagnetic force is invisible to ordinary particles, dark matter stays dark. Is they're a also a mirror axial force. Quite possibly, if the standard model plus axial force, works, then so would a mirror copy. But what more interesting if you combine the axial and the mirror axial force, you can mixed them produce two copies, A+A' and A-A'. We may assume that A-A' breaks and gains an mass, while the total axial force remains massless. If in ordinary matter right handed neutrinos are heavy, then in the mirror world left handed neutrinos are heavy. If the heavy neutrinos and mirror neutrinos are bound by some interaction to a heavy composite particle, this is exactly the breaking we'll see. We'd also see a split in mass between to the ordinary light neutrinos and they mirror partners, these could also would mix, to form a very light set of neutrinos and a second set in the keV range, that would decay down to the lightest version.

A Consequences of add the axial force to the mirror matter model is then, we'd see only 3 light neutrinos at the time of nucleosynthesis, saving mirror matter theory from over counting the light of masses number of degrees of freedom, as reported below.

One problem with the mirror matter theory is that although mirror and ordinary matter may both make up a galaxy, when it comes to individual stars or planets we don't seem to see mixed objects containing varying amounts of each. What separates the two forms of matter> Gravity should attract both equally. I have thought of an effect, that would lead to the separation of ordinary and mirror matter. Imagine a collapsing cloud of gas, containing a mix of ordinary and mirror matter in some proportion. As it condenses it will be resisted by the Fermi pressure of the neutrinos needed to cancel out the axial force of the most populous gas (normal or mirror), at some stage the Fermi energy will rise above the mass of the a sneutrino or vectrino (a light supersymmetric boson carring the axial force), at this stage the gas will pair produce the vectrinos the with the opposite charge to the most populous gas which will rapidly condense, the vectrinos matching the less populus gas will stream out of the area carrying the less populous gas with it. This would lead to visible outflows of gas in interstellar clouds forming stars. These are indeed observed, even from area with no visable protostar, and called Herbig-Haro objects.

The shared axial force also helps explaining the different proportions of mirror and ordinary matter. Observation show that there is four to five times as much dark matter as ordinary matter.
We might expect equal proportion of mirror and ordinary matter. However with the A-A' axial force broken, we will have two species of heavy neutrinos, mirror plus ordinary, and mirror minus ordinary with some mass difference between the two. The heavy state would then decay to the lighter version, leaving an differing total of mirror and ordinary states, depending on the decay rates and branching ratios to matter and anti-matter.

It would seem that the axial force and mirror-matter theory, work well together aiding each other
to produce an nearly complete theory of the universe, together explaining both dark matter, dark energy, the breaking of parity, and predominance of matter over anti-matter.

Finally It is possible that mirror matter may be directly detected soon, in Higgs experiments. Robert Foot et al, have speculated that recent signs of a Higgs boson at the Tevetron but with half its expected cross section, may be due to Higgs mirror Higgs mixing, leaving a summed state around 140GeV, and a differenced state around 120GeV. Both states would have half the usual cross section and decay half the time in detectable particles, and half the time into mirror matter which would show up in the cross sections.

Veracity of axial scarnhorst effect as the cause of superluminal neutrinos

2011-10-11T16:24:00.000-07:00

Because I have studied the effect of an possible axial force on neutrinos for nearly five years, and spent nearly 17 years digesting as much of the ArXiv physics preprints as possible, I've been very quick to find an explanation of the the faster than light neutrinos measured at OPERA. Indeed with that many papers in mind, its always going to be quick to find some appropriate prior art to solve almost anything. Since my readership is too small to expect much criticism, it falls to me to take a step backwards and check the solution against all the other possibilities.

For the Axial Force Scarnhorst effect to be the cause of OPERAs neutrino velocity, we require:

1. The Velocity Measurement to be correct.: We will leave this experimentalists to eventually prove or disprove, currently the evidence is officially 6 sigma, or has a 99.99966% probability of being correct, plus previous evidence from MINOS. However the possibility of systematic errors or mistakes can easily remove such claim precision
2. The existence of an axial force between neutrinos: This is what I've been discussing regularly through this blog, but as yet, have yet to get
any other qualified researchers to look at in depth. It is a however a simple copying of QED to
the neutrino, and explains, the chirality of the neutrino, how the neutrino and lepton number stay conserved once over taken by a accelerating particle, and how the weak force may have different strengths (symmetry breaking), for left and right handed particles.
3. The Correctness of the Scarnhorst effect: The Scarnhorst effect, is the modification of the speed of light, in the vacuum of QED, due to the energy of background electromagnetic fields. Normal Fields and any scattering will slow done light. However negative energy density such as in the Casimir effect will result in photon that travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
4. Given 2. and 3. The Axi-photon and high speed neutrino may be superluminal: The Scarnhorst effect also will carry over axial force. An minor correction to our article below, is that the strength of speed up depends, on mass of the lightest left handed neutrino squared times its right handed partner (these masses will in general be different).
$$ v = 1 - {44/135} α^2 {ρ/{m_l^2m_r^2}} $$
5. The existence of axially charge background fluid in matter: We have already show that one of the baryons needs to have a axial charge in the neutrino does, and the charge is conversed. Further this has to be the proton, as neutron scattering shows no long range forces. Fermi pressure means that in terrestrially density matter (rock, water), this fluid must mainly be bosons carrying the axial charge which are so far undetected. This is a generic prediction of our axial force, but this background fluid will be bound to matter, and lead to a negative energy density in matter only, which leads to the Scarnhorst superluminal neutrinos recorded at CERN. Below we predict at binding energy of 1 keV per litre of water, which in fact isn't bound at all at terrestrial temperatures. However we neglected to use the right handed neutrino mass. For a 1 keV right hand neutrino the binding energy is more like $10^{18}$ eV per litre or about a tenth of a Joule, in the right range not to have be measured, but to resist thermal effects. Using the Bohr formule as an approximation for the binding energy, this gives a axially charged bosons with a mass around 500eV. In general, we have approximately.
$$ M_{bos} = 1/2 M_{right}* (M_{right}/1000) (eV) $$
6. Relativity and Causality: We require in general, that the speeds of all massless particles, be the same in the vacuum, so that Einstein relativity which has been measured very accurately still applies. In fact Anber and Donoghue, seem to have demonstrated this will in deed occur, when multiple fields theories interact with some common particles. The presence of matter provides a preferred frame, so that relativity is not effected by the result. However sending signals between the CERN OPERA type experiment, and a second neutrino experiment that happened be to aboard a star ship traveling extremely near the speed of light, could send signals backwards in time. This violation of causality does not seem to be a problem for Quantum Mechanics though. D. Deutsch. Phys. Rev. D, 44:3197–3217, has show that, at least in the many worlds interpretation, that closed time like loops are admissible.
7. Other Solutions for superluminal neutrinos: Purely tachyonic neutrinos would travel faster than light in the vacuum, and would be faster at low energy, which would be contrary to supernova observation particularly SN1987A. Mixing between badyonic and tachyonic (faster and slower than light) neutrinos, might be possible. But is a field theory with a 120 * sqrt(-1) MeV right handed neutrino viable or not? Matter scattering effects should in general slow any particle, not accelerate it. Any tachyon solution would also lead to the neutrino radiating its energy alway, which also does not seem to happen.

The Scarnhorst effect on neutrino would be general to any field theory of interacting neutrinos, in which normal matter contains a negative or binding energy in that field. What other classes of fifth force, felt by the neutrino are possible? Broken symmetries would lead to massive force carriers, which would in general slow neutrinos. Thus we require a hidden or chameleonic force, not detected to date but which interacs with neutrinos. Baryon minus Lepton numbers theories are common, but would show up in modified hydrogen atoms and neutron scattering. Intergenerational forces between neutrinos would seem to lead to flavour changing neutral currents which have not be observed at particle accelerates. Our axial force seems to be only solution for superluminal neutrinos at present, but a absence of other ideas, does not mean an absence of other solution.

Faster than light neutrinos, A possible solution

2011-10-09T20:17:00.000-07:00

I've been a few weeks late to comment on CERN's OPERA experiment's paradigm breaking result, that neutrinos travel faster than light (nature), (orignal paper). Initial skeptism has not lead to any resolution of the result via mis-measurement. The excess is in speed measured is small, three thousandth of a percent, the muon neutrinos, crossing the 732 kilometers from the CERN lab where there created to the OPERA neutrino detector in Italy, some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the light would have done. OPERA quote a 6 sigma statistical significance and the results do match with earlier measurement at the MINOS experement at Fermilab. The quoted speed at OPERA is (v − c)/c = [+2.48 ± 0.28(stat) ± 0.3(syst)] × 10−5.

Standard Special Relativity does allow for particles that travel faster than light, know as tachyons, they obey the standard equations of relativity except they have negative squared mass, another words imaginary mass in the sense of complex numbers. Allowing Tachyons however cause quantum field theory to be unstable, describing a vacuum that would decay. More over the OPERA results do not fit standard tachyons, the tachyon mass of the neutrino would be i*120MeV in gross contrast to the measured neutrino mass, and also tachyons travel slower with increasing energy, nearer the speed of light from above at infinite energy, and traveling infinity fast when the have zero energy. OPERA in fact notice a constant speed for neutrinos across a doubling of energy from 17 to 35 Gev. While vacuum stability might be saved by the handedness (chirality) of neutrinos, empty space emitting a back to back pair of an neutrino and an anti-neutrino would violate spin conservation by one unit, due to the neutrino being left handed while the anti-neutrino is right handed. Thus a field theory of tachyonic chiral neutrino might be stable while it would be unstable for normal particles. However such a theory still would not fit the OPERA results.

Moreover neutrinos in empty space do not apear to be superluminal. When the supernova SN1987A exploded in the large Magellanic could the neutrinos where detect to arrive some 3 hours before the light. This might seem superluminally however the light is delayed by traveling though the stars core. If the neutrinos traveled at the OPERA speed, they would have arrived some 4.5 years earlier.

In order to achieve a resolution of the OPERA result compatible with both quantum field theory and the light speed measurement of the supernova neutrinos. It is necessary to find a theory where the speed of propagation of neutrinos is faster than light only in the presence of a matter field. In fact quantum field theory can vary the speed of light depending on the energy density of the QED vacuum, a result found in 1994 by Latorre, Pascual and Tarrach. Given a vacuum energy density of ρ. The speed of light is modified to.

$$ v = 1 - {44/135} α^2 {ρ/m_e^4} $$

In unit where c=hbar =1.

In keeping with our axial force, the same formula should carry over to the speed of axi-photons and the maximum speed of neutrinos (approached as the neutrino speed became very much greater than there rest mass time c squared). The electron mass in the formula would replaced with the mass of the lightest neutrino, and alpha with the axial coupling constant, which we predicted was some 60 times smaller the than alpha in QED.

$$ α_ν =~ {1/137} * {1/60} =~ 0.121*10^{-4}$$

The mass of the lightness neutrino is unknown, but we estimated to be 0.14 milli-electron volts in order to produced dark energy. This would lead to a negative energy density of

$$ ρ = -2*10^{-12} (eV)^4 = -2 (meV)^4 $$

Interestingly this is in the same region as the observed figure of dark energy density in cosmology about 3 (meV)^4, however dark energy is still a positive energy density, only the pressure need be negative, representing a self attracting fluid. The standard speed of supernova neutrinos further would imply that the these is no dark energy in the local region of our galaxy, stellar radiation must blow the region clear of any dark energy. Since no expansion of trapped galactic cluster is observed this is very compatible with cosmology.

In ordinary situations the QED and QAD vacuum energy would be both zero for empty space, and for matter depend quite separately upon the electron density and columb potential and the neutrino density and axial potential. We have already shown that ordinary matter would contain a background sea of neutrinos necessary to cancel the axial charges of the nuclei of atoms, and this background sea would be bound to nuclei with some energy density. From the above we have
around 1 nano eV per cubic nanometer. A binding energy this small, requires a light bosonic particle carrying the axial force, with an rest mass not much larger than the neutrino.

In our paper we have shown that, Neutrino scattering on the the background sea, is strongly suppressed at high energies, falling as $(m_v/E)^2$. The neutrino speed would approach approach the modified speed as $1-(m_v/E)^2$, Thus in the earth between CERN and OPERA, the measured speed would be the modified speed of axi-photons, given the axial binding energy density. An experiment demonstrating the axial force nature of the superluminal speed of neutrino could be produced, by vary the composition of material the neutrinos travel through. The excess speed would vary as bind energy density, which would vary as the atomic number density of the matter passed.

Evidence for dark radiation

2011-09-19T12:54:00.000-07:00

I've just read this paper which looks deeply at the cosmic background radiation, and up dates our estimate for number of light (low mass) particles around the time of the big bang. The data clearly shows the equivalent of 4 neutrino species. This provides evidence for at least one unknown low mass particle, perhaps an additional low mass right handed neutrino, or any light scalar or vector super-symmetric neutrino as speculated about below. To be clear a axi-photon would not show up in the radiation count from CMB, because the axi-photon rapidly interacts with neutrinos to pair produce further neutrinos, as show in my paper. For temperatures belows a few MeV, almost no axi-photons would be present in the radiation count.

Tevatron finds top/anti-top asymmetry sign of axi-gluons?

2011-07-15T08:45:00.000-07:00

Fermilabs Tevatron particle accelerator has found a mysterious asymmetry in high energy collisions that produce pairs of top and anti-top quark. It seems that the at high energies there is a preference for which direction the top quark quark is produced travelling towards. The standard model predicts no or little such asymmetry, if the result continues to be confirmed, new physics and possibly new particle will be required to explain it. The measurement has a been around for over a year, having already grown from a 2.6 sigma signal a year ago to a 4 sigma signal in June 2011. Physicists normally like to have a 5 sigma signal to confirm a result, unfortunately the Tevatron is at the end of its life, and since the LHC collides proton against protons, and not protons against anti-protons, it will be difficult to get more data to confirm the result.

This hasn't stopped a large crop of papers looking to explain the result with new physics as summarised in ArXiv:1107.0841. A recent model I was particular fascinated by is one where the asymmetry is caused by an axigluon, as described most recently by Tavares and Schmaltz. Gluons are the gauge boson holding quarks together and normally act vectorially, identically to left and right handed particles, however a axigluon that acts exactly oppositely on left and right handed particles is also possible. To explain the top anti-top forward backward asymmetry an octet of axigluons with mass of around 450 GeV is introduced. They then also required doubling the number of quark, adding vector like pairs of quarks, that then decay rapidly by axigluon exchange. Their model contains exactly the extra quarks, I introduced to cancel the anomalies in adding a neutrino interacting axi-photon to the standard model, and in fact looks similar to the E6 model I described below. A axigluon explanation of the top and anti-top asymmetry, would be then very supporting of axial force theory, which is perhaps why I've biasedly am attracted to it. The LHC should however soon be able to confirm or disprove such an axigluon model. So time will tell.

Symmetry Breaking, Groups E8 and E6

2011-06-12T15:57:00.000-07:00

Reviewing articles at ArVix its come to my attention, that most popular super-symmetry and String phenomenologist aren't choosing the right models of symmetry breaking, ignoring classic papers, and proofs, just so they can use too easy but wrong models to fit Higgs bosons into a grand unified theory of the universe. In particle physics a phenomenologist is a physicist that tries to make the bridge between mathematical elegant models produced by theorists, and the experimental results. Because theories like super-symmetry and super-gravity are so remote from practical energy scales and can produce so many different result depend upon how our universe has broken these symmetries, phenomenology is very difficult subject, but it is perhaps the most important, it is where theory lives or dies depending on weather it describe a universe looking like our universe.

The most popular models start with string theory or supergravity which only allows certain mathematical groups to produce self consistent theories. In particular group E8 * E8, is often the starting point. This leads to two copies of matter in the universe so presumably mirror matter should be a favourite model of the missing matter in the universe. In fact mirror matter is only relatively vary investigated though it still looks very consistent with the DAMA and Cogent observations. E8 is particularly nice because choosing it automatically gives the three generations of quarks and leptons share the same forces, as observed, and describe by the standard model. E8 also is the biggest finite lie alegebra (248 roots), and self adjoint, meaning it contains both the groups needed to represent particles and forces in the same represention. That makes is automatically super-symmetric, you get 248 spin-1 force carriers and 248 spin-1/2 particles, see Steven L. Adlers classic paper: . What you don't get is any scalar bosons, so your Higgs particles have to be composites condensing out of the particles that are attracted to themselves with such strength that the lowest energy state of the vacuum contains a sea of these particles. Breaking E8 to three generations of a smaller group E6.

Now E6 has 27 particles its fundamental representation, and when you ask how it breaks symmetry by vacuum condensing, the computation been done and its either $E6 -> F4 * U(1) $ but with every force carrier picking up a mass (clearly not our universe), or $E6 -> SU(2) * SU(6), 27 -> 15 + 12$. The vacuum condensation is complicated enough that it was to be done in simulation by a computer, but the result stands. And do phenomenologists use it? no they don't, again and again they break E6, to SO(10)*U(1), and them have Higgs bosons, (doublets) in the group. Somehow they of they own choice have added scalar multiplets to the models that isn't suppose to have scalars in it, and further, have choosen SO(10) just because its a favourite GUT model, (not one that works, as it predicts faster proton decay than could be real without it have been measured by now. In fact SO(10) is a left-right symmetry theory, while E8 is left-right symmetric and E6 is chiral (chooses a particular direction), so when phenomenologists use E6->SO(10), have broken parity, unbroken it, and rebroken it at second time along there trail. This seem to happen because they of course start with a popular model and see what happens down the trail to low-energy, forgetting what made the popular model, popular in the first place.

To my mind, and using a axial-force, E8, contains U(2) left , U(2) right which will eventually break to U(1)_em, U(1)_axial, SU(2)_left weak force, SU(2)_right, breaking at the same time as 3 seperate generations of particles has formed., then E6 has SU(3) color, U(1)_axial, U(1)_em and SU(2)_left weak force in its SU(6), leaving a SU(2) grouping splitting E6 into the 15 known particles of the standard model grouped into left handed and right handed E6 multiples, and 12 extra quarks grouped into particle and anti-particles multiplets. All the anomalies of U(1)_em and U(1)_axial cancel in this representation, which I wouldn't have found, if I wasn't so keen on having a U(1) axial force. The extra vector-like quarks (i've called terra quarks, borrowing the name from different model by Gamor), then need to gain extra mass, and may form a left-right symmetry breaking condensate reacting with the generation permuting right handed neutrinos that appear when breaking E8 to E6. We have a rather complex vacuum condensate, which will need computational analysis, instead of a standard model Higgs, so phenomological prediction won't be easy from this model, but it does follow the spirit of E8 down to low energy, and doesn't introduce ad hoc scalars, but compute scalar condensates them from first principles. I'm blogging to try and promote this model to someone with the time to compute it.

Neutron Scattering and Fifth Forces

2011-06-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

I regularly read ArXiv for reports on the experimental limits on Fifth Forces. But this on I missed up to now. Neutron Scattering is regularly performed on every material under the sun, and in neutron scattering, scientist clearly see point like scattering from the strong force of a nucleus, giving very clear scattering from a collation of femtoscopic points. What scatterers don't see is any scattering from long range $1/r^2$ type columb forces. This clearly limits strongly any fifth force felt by neutrons. Unfortunately the one paper producing limits on fifth forces from neutron scattering is the R. Barbieri and T.E.O. 1975, and they start there calculation from a parameterised best fit to scattering from a Russian experiment done in 1966. Another words, the experiment hasn't been done with a good level of statistical checking. However thinking about its very clear that a massless force with strength 100-1000 time weaker than the electromagnetic force is clearly and obviously excluded by neutron scattering experiments, it would stand out like a sore thumb.

Where does this level fifth forces in general, and in particular our axial force. First B-L forces which act between all known particles are clearly excluded, saying goodbye to B-L chameleon force. In describing our axial force we could not see any way to pin down the particular charges on a proton or neutron, and w guessed at +1/2 for a proton and -1/2 for a neutron as that would be symmetrical and prevent proton decay. However we cannot rule out a charge on 0 on a neutron and 1 on a proton. Thus our axial force remains viable with these charges, we still have requirement that some light charged scalar or vector fields (mass around a few eV) exists to prevent Fermi energy from becoming too great. With both light scalars and neutrinos as light charged fermions under a fifth force, chameleon like behaviour should screen any axial force down to the nanometer scale, guaranteeing that it would not have been observed in existing experiments.

Vectrinos, the Solar Corona, and the Neutrino Sea

2011-05-19T19:53:00.001-07:00

In my previous post, I discuss the Fermi Energy needed to allow enough neutrinos to
live inside ordinary substances, in order to balance out the effects of an axial force. Its clear, the values are just to high to be practically possible. This doesn't yet rule out the axial force, provided a scalar or vector particle with mass in the region 10meV to 1eV, exists, such a particle, would not be subject to Fermi repulsion, and could be present in whatever quantities needed to balance out the axial charges on nucleons. Scalar or Vector neutrino (normally scalar, but I find theories with fundamental scalars unattractive), are present in super-symmetric theories with unknown masses. So a super-symmetric theory might allow an axial force.

Such a particle would also help with another problem the axial force faces, Radiation
from the Sun and Stars. The hot gases in star is in thermodynamic equilibrium and as such we expect all degrees of freedom to have equal energy. Thus we would expect the Sun to radiate an equal amount of photons and axi-photons. The axi-photons would be absorbed in the Earth atmosphere, and we'd observe a Sun burning half as brightly as expected. Astronomers current calculations describe the brightness of the Sun up to a few percent either way, so a Sun radiating equal amounts of axi-photons is not credible.

Let us investigate a super-symmetric vector (spin-1) analog of a neutrino, also with +1 or -1 axial charge, with a mass in the 1 eV region ( 1eV ~13000 Kelvin). We'll call it a Vectrino. Vectrinos are more interesting to us, than sneutrinos because, an
axi-photon can easierly pair produce Vectrinos, spin 1 -> spin 1 + spin 1. Remember this is in three dimension of spin, the extra spin on the RHS of the equation, can occur if the Vectrino, anti-Vectrino pair is emitted near 45 degrees to the incoming axi-photon. The Vectrinos can further scatter producing more axi-photons. The result is that Vectrinos lead to a region, absorbing all the axi-photon and other axial energy converting it in to a region as dense in Vectrinos as pressure will allow. It will act as an opaque thermal conduction barrier, allow only standard light through.
This wouldn't happen with scalar neutrinos, where the spin 1 -> spin 0 + spin 0, is impossible, and pair production is strongly suppressed.

Our Vectrino dense region would occur in the suns chromosphere, absorbing up coming energy in a region containing little hydrogen. At the top of the chromosphere high temperature protons, attracted by the axially negative region, would supply the pressure necessary to keep the Vectrinos compressed and in place. Light would cross the region normally and find a lot few protons in the corona to be shared between. Thus we have a new explanation of solar coronal heating, which has needed one of a while, see this paper.

Our original paper, used right handed neutrinos with a mass of a around 30eV, to preform the same trick of stabilising matter against Fermi pressure, and heating the
solar corona. However I do not now believe such massive particles could exists without there decay energy, showing up, in for instance the boiling of water. Scalar or Vector particles on the other hand, would cap the Fermi energy at just below there mass. The balance of Fermi-energy, axial binding energy, and scalar mass energy, would be hidden in lab experiments.

We have saved the axial force, at the expense of adding a usually new particle. The particle belong to super-symmetry, but an unusually form of super-symmetry, and the axial force was already unknown to physics. Scientifically, our belief in the axial force must reduce accordingly. It would help if one experiment or observation definitively needed an axial force, but without that the axial force is reduced to the realm of possible but not likely or needed.

The Axial Force and the neutrino sea.

2011-05-18T13:02:00.000-07:00

Regularly readers will know that my blog is many about the possibility of a fifth force, which acts primary between neutrinos. The strength of the force is unknown, but
can be comparatively large and still not noticeable by traditionally experimental because it doesn't interact with electrons at all. The simplest case a long force is a fully conversed charges with a massless force carrier, the axi-photon. I have not yet
investigate the case of massive force carrier, but the massive case would show up to easierly in accelerator experiments for masses ranges 137 MeV (more massive than a Pion) to 100 GeV.

If neutrinos carry this conversed charge so much protons and or neutrons, specifically the charge on the Neutron must equal the charge on a proton plus the charge on a neutrino, so that beta decay can occur. Further since both protons and neutrons can flip the spins easierly. The axial charge on a spin up nucleon is the same as that on a spin down nucleon. This is the opposite to neutrinos where by definition a right handed neutrino or anti-neutrino has the opposite axial charge to the left handed neutrino.

In any material with a axial net charge its nuclei, the axial force will collect a sea of neutrinos in order to the cancel out it the net axial charge. Since neutrinos are light this will effective screen out the axial force, and make it very difficult to observe, hence why the axial force has not yet been observed. However neutrinos are fermions can as such there is a limit to how many can be placed in a given volume of material. I make a terrible error, in my first paper. I used the wrong formule of the Fermi Energy of the neutrino sea, I used the non-relativistic, when formule when most of the neutrinos are clearly travelling near the speed of light.
The correct formula is.

$$E_F = {\h c}/{2} ({3 ρ}/{π} )^{1/3} $$

Thats the Energy of the most energetic neutrino assuming a neutrino number density of ρ The total Energy is just

$$E_T = {3/4}N E_F = {3/4} {ρ}V E_F $$

We don't need to know the strength of the axial force to calculate the Fermi Energy due to neutrinos (we assume 3 kinds as so far known). If the force isn't strong enough to bind neutrinos of the maximum (fermi) energy to the substance, then the substance will be left with an overall charge. This might lead to a detectable long range forces between substances, which might well have been observed already.

In fact the Fermi energy for most substance is rather large, assuming the axial charge is -1/2 on a proton and +1/2 on a neutron. We have.

Material	Neutrino Density $cm^{-3}$	Fermi Energy
Day Air	$1 * 10^{13} $	1.9 eV
Water	$3.34 * 10^{22} $	1.3 KeV
Uranium-238	$3.5 * 10^{24}$	4.68 KeV
Bismith	$1.78 * 10^{24} $	3.5 KeV
NaCl (Salt)	$2.7 * 10^{22} $	1.27 KeV
Pyrex Glass	$ 1.16 *10^{21} $	0.4 KeV
Palladium	$4.89* 10^{23} $	3.3 KeV
Copper	$ 2.34* 10^{23} $	2.6 KeV
Zinc	$ 1.76 * 10^{23} $	2.4 KeV
Barium Chloride	$ 2.9*10^{23} $	2.24 KeV

The total energies are thus just to high to be practicle, some 2.7 Mega Joules in one cubic centimeter of tap water.

In order to save the axial force we need to add either several sterlie neutrinos in the 1eV to 1KeV ranges, or more add scalar sneutrinos in the mass range 0.1 eV to 100eV. Scalar neutrinos would not generate any Fermi Energy at all, and would allow any density of matter. Similar arguments apply for any long ranges force that need to cancelled inside matter. For instance a chameleonic B-L (baryon number minus Lepton number) force,
again needs a light charged scalar particle in order to solve the problem of Fermi-Energy.

Further Solar Neutrino Mysteries

2010-07-14T01:52:00.000-07:00

Scientists have known how the Sun shines for quite a while, thermonuclear fusion was well established as was the so called proton proton chain, in which four protons, from hydrogen atoms are converted into Helium nuclei,2 neutrinos and two positrons. Since neutrinos react rarely enough to mostly pass through all the sun, it would be possible to measure the rate of thermonuclear fusion in the sun, by how many neutrino where captured in a lab on earth. Yet when the homestake experiment first measured the number of neutrinos they found only third of the amount expected. Later experiments confirmed this, and it turned out that neutrinos could change the flavour, or type of neutrino from ones with react with atoms, to one which can't. While the sun create only electron type anti neutrinos, by the time the react with an detector on earth, they become an equal mix of electron, muon and tau anti-neutrinos. Since only the electron type reacts with atoms, the rate observed is just one third of the amount predicted by the sun being powered by fusion. Mystery solved and everything ok again, except...

Just published on ArXiv, C.R. Das and J. Pulido find a much better fit to measurements amount of neutrinos coming from the sun, if as well as oscillating, some of them also decay. The paper is a possible indication of non standard interactions.

I can't help but relate this to my own, axial force theory. It something of an oversight but so far, I've only done the briefest of calculation of cross-sections for high-speed neutrino, due to the axial force, noting that effect falls over as 1/E^2 for ultra relativistic neutrino we can detect from the sun, any effect would be small. However, extra scattering it is at least of the right sign, to remove some of the extra electron neutrinos. In addition the axial force can allow neutrinos to decay from one form to another (but only in the presence of other matter), to some degree. So plenty of calculations for me to do.

Minos points to neutrinos breaking CPT

2010-06-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

One of the most fundamental theorems in quantum field theory, is the CPT theorem, it relates the properties of matter and anti-matter particles, and in particular shows that anti-particles must have the same mass and lifetime as ordinary particles. A recent measurement from MINOS, a accelerator neutrino experiment, has for the first time offered evidence that CPT is broken, it measured the mass difference between electron and muon neutrinos and also electron and muon anti-neutrinos, by watching them oscillate, changing form, in the 735Km between the Fermilab where the neutrinos are created and MINOS neutrino detector.
The first measurement show that the mass difference between electron and muon neutrinos is 40% smaller than for anti-neutrinos. The experimental uncertainty leaves just a 5% chance that the mass difference is the same for both particles. Unless some other effect such as interaction with the background matter along the journey has prevented some of the muon neutrinos oscillating to electron neutrinos, it looks like evidence of CPT violation for the first time. CPT violation also applies violation of Lorentz symmetry, so the effect would be in some way breaking specially relativity. I expect that this measurement may disappear as more data come in, but note that my Axial-force would imply that ordinary matter has a background sea of neutrinos that might interact with the travelling neutrinos (more so that anti-neutrinos), to slow the neutrino oscillation.

Supermassive Black Hole growth limits dark matter

2010-06-07T09:28:00.000-07:00

Found an interesting article, at the daily galaxy. About a paper from from Dr. Xavier Hernandez and Dr. William Lee, (sorry, no article citation in the link, and couldn't find them with an ArXiv search), which looks at how the central black hole in the middle of a galaxy, absorbs dark matter. According to the Hernandez and Lee, if the density of dark matter in the centre of the galaxy, is greater than seven hole masses per cubic light year, the central black hole would grow fast than observation of black hole size predict. However ordinary theory of dark matter predict that concentration of dark matter is cuspy, tending to infinity as 1/r square, or so at the centres of galaxy. Thus some mechanism must intervene to prevent dark matter getting to dense. This could be annihilation of dark matter particles in the super-symmetric models, or formation of mirror stars, in the mirror matter model.

Mathematical Backing for Mirror Matter

2010-05-13T22:41:00.000-07:00

Mirror Matter is an alternative dark matter candidate, in which a second copy of the all the known matter particles in universe, is also present in the universe, and provides the missing mass of the universe. I've recently written about some tentative experiment evidence of mirror matter. But although experiment rules in science, in physics, good mathematically justification for a theory, also seems to count for all lot. Previously Mirror Matter is justified because it restores the symmetry between left handed and right handed particles but why should a symmetry switching handedness of a particle, form a completely right handed different particle, is not obvious. However a recently paper, show this does indeed happen. It investigates the symmetry between left handed spin 1/2 particles, described by a mathematical object known as a spinor, in Matej Pavsic's new paper, he shows that using the Clifford Algebra CL(1,3), a symmetry operation from a left-handed standard model particle, indeed forms a mirror matter right-handed particle, and not a standard model right-handed particle. So mirror matter now has some solid mathematically justification between it. Warning you'll need to understand spinor maths and clifford algebra to understand the paper.

Web ablaze with Xenon 100 experiment

2010-05-09T12:09:00.000-07:00

The Xenon 100 experiment is a brand new dark matter experiment, with as you might expect a 100 kilograms of Xenon fluid, at the bottom of an old mine, Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. This is so much bigger than previous experiments that just 11 days of data, are supposed enough to rule out previous positive signals at CDMS, DAMA and CoGeNT. Contraversally this was supposed to be true, even at the lower end of the mass range for dark matter particles, which traditionally detectors with heavy elements (like Xenon) are not so sensitive to. Because Xenon experiment is so new some have worried that it isn't well calibrated yet, so Xenons first result has been high controversial. More on the Xenon experiment from around the web.

Dark Iron, and Mirror Matter

2010-03-22T01:34:00.000-07:00

Dark Iron it sounds like something drawf's mine in a fantasy game, not from something out of astrophysics but Mirror Matter Iron Nuclei is what Robert Foot claims. the CDMS II detector has discovered. Combined with his sighting of mirror electrons in the CDMS detector, and candidate of mirror oxygen atoms, in the solid DAMA results. Thing are looking up for mirror matter as a theory of dark matter.

The Theory of Mirror Matter, is just like in Alice in the looking glass, another physical matter which the same sort of atoms and proton and neutrons, and it own mirror-light, that is invisible to us. Ordinary Matter is left-handed with respect to some nuclear interactions. Mirror Matter would be right-handed with respect to it. Combining the two result a world that has regained its mirror symmetry. Ordinary light and mirror light might mix slightly, the only free parameter in Robert Foots, et al, theory, and each of this three detect results, is described by the same amount, about 1 part per billion, an amount weak enough to prevent mirror matter upsetting the big bang theory and making it quite invisible to telescopes.

Despite only a few researcher working on it, the Mirror Matter theory has impressively worked out, with results for its effects on large structure formulation, the early big bang, and how it forms a halo in the galaxy. The Mirror Matter, with all types of atoms, but a lack of hydrogen fuel for its stars, is thermalised as a plasma supported by the heat of regular mirror-supernova and perhaps accretion into the central black-hole of the galaxy.

If there is ever proof of mirror matter, Perhaps one day, physicists will amass enough mirror matter to create a mirror telescope and look out to a complete different alien sky, full of supernova relics and dense clouds that hold the other four-fifths the matter in the universe.

Super Heavy Supernova

2010-03-20T21:37:00.000-07:00

Supernova, or Type Ia Supernova, are cosmologists favourite "standard candle" in the universe. Theory tells us exactly how bright they are (in absolute terms), so we can tell exactly how far away they, and the galaxy that contains them are. And yes they are that bright at -19.8 absolute magnitude they can outshine a galaxy for days, the light curve decay, follows the decay of Nickel-56, half life six days, the most common radioactive element in the cloud of elements the supernova shoots out, and of Cobalt-56, half life 77 days.

The theory of Type Ia Supernova is that they consist of a White Drawf that slow gains enough extra matter to get with %1 of a white drawf massive mass 1.38 Suns, at which point the pressure from the electrons in white drawf can't support the Drawf against gravity. The interior of the White drawf collapses to a neutron star, while the exterior burns carbon and oxygen into iron and nickel which are blown into space.

News today is of a paper by Richard Scalzo, look a supernova from 2007. SN2007if, weighted the supernova by calculating amount of Nickel and Cobalt produced by fraction of its mass. The heavier that star, they move Nickel produced. And he achieves a unbelievable massive result, 2.4+/-0.2 Solar masses. A whole Solar mass above the Chandrasekhar limit, 1.38 suns, for a white drawf.

The Physics World article. wonders if they result undermines the whole measurement of dark energy, which is determined part by measurement of the speed and distance of galaxies. Most of the distances of the furthest galaxies are measured by single Type 1a Supernova, the brightest standard candle there is. If the supernova are brighter than we think they are, then they are further away, and the universe is not expanding as fast as previously measured. However one or a few rare super heavy supernova, would not upset the calculation, and would show up as outlines on the graph of speed versus distance.

What then is this super heavy supernova. One theory is that its two colliding white drawf each under the 1.38 Chasdrasekhar limit, but totaling 2.1 suns, together. This would be a very rare process plus it would likely be such a catastrophic event that the fusion process would not be very regular or complete. Another explanation is of white drawf made extra heavy by a particular type of dark matter, Mirror Matter, since mirror matter is a second copy of matter, with the same interaction in mirror form, its only mirror light and electromagnetism. A combination of ordinary and mirror matter in a white drawf, might have masses up to 2.8 Suns in a white drawf, and the neutron star mass is also increase in its equation of state, moving up, but not doubling the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit. Indeed in the Year 2000 Paper in which Robert Foot et al predicted such objects he stated: Also note that this type of fake white dwarf could have a mass exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses: such an object would be a smoking gun for some sort of invisible clumped matter that happens to have acquired an ordinary matter core. Indeed This superheavy supernova might be the Smoking gun he was looking for. ">Richard Scalzo's Paper see a whole four such smoking guns, SN2003 fg, SN 2006gz, SN 2007if and SN 2009dc.

It does however look like SN 2007 if, as predicted by Scalzo's paper, is the result of two colliding white dwarf, as pointed to by, evidence of an existing envelope of carbon around the stars, ejected by tidal distribution of both prior to the final collapse into a supernova. This envelope is evidence by the slowing of the explosion and also by a shell of increased density in the explosion, where the in falling or blocking envelope of material encounters the out going material.

Great documentary on Cosmology

2010-03-09T15:01:00.000-08:00

Horizon tonight on the BBC, covered the mysteries of cosmology, dark matter, and dark energy, which make up much more of the universe, the conventional 'baryonic' matter we know about. It ended though with a final mystery dark flow, one a rushing of galaxy clusters at the largest scale of the universe, toward some mystery attractors, which might well be outside the now visible universe. The potential explanation, this was caused by the attraction between the then small density fluctations, just before inflation expanded the universe at a speed faster than light.

All very well presented, if a bit over the top on distracting music and big bang shaped special effects. Dark Flow however is very iffy as a real physically effect, see papers like Kiesler, who disputed the significance of the statistics, but, Edge et al which hold the effect to be real. We find out in time, once the Planck space telescope data come in, (a space telescope, with 10 times the current resolution for the cosmic background radiation), and we more detailed measurement of galaxy clusters.

Horizon, begun its episode with everything you know about the universe is wrong. But then told the usually story of dark matter and dark energy, which mainstream cosmology currently believes true. I have my own theory, of dark energy as caused by an fifth force between neutrino, which unfortunately did survive my first publication attempt. But in the next post, I attend to show why the evidence is starting to look bleak for the super-symmetric theory of dark matter.

A possible detection of heavy-photons

2010-01-29T19:52:00.000-08:00

Always on the lookout for strange physics, I was fascinated by a Paper by Boer and Fields at ArXiv. They analysised 7 previous experiment all which should something bizarre, A new Light Neutral Boson. There particle has a mass range of 1.5MeV to 20MeV, a lifespan of about 10^-15 to 10^-16 seconds. And strangely shows up only in experiment using photograph Emulsion. There X boson appears to be made in the decay on the neutral pion, one decay out of every thousand, and itself decays into an electron positron pair. They don't even have bad statistics ranging for 2.8 sigma to 8 sigma in the different experiments the review.

A boson is a force carrying particle, given a mass of 1 MeV, Boer's and Field's particle would mediate a short range force novel to the standard model. Looking at previous limits to a fifth force, this particle is in a range previously thought to be ruled out. This might even be the axi-photon as predicted in my axial-force theory, which escapes the those fifth force limits. The axi-photon should gain mass, and additional decay modes (usually it would decay to a neutrino and anti-neutrino) in any dense medium with heavy nuclei, such as photographic emission. However i'd only expect a mass of about 5KeV and only very rare electron pair production. Boer's and Field's particle actual pair produces some thousand times quicker than an ordinary photon. Its very notifable that there particle is only observed in old fashioned photographic emulsion, most modern experiement don't use these, and don't observe the behaviour of particles at depth in ordinary matter. Perphaps thats why this new particle has
escaped our eyes, up to now.

Quantum Mechanics and the Fifth Dimension

2010-01-18T21:27:00.000-08:00

Its been a long time since I've thought about interpreting Quantum Mechanics. When i was young, I'd often read about how mysterious quantum mechanics is, about Schrödinger's Cat, which i'm sure you've all heard of. And about quantum entanglement, sometimes known as spooky action at distance, a name which captures the mystery but not the effect very well. Quantum mechanics is very mathematical, so it wasn't until I was studying it at my final year at university, that I could understand it well enough, to try to make the connection between the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which works very well at predicting the outcomes of experiment, and some physical mechanism, some process that describes how the universe works. And so back then, I surveyed whats known as the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and plumped for the Many Worlds Interpretion, that the universe actually has many parallel universes, in which random events happenned in all the other fashions that could have happened. Extreme though the idea sounds, I basically haven't changed my view, since I passed my PhD.

They were, and still are, basically four known Interpretions of Quantum Mechanics, or otherwise counting three Interpretions and one experimentially disproven theory that behaved more like Newtons physics, called hidden variables.

In the Copenhagen Interpretation, when an observer measures a system, the system instantly decides which of many possible results it will show the observer, and then remains the same, until somehow disturbed. This is bizarre of course, since measuring could just mean looking at, and it really does seem to matter if there is a eye looking or not. Does is an eye somehow emit a darkenning reverse light backwards in time, that causing the observed system to jump to some definite state. In the Transactional Interpretation, thats exactly what happens. So called advanced waves, travel backwards in time, from some fated, utimately fixed future, fixing a definite state for all obversation along the way. Unfortantely for gamblers and pundits, the Transactional Interpretation, doesn't say what the observed state will actally be, any better than odinary quantum mechanics.

The only other known Interpretation proved mathematically viable, is the Many Worlds Interpretation. In which, every act of storing information, such as looking and recording an experiment, causes the observer (or recorder), to split into different versions, each one recording one of the possible outcomes of the experiment. Each of the recordeds might as well be in different universes for all they can now say about the result that didn't happen in its record. The ordinary math of QM, keeps track of all these parallel outcomes, or parallel universes, and quantum computers, seem to show, that the universe, or multiverse, really does do enough calculation, to know all the other possible outcomes of any experiment. And yes that means, all those what would have happen if the germans won World War II, etc, and all does sub cases like, the german won the war and Hitler was assassinated on what ever perticular day you care to choose.

The Many Worlds Interpetation is great for science fiction authors, because even the very unlikely, and therefore much a thinner volumes of the multiverse, happen somewhere, such as Aliens landing on Earth during World War II. It uses the same mathematics as ordinary quantum mechanics. But although space (and time) are still three dimensionally (plus one for time make 4-d), keeping track of all those possiblities very rapidly needs very large dimensions, of state vector, with one row (or column) describing each possibility.

So I found what In Müllers and Fosters recent paper, fascinated me. They investigated what happens if you try to describe an universe with two distinct dimensions of time. Amazing if you start with a classical (I.E. Newton like math, and not quantum mechanics), universe with three dimensions of space and two dimensions of time, for approprate conditions of the extra dimension of time, produces the maths of Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory almost perfectly. Sci-fi authors have often used the expression sideways in time, to describe parallel universes, but this is the first time as far as I know that mathematics has actually described quantum mechanical parallel universe as sideways in time. For MWI and Sci-fi enthusasts this is great, as is the fact that if the temperature of the extra time dimensional was to cool down, the value of planks constant would vary, possibly leading to regimes in which communication between parallel universes could happen. However for physicists they may a lot more work to do. To get an average value for a quantum variable in the two-times description, you have to integrate over the entire eternity of the spare time dimension, which somehow seems to long, and not local enough, and as the Authors emit, only sometimes mathematically possible. Perphaps descriptions more localised in the spare time dimension are possible. I'd also like to see, if starting with both time dimensions on the same footing, and then switch to polar coordinates would work. Then you'd have one dimension represent the total temporal distance from the big bang singularity, the radial dimension, and one polar time, a circle running from 0 to 2pi, which might better fit the wave nature of matter.

The Demise of the LSP

2009-12-23T11:16:00.000-08:00

Astronomers have known there was something missing from universe for years, Zwicky first calculated how stars should move under gravity in a galaxy back in 1933, and found there was far more matter in a galaxy than could be accounted for by stars. But it wasn't until the 1990s that astronomers really begin to believe in dark matter. But now finally experiments are starting to get close to discovering what it all the mysterious missing matter really is. And looking more and more like it isn't a LSP.

The LSP, lightest super-symmetric particle, is super-symmetries candidate for a dark matter particle. Its stable, once super-symmetrics has a new symmetry, R-parity, add to it, in an Ad-hoc ways. Its dark, provide a non-charge particle, happens to be the lightest, and its made in the right ammount, once super-symmetry is ad-hoc turned to the right masses. The LSP has been
physicists first guess at what dark matter is for some twenty years. Many due, to physicists love
of syper-symmetry and super string theory. See Peter Woit's not even wrong for a criticism (or demolition) of Super-String theory

What the LSP isn't, is seen. Perphaps this is not surprising for a dark particle, but evidence for of dark matter is starting to arrive. The DAMA experiment, found evidence of Dark Matter in thermal motion through the solar system at 8 sigma levels (5 sigma is a good detection level, 8 is much better). All the other dark matter detect should nothing. The LSP just wouldn't fit
the combination of seen at DAMA and not elsewhere.

The LSP is supposedly majorana particle, it is its own anti-particle. This means that two LSP's would annihilate if brought together, producing high energy normal particles doing so. This was fine in the very early universe, it helped remove enough of the them to get, the amount of LSP that exist turned, to the 20% of the universe, we need for dark matter. But, in the modern universe, where-ever dark matter clumps together they should be signals of this annihilation, in particular there should be anti-protons at high energies. These just haven't been seen, despite evidence for high energy positrons at high energies in cosmic rays. Phenomenologist's started talking about leptophilic or hadrophobic LSPs, inventing new theory turning the LSP in something that doesn't annihilate into anti-protons.

LSP annihilation also means that dense enough clump would start shining, forming so called dark stars in the early universe, these stars are actually bright and super-massive, and again so far not seen. When they run out of the dark matter to annihilate they would clasps straight to blacks holes, froming immediately sized black holes, in the modern universe, which again aren't seen.

These combination of three non-observations of LSPs is starting to look very bad for both, the LSP as a dark matter candidate, and for super-symmetry as a theory. If the LHC now happily running with its 3.5 TeV Beams for the next two years, finds no signal of LSPs things will start to look very dark for the LSP.

Cosmics Rays and Tree Rings, A Mysterious Link

2009-11-08T16:39:00.001-08:00

A recent article from the BBC news science pages, reported an interesting mystery. Patterns of tree ring grow, seem to match up with the solar cycle, and more precisely with the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earths upper atmosphere. The story has spread around the web as a big mystery. Researchers in Scotland took slices of spruce trees, and measured there yearly grow, by the size of the rings in the in the tree slices. They where looking for a link between climate change and tree growth, instead they found tree growth matched the ammount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth's surface. Cosmic ray intesity varies with the Solar Cycle when there's less Solar Wind theres more more cosmic rays and vice versa,. The Study was published in the journal New Phytologist, and the effect was shown to be statistically significant. For more about cosmic ray variation and its recent peak, see the measurements here.

So we have a mystery of how could Cosmic Rays possible aid tree growth. To date no one has made this link, but I think I can provide an explaination using plain ordinary physics. When a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, it creates a shower of ionizing radiation, each of the secondary particles (with the exception of neutrino and muons, which are to penitrating) are energetic enough to ionize oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, forming nitrogen oxides, these react ready with water forming nitric acid, which will precipitate in dilute form in the rain. Only lightning and cosmic rays can form nitrogen oxide, and lightning is relatively rare, so the amount of available free nitrates in the soil, depends very much on the amount cosmic rays hitting the earth.

Plants of course need nitrogen to grow, the trouble is they can't absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere (except for Legumes (pea, and beans and similar plants)). So for the majority of plants and trees, not feed by human fertilizers, the amount of fertilizing nitrate available to them, is directly proportional the cosmic ray flux.

Lets try and back this qualitative theory with some rough back of the envelope calculations. We need to know how much cosmic ray energy hits each meter squared of soil in a year. Starting from wikipedia's cosmic ray flux graph, we can estimate for the range of energies from 1 GeV to 1000 TeV, a flux of

F =(m^2 sec GeV^-1) 10^25.5 E^-2.5 ( Where E is in GeV)

Integrating over the Energies assuming a base energy of 10 MeV, we get 2*10^22 eV despoited per meter squared per area, or about 3KJ. Lets assume that about 20% of this energy eventially goes into splitting the bonds between N2 nitrogen molecules in the air, the bond strength is 0.59 KJ per Mole, so we might get 2.5 Moles or 46 grams for nitrogen dioxide produces by cosmic rays in a year. This isn't a bad ammount for fertilizing perposes. Compare this is Nitrogen Fixation by Lightning, its estimated that the world wide production of nitrogen dioxide by lightning is 14.4 million tonnes a year, which works out as 28 grams per year per square meter. Once you factor in that temperate region like scotland have much less lightning than tropic regions, we can easierly begin to believe that in the Scotish Highlands where the measurement where taken, much of the fertization comes from cosmic ray nitrogen fixation.

So I've backed up my tree ring theory with some very rough calculations, the true figures are probably fairly different, (especially the very rough cosmic ray flux integration), and the assumption that 20% of cosmic ray energy goes into fixing nitrogen. Still the ball park figures give the idea the OK, and I can claim to have solved the mysterious link between scottish tree rings and cosmic rays.

Moved my introduction to the Axial Force

2009-10-16T02:14:00.000-07:00

Yahoo Geocities is closing down, so i've had to move my introductory description of the Axial Forcee, to a new address at Yola.com. The pages are a bit to long, and have two many graphical elements to fit into a blog page. So go and read it there.

Dark Energy from QCD

2009-09-24T08:25:00.000-07:00

Dark Energy is the mysterious substance causing the universe to accelerate its expansions, its a fluid (or something) with more self attraction (negative pressure), than its own mass energy, which you investigate its gravity (via Einstein's General Relativity), causes a repulsive force, pushing all the galaxies in the universe apart. These blog started because I produced my own theory of what the dark energy fluid is composed of, which required adding a new force to physics. Could the all ready know forces of physics create dark energy. Up to now, everyone thought the answer was no, dark energy was from something extra not in the Standard Model. Then last week Federico Urban and Ariel Zhitnitsky published a paper "The QCD Nature of Dark Energy". It does something miraculous, it explains dark energy using one of the know existing forces, namely the strong nuclear aka Color force.

QCD or Quantum Chromodynamics is the modern theory of the force binding protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and of the binding of quarks inside a proton and neutron. It was developed in the late 1960s by Murry Gell-Mann almost others. Briefly QCD states that each quark come in three otherwise identical versions named colors. Anti-quark then have anti-colors, going by the usually rule that anti-particle have inverted properties to the ordinary particles. Different colors attract, as do colors and anti-colors, while identical colors repel. Overall matter must be color neutral, thus the allow states, are group, a red quark, a green quark, and a blue quark, making a baryon (protons and neutrons, as similar particles). Or a meson, made of colored quark and an anti-colored antiquark. The actually binding of the quarks is done by colored particles called gluons each having a color and an anti-color. There are 8 gluons as describe by the group theory of SU(3). QCD has worked very well in explaining the patterns of baryons and mesons that physicists have discovered. So if dark energy can be explained by QCD alone, physicists will have no need to invent anything more complex.

Urban and Zhitnitsky's theories of dark energy, works something like this. They begin by looking at the QCD vacuum, the state of empty space in QCD. Because quantum mechanics has uncertainty in energy for any measurement of energy, the quantum vacuum is never empty. Instead particle anti-particle pairs, and multiple gluons are constantly appearing and vanishing in the Quantum Vacuum. Calculation of the energy of the QCD vacuum would be done by averaging of all possible such configuration of the vacuum, and this might lead to a cosmological constant, a fixed energy density of the vacuum. Unfortunately the answer to this energy density is probably infinite, a problem physicist avoid by considering only the difference between state, subtracting alway two infinities in a process called re-normalisation. What Urban and Zhitnitsky do is considering what happen to the QCD vacuum as the universe expands. This expansion of the universe, forces the particle in the QCD vacuum slighly further apart, since the color force attract this particles, this gives rise to a inward pressure trying to hold the vacuum together. This in turn leads to cosmologically repulsion, because in general relativity a fluid with a self attract force, gives rise to a gravitional replusion. The calculation is hideously complicated, by the do come up with simple approximation. And there result is remarkably close to observed ammount of dark energy (2.3*10-4) eV^4 the value versus (3.6*10-4) eV^4 from there theory.

There may be many problems with this theory of Dark Energy, which has not yet been confirmed by other workers in the field. However it come from the existing standard model and thus has to be favored over other models by Occams Razor, and makes a clear prediction of the amount of dark energy at any time in the universe.

Hidden Photons and New Forces - Latest Limits

2009-09-05T18:07:00.001-07:00

Standard physics claims the world it built from just 4 forces, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravity. This has been the known state of the act
of physics since the late forties. Is it still possible there are more unknown forces at work in the universe. Certainly cosmologist have found known matter to be just 5% of the universe, and dark matter and dark energy could easy interact with unknown forces of which we could say little. Here however I want to see whether current measurement allow for any extra force acting on the sort of matter we find on earth, i.e. acting on neutrons, protons or electrons.

Since I've been making a claim of a new force in my paper and on this blog, axitronics, it behoves to me the duty, of every so often checking physics papers to see if any new experiments rule out my force. Fortunately I'm not the only one claiming new forces. String theory generically predicts many extra U(1) (electromagnetism like) interactions which could have any range or strength. A recent paper, Naturally Light Hidden Photons in LARGE Volume String Compactifications, looks at both the theory and experimental search for such forces. I'll ignore the theory, and concentrate on the experimental limits. The diagram above is taken from that paper. The horizontal (log scale) axis represents the mass of the force carrying particle (given the force a maximum range of around hbar/mc), while the vertical axis represents how much the force mix with ordinary light, given ordinary electronics a fractional charge in whichever new force. The yellow regions are places where a new force might be useful is explaining cosmological data, and the other colour regions are excluded bye existing experiments. In fact very large parameter space exists where new forces can exists.

Which regard to my axial force nothing in the above data excludes it, firstly conversion of parity absolute forbids mixing of the axi-force carrier, the axi-photon, with ordinary photons in the vacuum, and secondly I've assumed the force to be massless in the vacuum. However to the axial force, vacuum is very hard to find, there will always be some neutrinos around, and this leads to an effective mass for axi-photon depending on the neutrino density. For the earth based experiments this gives any effective mass (based on the neutrino density in the atmosphere and presumably in vacuum in earth based labs), of about 100eV), leading to a range of about 5nm. However in deep space and based on the ordinary estimates of neutrino density, the effective mass will be about 0.3 neV (nano eletron volts), and a range of about 7mm. Thus the axial force is a natural chameleon changing with its environment, just like chameleon theories of dark energy suggest.

The most recent experiment looking for a dark energy chameleon particle, is the GammeV experiment. Which looked for light converting to other small mass particles, inside a very strong magnet. Its excluded particles up to 2meV. A much smaller mass than our prediction, so at present, it seems the axial force, dark energy theory, is still very viable.

Perphaps the best test of a fifth force, and certainly one like the axial force, is in neutron interactions. A recent measurement of the ultra cold neutrons which limits any force with range greater than about 1 micrometer, and strength stronger 10^12-10^15 times gravity or 10^24 times weaker than electromagnetism. This is a very stringent limit, but once again the chameleon type, screening of the axial force by neutrinos on the earth seems to hide the axial force very effectively. It seems to me that the axial force is still allowable to present experimental tests. This is not so true of many other forces, only the screening by the neutrino background, allows the force to hide so effectively.

Vixra

2009-07-25T23:26:00.000-07:00

One of my many shames is that my paper was never excepted at arXiv the worlds main physics pre-print archives at Los Alamos. ArXiv requires that some already excepted author, endorses your paper before it can be excepted. I'm not a member of any university, and its been quite a few year since I have been. I tried but failed to get an endorsement from the net. The only place that did take my paper, was the Independent Research Forum at the Physics Forums. But new independent pre-print archive has openned up: Vixra, deliberately named as Arxiv backwards, Vixra doesn't have any policy on who can post a paper there.

I'm quite proud that my paper is actually first on the list of all particle physics papers they, which should be some claim to fame. The standard of articles don't look as good as Arxiv, you might well assume that many of the papers there are outside the mainstream. Vixra has only been open for a little while, so its too early to conclude on the standard of paper there. But lets hope it bring new life the amateur and semiprofessional science.

Axial Force as Orgone Energy

2009-06-29T02:46:00.000-07:00

This no doubt will do my credibility much more harm than good, however for completeness, for interest sake, and for raw publicity seeking, it has to be published. I have for a while noticed the
similarity between, my theory of the Axial force between neutrinos, and Wilheim Reich's experimental properties of his Orgone energy. So much so that it looks to me, like the Axial Force could be a theoretically well motivated cause and theory for Orgone energy. Now most scientist in no way believe in Orgone energy, and indeed it has such crackpot reputation, that no respectable research goes on into it. I'm not here to claim Orgone energy is real, I'll leave that in a probably not state, until some solid evidence comes along. What I will do is show that the properties claimed for Orgone energy strongly match those I predict for neutrino charges under the Axial Force. If you happen to need a theory to explain Orgone energy, then it will probably end up looking a lot like the Axial Force.

This is gone to be a reasonable long post, since for most readers, i'm going have to explain both what Orgone energy is. What and Why the Axial Force is. And Finally show how the well defined properties of the Axial Force, look a lot like many of the features of the Orgone Energy. Many respectable physicists might ask why generate a theory for something widely believed not to exist. The answer of course is that I didn't. I started out looking for a theory to explain why neutrinos seem only to spin in one direction, tried a simple addition to the standard model of results, ending up with a new force, that might explain dark energy. Now If there is an extra force in physics maybe its been observed already, so started looking around claims unverified extra force, and found that its a lot like one of most controversial but enduring claimed forces outside the scientific mainstream. Enough apologies, follows now are description of each.

Orgone Energy

Orgone energy was discovered in the 1930s by the psychoanalyst and ex-research partner of Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich. Wilhelm sharing Freud's obsession with sexuality, named it after the Orgasm, (surely a great bit of marketing). Despite the name, and some of Reich's more bizarre claims for the substance, no experiments with boinking people or animal where performed. Instead Wilhelm seemed to have discovered a fluid or energy which could be trapped in boxes, provided they lined with alternate layers of metal and wood, which Reich called Orgone Accumulators. The energy seemed to come in two charges, Orgone, said to promote life, and Dore which was toxic to life. The energy could be made to flow between accumulators, aid the condensation of water (Reich built a cloud making machine), and apparently people who sat in the Orgone box, came out refreshed, temperature differences between the Orgone box and a Control box (all wood), where measured. Orgone energy would cause either physical attraction or repulsion, between a metal and wood objects, (pendulum experiments), and Orgone would be absorbed by water. Reich often seem get confused between what ordinary electrostatic could do, and what might need a new force to explain, did many experiments poorly, and then produced over dramatic claims of Orgone energy. Never the less, Orgone energy a many believers today's, and a small industry, produces items like Orgone accumulators and Orgone crystals, sometime even according to Reich theory.

Axial Force and Orgone

An axial force force in particle physics is any force, that has opposite charges depending weather the particle is left and right spinning. They have been a few theories of it, it is seems to be required if the force of nature are ever to regain symmetry between left and right handed spinning particles. In my simple formulation of the force, a neutrino gets one unit of axial charge, a antineutrino gets minus one unit of axial charge. Forced to add some extra quark types, to maintain the balance books, all neutrons get minus half a unit of charge, and all protons get plus half a unit of charge. Organic matter and water, is proton rich, has more protons than neutrons (mainly due to hydrogen atoms), while most metals are neutron rich, (containing more heavy elements). So to cancel out the charges, Organic matter contains a anti-neutrino fluid, and Metals a neutrino fluid. Both the fluids are nearly massless, and flow rapidly cancelling out any excesses of Axial charge. Now if you join wood and metal, (organic and metallic material), you get a diode type junction, between the two materials there be a depletion zone, allow the axial charge to flow only in one direction. This explain the Orgone Accumulator, in the middle of layers of organic and metallic materials, axial charge can build up. In most other situations it would quickly flow away. The neutrino fluid can also transmit heat, as well as charge, so an orgone accumulator would trap some ambient heat energy, leading to the temperature results in Reichs experiments.

So now I've explained Orgone, it still remains to demonstrated clearly the existence of either the axial force or Orgone. And I doubt any of my readers are yet convinced, but I hope you are at least a little intrigued.

Research Idea

2009-03-17T22:08:00.001-07:00

Just what does the axial symmetry mean for supersymmetry. Might it somehow change the
one to one correspondence of bosons and fermions in Supersymmetry? Supersymmetry has separate left and right handed sneutrinos. Except of course sneutrinos are scalars, and the left and right handness doesn't belong the sneutrino but only the there fermion partners the neutrino. Having both left and right handed Sneutrinos in a theory seems somewhat wrong to me, so i want to look into this more deeply.

Torsion and axial forces.

2009-02-16T18:26:00.000-08:00

Regular readers, we know that I been discussing an axial force, on these pages. Its a force that depends upon the direction of spin of the particles carrying it, reverse one of the spins, and you reverse the force. Traditionally such a force is thought to be destroyed by quantum effects. Something called the quantum chiral anomaly makes axial charges non-conserved. And if the charge is non-conserved it cannot source a force. In my paper I just arranged enough extra copies of particles to cancel out the chiral anomaly, allowing an axial force with particular charges on quarks and neutrinos. It works, but perhaps nature is more subtle. A recent paper at ArXiv, by P. Mahato, show that once general relativity been extended to contain Torsion, conserved Axial currents exist.

So what is Torsion?, and should we believe in it?. Torsion is spin-spin coupling in one of the simplest extensions to General Relativity, called Einstein-Cartan Theory.
And it turns out that once we try to couple Fermions (half integral spin particles) to generally relativity, we quickly find we need Torsion. Here is an example construction, that might explain inflation. In fact both string theory and loop quantum gravity seem actually to be theories of Einstein-Cartan gravity, its just difficult to have fermions in a quantum gravity theory without Torsion.

Torsion is a very small effect, its generally a four-fermion interaction scaled by the gravitional constant G. So is too weak to be measured in normal circumstances in the universe. However, if the above paper by Mahato is true, then existance of torsion, leaves open the existance of axial forces which may much stronger.

Dark Energy, by a plasma of very light fermions

2009-01-24T07:01:00.000-08:00

With the axial force paper rejected, doesn't mean the idea of an axial force is dead. And my calculations of dark energy did work very well, didn't need much turning to fit with known cosmological parameters. In fact though, my solution to dark energy should work with any very light fermions, provided they interacte with a U(1) gauge force, strong enough that the binding energy is near the mass of the particles. So a rewrite of the paper, just to concentrate on the dark energy, would be in order. Doubt it get written though i'm, much to buzy running Feed Distiller

Rejected

2008-11-10T18:01:00.000-08:00

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.

Varing nuclear decay rates and other strangeness

2008-09-06T04:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Occam's Prior and Bayesian Science

2008-06-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-05-02T17:10:00.000-07:00

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.

CLEO at CERN and a strangely charmed decay

2008-03-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Progress and aligned galaxies

2008-02-24T19:37:00.001-08:00

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.

Neutrino Telescopes, fall to find point sources.

2007-11-02T04:18:00.002-07:00

With physicists building big neutrino detectors like IceCube (picture is a mock event at IceCube)
and Anteras astrophysicists where hoping for a completely new way of seeing the universe. However the first results for neutrino astronomy coming the old Super Kamiokande labs,
and from around 1500 neutrino in the TeV range, the've found Nothing, no point sources, no excess from the Sun, no excess from the galactic center, and even no excess from cosmic ray interactions with intersteller gas in our spiral arms. The're picture of incoming neutrino directions was pretty much isotropic.

Now this is not what people where expecting at all, from the using theory of WIMPS for dark matter, dark matter anhillation should have left plenty of sources in the neutrino sky, especially the sun and galactic center. But even without dark matter, there should have been excesses from cosmic rays interactions and from pulsars. The null result looks difficult to explain, unless neutrino feel some field (like a magnetic field but not the usual magnetic field) thats scrambing up the direction they fly in.

Well i had the idea that neutrinos get a gauge force to themselves
for while now, so i'm biased and always look for confirmations
of my idea first in any paper i read, but can
anyone see any other reason for the null results from SuperK?

Update

2007-10-24T03:35:00.001-07:00

Well after a month and half, of posting round physics forums, i still haven't had any feedback, I've got over a hundred page views, so a can assume, that my theory is not so easily shoot down-able, that anyone had time to write a quick put down. Meanwhile I've updated my website with a nice page on the standard model and very speculative page on fitting the standard model into the groups E6 and E8, via the extra two (or each color) quark states per generations. I've got some very nice povray rendered graphics for the quarks and leptons on those pages, so its worth a look, even if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

My paper on a new force between neutrinos.

2007-09-03T22:16:00.000-07:00

So after a year and a half of work, i'm ready to release my paper, which might just revolutionise particle physics. To get it published is going to a fair effort with, no doubt, a lot of corrections and edits. Mean time i want to get a preprint out on ArXiv. So i'm asking for a physicist already preprinted there to give me an endorsement. And any feedback on my paper is welcome.

You can find my paper in PDF format, on my site, chirality, along with a non technical (well it at least, non mathematical), explaination of my idea. So can send me feedback on my idea either by email, or directly to this blog. Depending if you wither the replies to be made public or private.