Hiding dark light from a dark force rrom the sun.

Suppose there was an extra force with a weak coupling to a nucleon. The stefan boltzmann law would then have the sun shine an equal amount of dark light as regular lighht even if the coupling was weak, energy in wave equipartions, so thesun would lose twice as much energy with twice the amount of force carriers. We would have noticed the extra energy loss, and maybe detected the extra energy on earth. How can we concell this dark light. Suppose dark matter is a good conductor of the dark force. For example if dark matter is sterlie neutrinos and the dark force is our axial force between neutrinos (and also nucleons). Such a conductor would reflect the dark light. We would suppose that the dark matter is held some distance away from the sun, by the energy of the dark light reflected by it, equalling the gravition attraction of its mass. For a good conductor all the dark light would be hidden. There would be a convection zone where the enerhy of dark light is absorbed. This might be the reason the solar corona is a million degrees, while the surface of the sun is only 6000 degrees C.

Article on Testing Non standard Neutrino Properties at Arxiv

https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2501.04309

Limits on new gauge vector forces and associated mass giving scalars for Z decay

The new paper at ArXiv https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2501.04388 by Peli and Trocsanyi linit show how Higgs Bosons decay measurements can limit new Bosons. The current measurement of Z width is not yet strong enough to limit all new models.

  The SM theoretical prediction for the Higgs boson width is ΓSM
h = 4.07 MeV, with
a relative uncertainty of 4% [3]. The experimental measurements on the other hand are
ΓATLAS
h = 4.5+3.3
−2.5 MeV [17] and ΓCMS
h = 3.2+2.4
−1.7 MeV [18], display a much larger uncertainty
than the SM theoretical prediction allowing for several BSM models to remain compatible
with observations.

Nova and T2K find non unitary mixing 3 sigma - Excess Neutrinos more than expected from oscillations - Neutrino Decay or Neutrino Pair Production

In https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2501.00146 Yu et al Analysis results from the 295 Kilometer far detector from J-PARC, T2k, and the 810 Kilometer far detector at Fermilab both with Gev Muon Neutrino, both seem to show excess electron neutrinos more than can be expect from Unitary (Preversing Particle Number) Oscillations of Neutrinos, the Nova detector show this much more strongly than T2k. Could Muon Neutinos be pair producing electron neutinos by scattering along the way, v_mu->v_mu + v_e + v-bar_e? As our axial force might do. The amount of extra electron neutrinos is 6% averaged over both experiments.

DESI results don't favour a cosmological constant but a varying quintessence of some form.

The DESI results using Baryon Ascotic oscillations together with supernova spectrum to find galaxy velocity, seem at (3.4 Sigma) not to favour the cosmological constant but an dark energy or quintessence that reduces with time. Combined results have the equation of state parameter as 0.86 +.10 -.11. Zheng et al in https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04830 Remember our axial force modelled qunintessence as a neutrino dark energy caused by the attractive force between neutrinos, which we estimate an equation of state or owega of 17/18 or 0.94444.

Recent Paper looks for Lepton Axial force in solar oscillations.

In https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10724 Fang et al, look at how the matter effect on an lepton axial force world effect neutrio oscillation, and provide a strong exclusion g_vv g_A <10^-51. However they assume that all protons and neutrons have exactly the same axial force interaction. Because of conversation in beta decay we must have Q(n)=1+Q(p) so neutons and protons might have opposite charges .e.g 1/2 escaping Fangs, bounds. With photons and neutrons being oppositely charged to oscillation measurement might be very changed, and also if matter is net uncharged due to a background of slow neutrinos in matter.

Neutron Lifetime Puzzle

The neutron lifetime puzzle is that neutrons in beam have a lifetime of around 887 sec, while neutrons trapped in a magnetic bottle have a lifetime 1% less of around 877 secs. In https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.10024 Giacosa and Pagliara suggest resolving this through the quantum zero effect, to do so some new physics must be observing or interacting with the neutron in a bottle, every billionth of a second. Consider a neutrino background interacting with the axial force with strength 1/10000, we might have 1*10^17 neutrinos per cubic centimeter and the range might of the force might be 5nm. I each 5nm cubic there would be = 0.01 neutrinos, but they would be travelling new light speed, so in 10^-9 secconds, about 0.3 would pass. Giving approximately the correct amount of lifetime reduction, and better a good fit if the density was 3 time larger at 3*10^17 neutrino. Experimentally this could be confirmed by having a magnetic bottle far neutron or proton rich material to reduce the neutrion background. A magnesium 24 magnetic bottle held in a vacuum in a large room might remove a lot of the neutrion background, leaving the results near the beam decay rate. Indeed such neutron decay in a magnetic bottle might be a excellent detector of the density of a neutrino background.

The New FASER experiment at CERN has muon neutrino interaction results at the high side of the error wide.

The FASER experiment has just published its muon neutrino interaction results. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.03186

It detected more interactions, 362 and expect 322, but just within the error bound of +/- 50.5 Could these high end extras be from our extra force?

The excess looks like its is in the middle low energy range for muon neutrinos but not muon anti neutrinos. The medium for the transport of the neutrinos is 100Km of rock and concrete which for us. we might have a background neutrino density of neutrinos. Could the high energy neutrino be pair producing extra medium energy neutrinos here at 1/alpha_nu * background density and then the anti-neutrino attraction to neutrinos scattering the anti-neutrinos more than the neutrinos.

Bounds on NSI from COHERIANT and other experiments

A new paper, by V. Romeria et al, https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2411.11749 has some bounds on NSI's Ranging from G_A <10^-3 to G_A <10^-5 for Axial forces that are electrophobic.

Benchmarks for Vectorised Simpsons Rule

On a 16 Thread Ryzen 7. It came in slightly slower. My Global Warming Infrared Attention code, took, 2h 59m 23s non vectorised, and 3h 4mins and 42 seconds, vectorised.

A Vectorised Simpsons Rule for JDK 23

If you are doing numerical integration in Java, try this code on the latest JDK 23, it using the new Vectorisation methods for a faster result.

import jdk.incubator.vector.DoubleVector;

import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference;

// Release Candidate Version, package will change in Release Version, true for JDK 23
import  jdk.incubator.vector.DoubleVector;
import jdk.incubator.vector.VectorOperators;
import jdk.incubator.vector.VectorOperators.Operator;
import jdk.incubator.vector.VectorSpecies;

import static jdk.incubator.vector.VectorOperators.ADD;


public class SimpsonsRuleVectorised {



    private static double third = 1.0/3.0;

    private static int THREADS = 16;

    public static double integrateThreaded(double a, double b, int N, DoubFunction f, double ...params) {         // precision parameter
        double h = (b - a) / (N - 1);     // step size
        ForkJoinPool pool = new ForkJoinPool(THREADS);
        double d[] = new double[N];

        for(int i=0; i {
                double mul = ii%2==0? 2*third: 4*third;
                if (ii==0) { mul = third; }
                if (ii==N-1){ mul = third; }
                double mul1 = mul;
                double x = a + h * ii;
                double fi = f.eval(x,ii, params);
                if (Double.isNaN(fi) ){
                    System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+x);
                }
                d[ii] = mul1*fi;
            });
        }
        try {
            pool.shutdown();
            if (!pool.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.HOURS)){
                pool.shutdownNow();
            }
        } catch (Exception e){}
        DoubleVector doubleVector = DoubleVector.fromArray(DoubleVector.SPECIES_64, d, 0);
        double sum = doubleVector.reduceLanes(ADD );

        return sum * h;
    }

    public static double integrate(double a, double b, int N, DoubFunction f, double ...params) {         // precision parameter
        double h = (b - a) / (N - 1);     // step size
        double fa = f.eval(a,0, params);
        double fb = f.eval(b, N-1, params);
        if (Double.isNaN(fa) ){
          System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+a);
        }
        if (Double.isNaN(fb)){
            System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+b);
        }
        // 1/3 terms
        double sum = third * (fa + fb);


        // 4/3 terms
        for (int i = 1; i < N - 1; i += 2) {
            double x = a + h * i;
            double fx = f.eval(x,i, params);
            if (Double.isNaN(fx)){
                System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+x);
            }
            sum += 4.0 * third * fx;
        }

        // 2/3 terms
        for (int i = 2; i < N - 1; i += 2) {
            double x = a + h * i;
            double fx = f.eval(x,i, params);
            if (Double.isNaN(fx)){
                System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+x);
            }
            sum += 2.0 * third * fx;
        }

        return sum * h;
    }

    public static double integrateConsecutive(double a, double b, int N, DoubFunction f, double ...params) {         // precision parameter
        double h = (b - a) / (N - 1);     // step size
        double fa = f.eval(a,0, params);
        if (Double.isNaN(fa) ){
            System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+a);
        }

        // 1/3 terms
        double sum = third*fa;


        // 4/3 terms
        boolean isOdd = true;
        for (int i = 1; i < N - 1; i += 1) {
            double x = a + h * i;
            double fx = f.eval(x,i, params);
            if (Double.isNaN(fx)){
                System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+x);
            }
            if (isOdd) {
                sum += 4.0 * third * fx;
            } else {
                sum += 2.0 * third * fx;
            }
            isOdd=!isOdd;
        }


        double fb = f.eval(b, N-1, params);
        if (Double.isNaN(fb)){
            System.err.println(f.getClass().getName() + "IS NaN at "+b);
        }
        sum = sum+ fb*third;

        return sum * h;
    }

    public static void main(String args[]){
        // Roots of polynumerial to integrate
        List in = Arrays.asList(-0.9, -0.8,-0.7, -0.6,-0.5, -0.4, -0.3, -0.2, -0.1, 0, .1,.2,.3,.4,.5, .6,.7, .8, .9 );
        DoubFunction func = new DoubFunction() {
            @Override
            double evalInner(double x, double[] params, int i) {
                return in.stream().map(y->y.doubleValue()-x).reduce(1.0,(a,b)->(a*b));
            }
        };
        double consec=0;
        long startConsec = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for(int i=1;i<1000; i++) {
            consec = integrateConsecutive(-1, 1, 100000, func);
        }
        double timeConsec = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startConsec)/1000.0;
        double standard=0;
        long startStandard = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for(int i=1; i<1000; i++) {
                standard = integrate(-1,1,100000,func);
        }
        double timeStandard = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startStandard)/1000.0;
        double threaded=0;
        long startThreaded = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for(int i=1;i<1000; i++) {
            threaded = integrateThreaded(-1, 1, 100000, func);
        }
        double timeThreaded = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startThreaded)/1000.0;
        System.out.println("Standard Integrator: "+standard+" time taken: "+timeStandard+" seconds");
        System.out.println("Consecutive Integrator: "+consec+" time taken: "+timeConsec+" seconds");
        System.out.println("threaded Integrator: "+threaded+" time taken: "+timeThreaded+" seconds");
    }

}

class AtomicDoubleLocal77 {
    private AtomicReference value = new AtomicReference(Double.valueOf(0.0));
    double getAndAdd(double delta) {
        while (true) {
            Double currentValue = value.get();
            Double newValue = Double.valueOf(currentValue.doubleValue() + delta);
            if (value.compareAndSet(currentValue, newValue))
                return currentValue.doubleValue();
        }
    }
}
  

Recent Paper has new limit on neutrino - majoron interactions from the SN1987 Supernova

The supernova of 1987, SN1987a which occurred in the large magilangic cloud, is the only supernova where neutrinos (some 24), interactions on earth have been recorded. These recorded interactions have now allow the researcher, P.I. Ballesteros and Christa Volpe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11517, to limit potential interactions between neutrinos and majorons (a Majoron is a spin zero particle like a light Huggs, giving mass just to the neutrino). The limits are force contant of around 10^-7 compare. This might also limit an axial force, although that would be a spin-1 psuedovector particle, previously we look at a force contant in the range a few*10^-5 so this paper might simiilar reduce the limits on strength of how force by a factor of a hundred. The previous work on SN1987, from the year 2000, and published in Phy Rev D, https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023004 limited the majoron interactiom in the range, 3×10−7≲𝑔≲2×10−5 or 𝑔≳3×10−4 so left open the range 2*10^-5 to 3*10-4 allow or orignal guess of force constant (making the weak assumption that majoron and axi-photon limits would be similar.)

NSI to solve the KOTO anomaly

This article in 2008, shows an attempted to resolve the KOTO and Invisible beutry decay anomalies via a new neutrino interaction, (there U(1) B-L) https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09793

Differences between Nova and T2K experiment hint (1.8 sigma) at a Neutrino Firth Force

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.10599 states the current status on a NSI is ~1.8 sigma and it is due to a CP violating phase Tension in measurements. With the axial force C is violated in matter neutrino interactions, due to matter being matter and not anti-matter, P and perhaps CP might be violated if the matter has a net axial charge where the neutrinos where passing.

MOre invisible beauty decays.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12507 In a recent update to the invisable beauty decay found at Bella, finds it favours a two body decay, (but with final mass 0.6 GeV), our our axial force has 6 invisable end products, electron, muon and tau neutrino anti-neutrino pairs, but also there near sterile right handed complements, could the right handed tau neutrino have a 600MeV mass? If so it would make a strong decay matter candidate, if and only if its does't decay or its decay is very slow.

Limits on neutrino fifth forces from experiments.

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

Discrepency between lepton and baryon asymetries.

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

Recent Neutrino Papers

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

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

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

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

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

NSI may explain the hubble tension

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