Axial Force as Orgone Energy

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.