Found paper that shows Miniboone electron neutrino excess can be well fitted by a sterlie neutrino decaying to electron neutrino

The paper arvix:1911.01427 Finds a good fit for a forth sterile 1eV-100Kev neutrino decaying to electron neutrinos and a light boson, in the same mass range. This fits with my 2009 paper where there are right handed neutrinos decay to anti-left handed ones and a axiphoton.

Some paper similar to my 2009 paper, came out this week.

Reading Arxiv,found two paper similar too my 2007 paper. Firstly arXiv:2010.10034 which derives Dark energy from a pair of very light fermions charged under a new U(1) force, but with unequal mass in the fermions. Second, arXiv:1902.009950 Alikhanov and Paschos, introduce a axial U(1) force for neutrino. But here the new force interacts only with the right handed neutrinos not the left. They find their axial force, fits with current experiments. Please the high energy physics community are catching up with me:-). Actually axial forces have been in theorections minds since the 1970s.

Had my game posted to the Google App Play Store

Virii Attack. Have a Play its free. Game Web Site Here.

My next project, learning BCS Superconductor Theory, Interested in the Math Behind the Photon Gaining Mass.

After taking a brake to learn React Javascript, i'm using the Covid lockdown to do more work on rewriting my paper. And I have a confession to make, my claim, that Dirac neutrinos couldn't interact with an axial force, but majorana ones could, http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0005, is wrong. In fact neither can. I had incorrectly quoted the mass matrix for Majorana Neutrinos, with the spinor for left and right neutrinos instead of the Dirac Spinor. Here are the equations for guage invariance of the axial force.

Edit, working on a React Native Mobile Game Virii Attack

Update. Working on a rewrite of my paper since the Chrismas holidays, got family commitments and now learning React.JS for work, so i'm slowed down. It may be a year beforre i'm ready with it. In my last Post, i recanted on Fermi energy from neutrinos in ordinary matter. But i'm now going back to it. Nucleons have been measured to spin flip, and if this is possible, axial force charges conservation requires them to have the same charge for left and right handed particles, this means there are additionally heavy Tera-quark states with the opposite axial charge (Tera quark come from Seldon Glashows, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504287, paper from 2005. Looking into the amount of Fermi energy present, I looked at the energy of solution of halides, and assumed its all released. A 30keV Sterile neutrino state, would match the complete energy release from Lithium Chloride, while at would take a 600keV neutrino to match the energy from Lithium Iodide, however additionally the mass energy of the sterile neutrinos might be released making the energy comparsion harder. The energy released however may not be measureable its released to the neutrino sea in matter and which has very little thermal transfer to photon, via collusions with nucleii, the heavier the nucleii, and the more balanced the proton to neutron ratio, the least transfer of energy, as applies to any collusion of objects with unequal mass. It is noted that cold fusion (Now Low energy nuclear reaction) research did claim energy release from hydrogen atoms being absorbed into matter, axial fermi neutrinos could explain this, but would not explain it from deuterium. I've have also been looking my neutrino wavefunction again, and begin to turn to Dirac neutrinos, meaning right handed states, as well as heavier states, the KeV states were also a dark matter candidate if stable, via Lepton number conservation. The Dirac equal mass states would be harder to reconcile with big bang nucleosythesis. Recent limit neutrino number (the axiphoton would be unstable in dense matter due to plasma screening), from https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202486, put a limit of 4.2 on the number of extra neutrino states. All three Dirac right handed states, plus a single KeV neutrino of each handness, comes to 5 states, in only a little tension with the limit. It seems the Muon magnetic moment, is now in 3 sigma tension with the standard model, indicating new forces or particles, https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04822 However my axial forces loops in lepton magnetic moment Feynman diagrams are suppressed by a factor of the strength of the axial force, while the magnetic moment difference between the standard model prediction is about the size of the Weak force contribution. The axial force contribution is a thousand times (or more) to small to explain the descrepancy. At the muon magnetic moment doesn't rule out an axial force. Fridays paper on limit of new neutrino interactions from the COHERENT experiment, look at U(1) e-mu, mu-tau, and similar forces. The limits on the force strength at low mass Z prime are g<10^-4. If the Axial force detection amount is similar it is close to beginning to limit my renormalisation estimate of alpha_axial = 1/137 * 1/60, a sixtith of the strengh of the electromagnetic force.

Axial Force - Measuring on Ortho and Para Hydrogen and Deutrium

Interesting discovery this weak, ortho and para water (BBC) has been measured for the first time, i was actually thinking about the Axial force after not posting for many years. And it occurs to me that the axial force would lead to there being different energy for either ortho and para hydrogen or ortho and para deuterium. The para molecule has spins on the neuclei in the same direction while the othro molecule has spins on the opposite directory. Since the axial force reverses when the spin on the either a proton or a neutron or both (we don't know which are charge, but we do know by conversion of axial charge in beta decay, that the axial charged it different by one unit of neutrino charge on the proton and neutron, possible charges are (neutron 1, proton 0), (neutron 0, proton -1), (neutron 1/2, proton -1/2). Whatever the charges are, we thus know one of the neutron or the proton has an axial charge, and so the energy of the molecule will different, most probably less in the ortho case, and more in the para case, than the standard model predicts. I asked on Physics Stack Exchange wheather, this could be ditectable, or weather measurement where good enough to rule out an axial force. Rob the moderator, was kind enough to answer, How well are the energy diffences between ortho and para hydrogen and deuterium known, ((License). It seems present state of the art hasn't been very good at measuring or predicting the energy difference, so the axial force is still possible, however a measurement of a anomalous energy difference between ortho and para states would probably be explained by predition errors in the strong force.

Dark Energy and Expansion 101

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.