Friday, 10 April 2020
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
Saturday, 29 February 2020
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.
Friday, 1 June 2018
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.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Hiding a Z'
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.
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.
Saturday, 31 December 2011
LHC Higgs Boson 125 GeV, and not standard model
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.
$$ σ(H) x {B(H → bb)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$
$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ττ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1 $$
$$ σ(H) x {B(H → γγ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 1.7 $$
$$ σ(H) x {B(H → WW)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.6 $$
$$ σ(H) x {B(H → ZZ)} / {σ(B_{sm})} ∼ 0.5 $$
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.
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
Axitronics Isn't Moving
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
