An axial force between neutrinos.

[BDOA]

Hi, i just completed my paper looking the posibility that neutrinos feel an additional force
added to the standard model. The force is based upon U(1) just like the electromagnetic
force, but left and right handed particles have opposite charges. The paper is available
below, and at my web site: http://www.geocities.com/ch1rality/

I'm looking for an endorsment so i can upload to this to arXiv, and help with publishing the
work in some professional physics journal .

As required by the forum rules, i'll post the abstract, and run though the stages in
my derivations, and comparisions to observation.

Abstract:

We show that when left and right handed neutrinos a have majorana mass matrix,
local guage invariance produces a fifth force acting between chiral charges on neutrinos and quarks.
The force is a carried by a massless (or low mass) 1-spin guage boson, we call an axiphoton.
The force is caused by a U(1) axial guage symmetry in the way as the electromagnetic force.
We expect from renormalisation that the force constant, $\alpha_a$
is about 1/60 of the electromagnetic force constant $\alpha$.
We show that this force can explain dark energy.

Our model predicts decaying right handed neutrinos in the eV-MeV range, and explain the heating of the solar corona.

Finally we show that the Tajmar experiment detecting a force due to a
rotating superconductor, may be detection of our force.

End Abstract

Prior work:

The only clear derivation of an axial force, i can find previously, is L.M. Slads paper

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512324

Which derives the same axial force, by requiring the weak force be part of group that
respects the full orthochronous Lorentz systemmetry. I.e. that is not enough just to
have a right hand and left hand weak force, to return chiral symmetry, a axial force is
also required to return full symmetry in all frames. J.C. Yoon who posted in these forums
about the weak force not being Lorentz invariant, might like to read the above paper.

Discription of the paper

Theory sections

My paper, derives the axial force, purely from guage invariance. I then derive a 8 complex
component wave equation for the neutrino, by extending the dirac equation. I show this
wave equation gives neutrino states with constant helicity. And the derive the force on
and energy of a neutrino the axial field. I write down the Feynman rules for the axial
force, and compute neutrino-neutrino scattering (which is very surpressed at high energies),
and the decay of a right handed neutrino.

Reprocussions for the standard model

Assuming axial charges are conserved, i calculate the axial charges on the other particles
in the standard model. The W particle has to carry both electric and axial charges, and
this seem to offer an explaination for the first time as to why the weak force is handed.
I find that the number of quarks per generation needs to double in order to accomdiate
axial charges. And speculate weather those states could explain the [tex]\sigma(555)[\tex]
meson state. I also discuss how the states may fit into strings theorists favourite
E8, E7, and E6 groups. Finally conservaton of the axial charge seems
to demand absolute proton stability.

Comparisions to observations

I first find that ordinary matter may be axial charged depending upon the ammout of
neutron and proton it nucleii. To balance this a sea of neutrinos must be present in
most matter types. Pauli exclusion require neutrinos (presumibly right hand states) in the
eV-KeV mass range. I use these to provide a mechanism for the heating of the solar
corona. I show that plasma screening of axial force by sea neutrinos will then make the
force unobservible to most existing experiments. However i show that the Tajmar
experiment might be a detection of the axial force.

I find that a dense plasma of neutrino may resist anhilition, and show this may explain
dark energy if the lightest neutrino has a mass of around 0.14 milli-eV.

51 papers and 45 reference.

End Paper discription

Let me know what you think. In particular are there any obvious math errors in my theory
section, (show stoppers?). And are the any places i haven't thought of, where the axial
force might contradict existing observations?

Even if no observation requires the existance of an axial force. I still think my paper and
the idea deserve to be in physics literature, as it is a simple extention to the standard
model, that adds symmetry to nature, and offers an explanation of the weak force
handedness and of the stablity of the proton.

Also where might be an appriopiate journal to submit this work to?

[BDOA]

3 Months since i posted. I've got quite a few page views, but very little feedback, and still haven't got the ArXiv endorsement which i need to post it to the preprint archive where i've got my best chance of being read. I've submitted the paper to journal of particle astrophysics (Elsevier), with a reduced size, and more aimed at dark energy along. I've no less than John Ellis as the supervising editor, so right now a paper print seems more likely than a preprint online.

On the physics front haven't done much, but checked the ArXiv for anything that might invalidate my idea so far nothing, except some prelimary dark energy results at z=0.8,
which show a constant ammount of dark energy. I need dark energy to switch to w~-1, at around z=2.4, so my idea is plenty in the running. I'll also need to check against the WMAP result that there the universe has ~10% of its energy in neutrino form at the time of recombination, 380,000 years after the big bang. This probably means i'll need the neutrino plasma to have also have a low w between z=900 and z=2.4, where its dominated by the heavier neutrinos. A neutrino plasma simulation would be very useful, but i doubt i'll do it, if no ones looking at the results (i did liquid simulation at PhD, but not sure i could handal a relativistic quantum plasma easierly).

On the particle physics front, 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-sigma increase in decay rate over that predicted by the standard model. http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0803.0512, 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 $\alpha_axial$ to be 1/17 \alpha_em at the 2GeV energy scale, to explain the results. This looks easily enough for it to run to, compared with 1/60\alpha_em at low energy when the neutrino are so light. I possible spot of evidence which might be worth a paper, if i can drum up any interest in my model.

[CarlB]

I read the paper and think it will eventually get published. Try submitting to Foundations of Physics.

The speculation that heavy neutrinos could contribute to heat flow in humid air is kind of difficult to be believed. What's going on here is that neutrino density depends on the ratio of neutrons to protons, correct? If so, different materials, many of which have very well known crystal structure, will have different heat flow and I suspect that the condensed matter theorists will claim that heat flow can be calculated without recourse to unknown particles. That part is probably where you're losing the largest fraction of readers. Physicists tend to read papers by obscure authors only until they find something that they disagree with, then they put it down and ignore it, regardless of any other good features.

I'm assuming in the table on page 5, you have the charges for the antiparticles of the \nu_L, N_r wrong as they do not satisfy the tradition of having anti particles with negated charges. Or did I miss something in the text?

It might be worthwhile to run your LaTeX through a spell checker, for example: easierly, someway, contridiction, desolving,

Also, on the charge assignments for the quarks, if the anti particles do take negated charges, my naive comment is that you might consider a formula similar to Q=I+Y/2. To see what is natural, chart the quarks and leptons according to their weak hypercharge and weak isospin quantum numbers. One of my old (obsolete) papers has such a drawing, see the top left of page 6:
http://brannenworks.com/a_fer.pdf

[BDOA]

Thanks for reading the paper, nice to get some interest, and i'm very glad you thinks its
publishable.

I do seem to have a missprint in table, of charge assignments, there isn't a bar(v_L) only
a bar(v)_R and a bar(N)_L.

For the quarks, (see text), Q(u)-Q(d) = -1, so that u -> d + e^+ + v_e conserves the
axial charge, the actually total charges could be anything depending on the other particles in the group, so that all the anomalies cancel out. With possible extra particle at
high energies, that actually charge assigmnent could be various. Q_a=I+Y/2 doesn't
statisfy Q(u)-Q(d)=-1 however.

Neutrinos contributing to heat flow, is not a property i wanted in the theory, but once
considered doesn't easily go away. If the there is a fermi gas of neutrinos in most material
cancelling the axial charges of the nucleii, it will have have thermal transport properties and rather large momenta. Experimently however are some mysteriously isotopic effects
in the heat flow. One might expect however the neutrino gas temperature and the
material temperature to relax rather slowly and not to transfer quickly between materials
of diferent composition, which should leave it relavitively hidden.

Your right about my spelling, corrections to come.

[BDOA]

I'd better let everybody here know that my paper was rejected by Elsevier for the Journal of astroparticle physics. They were plenty of points about my writing style, (and frankly i know i have problems the're i read so fast, that i'm misprint blind and been like that all my life). But the physical ground where that they we'ren't prepared to believe the neutrino sea in ordinary matter, the neutron star state change for neutrons, or extra heavy quarks which all required to make the axial force fit with known physics. So i'm I guess i'm giving up for the moment, unless anyone can suggest a journal which is more favorable to unusual theory.

For more detail read my blog, axitronics (http://axitronics.blogspot.com/)