1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An axial force between neutrinos.

  1. Sep 4, 2007 #1
    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.


    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


    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?

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2008 #2

    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.
  4. Apr 14, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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 [tex]\nu_L, N_r[/tex] 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:
  5. Apr 15, 2008 #4
    Thanks for reading the paper, nice to get some interest, and i'm very glad you thinks its

    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.
  6. Dec 30, 2008 #5
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2011
  7. May 19, 2011 #6
    Update. Guess none of your reading spotted it, but I used the wrong formula of the Fermi energies of neutrinos in my paper, so it needed updating. See below:

    The paper is about possibility of a fifth force, which acts primary between neutrinos. The strength of the force is unknown, but
    can be comparatively large and still not noticeable by traditionally experimental because it doesn't interact with electrons at all. The simplest case a long force is a fully conversed charges with a massless force carrier, the axi-photon. I have not yet
    investigate the case of massive force carrier, but the massive case would show up to easierly in accelerator experiments for masses ranges 137 MeV (more massive than a Pion) to 100 GeV.

    If neutrinos carry this conversed charge so much protons and or neutrons, specifically the charge on the Neutron must equal the charge on a proton plus the charge on a neutrino, so that beta decay can occur. Further since both protons and <a href="http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/9605005">neutrons</a> can flip the spins easierly. The axial charge on a spin up nucleon is the same as that on a spin down nucleon. This is the opposite to neutrinos where by definition a right handed neutrino or anti-neutrino has the opposite axial charge to the left handed neutrino.

    In any material with a axial net charge its nuclei, the axial force will collect a sea of neutrinos in order to the cancel out it the net axial charge. Since neutrinos are light this will effective screen out the axial force, and make it very difficult to observe, hence why the axial force has not yet been observed. However neutrinos are fermions can as such there is a limit to how many can be placed in a given volume of material. I make a terrible error, in my first paper. I used the wrong formule of the Fermi Energy of the neutrino sea, I used the non-relativistic, when formule when most of the neutrinos are clearly travelling near the speed of light.
    The correct formula is.

    $$E_F = {\h c}/{2} ({3 ρ}/{π} )^{1/3} $$

    Thats the Energy of the most energetic neutrino assuming a neutrino number density of ρ The total Energy is just

    $$E_T = {3/4}N E_F = {3/4} {ρ}V E_F $$

    We don't need to know the strength of the axial force to calculate the Fermi Energy due to neutrinos (we assume 3 kinds as so far known). If the force isn't strong enough to bind neutrinos of the maximum (fermi) energy to the substance, then the substance will be left with an overall charge. This might lead to a detectable long range forces between substances, which might well have been observed already.

    In fact the Fermi energy for most substance is rather large, assuming the axial charge is -1/2 on a proton and +1/2 on a neutron. We have.
    <TABLE Border=1><TR><TH>Material</TH><TH>Neutrino Density $cm^{-3}$</TH><TH>Fermi Energy</TH></TR>
    <TR><TD>Day Air</TD><TD> $1 * 10^{13} $</TD><TD> 1.9 eV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Water</TD><TD>$3.34 * 10^{22} $</TD><TD> 1.3 KeV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Uranium-238</TD><TD> $3.5 * 10^{24}$</TD><TD> 4.68 KeV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Bismith</TD><TD> $1.78 * 10^{24} $</TD><TD> 3.5 KeV </TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>NaCl (Salt)</TD><TD>$2.7 * 10^{22} $</TD><TD> 1.27 KeV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Pyrex Glass</TD><TD>$ 1.16 *10^{21} $</TD><TD> 0.4 KeV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Palladium</TD><TD>$4.89* 10^{23} $</TD><TD> 3.3 KeV </TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Copper</TD><TD>$ 2.34* 10^{23} $</TD><TD> 2.6 KeV </TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Zinc</TD><TD>$ 1.76 * 10^{23} $</TD><TD> 2.4 KeV</TD></TR>
    <TR><TD>Barium Chloride</TD><TD>$ 2.9*10^{23} $</TD><TD> 2.24 KeV</TD></TR>
    The total energies are thus just to high to be practicle, some 2.7 Mega Joules in one cubic centimeter of tap water.

    In order to save the axial force we need to add either several sterlie neutrinos in the 1eV to 1KeV ranges, or more add scalar sneutrinos in the mass range 0.1 eV to 100eV. Scalar neutrinos would not generate any Fermi Energy at all, and would allow any density of matter. Similar arguments apply for any long ranges force that need to cancelled inside matter. For instance a <a href="http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0802.0762">chameleonic B-L</a> (baryon number minus Lepton number) force,
    again needs a light charged scalar particle in order to solve the problem of Fermi-Energy.
  8. Jun 7, 2011 #7
    I've also looked at detection of fifth force is neutron scattering experiments, and its clear that unless any fifth force is very weak indeed, if neutrons are charged with it, it would have shown up already in neutron scattering experiments. This applies to the U(1) B, U(1) L, any U(1) B-L, (all of which would also have problems with giving a force to electrons). An Axial force is still viable provided a neutron is uncharged by it, so a force between protons and neutrinos only is still viable. Provided again that the Fermi energy is reduced by some light scalar or vector particles, e.g. an sneutrino in the eV, range.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2011
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook