### Could neutrinos appear in several p-adic mass scales?

There are some indications that neutrinos can appear in several mass scales coming from neutrino oscillation data. These oscillations can be classified to vacuum oscillations and to solar neutrino oscillations believed to be due to the so called MSW effect in the dense matter of Sun. There are also indications that the mixing is different for neutrinos and antineutrinos.

In TGD framework padic length scale hypothesis might explain these findings. I wrote already earlier hasty impressions about the situation but found that there were too many misunderstanding involved so that I decided to remove the blog page in a desperate attempt to keep some of my respectability (of course I know that I have lost it long time ago so that the manouvre came quite too late);-).

The basic vision is that the p-adic length scale of neutrino can vary so that the mass squared scale comes as octaves. Mixing matrices would be universal. The large discrepancy between LSND and MiniBoone results contra solar neutrino results could be understood if electron and muon neutrinos have same p-adic mass scale for solar neutrinos but for LSND and MiniBoone the mass scale of either neutrino type is scaled up. The sterile neutrino suggested as an explanation of the findings would be p-adically scaled up variant of ordinary neutrino having standard weak interactions. This scaling up can be different for neutrinos and antineutrinos as suggested by the fact that the anomaly is present only for antineutrinos.

The different values of Δ m^{2} for neutrinos and antineutrinos in MINOS experiment can be understood if the p-adic mass scale for neutrinos increases by one unit. The breaking of CP and CPT would be spontaneous and realized as a choice of different p-adic mass scales and could be understood in zero energy ontology. Similar mechanism would break supersymmetry and explain large differences between the mass scales of elementary fermions, which for same p-adic prime would have mass scales differing not too much.

I do not bother to type the formulas in html format and give a link to a short pdf file Could neutrinos appear in several p-adic mass scales?, where a serious analysis of the findings is discussed. See also the chapter p-Adic Mass calculations: New Physics of "p-Adic Length scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".

## 3 Comments:

Anomalies are 'snowing' these days, Here one that claim the proton is too small, by 4% - of course, would I want to say :)- A problem with QED?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19141-incredible-shrinking-proton-raises-eyebrows.html

Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09250

Scalar quintessence, back from the dead. Maybe it is p-adic scalar field with a changing Planck constant?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627643.500-did-a-sleeper-field-awake-to-expand-the-universe.html

One more piece of a cake :)

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn19136-secrets-of-backboned-life-found-on-undersea-mountains

Antiprotons, http://focus.aps.org/story/v26/st1

This muonic atom anomaly looks very interesting. The radius of proton would be 4 per cent smaller than deduced from ordinary hydrogen atom and specialists say that this cannot be true.

This could be a problem of QED. Lamb shift distinguishes between the states having otherwise the same energy but different angular momentum. It is explained as being due to the quantum fluctuations of electromagnetic field. The energy shift is a product of two expressions. The first one describes the effect of these zero point fluctuations on the position of electron or muon and the second one characterizes the average of nuclear charge density as "seen" by electron or muon. The latter one should be same as in the case of ordinary atom but it is not.

QED and quantum field theories in general have difficulties with the description of bound states: something which has not received too much attention. For instance, van der Waals force at molecular scales is a problem. A possible TGD based explanation and a possible solution of difficulties proposed for two decades ago is that for bound states the two charged particles (say nucleus and electron or two atoms) correspond to two 3-D surfaces glued by flux tubes rather than being idealized to points of Minkowski space. This would make the non-relativistic description based on Schrodinger amplitude natural and replace the description based on Bethe-Salpeter equation having horrible mathematical properties.

http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/a-crack-in-quantum-electrodynamics/

What they find is in disagreement with QED computations and so it is possible to conclude that this discrepancy may arise either directly from the theory or, for some reason, one has to shift Rydberg constant. This is a relevant crack into a cherished theory and so, it will appear interesting to work out a possible understanding. It should be said, even if on a more complex side, that muon g-factor could be a possible clue for new physics departing from the Standard Model. muons are the key.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09250.html

An attractive means to improve the accuracy in the measurement of rp is provided by muonic hydrogen (a proton orbited by a negative muon); its much smaller Bohr radius compared to ordinary atomic hydrogen causes enhancement of effects related to the finite size of the proton. In particular, the Lamb shift10 (the energy difference between the 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 states) is affected by as much as 2 per cent. Here we use pulsed laser spectroscopy to measure a muonic Lamb shift of 49,881.88(76) GHz. On the basis of present calculations11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of fine and hyperfine splittings and QED terms, we find rp = 0.84184(67) fm, which differs by 5.0 standard deviations from the CODATA value3 of 0.8768(69) fm. Our result implies that either the Rydberg constant has to be shifted by −110 kHz/c (4.9 standard deviations), or the calculations of the QED effects in atomic hydrogen or muonic hydrogen atoms are insufficient.

With suppl. inform. and figures.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/466195a.html

Richard Feynman quipped: “There's a reason physicists are so successful with what they do, and that is they study the hydrogen atom and the helium ion and then they stop.”

No complexity. As Carl Brannen points out.

Is something wrong with Feynmans diagrams? - the strong force is not at all considered, that is gravity, negentropy? What happen with the diagram when particles are scalar and oscillate into each other, there are no distinct particles?

And no neutron?

Also: The crop circle evolves.

Nature 09 Jun 2010

Post a Comment

<< Home