Showing posts with label Quantum Mechanics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quantum Mechanics. Show all posts

Sunday, January 28, 2024

Undecidability and Theories of Everything with Claus Kiefer

← Previous ( Measurement Problem ) ( Maxwellian Ratchets ) Next →

Recorded: 2023/08/07 Released: 2024/01/28

Jim talks with Claus Kiefer about his recent essay on the relationship between the Gödel's incompleteness theoerems and the possibility of developing a theory of everything. Incompleteness was originally developed to show that every axiomatic system that is sufficiently robust admits well-formed statements that have a liar's paradox-like structure - if you assume the statement is true, you can prove it's false, and vice-versa. This statement is then said to be undecidable. Undecidability also famously comes up in the halting problem of computer science and the continuum hypothesis. Professor Kiefer speculates here that theories of everything are similarly undecidable.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. The article that we discussed in this program:
  • Kiefer, Claus, "Gödel's undecidability theorems and the search for a theory of everything" (2023) [arXiv]
2. Other papers referred to in this podcast:
  • Cubitt, T.,D. Perez-Garcia and H.M. Wolf, "Undecidability of the Spectral Gap." Nature 528 207 (2015) [arXiv]
  • Goedel,, K., "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems." Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 173 (1931) [Free]
    • The Undecidable [Amazon], M. Davis, ed. Reprints Goedel's paper and other work from the 1930's. Dover book.
3. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
4. Books mentioned:
5. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, YouTube Channel, or Twitter account. These are also places to look for announcements of new episodes and the like. And if you could help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.
← Previous ( Measurement Problem ) ( Maxwellian Ratchets ) Next →

Sunday, April 24, 2022

Born's Rule

← Previous ( Gleason's Theorem ) ( Causality and Time ) Next →



Recorded: 2022/01/18 Released: 2022/04/24

Jim discusses Gleason's Theorem with Blake C. Stacey of the University of Massachuesetts - Boston. Gleason's Theorem is a theorem in the foundations of quantum mechanics that, for a system meets some simple requirements, you can find a set of valid staes and a rule for calculating probailities, a la the Born Rule. This is the first part of the interview, the next will be on Blake's discussion of how people are trying to reformulate the Born Rule.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. Papers we both read for this program:
2. This series:

Sunday, March 20, 2022

Gleason's Theorem

← Previous ( Deformed Relativity ) ( Born's Rule ) Next →



Recorded: 2022/01/18 Released: 2022/03/20

Jim discusses Gleason's Theorem with Blake C. Stacey of the University of Massachuesetts - Boston. Gleason's Theorem is a theorem in the foundations of quantum mechanics that, for a system meets some simple requirements, you can find a set of valid staes and a rule for calculating probailities, a la the Born Rule. This is the first part of the interview, the next will be on Blake's discussion of how people are trying to reformulate the Born Rule.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. Papers we both read for this program:
2. Other papers one or the other of us read: 3. Books mentioned in the discussion:
  • David W. Cohen, An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Mechanics[Amazon] The book I found in a college book store in the 1990's. Short, written for mathemtics undergraduate students (at the upper division, high-end SLAC level), but also accessible to philosophy and physics students who can read math. Video review here.
  • John von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics[Amazon] A classic text that started a lot of this quantum philosophy nonsense in the first place. Very difficult read.
  • Michaal Neilson and Isaac Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information.[Amazon] An early, well known book on quantum information. This is one of three technical books that I've had to replace because my original copy wandered off with a graduate student to postdocs unknown.
  • John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. [Amazon]
  • This is a collection of essays by John Bell, some of which are very important, and others of which you might not think are important until you start reading the philosophy of physics literature. Blake mentioned two papers that I think are in this volume. One is "On the Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen Paradox," which was originally published in the small jounal below.

4. Physics-Physique-Fisika, the journal Blake Stacey mentioned in our discussion.

5. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
6. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, YouTube Channel and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.
← Previous ( Deformed Relativity ) ( Born's Rule ) Next →

Sunday, June 6, 2021

Phantom Matter

← Previous ( Quantum Effects in Gravity Waves ) ( The Hubble Crisis ) Next →



Recorded: 2020/11/09 Released: 2021/06/06

Randy and Jim discuss a set of potential theories that could constitute dark matter that connect to normal matter through the Higgs particle.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
3. Jim recently appeared on Anthony Jeannot's Highbrow Drivel podcast, displaying his innate ability to talk out of his ass for 60 minutes. Check it out. 3. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, YouTube Channel and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.
← Previous ( Quantum Effects in Gravity Waves ) ( The Hubble Crisis ) Next →

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Quantum Effects in Gravitational Waves

← Previous ( g - 2 ) ( Phantom Matter ) Next →



Recorded: 2020/10/01 Released: 2021/05/02

Jim and Randy discuss two proposals for experiments that would be sensitive to a quantum particle of gravity. Unlike electromagnetism where the quanitzation of matter requires a photon field, the quantization of matter does not require quantized gravitons.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
2. Other papers mention in this podcast:
  • Dyson, F. "Is a Graviton Detectable?." Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330041 (2013). [pdf
  • Feynman, R., "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation." Acta Phys.Polon. 24 (1963) 697-722 24, 697 (1963).
3. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
4. Randy mentioned our first podcast, Physics FM where we were discussing Aharonov and Rohrlich's Quantum Paradoxes.
5. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.
← Previous ( g - 2 ) ( Phantom Matter ) Next →


Transcript (Rough Draft)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, April 1, 2021

The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon

← Previous ( Multiversality ) ( Quantum Gravity Waves ) Next →



Recorded: 2020/07/23 Released: 2021/04/01

Jim and Randy discuss measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, as well as what the discrepency between theory and experiment might mean as far as new physics.
------------------------------------------- Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
3. Fermilab's Muon g-2 Experiment.
4. The Mathematica Notebook mentioned in the first article. You can use this to explore different kinds of beyond the standartd model particles in the way the authors did.
5 Jim mentioned Melvin Schwartz's Principles of Electrodynamics [Amazon], an old textbook that goes into the details of the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment. Because this is at least the second time I've used it extensively for the podcast, I have made a video, available here describing the book. Fortunately, my phone only had space for a 14 minute video, so I had to shut up about it.
6. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.
← Previous ( Multiversality ) ( Quantum Gravity Waves ) Next →



Transcript (Rough Draft)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, October 18, 2020

The ANITA Experiment

← Previous ( Electromagntically-Repulsive Gravity ) ( Multiversality ) Next →



Recorded: 2020/06/04 Released: 2020/10/18

Randy tells Jim about charged black holes, which exhibit an interesting reduction in their gravitational attraction. They discuss the Reissner-Nordstrom metric and an alternative theory.
-------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
  • Anchordoqui, L.A., V. Barger, J.G. LEaned, D. Marfatia, and T.J> Weiler "Upgoing ANITA Events as Evidence of the CPT Symmetric Universe" Letters in High Energy Physics 1, ? (2018). [arXiv
  • Gorham, P.W., et al., "Characteristics of Four Upward-Pointing Cosmic-Ray-Like Events Observed with ANITA." Phys. Rev.< Lett. 071101 , (2016). [arXiv]
  • ICECUBE COLLABORATION (over 250 "authors"), "A Search for ICECUDE Direction of ANITA Neutrino Candidates." ApJ 892, 53 (2020). [arXiv]
  • Safa, I., A. Pizzuto, F. Halzen, R. Hussain, A. Kheirandish, and J. Vandenboucke, "Observing EeV Neutrinos through Earth: GZK and teh Anomalous ANITA events." Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020, ? (2020). [arXiv]
  • Romero-Wolf, A., et al., "A Comprehensive Analysis of Anomalous ANITA Evens Disfavors Diffuse Tau-Neutrino Flux Origin." Phys. Rev. D 99, 063011 (2019) [arXiv]



2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:


3. ""The Saga of Atomspheric Neutrinos" by J.G. Learned at teh University of Hawaii. A perspective on the history of neutrino physics that Randy sent me and I mentioned in the podcast.

4. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.

← Previous ( Electromagntically-Repulsive Gravity ) ( Multiversality ) Next →

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Sterile Neutrinos

← Previous ( Gravity Waves ) ( Repulsive Black Holes ) Next →



Recorded: 2020/04/24 Released: 2020/07/07

Jim and Randy explore dark matter proposals based on sterile neutrios. Even more difficult to detect than the three active neutrinos of the standard model
-------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:



2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:


3. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.

← Previous ( Gravity Waves ) ( Repulsive Black Holes ) Next →


Transcript (Rough Draft)
-----------------------------------------------------------
07:26:11 Oh, and welcome to physics frontiers Episode Number 52 sterile neutrinos Show Notes for this episode can be found at frontiers dot physics@n.com slash 52 shows include the papers that we discussed in this program as well as links to related physics frontiers 07:26:30 episodes. And now Jim and Randy. 07:26:33 Okay. How's it going, Randy what's going on. Jim, it's good to hear from you too. Today we're going to talk about sterile neutrinos sterile neutrinos what is a sterile nutrient already. 07:26:43 Alright so, we all know that the neutrinos are incredibly weird because back in 98 they discovered that the neutrinos coming from the sun were oscillating, so they're changing from one form of neutrino to another form of neutrino to another form of neutrino 07:26:58 on their way to the earth, which is just bewildering. 07:27:02 So now, of particle physicists and cosmologists are looking at the idea that there may be another type of neutrino, that's different than this, the three that we know about the electron neutrino the tower, the new on neutrino in the town neutrino, then 07:27:17 there may be a kind of a neutrino which only interacts with other neutrinos through the week force, and with gravity, but not with anything else, or rather through mixing it's through mixing right yeah it's see it's through mixing it's not through the 07:27:35 week horse. So the whole point of the several neutrino is that it does not interact with the weak force. And that's why you can't see it, but it does have an impact on like the ratios that they're seeing in. 07:27:45 What is it short baseline neutrino detection experiments. Well yeah for the first paper I think he was talking about that a lot and they showed up in the other two but the whole idea was for these reactor experiments and these disappearance and appears 07:28:01 experiments, you have a short baseline that's a short distance between oscillations you remember what the distance was down. 07:28:08 I know that it was pretty short like on the meter scale, I think. Yeah, so it was on the meter scale not on the 20,000 kilometer scale like the regular oscillations. 07:28:18 And so they were looking at those things and they said we have to have these really massive neutrinos. 07:28:33 You don't have to have but one way to explain that is, is that you have these massive neutrinos that are sort of in the neutrino mix. yeah so they what they they honestly into that form on rare occasion, that's the idea so that's why they. 07:28:39 That's how they're explaining away like the five or 6% discrepancies are seeing in those experiments. Yeah, it has to be very rare, or that is because the oscillation frequencies related to the difference of the square of the mass, you know these normal 07:28:54 neutrinos are less than 170 million electron volts. If you add up the normal neutrinos their mass is less than 170. million electron volts. 07:29:06 And this other guy has to be somewhere around one electron but at least for the kinds of the talking about in the first two papers. 07:29:15 In the third paper they get really really massive, but I mean as a comparison and electron has a mass of about one half of the mega crumbles about 500 to electron volts. 07:29:28 So these guys are like 3 million times 30 million times something like that. That's massive. 07:29:35 And then, with all of the different constraints, the heaviness of the normal neutrinos and the active neutrinos he called active because it interacts with the weak force. 07:29:44 The heaviest of those could be 70 million electron rules. 07:29:48 That's the maximum NASA could have because that 170 million lead from volts is a maximum size or a maximum limit for the sum of the three it could get down to as low as about 59.5 million electron volts. 07:30:04 Wasn't that first paper the first article that they talk about a sterile neutrino with a massive like 1.7. 07:30:11 electron volts. It was like a range between like point six 1.7 electron volts, I think, Well yeah, they've got two different experiments. The appearance and disappearance experiments and those should have about 0.6 electron volts squared, and the reactor 07:30:25 experiments should have a mass difference between the smallest neutrino the lightest neutrino and the neutrino of 1.7 electron volts squared. 07:30:37 And me take the square roots for both of those things it gets closer to one electron bolt for the mass and that latest between know probably doesn't matter very much at all because the latest nutrients at maximum could be 50 million electron volts or 07:30:51 one 20th of an electron balls in this. 07:30:55 Okay. All I did was I took all the information that they gave me and I found the limits for each one of the neutrinos in the latest one has a range from zero to 50. 07:31:06 million electron volts, or actually a little bit lower around 49.5 million miles, and then you know the other ones have the other ranges as well. And those are all inferred right that based on the probability of them shifting from one form or the other, 07:31:20 right. Yeah, and I think they do that by looking at the Z, with the width of the energy line for the Z Bowser. 07:31:30 Yeah, because neutrinos interact with a Z bows on the W bows on, and they'll definitely also interact with leptons like the electron right neutrinos yeah yeah the regular old neutrinos show up in electron decays, and that's how the weak force was first 07:31:48 postulated, and the neutrino was first postulated was because there was a little bit of a problem with the energies, with the old reactor experiments with the old model chamber experiments. 07:31:59 They postulated that something was going on with neutral particle. Yeah, I'm going to skip the history Cohen Shut up. 07:32:06 Well, let me ask you this because this is this is a question that was didn't see answered in those papers because I, I should have done some deeper digging but is there a difference between the electron neutrino that the Mulan neutrino and the town neutrino, 07:32:21 other than their rest mass. 07:32:23 Like, do they have a difference in their properties or anything. Yeah, I mean they don't have charges. Yeah, and anything else so they're just neutrinos that show off with interactions involving like the new on in the towel on as well. 07:32:38 It's just a towel particle I don't know if the only difference between them is the rest mass. 07:32:43 Then, isn't it more like there's like one type of neutrino there that's changing its maths. Well that's what the oscillation say, yeah, that's what I'm saying is that though the oscillations suggest that the nutrient all three flavors and neutrinos are 07:32:57 just a neutrino in three different states, well I mean that might be one way to look at I don't think that's the way they think about it. My feeling is the oscillation is just weird because what happens with the isolation is, you have the three real nutrients, 07:33:10 which are new one new two to three. 07:33:21 And then you have the three neutrinos we actually see which are the electron neutrino them you know and the tower neutrino, the real ones are the ones that satisfy all the fun symmetries of, you know, the standard model and stuff like that and the ones 07:33:28 that we see are some linear combination of those things so it's a superposition of those three different things and that's sort of what all that mixing angle is about. 07:33:38 And that's where all that talk about coherence and incoherence came in right yeah in that paper. He was saying let's give the name of the paper and the author to because we usually do that so people can follow you know completely forgot to tell everybody 07:34:01 we read something, a bunch of stuff like a few articles in the popular press plus some papers that were published basically what's happening is, if the mass difference is much smaller than your uncertainty in the square of the mass, then plane ways are 07:34:10 okay you basically end up with a very long wavelength. And if you have that very long wavelength, you can just assume that it's a plane way, but it's the uncertainties on the same order of your mass difference, and it's about that one to do electron volts, 07:34:25 volts, squared areas where the uncertainties, no longer have this thing that looks like a plane way then you have to wait packets because couldn't because your neutrinos more localized, and then if you have something that's really really massive, and 07:34:40 that'll show up in the cosmology stuff and means your material is going to be very localized and you aren't going to see any oscillations. Another question that came up was looking at this was it seemed like they were suggesting that the oscillations 07:34:53 aren't just like a random statistical thing as much as it seemed like they're saying that, that the neutrinos were interacting with either Wz bows ons or some other particle between the Sun and the Earth and ordered oscillate or those oscillations being 07:35:07 driven by an interaction, or is that purely a probabilistic function, my understanding from this is that it's probably list because they call it qualify probabilistic in it which made it seem like it was just the probabilities are just falling out of 07:35:20 like Ambien interactions maybe that's what I was thinking. Anyway, is not really any space that nutrient is can travel through where they're not going to have some level of interactions right. 07:35:30 Otherwise, like how could it neutrino go from like a smaller mass to a larger mass, if they didn't somehow get that energy from some kind of interaction right the uncertainty principle may be sufficient for that, but that means that we might be talking 07:35:43 about the interaction with the vacuum expectation value of the energy and the ambient space maybe like quantum field fluctuations. Because Isn't that how the uncertainty principle works and other models where they basically borrows energy from the vacuum 07:35:57 and then gives it back. 07:35:59 Alright, so I thought it was I thought was more particle based like it was like they were encountering, you know bosons or something in space. 07:36:06 I don't think that can be true. Well, maybe it's true maybe that's why they isolate but I mean they're saying that, even though these guys don't interact with the wh zero zones. 07:36:20 Please still. 07:36:22 Okay, I was just talking about normal ones, you can still stay with the other ones so they can so absolutely right. 07:36:29 with the wnz bosoms, then it can be caused by good week field, but they all have mass right so they all have to be interacting with the Higgs field right and that has a specific vacuum expectation value right so maybe that mass oscillation has something 07:36:59 to do with this interaction with the Higgs field. 07:37:02 Honestly, they spend a lot of time talking about the Higgs field in here but I wasn't always sure exactly what was going on. Yeah, it's a tricky subject the neutrinos are so unbelievably weird, and then to throw on top of this possibility of sterile neutrinos. 07:37:16 It's like, Holy smokes, because this is a whole other whole other ballgame. I mean, at least with most of quantum physics, you have discrete particles that remain discrete particles. 07:37:28 I guess corks do some kind of oscillations to generally just look at it as an idea like we don't look at the world right. 07:37:35 Yeah, the world was wave freaky or than we normally think, but at least normally like electrons, stay the same you know you think, you know, certain particles decay like a new ones that come into the atmosphere. 07:37:48 I mean, they all have a, an identity and when they decay that became very specific ways. 07:37:54 You know only only it was the, I guess the neutrinos and corks The only ones I can think of off the top my hand to do this weird oscillation thing where they changed from like one basically flavor to another right. 07:38:04 We should talk more about the sterile neutrinos so the accelerator experiments are the reactor experiments, I should say are indicating that there could be the presence of these several neutrinos with a rest massive somewhere around one electron volts. 07:38:23 In that, you know, mass square term, but cosmological either looking at sterile neutrinos with a much larger mass, like 3.5 kilo electron volts right well they're seeing a line at 3.5 cooler from volts per saying that the neutrino has to have 7.1. 07:38:38 electron volts, as its mass to see that line during the decay. Oh, okay. So, so the neutrino decays. So what happens is the circle neutrino isolates back into an active neutrino. 07:38:52 And that actually neutrino is excited so it. It's Wz particle I don't remember which one, and that z particle then splits off into two more neutrinos. 07:39:07 That's the signature that they're looking at in that 3.5 kilo electron volts line. 07:39:09 Now, I guess that's the explanation for the line so the line came person the explanation came later. But that's how they're interpreting that one. So they're seeing the photons with that much energy is that right the 3.5 kilo electron volts photons. 07:39:22 I don't think of the measurement of the neutrinos so eventually was have turned into photons. 07:39:26 Okay, so that's what they're thinking might be a dark matter candidate right that's what they think is a dark matter candidate, although it's really really heavy. 07:39:33 Yeah that is way heavier than the reactor experiments are indicating. 07:39:39 But on the other hand, cosmological Lee, like you know you see cosmic rays with tons of energy to right, it's way higher than anything we produce in a reactor, so I wonder I wonder if there's some mechanism cosmological that could explain the presence 07:39:52 of those high energy neutrinos, like maybe, I don't know black holes or something couldn't create a really high energy neutrino, I don't know. 07:40:11 I thought that was only like a hot, hot Dark Matter candidate. If they had the really low like one electron volts, rest mass but that it could emulate the findings are seeing, which is, which is like a cold dark matter of thing, if they were much more 07:40:35 because then they'd have what less kinetic energy right. I think that's why they call them warm. So at some point in one of these papers. I think it was the one we're talking about, which is no other role of sterile neutrinos in particle physics, yeah 07:40:41 the roles of certain fields in particle physics, which is a review article by Satan que con who's in Korea. Yeah, yeah. So I think that's the reason why they made the distinction between hot and warm, right, because nobody likes hot dark matter anymore. 07:40:59 Yeah, that's can work because it wouldn't clump right though, if it was hot, it wouldn't clump around the galaxies like we're seeing is that right. I think that's one of the reasons I mean there were a lot of reasons why. 07:41:09 It couldn't be about dark matter was explained galaxies, stability, and so I mean that would have been one of the first things that go into the theory so maybe after a while, people decided didn't work but probably there were a lot of other reasons that 07:41:23 went into that. 07:41:24 Well, I just think I mean if they were hot, and they you know they were real moving fast enough then they would have an enough kinetic energy they have escape velocity right so they want to gather in a nice cloud around galaxies right they just fly out 07:41:37 out all over the place in space like photons, possibly but I mean, at the time that people decided to, you know, neutrinos probably weren't the thing they were so, hoping that they were going to be with the Masada particles or something and he completely 07:41:50 Nast listen wander around and travel with the speed of light and all those other fun things you get to do when you have no mess. So I remember when Dark Matter first came out, the first. 07:42:02 No, you know. Well, I guess when it was being popularized in the press in the 90s. It seemed like our best explanation that point probably was something like a neutrino because it has to be something like virtually no interactions, other than gravity 07:42:13 And there has to be an awful lot of it. So this kind of brings that that idea back to life because even though your regular active neutrinos can't fit the bill, the sterile neutrinos might do it. 07:42:23 I don't think it ever really disappeared since the first idea about several neutrinos showed up I mean this persona neutrinos showed up in like 1968 or something like that. 07:42:32 Oh I thought that the like our first real indication that these babies existed was after that experiment that ran from like 1990 1995. We're at like Los Alamos National Lab. 07:42:43 Well I think that's the first time people thought they really need them. Oh, I see your theorized before that think there was a guy in Russia in 1968. 07:42:53 Yeah, I'm not going to try to pronounce his name. 07:42:54 First theorized them, and I think he was actually known for other things as well. 07:43:02 But there was no need for them, and it's one of these things where you're saying, basically, here's this thing that you'll never see as really important. 07:43:11 So, that's a great theory but you know we probably want to look for something that is a little more testable then later on they find out there's some deficiencies. 07:43:20 Once you find out there the deficiencies then you start worrying about things like that. Yeah, you're missing something right. 07:43:27 So there's also this weird, thumb. They call it tension, which is a nice word for it. tension between the appearance and disappearance arguments for the sterile neutrino. 07:43:40 So apparently they've got strong appearance, indications, but they have like counter disappearance evidence. So yeah, I mean the first paper actually seemed to be pretty good with both of them. 07:43:53 The first paper being sterile neutrino a short introduction, what I'm thinking about is the first paper is the one that basically started off people looking at several neutrinos is a really strong candidate, at least in this particular cycle, which was 07:44:07 are there several neutrinos at the electron volts scale. I cop. I'll Tony and Shrek. And that was in 2011, the other one that you're talking about this sterile neutrino a short introduction by now Marv from 2019. 07:44:24 And that's just going over the things that people sort of know extended some time in between there, or maybe just a personal judgment but sometime in the years, it seems like there was a falling out with the disappearance data because cop seemed to be 07:44:39 It seems like there was a falling out with the disappearance data because cop seemed to be pretty happy with using the disappear status to try to fit his three plus one, three plus two and one plus three plus form theories about the sterile nutrients. 07:44:52 And basically, he was using that disappearance stated help and try to get stuff, but there was an issue in the, in the 2019 paper. So those disappeared stated don't really seem to fit everything else, so we should talk about that. 07:45:04 Right. I mean there is another thing there that we didn't mention which is, if there's one sister all neutrino, why aren't there more several neutrinos. 07:45:13 And in fact, when this cop was looking at the data. This guy's from Fermilab. He didn't think that having just one certain neutrino get the right and he wanted to. 07:45:24 Yes, so he thought he needed to to actually fit the data that he had from the LSND and the mini boon experiments. 07:45:34 Although the later papers, seem to think that both of these experiments were not correct in some way. 07:45:42 And we shouldn't think about them booth very heart. Yeah, Dimitri nama does seem to be kind of bearish on the subject, based on that disappearance data. 07:45:52 Well, but he still looks at several things. Well, basically, you know, we have the two different ideas here like appearance data says that if you have a decay new on, it's going to pay into an electron, or positron plus a electron neutrino plus neutrino 07:46:11 an anti immune neutrino right now anytime you neutrino. Then there's an excess there's more electron neutrinos and you expect, and that's what it maybe my appearance and disappearance they're looking at the reactors. 07:46:23 And, you know, somebody updated the theory, and all of a sudden, there were fewer on the order of six to 12% fewer neutrinos than you expected in reactors and in calibration sources and stuff like that. 07:46:38 So those are the anomalies that tell you that you probably need this has the logical data doesn't really tell you you probably need this, but instead you're trying to use this to explain the cosmological data right but there it has more logical data seems 07:46:52 to be not neutral but fairly aggressively against anything that anybody thinks up to explain it, at least as far as I can tell, because in this paper Lee I think you're right i mean this paper on sterile neutrino short introduction my novel paper. 07:47:07 He's seems to be pointing at Big Bang nuclear synthesis and the inflationary rate of the universe. 07:47:14 How that how the existence of sterile neutrinos would alter those models significantly. Right. 07:47:26 I think he said that the universe would expand faster during the inflationary epoch, and it would alter the nucleus at this is so that when we might get different readings on like a hydrogen isotopes and so forth or helium isotopes, can't remember which, 07:47:36 I can't remember what, but then in, and so that sounded really compelling like okay yeah if it's just going to change the, the entire Big Bang cosmology and give us wrong estimates of the prevalence of isotopes in the early universe then, this can't be 07:47:48 right. But then, reading in the role of sterile neutrinos in particle physics paper. 07:47:55 It seems like he was saying that because the sterile neutrino isn't going to interact via that weak force, and because of its, what was it its mass maybe he said that who actually want to be detectable they want to create a detectable influence on the 07:48:10 abundances of early isotopes. So they seem to be having two different viewpoints they're like that papers seem to indicate that the sterile the trainers are still allowable within the cosmological data, right. 07:48:24 So it's a very controversial area, no doubt. When I look at these papers, there were a lot of them that came out, you know, last week, even when this gets put up online, they'll still be a lot of makeup put out last week, so people doing a lot of work 07:48:38 in the area and trying to explain things with the several neutrinos, and maybe if I things that were not so ancient like these two and 2019 papers. 07:48:51 2019 is ancient now, you never know 07:48:56 everything could have changed. Right. But it's hard to tell because, you know, if you look at the press, everything is brand new and never been done before and all that other stuff so it's hard to actually use them as a guide to what's going on. 07:49:07 Instead, you have to sit around and read a bunch of 50 page papers, see if there's actually anything new one. Yeah, somebody thought there was something know at least enough new to publish. 07:49:18 Like I was saying, you know, we've got these different experiments with these different things. I think it is estimates of the parameter matrix element. 07:49:29 So, these things mix, right, you can talk about as an angle but really it's mathematically represented as a matrix that looks like rotation matrix is a unitary matrix it acts like a rotation matrix. 07:49:41 So, you have you, remembering something. According to a street grid, and then you wanted to switch it over to north, south, east, west sort of thing you'd have a matrix similar to that, you could use this to rotate the components. 07:49:56 And that's how they get the masses, right, because that works. 07:50:00 You have a mass, if they weren't rotated rotation. These are real rotation what it is is it basically gives you the superposition state of the neutrinos. 07:50:09 And so that's going to tell you well if you have an electron. 07:50:14 Then you have so much new ones so much new to so much new three. 07:50:20 Right. And if you have a new one, you have a different number for each one of those. So each one of the three neutrinos that we see is a different superposition a different linear combination of different combination of the three standard model neutrinos, 07:50:37 does anybody offer any explanation on. I'm confused because how can this sterile neutrino oscillate with with active neutrinos like how do you lose the weak force interaction. 07:50:49 And another way that's true but I think that's just part of the quantum mechanics, you know the oscillations are sort of part of the quantum mechanics, I think that part of the interactions, so you're just saying that, instead of having three different 07:51:02 standard model neutrinos you have the three center mountain credos, plus a sterile neutrino, or two, or seven or however many decide you need to make this work. 07:51:12 You just had an oscillation of more things. 07:51:14 So when you're trying to detect the neutrinos This is why the disappearance data is so compelling is you'd expect to be able to detect a certain probability from any reactor or the sun or whatever, but you're seeing a gap, like you're not getting the 07:51:41 that you expected. So it looks like you're missing something right to the tune of a few percent, you have postulate these sterile neutrinos it's really fascinating for the different experiments that mixing has to be smaller and smaller from different things, right. 07:51:43 right. So, for the reactor deficit disorder of the absolute value of the matrix element for the mixing between an electron and the poor country no has to be 0.1 for our friend now mouth, said the for cosmological stuff. 07:51:58 it sounds to me for all the cosmological stuff that e4 element has to be very very small, which means that it just doesn't happen, right. So, to explain this stuff in the early universe, basically, you know the Big Bang nuclear synthesis stuff, three 07:52:14 combination epic yeah and the cosmic microwave background and all that other stuff. If you try to explain those things, then that mixing element has to be very very small, basically, to the point where it almost never happens that the neutrinos will turn 07:52:29 into the several neutrino for a while. So that's a little bit weird for two different regimes actually put multiple regimes, either the largest in the smallest of the different regimes for them. 07:52:41 Yeah, he was saying that the cosmological arguments disfavor additional external neutrinos with math is larger than like point three electrons. 07:52:50 That's right. So those would be the order of these other neutrinos, and that also means that they be oscillating a lot with them, so you know it's starting to get to a point where it doesn't look like it's a completely coherent idea, but like I said there 07:53:04 are a lot of people working on it maybe there's a way to put it all together. Yeah, this is such a challenging area because they were running those experiments at Los Alamos National Lab for like five years and they got like 90 detections of neutrinos 07:53:18 over that period. We're used to thinking about you know the billions of inner of collisions they have per second or whatever the Large Hadron Collider. 07:53:26 So yeah, we're working with limited data, and it's such a nascent field of exploration, that there's all kinds of experiments and errors in there that we might not be able to see right, possibly I think you do a pretty good job of things. 07:53:39 Yeah. Is it got all these cross sections and everything worked out but still, the data is so limited right like it's so hard to get detections if you could get a few billion detections and you'll be a lot easier to analyze this statistically and get higher 07:53:51 confidence, but I did notice that they're talking about like three sigma confidence level that there's another neutrino right and this makes at least, but then they said that the combine the data from one experiment and a completely different experiment. 07:54:05 And I don't know if that's legitimate Can you do that can you combine data, then they said that it was like a six sigma confidence level for the existence of another type of neutrino. 07:54:15 And then, that kind of sets you back on your heels you're like shit four five is the standard right yeah I think that was the whole point of what top was doing right. 07:54:22 Yeah, That's right. On the other hand, he knows it's warm so great. And then when you look at sort of the ranges were these things could actually be. 07:54:32 They're pretty small. Right. I mean, they're pretty small and they're not really finding things there so it's a little bit worrying, to think about it that way. 07:54:41 And again, the data are not all consistent where would be so you look at this kind of experimented so it's okay with that it doesn't work at all, so they have very specific ranges, but as far as I know they hadn't really found anything there, and sometimes 07:54:56 some of these lines where they say the things have been cross off still kind of close to it so I mean possibly there's something there but, but it is and look really compelling, although I mean obviously they think it is maybe just want to be the first 07:55:19 one to predict it, just in case. 07:55:13 I don't know I mean that those discrepancies I mean, like you said, I mean, when you've got discrepancies on the order of like, you know, five to 12 or 13% or whatever. 07:55:22 That's pretty significant. I mean, even though we are working with limited numbers of detections they've been doing it for a long time. Right. And they do have a good handle on how often those interactions happen with the particles and their chamber and 07:55:34 they can detect that and they know what these are top quantum physicists figuring out these experiments, that's still a very significant finding think there's something going on there that they can explain. 07:55:44 I mean, the big significance about this is not so much the explanation not in the explanations interesting, but I don't really understand why there wouldn't be something else plus the line with the that pretty much says, There's no more neutrino except 07:55:59 PDSA well then it doesn't interact with anything. So neutrino that doesn't interact with the WMZ particles, but the discrepancies. Look, important enough to be one of these things we think it's one of the one of these places where the standard model is 07:56:13 going to break down right I guess that's why the pressing into it because that's our first exciting light for new standard model of physics right beyond standard model of physics. 07:56:22 Yeah, there aren't very many places where it looks like there are problems with the standard model. I didn't talk about it 17 a couple episodes ago there's this and there's like, there's one other thing that I have to say though I did lose a lot of my 07:56:33 excitement about the X 17 findings when I did some further reading and found out that apparently that same lab has been predicting this kind of particle on multiple occasions before over a period of like 10 or 20 years, and they were you know they're 07:56:45 wrong. On the other hand, the several neutrinos acts 17. You know what they're seeing is saying that there's something wrong with the standard model, the ideas that they have might not be the right ideas, but what they're seeing is probably significant. 07:57:03 Yeah, and that's that's more than we've gotten from the freakin multibillion dollar Large Hadron Collider which only really confirmed the Higgs boson and everything else. 07:57:12 Yeah, a lot of places we just see confirmations and that's nice, it's useful, but it's just confirming what seems to have been true already. Yeah, pretty well trodden since what the 70s or 60s. 07:57:25 You know the standard models complex enough, but I mean the places where it breaks down is where there's going to be new fundamental physics for the people who do that, because otherwise we're going to get really bored, does that to make a modification 07:57:38 of the Standard Model when they found neutrino oscillations. I don't know how much they had to change it. I think what happened is they sort of changed what they meant by an electron neutrino right to be this mix of the center of all neutrinos. 07:57:53 Okay, so it's pretty minor modification that in order to accommodate that. Because I don't remember they were surprised by it so it wasn't predicted by the standard bottle. 07:58:02 No, no, maybe not, but they were able to cobble it in, I guess, seems to be good enough. That's it kind of exciting thing because if they had to modify the Standard Model A little bit once for neutrinos maybe they have to do it again. 07:58:12 I mean if there's actually anything to this. 07:58:15 Yeah, well, was there anything else in these papers you wanted to touch on Jim, I think that's everything I'm mean for the last one, the rules paper I only read at once and so that pretty quick so see no I don't see anything except for notes telling me 07:58:31 to look up other things, see what the hell we were talking about, I have to say that I was really impressed when I was reading about how this all came about right how this Sterling Trina idea started or emerged in the like the disappearance data and all 07:58:45 that, and family lab like built like a special detector neutrino detector in order to test those results with equipment tailor made for that exploration. 07:58:57 And that was the mini boom, and now they're working on the micro Boone right so it's cool that they're building like customized detectors to explore these questions. 07:59:06 I'm more excited about these kind of like tailor made experiments to answers, certain, you know, empirically driven questions that come up that I am about this like building a bigger Collider, you know some places that can't build a bigger collider right 07:59:19 like in the middle of Chicago. Sure, and they're not cheap either you can't go building a, you know, increasing order of magnitude collision energies, you know, every year. 07:59:31 It's a really expensive way to go, but these are cool because they're, they're less expensive, and they're and they're looking to answer a specific question which came up, you know. 07:59:39 Okay. So, apparently, I do have a note here that says that me right handed neutrinos right so interact with the left handed neutrinos, and the Higgs particle via the collar interactions so it seems something about the form of the interactions, basically 07:59:54 saying that somehow there, they are pulling the energy out of the vacuum exploitation value of the Higgs field. Okay so, so the active and the sterile neutrinos, which are the left handed and right handed neutrinos. 08:00:07 They do interact, but it's mediated by this Higgs field. Well, I'm not sure, the way I, the way I wrote it down, it sounds like the both interact with a blue collar type interaction, but it doesn't say exactly what all pressroom. 08:00:23 Okay, That's the way I read down in my notes. The Ocala potential that that's that plays a big, big role in the strong force Right, yeah. So when you get to get your name on one of these equations, Jim. 08:00:41 I think it's a little late if I was going to do that I would have done it that way you Cal was he was some you know upstart like MIT grad or something. 08:00:45 On 25 I'm going to revolutionize physics with this equation, I don't know, let's see, he was born in 1907, so probably not right he was like our age. Now he's probably is like 40 or something right oh geez, he was in the 30s. 08:01:01 So yeah, he was in his 20s. 08:01:05 So yes, you have to remember that next life. 08:01:11 So you got to give up all the good stuff when you're like a teenager and in the young adult in order to make your breakthrough and then you can like as party. 08:01:19 I should have put that put that backwards in my life. 08:01:23 Yeah, I don't think it works that way I think if you miss out on your 20s you never get them back. 08:01:30 Unless you move to New Orleans. 08:01:36 Yeah, I guess I've seen a couple guys in New Orleans try that. Burning Man to you'll see some of that. 08:01:40 That's another reason to stay with it. Yep, got it all hanging out baby. 08:01:46 All right, Jim, thank you so much for going over all this with me. So it's a really intriguing thing I mean there's definitely something something he's explaining here we just stare on the train was might be the way to go, or maybe there's something even 08:01:56 weirder going on with neutrinos that we don't know yet. There must be something weird going on with neutrinos, well there's something weird happening right because they can't explain away those discrepancies right. 08:02:06 Doesn't matter how big a hole you dig under South Dakota, you still can't find enough of them to figure out what the hell is going on, or Antarctica, like you've seen the ice cube right. 08:02:15 I've never been there No, I mean, I've seen photos right they made this gigantic neutrino detector under the ice, you know, it's crazy. That's a good place for not going to get very many visitors. 08:02:27 I'd love to see it but there's just no freakin way I want to go into the freaking it's archaic yeah that's another thing you miss. 08:02:33 I did have a friend who decided to go down, down there oh yeah but 08:02:40 yeah I don't, I don't remember I just remember he decided I'm gonna take six months out of my life and live in an article, Jesus, I don't know why I decided that, but then I never saw it again so 08:02:52 you know if you made it back. 08:02:54 Well, I don't even know if he made it there. Okay. Was there an intro definitely is the ARPANET back then or something. Oh, man, that was a long time. 08:03:02 It was probably 94 so with the people I was hanging out with. 08:03:06 Oh, right. Well, that is a wrap. All right, Jim, we have a great week. Oh, you want to do this in a week. Yeah, absolutely. We know we got the pandemic vacation going on so let's make use of it remain sterile disinfect your groceries in the, you know, 08:03:21 we'll make it till next week and we'll do another one that's a horrible thing to say to them. 08:03:30 I'll talk to you later right duel friend gave 08:03:32 You have just listened to episode number 52 of physics frontiers sterile neutrinos Show Notes for this episode can be found at frontiers physics FM com slash 50 to show notes include the papers we read for this program as well as related episodes of physics 08:03:50 frontiers. thank you very much for listening, and good night. ------------------------------------------------------------
← Previous ( Gravity Waves ) ( Repulsive Black Holes ) Next →

Sunday, May 3, 2020

X17

← Previous ( Unruh Effect ) ( Gravitational Wave Astronomy ) Next →



Recorded: 2019/12/06 Released: 2019/05/03

Randy and Jim about the perspectival nature of quanta, the Unruh effect, which says that for highly accelerated systems, additional particles and temperature will be seen.
-------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:



2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:


3. Books discussed on this podcast:
  • A. Franklin and Fischbach, E., The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force, 2nd Ed. (2015). Discusses the history of a previously hypothesized "fifth force" of nature, this creating a medium-range correction to gravity. [Amazon]


4. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to the "Construct Your Own Atom Smasher" article, but I did find references to it. I knew it wasn't just my imagination because I snuck into the University of Denver's library to find it in 1990-1992 timeframe (when a friend mentioned it), but I was expecting someone had put it up on the web. I'll try to remember to look later in the week.




5. For some reason I got mixed up between K decays and the g-2 value of the muon. The discrepancy in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon between theory and experiment was discovered in 2001. [arXiv]


6. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.

← Previous ( Unruh Effect ) ( Gravitational Wave Astronomy ) Next →


Transcript (Rough Draft; Added: 2020/07/22)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim: Hey, Randy what's going on? Randy: Jim. This is an exciting episode for me because, you know, for the last, actually my entire lifetime. I've been looking forward to some kind of anomaly in the particle physics community, a credible anomaly is something new. And that's been the frustration I think for a lot of particles, stews. Most of the discoveries and work is only verified standard model and there hasn't been much work beyond the standard law. And here we have something new to talk about in particle physics: the X17 particle. Jim: X17. Why call it X17? Randy: Well, they don't know really what the heck it is other than they think it might be either something new happening in nuclear physics that we hadn't seen before or it could be a new particle thatcould be a force carrier for a fifth force of nature. So the "X" I think means they don't know what it is, and the 17 refers to its mass energy. They're seeing a signal in the 15 million electron volts range in a couple of experiments now. The first one back in 2016 beryllium, and then this year of paper undergoing peer review right now for very similar finding with helium. 07:30:09 You know how those experiments were. Well, the earliest experiments. I believe they were firing a proton beam at a target of brilliant and exciting it, and the transition from the excited state down to the ground state, it might have been another excited 07:30:26 state Come to think of it 07:30:38 And then they recently did a similar experiment with helium bombarding the targets. And when that goes down to the ground state, they detected a similar signal in the 17 billion electronic vote range is slightly smaller divergence angle of around 215 07:30:54 degrees okay and so what happens here is, they have, let's say with beryllium they had a lithium target. Right. 07:31:02 They hit it with. They hit it with a proton beam to turn it into brilliant. And so that would turn it into beryllium in excited state, and then a little bit later on with the detect is what they're detecting a pair of particles electrons and protons are 07:31:19 a positrons. And I guess those decay off into kind of opposite directions, and then you just take those, I guess, and you find out how much kinetic energy they have and that tells you how much energy, they have. 07:31:32 Yeah, so they think that the electron positron pairs are some kind of new particle. So what you're saying is that when you have this extended beryllium state, it has to k into something, and one of those decays is not. 07:31:46 So I guess we should say it's an excited nuclear state of Berlin. 07:31:50 What they suspect, I guess there's a reference to said I didn't read that somebody did go through and actually check but even in the first paper. They said, this is not a possible nuclear decay, that is you can't have the except beryllium basically decay 07:32:04 into this electron positron pair. Yeah, that's interesting. It's kind of shocking, there's been so many particle experiments for so long that the idea of finding something new that doesn't fit within the existing model, especially in Adams that as well 07:32:18 well known and well tested is lithium and beryllium and in helium. It seems so improbable, so it sort of came really came out of left field. I'm not sure if it's completely out of left field. 07:32:30 Let's see if I can. If I can find exactly when the previous studies were done so he references, a bunch of previous studies, he said we went back. Yeah, we investigated the anomalies observed previously in the internal pair creation of a soul vector, 07:32:48 17.6, make an electron volts, and so scalar 18.1 mega electron volts, and one transitions in beryllium. 07:32:56 mega electron volts, and ISO scalar 18.1 mega electron volts, and one transitions in beryllium. And those were done from like 1996 to 2004 this pilot was that by the same Hungarian team that did these experiments. 07:33:08 I think the person associated with that was the beer before Ebo, er, and so he actually looked at these previously. Oh, I see. Is there a couple of other references. 07:33:20 2004 one, I think maybe a theoretical paper that goes through a bunch of different things because I saw was making notes from one of these other papers about a bunch of different possibilities of something rather. 07:33:34 So they already knew there was something that could have happened. 07:33:37 Okay, how did hear about that. But they didn't really have a strong enough signal. So we've seen something that may have been a problem. They didn't know that it was a problem at that point, they didn't have the strong signal booth thing here is that 07:33:50 we both have the signals. 07:33:51 both of the signals. You have about a seven standard deviation signal. Yeah, it's a huge sick, yeah so ones like 6.81 7.2. Both of them are well beyond the five sigma limit, and five signals already pretty stringent, so there's definitely something going 07:34:09 on right. There's something here. You don't know if it's definitely I don't know how many experiments, there are five sigma I'd have to look at it it's got to be extremely small. 07:34:18 Right. 07:34:19 And since you have two things that are both consistent with each other it's almost certainly not seeming as if it's got to be really small, really small chance that it's a statistical anomaly. 07:34:28 That's right. You have to have these things that have these really small probabilities of being a false positive. So almost certainly a real thing. Yeah, it seems like the experimental protocols were strangely enough, into they did get into some real 07:34:41 detail about how they controlled for you know cosmic rays and other kinds of possible errors and the background that convinced thing, and a whole group of businesses from the physics department at UC Irvine and the University of Kentucky to write a theoretical 07:34:59 paper about it. So the 2016 paper is called observations of anomalous internal pair creation in beryllium eight possible indication of a light neutral bosom. 07:35:10 And then later that year thing and his group published paper that was a theoretical analysis of their findings. 07:35:17 Call the proto phobic fifth force interpretation of the observed anomaly and barely made nuclear transitions, there's still the possibility that there could be something structurally I guess going on with a nuclear physics that we've never seen before. 07:35:43 equipment, you know that might have had some kind of air in the data, or there's another particle going on seems like those are the only real three options that we've got, I think the thing that people are looking at is that it should be a park. 07:35:56 Now you chose to look at this photo phobia paper. That's a good one. In the new evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetical x 17 particle hopefully they changed it to hypothetical the lists, like, five groups. 07:36:09 One group that had at least two different interpretations. 07:36:13 One was this quarter of a million vector gauge Buddhism. One was like pseudo scalar particle. There was an axiom. So there's a possibility that it could be an axiom. 07:36:25 There was a light. Zero both Sonic state, and maybe some beyond the Standard Model stuff, like a non standard pigs with extra Higgs bosons, but it seemed like they constrained, several of those and so that in this paper they focused primarily on the vector 07:36:44 pros on interpretation. Right. 07:36:45 Well they did do a lot of constraints in this particular paper. 07:36:48 I guess the first one is is that they don't think it's a scalar, because it violates parody conservation. They don't think it's a pseudo scalar they don't think it's an axiom, because there are severe constraints on the axial, but somebody actually did 07:37:03 sneak in there and try to find the possibility of a axiom that will work. So that will be your pseudo scalar particle for vectors. Well you normally think of is a dark photon, I guess, which is, you know, full time it doesn't matter, but couplings required 07:37:23 or too large for dark. 07:37:27 But what they're saying is that some other better gauge bows could do that as long as it has very weak and very specific coupling to matter. They also say that an axial vectors Okay, an actual vector cage goes on, would be okay but that you know that 07:37:51 like one line, and I can't see anybody else doing anything with it. So, possibly It's okay. And I think they threw out the gravity and possibly as well but i don't I'm not sure. 07:37:57 I didn't see that but I was intrigued because they see no parameter horizon charges. They looked at all the different kinds of charges that a particle can have it looks like all of them are extremely small. 07:38:08 For if it's going to conform to this particle. Yeah, so if we're looking at this in terms of the coupling two different corks. So they said okay, for the up cork. 07:38:20 You know, we have some sort of coupling for the down cork we have some sort of coupling. 07:38:26 And although we haven't tested these directly to figure out what the limits are. There was an experiment I think it was what any 48 slash to. 07:38:38 That was looking for evidence of the dark photon. That was looking for a coupling to an electron which still ends up being important here, and they use that couple weeks for the electron and, you know, some theoretical arguments about would have to happen 07:38:53 to give some idea about what coupling to the EU and the D, or the up and down particles would have to be in order for the proto phobic and Balian vector bows on to the Bible. 07:39:08 Basically, this means that this vector owes on this x 17 would have to couple to the neutron 10 times more strongly than the proton. Yeah, that's really fascinating, the idea that a couple's more strongly to neutrons and electrons and protons. 07:39:28 That's kind of battling. 07:39:30 You know if you figure who's going to couple to the electron that would have something to do with this electrical charge and you'd expect to have, you know, a similar strength reaction with the proton but apparently is the suppression of all interactions 07:39:41 of protons. 07:39:43 They don't understand. Yeah, that's the thing is that they don't really understand why. 07:39:47 And so I'm not really sure about that. I mean, I guess it's not too much less right so you have a couple into the proton may say here would be eight times 10 to the minus four. 07:39:59 And for the electron. It'd be about 1.4 times 10 to the minus three, it's not really even a order of magnitude it's almost not even a factor of two. 07:40:09 So, it's about the same coupling and we're good. Yeah well could produce it, you know, I'd love to see some theoretical analysis try to figure that out. 07:40:18 Is that would help us maybe understand something about the possible fifth force properties you know yeah that's the idea is that you know they're trying to get there. 07:40:28 But first, they have to get to the point where they agree on what the pit forces, right. So, I mean I guess they can keep investigating that as long as it's open open question but as long as there are at least five different viable possibilities. 07:40:42 Just because that's all the ones that are listed here doesn't mean that they're the only possible ones. 07:40:48 In fact there were another four or five that they mentioned in the original paper that I don't know why you might not work anymore. 07:40:56 There are four or five possibilities. And you know, there how many people that are actually working on this. And they're dividing up between four or five different possibilities, you know, could be a very long time. 07:41:09 I mean, how long is the anomalous magnetic moment of the new on been a problem. I don't know I didn't look to see what that was it. The G to magnetic anomaly for me one. 07:41:18 Og minus two magnetic anomaly yeah and that's because it should have magnetic one would have to but it hasn't been normalization it's already that g value should be too. 07:41:29 But it's a little bit different. And that ratio that anomaly for the electron is that super precise number that everybody likes to talk about in quantum electrodynamics and it predicts to at least 10 or 12 decimal places. 07:41:42 Who knows what it is now might be 17. Right. I have a lot of faith in experimental physics. 07:41:48 So, you know, they get that perfectly right with the electron. 07:41:51 And then they have a problem with the new one and other trying to explain, you know how long they've had that problem. I mean, it's been a few decades at least right um I think it's probably been 50 years. 07:42:07 Let me see. Did I bring that book in here with me I did not. 07:42:04 So there's a reference here for a book called rise and fall of the force. 07:42:10 And I been thinking about picking up for quite a while, I saw the reference in one of these papers. And I said okay well I'm picking up now. 07:42:17 But I like. 07:42:19 And I think even before they tried to explain, whatever anomaly with hyper photons. 07:42:25 The first attempt to explain this t minus two for the yuan came from hyper photons. 07:42:33 So, yeah, I think it's been at least since the 60s since the early 60s, what are hyper photons, I'm not familiar with that. Yeah, they didn't. 07:42:41 I'm not sure when they decided they had the problem with it, but they started measuring it in 1961, the G minus two for the newer this Expo zone, if that's what it is. 07:42:53 In the second paper they talked about how the range, and the speed. They gave it a characteristic range of 12. millimeters in a proton diameters like 1.75 centimeters. 07:43:05 So it's several times longer than the width of a proton and they said the characteristic velocity was like point three five See, I haven't done the math trying to figure out what time interval that exists in but it's going to be incredibly small, which 07:43:19 is a problem because I'd love to see how it would interact with other kinds of particles and you know nuclei and so forth but with that incredibly vanishing timeframe, it's going to be hard to imagine they could create that particle and get it to interact 07:43:32 in a way that they could detect what those interactions are like you know yeah I'm not sure so they're still thinking about you know how to confirm this or to figure out what kind of BC, it is, and in the 2019 paper, which is probably 2020 papers since 07:43:47 it hasn't been published yet you know the five different possible experiments that are either running now or will start in the next five years, that will do something that might look at it towards the better gauge goes on, like, the dark light experiment 07:44:03 which is a search for dark photons, but it's in the right energy range to other things like testing whether or not it's a z not particle resident production through higher energy proton beams and stuff like that so there are lots of different ways that 07:44:17 going to look, there's a collaboration named nas 64, which is looking for it. And I think so far they've only been able to rule out certain parameters, and they're upgrading now to do another round of searches is in a 64 Large Hadron Collider team do 07:44:34 you know, I didn't write that down. I think it is a sermon. 07:44:46 And there was one that looked really promising that they won't have the results until 2023 I think, yeah, that was a hazing. I think that one is the LSC one but I'm, I'm looking, I'm trying to look it up right now. 07:44:59 Let's exciting because a replication would be make a huge difference here. You know how to one team reporting these results is problematic to the fazer, the forward search experiment where they just randomly picked out letters to make an occasion. 07:45:15 Why not do. 07:45:17 It has to have a pronounceable name, otherwise we're not going to get funding. So yeah, that one's at the LHC, and that one's been approved and is ready to go in 2023 DNA 64, is that certain but it doesn't say here that it's FPLHCO, you don't need that 07:45:40 Yeah, it seems like a fairly modest requirements. You know, that's what kind of baffles me I'm really glad this. This work is getting some attention in the popular press, because here we are spending, you know, billions of dollars on a huge collider like 07:45:50 the Large Hadron Collider, and we have, you know, just the best article was in the world. Most of them anyway working there to try to find particles and phenomena beyond the standard model that here's this fairly modest experiments and seems to have something 07:46:04 that's worth looking into. I'm really hoping that you know somebody at a university will be like you know what i, we could set this up and and verify this you know that too much trouble or not, you know, this confirm it either way it would be hugely helpful 07:46:18 science. Well, I mean, yeah, I mean if they can find things at this level I mean that's good, right. So, in fact, you know, the more things you can find for cheaper but then I guess they, they didn't really talk about what the properties of the force 07:46:33 could be though they seem like they've tentatively connected, dark matter, but I didn't really get a clear sense even in the theoretical paper for what this pitfalls could be all about. 07:46:43 I mean I don't think they know what some other than there be another xh bows on maybe another field, but they did all that parameter ization on constraining its properties that give you some clues about what that field might be like well at night, I mean 07:46:58 mean it would be a lot like having a very weak, sort of anti electric field that does sort of the opposite as best I can tell by looking right so. 07:47:11 So like we said, you know, the electric field loves protons doesn't like neutrons right. So you might call it put a filter to prototype. 07:47:19 But this force is just the opposite. He likes neutrons, but it doesn't like protons. So it's a protocol. So that's basically all we can say it's quite weak it's at least 1000 times weaker than the electric field, but that's all you can say right now. 07:47:34 I guess it has a mass. So you know that it has, you know some sort of scale, it has some sort of a range, but given the short lifetime and pathway of this particle. 07:47:45 Does that constrain any possible long range effects like this help us get a handle on, I mean, hypothetically, any of the kind of cosmological interactions like dark matter and dark energy was trying to say was that, because it has to have this limited 07:48:06 range, because it has a mass, it has some sort of Decatur, and so because of that, that's what makes it so nice for something like dark matter is that you have this thing with a mass, it disappears before you can see it. 07:48:16 That's something that a dark matter would do. 07:48:18 And then there's another thing we like about Dark Matters we don't want it to really interact with the rest of the matter it's if gravitational right. 07:48:34 Well, one it's very very weak, it has this 10 to the minus three coupling to the optimal downforce. And on top of that, and probably week. It doesn't like protons which means it doesn't like the majority of the matter in the universe which is just, you 07:48:44 know, hydrogen, I guess there's a lot of just protons out there in the interstellar intergalactic medium right tenuous plasma right yeah so, isn't it mostly hydrogen like 90%. 07:48:54 Yeah but, Arthur also a lot of free protons, electrons floating around out there. I think they usually talk about it as a plasma state. The talking about the medium out there. 07:49:03 But if this particle, the case, the case into a positron and electron, then Shouldn't we see a gamma signatures from positron electron annihilation out there, sticky we'd have to see a lot of that for account for the dark matter observations right but 07:49:20 But they be pretty few still right okay yeah I wonder if you know I remember looking at the dark matter curves and everything and thinking that maybe you could actually explain the Galactic rotation curves. 07:49:32 If there was a some kind of repulsive interaction at the outsides of galaxies pushing in. This is a very small acceleration towards the center of galaxies and galaxy clusters that counts for that flat rotation curve so if there was some kind of repulsive 07:49:49 force out there, pressing on the galaxies maybe this could explain it. Because you'd have all those hydrogen atoms out there, it will yeah that is another thing to say about this is the you know the numbers I've been quoting have been absolute value. 07:50:02 So, the actual constraints are, you know, between minus something and plus something could very well do the exact opposite of the electric field, you know where you have something that you think should be attracted it's repulsive. 07:50:15 That's really fascinating. 07:50:17 I remember I was looking. 07:50:18 I did a quick search there was some talk about the X 17 on a Wikipedia page and, and apparently there's, there's a pair of particles which they you know hypothetical particles that they've also done. 07:50:49 unified field theory that wrongly predicted a higher frequency of proton decay, then we've observed experimentally, but there's been attempts to extend that theory to explain that. 07:50:47 And in that theory, you have a very odd number of violation. That was really interesting. So, you know, because the barrier Genesis problem you know is one that still remains unsolved. 07:51:01 They're looking for a mechanism for that, and it would just open up all kinds of new possibilities if you could violate Barry on number you know yeah possibly but I, again, I think we briefly touched on this before the podcast is that I don't think these 07:51:11 are the same things, but they may be, but I don't think they're the same things I think it's just means they don't know. Well yeah, if there is a big force then we're looking at a shift in the architecture of our entire Model of particle physics really 07:51:26 needed additional architecture that we've never seen before. 07:51:29 So, it might it might point that direction or other directions that we hadn't even considered yet. 07:51:34 I mean, the reason why there's all this beyond the standard model in the first place is because there are just enough anomalies that you think there should be something else out there that we have an accountable. 07:51:48 Right there these anomalies are decays of the female songs. So those two K's are a little bit off the G minus two that's a little bit off. Yeah, we're strong CP problem in QCD got plenty of little problems. 07:52:02 And one way to solve those little problems is new particles, you know that might be a fun topic for shows to just inventory. The all the anomalies that we've seen with the standard model so far. 07:52:13 Yes, it would just probably a good review paper out there. This is not a review, but one of the papers that are the 2020 paper. The one that isn't quite out yet. 07:52:24 The new evidence paper. He had a reference to something called resolving the G minus two new and the anomalies with left left the courts and the dark Higgs boson. 07:52:35 And that was by data, whose name I'm familiar with, although I don't really remember where I know, I know the name that digital paper probably has references that would help us find the best reviews for that sort of thing. 07:52:49 All right, that'd be fun. 07:52:50 One of the things that I found impressive about this new paper. I think this is the first time we've ever discussed the paper which hadn't already passed through peer review but it seemed to be very credible to other people in the field, didn't seem like 07:53:01 a big stretch to take a look at this one too. I was impressed by the agreement in the mass, between the beryllium and the helium experiments. I mean it was just within really a fraction of a million that electron volts. 07:53:25 for the paper that we look at it was 16.7 plus or minus point eight five Nicola crumbles. I'm glad you have that handy. But before doing this second paper we're looking at, which is the helium one. 07:53:32 They refine those measurements. 07:53:36 And they've gotten that to 17.01 plus or minus 0.16 mega electron volts. And then after refining those measurements, mostly just repeating the measurement to make sure they saw it twice. 07:53:48 Right. 07:53:51 Because, you know, these are fairly long experiments like year long experiments to do so. 07:53:56 You know you don't just run down to the lab and have data by lunchtime. 07:54:01 That's what I used to say, if I had the samples of he had to make samples of took on for the healing and experiment. They came later than they had the 16.84 plus or minus. 07:54:14 0.36 mega electron volts. So, those first two look really really close. You know, like point one five difference point one five negative electrons differences, but when you have to look at that error, plus you have to look at the fact that when they found 07:54:31 found the better experiment with the beryllium. 07:54:34 It was a little bit higher, but so everything's winner. And there's little overlap there so it very well could be the same particle they're saying they're probably it's. 07:54:47 I mean, at this point, it probably is the same particle, because, because of the overlaps. And it's hard to imagine that they're seeing a structural something in a nuclear physics happening. 07:54:56 Because if you think that would happen to very different energies for hydrogen or beryllium, you know, healing Merlin yeah yeah probably wouldn't be that, but apparently they already ruled that out through theoretical means, I mean they didn't looking 07:55:08 at beryllium for a very long time. 07:55:11 You know you can look at a possible transition and say, well, there's no way to get there from here. We've got a really nice list of brilliance states out there. 07:55:21 So we know what all the transitions are. Yeah, and helium two I mean Jesus we look at these things. This is the dawn of quantum physics. Yeah helium as well but nobody's gone through and done the analysis yet, right, except possibly you know somebody 07:55:37 did the analysis of the nuclear transitions themselves, and that's where they ruled out that it couldn't be a structural thing Zong and Miller i think is the correct one. 07:55:52 Yes long and Miller investigate the possibility to explain the anomaly with a nuclear physics explored the nuclear transition from the nuclear transition form factor as possible origin of the anomaly, and find the required for impact would be unrealistic 07:56:02 for the Berlin nucleus, but it was things group that did the theoretical analysis and did an excellent inventory of all the parameters space, based on all of the different kinds of experiments that could be brought to bear on this energy range and these 07:56:17 kind of transitions, so they did a really focused job for that vector gauge goes on these other people, other people did this stuff for the other, like the ACCION explanation that kind of stuff right. 07:56:29 That's right. 07:56:30 Do you remember anything from their work with they had any encouraging finding this like. Does it seem probable that it could be an ACCION and one of these ACCION like particles. 07:56:39 I didn't read that. 07:56:41 So I don't know and I'm biased against axiom. They've been around for a while people will be looking for them for a while and, you know, we've already eliminated huge categories of axioms. 07:56:53 So at some point they stopped being that interesting. But that's my own bias. 07:56:57 Right. So, people use them to explain just about anything. The originally proposed for strong CP problem, then they decided okay well maybe this will be dark matter maybe just be dark energy with the unexplained inflation with it, and explain wheat prices 07:57:10 with it i mean it's it's used for everything these days. I'm not a big fan of the zones. So, you know, I'm a little more interested in some of these other guys you know when they're looking at like one of the original papers possibilities was a dark z 07:57:24 particle. The dark Zeebo ism, whatever that would mean it could mean the same thing as the vector gauge goes on, we're talking about the political topic because dark only means that you know you can't see it. 07:57:36 So I'm not completely sure how these are related to each other, right, because some of the possibilities and the two different experimental papers at the guy dimensions are extremely similar, but it was just different enough that they really could be 07:58:02 different things, but I don't know enough about any of them, or one of those is this could be the like mediator for the win, articles, which nobody believes in this week, but make the leading them again this will do my understanding this most recent experiment 07:58:05 Make believe in them again this will do my understanding this most recent experiment properly that checking my notes here and I'm seeing that they were firing protons at a helium three target. 07:58:12 And then that absorbs, I guess, a proton and create an excited state of helium for. If it was helium three would have to. 07:58:21 I'm sorry or not helium, not healing hydrogen three. So yeah so that that's what they had to I think that trap that in the matrix of something else was a titanium titanium ti is titanium Right, yeah. 07:58:34 kiss helium so retracted in a titanium target, probably, I guess interstitial needs to be wonder how they're actually doing this, not something that you're going to be able to do in your garage. 07:58:44 Right. 07:58:46 That's a shame I was hoping we can see a little reason garage, physics obvious to do some particle experiments. I told you about the old Scientific American article. 07:58:55 Which one was that build your own atom smasher. Oh yeah. 07:58:59 Yeah, I'll see if I can find a link to that that people can actually read and hopefully we'll have 510 thousand people building, you know, am smashers in the garage. 07:59:09 That's such a great idea. 07:59:12 I think is a great idea. I think it's wonderful. I mean, all you need is a motor. A couple of metal balls some plastic tubes and a giant elastic band, and you'll be good, probably a good idea to lead walls though Huh. 07:59:23 Well, I mean, to be honest, that thing probably can't do anything really really scary. right, because you know you're using a spark or Vandergrift generator to power this I mean it's real mad site is stuff. 07:59:36 Right. So you charge up the standard graph generator, and then you get you get this visible spark between two metal Globes, and that's what's going to provide all the energy for your Adam smashing experiment. 07:59:50 Right. I mean it's awesome. You're not creating a fountain of articles Yeah, I don't know how you're going to get your Jacob's Ladder in there that's extra mad scientist research, you can send that to the mad scientist division at the NSF integrated grant 08:00:03 proposal, because every mad scientist device needs a Jacob's Ladder, or else is just not that film oval. 08:00:11 That's right. 08:00:12 Well, all right, was there anything else in there that that grabbed your attention that you'd like to talk about, I think we've hit the major points, and they've got into a lot of really detailed experimental descriptions and now they've managed to filter 08:00:25 out all the different noise and rule out all these different possibilities they seem to do a great job at that but it just be torture to talk about I think because most people are, you know, including myself, our particle physics specialist and what I 08:00:36 find very interesting for these experimental papers. They are 90% description of the experiment. Right, so unless you've been sitting around doing experimental Nuclear Physics for the past six years in graduate school. 08:00:51 You might have a little bit of a problem trying to interpret what the actually is going on, but that's okay I mean you can sit around and read it and see what they do but most of the specifications here are for purposes of competence really, you know, 08:01:06 you're just telling people. 08:01:08 You know, we've done all the right things we've aligned all the right devices we taken care of this problem that's shown up people we taking care of that problem that's shown up before, and so on, which is really important for an experimental paper that's 08:01:20 what most of the experimental papers is and then you add a little bit of physics on the side. But the big point of the experimental papers really just to say, in this case are valid right yeah this is valid and this is weird, and you better work on it, 08:01:35 and somebody else better send me money. 08:01:38 You that's the big deal there. So that's what I was worried about when you wanted to talk about this is that I sort of had the feeling that this is what these papers would look like. 08:01:47 Yeah, really dry experimental modern particle physics stuff which is, you know, really impenetrable yeah and no Jacob's Ladder so you did not tell us. 08:01:57 Jacob's ladder. 08:01:58 That's the whole thing that's holding this paper up in the review processes, you know, where does the mad scientist equipment actually go. 08:02:06 So that's why looking at this protocol Vic, if worse paper was so interesting. 08:02:11 There is something in there that's telling you something about what it is that could be going on. It's not a lot, right, there's not a lot of data to go, but it does tell you sort of where this would have to show up. 08:02:23 And so I think that's pretty much what we wanted to look at it, I mean we spent most of our time talking about the protocol Vic. It was and that was really really interesting. 08:02:32 I think similarly this data paper and actually I didn't realize it until just, I just looked at this and Jonathan phone is also on that so the phones the guided the worst thing. 08:02:43 And he's also on this lock the data. 08:02:48 Was it on this, so maybe that's why I know, yeah. So, this particular paper was also interesting but you know we can save that to whenever we want to actually talk about leftover works. 08:03:03 So, and the dark expose on instead of the light, exposing the dark Higgs boson, let's do corks and a dark expose on. Doesn't that sound conspiratorial. 08:03:10 It does an alien particle. 08:03:13 So anyway, so we could talk about something like that in the future so we want to hit the weird anomalies that will be pumped. Like I said, I'm sure there's a giant review paper out there that everybody loves they probably have the reference already written 08:03:29 down, and I just didn't download it, because again it's going to be a review paper that's 84 pages. So we'll have to take our time on that one. Well, still yeah I don't know how long it will be sometimes they're only 30 pages but usually those review 08:03:41 papers are really really long, and they're hard to read because you know they'll make a sentence and then they'll have six lines of references, then they'll have another 70. 08:03:49 Sure. 08:03:50 Maybe we can get the abridged version where they just, you know, leave out the references the cliff notes version. 08:03:58 It's not even a cliff notes version, it's really just the pros. 08:04:02 I mean, the reason why they do that is the reason why we do review paper is to get all those references right yeah but still it makes it very very difficult to read them sometimes. 08:04:12 Well, still we love anomalies and this was a good one. I'm glad that we found a nice juicy particle physics anomaly, so hard to come by. And I'm really excited to see where this all heads. 08:04:27 It's a shame that we might have to wait until 2023, another three and a half years or something, to find out, but it's nice to see that something on the horizon will be able to look forward to talking about. 08:04:36 Don't feel too bad about it. I mean, you know, it's been like a month, month and a half since the second paper the second experiment showed up on the archive, you know, and it was only about two or three weeks old it was still getting press when you suggested 08:04:50 it, but then it took us another two or three weeks to record it, and we've got another two episodes I think before I get to this. So, if you're hearing this is a three year wait maybe write two or three months but it's not going to be the hot topic than 08:05:03 it was you know when you suggested it, which is another reason why I don't like doing things that are hot topics. You know I could expedite it but this also makes it very very good 50th episode which is what this is going to be cool. 08:05:15 Well, Happy 50th episode Jim and listeners. Happy 50th episode. I'm glad we've had such a fun time doing this, and I hope everybody enjoys it very, very much. 08:05:27 And we do sometimes hear from aspiring mad scientists on Facebook. 08:05:32 So you know, all you mad scientists out there. I hope you, you get into some good weird physics and give us something to talk about in the years ahead. 08:05:40 Oh yeah. Yeah, that would be good yeah I tell you about my mad scientists account, I must have complained about it while I was in New Orleans because it sort of pissed me off, I'm sorry, everybody. 08:05:50 I'm very very sorry. 08:05:52 You know I'll cut out the paranoia, and put it as an extra special thing for the people on Patreon. 08:06:00 Good stuff, gotta pay to get that. All right, thank you very much Randy. 08:06:04 Thank you, James always good talking with you. It's been nice talking to you will find out something great. Next time, sounds great. Okay fine, but you have just listened to physics frontiers Episode Number 50 x 17 Show Notes for this episode can be found 08:06:20 at frontiers does accept them.com slash 50 show notes include links to related episodes books I mentioned but podcast I think I mentioned the rise and fall of that force, they'll be an Amazon link to that if you'd like to purchase that. 08:06:34 And the papers we discussed in this podcast. If you have any comments, that's a good place to leave comments. You can also go to our Facebook page. And we also have the Reddit page as well. 08:06:44 Thank you. Bye now. -------------------------------------------------------------

← Previous ( Unruh Effect ) ( Gravitational Wave Astronomy ) Next →