Axion Source of Problem

8/14/2019 Axion Source of Problem

1/17


2/17

due to quantum mechanical effects such as anomalies, the would-be NG boson acquires afinite mass; then it is called a pseudo-NG boson.

Typical examples are axions (A0), familons, and Majorons associated, respectively, withspontaneously broken Peccei-Quinn family, and lepton-number symmetries.

One common characteristic for all these particles is that their coupling to the StandardModel particles are suppressed by the energy scale of symmetry breaking, i.e. the decayconstant

where the interaction is described by the Lagrangian

Where

is the Noether current of the spontaneously broken global symmetry. The axionacquires an effective coupling to gluons

Where

is the axion field. The mass of the axion is inversely proportional

to as


3/17

The original axion model assumes

Where

is the scale of the electroweak symmetry breaking, and has two Higgs doublets as

minimal ingredients. The popular mode is to introduce a new scale

Then the coupling becomes weaker, thus one can easily avoid all the existingexperimental limits; such models are called invisible axion models. The invisible axionwith a large decay constant

was found to be a good candidate of the cold dark matter component of theUniverse. The energy density is stored in the low-momentum modes of the axion fieldwhich are highly occupied and thus represent essentially classical field oscillations.

The constraints on the invisible axion from astrophysics are derived from interactions of the axion with either photons, electrons or nucleons. The strengths of the interactions aremodel dependent. All experiments to date imply their mass in the range of

.

A variety of robust astrophysical arguments and laboratory experiments sets a further limit at


4/17

The important issue is these and the Neutrinos can be generated via high energy plasmafields.

Axions mediate a CP violating monopole-dipole Yukawa-type gravitational interaction potential in the form of Non-Newtonian monopole-dipole couplings. The potential hasthe form

between spin and matter where g sg p is the product of couplings at the scalar and polarizedvertices and is the range of the force.

Our Brane lensing in a fashion is rather Non-Newtonian here also which could be co-related. in our case would have to be longer range than the orbit of Pluto(ie about afigure where their gravitational confinement in solar orbit filling in as r gives a value thatdrops at a rate where beyond Pluto wed get our measured slowdown rate. Some of theodd spin related experiments with gravity control could be related to this. Such a longrange coupling would be good for our proposed field generator. We also might be able toincrease coupling strength here to generate an even stronger field gravitationalinteraction.

Familons arise when there is a global family symmetry broken spontaneously. A familysymmetry interchanges generations or acts on different generations differently. Such asymmetry may explain the structure of quark and lepton masses and their mixings. Afamilon could be either a scalar or a pseudoscalar. Some of them have flavor-off-diagonal couplings such as

and the decay constant F can be different for individual operators.

If there is a global lepton-number symmetry and if it breaks spontaneously, there is aMajoron. Since a decay of neutrinos into electrons or photons is severely constrained,these scenarios require a familon (Majoron) mode

.

String theory also provides sufficiently good symmetries, especially using a large


5/17

compactification radius motivated by recent developments in M-theory. But this alsoshows one of the problems with all the different ideas is Supersymmetry, String Theory,and Brane theory all have similar particles and one can mimic the other when weexperimentally look for evidence.

Low-mass weakly-interacting particles (neutrinos, gravitons, axions, baryonic or leptonicgauge bosons, etc.) are produced in hot plasmas and thus represent an energy-losschannel for stars. The strength of the interaction with photons, electrons, and nucleonscan be constrained from the requirement that stellar evolution time scales are notmodified beyond observational limits. One of these is the origin point of our Suns local

brane lensing effect.

The energy-loss rates are steeply increasing functions of temperature T and density .Because the new channel has to compete with the standard neutrino losses which tend toincrease even faster, the best limits arise from low-mass stars,notably from horizontal-

branch (HB) stars which have a helium burning core of about 0.5 solar masses at

And

The new bosons X0 interact with electrons and nucleons with a dimensionless strength g.For scalars it is a Yukawa coupling, for new gauge bosons (e.g., from a baryonic or leptonic gauge symmetry) a gauge coupling. Axion-like pseudoscalars couplederivatively as

with f an energy scale. Usually this is equal to

with m the mass the fermion so that g = 2m/f. For the coupling to electrons, globular-

cluster stars yield the constraint


6/17

if mX 10 keV. Scalar and vector bosons mediate long-range forces whichare severely constrained by fifth-force experiments. With the massless case the bestlimits come from tests of the equivalence principle in the solar system, leading to

for a baryonic or leptonic gauge coupling.

Structure formation in warm dark matter (WDM) cosmological models provides a lower

limit to the mass of the WDM particle candidate of but with aradiative decay lifetime as large as

Hubble time; however, halos in Galaxies and clusters of Galaxies can be anenormous in volume. Based upon current observation the step-like change of the coronatemperature coincides in space with a similar (opposite) density gradient, thus suggestinga common origin. This peculiar behavior of the Sun atmosphere is suggestive for someexternal irradiation (pressure)acting on the whole Sun, and only such a configuration cancause the compression and the heating of the intervening solar atmosphere, Dependingon the energy, these photons are absorbed mainly at a certain depth due to the exponentialincrease of the density with decreasing height of the solar atmosphere. One should keepin mind that the density at the place where both steps occur is

which would be a perfect vacuum by standards whichactually does not facilitate a conventional explanation of this observation since the

column density in the solar atmosphere at an altitude of is

respectively.

The mean axion decay length must be much shorter than the Sun-Earth distance, becausewe know that most of the solar X-rays originate from a region near the solar surface. So,

a mean axion lifetime of the order of one minute, or shorter is needed. The

decay rate would then be


7/17

Where coupling constant and is the axion mass. For masses around 1 KeV and a mean lifetime of 1 minute

thus no axions can emerge from the Sun

because the mean free path for conversions is shorter than the solar radius.

This inconsistency can be avoided by assuming that the main source of solar X-raysconsists of accumulated long-lived axions, which are gravitationally trapped in closed

orbits around the Sun. In this scenario can be small and, therefore, the axioninteraction mean free path in the Sun becomes extremely long. In this framework axionsmust not have a unique mass value, because in this case the trapped axions have very lowvelocities and they decay to X-rays which are almost mono-energetic.

This scenario requires one to use a simulation program based on the Kaluza-Klein (KK)axion model. In this model axions are produced by the mechanisms of photoncoalescence

The total solar axion luminosity is given by

where A is a numerical coefficient, is the standard

solar luminosity, and is the number of extra dimensions. In this model axions with acontinuous mass distribution between 0.01 and 20 keV are isotropically generated at

different radii inside the Sun if we for sake of argument set the value of dimensions at 2.What we would end up with is these axions would be responsible for

a) the solar corona problem and related observations; b) the observed X-rays from the direction of the dark side of the Moon;c) the soft-X-ray background radiation;d) the (diffuse) soft X-ray excess phenomenon;e) first simulation results in the frame of an axion scenario.


8/17

f.) Local brane lensing effects on value of C.

So as you see we have at least 2 possible solar particle series that could be used to explaincertain observational data and problems. Alternatively, a more or less isotropic radiativedecay of other hypothetical particles, e.g. massive neutrinos, could in principle also

explain the astrophysical observations considered here. Only laboratory experimentscould clarify this issue. A temperature (component) of a few 106K (_ 0.3 keV ), whichappears in so diverse astrophysical places, such as from the solar corona to Clusters of Galaxies and probably beyond, is associated with several unexpected significantobservations. In order to explain this in a combined way, we reach the conclusion thatsome new particles must be involved. The normal path to find these is the KK series.

Here we find two possible candidates fit the picture well. Axions has the added benefit of explaining another standard model problem the matter/anti-matter unbalance. Axion-like

particles escape from their place of birth, e.g., from the interior of the Sun (or that of other Stars in the Sky), get gravitationally trapped and decay in outer space. In this long

term decay processes they shed their energy into local brane lensing and contribute inother ways to local solar dynamics.

If an axion related luminosity of applies to all stars and the axion lifetime is

this gives a ratio of

.

A generic axion model along with the assumption that the Sun is representative for allstars in the Universe agrees well with the cosmic energy density spectrum and with thelocal coronal problems with the axion-to-photon energy Ratio of

.I would also suspect that both the density values and the mass values for these axionswould fit well with the Israel condition energy requirements. But, as mentioned, so do

the KK series neutrinos.

However, in this case with no internal source of gravitational capture to provide amechanism to keep possible field generated axions in near craft vicinity the range of any

possible FL generator would be highly speculative. The question then becomes wouldany axion field particles provide the same brane lensing effect or would they simply justspread out with no effect. So we might be faced here with a similar problem we had withconventional AWD on how to create a rather large gravity field and keep the crew at


9/17

space normal conditions. Ive seen little work on the idea of EM field containment of Axions to date. But it might provide a solution if someone wants to tackle that aspect justto answer a future objection that could be raised here.

Figure 1: Astrophysical and cosmological exclusion regions(hatched) for the axion mass. W.-M. Yao et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 33, 1(2006) (URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov)


10/17


11/17


12/17


13/17


14/17


15/17

Mirror Branes is another possible avenue. However, first off this would require somecoupling mechanism between bulk and the two branes that so far has not surfaced in anymodeling where both branes modify or subtract from gravity.

The strongest question here would be why they do so in system and not external. Youd be left with a weird model in which the two branes only couple where Star systems or large structures of matter exist. This would require something like a folded model wherethe single brane folds over and for some reason or reasons (ie Bulk coupling) hasduplicated itself an exact image in both sides and the two fields via an unexplainedthrough bulk coupling weaken gravity locally.

Simular to something I once tried modeling a bit to explain the old emitter-absorber ideawith tachyon like properties. Also suggestive of aspects of the older Bohm Pilot waveidea. Wed then have to find a way to strengthen this coupling and increase the effect.


16/17

References1. M.S. Turner, Phys. Reports 197, 67 (1990);G.G. Raffelt, Phys. Reports 198, 1 (1990).2. G.G. Raffelt, Stars as Laboratories for FundamentalPhysics (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996).

3. D.A. Dicus, E.W. Kolb, V.L. Teplitz, and R.V. Wagoner,Phys. Rev. D18, 1829 (1978);G.G. Raffelt and A. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D51, 1495 (1995).4. J.A. Grifols and E. Masso, Phys. Lett. B173, 237 (1986);J.A. Grifols, E. Masso, and S. Peris, Mod. Phys. Lett. A4,311 (1989).5. E. Fischbach and C. Talmadge, Nature 356, 207 (1992).6. L.B. Okun, Yad. Fiz. 10, 358 (1969) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.10, 206 (1969)];S.I. Blinnikov et al., Nucl. Phys. B458, 52 (1996).7. G.G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D33, 897 (1986);

G.G. Raffelt and D. Dearborn, ibid. 36, 2211 (1987).8. J. Ellis and K.A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B193, 525 (1987);G.G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1793(1988).9. M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1797 (1988);A. Burrows, M.T. Ressell, and M. Turner, Phys. Rev.D42, 3297 (1990).10. H.-T. Janka, W. Keil, G. Raffelt, and D. Seckel, Phys.Rev. Lett. 76, 2621 (1996);W. Keil et al., Phys. Rev. D56, 2419 (1997).11. J. Engel, D. Seckel, and A.C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65,960 (1990).12. M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2489 (1987).13. M.A. Bershady, M.T. Ressell, and M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev.Lett. 66, 1398 (1991);M.T. Ressell, Phys. Rev. D44, 3001 (1991);J.M. Overduin and P.S. Wesson, Astrophys. J. 414, 449(1993).14. J. Preskill, M. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B120,127 (1983);L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, ibid. 133;M. Dine and W. Fischler, ibid. 137;M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 889 (1986).15. D.H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B236, 408 (1990);M.S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 5(1991);A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B259, 38 (1991).16. E.P.S. Shellard and R.A. Battye, Inflationary axion cosmologyrevisited, in preparation (1998);The main results can be found in: E.P.S. Shellard and


17/17

R.A. Battye, astro-ph/9802216.17. R.L. Davis, Phys. Lett. B180, 225 (1986);R.L. Davis and E.P.S. Shellard, Nucl. Phys. B324, 167(1989).18. R.A. Battye and E.P.S. Shellard, Nucl. Phys. B423, 260

(1994);Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2954 (1994) (E) ibid. 76, 2203 (1996);astro-ph/9706014, to be published in: Proceedings Dark Matter 96, Heidelberg, ed. by H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothausand Y. Ramacher.19. D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B195, 361 (1987);C. Hagmann and P. Sikivie, Nucl. Phys. B363, 247 (1991).20. C. Hagmann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2043 (1998).21. I. Ogawa, S. Matsuki, and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D53,R1740 (1996).22, Illustrations and some figures come from AXIONS AND OTHER VERY LIGHT

BOSONS, PART III (EXPERIMENTAL LIMITS)(Revised November 2003 by C. Hagmann, K. van Bibber, and L.J. Rosenberg, LLNL)

Axion Source of Problem

Documents

Transcript of Axion Source of Problem