Neutrino Dragon Omniphysics

admin · Dec 27, 2014

The first Ylemic Stars in the Universe and the Antiwormholes

The stability of stars is a function of the equilibrium condition, which balances the inward pull of gravity with the outward pressure of the thermodynamic energy or enthalpy of the star (H=PV+U). The Jeans Mass M_J and the Jeans Length R_J a used to describe the stability conditions for collapsing molecular hydrogen clouds to form stars say, are well known in the scientific data base, say in formulations such as:

M_J=3kTR/2Gm for a Jeans Length of: R_J=√{15kT/(4πρGm)}=R_J =√(kT/Gnm²).

Now the Ideal Gas Law of basic thermodynamics states that the internal pressure P and Volume of such an ideal gas are given by PV=nRT=NkT for n moles of substance being the Number N of molecules (say) divided by Avogadro's Constant L in n=N/L .

Since the Ideal Gas Constant R divided by Avogadro's Constant L and defines Boltzmann's Constant k=R/L. Now the statistical analysis of kinetic energy KE of particles in motion in a gas (say) gives a root-mean-square velocity (rms) and the familiar 2.KE=mv²(rms) from the distribution of individual velocities v in such a system.

It is found that PV=(2/3)N.KE as a total system described by the v(rms). Now set the KE equal to the Gravitational PE=GMm/R for a spherical gas cloud and you get the Jeans Mass. (3/2N).(NkT)=GMm/R with m the mass of a nucleon or Hydrogen atom and M=M_J=3kTR/2Gm as stated.

The Jeans' Length is the critical radius of a cloud (typically a cloud of interstellar dust) where thermal energy, which causes the cloud to expand, is counteracted by gravity, which causes the cloud to collapse. It is named after the British astronomer Sir James Jeans, who first derived the quantity; where k is Boltzmann Constant, T is the temperature of the cloud, r is the radius of the cloud, μ is the mass per particle in the cloud, G is the Gravitational Constant and ρ is the cloud's mass density (i.e. the cloud's mass divided by the cloud's volume).

Now following the Big Bang, there were of course no gas clouds in the early expanding universe and the Jeans formulations are not applicable to the mass seedling M_o; in the manner of the Jeans formulations as given.

However, the universe's dynamics is in the form of the expansion parameter of GR and so the R(n)=R_max(n/(n+1)) scalefactor of Quantum Relativity.
So we can certainly analyse this expansion in the form of the Jeans Radius of the first protostars, which so obey the equilibrium conditions and equations of state of the much later gas clouds, for which the Jeans formulations then apply on a say molecular level.
This analysis so defines the ylemic neutron stars as protostars and the first stars in the cosmogenesis and the universe.

Let the thermal internal energy or ITE=H be the outward pressure in equilibrium with the gravitational potential energy of GPE=Ω. The nuclear density in terms of the superbrane parameters is ρ_critical=m_c/V_critical with m_c a base-nuleon mass for a 'ylemic neutron'.

V_critical= 4πR_e³/3 or the volume for the ylemic neutron as given by the classical electron radius R_e=10¹⁰λ_wormhole/360=e*/2c².

H=(molarity)kT for molar volume as N=(R/R_e)³ for dH=3kTR²/R_e³.
Ω(R)= -∫G_oMdm/R = -{3G_om_c²/(R_e³)² }∫R⁴dR = -3G_om_c²R⁵/R_e⁶ for
dm/dR=d(ρV)/dR=4πρR² and for ρ=3m_c/4πR_e³

For equilibrium, the requirement is that dH=dΩ in the minimum condition dH+dΩ=0.
This gives: dH+dΩ=3kTR²/R_e³ - 16G_oπ²ρ²R⁴/3=0 and the ylemic radius as:

R_ylem=√{kTR_e/G_om_c²}

as the Jeans-Length precursor or progenitor for subsequent stellar and galactic generation.

The ylemic (Jeans) radii are all independent of the mass of the star as a function of its nuclear generated temperature. Applied to the protostars of the vortex neutron matter or ylem, the radii are all neutron star radii and define a specific range of radii for the gravitational collapse of the electron degenerate matter.

This spans from the 'First Three Minutes' scenario of the cosmogenesis to 1.1 million seconds (or about 13 days) and encompasses the standard beta decay of the neutron (underpinning radioactivity). The upper limit defines a trillion degree temperature and a radius of over 40 km; the trivial Schwarzschild solution gives a typical ylem radius of so 7.4 kilometers and the lower limit defines the 'mysterious' planetesimal limit as 1.8 km.

For long a cosmological conundrum, it could not be modelled just how the molecular and electromagnetic forces applicable to conglomerate matter distributions (say gaseous hydrogen as cosmic dust) on the quantum scale of molecules could become strong enough to form say 1km mass concentrations, required for 'ordinary' gravity to assume control.

The ylem radii's lower limit is defined in this cosmology then show, that it is the ylemic temperature of the 1.2 billion degrees K, which perform the trick under the Ylem-Jeans formulation and which then is applied to the normal collapse of hydrogenic atoms in summation.

The stellar evolution from the ylemic (dineutronic) templates is well established in QR and confirms most of the Standard Model's ideas of nucleosynthesis and the general Temperature cosmology. The standard model is correct in the temperature assignment, but is amiss in the corresponding 'size-scales' for the cosmic expansion.

The Big Bang cosmogenesis describes the universe as a Planck-Black Body Radiator, which sets the Cosmic-Microwave-Black Body Background Radiation Spectrum (CMBBR) as a function of n as T⁴=18.2(n+1)²/n³ and derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law and the related statistical frequency distributions.

We have the GR metric for Schwarzschild-Black Hole Evolution as R_S=2GM/c² as a function of the star's Black Hole's mass M and we have the ylemic Radius as a function of temperature only as R_ylem√(kT.R_e³/G_om_c²).

The nucleonic mass-seed m_c=m_P.Alpha⁹ and the product G_om_c² is a constant in the partitioned n-evolution of

m_c(n)=Yⁿ.m_c and G(n)=G_o.Xⁿ.

Identifying the ylemic Radius with the Schwarzschild Radius then indicates a specific mass a specific temperature and a specific radius.

Those we call the Chandrasekhar Parameters:
M_Chandra=1.5 solar Masses=3x10³⁰ kg and R_Chandra=2G_oM_Chandra/c² or 7407.40704..metres, which is the typical neutron star radius inferred today.

T_Chandra=R_Chandra².G_om_c²/kR_e³ =1.985x10¹⁰ K for Electron Radius R_e and Boltzmann's Constant k.

Those Chandrasekhar parameters then define a typical neutron star with a uniform temperature of 20 billion K at the white dwarf limit of ordinary stellar nucleosynthetic evolution (Hertzsprung-Russell or HR-diagram).
The Radius for the massparametric Universe is given in R(n)=R_max(1-n/(n+1)) correlating the ylemic temperatures as the 'uniform' CMBBR-background and we can follow the evolution of the ylemic radius via the approximation:

R_ylem=0.05258..√T=(0.0753).[(n+1)²/n³]^[1/8]

R_ylem(n_present=1.1324..)=0.0868 m* for a T_ylem(n_present )=2.73 K for the present time
t_present=n_present/H_o.

What then is n_Chandra?
This would describe the size of the universe as the uniform temperature CMBBR today manifesting as the largest stars, mapped however onto the ylemic neutron star evolution as the protostars (say as n_Chandra'), defined not in manifested mass (say neutron conglomerations), but as a quark-strange plasma, (defined in QR as the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE).

R(n_Chandra')=R_max(n_Chandra'/(n_Chandra'+1))=7407.40741.. for n_Chandra'=4.64x10^-23 and so a time of t_Chandra'=n_Chandra'/H_o=n_Chandra'/1.88x10^-18=2.47x10^-5 seconds.

QR defines the Weyl-Temperature limit for Bosonic Unification as 1.9 nanoseconds at a temperature of 1.4x10²⁰ Kelvin and the weak-electromagnetic unification at 1/365 seconds at T=3.4x10¹⁵ K.

So we place the first ylemic protostar after the bosonic unification (before which the plenum was defined as undifferentiated 'bosonic plasma'), but before the electro-weak unification, which defined the Higgs-Bosonic restmass induction via the weak interaction vector-bosons and allowing the dineutrons to be born.

The universe was so 15 km across, when its ylemic 'concentrated' VPE-Temperature was so 20 Billion K and we find the CMBBR in the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law as:
T⁴=18.20(n+1)²/n³=1.16x10¹⁷ Kelvin.

So the thermodynamic temperature for the expanding universe was so 5.85 Million times greater than the ylemic VPE-Temperature; and implying that no individual ylem stars could yet form from the mass seedling M_o.

The universe's expansion however cooled the CMBBR background and we to calculate the scale of the universe corresponding to this ylemic scenario; we simply calculate the 'size' for the universe at T_Chandra=20 Billion K for T_Chandra⁴ and we then find n_Chandra=4.89x10^-14 and t_Chandra=26,065 seconds or so 7.24 hours.

The Radius R(n_Chandra)=7.81x10¹² metres or 7.24 lighthours.
This is about 52 Astronomical Units and an indicator for the largest possible star in terms of radial extent and the 'size' of a typical solar system, encompassed by supergiants on the HR-diagram.

We so know that the ylemic temperature decreases in direct proportion to the square of the ylemic radius and one hitherto enigmatic aspect in cosmology relates to this in the planetesimal limit. Briefly, a temperature of so 1.2 billion degrees defines an ylemic radius of 1.8 km as the dineutronic limit for proto-neutron stars contracting from so 80 km down to this size just 1.1 million seconds or so 13 days after the Big Bang.

This then 'explains' why chunks of matter can conglomerate via molecular and other adhesive interactions towards this size, where then the accepted gravity is strong enough to build planets and moons. It works, because the ylemic template is defined in subatomic parameters reflecting the mesonic-inner and leptonic outer ring boundaries, the planetesimal limit being the leptonic mapping. So neutrino- and quark blueprints micromacro dance their basic definition as the holographic projections of the spacetime quanta.

Now because the Electron Radius is directly proportional to the linearised wormhole perimeter and then the Compton Radius via Alpha in R_e=10¹⁰λ_wormhole/360=e*/2c²=Alpha.R_Compton, the Chandrasekhar White Dwarf limit should be doubled to reflect the protonic diameter mirrored in the classical electron radius.

Hence any star experiencing electron degeneracy is actually becoming ylemic or dineutronic, the boundary for this process being the Chandrasekhar mass. This represents the subatomic mapping of the first Bohr orbit collapsing onto the leptonic outer ring in the quarkian wave-geometry.
But this represents the Electron Radius as a Protonic Diameter and the Protonic Radius must then indicate the limit for the scale where proton degeneracy would have to enter the scenario. As the proton cannot degenerate in that way, the neutron star must enter Black Hole phasetransition at the R_e/2 scale, corresponding to a mass of 8M_Chandra=24x10³⁰ kg* or 12 solar masses.

The maximum ylemic radius so is found from the constant density proportion ρ=M/V:
(R_ylemmax/R_e)³=M_Chandra/m_c for R_ylemmax=40.1635 km.

The corresponding ylemic temperature is 583.5 Billion K for a CMBBR-time of 287 seconds or so 4.8 minutes from a n=5.4x10^-16, when the universe had a diameter of so 173 Million km.
But for a maximum nuclear compressibility for the protonic radius, we find:

(R_ylemmax/R_e)³=8M_Chandra/m_c for R_ylemmax=80.327 km, a ylemic temperature of 2,334 Billion K for a n-cycletime of 8.5x10^-17 and a CMBBR-time of so 45 seconds and when the universe had a radius of 13.6 Million km or was so 27 Million km across.

The first ylemic protostar vortex was at that time manifested as the ancestor for all neutron star generations to follow. This vortex is described in a cosmic string encircling a spherical region so 160 km across and within a greater universe of diameter 27 Million km which carried a thermodynamic temperature of so 2.33 Trillion Kelvin at that point in the cosmogenesis.

This vortex manifested as a VPE concentration after the expanding universe had cooled to allow the universe to become transparent from its hitherto defining state of opaqueness and a time known as the decoupling of matter (in the form of the M_o seedling partitioned in m_c's) from the radiation pressure of the CMBBR photons.

The temperature for the decoupling is found in the galactic scale-limit modular dual to the wormhole geodesic as 1/λ_wormhole=λ_antiwormhole=λ_{galaxyserpent}=10²² metres or so 1.06 Million ly and its luminosity attenuation in the 1/e proportionality for then 388,879 lightyears as a decoupling time n_decoupling.

A maximum galactic halo limit is modulated in 2πλ_antiwormhole metres in the linearisation of the Planck-length encountered before in an earlier discussion.

R(n_decoupling)=R_max(n_decoupling/(n_decouplingc+1))=10²² metres for n_decoupling=6.26x10^-5 and so for a CMBBR-Temperature of about T=2935 K for a galactic protocore then attenuated in so 37% for n_{decouplingmin}=1.0x10^-6 for R=λ_antiwormhole/2π and n_{decouplingmax}=3.9x10^-4 for R=2πλ_antiwormhole and for temperatures of so 65,316 K and 744 K respectively, descriptive of the temperature modulations between the galactic cores and the galactic halos.

So a CMBBR-temperature of so 65,316 K at a time of so 532 Billion seconds or 17,000 years defined the initialisation of the VPE and the birth of the first ylemic protostars as a decoupling minimum. The ylemic mass currents were purely monopolic and known as superconductive cosmic strings, consisting of nucleonic neutrons, each of mass m_c.

If we assign this timeframe to the maximised ylemic radius and assign our planetesimal limit of fusion temperature 1.2 Billion K as a corresponding minimum; then this planetesimal limit representing the onset of stellar fusion in a characteristic temperature, should indicate the first protostars at a temperature of the CMBBR of about 744 Kelvin.

The universe had a tremperature of 744 K for n_{decouplingmax}=3.9x10^-4 for R=2πλ_antiwormhole and this brings us to a curvature radius of so 6.6 Million lightyears and an 'ignition-time' for the first physical ylemic neutron stars as first generation protostars of so 7 Million years after the Big Bang.

The important cosmological consideration is that of distance-scale modulation.
The Black Hole Schwarzschild metric is the inverse of the galactic scale metric.
The linearisation of the Planck-String as the Weyl-Geodesic and so the wormhole radius in the curvature radius R(n) is modular dual and mirrored in inversion in the manifestation of galactic structure with a nonluminous halo a luminous attenuated diameter-bulge and a superluminous (quasar or White Hole Core).

The core-bulge ratio will so reflect the eigenenergy quantum of the wormhole as heterotic Planck-Boson-String or as the magnetocharge as 1/500, being the mapping of the Planck-Length-Bounce as e=l_P.c²√Alpha onto the electron radius in e*=2R_e.c².

Hypersphere volumes and the mass of the Tau-neutrino

Consider the universe's thermodynamic expansion to proceed at an initializing time (and practically at lightspeed for the lightpath x=ct describing the hypersphere radii) to from a single spacetime quantum with a quantized toroidal volume 2π²r_w³ and where r_w is the characteristic wormhole radius for this basic building unit for a quantized universe (say in string parameters given in the Planck scale and its transformations).

At a time t_G, say so 18.85 minutes later, the count of space time quanta can be said to be 9.677x10¹⁰² for a universal 'total hypersphere radius' of about r_G=3.39x10¹¹ meters and for a G-Hypersphere volume of so 7.69x10³⁵cubic meters.

{This radius is about 2.3 Astronomical Units (AUs) and about the distance of the Asteroid Belt from the star Sol in a typical (our) solar system.}

This modelling of a mapping of the quantum-microscale onto the cosmological macroscale should now indicate the mapping of the wormhole scale onto the scale of the sun itself.

r_w/R_Sun(i)=R_e/r_E for R_Sun(i)=r_wr_E/R_e=1,971,030 meters. This gives an 'inner' solar core of diameter about 3.94x10⁶ meters.

As the classical electron radius is quantized in the wormhole radius in the formulation R_e=10¹⁰r_w/360, rendering a finestructure for Planck's Constant as a 'superstring-parametric': h=r_w/2R_ec³; the 'outer' solar scale becomes R_Sun(o)=360R_Sun(i)=7.092x10⁸ meters as the observed radius for the solar disk.

19 seconds later; a F-Hypersphere radius is about r_F=3.45x10¹¹ meters for a F-count of so 1.02x10¹⁰³spacetime quanta. We also define an E-Hypersphere radius at r_E=3.44x10¹⁴ meters and an E-count of so 10¹¹² to circumscribe this 'solar system' in so 230 AU.

We so have 4 hypersphere volumes, based on the singularity-unit and magnified via spacetime quantization in the hyperspheres defined in counters G, F and E. We consider these counters as somehow fundamental to the universe's expansion, serving as boundary conditions in some manner. As counters, those googol-numbers can be said to be defined algorithmically and independent on mensuration physics of any kind.

The mapping of the atomic nucleus onto the thermodynamic universe of the hyperspheres

Should we consider the universe to follow some kind of architectural blueprint; then we might attempt to use our counters to be isomorphic (same form or shape) in a one-to-one mapping between the macrocosmos and the microcosmos. So we define a quantum geometry for the nucleus in the simplest atom, say Hydrogen. The hydrogenic nucleus is a single proton of quark-structure udu and which we assign a quantum geometric template of Kernel-InnerRing-OuterRing (K-IR-OR), say in a simple model of concentricity.

We set the up-quarks (u) to become the 'smeared out core' in say a tripartition uuu so allowing a substructure for the down-quark (d) to be u+InnerRing. A down-quark so is a unitary ring coupled to a kernel-quark. The proton's quark-content so can be rewritten and without loss of any of the properties associated with the quantum conservation laws; as proton-> udu->uuu+IR=KKK+IR. We may now label the InnerRing as Mesonic and the OuterRing as Leptonic.

The OuterRing is so definitive for the strange quark in quantum geometric terms: s=u+OR.
A neutron's quark content so becomes neutron=dud=KIR.K.KIR with a 'hyperon resonance' in the lambda=sud=KOR.K.KIR and so allowing the neutron's beta decay to proceed in disassociation from a nucleus (where protons and neutrons bind in meson exchange); i.e. in the form of 'free neutrons'.

The neutron decays in the oscillation potential between the mesonic inner ring and the leptonic outer ring as the 'ground-energy' eigenstate.

There actually exist three uds-quark states which decay differently via strong, electromagnetic and weak decay rates in the uds (Sigma^o Resonance); usd (Sigma^o) and the sud (Lambda^o) in increasing stability.
This quantum geometry then indicates the behaviour of the triple-uds decay from first principles, whereas the contemporary standard model does not, considering the u-d-s quark eigenstates to be quantum geometrically undifferentiated.
The nuclear interactions, both strong and weak are confined in a ' Magnetic Asymptotic Confinement Limit
coinciding with the Classical Electron Radius R_e=ke²/m_ec² and in a scale of so 3 Fermi or 2.8x10^-15 meters. At a distance further away from this scale, the nuclear interaction strength vanishes rapidly.

The wavenature of the nucleus is given in the Compton-Radius R_c=h/2πmc with m the mass of the nucleus, say a proton; the latter so having R_c=2x10^-16 meters or so 0.2 fermi.

The wave-matter (after de Broglie generalising wavespeed v_dB from c in R_cc) then relates the classical electron radius as the 'confinement limit' to the Compton scale in the electromagnetic finestructure constant in R_e=Alpha.R_c.

The extension to the Hydrogen-Atom is obtained in the expression R_e=Alpha².R_Bohr1 for the first Bohr-Radius as the 'ground-energy' of so 13.7 eV at a scale of so 10^-11 to 10^-10 meters (Angstroems).
These 'facts of measurements' of the standard models now allow our quantum geometric correspondences to assume cosmological significance in their isomorphic mapping. We denote the OuterRing as the classical electron radius and introduce the InnerRing as a mesonic scale contained within the geometry of the proton and all other elementary baryonic- and hadronic particles.

Firstly, we define a mean macro-mesonic radius as: r_M=½(r_F+r_G)~ 3.42x10¹¹ meters and set the macro-leptonic radius to r_E=3.44x10¹⁴ meters.
Secondly, we map the macroscale onto the microscale, say in the simple proportionality relation, using
(de)capitalised symbols: R_e/R_m=r_E/r_M.

We can so solve for the micro-mesonic scale R_m=R_e.r_M/r_E ~ 2.76x10^-18 meters.
So reducing the apparent measured 'size' of a proton in a factor about about 1000 gives the scale of the subnuclear mesonic interaction, say the strong interaction coupling by pions.

The Higgsian Scalar-Neutrino

The (anti)neutrinos are part of the electron mass in a decoupling process between the kernel and the rings. Neutrino mass is so not cosmologically significant and cannot be utilized in 'missing mass' models'.
We may define the kernel-scale as that of the singular spacetime-quantum unit itself, namely as the wormhole radius r_w=10^-22/2π meters.

Before the decoupling between kernel and rings, the kernel-energy can be said to be strong-weakly coupled or unified to encompass the gauge-gluon of the strong interaction and the gauge-weakon of the weak interaction defined in a coupling between the OuterRing and the Kernel and bypassing the mesonic InnerRing.

So for matter, a W-Minus ( weakon) must consist of a coupled lepton part, yet linking to the strong interaction via the kernel part. If now the colour-charge of the gluon transmutates into a 'neutrino-colour-charge'; then this decoupling will not only define the mechanics for the strong-weak nuclear unification coupling; but also the energy transformation of the gauge-colour charge into the gauge-lepton charge.

There are precisely 8 gluonic transitive energy permutation eigenstates between a 'radiative-additive' Planck energy in W(hite)=E=hf and an 'inertial-subtractive' Einstein energy in B(lack)=E=mc², which describe the baryonic- and hyperonic 'quark-sectors' in: mc²=BBB, BBW, WBB, BWB, WBW, BWW, WWB and WWW=hf.
The permutations are cyclic and not linearly commutative. For mesons (quark-antiquark eigenstates), the permutations are BB, BW, WB and WW in the SU(2) and SU(3) Unitary Symmetries.

So generally, we may state, that the gluon is unfied with a weakon before decoupling; this decoupling 'materialising' energy in the form of mass, namely the mass of the measured 'weak-interaction-bosons' of the standard model (W^- for charged matter; W⁺ for charged antimatter and Z^o for neutral mass-currents say).

Experiment shows, that a W^- decays into spin-aligned electron-antineutrino or muon-antineutrino or tauon-antineutrino pairings under the conservation laws for momentum and energy.
So, using our quantum geometry, we realise, that the weakly decoupled electron must represent the OuterRing, and just as shown in the analysis of QED ( Quantum-Electro-Dynamics). Then it can be inferred, that the Electron's Antineutrino represents a transformed and materialised gluon via its colourcharge, now decoupled from the kernel.

Then the OuterRing contracts (say along its magnetoaxis defining its asymptotic confinement); in effect 'shrinking the electron' in its inertial and charge- properties to its experimentally measured 'point-particle-size'. Here we define this process as a mapping between the Electronic wavelength 2πR_e and the wormhole perimeter λ_w=2πr_w.

But in this process of the 'shrinking' classical electron radius towards the gluonic kernel (say); the mesonic ring will be encountered and it is there, that any mass-inductions should occur to differentiate a massless lepton gauge-eigenstate from that manifested by the weakon precursors.

{Note: Here the W- inducing a lefthanded neutron to decay weakly into a lefthanded proton, a lefthanded electron and a righthanded antineutrino. Only lefthanded particles decay weakly in CP-parity-symmetry violation, effected by neutrino-gauge definitions from first principles}.

This so defines a neutrino-oscillation potential at the InnerRing-Boundary. Using our proportions and assigning any neutrino-masses m_n as part of the electronmass m_e, gives the following proportionality as the mass eigenvalue of the Tau-(Anti)Neutrino as Higgsian Mass Induction in the Weak Nuclear Interaction at the Mesonic Inner Ring Boundary within the subatomic quantum geometry utilized as the dynamic interaction space:

m_Higgs/Tauon=m_eλ_w.r_E/(2πr_MR_e) ~ 5.4x10^-36 kg or 3.0 eV*.

So we have derived, from first principles, a (anti)neutrinomass eigenstate energy level of 3 eV as the appropriate energy level for any (anti)neutrino matter interaction within the subatomic dynamics of the nuclear interaction.

This confirms the Mainz, Germany Result as the upper limit for neutrino masses resulting from ordinary Beta-Decay and indicates the importance of the primordial beta-decay for the cosmogenesis and the isomorphic scale mappings stated above.

The hypersphere intersection of the G- and F-count of the thermodynamic expansion of the mass-parametric universe so induces a neutrino-mass of 3 eV* at the 2.76x10^-18 meter marker.

The more precise G-F differential in terms of eigenenergy is 0.052 eV as the mass-eigenvalue for the Higgs-(Anti)neutrino (which is scalar of 0-spin and constituent of the so called Higgs Boson as the kernel-Eigenstate). This has been experimentally verified in the Super-Kamiokande (Japan) neutrino experiments published in 1998 and in subsequent neutrino experiments around the globe, say Sudbury, KamLAND, Dubna, MinibooNE and MINOS.

Recalling the Cosmic scale radii for the initial manifestation of the primordial 'Free Neutron (Beta-Minus) Decay', we rewrite the Neutrino-Mass-Induction formula:

r_E = 3.43597108x10¹⁴ meters and an E-count of so 1.00x10¹¹² spacetime quanta

mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_E}(2πR_e) ~ 5.323x10^-39 kg* or 0.003 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass induction.

r_F = 3.45107750x10¹¹ metres for the F-count of so 1.02x10¹⁰³ spacetime quanta
mn_Higgs-F=mn_muon=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 5.300x10^-36 kg* or 2.969 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass induction.

r_G = 3.39155801x10¹¹ metres for the G-count of so 9.68x10¹⁰² spacetime quanta
mn_Higgs-G=mn_tauon=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_G}(2πR_e) ~ 5.393x10^-36 kg* or 3.021 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass Induction.

The mass difference for the Muon-Tau-(Anti)Neutrino Oscillation, then defines the Mesonic Inner Ring Higgs Induction:

mn_Higgs=m_eλ_w.r_E{1/r_G-1/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 9.301x10^-38 kg* or 0.0521 eV* as the Basic Cosmic (Anti)Neutrino Mass.

This Higgs-Neutrino-Induction is 'twinned' meaning that this energy can be related to the energy of so termed 'slow- or thermal neutrons' in a coupled energy of so twice 0.0253 eV for a thermal equilibrium at so 20° Celsius and a rms-standard-speed of so 2200 m/s from the Maxwell statistical distributions for the kinematics.

Sterile neutrino back from the dead
22 June 2010 by David Shiga
http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2766

A ghostly particle given up for dead is showing signs of life.

Not only could this "sterile" neutrino be the stuff of dark matter, thought to make up the bulk of our universe, it might also help to explain how an excess of matter over antimatter arose in our universe.
Neutrinos are subatomic particles that rarely interact with ordinary matter. They are known to come in three flavours – electron, muon and tau – with each able to spontaneously transform into another.
In the 1990s, results from the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico suggested there might be a fourth flavour: a "sterile" neutrino that is even less inclined to interact with ordinary matter than the others.

Hasty dismissal

Sterile neutrinos would be big news because the only way to detect them would be by their gravitational influence – just the sort of feature needed to explain dark matter.
Then in 2007 came the disheartening news that the Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment (MiniBooNE, pictured) at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, had failed to find evidence of them.
But perhaps sterile neutrinos were dismissed too soon. While MiniBooNE used neutrinos to look for the sterile neutrino,
LSND used antineutrinos – the antimatter equivalent. Although antineutrinos should behave exactly the same as neutrinos, just to be safe, the MiniBooNE team decided to repeat the experiment – this time with antineutrinos.

Weird excess

Lo and behold, the team saw muon antineutrinos turning into electron antineutrinos at a higher rate than expected – just like at LSND. MiniBooNE member Richard Van de Water reported the result at a neutrino conference in Athens, Greece, on 14 June.
The excess could be because muon antineutrinos turn into sterile neutrinos before becoming electron antineutrinos, says Fermilab physicist Dan Hooper, who is not part of MiniBooNE. "This is very, very weird," he adds.
Although it could be a statistical fluke, Hooper suggests that both MiniBooNE results could be explained if antineutrinos can change into sterile neutrinos but neutrinos cannot – an unexpected difference in behaviour.
The finding would fit nicely with research from the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search, or MINOS, also at Fermilab, which, the same day, announced subtle differences in the oscillation behaviour of neutrinos and antineutrinos.
Antimatter and matter are supposed to behave like mirror versions of each other, but flaws in this symmetry could explain how our universe ended up with more matter.

Neutrinomasses

The (Anti)Neutrino Energy at the R_E nexus for R_E=r_w∛(26x65⁶¹) m* and
for mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=l_wh.Alpha/4p²R_e²c=30e²l_w/2pR_e²c or 15l]_w{Monopole GUT masses ec}/pR_e² = 2.982...10^-3 eV*.
This can also be written as mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=mn_Tauon² to define the 'squared' Higgs (Anti)Neutrino eigenstate from its templated form of the quantum geometry in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity (UFoQR).

Subsequently, the Muon (Anti)Neutrino Higgs Induction mass becomes defined in the difference between the masses of the Tau-(Anti)Neutrino and the Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

mn_Tauon= B⁴G⁴R⁴[0]+B²G²R²[-½]=B⁶G⁶R⁶[-½] = √(mn_electron)=√(0.002982)=0.0546... eV*

mn_Higgs= B⁴G⁴R⁴[0] = m_eλ_w.r_E{1/r_G-1/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 9.301x10^-38 kg* or 0.0521... eV*
mn_Muon = B²G²R²[-½] = √(mn_Tauon² - mn_Higgs²) = √(0.00298-0.00271) = √(0.00027) = 0.0164... eV*
mn_Electron = B²G²R²[-½] = (mn_Tauon)²= (0.054607...)²=0.002982... eV*

This energy self state for the Electron (Anti)Neutrino then is made manifest in the Higgs Mass Induction at the Mesonic Inner Ring or IR as the squared mass differential between two (anti)neutrino self states as:
(mn₃ + mn₂).(mn₃ - mn₂) = mn₃² - mn₂² = 0.002981...eV*² to reflect the 'squared' energy self state of the scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino as compared to the singlet energy Eigen state of the base (anti)neutrinos for the 3 leptonic families of electron-positron and the muon-antimuon and the tauon-antitauon.

The Electron-(Anti)Neutrino is massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at R_E at 0.00298 eV*.
The Muon-(Anti)Neutrino is also massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at the Mesonic Ring F-Boundary at 2.969 eV* with an effective Higgsian mass induction of 0.0164 eV*.

The Tauon-(Anti)Neutrino is not massless with inertial eigenstate inducted at the Mesonic Ring G-Boundary at 3.021 eV* and meaned at 3.00 eV* as √(0.0521²+0.0164²) = 0.0546 eV* as the square root value of the ground state of the Higgs inertia induction. The neutrino flavour mechanism, based on the Electron (Anti)Neutrino so becomes identical in the Weakon Tauon-Electron-Neutrino oscillation to the Scalar Muon-Higgs-Neutrino oscillation.

The weakon kernel-eigenstates are 'squared' or doubled (2x2=2+2) in comparison with the gluonic-eigenstate (one can denote the colourcharges as (R²G²B²)[½] and as (RGB)[1] respectively say and with the [] bracket denoting gauge-spin and RGB meaning colours Red-Green-Blue).
The scalar Higgs-Anti(Neutrino) becomes then defined in: (R⁴G⁴B⁴)[0] and the Tauon Anti(Neutrino) in (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[½].

The twinned neutrino state so becomes MANIFESTED in a coupling of the scalar Higgs-Neutrino with a massless base neutrino in a (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[0+½]) mass-induction template.
The Higgs-Neutrino is bosonic and so not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; but quantized in the form of the FG-differential of the 0.0521 Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
Subsequently all experimentally observed neutrino-oscillations should show a stepwise energy induction in units of the Higgs-neutrino mass of 0.0521 eV. This was the case in the Super-Kamiokande experiments; and which was interpreted as a mass-differential between the muonic and tauonic neutrinoic forms.

mn_Higgs + mn_electron = mn_Higgs + (mn_Tauon)² for the 'squared' ground state of a massless base (anti)neutrino for a perturbation Higgsian (anti)neutrino in (mn_Tauon)² = (mn_Higgs + d)² = mn_Electron for the quadratic mn_Higgs² + 2mn_Higgsd + d² = 0.002982 from (mn_Higgs + d) = √(mn_electron) and for a d = √(mn_electron) - mn_Higgs = mn_Tauon - mn_Higgs = 0.0546-0.0521 = 0.0025.

mn_Higgs+ d = 0.0521 + 0.0025 = (mn_Higgs) + (mn_electron) - 0.00048 = mn_Tauon = 0.0521+0.00298 - 0.00048 + ... = 0.0546 eV* as a perturbation expression for the 'squared' scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

(mn_Muon - mn_Electron){(mn_Muon+ mn_Electron) - (mn_Muon- mn_Electron)} = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron)
as the squared mass difference:

mn_Muon² - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron) + (mn_Muon - mn_Electron)²

and {mn_Muon² - mn_Electron²} - mn_Muon² + 2mn_Muonn_Electron - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Muonmn_Electron - 2mn_Electron² = ({3mn_Electron}² - 0²)
= (0.00894..)² = 7.997..x10^-5 eV^2* as the KamLAND 2005 neutrino mass induction value for 11mn_Electron = 2mn_Muon.

For 3 (anti)neutrinos then, the cosmological summation lower and upper bounds for (anti)neutrino oscillations are:
0 + mn_{electron-muon} + mn_{electron-tauon} + mn_muon-tauon = 3(0.002982) = 0.00895 eV* and 3(0.0030+0.0546) = 3(0.0576) = 0.1728 eV* or 0.1724 eV [SI] respectively.

Inclusion of the scalar Higgs (anti)neutrino as a fourth (anti)neutrino inertial self state extends this upper boundary by 0.0521 eV* to 0.2249 eV* or 0.2243 eV [SI].

Sn = mn_Electron + mn_Muon + mn_Higgs+ mn_Tauon = 0.0546..+0.0521..+0.0164..+0.0030 = 0.1261 eV* or 0.1258 eV.

(Starunits[*] calibrate as {SI}: {J}=0.9948356[J*]; {s}=0.99902301[s*]; {m}=0.9983318783[m*]; {kg}=0.9962135[kg*];
{C}=0.997296076[C*]; {eV}=0.99753285[eV*])

In terms of the Higgs Mass Induction and so their inertial states, the Neutrinos are their own antiparticles and so Majorana defined; but in terms of their basic magneto charged nature within the Unified Filed of Quantum Relativity, the Neutrinos are different from their AntiNeutrino antiparticles in their Dirac definition of R²G²B²[+1] for the AntiNeutrinos and in B²G²R²[-1] for the Neutrinos.

Mass

The Standard Model of particle physics assumed that neutrinos are massless. However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses.^[20]

Massive neutrinos were originally conceived by Bruno Pontecorvo in the 1950s. Enhancing the basic framework to accommodate their mass is straightforward by adding a right-handed Lagrangian. This can be done in two ways. If, like other fundamental Standard Model particles, mass is generated by the Dirac mechanism, then the framework would require an SU(2) singlet. This particle would have no other Standard Model interactions (apart from the Yukawa interactions with the neutral component of the Higgs doublet), so is called a sterile neutrino. Or, mass can be generated by the Majorana mechanism, which would require the neutrino and antineutrino to be the same particle.

The strongest upper limit on the masses of neutrinos comes from cosmology: the Big Bang model predicts that there is a fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total energy of all three types of neutrinos exceeded an average of 50 eV per neutrino, there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse.^[37] This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. A much more stringent constraint comes from a careful analysis of cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy surveys, and the Lyman-alpha forest. These indicate that the summed masses of the three neutrinos must be less than 0.3 eV.^[38]

In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass.^[39] While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses.^[40]
The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: |Δm₂₁²| = 0.000079 eV².^[41]

In 2006, the MINOS experiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate |Δm₃₂²| = 0.0027 eV², consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande.^[42]

Since |Δm₃₂²| is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.^[43]

In 2009, lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV.^[44]
All neutrino masses are then nearly equal, with neutrino oscillations of order meV. They lie below the Mainz-Troitsk upper bound of 2.2 eV for the electron antineutrino.^[45]
The latter will be tested in 2015 in the KATRIN experiment, that searches for a mass between 0.2 eV and 2 eV.

A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments. The methods applied involve nuclear beta decay (KATRIN and MARE) or neutrinoless double beta decay (e.g. GERDA, CUORE/Cuoricino, NEMO-3 and others).

On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers observed the first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam, the first time this transformation in neutrinos had been observed, providing further evidence that they have mass.^[46]

In July 2010 the 3-D MegaZ DR7 galaxy survey reported that they had measured a limit of the combined mass of the three neutrino varieties to be less than 0.28 eV.^[47]

A tighter upper bound yet for this sum of masses, 0.23 eV, was reported in March 2013 by the Planck collaboration,^[48]
whereas a February 2014 result estimates the sum as 0.320 ± 0.081 eV based on discrepancies between the cosmological consequences implied by Planck's detailed measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background and predictions arising from observing other phenomena, combined with the assumption that neutrinos are responsible for the observed weaker gravitational lensing than would be expected from massless neutrinos.^[49]

If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, the mass can be calculated by finding the half life of neutrinoless double-beta decay of certain nuclei. The lowest upper limit, on the Majorana mass of the neutrino, has been set by EXO-200 0.140–0.380 eV.^[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass

Shiloh Za-Rah

{1} Matter interacts with matter based Anti-Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Protons transform into neutrons with antimatter positrons, the latter which annihilate with electrons produced by the decay of 'free neutrons' back into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos and then with energy-momentum conserving photons and so ending the process with the same components it began with.
{Mass produced photons (by acceleration of inertia coupled electro charges), have no magnetocharge and so form their own anti-particles; whilst gauge or 'virtual' photons carry cyclic and anticyclic colour charges as consequence of the matter-antimatter asymmetry}.

Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Anti-Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Electron of the partial Matter W-minus Weakon manifesting the other part as Antineutrino Scalar
Antin_electron[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Electron e^-[+½+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + {n_electron[-½] + Positron e⁺[-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + p⁺[-½]

⇨ {Antin_electron[+½] + n_electron[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + e⁺[+½] + {p⁺[-½] +OR^-[0]} ⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + Neutron^o[-½] + Positron e⁺[+½], the scalar Electron Outer Ring being absorbed in the Proton spin as the resultant Neutron quantum spin

⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + {p⁺[-½] + e^-[-½] + e⁺[+½] + Antin_electron[+½]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + p⁺[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] ⇨ Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + Photon[-1] + Photon[+1] in Pair-Annihilation tranforming the Mass Energy {E=mc² into Radiation Energy E=hf for the Electron-Positron Matter-Antimatter Interaction.

{2} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Neutrons transform into protons with muons, the latter decaying into electrons and anti-neutrinos and neutrinos, so reducing the elementary matter-neutrino interaction to basic neutron beta-minus-deacay with the leptonic coupling between the 'resonance electron' as a basic muon coupled to its neutrino.

n_muon[-½] + Neutron n^o[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Anti-Muon of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as Neutrino Scalar
n_muon[0] + {n_muon[-½] + Anti-Muon m⁺[-½-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + {Antin_muon[+½] + Muon m^-[+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + n^o[+½]

⇨ {Antin_muon[+½] + n_muon[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + m^-[-½] + {n^o[+½] +Anti-OR⁺[0]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + Proton⁺[+½] + Muon m^-[-½], the scalar Anti-Muon Outer Ring being absorbed in the Neutron spin as the resultant Proton quantum spin

⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + {p⁺[+½] + e^-[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + n_muon[-½]}
⇨ n_muon[-½] + n^o[+½] + (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] in the original neutrino-matter interaction accessing the VPE/ZPE of the UFoQR.

{3} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos and matter based Antineutrinos in Majorana Weakon Action Electron Capture {W^-+W⁺}

An Electron in the inner atomic nucleus is captured by a proton to create a neutron accompanied by an electron neutrino. This requires a u-quark of the proton to transform into a d-quark of the neutron. As the d-quark is a KIR quark of inner mesonic ring of electro charge [+2/3] coupled to the MIR of electro charge [-1], a W-minus weakon must be engaged to couple to a left handed proton via the nonparity of the weak nuclear interaction. However in electron capture a left handed electron neutrino is emitted, requiring the interaction of a W-plus weakon as the kernel gauge for any such right handed antimatter weak decay.
(This 'confusion' as to which weakon becomes engaged in electron capture can be seen in the three diagrams above, two of which infer the left handed W-plus and one the W-minus).

It is in fact a W-minus, that interacts, but coupling to the left handed electron instead of a left handed proton, the latter quantum spinning right handed to allow the charge and spin conservation to crystallize the emission of the left handed electron neutrino.
The W-minus then supplies the required KIR for the up-quark to down-quark transmutation with the gauge spin neutralizer of the left handed Graviphoton [-1] flipping the right handed electron antineutrino constituent of the W-minus into its antiparticular form of a left handed electron neutrino.
Electron capture so displays the Dirac-Majorana nature of the two base neutrinos of the electron-positron and muon-antimuon definition in their massless gauge nature when engaged in the direct interaction or 'tapping' of the UFoQR in the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE/ZPE.
The Majorana-Dirac nature of the base neutrinos then can be said to apply to all (anti)neutrinos carrying mass in their oscillation potential and properties exhibited in their wave mechanical dynamics.

Electron^-[-½] + Proton p⁺[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Electron Spin Neutralization as Induction to Matter Parity as OR^- - IR^--VPE Oscillation of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as flipped Neutrino from its Dirac AntiNeutrino base template
Electron[0] + {Electron^- [+½-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} + Proton p⁺[+½] (proton as u[+½]u[-½].d[+½])

⇨ Proton K[+½]KIR[-½]K [+½] + OR^-[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} = Proton udu[+½] + OR^-[0] + {n_electron[-½]}
⇨ Neutron udd[+½] + VPE[0] + n_electron[-½] = KIR[+½]K[-½]KIR[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0] = Neutron n^odud[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0]

A Magneto axis symmetric Proton K(KIR)K transforms into Magneto axis symmetric Neutron KIR(K)KIR as one of the proton's end Kernel up-quarks 'captures' the Weakonic VPE scalar OR^- Electron Outer Ring in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity.

mν_Higgs=m_eλ_w.r_E/(2πr_MR_e){1/r_G-1/r_F} ~ 9.3x10^-38 kg or 0.052 eV.

A Link to the Cosmology of the Higgs Boson
Unlike some past announcements centered on the Higgs in the past few years, which have produced as much ambiguity and confusion as anything else, this one did not disappoint. ATLAS physicists said that their most recent data reveal the presence of an unknown particle with a mass of about 126.5 GeV, or 126.5 billion electron-volts. An electron-volt is a physicist’s unit of mass or energy; for comparison, the proton has a mass of about 1 GeV. The CMS collaboration found evidence for a new particle with a mass of 125.3 GeV.
"""Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI."""

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higgs-cern-lhc-discovery

New Particle Resembling Long-Sought Higgs Boson Uncovered at Large Hadron Collider

The CERN collider, the most powerful atom smasher in history, appears to have fulfilled its primary quest.

By John Matson - July 4, 2012

The Higgs Boson at Last? A newfound particle at the Large Hadron Collider looks much like the fabled Higgs »July 12, 2012

GATHER ROUND: Dozens of students and physicists gathered at Columbia University's Low Library early Wednesday morning to get the latest news on the Higgs boson.
Image: John Matson
NEW YORK—The city that never sleeps was mostly asleep. The bars were closed. But at 4:45 A.M., inside a library on Columbia University's Manhattan campus, Michael Tuts was getting ready to pop the champagne.

The physicist had good reason to celebrate. The massive team of scientists of which he is a part—3,000 researchers working on the ATLAS experiment at Europe's Large Hadron Collider—had just announced the discovery of a new particle. The particle looks an awful lot like the long-sought, and long-hypothetical, Higgs boson, most famous for explaining why elementary particles, such as quarks, have mass. A competing, comparably sized experiment, known as CMS, had arrived at a very similar finding at the collider facility.

Both research teams announced their results during a morning seminar at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics that operates the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC. But the morning start in Geneva meant that U.S. physicists and other curious observers were tuning in to the announcement during the predawn hours. Tuts and his Columbia colleagues decided to host a viewing party at the campus library, with a live video feed from CERN as well as coffee, cookies, soft drinks and chips. About 50 people, many of them students, turned up for the event, which began around 2:30 A.M.

Unlike some past announcements centered on the Higgs in the past few years, which have produced as much ambiguity and confusion as anything else, this one did not disappoint. ATLAS physicists said that their most recent data reveal the presence of an unknown particle with a mass of about 126.5 GeV, or 126.5 billion electron-volts. An electron-volt is a physicist’s unit of mass or energy; for comparison, the proton has a mass of about 1 GeV. The CMS collaboration found evidence for a new particle with a mass of 125.3 GeV.

Crucially, both teams' findings appear exceptionally robust. In physics terms, evidence for a new particle requires a “3-sigma” measurement, corresponding to a 1-in-740 chance that a random fluke could explain the observations, and a claim of discovery requires a 5-sigma effect, or a 1-in–3.5 million shot that the observations are due to chance. In December representatives of the two experiments had announced what one called “intriguing, tantalizing hints” of something brewing in the collider data. But those hints fell short of the 3-sigma level. The new ATLAS finding met not just that level of significance but cleared the gold standard 5-sigma threshold, and CMS very nearly did as well, with a 4.9-sigma finding.

"This is the payoff," Tuts said after the two teams had announced their latest analyses in the Higgs hunt. "This is what you do it for." Peter Higgs himself, who was in Geneva for the seminar along with other eminent physicists who developed the theory, sounded a similar note after the ATLAS and CMS teams had unveiled their conclusions. "For me, it's really an incredible thing that it's happened in my lifetime," Higgs said to the audience at CERN. He was among a half-dozen physicists who in the 1960s proposed what is now known as the Higgs mechanism, hypothesizing the existence of a field permeating all of space, along with an associated particle. The field imparts particles with mass by exerting a sort of drag on them, slowing them down much like a human being slows down when she tries to walk through water instead of air.

The newfound particle fits the bill for the Higgs boson, but the researchers cautioned that more work is needed to compare the properties of the particle to those predicted for the Higgs. After all, the LHC’s detectors cannot identify the Higgs directly. The LHC accelerates protons to unprecedented energies of four trillion electron-volts (4 TeV) before colliding a clockwise-traveling proton beam with a counterclockwise beam. From the smash-up new particles emerge, some of them existing for just an instant before decaying to other particles.

{Commentary on the Higgs Boson Discovery}
JCER - Vol 2, No 13 (2011) Journal of Consciousness Exploaration & Research

Hints of Higgs Boson at 125 GeV Are Found:
Congratulations to All the People at LHC!

Refined Higgs Rumours, Higgs Boson Live Blog: Analysis of the CERN Announcement, Has CERN Found the God Particle? A Calculation, Electron Spin Precession for the Time Fractional Pauli Equation, Plane Wave Solutions of Weakened Field Equations in a Plane Symmetric Space-time-II, Plane Wave Solutions of Field Equations of Israel and Trollope's Unified Field Theory in V5, If the LHC Particle Is Real, What Is One of the Other Possibilities than the Higgs Boson? What is Reality in a Holographic World? Searching for Earth’s Twin.

Editor: Huping HU, Ph.D., J.D.; Editor-at-Large: Philip E. Gibbs, Ph.D.

ISSN: 2153-8301
Dear Huping!

The Higgs Boson resonance, found by ATLAS and CMS is a diquark resonance.

Excerpt:

"Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson and its 'make-up', but highlight the important relevant bit (wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy, and incorporating the lower energy between 92 GeV and to the upper dainty level at 130 GeV as part of the diquark triplet of the associated topomium energy level) at the end.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.404 GeV* (or 122.102 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html

Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI.""

This newest data/discovery about the Higgs Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'.
One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110 GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the HB to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature' as a restmass inducer.

I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before; but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)

Without worrying about details, first consider the following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.

The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xm_ps/[ec]) modulated in (SNI/EMI={Cuberoot of [Alpha]}/[Alpha]), the intrisic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x([ec])/(m_psxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]² is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: p^o, p⁺, p^-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: K^o, K⁺, K^-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (m_c=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xm_P) and setting (m_c) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n⁰;p⁺)=939.642 MeV*}.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.

The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).
Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Z^o is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-means from the strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.
So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.

Next we interpret this scalar (or sterile) Double-Higgs (anti)neutrino as a majoron and lose the distinction between antineutrino and neutrino eigenstates.

We can only do this in the case of the Z^o decay pattern, which engage the boson spin of the Z^o as a superposition of two antineutrinos for the matter case and the superposition of two neutrinos in the antimatter case from first principles.

So the Z^o IS a Majorana particle, which merges the templates of two antineutrinos say and SPININDUCES the Higgs-Antineutrino.
And where does this occur? It occurs at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring Boundary previously determined at the 2.776x10^-18 meter marker.
This marker so specifies the Z^o Boson energy level explicitely as an upper boundary relative to the displacement scale set for the kernel at the wormhole radius r_w=l_w/2π and the classical electron radius as the limit for the nuclear interaction scale at 3 fermis in: R_comptonxAlpha.

So the particle masses of the standard model in QED and QCD become Compton-Masses, which are HIGGS-MASSINDUCED at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring (MIR) marker at R_MIR=2.776x10^-18 meters.

The Compton masses are directly obtained from E=hf=mc²=hc/λ and say as characteristic particle energies.
At the Leptonic-Outer-Ring or LOR; λ_LOR=2πR_e and at the MIR λ_MIR=2πR_MIR for characteristic energies of 71.38 GeV and 71.33 MeV respectively.

So we know that the Higgs-Mass-Induction occurs at those energy levels from the elementary template and as experimentally verified in terms of the neutrino masses by Super-Kamiokande in 1998.
The LOR-energy of course indicates the Muon mass as a 'heavy electron' and the MIR-energy indicates the associated 'heavy quark' mass.

This has been described before in the general mass induction scales for the diquarks as consequence from the bosonic bifurcation of string masses (XL-Boson string splits into quark- and lepton fermions as fundamental supersymmetry and the magnification of the Planck-scale).
We also know, that the elementary proto-nucleon seed m_c has grown in a factor of Yⁿ~(1.618034)ⁿ~1.72 for a present n=1.1324..to create the present nucleonmasses in a perturbation of its finestructure.
Subsequently, the MIR-energy of 71.38 GeV represents a Z^o-Boson seed, which has similarly increased between a factor of √(Yⁿ)~1.313 and Yⁿ~1.724.

These values so give present boundary conditions for the Higgs Boson in terms of its Z^o coupling as the interval {93.73-123.09} GeV* or {93.50-122.79} GeV. The latter interval reduces by 1.58% to {92.02-120.85} GeV, as we have used the 'effective electron mass' m_e, differing in that percentage from the bare electron's restmass in our calculations.
The lower bounded HB so manifests in the form of the Z^o and as the majorana Higgs-Induction and coupled to the Spin-Induction of the Scalar Higgs Antineutrino.
As described previously; the Z^o-Boson mass is the mean of the top-quark K-Mean as 91.380 GeV* = 91.155 GeV and so relates the quark energy levels to the Higgs inductions for both spin and inertia. This occurs at the down-strange ds-diquark level of the cosmogenesis.

The W-Boson masses are the summation of the quark K-Means and represents the summation of all lower diquark energy levels from doubleup to doubledown.
As the down-strange or MIR-LOR energy level is coupled as a Kernel-MIR level in the bottom-antibottom mesonic diquark system, the energy difference between the Z^o- and the W-bosons should amount to that b-quark energy of about 10 GeV and which indeed is experimentally verified as such.
Finally the doublestrange diquark level then becomes the well known Fermi-Energy of the Superquark K-Mean at 298.453 GeV*=297.717 GeV and which reduces to 293.013 GeV in the 1.58% in the SI mensuration system for an Fermi energy of 1.165x10^-5 1/GeV².

Quantum Relativity then stipulates, that the Higgs-Mass-Induction energies will assume particular energy value related to the diquark mass induction table of the K-Means, coupled to the weakon masses as indicated.
The overarching energy level is however that at 92 GeV as the lower bound and as represented in the definition of the Z^o-Boson as a Majorana Spininduced scalar Higgs boson. The upper bound is the Fermi energy of the Super-Diquark as a doublestrange.
This 92 GeV level represents a seedling energy of 71.38 GeV from the primordial universe and when the XL-Boson aka the heterotic string class HO(32) decayed into a fermionic quark-lepton bifurcation and which today is represented in the diquark eigenstates of the standard model in particle physics through its Unitary Symmetries.

Tony B. - December 28th, 2014 -Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia

http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/
http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/ind...tring-and-supermembrane-epsess.886/#post-4827

admin · Dec 26, 2014

Elementary Neutrino-Mass Interactions
and OABS Science of NABS projected 2012 (or anytime) Planetary Core Reconfigurations

In 2009, American geologist Adrian Helmsley visits astrophysicist Satnam Tsurutani in India and learns that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to rapidly increase. Arriving at a party in Washington, D.C, Helmsley presents his info to White House Chief of Staff Carl Anheuser, who takes him to meet the President.

"The Neutrinos from the Sun are causing a physical interaction....
This is impossible!....
They are mutating into a new form of nuclear elementary particle, which like microwaves are heating the Earth's Core!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...utrinos-melt-earths-core-and-other-disasters/
In 2012 neutrinos melt Earth’s core, and other disasters

By Philip Yam | November 13, 2009 | 53
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

During an early screening of Roland Emmerich’s latest disaster flick 2012, which opens today, laughter erupted in the audience near the end of the film thanks to corny dialogue and maudlin scenes (among the biggest guffaw getters: a father tries to reconnect with his estranged son on the telephone, only to have the son’s house destroyed just before he could say anything). Nobody wants to take anything seriously in a movie like this, in which digital mayhem is the draw. But if it were an audience of physicists, the laughter probably would have started in the first five minutes. You can’t take any of the science seriously, although I give the filmmakers credit for creativity.
If you haven’t heard, December 21, 2012, is supposed to be the day that the Mayan calendar ends (it doesn’t really) and therefore somehow marks the end of civilization as we know it—notwithstanding the fact that the Mayan civilization ended centuries ago. (NASA has a good Q&A site that debunks the 2012 apocalypse nonsense.)

Thankfully, the movie 2012 doesn’t dwell on ancient predictions. Instead, it takes us straight to the, er, science.
The premise: the sun’s 11-year activity cycle reaches a peak in 2012. (A recent analysis led by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration actually pegs the peak to occur in May 2013, and it will be less intense than previous peaks.) For some reason, the neutrinos from the sun start behaving differently: they begin interacting frequently with matter, rather than largely passing through it harmlessly. The filmmakers could have easily invented entirely new particles for the job—call them bambinos, say—but perhaps that’s too silly.

In the movie, the "neutrinos" heat up Earth’s inner core, making it boil. That in turn destabilizes the overlying layers (outer core and mantle), making the crust buckle, rise and shift by thousands of kilometers.
As a result, skyscrapers topple, bridges crumble and runways fracture (always in the direction of take-off). People scream, puppies live, heroes escape, villains try to but die, and supporting cast members face their demise. (My favorite here: Danny Glover, famous for portraying a long-suffering cop in the Lethal Weapon movies, plays the U.S. president who decides to go down with the White House—and seemed to be on the verge of saying, "But I was only two days from retirement.")
If neutrinos behaved the way they are described in the film, then there wouldn’t be much to film. Particles that can heat up the solid iron inner core by thousands of degrees should have cooked Earth’s surface dry before Woody Harrelson gets the chance to steal all the scenes he’s in. The inner core is under about 350 gigapascals of pressure (three million atmospheres), which is why it’s solid. Just how hot the inner core must get to liquefy under that pressure is not known for sure, although Anneli Aitta of the University of Cambridge gives it a try in this paper (pdf).

Which is not to say there are no hazards from an overactive sun. Intense solar activity can disrupt satellite orbits and communications; in 1989, it triggered a widespread blackout around Quebec.
On the other hand, neutrinos might not be so harmless. Physicist Juan Collar, now at the University of Chicago, theorized in 1996 that the death of certain kinds of stars could produce so many high-energy neutrinos that they would interact with atoms in organic tissue and lead to mass deaths from cancer. The frequency of such stellar deaths, though exceedingly rare, is consistent with mass extinctions in Earth’s history, he argued.

Alas, destroying civilization with slow deaths from tumor formation probably doesn’t translate well to the big screen. All the puppies would die, too.
Scences from 2012 courtesy of Columbia Tristar Marketing Group

{1} Matter interacts with matter based Anti-Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Protons transform into neutrons with antimatter positrons, the latter which annihilate with electrons produced by the decay of 'free neutrons' back into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos and then with energy-momentum conserving photons and so ending the process with the same components it began with.
{Mass produced photons (by acceleration of inertia coupled electro charges), have no magnetocharge and so form their own anti-particles; whilst gauge or 'virtual' photons carry cyclic and anticyclic colour charges as consequence of the matter-antimatter asymmetry}.

Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Anti-Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Electron of the partial Matter W-minus Weakon manifesting the other part as Antineutrino Scalar
Antin_electron[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Electron e^-[+½+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + {n_electron[-½] + Positron e⁺[-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + p⁺[-½]

⇨ {Antin_electron[+½] + n_electron[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + e⁺[+½] + {p⁺[-½] +OR^-[0]} ⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + Neutron^o[-½] + Positron e⁺[+½], the scalar Electron Outer Ring being absorbed in the Proton spin as the resultant Neutron quantum spin

⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + {p⁺[-½] + e^-[-½] + e⁺[+½] + Antin_electron[+½]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + p⁺[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] ⇨ Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + Photon[-1] + Photon[+1] in Pair-Annihilation tranforming the Mass Energy {E=mc² into Radiation Energy E=hf for the Electron-Positron Matter-Antimatter Interaction.

{2} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Neutrons transform into protons with muons, the latter decaying into electrons and anti-neutrinos and neutrinos, so reducing the elementary matter-neutrino interaction to basic neutron beta-minus-deacay with the leptonic coupling between the 'resonance electron' as a basic muon coupled to its neutrino.

n_muon[-½] + Neutron n^o[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Anti-Muon of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as Neutrino Scalar
n_muon[0] + {n_muon[-½] + Anti-Muon m⁺[-½-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + {Antin_muon[+½] + Muon m^-[+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + n^o[+½]

⇨ {Antin_muon[+½] + n_muon[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + m^-[-½] + {n^o[+½] +Anti-OR⁺[0]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + Proton⁺[+½] + Muon m^-[-½], the scalar Anti-Muon Outer Ring being absorbed in the Neutron spin as the resultant Proton quantum spin

⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + {p⁺[+½] + e^-[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + n_muon[-½]}
⇨ n_muon[-½] + n^o[+½] + (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] in the original neutrino-matter interaction accessing the VPE/ZPE of the UFoQR.

{3} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos and matter based Antineutrinos in Majorana Weakon Action Electron Capture {W^-+W⁺}

An Electron in the inner atomic nucleus is captured by a proton to create a neutron accompanied by an electron neutrino. This requires a u-quark of the proton to transform into a d-quark of the neutron. As the d-quark is a KIR quark of inner mesonic ring of electro charge [+2/3] coupled to the MIR of electro charge [-1], a W-minus weakon must be engaged to couple to a left handed proton via the nonparity of the weak nuclear interaction. However in electron capture a left handed electron neutrino is emitted, requiring the interaction of a W-plus weakon as the kernel gauge for any such right handed antimatter weak decay.
(This 'confusion' as to which weakon becomes engaged in electron capture can be seen in the three diagrams above, two of which infer the left handed W-plus and one the right handed W-minus).

It is in fact a W-minus, that interacts, but coupling to the left handed electron instead of a left handed proton, the latter quantum spinning right handed to allow the charge and spin conservation to crystallize the emission of the left handed electron neutrino.
The W-minus then supplies the required KIR for the up-quark to down-quark transmutation with the gauge spin neutralizer of the left handed Graviphoton [-1] flipping the right handed electron antineutrino constituent of the W-minus into its antiparticular form of a left handed electron neutrino.
Electron capture so displays the Dirac-Majorana nature of the two base neutrinos of the electron-positron and muon-antimuon definition in their massless gauge nature when engaged in the direct interaction or 'tapping' of the UFoQR in the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE/ZPE.
The Majorana-Dirac nature of the base neutrinos then can be said to apply to all (anti)neutrinos carrying mass in their oscillation potential and properties exhibited in their wave mechanical dynamics.

Electron^-[-½] + Proton p⁺[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Electron Spin Neutralization as Induction to Matter Parity as OR^- - IR^--VPE Oscillation of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as flipped Neutrino from its Dirac AntiNeutrino base template
Electron[0] + {Electron^- [+½-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} + Proton p⁺[+½] (proton as u[+½]u[-½].d[+½])

⇨ Proton K[+½]KIR[-½]K [+½] + OR^-[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} = Proton udu[+½] + OR^-[0] + {n_electron[-½]}
⇨ Neutron udd[+½] + VPE[0] + n_electron[-½] = KIR[+½]K[-½]KIR[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0] = Neutron n^o dud[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0]

A Magneto axis symmetric Proton K(KIR)K transforms into Magneto axis symmetric Neutron KIR(K)KIR as one of the proton's end Kernel up-quarks 'captures' the Weakonic VPE scalar OR^- Electron Outer Ring in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity.

admin · Dec 25, 2014

Mass

The Standard Model of particle physics assumed that neutrinos are massless. However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses.^[20]

Massive neutrinos were originally conceived by Bruno Pontecorvo in the 1950s. Enhancing the basic framework to accommodate their mass is straightforward by adding a right-handed Lagrangian. This can be done in two ways. If, like other fundamental Standard Model particles, mass is generated by the Dirac mechanism, then the framework would require an SU(2) singlet. This particle would have no other Standard Model interactions (apart from the Yukawa interactions with the neutral component of the Higgs doublet), so is called a sterile neutrino. Or, mass can be generated by the Majorana mechanism, which would require the neutrino and antineutrino to be the same particle.

The strongest upper limit on the masses of neutrinos comes from cosmology: the Big Bang model predicts that there is a fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total energy of all three types of neutrinos exceeded an average of 50 eV per neutrino, there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse.^[37] This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. A much more stringent constraint comes from a careful analysis of cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy surveys, and the Lyman-alpha forest. These indicate that the summed masses of the three neutrinos must be less than 0.3 eV.^[38]

In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass.^[39] While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses.^[40]
The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: |Δm₂₁²| = 0.000079 eV².^[41]

In 2006, the MINOS experiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate |Δm₃₂²| = 0.0027 eV², consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande.^[42]

Since |Δm₃₂²| is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.^[43]

In 2009, lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV.^[44]
All neutrino masses are then nearly equal, with neutrino oscillations of order meV. They lie below the Mainz-Troitsk upper bound of 2.2 eV for the electron antineutrino.^[45]
The latter will be tested in 2015 in the KATRIN experiment, that searches for a mass between 0.2 eV and 2 eV.

A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments. The methods applied involve nuclear beta decay (KATRIN and MARE) or neutrinoless double beta decay (e.g. GERDA, CUORE/Cuoricino, NEMO-3 and others).

On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers observed the first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam, the first time this transformation in neutrinos had been observed, providing further evidence that they have mass.^[46]

In July 2010 the 3-D MegaZ DR7 galaxy survey reported that they had measured a limit of the combined mass of the three neutrino varieties to be less than 0.28 eV.^[47]

A tighter upper bound yet for this sum of masses, 0.23 eV, was reported in March 2013 by the Planck collaboration,^[48]
whereas a February 2014 result estimates the sum as 0.320 ± 0.081 eV based on discrepancies between the cosmological consequences implied by Planck's detailed measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background and predictions arising from observing other phenomena, combined with the assumption that neutrinos are responsible for the observed weaker gravitational lensing than would be expected from massless neutrinos.^[49]

If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, the mass can be calculated by finding the half life of neutrinoless double-beta decay of certain nuclei. The lowest upper limit, on the Majorana mass of the neutrino, has been set by EXO-200 0.140–0.380 eV.^[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass

Shiloh Za-Rah

admin · Dec 25, 2014

Neutrinomasses

The (Anti)Neutrino Energy at the R_E nexus for R_E=r_w∛(26x65⁶¹) m* and
for mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=l_wh.Alpha/4p²R_e²c=30e²l_w/2pR_e²c or 15l]_w{Monopole GUT masses ec}/pR_e² = 2.982...10^-3 eV*.
This can also be written as mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=mn_Tauon² to define the 'squared' Higgs (Anti)Neutrino eigenstate from its templated form of the quantum geometry in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity (UFoQR).

Subsequently, the Muon (Anti)Neutrino Higgs Induction mass becomes defined in the difference between the masses of the Tau-(Anti)Neutrino and the Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

mn_Tauon= B⁴G⁴R⁴[0]+B²G²R²[-½]=B⁶G⁶R⁶[-½] = √(mn_electron)=√(0.002982)=0.0546... eV*

mn_Higgs = B⁴G⁴R⁴[0] = m_eλ_w.r_E{1/r_G-1/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 9.301x10^-38 kg* or 0.0521... eV*
mn_Muon = B²G²R²[-½] = √(mn_Tauon² - mn_Higgs²) = √(0.00298-0.00271) = √(0.00027) = 0.0164... eV*
mn_Electron = B²G²R²[-½] = (mn_Tauon)²= (0.054607...)²=0.002982... eV*

This energy self state for the Electron (Anti)Neutrino then is made manifest in the Higgs Mass Induction at the Mesonic Inner Ring or IR as the squared mass differential between two (anti)neutrino self states as:
(mn₃ + mn₂).(mn₃ - mn₂) = mn₃² - mn₂² = 0.002981...eV*² to reflect the 'squared' energy self state of the scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino as compared to the singlet energy Eigen state of the base (anti)neutrinos for the 3 leptonic families of electron-positron and the muon-antimuon and the tauon-antitauon.

The Electron-(Anti)Neutrino is massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at R_E at 0.00298 eV*.
The Muon-(Anti)Neutrino is also massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at the Mesonic Ring F-Boundary at 2.969 eV* with an effective Higgsian mass induction of 0.0164 eV*.

The Tauon-(Anti)Neutrino is not massless with inertial eigenstate inducted at the Mesonic Ring G-Boundary at 3.021 eV* and meaned at 3.00 eV* as √(0.0521²+0.0164²) = 0.0546 eV* as the square root value of the ground state of the Higgs inertia induction. The neutrino flavour mechanism, based on the Electron (Anti)Neutrino so becomes identical in the Weakon Tauon-Electron-Neutrino oscillation to the Scalar Muon-Higgs-Neutrino oscillation.

The weakon kernel-eigenstates are 'squared' or doubled (2x2=2+2) in comparison with the gluonic-eigenstate (one can denote the colourcharges as (R²G²B²)[½] and as (RGB)[1] respectively say and with the [] bracket denoting gauge-spin and RGB meaning colours Red-Green-Blue).
The scalar Higgs-Anti(Neutrino) becomes then defined in: (R⁴G⁴B⁴)[0] and the Tauon Anti(Neutrino) in (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[½].

The twinned neutrino state so becomes MANIFESTED in a coupling of the scalar Higgs-Neutrino with a massless base neutrino in a (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[0+½]) mass-induction template.
The Higgs-Neutrino is bosonic and so not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; but quantized in the form of the FG-differential of the 0.0521 Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
Subsequently all experimentally observed neutrino-oscillations should show a stepwise energy induction in units of the Higgs-neutrino mass of 0.0521 eV. This was the case in the Super-Kamiokande experiments; and which was interpreted as a mass-differential between the muonic and tauonic neutrinoic forms.

mn_Higgs + mn_electron = mn_Higgs + (mn_Tauon)² for the 'squared' ground state of a massless base (anti)neutrino for a perturbation Higgsian (anti)neutrino in (mn_Tauon)² = (mn_Higgs + d)² = mn_Electron for the quadratic mn_Higgs² + 2mn_Higgsd + d² = 0.002982 from (mn_Higgs + d) = √(mn_electron) and for a d = √(mn_electron) - mn_Higgs = mn_Tauon - mn_Higgs = 0.0546-0.0521 = 0.0025.

mn_Higgs+ d = 0.0521 + 0.0025 = (mn_Higgs) + (mn_electron) - 0.00048 = mn_Tauon = 0.0521+0.00298 - 0.00048 + ... = 0.0546 eV* as a perturbation expression for the 'squared' scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

(mn_Muon - mn_Electron){(mn_Muon+ mn_Electron) - (mn_Muon- mn_Electron)} = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron)
as the squared mass difference:

mn_Muon² - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron) + (mn_Muon - mn_Electron)²

and {mn_Muon² - mn_Electron²} - mn_Muon² + 2mn_Muonn_Electron - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Muonn_Electron - 2mn_Electron² = ({3mn_Electron}² - 0²)
= (0.00894..)² = 7.997..x10^-5 eV^2* as the KamLAND 2005 neutrino mass induction value for 11mn_Electron = 2mn_Muon.

For 3 (anti)neutrinos then, the cosmological summation lower and upper bounds for (anti)neutrino oscillations are:
0 + mn_{electron-muon} + mn_{electron-tauon} + mn_muon-tauon = 3(0.002982) = 0.00895 eV* and 3(0.0030+0.0546) = 3(0.0576) = 0.1728 eV* or 0.1724 eV [SI] respectively.

Inclusion of the scalar Higgs (anti)neutrino as a fourth (anti)neutrino inertial self state extends this upper boundary by 0.0521 eV* to 0.2249 eV* or 0.2243 eV [SI].

Sn = mn_Electron + mn_Muon + mn_Higgs+ mn_Tauon = 0.0546..+0.0521..+0.0164..+0.0030 = 0.1261 eV* or 0.1258 eV.

(Starunits[*] calibrate as {SI}: {J}=0.9948356[J*]; {s}=0.99902301[s*]; {m}=0.9983318783[m*]; {kg}=0.9962135[kg*];
{C}=0.997296076[C*]; {eV}=0.99753285[eV*])

In terms of the Higgs Mass Induction and so their inertial states, the Neutrinos are their own antiparticles and so Majorana defined; but in terms of their basic magneto charged nature within the Unified Filed of Quantum Relativity, the Neutrinos are different from their AntiNeutrino antiparticles in their Dirac definition of R²G²B²[+1] for the AntiNeutrinos and in B²G²R²[-1] for the Neutrinos.

Log in or Sign up

Neutrino Dragon Omniphysics

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Neutrino Dragon Omniphysics

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches