Do We Live in a Brane Lensed Area

8/14/2019 Do We Live in a Brane Lensed Area

1/11

Do we live in a Brane Lensed Region

By: Paul Karl Hoiland

Abstract: I will offer a possible solution to the Neutrino Oscillation Problem where theKK series neutrinos shed their energy in local brane lensing. This idea could explain

both the Pioneer Probe slowdown and other observation evidence that suggests C is a

variable.

A 5-dimensional fermion can be decomposed into two Weyl fermions, l and r. The

action of the model is given by

Where are the five dimensional Dirac Matrices. We then

introduce dimensionlessYukawa couplings via

We will assume that are of the order one.

We can then decompose the five dimensional fermions int into a tower of KKstates,

We then find that a certain linear combination of KK states are not coupled to left hand

states. The ones that do are


2/11

It is these other KK states that since they do not couple may be of primary import here.

However, the lack of observational evidence supporting a major contribution to neutrino

evolution tends to suggest the above forms could also play a factor in local and globalbrane lensing at least partially. In this context their resulting mass terms are

And the Dirac Mass Matrix is

With

we would use

.

If

then we find the scale is far below that of the electro-weak symmetry breaking scale.

If

And

These masses would fit well with those required of solar system observation data at

present.


3/11

Now the probability for say to oscillate into sterile neutrinos is given by

Where

And

The current observation evidence shows the neutrino flux far below SM predictions and

best alternative is some form of oscillation is going on. The actual data shows only afraction get converted to sterile forms. It is this fraction I find most suspect considering

the C velocity difference internal to external system is 8 meters per second which in itself

suggests something of a fractural nature.

Large fluxes of anti-electron neutrinos are produced at nuclear power reactors. If the

flux can be either predicted accurately or measured by a nearby detector, measuring

the flux at a certain distance L from the reactor gives the electron neutrino survivalprobability as

The results of current experiments are consistent with no oscillation hypothesis, that is,

The electron neutrino survival probability is determined by


4/11

For

and the values chosen for the

The implication of test data so far is

Thus, I see our focus should be on those neutrinos that should contribute and do not.That leads us back to the following states.

If we treat this Lensing along lines utilized in BHs in the Bulk then we could utilize the

model used by Whisker which is an RS model type II with a Reissner-Nordstrom black

hole . The metric I will ignore for the moment since it can be found in several articles.

The important issue is the charge has two effects:

1.) The tidal charge parameter Q comes from the projection on the brane of free

gravitational field effects in the bulk, and it can be positive or negative. When Qis positive, it weakens the gravitational field,

2.) And if it is negative the bulk effects strengthen the gravitational field,(see

Authors notes on this.)

The horizon radius is given by


5/11

And the radius of the Photon Sphere by

The near horizon metric would be

This is a modified version of the normal Schwarzschild one. We could utilize the above

equations with the neutrino mass/energy to get a picture of the lensing effect.

It would have to be assumed that since we have one local velocity of light in system and

another external that these lensing neutrinos shed energy into brane lensing along theirpath from the Sun outward.

We can then look at the following idea proposed by Fernando Loup.

In a more generalized form, considering the metric

It follows,


6/11

We observe that k is large for Brane Lensing. In turn, H doesnt need to be large and

It follows that

And

Manipulating this we get


7/11

Consider then

Where g00=1 we have

So that

We then find that


8/11

From which we find

When is always positive. With the limit case we get

When

where k is the coefficient for the Chung-Freese Brane Lensing.

The total energy needed for local brane lensing is given by


9/11

it follows that for dV to account for the Universe and Hyperspace dimensions,

we must have

What one needs to get a proper picture here is to return to the older Dirac lattice idea on

the Planck scale. Each Planck unit is seen as a miniature BH. If we consider these BHsas mini-in-Bulk Blackholes then every particle has a Bulk BH inside it. While some

particles stay on Brane and some travel off brane these specific Neutrinos lack of altering

normal neutrinos may be explained as their energy transforms the local brane lensing andin the process alters our in system velocity of light instead of the other. The external to

local difference in C is only 8 meters per second based upon the Pioneer Probes signal

difference which I suspect is evidence of just such a case.

Reference:1.) R. Whisker, Phys. Rev. D 71, 064004 (2005)2.) Fernando Loup, Paulo Alexandre Santos, Dorabella Martins da SilvaSantos, Hyperdrive A Go Go-The Star Wars Hyperdrive September 24,2003

AUTHORS NOTES:

The control of the Israel condition on the brane, at least the part that we can control is thepressure P and the energy density p associated with matter confined on the brane. Any

increase here increases the warp factor. The actual equation used in general form is:

-6u=25(1/2P + 1/3p)

(* if we could generate negative energy then in essence wed be doing the opposite andincreasing the volume by lowering the local warp factor) In a normal condition this is

assumed as a constant where p=-3/2P.

For Neutrinos, depending upon how they appear in the Bulk and their associated tidalcharge parameter Q from the equations in this article they could simulate or create either

an increase or a decrease in local brane lensing. As mention more than the three KK

series may be involved here and the resulting 8 meters per second velocity difference insystem to external of our system could be a combined effect where different tidal charge

parameters are mixed.

It was the Sunward pointing vector in this problem that suggested to me to look for

properties the Sun has which led to what type of particles it puts out. One can ignore


10/11

both photons for lack of evidence there and exotic particles of heavy mass since their

effect would be short range in nature. The only missing element under the SM is the

neutrinos themselves. The Sunward direction suggests a vector quality not a scalar one inand of itself.

The major reason I ignored them for the sake of this article is the other KK seriesneutrinos should travel off bulk with little effect to our brane and it is the three KK series

neutrinos which should be contributing to neutrino oscillation and do not. This begs the

question what do they do? When you combine this with apperant observation evidencefrom the Pioneer Probe of a sunward directed slowdown and consider the properties our

Sun has their lack of contribution in one area tends to suggest they may contribute in

another area.

While I agree this is all speculative at best. Since we only have the data from one Probe

to look at the alternative is to suggest that something is wrong with Einsteins General

Relativity. I would also suggest this could go a long way to solving some of the other

observational evidence that seems to suggest C could be a variable that has called intoquestion Einsteins Special Relativity. If one remembers his C as a constant depends

upon certain vacuum conditions then the idea of C being able to vary across space-timeand cosmic history begins to become possible without a major violation of SR.

In the context of general relativity, gravity is interpreted as the curvatureof a 4-dimensional space-time. The fundamental equations of generalrelativity are the Einsteins Field Equations:

Where

Is the Einstein Tensor

And

the energy-momentum tensor of matter. Given that general relativity isthe theory that best fits available data at solar system scale and beyond,with the noted observation evidence that C could vary I find no reason to


11/11

suggest GR is wrong. However, as a slight modification to GR branelensing does offer a middle of the ground approach that preserves GRintact.

Documents

Do We Live in a Brane Lensed Area