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 the
KK series neutrino’s 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 Ψ can be decomposed into two Weyl fermions, Ψl and Ψr. 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 KK
states,

We then find that a certain linear combination of KK states are not coupled to left hand
states. The ones that do are
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 global
brane 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.
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 a
fraction 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 survival
probability as

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

The electron neutrino survival probability is determined by

For

and the values chosen for the

The implication of test data so far is

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

If we treat this Lensing along lines utilized in BH’s 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 Q
is 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

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 their
path 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,
We observe that k is large for Brane Lensing. In turn, H doesn’t need to be large and

It follows that

And

Manipulating this we get

Consider then

Where g00=1 we have

So that

We then find that

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

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 BH’s
as 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 neutrino’s may be explained as their energy transforms the local brane lensing and
in 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 Silva
Santos, 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 the
pressure 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:

-6δuα=κ25(1/2P + 1/3p)

(* if we could generate negative energy then in essence we’d be doing the opposite and
increasing 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 tidal
charge 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 in
system 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
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 in
and of itself.

The major reason I ignored them for the sake of this article is the other KK series
neutrinos 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 evidence
from 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 Einstein’s 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 into
question Einstein’s 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-time
and cosmic history begins to become possible without a major violation of SR.

In the context of general relativity, gravity is interpreted as the curvature

of a 4-dimensional space-time. The fundamental equations of general
relativity are the Einstein’s Field Equations:

Where

Is the Einstein Tensor

And

the energy-momentum tensor of matter. Given that general relativity is

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