At the heart of the problem here is the Planck scale or , where GN is the

TEV, where .
is the Newton’s coupling constant. The essence of this problem can be captured in a
single question: why is gravity some 10^38 orders of magnitude weaker than other forces
of Nature? Behind this major problem is the question of the mass of these KK series
Neutrinos. Their mass, another unknown, sets limits on the size of the extra dimensions.
The whole problem is similar to balancing a billiard cue on its point. It is mechanically
possible, but, but the amount of fine tuning required for such a delicate balance is too
demanding to be of a practical use. And I might add it’s not natural. Again back to the
heart of the problem Similarly, making the SM work for all energies up to the Planck
scale would require tremendous amount of fine tuning of its parameters to a precision of

without such fine tuning and without some solution to the hierarchy problem. But it is
this problem that places so many variables towards solving the actual Neutrino mass
problem.

Models with extra dimensions appearing at or near the TeV scale have become very
popular in recent years. In these models, Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations appear as
particles with masses of the scale of the extra dimension. Due to conservation of
momentum in the higher dimensions, a symmetry called KK parity can arise which can,
in some cases, make the lightest KK particle (LKP) stable However the size of the extra
dimension is a variable itself.

To provide an observable flux of neutrinos, dark matter particles must be gathered in high
concentrations. Deep gravitational wells such as the Sun, Earth or galactic centre are
examples of regions where such concentrations may be present. In the following
calculation, we will focus on the Sun, as its prospects are the most promising.

The rate at which WIMPs are captured in the Sun depends on the nature of the interaction
the WIMP undergoes with nucleons in the Sun. For spin-dependent interactions, the
capture rate is given by

Where ρlocal is the local dark matter density, σH,SD the spin-dependent WIMP-on-proton

(hydrogen) elastic scattering cross-section, the local rms velocity of halo dark matter
particles and mDM is our dark matter candidate. The analogous formula for the capture
rate from spin-independent (scalar) scattering is
Here, σH,SI is the spin-independent WIMP-on-proton elastic scattering cross-section and
σHe,SI the spin-independent WIMP-on-helium elastic scattering cross-section. Typically,
σHe,SI 16.0σH,SI. Factors of 2.6 and 0.175 include information on the solar abundances of
elements, dynamical factors and form factor suppression.

Although these two rates appear to be comparable in magnitude, the spin-dependent and
spin-independent cross-sections can differ radically. For example, with KK dark matter,
the spin-dependent cross-section is typically 3-4 orders of magnitude larger than the spin-
independent cross-section, and solar accretion by spin-dependent scattering dominates.

If the capture rates and annihilation cross-sections are sufficiently high, the Sun will
reach equilibrium between these processes. For N (number of) WIMPs in the Sun, the
rate of change of this number is given by

where C is the capture rate and A the annihilation cross-section times the relative
WIMP velocity per volume. C is as defined in (1), whereas A is

with Veff being the effective volume of the core of the Sun determined roughly by
matching the core temperature with the gravitational potential energy of a single WIMP at
the core radius. This yields

The present WIMP annihilation rate is

where t 4.5 billion years is the age of the solar system. The annihilation rate is
maximized when it reaches equilibrium with the capture rate. This occurs when
For the majority of particle physics models which are most often considered (e.g., most
supersymmetry or KK models), the WIMP capture and annihilation rates reach or nearly
reach equilibrium in the Sun. The rate of neutrinos produced in WIMP annihilations is
highly model-dependent as the annihilation fractions to various products can vary largely
from model to model.

Neutrinos which are produced lose energy as they travel through the Sun It is my
prediction that of those that survive and stay on brane that they lose energy to brane
lensing. But the range of this brane lensing is an unknown variable also. The probability
of a neutrino escaping the Sun without interaction is given by

where Ek is 130 GeV for νμ, 160 GeV for ντ, 200 GeV for and 230 GeV for .
Thus we see that neutrinos above a couple of hundred GeV are especially depleted,
although those which escape are also more easily detected. But the two issues together
rather rule out detecting them on earth no matter the size of the extra dimension.

It is this issue which has suggested to me we need either a closer study of the Sun or to
seek external observational evidence for brane lensing effects.

Now, the 8 meters per second difference in C in system to external system is telling us
something about those messing neutrino masses. Get that value out of all the variables
and we could solve a whole lot of problems at the same time. We can from the above
assume they are less than a couple of hundred GeV because of the known depletion rate
there. I’d say the upper limit is 200 GeV.

The size of large extra dimensions (R) is fixed by their number (n) and the fundamental
Planck scale in the (4+n)-dimensional space-time (MD). By applying Gauss’s law, one
finds

the gravitational potential would fall of as 1/rn+1 for

Currently, the best limit on the size of extra dimensions in the ADD model from gravity
measurements comes from the Eot-Washington group and constrains the largest ED size
to
at the 95% confidence level which corresponds to in
the case of two ED. The observation of a handful of neutrinos from the SN1987A
explosion by the IMB and Kamiokande detectors allowed them to put a constraint of
for
N=2 models and for N=3 models. As you see the energy level goes down the
more extra dimensions one adds. This going down could be seen as a good thing as far as
our energy requirements go. But somewhere in all this variables is the real solution that
our 8 meters per second difference is telling us about.

Actually, in our real case we do not want this energy level to drop. As it drops the
amount of neutrinos needed increases. Given the Sun does its 8 meters per second effect
increase the amount of neutrinos needed and you multiply our problem manifold. One
good thing, N=2 case seems to be largely disfavored by the host of the astrophysical and
cosmological constraints. So lets assume for a sake of starting point here that N=1 and
we will ignore the other possible values of N. One good argument for this is brane
lensing takes on a different perspective with multiple brane cases. In some ways it
becomes more of an optical effect with no real ruler change at N=2 cases.

The best limits come from LEP electroweak precision measurements; the combined limit
on the compactification scale of the dimensions approaches
This sets some strong limits on our search area for the messing KK series
neutrino masses. In fact, it drops us way below the Ek is 130 GeV for νμ, 160 GeV
for ντ, 200 GeV range we started with above.

Again our problem has been compounded. But it can be worked with in this range. Say
we took 6.8 TeV as a base line. We could plug this mass value back into the original
Israel condition and figure out how many neutrinos the Sun produces at that value for our
given 8 meters per second ruler change. Then we’d have to look for a way to generate at
least twice that amount of neutrinos to get any lab based experimental result we could
measure.

Parameters of the two DØ highest diEM-mass candidates. All energy variables are in
GeV.
I have added this in to demonstrate that certain events detected in lab experiments do
favor the ED models to date. So the evidence is mounting out there for this whole
general idea. This was based upon Searches for Large Extra Dimensions via Virtual
Graviton Effects.

I could add to this Dimuon (left) and diphoton (right) mass spectrum from the CDF
search for Randall-Sundrum gravitons. Points are data; solid line is the total expected
background.
Individual 95% CL limits on the RS model parameters M1 and k/MPl from the CDF
search in three channels. The shaded area to the left of the corresponding curve is
excluded. This gets at least a scale range we need to start with.

As you can see one is confronted with a lot of variables here when it comes to my giving
any solid suggestion on what we are up against. The problems can be solved. But they
require further research.

On the other side, as far as problems go, is the drop of range of brane lensing in general.
As I have mentioned before we have no solid way to measure differences in C below a
certain error range. But, if the difference where we can measure is 8 meters per second
beyond the orbit of Pluto then we can assume the maximum range is around that range.
We can also assume it drops of slowly somewhere in between. So we have some version
of the general 1/R^2 rule going on here.

The reason I point this out is it will come into play for not only testing eventually, it also
will enter in with craft and field generator design. Actually, I rather hope it has a long
range effect. We can scan ahead within the range of our field no matter the multiple of C
simply because EM signals will run at the fields altered C value while the craft runs at a
slower speed. This applies only within the brane lensed region. External to that region
we cannot expect to have scan ability. So the longer the lensed region the better warning
we have as far as objects in our path go.

Any way it goes we still face some limits upon navigation here and it still may require
something like a pulsed run mode to navigate and avoid objects. It also might be
suggested something akin to our old shield idea could be required even though brane
lensing might offer a solution there.
Now a third area that needs investigation concerns how a field like this in motion will
behave. Our Sun produces a similar field. It is not only in motion. It has other bodies
within its field in motion and it moves within the whole galaxy field, which itself has its
own combined brane lensing effect. The question here concerns drag effects and possible
turbulence.