'Particle X' Proposed to Explain 'Lithium Problem'

There’s an interesting article on the Physicsworld.com website that discusses a proposal by Maxim Pospelov, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, for a new particle to explain the ‘lithium problem’ — the fact that there is not as much lithium in the universe as there should be, according to predictions based on the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis

Pospelov points out that, for several years, physicists thought that neutrons produced by the decay of unstable “supersymmetric” particles might have converted lithium-7 into lighter nuclei such as helium-4. However, those neutrons would eventually have fused with spare protons to create more deuterium, making the theoretical abundance of that isotope too high. Any extra helium-4, in contrast, would have been almost unnoticeable, given its abundance. “The amount of deuterium has been measured very accurately in the last few years,” he says, “so supersymmetric scenarios have been completely disfavoured.”

To overcome this problem, Pospelov and colleagues propose a previously unknown “X” particle that is electrically neutral and fairly stable, which interacts fairly strongly with both protons and neutrons, and has a mass lying somewhere between 1.6–20 MeV.

Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/03/particle-x-may-have-snuffed-out-cosmic-lithium

  • Ged

    Found abundantly on Planet X.

    • cashmemorz

      Where is the “X”it outa here.

  • Gerard McEk

    Maybe the the Big Bang theory must be X’ed instead of inventing a non existing particle.

    • psi2u2

      Its obviously correct. One day nothing went bang. Happens all the time.

      • bachcole

        Nice.

  • cashmemorz

    On the other hand, according to Jacob Barnett- boy genius- at The Perimeter Institute, there is too much carbon for the Universe to be only 13-14 billion years old. He calculates that the universe has to be at least 21 billion years old to have the amount of carbon that has evolved via stellar synthesis.

    • cashmemorz

      AHA! If both sides are correct, re too little Lithium and too much Carbon then could it be that the Lithium has been converted to Carbon? Then the age of the universe stays the same age it was calculated before these problems came up. Some body else will have to do the big math and physics to confirm this. I’ll ask boy genius Barnett what he thinks. He’s supposed to be smarter than Einstein.

      • Zephir

        This is just what has been proposed for Photon-X. It has been predicted to stick lithium nuclei around for just a few minutes or hours, thus enabling their conversion into a carbon – not long enough to alter the abundances of other elements.

    • Zephir

      Actually the excess of heavier elements is another big problem of Big Bang model, dual to lack of lithium (and another lightweight elements in distant universe). We can observe too many mature galaxies with heavy elements and high metallicity, than the Big Bang model allows (according to this model all galaxies were formed from finely distributed hydrogen).

      Compare also article “Ghostly neutrino could be behind cosmic expansion mystery” (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030772-900-ghostly-neutrino-could-be-behind-cosmic-expansion-mystery) – except that IceCube’s search for sterile neutrinos draws a blank (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/may/13/icecubes-search-for-sterile-neutrinos-draws-a-blank) This article appeared in print under the headline “*The cosmic expansion crisis*”

  • Gerald

    Some linked it to this because of the mass.

    http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957

    Or maybe the Lithium became strangled in a Lenr reaction.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      what do you mean?

  • Oystein Lande

    If they are right about particle X, it would be the biggest irony of cold fusion history..

    Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb” raised this hypothesis in 1989:


    Teller, who attended the three-day workshop at NSF headquarters but not the press conference, hypothesizes “an as-yet undiscovered neutral particle” as the catalytic agent for the cold fusion reaction. But in front of the press, one scientist after another declined to read the statement. One of the sponsors of the workshop, NSF’s Paul Werbos, says, “I didn’t want to appear on TV saying what Teller had written. Out of context, it might look like I was saying it.” Finally, Teller’s statement was read by Harold Szu, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory.

    Ref.
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10721/title/Clandestine-NSF-Panel-Warms-To-Cold-Fusion/

    • Zephir

      I don’t think, that the Particle X can explain the cold fusion effect in its entirety, because its rather subtle effect of the close proximity of elementary particles. But in my explanation the cold fusion occurs during long-dimensional collisions of many atoms along a single line. In this rare situation the shielding dark matter effects are enforced heavily (I”m explaining the Allais effect and various gravitational and time dilatation anomalies observed during planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses). So that it may be possible, that the long narrow filaments of atom nuclei are held together (entangled) more than one could guess from naive models, which would indeed promote their fusion. I also believe, that the formation of dark matter filaments along collinear atoms could explain, why the neutrons and gamma rays aren’t scattered during cold fusion into an outside, but they’re re-absorbed right there, because the area of dense vacuum along lines of colliding atoms behaves like the waveguide by total reflection mechanism.

  • Oystein Lande

    If they are right about particle X, it would be the biggest irony of cold fusion history..

    Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb” raised this hypothesis in 1989:


    Teller, who attended the three-day workshop at NSF headquarters but not the press conference, hypothesizes “an as-yet undiscovered neutral particle” as the catalytic agent for the cold fusion reaction. But in front of the press, one scientist after another declined to read the statement. One of the sponsors of the workshop, NSF’s Paul Werbos, says, “I didn’t want to appear on TV saying what Teller had written. Out of context, it might look like I was saying it.” Finally, Teller’s statement was read by Harold Szu, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory.

    Ref.
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10721/title/Clandestine-NSF-Panel-Warms-To-Cold-Fusion/

    • Zephir

      I don’t think, that the Particle X can explain the cold fusion effect in its entirety, because its rather subtle effect of the close proximity of elementary particles. But in my explanation the cold fusion occurs during long-dimensional collisions of many atoms along a single line. In this rare situation the shielding dark matter effects are enforced heavily (I”m explaining the Allais effect and various gravitational and time dilatation anomalies observed during planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses). So that it may be possible, that the long narrow filaments of atom nuclei are held together (entangled) more than one could guess from naive models, which would indeed promote their fusion. I also believe, that the formation of dark matter filaments along collinear atoms could explain, why the neutrons and gamma rays aren’t scattered during cold fusion into an outside, but they’re re-absorbed right there, because the area of dense vacuum along lines of colliding atoms behaves like the waveguide by total reflection mechanism.

  • LCD

    Well 1.6 to 20 MeV. And 17 MeV is at least in the same ball park.

    The thought that we may have missed a particle in this range is puzzling

  • bachcole

    Interesting.

  • Zephir

    In dense aether model the Universe is steady-state and the Hubble red shift is the result of light scattering with quantum fluctuations of vacuum during its travel across wast cosmic space. Nevertheless there exists a deep symmetry between the dark matter effects and dark energy effects. We can observe the dark energy at the water surface too, because the packing geometry and outer shape of density fluctuations of water (into which the surface ripples scatter at the short scale) replicates the geometry of the large fluctuations, where the circular ripples get scattered at the large scale.

    The surface ripples get scattered into a longitudinal one, so that their energy decreases (they become “reddish”). But these low-energy ripples scatter even better, so that the speed of their scattering increases with increasing distance in avalanche-like way, until it ends in singularity.

    https://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-c/splash-water-waves-4565.jpg

    Which would make an impression, that every source of radiation is surrounded with dark matter, i.e. with area of more dense space, which slows-down the transverse waves. But exactly the same effect would observe if we would live at the island, when we would observe, that the space-time gets curved and more dense with distance. In essence, the dark energy is the dark matter observed from inside

    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/02/could-dark-matt.html
    http://i.filmot.org/C9wQRB5.gif

    It means, that these extradimensional effects share the same emergent mechanism of formation, which is scale invariant. Here I’m explaining, that the Particle-X recently observed can be considered as a dark matter effect applied at the small scales of atom nuclei (a Cassimir force effect)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/27/a-fifth-force-of-nature-discovered/

    In our water surface and island analogy it would correspond the well known fact, that the effects of underground waves are attenuated around islands and presence of another islands increases the effects of tsunami waves. Their intensity forms similar filaments there, like the filaments of dark matter between galaxies.

    http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/781/iFF/fig-1-islands.jpg

    So that even in static universe exists geometric connection to accelerated expansion of Universe and effect of increased forces between particles and no Big Bang is actually required for its explanation. It’s an geometric effect of wave scattering inside the inhomogeneous environment, which is scale invariant in addition.

  • Zephir

    This connection can be understood easily, once we understand the mechanism of gravity. The aether wave theory utilizes the deDuillier/LeSage shielding model for it. It considers, the vacuum is formed with dense matter, which is filled with longitudinal waves, which manifest itself with CMBR noise and which get shielded with massive bodies. This leads into relative excess of transverse waves at the proximity of massive bodies and particles (i.e. virtual photons and quarks), which leads into an attractive force. The disbalance between longitudinal and transverse waves of vacuum manifest itself as a curvature of space-time so that the space-time gets more curved around massive bodies. The water surface analogy of this effect are the shorebreakers around islands, where the speed of surface ripples gets lowered with the proximity of the coast.

    But the another nearby massive bodies are shielding the longitudinal waves too and at the moment, when they’re get close enough or even collinear, it leads into shielding of shielding of longitudinal waves and into exactly the opposite effect, which is known as so-called Cassimir force at small distances or dark matter at large distance. The space-time gets more curved again, but in this case the excess of longitudinal waves applies and the time runs faster there for massive bodies. This is analogous the well known fact, that the effects of underground waves get attenuated around islands and that the presence of another islands increases the effects of tsunami waves even more. Their intensity forms similar filaments there, like the filaments of dark matter between galaxies. Between tiny particles at small distances this effect can be so pronounced, that these filaments will decay into massive particles (dark photons or particles X)

    http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/781/iFF/fig-1-islands.jpg

    The dark matter has therefore opposite effect to gravity and it speeds up the perceived Universe expansion, as its based on mutual shielding of the gravity effects between massive bodies. But as you may guess, these shielding effects of another massive bodies are the weaker, the more distant these objects are, so that the effects of dark matter cease with distance. Which creates an illusion for us, that our Universe expanded slower in the distant past and that the speed of its acceleration increases by now.

    The newly revealed dark photon is predicted to stick around for just a few minutes or hours – not long enough to alter the abundances of other elements. But it still cannot explain the dual paradox: why the heavy elements are more common in distant universe, than they should be. This is because in dense aether model the Universe is steady-state in essence and the Hubble red shift is the result of light scattering with quantum fluctuations of vacuum during its travel across wast cosmic space, but the principle remains the very same, as the curvature of space-time and speed of light scattering in it are closely linked each other.

    • Chapman

      You have done it again, Zeph.

      What you are saying is soooo out there that most will discount it as “nutty”, but you are 100 percent dead-on correct! I must point out that the way you describe it may make it look a bit like Sci-Fi Voodoo, but if folks can look past some of the terminology and focus on the underlying principles they will slap their foreheads and have a “Oh, of course!” moment.

      I AM NOT INSULTING YOUR POST!!! I like it, and wholeheartedly agree! I am only pointing out that unconventional theories need to be presented in the most understandable, comfortable, and conventional manner possible.

      To Whit: Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is actually a consequence of the existence of a dense ether which not only pervades space, but defines it. All matter is compelled to migrate together due to wave actions within this liquid medium. This effect is well understood and its corollary is observable in the marine environment.

      Furthermore, this dense ether also perfectly explains the confusing dual nature of both photons AND particles displaying characteristics of particles as well as waves, but this would be a separate discussion.

      Einstein dismissed the importance and influence of the ether, but only to suppress the tendency to invoke it in the conversation regarding Relativity. Well, I am going to go out on a limb here and open myself up for ridicule and abuse, but Relativity is NOT physics – it is Philosophy. It never was about about the reality of spacetime, but rather a way to THINK about spacetime to get a mental grasp of the interconnectedness of motion, time, and distance. He famously AGREED later that he did not object to the ether, or deny its existence, but merely found it was not needed to describe relativity as a concept.

      I might also point out that we now know there is also no weak nuclear force as a fundamental force, but that it is only a manifestation of the electromagnetic force. This became clear only after the discovery and understanding of Quarks. This means that to date, we only know of TWO fundamental forces – EM and Strong. Period! But no one wants to discuss it around university labs…

      So, you are not alone Zeph. I assure you, I get what you’re saying. I may not agree with your superdimensional ideas, but much of what you say has merit. Part of me suspects that you present much of what you do INTENDING to give it shock value for some reason, but you are on to some valid basic science that many would understand and agree with after a little discussion and clarification. The fact we are all HERE means we are not sworn to the “academic science community” and it’s university priesthood.

      • Zephir

        The concept of extradimensions is not self-saving, because we can define the dimensionality from perspective of light spreading (light lensing) or force spreading (violation of inverse square law). And these two perspectives aren’t equivalent at all – they’re dual instead and we are living inside the mixture of them. We are surrounded with many forces, which are apparently extradimensional, as they do violate the inverse square law, despite no lensing of space-time can be observed. And vice versa: various extradimensional features of light spreading, like the polarization and refraction essentially ignore the short distance forces. Which is also the main reason, why the string theorists ignore the extradimensional phenomena all around us, because it would also doubt the Lorentz symmetry postulate of their theory at the same moment.

        I’m repeating this stuff from 2005 – so I don’t quite understand which shock I’m supposed to introduce with it. I’m just pointing to existing analogies from classical multiparticle physics under hope, it will explain something for the rest of people.

        • Chapman

          Again, I meant NO insult, so please don’t read into my remarks any snarkiness that was not intended. I merely point out that many of your narratives come off like they came from a Doctor Who script, while actually having great scientific merit. Again, that sounds like an insult if you disregard my intent, but I hope you do not. If you have the grey matter to understand Dense Ether, then surely catching the meaning of my observations should not be a problem! 🙂 I am counting on your IQ being matched by your EQ.

  • Zephir

    The concept of extradimensions is not self-saving, because we can define the dimensionality from perspective of light spreading (light lensing) or force spreading (violation of inverse square law). And these two perspectives aren’t equivalent at all – they’re dual instead and we are living inside the mixture of them. We are surrounded with many forces, which are apparently extradimensional, as they do violate the inverse square law, despite no lensing of space-time can be observed. And vice versa: various extradimensional features of light spreading, like the polarization and refraction essentially ignore the short distance forces. Which is also the main reason, why the string theorists ignore the extradimensional phenomena all around us, because it would also doubt the Lorentz symmetry postulate of their theory at the same moment.

    I’m repeating this stuff from 2005 – so I don’t quite understand which shock I’m supposed to introduce with it. I’m just pointing to existing analogies from classical multiparticle physics under hope, it will explain something for the rest of people.

    • Chapman

      Again, I meant NO insult, so please don’t read into my remarks any snarkiness that was not intended. I merely point out that many of your narratives come off like they came from a Doctor Who script, while actually having great scientific merit. Again, that sounds like an insult if you disregard my intent, but I hope you do not. If you have them grey matter to understand Dense Ether, the nature of my statements should not be a problem! 🙂

  • Carl Wilson

    Any connection to proposed “protophobic X boson”?
    http://www.space.com/33750-fifth-force-of-nature-dark-matter.html