‘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

  • Carl Wilson

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

  • 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! 🙂

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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*”

  • 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.

  • Ged

    Found abundantly on Planet X.

    • cashmemorz

      Where is the “X”it outa here.