What's new inpAdic PhysicsNote: Newest contributions are at the top! 
Year 2017 
Could second generation of weak bosons explain the reduction of proton charge radius?The discovery by Pohl et al (2010) was that the charge radius of proton deduced from the muonic version of hydrogen atom  is .842 fm and about 4 per cent smaller than .875 fm than the charge radius deduced from hydrogen atom is in complete conflict with the cherished belief that atomic physics belongs to the museum of science (for details see the Wikipedia article). The title of the article Quantum electrodynamicsa chink in the armour? of the article published in Nature expresses well the possible implications, which might actually go well extend beyond QED. Quite recently (2016) new more precise data has emerged from Pohl et al (see this). Now the reduction of charge radius of muonic variant of deuterium is measured. The charge radius is reduced from 2.1424 fm to 2.1256 fm and the reduction is .012 fm, which is about .8 per cent (see this). The charge radius of proton deduced from it is reported to be consistent with the charge radius deduced from deuterium. The anomaly seems therefore to be real. Deuterium data provide a further challenge for various models. The finding is a problem of QED or to the standard view about what proton is. Lamb shift is the effect distinguishing between the states hydrogen atom having otherwise the same energy but different angular momentum. The effect is due to the quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The energy shift factorizes to a product of two expressions. The first one describes the effect of these zero point fluctuations on the position of electron or muon and the second one characterizes the average of nuclear charge density as "seen" by electron or muon. The latter one should be same as in the case of ordinary hydrogen atom but it is not. Does this mean that the presence of muon reduces the charge radius of proton as determined from muon wave function? This of course looks implausible since the radius of proton is so small. Note that the compression of the muon's wave function has the same effect. Before continuing it is good to recall that QED and quantum field theories in general have difficulties with the description of bound states: something which has not received too much attention. For instance, van der Waals force at molecular scales is a problem. A possible TGD based explanation and a possible solution of difficulties proposed for two decades ago is that for bound states the two charged particles (say nucleus and electron or two atoms) correspond to two 3D surfaces glued by flux tubes rather than being idealized to points of Minkowski space. This would make the nonrelativistic description based on Schrödinger amplitude natural and replace the description based on BetheSalpeter equation having horrible mathematical properties. The basic idea of the original model of the anomaly (see this) is that muon has some probability to end up to the magnetic flux tubes assignable to proton. In this state it would not contribute to the ordinary Schrödinger amplitude. The effect of this would be reduction of Ψ^{2} near origin and apparent reduction of the charge radius of proton. The weakness of the model is that it cannot make quantitative prediction for the size of the effect. Even the sign is questionable. Only Swave binding energy is affected considerably but does the binding energy really increase by the interaction of muon with the quarks at magnetic flux tubes? Is the average of the charge density seen by muon in S wave state larger, in other words does it spend more time near proton or do the quarks spend more time at the flux tubes? In the following a new model for the anomaly will be discussed.
The anomaly of charge radius could be explained also as breaking of the universality of weak interactions. Also other anomalies challenging the universality exists. The decays of neutral Bmeson to lepton pairs should be same apart from corrections coming from different lepton masses by universality but this does not seem to be the case (see this). There is also anomaly in muon's magnetic moment discussed briefly here. This leads to ask whether the breaking of universality could be due to the failure of universality of electroweak interactions. The proposal for the explanation of the muon's anomalous magnetic moment and anomaly in the decays of Bmeson is inspired by a recent very special dielectron event and involves higher generations of weak bosons predicted by TGD leading to a breaking of lepton universality. Both Tommaso Dorigo (see this) and Lubos Motl (see this) tell about a spectacular 2.9 TeV dielectron event not observed in previous LHC runs. Single event of this kind is of course most probably just a fluctuation but human mind is such that it tries to see something deeper in it  even if practically all trials of this kind are chasing of mirages. Since the decay is leptonic, the typical question is whether the dreamed for state could be an exotic Z boson. This is also the reaction in TGD framework. The first question to ask is whether weak bosons assignable to Mersenne prime M_{89} have scaled up copies assignable to Gaussian Mersenne M_{79}. The scaling factor for mass would be 2^{(8979)/2}= 32. When applied to Z mass equal to about .09 TeV one obtains 2.88 TeV, not far from 2.9 TeV. Eureka!? Looks like a direct scaled up version of Z!? W should have similar variant around 2.6 TeV. TGD indeed predicts exotic weak bosons and also gluons.
Could the exchange of massive M_{G,79} photon and Z^{0} give rise to additional electromagnetic interaction inducing the breaking of Universality? The first observation is that the binding energy of Swave state increases but there is practically no change in the energy of P wave state. Hence the effective charge radius r_{p} as deduced from the parameterization of binding energy different terms of proton charge radius indeed decreases. Also the order of magnitude for the effect must come out correctly.
Consider next Lamb shift.
x=Δ E_{n}/Δ E_{n} (Lamb)= k^{2} × [2^{9}π^{2}/3×13α] × (m/M)^{2} . For M=2.9 TeV the numerical estimate gives x≈ (1/3)×k^{2} × 10^{4}. The value of x deduced from experimental data is x≈ 1.2× 10^{3}. There is discrepancy of one order of magnitude. For k≈ 5 a correct order of magnitude is obtained. There are thus good hopes that the model works. The contribution of Z^{0}_{1} exchange is neglected in the above estimate. Is it present and can it explain the discrepancy?
See the article Could second generation of weak bosons explain the reduction of proton charge radius? For background see the chapters New Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I and New Physics Predicted by TGD: Part II.

Two different lifetimes for neutron as evidence for dark protonsI found a popular article about very interesting finding related to neutron lifetime (see this). Neutron lifetime turns out tobe by about 8 seconds shorter, when measured by looking what fraction of neutrons disappears via decays in box than by measuring the number of protons produced in beta decays for a neutron beam travelling through a given volume. The life time of neutron is about 15 minutes so that relative lifetime difference is about 8/15×60 ≈ .8 per cent. The statistical signficance is 4 sigma: 5 sigma is accepted as the significance for a finding acceptable as discovery. How could one explain the finding? The difference between the methods is that the beam experiment measures only the disappearences of neutrons via beta decays producing protons whereas box measurement detects the outcome from all possible decay modes. The experiment suggests two alternative explanations.
See the article Two different lifetimes for neutron as evidence for dark protons and chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I. 