gelmini, nussinov, roncadelli

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

13 Aufrufe

gelmini, nussinov, roncadelli

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Neutrino substructure from flavor oscillations
- What is the Reconnection
- Genesis
- DT-034 - Ether Of Science - Daily Thoughts
- The Fates Unwind Infinity Infinity the Fates Unwin
- 47fate of Beyond 2012
- The Big Bang Theory and LHC
- Brett McInnes- The Most Probable Size of the Universe
- FIxed Earth - Theoretical Science
- Physical Review paper
- Universe From Nothing - Does Talking About Nothing Make Any Sense
- Astrophysics
- Different constants of light speed energy space time.docx
- Lecture 2 Bang
- Just6num
- Existence vs Creation of God
- An Etal,NIMA685(12)78-Side-By-side Comparison of Daya Bay ADs
- The Fourth Dimension - Chapters 1-2-3-4-5 (the Scribe of Tao)
- Weak Interact
- Higgs Taus ATLAS - Nunes 12

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

OF L E F T - H A N D E D NEUTRINO MASSES

Graciela B. GELMINI*

Shmuel NUSSINOV** and Marco RONCADELLI***

Received 16 November 1981

(Revised 16 July 1982)

We analyze further implications of the existence of a massless boson - the Majoron - mainly

coupled to left-handed neutrinos. Finalleptonspectrum in pion leptonic decay is affected by Majoron

bremsstrahlung, yieldinga bound on Maj oron-neutrinocouplingfrom experimental data. Supernova

dynamics is another issue discussed here. We address possible effects of the frequent

neutrino-neutrinocollisions, neutrino interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung in neutrino

scattering. In particular, we focus on the question of lepton number non-conservation. We find that

deleptonization of the core and high-entropy collapse can occur, via a subtle interplay of neutrino

interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung. Then, we propose an unorthodox solution to the

missing mass problem in the universe. Finally, we address the problem of galaxy formation, which

appears in a new perspective within our model.

1. Introduction

A m o d e l for l e f t - h a n d e d n e u t r i n o mass g e n e r a t i o n via n o n - v a n i s h i n g v a c u u m

e x p e c t a t i o n v a l u e ( V E V ) of an isotriplet Higgs field has b e e n r e c e n t l y suggested,

a n d s o m e of its c o n s e q u e n c e s were e x p l o r e d [1-12]. O n e of its m a i n f e a t u r e s is

the existence of massive c h a r g e d scalar particles, X , X , with masses of the o r d e r

of the s t a n d a r d W e i n b e r g - S a l a m gauge b o s o n s a n d in the ratio ~/2, a n e u t r a l light

Higgs b o s o n pt., a n d a truly massless G o l d s t o n e b o s o n - the M a j o r o n M - associated

with t h e s p o n t a n e o u s b r e a k i n g of a global, n o n - a n o m a l o u s c u r r e n t , B - L . All these

particles m a y m a n i f e s t t h e m s e l v e s in Z decays, a n d ee - or e e collisions.

T h e n e u t r i n o mass matrix has the form:

mii=giiv

(1)

is that the i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l mixings are small, in which case eq. (1) takes the

* Present address: ICTP, Trieste, Italy. Address after 1st January 1983: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

** On leave from Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Work supported in part by Israeli

Academy of Science.

***Associato INFN, Pavia, Italy. Address after 1st November 1982: Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa,

Italy.

157

158

approximate form:

ml = gllv.

(2)

mixing angles are large. The astrophysics of the cores of red giant stars [2] yields

the bound*

v < 100 keV.

(3)

Due to eqs. (1)-(3), it follows that all neutrinos m u s t be lighter t h a n a b o u t 100 k e V

in this model.

i

/'~L/-'L ~ MM decimates the ith neutrino species, as soon as the radiation temperature

T equals the mass of ui. This prevents neutrinos of any mass from playing any r61e

in the solution of the missing mass puzzle [15], even if neutrino masses larger than

30 eV are confirmed via end of /3-decay spectrum [16] or double [3-decay [17]

measurements. The last process yields the further bound:

i

(4)

mvo ~ ge~v < 100 eV,

(5)

exist on g,~, or g,,, since the bound [18] Zimv, ~ 5 0 - 1 5 0 eV is not valid in this

model. Further constraints on g~j could in principle be inferred from the bounds

on rare decays, such as/z ~ eel, if it were not because of the strong dependence

of these processes on the unknown integenerational mixing angles. Incidentally, in

order to simplify the following discussion we shall often ignore mixing effects.

Our goals in the present paper are the following:

(a) We point out that distortions of charged lepton spectra due to Majoron

bremsstrahlung of v~ or v~ are expected in processes such as 7r ~ txv~,, ~ - -~ v~,~e-,

r ~ ~ru,, 7 - ~ u,u~e , r -~ u , ~ , t z - . This implies direct bounds on g~,, ( g , , ~< 10 -z) and

much weaker ones on g,,, because of lack of data. Therefore g,, is only restricted

by the trivial bound g,, < 1.

(b) We discuss the possible impact of our Majoron model on supernova astrophysics. In particular, we point out the relevance of frequent neutrino-neutrino

collisions, neutrino interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung in neutrino

scatterings. Then, we address the important issue of lepton number nonconservation. This has been emphasized in a recent paper by Kolb et al. [5]. Although lepton

n u m b e r is c o n s e r v e d in s u p e r n o v a cores and the process considered by Kolb, Tubbs

and Dicus vanishes, we find that the effect of core deleptonization and high-entropy

collapse envisaged by these authors m a y still h a p p e n ! This requires a subtle interplay

* Very recently, a more careful analysis has been performed by Fukugita et al. [13, 14]. F r o m the

sun, they get v < 600 keV, whereas from the red giants they obtain v < 60 keV. T h e b o u n d eq. (3)

is consistent with these results.

159

occur only if some lower bounds on the Yukawa couplings in the neutrino sector

are met.

(c) We add a few remarks on the long range forces due to Majoron and light

Higgs exchanges, whose effects turn out however to be negligible.

(d) A small mass for the Majoron might be generated if the global symmetry

B - L is explicitly broken by a small term in the lagrangian. With a mass of

approximately 10-20 eV, this could account for the missing mass of the Universe.

(e) We briefly comment on the possible connection between galaxy formation

and the density fluctuations induced by the late phase transition at which lepton

number is spontaneously broken. This last point will be only superficially treated

here.

The results obtained in the present paper apply also to the various extensions

of our model due to Schechter and Valle [4], Barbieri and Mohapatra [19] and

Mohapatra and Senjanovic [20].

2. Majoron

bremsstrahlung

High precision measurements for ~r a n d / z decays have been successfully compared with theoretical calculations including radiative corrections. The pseudoscalar

Majoron couples, with strength g . . , to the u. in the final states of these decays.

The produced Majorons cannot be directly detected because of their extremely

weak coupling to any charged fermion F

hFF~--VmF<~1 0 -12.

u

(6)

However, the distortion induced in the final charged lepton spectra can be observable. Its absence - within a given level of accuracy - leads to an upper bound on g...

We focus now our attention on the decays ~r ~ / x v . , zr ~ tzu.y and ~r-~/xv.M*.

In the absence of Majoron and photon radiation, the tz spectrum consists - i n the

7r rest f r a m e - o f one single sharp line, at E m } = ( r n 2 ~ + m . 2- r n ~ . )2/ 2 m ~ .

The

integrated weight of this &function is just

2

GF.2

2[ 1 --~-~

m.)

_F'(Tr+ I~v~,) = -ff--~

l,,m~,m.~

(7)

2G2"2m

G ~ m,,E~,-2E~,+m~,

2 2

dF

g~,,

Fi = cos 2 0c (

=

2

2

dE~,

32r 3

E~, m,,/ m , ~ + m u - 2 m , ~ E ~

(8)

* Also the emission of the light Higgs PL should be included. It doubles the total new bremsstrahlung

rate.

160

F(Tr+tzv.M)=

1

.,",,2 1'2

~r, COS2 0c

1 ~ - ~ 3 g 2m,t.rFf

~m 3~ 2,

(9)

with

Z ~-~g-I-~Og

1, 3 2 - - 7 0 / 3 - t - 0 / 4 + 0 ~ 5 - - 7 0 t 6 + 0 1 2 ( 1

--0t2) 2

In ( l - a z) 2 ,

e

(10)

fixed by the experimental resolution (e >~0.1 MeV). This rate has to be compared

with the ordinary photon bremsstrahlung, whose branching ratio [21] is

F(rr ~ txv~y) = (1.24+0.25) 10 -4 .

F(~" -, ~v~)

(11)

I z v . M ) / F ( T r ~ t~v.) <~0.125 10 .4* yields

g,~, ~< 10 -2 .

(12)

yielding g~,~ ~<2 . 3 . 1 0 -2. Taking the intergenerational mixings into account, we

obtain

g.e2 "~gtxtx2 + g ~ . < ~ 5 . 3 " 1 0 - 4 ,

(13)

which is almost as strong as the bounds deduced after submission of the present

p a p e r for publication [3, 9]. A more stringent bound could result from comparing

the actual shape of the observed/x spectrum. Considerable i m p r o v e m e n t could be

achieved using future high statistic zr + tz experiments planned for searching my. # 0.

Imperfect tx polarization in rr + I z v . , distortion of the three body spectrum in

/x ~ v.~Tee- and apparent deviation from e - tx universality in rr- decay, could supply

independent bounds.

Also, the M-bremsstrahlung leads to a VL-~ V[ flip, with the consequent production of the wrong-sign charged leptons in deep inelastic neutrino scattering. We

believe, however, that the bounds on g . . obtained here are m o r e restrictive. (This

turned out to be actually the case [3].) With respect to v. bremsstrahlung we have

no way of achieving stringent bounds on g.., because of the scarcity of data.

So far we have been concerned just with the bounds on the coupling parameters

g~., g... It is necessary however to emphasize the reverse aspect. If rnv~ turns out

to be of order 30 eV, and the intergenerational mixings are small, then g ~ . >~ 1 0 - 7 .

This is so because mv~ = g . . v and v < 100 keV [2]. Finding a small distortion of

the Iz spectrum in 7r ~ v .

decay, which cannot be accounted for by photon

bremsstrahlung, would confirm the basic ingredient of the present a p p r o a c h - the

See p r e v i o u s footnote.

161

e x p e r i m e n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t v e t o i n g p h o t o n s could b e e x t r e m e l y useful.

O n e of the characteristics of o u r m o d e l is the striking p r e d i c t i o n of large neutrinoneutrino cross sections, d u e to M a j o r o n e x c h a n g e a n d p r o d u c t i o n * . T h e i n t e r c o n v e r sion VeVe-" VHVrI, for e x a m p l e , has a cross section**:

2

geegI-m~g~gHH

t r ( v ~ v ~ vi-iVla)~- 24IrE~

w2~

10-23

2

cm ,

(14)

with t o ~ - E v / 1 M e V (H stands for " h e a v y " , i.e., /z, r). T o get a n idea a b o u t the

m a g n i t u d e of cr(v~v~ ~ VHvH), we can c o m p a r e it to the typical cross sections of the

s t a n d a r d weak i n t e r a c t i o n s , for e x a m p l e the cross section for coherent n e u t r i n o n u c l e o n s c a t t e r i n g [22]:

cr(uNcoh)

G2sinEOwEgvA2

2

2 .

~ l va t e - 4 5 ~A 2 oJvcm

~-zr

(15)

2

for oo~ ~ 20,

2

-4

A ~ 50 a n d g 2 ~ 1 0 - 6 . W i t h the b o u n d g,~, ~< 10 a n d g,, ~ 0(1) m e n t i o n e d above,

this factor r u n s o v e r 1 0 4 t o 1 0 8 . This p r e d o m i n a n c e should b e c o n t r a s t e d with the

negligible role of the M a j o r o n e x c h a n g e in v F * * * o r F F (F ~ v) processes, s t e m m i n g

f r o m the smallness of the hFF couplings (see eq. (6)).

H o w e v e r , the net effect of a given interaction depends on the number of collisions

per unit length ~ 1/h ~nar, w h e r e A is the m e a n free p a t h (m.f.p.), n is the n u m b e r

d e n s i t y a n d tr the cross section c o n s i d e r e d . U n d e r m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s the n e u t r i n o

n u m b e r density, n,, is very small in c o m p a r i s o n with the n u m b e r d e n s i t y of n u c l e o n s

a n d e l e c t r o n s nN ~ ne = N A (NA b e i n g the A v o g a d r o n u m b e r ) . T h e resulting m.f.p.

for n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o collisions

A~, ~ - n,zr,,~,

(16)

* When the temperature T is higher than the non-standard VEV., i.e., T ~> v, the mixing between the

triplet and doublet Higgs fields does not exist. Since the global symmetry B-L is restored, no

Goldstone boson exists either (see sect. 4). In this case, M and PL are replaced by ~o, the neutral

component of the triplet, with light mass ~ T. The contribution of ~o introduces a factor 4 in the

cross sections for all new unconventionalneutrino-neutrinoscatterings.

** The differential cross section does peak for/3 ~ 1 (super-relativistic neutrinos) near 0 = 0 and the

integrated area of the peak behaves as In (1 -/3). Such small angle scatterings do not contribute to

the diffusion and can be ignored. Hence the simple expression given by eq. (14) is applicable.

***For example, the contribution of M and PL exchange to the neutrino-electron scattering cross section

is about eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the gauge boson exchange contribution for

Ev = 1 MeV and my = 1 eV [1].

162

is then much bigger than the characteristic size of the system R, and the system

and the neutrinos hardly scatter from each other before escaping.

As an example, consider the solar core for which R ~- 101 cm. The total neutrino

flux @v can be inferred from the solar luminosity and the average neutrino energy

coy = 1 to be qbv ~1039 u/sec. The neutrino density in the core is n ~ - ~ @ j R 2 c ~109/cm 3. Hence, even for grin -- 1 we find, from eqs. (14) and (16): A~v >>1020 cm >>

R. We can likewise verify that no significant neutrino-neutrino scatterings occur

for neutrinos in reactors or in accelerator beams.

We do expect strong new effects in those special circumstances when A~ - R system.

An example is the fate of massive (say mv ~- 100 eV) cosmological neutrinos, as the

radiation t e m p e r a t u r e drops down to T~ = m~, [2]. Neutrinos interconvert and annihilate with cross sections [2] like those of eq. (14): o - = 10 -27 cm 2 for gii ~ 10-3

(required if m,, = 100 eV). The neutrino n u m b e r density scales with T 3 and at

100 eV is n~ ~ 3 1019 cm -3. The corresponding m.f.p, for annihilation is Av~-,MM'~

108 cm to be c o m p a r e d with the horizon c t . = 3 10 TM cm, where t . ~ 108 sec is the

age of the universe when T =my, ~ 100 eV. Equivalently, one can compare the

annihilation rate with the expansion rate of the universe = t 1. This is the reason

why all cosmological neutrinos annihilate at temperatures T ~<m~, in the present

model, even if g, ~ 10 - 6 - 10 -5.

Our quest for dense neutrino "targets" leads us to supernova cores. As we will

next show, it is here that we finally have n~ ~- nN,n~, i.e., neutrino n u m b e r densities

approaching those of the nucleons (or electrons) in the medium.

Some aspects of supernovae, for exainple, the nucleosynthesis of heavier elements, are qualitatively well understood. There are however several puzzles such

as the mechanism of the " b o u n c e " , required to eject the star mantle, leaving the

core as a remnant neutron star [23]. Several years ago, it was pointed out [22] that

the neutrino diffraction via Z exchange on nuclei produces a m o m e n t u m transfer

of the order of the energy of the neutrinos, A p ~ E ~ ~ 20 MeV. The coherence of

these low energy scatterings implies a quick rise of the cross s e c t i o n - given just

by eq. ( 1 5 ) - w i t h the atomic number A. It has been suggested [22, 24] that the

coherent neutrino diffraction on the Fe-Ni shell surrounding the core accounts for

the bounce (A = 56 for Fe). This hypothesis has been extensively tested numerically

[25] and appears to fall a bit shorter. More recently, another scenario for supernova

dynamics due to Bethe, Brown, Applegate and Lattimer (BBAL) [26] has become

much more favoured. In this scenario, the bounce comes from a stiff equation of

state and is in the form of a mechanical shock wave. Peculiar to this picture is a

collapse with s m a l l specific entropy, controlled to a large extent by the degenerate

Fermi energy of neutrinos and electrons.

The basic reaction triggering the collapse is e - + p ~ n + u~. It converts all protons

within a core of mass ~ 1.4 MG -~3. 1033g into the neutrons constituting the

remnant neutron star. The total n u m b e r of neutrinos emitted in a fairly short

163

N~ = NA" 3 ' 1033 ~ 1057 .

(17)

Let tr be the average time that a typical m e m b e r of this gigantic neutrino population

remains inside the core before escaping. If t~ ~ tco~lap~, the emitted neutrinos stay

in the core throughout the whole collapse. Since we have practically one neutrino

emitted per nucleon, this would imply comparable n u m b e r densities n~ = nN. In

general tr < tcollapse. The neutrinos stay in the core only a fraction f=- tr/tcollapse < 1

of the effective neutrino-emitting period, i.e., t~ol~ap~, and therefore their density

is correspondingly reduced:

tr

n~, ~'fnN ~ - -

nN.

tcoUapse

(18)

The important point is that in all collapse scenarios, f is not much smaller than 1,

f - 1 0 - l - 10 -3 being a typical range. The effective neutrino-emitting p e r i o d during which say 50% of the neutrinos are e m i t t e d - c a n be read off from fig. 6

of ref. [24], which represents the results obtained by Wilson [25] for a core density

2 . 1 0 a l g / c m 3. This time, tcollapse--~0.02-0.04sec. For a mass of 3 . 1033g, the

corresponding size is R ~ 31/3 107 cm --~ 1.2 107 cm.

Clearly, the minimal period that a neutrino stays in the core is R / c , i.e.,

4 . 1 0 -4 sec. This corresponds to the fastest (collisionless) escape. Thus tr>~R/c,

i.e., try>4 10 -4 sec. and for the case at hand f = tJtcoHapse ~ (0.5-1) 10 -2.

D u e to scattering of the outgoing neutrinos on the electrons and nucleons in the

core, tr m a y exceed R / c . If the scattering is completely isotropic, and the neutrino

scatters S times before leaving the core, then from standard r a n d o m walk estimates

[27]:

R ~ x/S hv,

(19a)

S ~ (R/A~) 2,

(19b)

h,,C

h,,

For the above core p a r a m e t e r s (p = 2.1011 g cm -3, T = 3 MeV) and for neutrino

energies ~ 16 MeV, the m.f.p, for neutrino-electron and neutrino-nucleon collisions

Ave--~ 8 " 106 c m , A.N--~ 4 " 105 c m are comparable to, even somewhat smaller (by

about a factor of 10) than the core radius. F r o m eq. (19c) we find that tr could

exceed its minimal value R / c by - 1 0 and

.

tr

.

f -~ /collapse

10 R

.

AvtcoUapse

0.1 - 0.05

(20)

164

tf~ = (24 "rrGNp) - 1 / 2 = 10 -3 sec.

(21)

yields a r o u g h estimate of too.apse = 1 0 - 2 s e c . * very close to ( 0 . 5 - 1) 1 0 - 2 s e c . the

values used above. Thus in conclusion

n~ ~ (10 -1 -- 10-3)nN

(22)

as a conservative estimate.

W e n o w turn to the novel element of n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scattering. Since in the

standard m o d e l o-w = c r ~ and nv < n~ (or nN), these are safely neglected in any

scenario based on standard weak interaction models. H o w e v e r , in the present model

n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scatterings are predominant. Specifically, f r o m eqs. (15) (used

for a cross section per nucleon) and (14) we find the ratio of the interconversion

cross section ~r(v~v~+v~v~) (used here since g~ is least restricted by previous

analysis) to the standard n e u t r i n o - n u c l e o n cross section

o'(v~v~v~'~)

cr(vN)

102 2 2

= - -tO

7 -v g ~ g ~ ,

(23)

h . . . . -, . . . .

AvN

4,'t~--19

60 v q t U

-- 10 -17)

2 2

(24)

g~gT~"

Thus, unless g~g~ ~ 10 - 7 5 - 10 65, the m.f.p, for the new process is smaller than

the standard one for E~ ~ 10 M e V , the typical e n e r g y considered. If g ~ ~ 10 -6 and

g ~ ~ 1, the factor is 10 _9 - 10 -7, since, as we have seen above, A~ ~/~vN O ( R / 1 0 ) ,

we certainly have A~ <<R (Av~/R ~ 10 - m in the case g~ ~ 1, n. ~ 0.1 n N and A ~ / R

10 -2 in the other extreme case g~ ~ 10 -3, n~ ~ 1 0 - 3 n N ) . T h e relevance of these

strong n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scatterings for s u p e r n o v a astrophysics will be analyzed

in the next section.

~

T h e effects of frequent n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o collisions, interconversion of the

neutrino species and light b o s o n bremsstrahlung in neutrino processes on s u p e r n o v a

physics d e p e n d s on the specific scenario assumed for s u p e r n o v a collapse and

explosion. W e envision three kinds of effects:

the neutrino transport can be affected;

the interconversion of neutrino species will lower the original t,~ density;

* If we had a free gas of nucleons, then (v2) = 3{v~)= 3kT/mN. What we are implicitly assuming in

the estimate is that the net radial influx of the nucleons, i.e., the actual collapse under gravity has

a velocity which is smaller than, but still comparable to, (v ~}l/z.

165

leading eventually to almost complete deleptonization of the core and high-entropy

collapse.

We will now elaborate on these points.

here much more frequent than in the standard weak interaction models.

Since radial m o m e n t u m is conserved in these processes, the outward neutrino

flow from the core is unhindered even by the most frequent neutrino-neutrino

collisions. The large number of neutrino self-interactions makes the outstreaming

neutrino flux much more coherent. Suppose an outgoing neutrino is turned back

by a hard collision with a nucleon. In the usual scenario it would follow its new

direction for a long time until escaping or suffering a subsequent collision. In the

present model it will share however its momentum with all neighbouring outgoing

neutrinos. It turns back again and continues to follow the outstreaming motion.

Thus, instead of behaving like a dilute gas, the neutrinos flow like a relativistic fluid.

A second effect of the large neutrino-neutrino cross sections is that the initially

present ve will be immediately interconverted into v,, u, and light Higgs bosons

4 . As a consequence, the core contains an equal number of all neutrino species

and light Higgs mesons in thermal equilibrium. The presence of v, and q~0 will be

of crucial importance for the physics of supernovae. Deferring the discussion of

the major issue to subsect. 4.3, we note here that, even if the total lepton number

is c o n s e r v e d - which is indeed the case (see b e l o w ) - the neutrino number density

for each species in the core is reduced by about a factor of four with respect to

the ve density in the usual scenario. This fact can have several implications.

The rate of the reaction ve + n ~ p + e - (the reverse of the basic neutronization

reaction) is reduced and possible effects of neutrino degeneracy are suppressed.

The cross sections of v~, and v, on electrons are different from those of v~, since

the corresponding charged current amplitudes are lacking. Also, the light neutral

bosons qb have fourfold enhanced Z cross sections, due to the double SU(2) U(1)

quantum numbers (with respect to neutrinos).

We come now to the most delicate and most powerful implication of the Majoron

theory in supernovae: the effect of lepton number violation [5].

166

We first elucidate the nature of lepton n u m b e r violation in the model. The basic

feature is that total lepton n u m b e r is broken only s p o n t a n e o u s l y by the vacuum

expectation value of a Higgs triplet qO carrying two units of lepton number. The

separate e,/x and r lepton numbers are broken explicitly, since we introduce only

one triplet qb. Therefore, processes like VeVe ~ v~v~ are allowed and occur with cross

sections like eq. (14). However, AL = 4 processes, like v e v ~ v~-v~, must have an

explicit factor of v2 in the amplitude, so that their cross sections go to zero like v4

as v vanishes. This aspect was overlooked in ref. [5], where it was assumed that

b ' L / J L ' ~ / , ) ~ / - ~ also proceeds with a cross section like eq. (14). To get the right result,

one has to consider the two diagrams involving the exchange of M and 0L, which

cancel exactly up to the M - - p L m a s s difference. Now, in the case v = 0, rnoL = m M

since PL and M are respectively the real and imaginary parts of the neutral

c o m p o n e n t qb of the Higgs triplet, so that or(/-'L/.PL ''~ /.-'~/J~) = 0, as expected since

total lepton n u m b e r is now conserved. Alternatively, if v # 0, m M = 0 and so we

obtain the following order-of-magnitude estimate:

4

c c

O.(FLk, L....) VLVL)

g rn.oL

8~'s 3 ,

(25)

where g is the relevant Yukawa coupling and moL = a v [1, 2]. Hence, O" (/,'L/.-' L "-) /J ~//~_)

goes like v 4, as expected from the above general argument. Recalling the bound

v < 1 0 0 k e V , we expect m o L < v since a is naturally less than one [2]. Taking

typically x/s = 10 MeV, we obtain at the very least an extra suppression by about

10 -8 with respect to the estimate of ref. [5],

However, even this is not the end of the story! The core t e m p e r a t u r e ~ 1-10 M e V

considerably exceeds the triplet V E V v < 100 keV. It is well known [28] that under

such circumstances a spontaneously broken symmetry is restored. Therefore, inside

the core v = 0 and no lepton n u m b e r violation at all is present. In particular, the

c c

process /JL/-'L~ VL/JL has vanishing cross section.

The bounds on v were derived from considerations of stellar o b j e c t s - t h e sun,

red giants and white d w a r f s - w h o s e core temperatures are lower than the bound

obtained!

The supernovae are the first system where necessarily T > v over the core region.

Hence, we have here a nice two-phase system: the symmetric phase inside the

core where total lepton n u m b e r is conserved, surrounded by the cooler mantle

where v # 0 and lepton n u m b e r is spontaneously broken. Since this is a second-order

phase transition, we do not necessarily expect very dramatic effects arising from

superheating of the core during the contraction of the star. We think however that

this delicate and interesting point should deserve a more thorough investigation.

Finally, we come to the m a j o r point of this section. Notwithstanding all the

above, the results obtained by Kolb et al. [5] may still be true! The basic reason

is that although lepton n u m b e r is conserved, we may have generation of electron-

4/

167

\\,o

\

v4, scatterings via 4 ,0 bremsstrahlung, as shown in the above diagram.

vT + q b ~ v~ + ~ + q b .

(26)

We recall from subsect. 4.2 that vT and @0 are indeed available in the supernova

core. We consider v, because its coupling g,, to qt, is least restricted by bounds

deduced from available data.

Once v~ is produced, the key reaction:

v-~+p~n+e +

(27)

can occur. This leads to a large number of free neutrons dominating the pressure

and, most importantly, to depletion of electrons via e+e - annihilation. Therefore,

the deleptonization of the core envisioned by Kolb et al. [5] can still occur, provided

however that the new reaction (26) has a sufficiently large cross section. A rough

estimate of that cross section can be obtained by viewing such a process as elastic

v~qb scattering followed by qb bremsstrahlung. We have then:

2

c.~o.~o~ ge'~g~

v~'v 'v ) ~ .

, .~o

o'tv,'P

(28)

2

(29)

the results by Kolb et al. [5] about a high-entropy collapse as opposed to the B B A L

scenario can be true, provided:

g,, ~>3 10 .3 .

(30)

Clearly, the interconversion of neutrino species plays, a crucial role, since for the

originally present ve we have the bound ge~ ~< 1 0 - 3 which is in disagreement with

eq. (30).

To sum up, we have seen several new aspects of supernova physics in the

f r a m e w o r k of the M a j o r o n model. It would require however a much m o r e concerted

and coordinated effort of particle and astrophysicists to carefully assess the

significance of the new features brought up in our discussion.

168

5. Long-range forces

The exchange of the Majoron and the light Higgs between nonrelativistic particles

generates the spin-dependent ( o l . o ' 2 - 3 t r l , fir2. f ) / r 3 and Yukawa potentials

e-mpLr/r. However, due to the smallness of the couplings to charged fermions (eq.

(6)), the effects of such potentials are practically unobservable.

On the other hand, the couplings to neutrinos, in particular g~, could be fairly

large (g~ ~ 1 is not excluded). Nonetheless, it turns out that also for dense neutrino

systems, potentials of the above form play no role.

Sufficiently large neutrino (and u~ in particular) densities occur only at high

temperatures T ~>MeV > v. At such high temperatures the spontaneously broken

symmetry is restored. It is meaningless to talk about the massless M or the light

Higgs PL in this context where masslessness as a source for long range forces is all

important. In fact, the Higgs bosons do have under such circumstances effective

masses of order T. The neutrino-neutrino interactions have therefore a range of

order 1 / T and only the noncoherent large angle neutrino-neutrino scatterings

(discussed in detail in sect. 3) need to be considered.

The essential idea of the present model is that B - L is broken spontaneously. It

would appear rather artificial to break B - L spontaneously, and in addition to a

smaller extent also explicitly. However, in the following we will consider exactly

this case.

The cosmological implications of a tiny mass for the Majoron (ram << v ~< 100 keV

is still assumed to hold) are far reaching. The possibility that the missing mass in

galaxies is accounted for by the lightest (mvo= 10-20 eV) neutrino species is again

revived [15].

A small Majoron mass rnM = (10-20) eV modifies the arguments of ref. [2] (briefly

repeated in sect. 3 above). It vitiates the conclusion that all neutrino species

annihilate u~ui ~ MM when the temperature drops to T = rn~, so that neither they,

nor their decay products, can make any significant contribution to the present

energy density.

What still remains true is that all neutrino species, the light Higgs PL and the

Majoron M will all interconvert (or annihilate or decay*) into the lightest species.

If:

mvo < tara ~ 10-20 eV

(3 la)

all species will convert into ue. Also, the argument of ref. [2] and sect. 3 can be

now repeated verbatim but in the reverse sense: light Higgs particles and the

Majorons will annihilate into ~e once the temperature drops below tool or mM,

* In particular, the decay PL~ MM occurs at tree level, provided tool > 2raM.

169

mvo>mM-~ 10-20 eV

(31b)

is still consistent with the direct experimental upper bounds on m vo. In this case

all neutrino species and the PL will convert into Majorons*.

The first case is almost identical to the standard scenario in which no Majoron

effects exist at a l l - with, however, one rather important difference. The neutrinos

(and PL and M) still decouple f r o m photons and electrons at the same t e m p e r a t u r e

To as in the standard model, To ~ 1 M e V [23, 29]. At this decoupling point the

t e m p e r a t u r e of the " n e u t r i n o " plasma is, by definition, equal to that of the photons,

and we have the same n u m b e r of particles per degree of f r e e d o m in both plasmas.

In the usual scenario, the photons heat up slightly (from 1.9 K to 2.7 K) at

electron-positron recombination [23, 29], so that the n u m b e r d e n s i t y ~ 100 cm -3

of each neutrino species at present is smaller than that of the photons ~ 4 0 0 cm -3.

In the present scenario, however, a similar reheating and increase of n u m b e r density

occurs also for the v~, since all neutrino species, the M a j o r o n M and PL annihilate

into re. Thus, even if m~e is only 10-20 eV, it could have in the present scenario

an effect equivalent to that of one species of mass roughly four times heavier, i.e.,

4 0 - 8 0 eV. This would certainly imply a crucial role in the missing mass problem,

and depending on the H u b b l e constant, it may suffice to m a k e P(Ve)~'Pcritical,

allowing us to close the universe with neutrinos.

The second case is m o r e subtle. All degrees of freedom convert into M. If the

M a j o r o n had a lifetime longer than the present age of the universe

J-M ~>J-u ~ 3 1017 sec.,

(32)

they might supply the solution to the missing mass problem! T o m a k e s u r e that

this does indeed happen, we have checked that the annihilation process MM--> 3'3'

via a triangle loop of X , X :~ yields a cross section smaller than ~r(~v ~ M M ) [2]

by about 1028 .

The only possible decay of M is M + 3"3". Precisely because M is the Goldstone

boson of the n o n - a n o m a l o u s B - L current, the triangular anomaly and the low

energy expression for the decay amplitude vanish**. Furthermore, it turns out that

the contribution to this decay amplitude from the charged Higgs boson loop (see

fig. 2) also vanishes. The reason is that the relevant MX+X - and MX*+X - - couplings

via the vacuum tadpole are absent in the Higgs potential. The extreme suppression

of M ~ 3"3" is important because of the following considerations.

If the mass of a typical galaxy, M - 1 0 1 X M - 1 0 4 4 g , is accounted for by

Majorons, with mass 10 e V - - 10 -32 g, then such a galaxy contains -1076 Majorons.

See previous footnote.

* Actually, one can explicitly compute the contribution of the lowest order graphs with a triangle loop

of charged fermions. It turns out that they are finite and the various contributions cancel exactly

for each generation of quarks and leptons. We thank T. Yanagida and M. Yoshimura for an

illuminating discussion on this point.

170

/.~X"

X-~/

--.<

Fig. 2. A priori leading contribution to the decay M-~ 73', which would rule out the possibility of

accounting for the missing mass by massive Majorons. It vanishes due to the structure of the Higgs

potential.

Therefore 1076/J'M Majorons decay every second. The total resulting luminosity

in that energy range (Ev =~mM

1

= 5 - 1 0 eV), particularly from the galactic halo,

would much exceed observed limits, unless the stringent bound

J ' M ~ 101~r'u ~ 1028 sec.

(33)

is imposed. Similar constraints would result if the Majorons were not clustered in

galaxies.

Before concluding this section we would like to m a k e one more c o m m e n t which

is relevant if there is either a neutrino or Majoron background. The idea that a

sharp neutrino pulse emitted (presumably!) in the supernova collapse will be

detectable on the earth has been entertained by m a n y physicists [30]. In particular,

the separation of the ~'e, ~'~ wave packets [31] could generate two pulses, and the

time delay between these will be a direct measure of Am 2.

However, in the present model the neutrinos in the pulse will interact quite

strongly with the ambient neutrinos or Majorons in the galaxy (or in the intergalactic

space if detection of a supernova in another galaxy is envisioned.) The relevant

c.m. energy for the b'pulsePbackg. . . . d ( o r /~pulseMbackg . . . . d) collision is to 2 M e V 2 ~

E~punse" m~o(or E~p.... m M ) ~ 10 -4 M e V 2. Therefore, neutrinos in the pulse may

scatter quite strongly off the background: cr - g 2~g 2ee 10--19 cm 2, or ~r ~ g 4~, 4~--19

tu

cm 2,

in the case of M background. If neutrinos (or Majorons) are clustered in the galaxies

and account for the missing mass, then their density there is =108 cm -3 [32]. The

m.f.p, for the v pulse in the galaxy is then 1/n~o" -~ 1011 cm/gT~g~e2

2 (or 1011 cm/g~,4

in the second case). The radius of the galaxy is ~ 2 0 k p c ~ 1023 cm. Hence we

expect complete dispersal of the pulse. The unique chance of measuring Am 2 in a

manner which is completely independent of neutrino mixing may thus be completely

2 2

4

spoiled once g~g~T

(or g,~)

exceeds 10-12!

Detecting a neutrino pulse from a supernova would be a scientific event of m a j o r

consequence. It would rule out the possibility of Majorons with masses in the

2 2

4

cosmologically relevant range for g~eg,, or g,, greater than 10-12!

171

A long standing problem in astrophysics is the understanding of the source,

nature and subsequent growth of the fluctuations which conspired to transform an

initially fairly smooth density into the observed stars, galaxies, clusters and even

larger scale inhomogeneities observed recently [33].

One or more stable neutrino species with masses in the 10-100 eV range could

account for the missing mass puzzle. However, in so far as the above problem is

concerned, the "streaming" out of the light noninteracting neutrinos tends to

smooth initial fluctuations, making clustering on any scale smaller than M - 1015M

extremely unlikely [34]. In this section we will briefly discuss the possible impact

of the present model on this issue.

(i) Various ingenious standard weak interaction scenarios for galaxy formation

in a neutrino dominated universe have been recently suggested [35].

One intriguing possibility utilizes a hierarchical mv~ >>my, >>rn~o= 30 eV mass

pattern. The heavier species (say v~) forms first a pre-galaxy at roughly the desired

scale, M - M j . . . . . The lighter neutrino species are then trapped along with baryons

into the potential well generated by the pregalaxy. The heavy species should

disappear shortly thereafter, so as to ensure that neither ~,~, nor its decay products

overdominate the energy density of the universe. This finally leaves behind the

proper-size present-day galaxies.

Evidently such a scenario would be drastically modified, and most likely will

have to be abandoned, if the present triplet Majoron model is correct. Just recall

that once T ~ my, the heavy neutrinos immediately interconvert into the lighter

species and no time is left for pregalaxy formation.

(ii) It has been suggested [29] that the phase transitions involved in the quark

confinement into hadrons naturally lead to large fluctuations which are the source

of the presently observed large scale inhomogeneities (galaxies, etc.).

The phase transition of the present model is unique, being the latest*. It occurs

at T = T ~ = v ~< 100 keV, a temperature which is 3-4 orders of magnitude lower

than T quark (that corresponding to quark confinement) and 6-7 orders lower than

the T w s = u = 300 GeV. In particular, it happens relatively near the recombination

temperature T F ~ 1 eV, at which galaxies are conventionally believed to form. It

is therefore conceivable that in the interim period between T = T cM~ 10-100 keV

and T F - the temperature at which galaxies are supposed to form - these fluctuations

will not dissipate but rather will continue to grow.

This in particular would be the case if over most of the interim period between

t M (defined as the time when the temperature equals T M) and t F (which is the time

when the temperature equals T ~) the universe is matter dominated. First, the

heaviest neutrino dominates the energy density and then (due to interconversion

and annihilation) the lighter ones take over.

* One of us (S.N.) would like to thank E. Witten for emphasizingthis point.

172

The original large fluctuations in the neutral component of the isotriplet scalar

field 4 could reflect eventually also as fluctuations in neutrino number density,

energy density and - via gravitational capture - also in baryon density.

We would like to thank A. De Rujula, D.Z. Freedman, S.L. Glahsow, M. Livio,

M. Milgron and M. Yoshimura for helpful discussions. Especially, we wish to

express our sincere gratitude to E.W. Kolb and D.L. Tubbs for their comments on

an early version of this paper. Finally, one of us (M.R.) would like to thank Dr.

K. Riedl for the invitation from the Maximilianeum Stiftung.

Reterences

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow and S. Nussinov, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 297

V. Barger, W.Y. Keung and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 907

J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 774

E.W. Kolb, D.L. Tubbs and D.A. Dicus, Astrophys. J. Lett. 225 (1982) L57

G.M. Fuller, E.W. Kolb and D.L. Tubbs, (1981), in preparation

A.M. Cooper et al., Ruthertord Laboratory preprint, RL-81-055 (1981)

V. Barger, H. Baer, W.Y. Keung and R.J.N. Phillips, University of Wisconsin preprint,

MAD/PH/37 (1982), Phys. Rev. D, to appear

T. Goldman, E.W. Kolb and G.L. Stephenson, Jr., Los Alamos Laboratory preprint, LA-UR-821401 (1982), Phys. Rev. D, to appear

F. Buccella, G.B. Gelmini, A. Masiero and M. Roncadelli, Max-Planck-Institut preprint, MPIPAE/PTh 21/82 (1982)

S.L. Glashow, talk given at the Second Workshop on Grand Unification, (Ann Arbor, Michigan,

April 1981); lectures given at the "Cargese Summer Institute" (July 1981)

H. Georgi, lectures given at the "Fourth Kyoto Summer School" (July 1981)

M. Fukugita, S. Watamura and M. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1522

M. Fukugita, S. Watamura and M. Yoshimura, KEK preprint, KEK-TH-41 (1982)

D.M. Schramm and G. Steigman, Gen. Rel. Grav. 13 (1981)101;

E. Witten, talk given at the First Workshop on Grand Unification, (New Hampshire, April'1980);

H. Sato, Kyoto preprint, RIFP-423 (1981);

A. Dolgov and Ya.B. Zeldovich, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 1;

G. Steigman, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981)

V.A. Lyubimov et al., Phys. Lett. 94B (1980) 266;

A. De Rujula, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 414

M. Doi et al., Osaka preprints, OS-GE 80/27 (1980), OS-GE 81/28, 29 (1981);

W.C. Haxton, G.J. Stephenson, Jr. and D. Strotteman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 153; Phys. Rev.

D25 (1982) 2360;

P. Minkowski, Bern University preprint, BUTP-15/81 (1981);

M. Doi and T. Kotani, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981);

S.P. Rosen, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981)

R. Cowsik and J. MeClelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 (1972) 669; Astrophys. J. 180 (1973) 6;

B. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165

R. Barbieri and R.N. Mohapatra, Z. Phys. C l l (1981) 175

R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 7

Review of particle properties, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52 (1980)

D.Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 1389

S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (J. Wiley, New York, 1972)

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

173

D.Z. Freedman, D.N. Schramm and D.L. Tubbs, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 27 (1977) 167

J.R. Wilson, (1976), private communication to the authors of ref. [24]

H.A. Bethe, G.E. Brown, J. Applegate and J.M. Lattimer, Nucl. Phys. A324 (1979) 487

W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, vols. 1 and 2 (J. Wiley,

New York, 1966)

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 3537;

L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 2904;

A.D. Linde, Rep. Progr. Phys. 42 (1979) 389

A. Dolgov and Ya.B. Zeldovich, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 1

D. Fargion, Nuov. Cim. Lett. 31 (1981) 499 and references therein.

S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. 63B (1976) 201

S. Tremaine and J.E. Gunn, Phys. Rev, Lett. 42 (1979) 407

P.J.E. Peebles, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, (Princeton University Press, Princeton,

N.J., 1980)

J.R. Bond, G. Efstathiou and J.Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 1980

M. Davis, M. Lecar, C. Pryor and E. Witten, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Harvard

College Observatory preprint, 1482 (1981)

- Neutrino substructure from flavor oscillationsHochgeladen vonJohn Michael Williams
- What is the ReconnectionHochgeladen vonGabriella Nagy
- GenesisHochgeladen vonapi-26870484
- DT-034 - Ether Of Science - Daily ThoughtsHochgeladen vonMon Rasz
- The Fates Unwind Infinity Infinity the Fates UnwinHochgeladen vonGyanaRaghavan-chamu
- 47fate of Beyond 2012Hochgeladen vonAleksandar Djordjevic
- The Big Bang Theory and LHCHochgeladen vonSaiyam Kalia
- Brett McInnes- The Most Probable Size of the UniverseHochgeladen vonTuoma2
- FIxed Earth - Theoretical ScienceHochgeladen vonfrancisnjoe
- Universe From Nothing - Does Talking About Nothing Make Any SenseHochgeladen vonLeonardo Rubino
- AstrophysicsHochgeladen vonuhraman
- Different constants of light speed energy space time.docxHochgeladen vonAce Orense Cupid Uranus Ace Sphinx Galzu Acetr444 son of Multiverses Chaos Gaeia Eros ACETR444
- Physical Review paperHochgeladen vonSrikar Varadaraj
- Lecture 2 BangHochgeladen vonfifaonline_756593583
- Just6numHochgeladen vonrhvenkat
- Existence vs Creation of GodHochgeladen vonMuhammad Umer
- An Etal,NIMA685(12)78-Side-By-side Comparison of Daya Bay ADsHochgeladen vonKevin Chen
- The Fourth Dimension - Chapters 1-2-3-4-5 (the Scribe of Tao)Hochgeladen vontao2012
- Weak InteractHochgeladen vonRaul Fraul
- Higgs Taus ATLAS - Nunes 12Hochgeladen vonJuan Antonio Valls Ferrer
- The Search for Muon-Number Violation at LAMPFHochgeladen vondssgss
- Neutrino Masses in SU(2)XU(1) TheoriesHochgeladen vonsmart5733
- Jesus Was a Patch?Hochgeladen vonswegner@arvig.net
- Formaggio 2012Hochgeladen vonFrank Bula
- INeutrino Physics- An Overview-IntroHochgeladen vonViji Svr
- MagesTic 18Hochgeladen vonVineet Rungta
- Solution Manual for Particle Physics by CarlsmithHochgeladen vona857548274
- Rpp2016 Rev Neutrino MixingHochgeladen vonΝίκος Μανιάτης
- How to generate experimentally a Kerr type black holeHochgeladen vonCharles Stevens
- Neutrino OscillationsHochgeladen vonAlbs

- Ester LineHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Generalized Fierz identities.pdfHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Two-Body Phase SpaceHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- azusa gando.pdfHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Rainer Maria RilkeHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Problems2_AdSCFT_BUSSTEPP16Hochgeladen vonzcapg17
- bussteppsusy_ps2Hochgeladen vonzcapg17
- BUSSTEPP.lectures.pdfHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Problems3_AdSCFT_BUSSTEPP16Hochgeladen vonzcapg17
- deroeck_BUSSTEPP_2016_part2_v2.pptxHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Busstepp Lectures on SupersymmetryHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Busstepp16 Cosmology iHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- RGQFTHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Problems1_AdSCFT_BUSSTEPP16Hochgeladen vonzcapg17
- ElliottHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Doi, Kotani, Takasugi MajoronsHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- BurgessHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Hirsch, Klapdor, Kovalenko, PaesHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Bamert, Burgess, MohapatraHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Staudt, Muto, KlapdorHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Del Aguila - Seesaw MechanismsHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- gelmini, nussinov, roncadelliHochgeladen vonzcapg17
- Schechter, Valle 2Hochgeladen vonzcapg17

- Newtonian UniverseHochgeladen vonJuan Carlos Morales Parra
- IMPORTANT.pdfHochgeladen von5b00014f
- Absolute Time and SpaceHochgeladen vonbensalt16
- Project Cyclops-A Design Study of a System for Detecting Extraterrestrial Intelligent LifeHochgeladen vonClinton Riddle
- 2LE Lec Review (Scratch Solution)Hochgeladen vonggwp21
- Doppler EffectHochgeladen vonNoushad Ahmed
- Black Hole Physics - Basic Concepts and New DevelopmentsHochgeladen vonDamián Neri
- EARTH & LIFE SCIENCE DLL June 3.docxHochgeladen vonAnalyn Bagdoc Garcia
- Kinetic and Potential Energy WSHochgeladen vonNheilzen Aelee Velasco Mercader
- Modeling the Cosmos.pptxHochgeladen vonLynn Hollenbeck Breindel
- BIG BANGHochgeladen vonRenor Sagun
- Carlos Hernandez Faham- The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) Dark Matter ExperimentHochgeladen vonUmav24
- Final CosmosHochgeladen vonxerohour
- The International Journal of Philosophical PhysicsHochgeladen vonhaque_nadeem1188
- Time is ChangeHochgeladen vonJaime Rodriguez
- Einstein's Most Important Writings - For DummiesHochgeladen vonmpazmoreno
- pe and ke 1 powerpointHochgeladen vonapi-320478846
- The History of the Universe_ Lyth (2016).pdfHochgeladen vonLuis Alonso SA
- Gadget2 PaperHochgeladen vonhutten7
- Time Travel - Tabusca Alexandru ValentinHochgeladen vonAlex Tăbușcă
- The Big BangHochgeladen voneohomegrownapps
- General RelativityHochgeladen vonAbdilatif Mohamud
- Thibault Damour and Sergey N. Solodukhin- Wormholes as Black Hole FoilsHochgeladen vonOllo43
- Time TravelHochgeladen vonjoseantoniolopezsanchez
- big bang theory essayHochgeladen vonapi-270085429
- 1006.2483v2.pdfHochgeladen vonbase1
- information in the structure of the universe 2Hochgeladen vonapi-186101394
- physics, a gentleman's scienceHochgeladen vonsam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal
- Lecture 05Hochgeladen vonsdamaskinos
- Introduction to Theorethical Time TravelHochgeladen vonjuanramoncho