Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

The paper argues that the neutron abundance entering Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and the neutron lifetime are controlled, through the Fermi constant's radiative corrections, by the Weinberg angle, and that a modest environmental shift in that

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:18 UTC pith:33K4PSBT

load-bearing objection A useful sensitivity map from the Weinberg angle to BBN neutron abundance and neutron lifetime, but the environmental-sW interpretation rests on an explicitly undeveloped premise. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02652 v2 pith:33K4PSBT submitted 2026-03-03 hep-ph astro-ph.COnucl-th

Weinberg Angle, Neutron Abundance in BBN, and Lifetime

Cheng Tao Yang , Johann Rafelski This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COnucl-th PACS 12.15.-y13.30.Ce14.20.Dh26.35.+c
keywords neutron lifetimeBig Bang nucleosynthesisWeinberg angleFermi constantradiative correctionsneutron abundancekinetic theoryweak interactions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper establishes that the neutron abundance available for Big-Bang nucleosynthesis is not fixed by the usual inputs alone: through radiative corrections, the Fermi constant G_F carries an explicit dependence on the Weinberg angle s_W, and the paper shows that a few-percent shift in s_W changes weak-interaction rates enough to move the neutron fraction at BBN onset well beyond the sub-percent precision that BBN predictions require. The same angle dependence perturbs the neutron decay rate in the primordial plasma, and the authors argue it can be larger than the Fermi-blocking medium effect. A kinetic population equation, rather than the simplified freeze-out-plus-decay picture, is needed to capture the effect, because the weak rates and the Hubble rate intersect in the relevant temperature window. The paper also proposes that the persistent discrepancy between beam and bottle neutron lifetime measurements could reflect a tiny environmental dependence of s_W. If true, precise BBN codes and lifetime experiments become, in effect, probes of electroweak symmetry breaking.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the effective Fermi constant, after radiative corrections, depends on the symmetry-breaking Weinberg angle through the ratio c_W/s_W, and that this dependence is not numerically negligible: scanning s_W over 0.21–0.24 changes G_F^2 at the percent level, which is enough to alter the neutron-proton conversion rates relative to the Hubble expansion and therefore to shift the neutron concentration X_n near the BBN onset temperature. The authors quantify this with a kinetic neutron population equation that includes weak conversion reactions, neutron decay, Fermi blocking, and gradual photon reheating, and they show that X_n decreases as s_W increases, with th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radiatively corrected Fermi constant, G_F = (1/√2 v^2)(1 + Δα − (c_W/s_W)Δρ + Δr_rem), in which the c_W/s_W term converts a shift in the Weinberg angle into a shift in the strength of all charged-current weak processes. The paper's quantitative engine is the kinetic neutron population equation dX_n/dt = Γ_{p→n} − X_n(Γ_{p→n} + Γ_{n→p} + Γ_n), whose rates Γ_i are proportional to G_F^2 times reduced phase-space integrals; the ratio of these rates to the Hubble rate H controls the freeze-out correction, and since G_F^2 cancels in the adiabatic ratio but not in the correction term, X_n at BBN picks up a residual angle dependence. The paper also uses a gradual-rehea

Load-bearing premise

The whole sensitivity analysis assumes the Weinberg angle can actually vary with temperature or experimental environment; the paper provides no dynamical theory showing it does, only the argument that the vacuum-energy minimum in s_W is likely shallow.

What would settle it

A first-principles calculation of the standard-model effective potential showing a steep, robust minimum in s_W, or a high-precision experimental campaign finding s_W constant across a wide range of temperatures and field strengths, would falsify the environmental-variation premise. Conversely, a laboratory experiment that resolves the beam-bottle lifetime discrepancy by controlling electromagnetic field conditions while measuring s_W in situ would confirm the proposed mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Precision BBN requires specifying the ambient value of s_W in the hot plasma; current codes that treat G_F as a fixed constant carry a hidden sensitivity to the electroweak angle.
  • The beam-bottle neutron lifetime discrepancy can be accommodated by a shift in s_W of well under the 7% spread among low-energy experimental determinations, making lifetime measurements a potential probe of environmental electroweak variation.
  • The simple freeze-out plus exponential-decay model overestimates the role of neutron decay and misses the lower-temperature shoulder of the neutron yield; correct abundance requires the kinetic correction term.
  • Even after neutron freeze-out, ongoing Γ_{p→n} weak production continues to replenish neutrons, which matters when nuclear reactions begin depleting them at BBN.
  • The neutron fraction X_n at BBN is robust to s_W in the adiabatic limit (where G_F cancels), so the effect appears only when the competition with Hubble expansion is handled kinetically.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the vacuum potential in s_W is as shallow as suspected, the same angle leakage would also shift the neutron-proton mass difference Q and the axial coupling g_A at finite temperature, effects not included here; a full treatment would couple the lifetime and abundance predictions.
  • The environmental interpretation of the neutron lifetime anomaly predicts a testable correlation: lifetime experiments performed in different electromagnetic-field environments should show correlated shifts in s_W extracted from electroweak precision data; no such correlation would disfavor the hypothesis.
  • The same radiative c_W/s_W lever arm applies to other weak processes such as muon decay; an apparent inconsistency between G_F values extracted from muon decay and neutron decay, if it scaled with experimental environment, would be a smoking-gun test.
  • Because the sensitivity grows as T drops toward 0.07 MeV, the full BBN network (especially helium-4 production) is the natural place to convert the angle-dependence into a cosmological constraint on any drift in s_W between laboratory and BBN epochs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a kinetic-theory calculation of the neutron abundance available at the onset of Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, including weak conversion reactions n↔p, neutron decay with Fermi blocking, and a Hubble parameter that accounts for gradual e± annihilation and neutrino decoupling. The authors then introduce, via radiative corrections to G_F, a dependence of the weak interaction strength on the Weinberg angle sW, and scan sW over a range around the adopted low-energy value sW = 0.223. They report that the BBN neutron concentration becomes sensitive to sW, and they connect the same sW-dependence to the neutron-lifetime discrepancy between beam and bottle experiments. The central sensitivity claim is conditional: if sW can vary environmentally, then X_n(T_BBN) and the neutron lifetime are affected. The paper explicitly does not develop a dynamical theory for that variation.

Significance. If the conditional sensitivity result is accepted, the paper is a useful quantitative study: it combines a reasonably complete kinetic description of n↔p conversion with a detailed Hubble model, and it makes transparent how a percent-level shift in sW could change the weak interaction strength through G_F radiative corrections. The analytic expressions for the rates are explicit and reproducible, and the paper does not fit its target result; it scans an external SM parameter. Its main limitation, acknowledged in the manuscript, is that the physical premise of an environmentally varying sW is asserted rather than derived. The paper is therefore best read as a sensitivity map, not as a prediction for the early Universe or for the neutron-lifetime discrepancy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 5] The physical relevance of Figs. 5 and 6 rests entirely on the premise that sW can vary at the percent level at T ~ 1 MeV. The paper itself states that 'a dynamical theory was not developed' and that no reference addressing the temperature dependence was found. This is load-bearing because the conclusions about BBN and the neutron-lifetime discrepancy require such a variation. In the SM, sW is a ratio of gauge couplings, not a dynamical field; a thermal correction controlled by v = 246 GeV is suppressed by (T/v)^2 ~ 10^-11 at 1 MeV. If a new scalar with VEV M sets sW, percent-level shifts at T = 1 MeV force M ≲ 10 MeV, which is in strong tension with BBN, stellar cooling, and equivalence-principle constraints. The paper should either supply a concrete mechanism or be reframed explicitly as a conditional parameter-sensitivity study, not as evidence that the early-Universe value of sW diffe
  2. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (7)–(8), Figs. 5–6] The paper presents two treatments of the G_F radiative correction: the self-consistent resummed form in Eq. (7) and the first-order perturbative form in Eq. (8). Figure 1 shows both, but Figs. 5 and 6 never state which version was used to compute the BBN curves. The difference between the two is not necessarily negligible at the sub-percent level claimed for X_n, since D ∝ G_F^2. In addition, no uncertainty is propagated from the choice of sW reference value or from the radiative-correction inputs. Please state explicitly which form is used in the BBN and neutron-lifetime plots and provide a sensitivity estimate for the difference between Eqs. (7) and (8).
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 2] The caption states that 'larger values of sW generally correspond to longer neutron lifetimes.' With the G_F dependence in Eq. (8), G_F increases with sW in the plotted range because the radiative correction term -cW/sW becomes less negative as sW increases. Since the decay rate is proportional to G_F^2, a larger sW should give a shorter vacuum lifetime and a larger decay rate, not a longer lifetime. If a different normalization or sign convention is being used in Fig. 2, it should be stated. This sign issue directly affects the interpretation of the neutron-lifetime discrepancy in Section 3.1.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (45) and (47)] The relaxation coefficient in Eqs. (45) and (47) is written as Γp→n + Γp→n + Γn, which duplicates Γp→n. Based on Eq. (43) and the adiabatic solution Eq. (44), the correct coefficient should be Γp→n + Γn→p + Γn. As written, the exponential kernel I(y, y') in Eq. (47) uses the wrong rate and will affect the numerical correction term X_corr_n. This appears to be a typographical error, but it must be corrected because the kinetic result is central to the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The discussion of the 'relatively large scatter of measured values of sW' conflates different renormalization schemes and energy scales (sZ_W = 0.2313, s0_W = 0.238, CODATA sW = 0.223). The difference between these values is not evidence for environmental variation; it is the expected scheme/scale dependence. This should be clarified to avoid overstating the motivation.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A12)] The free-streaming neutrino distribution is written with a fugacity Υν and an antineutrino chemical potential μνbar/Tk. It would be helpful to state explicitly how Υν is related to the neutrino chemical potential and how the antineutrino distribution is obtained, since Υν = 1 is used in the main text.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (46)] The variable y ≡ Q/T is introduced, but the initial condition y0 and the lower limit of the integral are not defined in the text. A brief definition of y0 and its relation to the freeze-out temperature would improve reproducibility.
  4. [References] Ref. [27] is cited as an arXiv preprint from 2018; if a published version exists, it should be cited. Some other references (e.g., Ref. [11]) appear to be secondary rather than the primary global-analysis source; please verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the sW sensitivity is computed from explicit radiative-correction and kinetic-theory formulas; the variable-sW premise is speculative but not an input fitted to the predicted outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained where it matters. GF(sW) is introduced via standard radiative corrections, Eq. (1), with the explicit self-consistent first-order expression Eq. (8); no parameter is fitted to neutron abundance or lifetime. The vacuum and in-medium neutron rates (Eqs. 13, 21, 22) and the n<->p reaction rates (Eqs. 33-37) all factor a common D proportional to GF^2, with phase-space integrals stated explicitly. The kinetic solution Eqs. (43)-(47) is written out; the adiabatic part is shown to be independent of GF/sW, and the sW sensitivity enters only through the computed ratio Gamma/H in the correction factor. Figs. 5-6 scan sW and compare with the standard Xn=0.13 reference rather than fitting it. Self-citations ([3], [8], [27], [29], [31]) supply the Hubble model, freeze-out treatment, and medium-decay method, but the relevant formulas are reproduced in the text/appendix and are standard, externally checkable; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely by self-citation. The admitted absence of a dynamical theory for sW(T) (Sec. 2.1 'a dynamical theory was not developed'; Sec. 5 'requires considerable theoretical effort') is a genuine weakness of the physical premise, but it is not a circular step: the paper computes what would happen if sW varied; it does not fit sW to its predicted outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation imports standard electroweak radiative corrections, nuclear matrix elements, and a cosmological Hubble model. Its only scanned parameter is sW. The main non-standard ingredient is the explicitly speculative environmental variation of sW, which is listed as an axiom because no dynamical theory is provided.

free parameters (1)
  • Weinberg angle sW = 0.223 (CODATA reference), scanned 0.1–0.5
    The central control parameter of the study; not derived, only scanned. The adopted reference value is one of several discordant measured values discussed in Section 2.1, and the paper itself treats sW as a free parameter of the SM.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption SM radiative-correction formula for G_F (Eqs. 1–3) remains valid in the MeV-temperature plasma environment, with sW entering the corrections as in vacuum.
    Section 2.2 uses the zero-temperature on-shell formula for G_F at all temperatures. This is reasonable for T << m_W but is still an assumption about the applicability of quantum field theory in a thermal medium.
  • domain assumption The Higgs vacuum expectation value v = 246.2 GeV is constant for 1 MeV > T > 0.01 MeV.
    Stated in Section 2.2; justified because the relevant temperature is far below the electroweak scale.
  • domain assumption The neutrino background is chemically equilibrated and free-streaming with fugacity Υν = 1 in the main calculations.
    Adopted in Sections 4.2–4.3 and Appendix A (Eq. A12); this fixes the neutrino distribution functions used in the rates.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective electroweak vacuum-energy minimum as a function of sW is shallow enough for environmental/temperature variation of sW at percent level.
    Introduced in Section 2.1 with the explicit statement that "a dynamical theory was not developed." This is the speculative premise on which the physical interpretation of the sensitivity results rests.
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic neutron and proton matrix elements for β decay and n↔p weak reactions, with standard g_A, V_ud, and Coulomb/recoil factor F, apply unchanged in the plasma.
    Used in Eqs. (11)–(15) and Eqs. (27)–(30); the paper argues the short-distance factors are not modified in the cosmic plasma.
  • domain assumption Radiation-dominated Hubble expansion with gradual e±-annihilation reheating, as parameterized in Appendix A.
    Appendix A borrows the Hubble model from the authors' own review [8]; it is a standard cosmological input but is load-bearing for the freeze-out kinetics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14848 in / 20411 out tokens · 195392 ms · 2026-08-02T19:18:18.026328+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present state of the art kinetic theory determination of the neutron abundance available for the Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Our work is motivated by the study of the neutron lifespan measured in the laboratory and the unknown strength of weak interactions coupling constant $G_\mathrm{F}$ at finite temperature in the primordial Universe. We draw attention to the relevant dependence of $G_\mathrm{F}$ on the symmetry breaking Weinberg angle $s^2_\mathrm{W}$, a free parameter in the standard model of particle physics. We establish how the value of $s^2_\mathrm{W}$ by way of $G_\mathrm{F}$ modification influences neutron abundance available for BBN and neutron lifetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02652 by Cheng Tao Yang, Johann Rafelski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The normalized Fermi constant (GF/G exp F ) 2 as a function of the Weinberg angle sW within the range 0.21 < sW < 0.24. The horizontal dotted line indicates the standard-model value GF = G exp F . The two methods of treating the radiative corrections are discussed in text. 3. Neutron Decay Rate 3.1. Decay in vacuum For the neutron decay channel n −→ p + e + νe , (10) the vacuum lifetime of neutron can be w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Neutron lifetime with respect to vacuum reference value τn/τ 0 n as a function of plasma temperature T for three different values of the Weinberg angle sW with range 0.21, 0.223, 0.24. background. As the temperature decreases towards BBN range, the ratio approaches a constant value, converging to the respective vacuum lifetime. Larger values of sW generally correspond to longer neutron lifetimes, while sma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Thermal reaction rates as a function of temperature 10 ⩾ T ⩾ 0.01MeV for processes shown in subscripts. • Neutron decay dominated epoch: When 0.05 > T > 0.01 MeV (and below), the dominant rate is the neutron decay rate, the neutron abundance is decreased by neutron decay in the primordial Universe. In summary, there is a well-defined sequence of dominant here relevant reaction rates as the Universe cools. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The neutron concentration Xn as a function of temperature. Dashed line: Result obtained under assumption that WI dominate Hubble expansion. Green dotted line: corresponds to thermal equilibrium, it is hard to see a difference but in the ratio X th n /X ad n seen in the insert. Blue dotted line: Correction to dashed line arising allowing kinetic neutron abundance processes and Hubble expansion. Solid line: … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top frame: The neutron concentration Xn as a function of temperature T with different values of Weinberg angle sW and assumed chemical equilibrium of background neutrinos, Υν = 1. The cases sW = 0.1 and sW = 0.3 illustrate the range of the Weinberg angle for which the approximation in Eq. (6) remains valid. The insert amplifies variation of neutron concentration for temperature characteristic of BBN onset … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ratio between weak interaction reaction constant D, Eq. (15) and the Hubble parameter as a function of the Weinberg angle sW for temperature values T = 2, 1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.07 MeV. The horizontal dotted line shows D = H, and the vertical dotted line marks the Standard Model value sW = 0.223. The yellow region indicates where the we can expect approximation in Eq. (6) to be valid. of the neutron conce… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on grav- itation and cosmology,

    J. P . Uzan, “Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on grav- itation and cosmology,” Living Rev. Rel.28, no.1, 6 (2025) doi:10.1007/s41114-025-00059-y [arXiv:2410.07281 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    BeyondΛCDM: fundamental constants as cosmological observ- ables,

    D. Milakovi´ c and J. K. Webb, “BeyondΛCDM: fundamental constants as cosmological observ- ables,”White Paper submitted to ESO’s Expanding Horizons initiative, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.10987 [arXiv:2602.10987 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10987

  3. [3]

    Relic Neutrino Freeze-out: Dependence on Natural Con- stants,

    J. Birrell, C. T. Yang and J. Rafelski, “Relic Neutrino Freeze-out: Dependence on Natural Con- stants,” Nucl. Phys. B890, 481-517 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.11.020 [arXiv:1406.1759 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the MS scheme,

    S. P . Martin, “Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the MS scheme,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.7, 073002 (2025) doi:10.1103/mpy1-jmzz [arXiv:2507.15946 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Limit on Mass Differences in the Weinberg Model,

    M. J. G. Veltman, “Limit on Mass Differences in the Weinberg Model,” Nucl. Phys. B123, 89-99 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90342-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90342-x 1977

  6. [6]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  7. [7]

    Cosmological Helium Production Simplified,

    J. Bernstein, L. S. Brown and G. Feinberg, “Cosmological Helium Production Simplified,”Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 25 (1989) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.25

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.25 1989

  8. [8]

    Quarks to Cosmos: Parti- cles and Plasma in Cosmological Evolution,

    J. Rafelski, J. Birrell, C. Grayson, A. Steinmetz and C. T. Yang, “Quarks to Cosmos: Parti- cles and Plasma in Cosmological Evolution,” Eur. Phys. J. ST234, no.7, 1125-1329 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-01470-w [arXiv:2409.19031 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D7, 1888-1910 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1910

  10. [10]

    Radiative Corrections in Precision Electroweak Physics: a Histor- ical Perspective,

    A. Sirlin and A. Ferroglia, “Radiative Corrections in Precision Electroweak Physics: a Histor- ical Perspective,” Rev. Mod. Phys.85, no.1, 263-297 (2013) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.85.263 [arXiv:1210.5296 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium,

    G. Gwinner and L. A. Orozco, “Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium,” Quantum Sci. Technol.7, no.2, 024001 (2022) doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac4424 . https://doi.org/10.3390/particles1010000 Version March 4, 2026 submitted toParticles 20 of 20

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac4424 2022

  12. [12]

    Measurement of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “Measurement of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle,” JHEP12, 026 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)026 [arXiv:2410.02502 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Measurement of the Drell–Yan forward-backward asymmetry and of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV ,

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], “Measurement of the Drell–Yan forward-backward asymmetry and of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV ,” Phys. Lett. B 866, 139526 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139526 [arXiv:2408.07622 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Codata Internationally Recommended 2022 Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants,

    P . Mohr, E. Tiesinga, D. Newell, and B. Taylor, (2024), “Codata Internationally Recommended 2022 Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants,” [online], https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/ get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=958002,https://physics.nist.gov/constants(Accessed February 17, 2026)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Detailed Report of the MuLan Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant,

    V . Tishchenkoet al.[MuLan] “Detailed Report of the MuLan Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant,” Phys. Rev. D87, no.5, 052003 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.052003 [arXiv:1211.0960 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Framework,

    A. Sirlin, “Radiative Corrections in the SU(2)-L x U(1) Theory: A Simple Renormalization Framework,” Phys. Rev. D22, 971-981 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.971

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.971 1980

  17. [17]

    electro-weak model and constraints on new physics,

    J. Erler and P . Langacker, “electro-weak model and constraints on new physics,” in:2004 Review of Particle Physics,Phys. ˜Lett. B5921 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0407097 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    The Effect of the Top Quark on the M(W)-M(Z) Interdependence and Possible Decoupling of Heavy Fermions from Low-Energy Physics,

    M. Consoli, W. Hollik and F. Jegerlehner, “The Effect of the Top Quark on the M(W)-M(Z) Interdependence and Possible Decoupling of Heavy Fermions from Low-Energy Physics,” Phys. Lett. B227, 167-170 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91301-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91301-4 1989

  19. [19]

    Analysis of Neutron Beta Decay,

    D. H. Wilkinson, “Analysis of Neutron Beta Decay,” Nucl. Phys. A377, 474 (1982). doi:10.1016/0375-9474(82)90051-3

    doi:10.1016/0375-9474(82)90051-3 1982

  20. [20]

    Neutron Lifetime and Axial Coupling Connection,

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, “Neutron Lifetime and Axial Coupling Connection,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 202002 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.202002 [arXiv:1802.01804 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Fundamental Neutron Physics,

    W. J. Marciano, “Fundamental Neutron Physics,” Phys. Procedia51, 19 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2013.12.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2013.12.006 2014

  22. [22]

    Improved calculation of electro-weak radiative corrections and the value of V(ud),

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, “Improved calculation of electro-weak radiative corrections and the value of V(ud),” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 032002 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.032002 [hep- ph/0510099]

    arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    Precision measurements and CKM unitarity,

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, “Precision measurements and CKM unitarity,” Phys. Rev. D70, 093006 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.093006 [hep-ph/0406324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  24. [24]

    Improved Determination of the Neutron Lifetime,

    A. T. Yue, M. S. Dewey, D. M. Gilliam, G. L. Greene, A. B. Laptev, J. S. Nico, W. M. Snow and F. E. Wietfeldt, “Improved Determination of the Neutron Lifetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no.22, 222501 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.222501 [arXiv:1309.2623 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    The Neutron Lifetime Discrepancy and Its Implications for Cosmology and Dark Matter,

    F. E. Wietfeldt, “The Neutron Lifetime Discrepancy and Its Implications for Cosmology and Dark Matter,” Symmetry16, no.8, 956 (2024) doi:10.3390/sym16080956

    work page doi:10.3390/sym16080956 2024

  26. [26]

    On the Synthesis of elements at very high tempera- tures,

    R. V . Wagoner, W. A. Fowler and F. Hoyle, “On the Synthesis of elements at very high tempera- tures,” Astrophys. J.148, 3-49 (1967) doi:10.1086/149126

    doi:10.1086/149126 1967

  27. [27]

    Temperature Dependence of the Neutron Lifetime,

    C. T. Yang, J. Birrell and J. Rafelski, “Temperature Dependence of the Neutron Lifetime,” [arXiv:1805.06543 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with im- proved Helium-4 predictions,

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J. P . Uzan and E. Vangioni, “Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with im- proved Helium-4 predictions,” Phys. Rept.754, 1-66 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.04.005 [arXiv:1801.08023 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Unstable Hadrons in Hot Hadron Gas in Laboratory and in the Early Universe,

    I. Kuznetsova and J. Rafelski, “Unstable Hadrons in Hot Hadron Gas in Laboratory and in the Early Universe,” Phys. Rev. C82, 035203 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.035203 [arXiv:1002.0375 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Neutron lifetime anomaly and Big Bang nucleosynthesis,

    T. Chowdhury and S. Ipek, “Neutron lifetime anomaly and Big Bang nucleosynthesis,” Can. J. Phys.102, no.2, 96-99 (2024) doi:10.1139/cjp-2023-0188 [arXiv:2210.12031 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Relic neutrinos: Physically consistent treat- ment of effective number of neutrinos and neutrino mass,

    J. Birrell, C. T. Yang, P . Chen and J. Rafelski, “Relic neutrinos: Physically consistent treat- ment of effective number of neutrinos and neutrino mass,” Phys. Rev. D89, 023008 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023008 [arXiv:1212.6943 [astro-ph.CO]] . https://doi.org/10.3390/particles1010000

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014