Concepts of : What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong be as simple as possible. But not simpler.) with DM=MM? Zurab Berezhiani (Everything must be as simple as possible. But Summary

Dark Matter not simpler.) Enigma

Mirror Matter

Asymmetric MM Zurab Berezhiani Symmetric MM

University of L’Aquila and LNGS

INT, Seattle, 22-27 Oct. 2017 Contents

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not simpler.) Zurab Berezhiani 1 Enigma

Summary

Dark Matter Enigma 2 Mirror Matter Mirror Matter

Asymmetric MM

Symmetric MM 3 Asymmetric MM

4 Symmetric MM Prologue: Standard Model on T-shirts

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not simpler.)

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

Asymmetric MM Symmetric MM (= matter): quarks and leptons, 3 generations (= interactions): gauge fields + Higgs (God’s) Glorious end of Fundamental ? Happily, some simple questions remain with our answer ... Baryon number violation and Baryogenesis • Who is Dark Matter • Bright & Dark Sides of the Universe

Concepts of Todays Universe: flat Ωtot 1 (inflation) ... and multi-component: Mirror Matter: ≈ What’s Wrong ΩB 0.05 observable matter: electron, proton, neutron ! with DM=MM? ' (Everything must ΩD 0.25 dark matter: WIMP? ? sterile ν? ... be as simple as ' possible. But not ΩΛ 0.70 : Λ-term? Quintessence? .... simpler.) ' 3 ΩR < 10− relativistic fraction: relic photons and neutrinos Zurab Berezhiani

Summary Matter – dark energy coincidence: ΩM /ΩΛ 0.45, (ΩM = ΩD + ΩB ) 3 ' Dark Matter ρΛ Const., ρM a− ; why ρM /ρΛ 1 – just Today? Enigma ∼ ∼ ∼ Antrophic explanation: if not Today, then Yesterday or Tomorrow. Mirror Matter Asymmetric MM Baryon and dark matter Fine Tuning: ΩB /ΩD 0.2 3 3 ' Symmetric MM ρB a− , ρD a− : why ρB /ρD 1 - Yesterday Today & Tomorrow? ∼ ∼ ∼ Baryogenesis requires BSM Physics: (GUT-B, Lepto-B, Affleck-Dine, EW B ...) Dark matter requires BSM Physics: (Wimp, Wimpzilla, sterile ν, axion, ...)

Different physics for B-genesis and DM? Not very appealing: looks as Fine Tuning Baryogenesis requires new physics: B–L violation B & L can be violated only in higher order terms – but which ?

Concepts of 1 Mirror Matter: (lφ¯)(lφ¯) (∆L = 2) – neutrino (seesaw) masses m v 2/M What’s Wrong M ν with DM=MM? • ∼ (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not simpler.) L=2 Zurab Berezhiani MM GL=2 Summary NN Dark Matter l l l l Enigma

Mirror Matter 1 M5 (udd)(udd) (∆B = 2) – neutron-antineutron oscillation n n¯ Asymmetric MM • → Symmetric MM u u B=2 u u d d S MM S d GB=2 d NN d d d d

can originate from new physics related to scale M  vEW via seesaw Bento, Z.B., 2005 Dark Matter requires new physics: but which ?

Why ΩD /ΩB 1 ? Or why mB ρB mX ρX ? ∼ ∼ Concepts of Visible matter from Baryogenesis ( Sakharov) Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong B (B L) & CP violation, Out-of-Equilibrium with DM=MM? − 9 (Everything must ρB = mB nB , mB 1 GeV, η = nB /nγ 10− be as simple as possible. But not ' ∼ simpler.) η is model dependent on several factors:

Zurab Berezhiani coupling constants and CP-phases, particle degrees of freedom, mass scales and out-of-equilibrium conditions, etc. Summary

Dark Matter Enigma Dark matter: ρD = mX nX , but mX = ? , nX = ? Mirror Matter and why mX nX = 5mB nB ? Asymmetric MM n is model dependent: DM particle mass and interaction strength Symmetric MM X (production and annihilation cross sections), freezing conditions, etc.

4 Axion ma meV na 10 n – CDM ∼ ∼ γ Neutrinos m eV n n – HDM ( ) ν ∼ ν ∼ γ Sterile ν 3 × 0 mν0 keV nν0 10− nν – WDM ∼ ∼ 3 WIMP mX TeV nX 10− nB – CDM ∼ ∼ 12 WimpZilla mX ZeV nX 10− nB – CDM ∼ ∼ How these Fine Tunings look ...

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong B-genesis + WIMP B-genesis + axion B-cogenesis with DM=MM? (Everything must 40 B"genesis Ε ... 40 B-genesis HΕ ...L 40 B-genesis HΕ ...L be as simple as CP CP CP possible. But not ΡB ΡB ΡB 20 ! # 20 20 simpler.) DM"freezing Σann... # L L 4 4 4 0 0 0 GeV GeV GeV " Zurab Berezhiani ! #   ΡDM -4 ΡDM -4 Ρ "4 Ρ Ρ Ρ 'a ΡDM Ρrad~a Ρrad~a ! rad H H Log -20 Log -20 Log -20 Summary "3 % -3 M=R -3 M=R Ρmat'a M R Ρmat~a Ρmat~a Ρ -40 Ρ -40 Ρ Dark Matter -40 & L L Enigma -60 Today -60 Today -60 Today -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Mirror Matter Log a a0 LogHaa0 L LogHaa0 L

Asymmetric MM ! " # Symmetric MM mX nX mB nB mana mB nB mB0 nB0 mB nB ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ mX 10 mB ma 10− mB mB0 mB ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ nX 10− nB na 10 nB nB0 nB Fine∼ Tuning? Fine∼ Tuning? Natural∼ ?

Two different New Physics for B-genesis and DM ? Or co-genesis by the same Physics explaining why ΩDM ΩB ? ∼ Who are you, Mr. DM ?

Concepts of Mirror Matter: Have you relations with other (fundamental) problems? Yes What’s Wrong • with DM=MM? (Everything must Do you manage to match your Ω to 5 ΩB ? Yes be as simple as • possible. But not You must be cold. Or you are self-interacting and dissipative? Yes simpler.) • You must be neutral. Or you have some tiny electric charges? Yes Zurab Berezhiani • Do you agree with astrophysical tests (BBN, CMB, LSS, ...) ? Yes Summary • Dark Matter Can you form halos, stars & massive Black Holes? Yes Enigma • Mirror Matter Are you directly detectable? Can you be converted in visible? Yes • Asymmetric MM Do you send indirect signals via cosmic rays & gammas? Yes Symmetric MM • Can you be produced at LHC or other experimental facilities? Yes • – Let me guess, is your name Susy? No! but I know her very well – Are you heavy or light? Well, I’m just normal ... – Are you stable? Stable enough ... but not immortal – Are you really dark? Well, it’s relative ... to someone I’m blond . . . . Oh, you look so similar to me !? Are you MM ? Dark sector ... similar to our luminous sector? “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Albert

Concepts of For observable particles .... very complex physics !! Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong G = SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) ( + SUSY ? GUT ? Seesaw ?) with DM=MM? (Everything must , electron, nucleons (quarks), neutrinos, gluons, W ± − Z, Higgs ... be as simple as possible. But not long range EM forces, confinement scale ΛQCD, weak scale MW simpler.) ... matter vs. (B-L violation, CP ... ) Zurab Berezhiani ... existence of nuclei, atoms, molecules .... life.... Homo Sapiens ! Summary If dark matter comes from extra gauge sector ... it is as complex: Dark Matter Enigma G 0 = SU(3)0 × SU(2)0 × U(1)0 ? ( + SUSY ? GUT 0? Seesaw ?)

Mirror Matter photon0, electron0, nucleons0 (quarks0), W 0 − Z 0, gluons0 ?

Asymmetric MM ... long range EM forces, confinement at ΛQCD0 , weak scale MW0 ?

Symmetric MM ... asymmetric dark matter (B0-L0 violation, CP ... ) ? ... existence of dark nuclei, atoms, molecules ... life ... Homo Aliens ? Let us call it Yin-Yang Theory in chinise, Yin-Yang means dark-bright duality describes a philosophy how opposite forces are ac- tually complementary, interconnected and interde- pendent in the natural world, and how they give rise E8 × E80 to each other as they interrelate to one another. SU(3) SU(2) U(1) + SU(3)0 SU(2)0 U(1)0 × × × × Everything has the end... But Wurstle has two ends – Left and Right

Concepts of G G 0 Mirror Matter: Regular world × Mirror world What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not simpler.)

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter • Two identical gauge factors, e.g. SM × SM0 or SU(5) × SU(5)0, Asymmetric MM with identical field contents and Lagrangians: Ltot = L + L0 + Lmix Symmetric MM • M sector is dark (for us) and the is a common force (between)

• Exact Z2 G → G 0: no new parameter in dark Lagrangian L0 • MM looks as non-standard DM but truly it as standard as our matter (self-interacting/dissipative/asymmetric/atomic)

• New interactions between O & M particles( Lmix – new parameters) • Natural in string/brane theory: O & M matters localized on two parallel

branes and gravity propagating in bulk: e.g. E8 × E80 Asymmetric MM: Z2 between two sectors broken

Concepts of Mirror Matter: nB′ = nB .... but MB′ >MB What’s Wrong with DM=MM? 2 (Everything must broken M parity: v′/v 10 v′ 10 TeV, v 100 GeV be as simple as ∼ ∼ ∼ possible. But not Z.B., Dolgov & Mohapatra ’96 ● Heisenbergsimpler.) ● SM 17.5 Zurab● See-Saw Berezhiani ● Sterile ● See-Saw 15 Summary● Again H ● Parallel sector 12.5

Dark● Present Matter Cosmology # Μ

Enigma● Visible vs. Dark matter: " 10 1

Ω /Ω 5 ? # D B ≃ 3 Α3 Mirror● Bvs.D Matter Α 7.5 ● Unification Α3 ’ Asymmetric● Carrol’s Alice... MM 5 ● Twin Par ticles Symmetric● Mirror World MM 2.5 ● VM and DM ● Alice $$’ $’SUSY ● BBN limits 1 10 2 10 4 10 6 ● Epochs Μ!GeV ● CMB ● LSS (robust non-equilibrium) ● Interactions nB′ nB k<1 ● Interactions ≃ 0.3 ● Interactions M ′ /MN (Λ′/Λ) (v′/v) 5 —- MN 5 GeV ● B&Lviolation N ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ● B&Lviolation 2 — MeV ● See-Saw me′ /me v′/v 10 me′ 100 ● See-Saw ∼ ∼ ∼ ● Leptogenesis: diagrams –PropertiesofMB’sgetclosertoCDM:butalsoWDMfrommirrorneutrinos? ● Boltzmann eqs. 2 keV ● Leptogenesis: formulas mν′ /mν (v′/v) 1 ● VM and DM ≃ ∼ ● Neutron mixing ●SW6Oscillation -p.32/57 ● Neutron mixing Neutron mixing Particle Physics Motivations

Concepts of Axidragon (Heavy axion) Z.B. Gianfagna, Giannotti, 2001 Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong Peccei-Quinn U(1) is common between SM and SM0: with DM=MM? (Everything must ˜ ˜ be as simple as Θ(GG + G 0G 0) + Y (ffH + f 0f 0H0) possible. But not 3 m Λ 3  2 3 simpler.) mq Λ q0 0 v 0 mq Λ v 0  v Λ0 > Λ, ma = → ma = ∼ fa fa v fa Zurab Berezhiani ... for GRB’s and Supernova explosions Z,B, Drago, 1998 Summary

Dark Matter Enigma Twin Higgs: Generalization of NSSM with superpotential

Mirror Matter Z.B. ”Looking Glass ...”, 2005, hep-ph/0508233 2 Asymmetric MM W = λS(H1H2 + H10H20) + ΛS + MS + .... Symmetric MM Local Symmetry U(2) × U(2)0 — Global U(4) – Higgs as Pseudo-Goldstone (alleviates Little-) Non-SUSY, ad hoc global U(4) Chacko-Goh-Harnik, PRL 2006

0.3 Atomic Dark Matter:Λ QCD0 /ΛQCD rescales as (v 0/v) or so compact hydrogen/helium mirror atoms, or

Neutronic Dark Matter: mirror neutrons if mp0 > mn0 and p0 → n0e¯0ν.

Self-collisional DM with right amount σ/mN ∼ 1 b/GeV ... or WDM – kev range neutrinos ZB, Mohapatra, Dolgov, 1995 Mirror sector and gauge flavor symmetries

Concepts of SU(3)q SU(3)u SU(3)d SU(3)l SU(3)e without anomalies Mirror Matter: × × × × What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must qL ∼ 3q, lL ∼ 3l ;u ¯L ∼ 3u, d¯L ∼ 3d , e¯L ∼ 3e be as simple as possible. But not simpler.) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Zurab Berezhiani q¯R ∼ 3q, lR ∼ 3l ; uR ∼ 3u, dR ∼ 3d , eR ∼ 3e

Summary —————————————————————————————– Dark Matter ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Enigma qL0 ∼ 3q, lL0 = 3l ;u ¯L0 ∼ 3u, dL0 ∼ 3d , e¯L0 ∼ 3e Mirror Matter Asymmetric MM ¯ q¯R0 ∼ 3q, lR0 = 3l ; uR0 ∼ 3u, dR0 ∼ 3d , eR0 ∼ 3e Symmetric MM

+ Mirror parity (L, R → R, L): flavon superfields χL → χR = (¯χL) 1 ¯ ¯ W = M (¯uχuqφ + dχd qφ +e ¯χe lφ) + h.c. 1 ¯ ¯ W 0 = M (¯u0χ¯uq0φ0 + d 0χ¯d q0φ0 +e ¯0χ¯e l 0φ0) + h.c. ¯ ¯ χu χu ∼ (3u, 3q),χ ¯u ∼ (3u, 3q) M → Yu, etc. Quark & lepton Yukawa (mass and mixing) structures is determined by the pattern and hierarchy of flavon VEVs hχi Z.B. 1982-83 Mirror parity and MFV

Concepts of • Generically, SUSY flavor limits require MSUSY > 100 TeV or so ... Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong But assuming the gauge symmetry SU(3) × ... between 3 families with DM=MM? (Everything must can be obtained quark-squark mass allignment: be as simple as possible. But not 2 2 2 2 2 simpler.) universal relations˜ md = m0 + m1(Yd†Yd ) + m2(Yd†Yd ) ,

Zurab Berezhiani Ad = A0Yd + A1Yd (Yd†Yd ) etc. Z.B. 1996; Anselm, Z.B.1997; Z.B., Rossi 2001 Summary Dark Matter later on (2002) coined as MFV Giudice et al., 2002 Enigma Mirror Matter F −terms can be easily handled Asymmetric MM gauge D− terms give problems 2 3 Symmetric MM Flavon superpotential: WH = µχχ¯ + aχ + a∗χ¯ + h.c. → D-terms vanish because of mirror parity

If flavour symmetry SU(3) × ... is shared between two sectors: • Anomaly cancellation of between ordinary and mirror fermions • SUSY flavor problem can be settled via MFV (safe D-terms) 0 0 • Interesting phenomena mediated by flavor gauge bosons: e.g. K → K 0, eµ¯ → e¯0µ0 disappearance of muonium), etc. LHC – run II: can SUSY be just around the corner?

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as “Natural” SUSY (at scale 100 GeV with 2 Higgses) is over ! possible. But not ∼ simpler.) One Higgs discovered by LHC perfectly fits the SM Higgs ... Zurab Berezhiani already at LEP epoch many theorists felt MSUSY < 1 TeV was problematic Summary

Dark Matter SUSY induced proton decay (D=5) requires MSUSY > 1 TeV or so Enigma • Mirror Matter SUSY induced CP-violation: electron EDM, MSUSY > 1 TeV or so Asymmetric MM • But gauge coupling crossing requires MSUSY < 10 TeV or so Symmetric MM • Z.B., Chianese, Miele, Morisi, 2015

TeV scale SUSY remains best choice for Grand Hierarchy Problem: – maybe SUSY is indeed just around the corner? 2 with a little (hierarchy) problem – Fine Tuning 10− M2 (100 GeV)2 and M2 (1 TeV)2 ∼ – Twin Higgs ? Higgs ∼ SUSY ≥ Symmetric Mirror Matter: DM = MM ? 6

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong For a long while mirror matter was not considered as a real candidate for with DM=MM? dark matter: M world was naively taken to have not only exactly identical (Everything must be as simple as microphysics as O sector but also exactly identical cosmology: possible. But not simpler.) eff eff • T 0 = T , g 0 = g → ∆Nν = 6.15 vs. ∆Nν < 0.5 (BBN) Zurab Berezhiani ∗ ∗ • nB0 /nγ0 = nB /nγ (η0 = η) → ΩB0 = ΩB vs. ΩB0 /ΩB ' 5 (DM) Summary

Dark Matter Enigma IMirror World is colder? If T 0/T < 0.5, BBN is OK 3 Mirror Matter but η0 = η impliesΩ B0 = (nγ0 /nγ )ΩB = (T 0/T ) ΩB  ΩB Asymmetric MM

Symmetric MM Then DM 6= MM

Such a mirror universe “can have no influence on the Earth and therefore would be useless and therefore does not exist” S. Glashow (1987), citing Francesco Sizzi However ....

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not Understanding of astronomy, optics, and physics, a rumor about the four simpler.) planets seen by the very celebrated mathematician Galileo Galilei with his Zurab Berezhiani telescope, shown to be unfounded. Summary Francesco Sizzi, crlticism of Galileo’s discovery of the Jupiter’s moons Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter Asymmetric MM The microphysics of the postulated mirror matter should be exactly the Symmetric MM same as that of the usual matter. However, we know that the spatial distribution of the dark matter is very different from that of the ordinary (baryonic) matter. On the face of it this makes mirror matter an implausible candidate for dark matter. Tizio Caio (Anonimuos Referee), from a referee report (PRL of course) – All you need is ... M world colder than ours ! Z.B., Comelli, Villante, 2000

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong with DM=MM? (Everything must It is enough to accept a Cosmological Paradigm: be as simple as possible. But not simpler.) (A) at the Big Bang (i.e. after inflation) the M world was born with Zurab Berezhiani smaller temperature than O world Summary

Dark Matter (B) all interactions between M and O particles are feeble enough and Enigma cannot bring two sectors into equilibrium after reheating Mirror Matter

Asymmetric MM (C) no entropy production by 1st order phase transitions which could heat

Symmetric MM M world: two systems evolve adiabatically over the universe expansion and their temperature ratio T 0/T remains nearly constant.

If x = T 0/T  1, BBN is OK

(About why ΩB0 ' 5 ΩB in my next talk ... ) DM = MM: possible manifestations

Concepts of A. Cosmological implications. T 0/T < 0.2 or so, ΩB0 /ΩB = 1 ÷ 5. Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong Mass fraction: H’ – 25%, He’ – 75%, and few % of heavier C’, N’, O’ etc. with DM=MM? (Everything must • Mirror baryons as asymmetric/collisional/dissipative/atomic dark matter: be as simple as M hydrogen recombination and M baryon acoustic oscillations? possible. But not simpler.) • Easier formation and faster evolution of stars: Dark matter disk? Galaxy Zurab Berezhiani halo as mirror elliptical galaxy? Microlensing ? Neutron stars? Black

Summary Holes? Binary Black Holes? Central Black Holes?

Dark Matter Enigma B. Direct detection. M matter can interact with ordinary matter e.g. via µν Mirror Matter kinetic mixing F Fµν0 , etc. Mirror helium as most abundant mirror

Asymmetric MM matter particles (the region of DM masses below 5 GeV is practically

Symmetric MM unexplored). Possible signals from heavier nuclei C,N,O etc. C. Oscillation phenomena between ordinary and mirror particles. The most interesting interaction terms in Lmix are the ones which violate B and L of both sectors. Neutral particles, elementary (as e.g. neutrino) or composite (as the neutron or hydrogen atom) can mix with their mass degenerate (sterile) twins: matter disappearance (or appearance) phenomena can be observable in laboratories. In the Early Universe, these B and/or L violating interactions can give

primordial baryogenesis and dark matter genesis, with ΩB0 /ΩB = 1 ÷ 5. DM = MM : cosmological implications

Concepts of T 0/T < 0.5 is enough to concord with the BBN limits and do not affect Mirror Matter: 4 What’s Wrong standard primordial mass fractions: 75% H + 25% He. with DM=MM? Cosmological limits are more severe, requiring T 0/T < 0.2 os so. (Everything must 4 be as simple as This implies that M world is helium dominated: 25% H0 + 75% He0. possible. But not simpler.)

Zurab Berezhiani Because of T 0 < T , the situationΩ B0 > ΩB becomes plausible in baryogenesis. So, M matter can be dark matter (my next talk) Summary

Dark Matter Because of T 0 < T , in mirror photons decouple much earlier than ordinary Enigma photons, and after that M matter behaves for the structure formation and Mirror Matter CMB anisotropies essentially as CDM. This concords M matter with Asymmetric MM WMAP/Planck, BAO, Ly-α etc. if T 0/T < 0.25 or so. Symmetric MM

Halo problem – if ΩB0 ' ΩB , M matter makes ∼ 20 % of DM, forming dark disk, while ∼ 80 % may come from other type of CDM (WIMP?)

But perhaps 100 % ? if ΩB0 ' 5ΩB : – M world is helium dominated, and the star formation and evolution can be much faster. Halos could be viewed as mirror elliptical galaxies, with our matter inside forming disks. MM is not only self-interacting (H0 H0 scattering, Bullet cluster, etc.) but it is dissipative – forms star and becomes collisionless (like CDM) Key question: Howe fas the mirror star formation can be? CMB and LSS power spectra

80 Concepts of #M=0.25, $b=0.023, h=0.73, n=0.97 Mirror Matter: x=0.5, no CDM x=0.3, no CDM What’s Wrong )

" x=0.2, no CDM with DM=MM? 60

(µ Z.B., Ciarcelluti, Comelli, Villante, 2003 1/2

(Everything must ] !

2 be as simple as / l

C possible. But not ) 40 1

+ l simpler.) ( l [

Zurab Berezhiani 20 WMAP ACBAR

Summary 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 l 104 Dark Matter 105 Enigma 102 2df bin. )

Mirror Matter 3 c 4 p 0 M

) 10 ( 3 10

Asymmetric MM c

3 p

h ) M

( k (

-2 Symmetric MM 3 P 10 h )

k "M=0.30,#b=0.001,h=0.70,n=1.00 ( 3 P 10 "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,n=1.00 -4 10 "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.2,no CDM,n=1.00 "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.1,no CDM,n=1.00

"M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.2,#b’=#CDM,n=1.00 10-6 102 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 k/h (Mpc!1 0.01 0.10 ) k/h (Mpc%1) Acoustic oscillations and Silk damping at short scales: x = T 0/T < 0.2 Can Mirror stars be progenitors of gravitational Wave bursts GW150914 etc. ?

Concepts of Picture of Galactic halos as mirror ellipticals (Einasto density profile), Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong O matter disk inside (M stars = Machos). with DM=MM? (Everything must Microlensing limits: f 20 40 % for M = 1 10 M , be as simple as f 100 % is allowed for∼ M−= 20 200 M −but see Brandt ’05 possible. But not 5 simpler.) ∼ − Zurab Berezhiani Threebinding energy, events or a chance without alignment such that the clus- ter only appears to reside in the center of Eri II. Both Summary anywould optical be surprising. counterpart Such a black hole would have a mass comparable to the total stellar mass of its host galaxy. A Dark Matter Enigma massive black hole would also be expected to host a re- Pointslaxed MACHO towards cluster massive of comparable mass, in which case Mirror Matter BHit maycompact not avoid the problem binaries, of dynamical heating at all. Asymmetric MM A chance alignment of a cluster physically located at the Mgalaxy’s10 half-light30 radiusM isand possible; the most na¨ıve esti- Symmetric MM mate,∼ the fraction− of solid angle lying within a few rh in radiusprojection,R gives10 aR chance alignment probability of 1% at a physical∼ distance of 300 pc from the galaxy core.∼ While many scenarios could,∼ in principle, account for Howthe survival such of the star objects cluster in Eri II, it is harder to appeal to coincidence for the entire sample of compact canultra-faint be formed dwarfs. Assuming ? the measured velocity dis- persions to reflect the properties of their dark matter halos, these dwarfs should have much larger half-light Fig. 4.— Constraints on MACHO dark matter from microlens- Ming (blue matter: and purple, 25 Alcock % Hydrogen et al. 2001; Tisserand vs 75 et al.% 200 Helium:7) and Mradii stars if their more dark matter compact, is all in the form of MACHOs wide Galactic binaries (green, Quinn et al. 2009), shown together !10 M . The strongest constraints, however, may come lesswith the opaque, constraints less from the mass survival loses of compact by ultra-faistellarnt winddwarf andfrom evolving the⊙ cluster much in Eri faster.II, and could be improved with galaxies and the star cluster in Eridanus II. I conservatively adopt a 3 3 better data. Precise photometry with the Hubble Space Appropriatedark matter density for of 0.02 formingM pc− in such Eri II and BH 0.3 binariesM pc− in ? the ultra-faint dwarfs, assume⊙ a three-dimensional veloci⊙ty disper- Telescope could resolve the question of whether the clus- 1 sion σ =8kms− ,andusetwodefinitionsoftheheatingtimescale. ter is intermediate-age or old, while spectroscopy of clus- Alow-densityhaloandinitiallycompactclusterweakenthecon- ter members and nonmembers would give another probe straints from Eri II. Even in this case, assuming dark matter halos to have the properties that are currently inferred, MACHO dark of Eri II’s dark matter content. While future observa- 7 matter is excluded for all MACHO masses !10− M . tions will determine the strength of the constraints from ⊙ Eri II, existing data from Eri II and from the sample of portional to the cluster mass (Binney & Tremaine 2008), compact ultra-faint dwarfs appear sufficient to rule out dark matter composed exclusively of MACHOs for all and the cluster in Eri II is 1.5–2 orders of magnitude less 7 masses above 10− M . massive than Fornax 4 (Mackey & Gilmore 2003), the ∼ ⊙ Fornax globular cluster nearest the center of that dwarf (at 240 pc in projected separation). This scenario there- fore requires very different dark matter halos in the two galaxies or severe mass loss during Eri II’s inspiral, and also luck to catch the cluster on the point of disruption. This problem of coincidence is generic to any scenario in I thank Ben Bar-Or, Juna Kollmeier, Kris Sigurdson, which Eri II’s cluster was initially compact. The proba- and especially Scott Tremaine for helpful conversations bility of observing the system in such a transient state is and suggestions, and an anonymous referee for helpful significantly higher if the cluster’s age is 3Gyrrather comments. This work was performed under contract with than 12 Gyr. ∼ the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) funded by NASA Other∼ possibilities to evade the constraints include through the Sagan Fellowship Program executed by the an intermediate-mass black hole ( 104 M ) to provide NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. ! ⊙ REFERENCES Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Anderson, B., et al. 2015, Physical Goerdt, T., Moore, B., Read, J. I., Stadel, J., & Zemp, M. 2006, Review Letters, 115, 231301 MNRAS, 368, 1073 Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 550, Griest, K. 1991, ApJ, 366, 412 L169 Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487 Baade, W., & Hubble, E. 1939, PASP, 51, 40 Hern´andez, X., Matos, T., Sussman, R. A., & Verbin, Y. 2004, Bechtol, K., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, PhRvD, 70, 043537 807, 50 Hodge, P. W. 1961, AJ, 66, 83 Belokurov, V., Walker, M. G., Evans, N. W., et al. 2009, Inoue, S. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1181 MNRAS, 397, 1748 Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R¨oser, S., Schilbach, E., & Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Scholz, R.-D. 2005, A&A, 438, 1163 Edition (Princeton University Press) King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64 Bird, S., Cholis, I., Mu˜noz, J. B., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, 1603.00464 ApJ, 522, 82 Brooks, A. M., & Zolotov, A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 87 Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., & Evans, N. W. Chanam´e, J., & Gould, A. 2004, ApJ, 601, 289 2015a, ApJ, 805, 130 Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, Reviews of Modern Physics, 15, 1 Koposov, S. E., Casey, A. R., Belokurov, V., et al. 2015b, ApJ, Clowe, D., Bradaˇc, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 811, 62 L109 Lacey, C. G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1985, ApJ, 299, 633 Cole, D. R., Dehnen, W., Read, J. I., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2012, Laevens, B. P. M., Martin, N. F., Bernard, E. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, MNRAS, 426, 601 813, 44 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2016, ArXiv Lovell, M. R., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, e-prints, 1604.08590 2318 Ferrer, F., & Hunter, D. R. 2013, JCAP, 9, 005 Mackey, A. D., & Gilmore, G. F. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 175 Georgiev, I. Y., Hilker, M., Puzia, T. H., Goudfrooij, P., & Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 Baumgardt, H. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1075 Discussing Lmix: possible portal between O and M particles

µν Concepts of Photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing F Fµν0 Mirror Matter: • What’s Wrong 7 with DM=MM? Experimental limit  < 4 10− (Everything must × 9 be as simple as Cosmological limit  < 5 10− possible. But not × simpler.) Makes mirror matter nanocharged (q ∼ ) Zurab Berezhiani A promising portal for DM direct detection Foot, 2003

Summary 25. Dark matter 15

Dark Matter !38 Enigma 10 DAMIC I Mirror Matter Mirror atoms: He’ – 75 %, XENON10-LE CDMS-LE CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE Asymmetric MM limit C’,N’,O’ etc. few % !40 10 DAMA/LIBRA Symmetric MM CoGeNT Rutherford-like scattering ROI

2 dσ (αZZ 0) !42 CDMS-Si CRESST II AA0 10 = 2 4 4 to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III dΩ 4µ v sin (θ/2) 2 AA CDMS+EDELWEISS or 0 cMSSM-preLHC 2 !44 dσAA 2π(αZZ 0) 10 68% 0 section [cm XENON100 dE = 2 2 ! R MAv ER Neutrino Background LUX Belli, this Workshop Cross Projection for pMSSM- 95% postLHC !46 Direct Detection 10 0 1 2 3 10 10 10 10 WIMP Mass [GeV/c2] Figure 25.1: WIMP cross sections (normalized to a single nucleon) for spin- independent coupling versus mass. The DAMA/LIBRA [61], CREST II, CDMS-Si, and CoGeNT enclosed areas are regions of interest from possible signal events; the dot is the central value for CDMS-Si ROI. References to the experimental results are given in the text. For context, some implications are given: Green shaded 68% and 95% regions are pre-LHC cMSSM predictions by Ref. 62. Constraints set by XENON100 and the LHC experiments in the framework of the 9 12 cMSSM [63] give regions in [300-1000 GeV; 1 10− 1 10− pb] (but are not shown here). For the blue shaded region, pMSSM,× an− expansion× of cMSSM with 19 parameters instead of 5 [64], also integrates constraints set by LHC experiments.

dependent couplings, respectively, as functions of WIMP mass. Only the two or three currently best limits are presented. Also shown are constraints from indirect observations (see the next section) and typical regions of SUSY models, before and after LHC results. These figures have been made with the dmtools web page, thanks to a nice new feature which allows to include new limits uploaded by the user into the plot [59]. 13 Sensitivities down to σχp of 10− pb, as needed to probe nearly all of the MSSM parameter space [27] at WIMP masses above 10 GeV and to saturate the limit of the irreducible neutrino-induced background [60], will be reached with detectors of multi ton masses, assuming nearly perfect background discrimination capabilities. Such experiments are envisaged by the US project LZ (6 tons), the European consortium DARWIN, and the MAX project (a liquid Xe and Ar multiton project). For WIMP masses below 10 GeV, this cross section limit is set by the solar neutrinos, inducing an

August 21, 2014 13:17 Magnetic field via electron drag mechanism

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong Detection possibility of Mirror matter via photon kinetic mixing was with DM=MM? (Everything must recently studied in two works with DAMA Collaboration be as simple as possible. But not For asymmetric MM, 2015 For symmetric MM, 2017 simpler.) Zurab Berezhiani Photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing Rutherford-like scattering → Summary ... Dark Matter Relative motion (rotation) of O and M matter drags electrons but Enigma

Mirror Matter not protons/ions which are much heavier. So circular electric currents

Asymmetric MM emerge which can generate magnetic field. Modifying mirror Maxwell

Symmetric MM equations by the source (drag) term, one gets magnetic seed 15 B, B0 10− G before dynamo, then amplified by dynamo. This mechanism∼ can induce magnetic fields µG in very young galaxies Z.B., Dolgov, Tkachev, 2013 ∼

MM capture by Earth can induce mirror magnetic field in the Earth, even bigger than ordinary 0.5 G. Summary

Concepts of Mirror Matter: What’s Wrong I discussed several issues of DM and MM .... (not all !) with DM=MM? (Everything must be as simple as possible. But not DM = MM seems OK to me (Good Policeman) simpler.)

Zurab Berezhiani Why DM = MM ? Next talk of Sasha Dolgov (Bad Policeman) Summary 6 Dark Matter Enigma Two Policeman method (Good + Bad) Mirror Matter works well for finding who is delinquent Asymmetric MM

Symmetric MM If you have some new information or ideas or criticism, let’s discuss during this Workshop

hank You ! T