Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
Zurab Berezhiani ... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror Zurab Berezhiani particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror University of L’Aquila and LNGS neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n and − 0 Particle Physics with Neutrons at the ESS, UHECR Nordita, 10-14 Dec. 2018 Contents
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary 1 Mirror Matter: general questions Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror 2 Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing 3 Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
4 Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR − Chapter I
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Zurab Berezhiani Introduction Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings Mirror Matter: generalities
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− Bright & Dark Sides of our Universe
Mirror Matter as Todays Universe: flat Ωtot 1 (inflation) ... and multi-component: Dark Matter ... ≈ ΩB 0.05 observable matter: electron, proton, neutron ! ... and ordinary – ' mirror particle ΩD 0.25 dark matter: WIMP? axion? sterile ν? ... mixings ' Zurab Berezhiani ΩΛ 0.70 dark energy: Λ-term? Quintessence? .... ' 3 Summary ΩR < 10− relativistic fraction: relic photons and neutrinos
Mirror Matter: general questions Matter – dark energy coincidence: ΩM /ΩΛ 0.45, (ΩM = ΩD + ΩB ) 3 ' Chapter I: ρΛ Const., ρM a− ; why ρM /ρΛ 1 – just Today? ordinary – mirror ∼ ∼ ∼ particle mixings Antrophic explanation: if not Today, then Yesterday or Tomorrow. Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing Baryon and dark matter Fine Tuning: ΩB /ΩD 0.2 3 3 ' Chapter III: ρB a− , ρD a− : why ρB /ρD 1 - Yesterday Today & Tomorrow? n n0 and ∼ ∼ ∼ UHECR− Baryogenesis requires BSM Physics: (GUT-B, Lepto-B, AD-B, 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 B-genesis and DM require new physics: but which ?
Why ΩD /ΩB 1 ? ∼ Mirror Matter as Visible matter from Baryogenesis ( Sakharov) Dark Matter ... B (B L) & CP violation, Out-of-Equilibrium ... and ordinary – − 9 mirror particle ρB = mB nB , mB 1 GeV, η = nB /nγ 10− mixings ' ∼ Zurab Berezhiani η is model dependent on several factors: coupling constants and CP-phases, particle degrees of freedom, Summary
Mirror Matter: mass scales and out-of-equilibrium conditions, etc. general questions
Chapter I: Dark matter: ρD = mX nX , but mX = ? , nX = ? ordinary – mirror particle mixings and why mX nX = 5mB nB ? Chapter II: neutron – mirror nX is model dependent: DM particle mass and interaction strength neutron mixing (production and annihilation cross sections), freezing conditions, etc. Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− 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 ...
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... B-genesis + WIMP B-genesis + axion B-cogenesis ... and ordinary – mirror particle 40 B"genesis Ε ... 40 B-genesis HΕ ...L 40 B-genesis HΕ ...L mixings CP CP CP
ΡB ΡB ΡB Zurab Berezhiani 20 ! # 20 20 DM"freezing Σann... # L L 4 4 4 0 0 0 GeV GeV GeV " ! # ΡDM -4 ΡDM -4 Ρ "4 Ρ Ρ Summary Ρ 'a ΡDM Ρrad~a Ρrad~a ! rad H H Log -20 Log -20 Log -20 Mirror Matter: "3 % -3 M=R -3 M=R general questions Ρmat'a M R Ρmat~a Ρmat~a -40 Ρ& -40 ΡL -40 ΡL Chapter I: ordinary – mirror -60 Today -60 Today -60 Today particle mixings -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Log a a0 LogHaa0 L LogHaa0 L Chapter II: ! " # neutron – mirror neutron mixing mX nX mB nB mana mB nB mB0 nB0 mB nB Chapter III: ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ mX 10 mB ma 10− mB mB mB n n0 and 0 UHECR− ∼ 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 ? ∼ Dark sector ... similar to our luminous sector? “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Albert
Mirror Matter as For observable particles .... very complex physics !! Dark Matter ... G = SU(3) SU(2) U(1) ( + SUSY ? GUT ? Seesaw ?) ... and ordinary – × × mirror particle photon, electron, nucleons (quarks), neutrinos, gluons, W ± Z, Higgs ... mixings − long range EM forces, confinement scale ΛQCD, weak scale MW Zurab Berezhiani ... matter vs. antimatter (B-L violation, CP ... )
Summary ... existence of nuclei, atoms, molecules .... life.... Homo Sapiens !
Mirror Matter: general questions If dark matter comes from extra gauge sector ... it is as complex:
Chapter I: G 0 = SU(3)0 SU(2)0 U(1)0 ? ( + SUSY ? GUT 0? Seesaw ?) ordinary – mirror × × photon0, electron0, nucleons0 (quarks0), W 0 Z 0, gluons0 ? particle mixings − Chapter II: ... long range EM forces, confinement at ΛQCD0 , weak scale MW0 ? neutron – mirror neutron mixing ... asymmetric dark matter (B0-L0 violation, CP ... ) ?
Chapter III: ... existence of dark nuclei, atoms, molecules ... life ... Homo Aliens ? n n0 and UHECR− 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 × × × ×
Mirror Matter as G G Dark Matter ... 0 Regular world × Mirror world ... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror Two identical gauge factors, e.g. SU(5) SU(5)0, with identical field neutron mixing • × contents and Lagrangians: tot = + 0 + mix Chapter III: L L L L n n0 and − Exact parity G G 0: no new parameters in dark Lagrangian 0 UHECR • → L MM is dark (for us) and has the same gravity • MM is identical to standard matter, (asymmetric/dissipative/atomic) • but realized in somewhat different cosmological conditions: T 0/T 1. New interactions between O & M particles mix • L – All you need is ... M world colder than ours !
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... For a long time M matter was not considered as a real candidate for DM:
... and ordinary – naively assuming that exactly identical microphysics of O & M worlds mirror particle mixings implies also their cosmologies are exactly identical :
Zurab Berezhiani eff eff T 0 = T , g 0 = g ∆Nν = 6.15 vs. ∆Nν < 0.5 (BBN) • ∗ ∗ → Summary nB0 /nγ0 = nB /nγ (η0 = η) ΩB0 = ΩB vs. ΩB0 /ΩB 5 (DM) Mirror Matter: • → ' general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings But M World is OK if : Z.B., Comelli, Villante, 2001
Chapter II: neutron – mirror (A) after inflation M world was born colder than O world neutron mixing Chapter III: (B) all particle interactions between M and O sectors are so feeble that n n0 and UHECR− cannot bring them into equilibrium in later epochs (C) two systems evolve adiabatically when the universe expands (no entropy production) and their temperature ratio T 0/T remains nearly constant.
If x = T 0/T 1, BBN is OK M world in Winter Z.B., Comelli, Villante, 2000
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... T 0 T 0 5 is enough to concord with the BBN limits and do not affect ... and ordinary – / < . 4 mirror particle standard primordial mass fractions: 75% H + 25% He. mixings (Cosmological limits are more severe, requiring T 0/T < 0.2 os so.) Zurab Berezhiani 4 In turn, for M world this implies helium domination: 25% H0 + 75% He0. Summary
Mirror Matter: Because of T 0 < T , in mirror photons decouple much earlier than ordinary general questions photons, and after that M matter behaves for the structure formation and Chapter I: CMB anisotropies essentially as CDM. This concords M matter with ordinary – mirror particle mixings WMAP/Planck, BAO, Ly-α etc. if T 0/T < 0.25 or so. Chapter II: neutron – mirror Halo problem – if ΩB0 ΩB , M matter makes 20 % of DM, forming dark neutron mixing disk, while 80 % may' come from other type∼ of CDM (WIMP?) Chapter III: ∼ n n and But perhaps 100 % ? if Ω0 5Ω : – M world is helium dominated, and − 0 B B UHECR the star formation and evolution' can be much faster. Halos could be viewed as mirror elliptical galaxies, with our matter inside forming disks.
Because of T 0 < T , the situationΩ B0 > ΩB becomes plausible in baryogenesis. So, M matter can be dark matter (as we show below) CMB and LSS power spectra
80 Mirror Matter as #M=0.25, $b=0.023, h=0.73, n=0.97 Dark Matter ... x=0.5, no CDM x=0.3, no CDM )
" x=0.2, no CDM ... and ordinary – 60
(µ Z.B., Ciarcelluti, Comelli, Villante, 2003 1/2
mirror particle ] !
2 mixings / l
C ) 40 1
+ Zurab Berezhiani l ( l [
Summary 20 WMAP ACBAR
Mirror Matter: 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 general questions l 104 5 Chapter I: 10 ordinary – mirror 102 2df bin. particle mixings ) 3 c 4 p 0 M
) 10 ( 3 10
Chapter II: c
3 p
h ) neutron – mirror M
( k (
-2 neutron mixing 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 Chapter III: -4 10 "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.2,no CDM,n=1.00 n n0 and "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.1,no CDM,n=1.00 UHECR− "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. ?
Mirror Matter as Picture of Galactic halos as mirror ellipticals (Einasto density profile), Dark Matter ... O matter disk inside (M stars = Machos). ... and ordinary – mirror particle Microlensing limits: f 20 40 % for M = 1 10 M , mixings f 100 % is allowed for∼ M−= 20 200 M −but see Brandt ’05 Zurab Berezhiani ∼ − 5
Summary GWbinding events energy, orwithout a chance anyalignment such that the clus- ter only appears to reside in the center of Eri II. Both Mirror Matter: opticalwould be surprising. counterpart Such a black hole would have a mass general questions comparable to the total stellar mass of its host galaxy. A Chapter I: massive black hole would also be expected to host a re- ordinary – mirror pointlaxed MACHO towards cluster massive of comparable mass, in which case particle mixings BHit maycompact not avoid the problem binaries, of dynamical heating at all. Chapter II: A chance alignment of a cluster physically located at the neutron – mirror Mgalaxy’s10 half-light30 radiusM isand possible; the most na¨ıve esti- neutron mixing mate,∼ the fraction− of solid angle lying within a few rh in radiusprojection,R gives10 aR chance alignment probability of 1% Chapter III: ∼ ∼ n n0 and at a physical distance of 300 pc from the galaxy core. UHECR− 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 Experimental and observational manifestations of mirror matter
Mirror Matter as A. Cosmological implications. T 0/T < 0.2 or so, ΩB0 /ΩB = 1 5. Dark Matter ... Mass fraction: H’ – 25%, He’ – 75%, and few % of heavier C’,÷ N’, O’ etc. ... and ordinary – Mirror baryons as asymmetric/collisional/dissipative/atomic dark matter: mirror particle • mixings M hydrogen recombination and M baryon acoustic oscillations? Zurab Berezhiani Easier formation and faster evolution of stars: Dark matter disk? Galaxy • Summary halo as mirror elliptical galaxy? Microlensing ? Neutron stars? Black
Mirror Matter: Holes? Binary Black Holes? Central Black Holes? general questions
Chapter I: B. Direct detection. M matter can interact with ordinary matter e.g. via ordinary – mirror µν particle mixings kinetic mixing F Fµν0 , etc. Mirror helium as most abundant mirror
Chapter II: matter particles (the region of DM masses below 5 GeV is practically neutron – mirror unexplored). Possible signals from heavier nuclei C,N,O etc. neutron mixing Chapter III: Oscillation phenomena between ordinary and mirror particles. n n and C. − 0 UHECR The most interesting interaction terms in mix are the ones which violate B and L of both sectors. Neutral particles,L 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 Ω0 /ΩB = 1 5. B ÷ Discussing : possible portal between O and M particles Lmix
µν Mirror Matter as Photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing F Fµν0 Dark Matter ... • 7 ... and ordinary – Experimental limit < 4 10− mirror particle × 9 mixings Cosmological limit < 5 10− × Zurab Berezhiani Makes mirror matter nanocharged (q ) ∼ Summary A promising portal for DM direct detection Foot, 2003
Mirror Matter: 25. Dark matter 15 general questions
!38 Chapter I: 10 ordinary – mirror DAMIC I particle mixings Mirror atoms: He’ – 75 %, XENON10-LE CDMS-LE CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE Chapter II: limit C’,N’,O’ etc. few % !40 neutron – mirror 10 DAMA/LIBRA neutron mixing CoGeNT Rutherford-like scattering ROI Chapter III: n n and − 0 2 !42 CDMS-Si UHECR dσAA (αZZ 0) 10 CRESST II
0 to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III dΩ = 4 2 v 4 sin4( 2) 2 µAA θ/ CDMS+EDELWEISS or 0 cMSSM-preLHC !44 d 2 ( ZZ )2 10 68% σ π α 0 section [cm AA XENON100 0 ! = 2 2 dER MAv ER Neutrino Background LUX 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 supersymmetry 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 OM-MM interactions in the Early Universe after recombination
4 3 Mirror Matter as After recombination fractions 10− of OM and 10− of MM Dark Matter ... ∼ ∼ remains ionized. γ γ0 kinetic mixing Rutherford scatterings ... and ordinary – − → mirror particle ep0 ep0, ee0 ee0 etc mixings → → Zurab Berezhiani Relative motion (rotation) of O and M matter drags electrons but
Summary not protons/ions which are much heavier. So circular electric currents
Mirror Matter: emerge which can generate magnetic field. MHD equations with the general questions 15 source (drag) term induces magnetic seeds B, B0 10− G in Chapter I: ∼ ordinary – mirror galaxies/clusters then amplified by dynamo. So magnetic fields µG particle mixings can be formed in very young galaxies Z.B., Dolgov, Tkachev, 2013∼ Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing MM capture by Earth can induce mirror magnetic field in the Earth, Chapter III: n n0 and even bigger than ordinary 0.5 G. UHECR−
New EDGES measurements of 21 cm emission (T-S hydrogen) indicates that at redshift z 17 baryons were factor 2 cooler than predicted: if true, it can be∼ beautiful implication of OM matter cooling (momentum transfer) via their Rutherford collisions with (cooler) MM Chapter I
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Zurab Berezhiani Chapter I Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings Ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− SU(3) SU(2) U(1) vs. SU(3)0 SU(2)0 U(1)0 × × × × Two parities Fermions and anti-fermions : Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... uL νL qL = , lL = ; uR , dR , eR ... and ordinary – dL eL mirror particle mixings B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 Zurab Berezhiani u¯R ν¯R q¯R = , l¯R = ;u ¯L, d¯L, e¯L Summary d¯R e¯R Mirror Matter: B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1 general questions Chapter I: Twin Fermions and anti-fermions : ordinary – mirror particle mixings uL0 νL0 Chapter II: qL0 = , lL0 = ; uR0 , dR0 , eR0 neutron – mirror dL0 eL0 neutron mixing B0=1/3 L0=1 B0=1/3 L0=1 Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− u¯R0 ¯ ν¯R0 ¯ q¯R0 = ¯ , lR0 = ;u ¯L0 , dL0 , e¯L0 dR0 e¯R0 B0=-1/3 L0=-1 B0=-1/3 L0=-1 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (¯uLYuqLφ + dLYd qLφ +e ¯LYe lLφ) + (uR Yu∗q¯R φ + dR Yd∗q¯R φ + eR Ye∗lR φ) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (¯uL0 Yu0qL0 φ0 +dL0 Yd0qL0 φ0 +e ¯L0 Ye0lL0 φ0)+(uR0 Yu0∗q¯R0 φ0 +dR0 Yd0∗q¯R0 φ0 +eR0 Ye0∗lR0 φ0)
Z2 symmetry (L, R L, R): Y 0 = YB B0 (B B0) → − → − − PZ2 symmetry (L, R R, L): Y 0 = Y ∗ B B0 B B0 → − → − B-L violation in O and M sectors: Active-sterile neutrino mixing
1 ¯ ¯ 2 Mirror Matter as M (lφ)(lφ) (∆L = 2) – neutrino (seesaw) masses mν v /M Dark Matter ... M• is the (seesaw) scale of new physics beyond EW scale.∼ ... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani L=2 Summary MM Mirror Matter: G L=2 general questions NN l l l l Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings Neutrino -mirror neutrino mixing – (active - sterile mixing) Chapter II: • 1 ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ neutron – mirror L and L0 violation: (lφ)(lφ), (l 0φ0)(l 0φ0) and (lφ)(l 0φ0) neutron mixing M M M
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− L=1, L =1
G L=1 l l
Mirror neutrinos are natural candidates for sterile neutrinos Co-leptogenesis: B-L violating interactions between O and M worlds
Mirror Matter as 1 ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ Dark Matter ... L and L0 violating operators M (lφ)(lφ) and M (lφ)(l 0φ0) lead to ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ... and ordinary – processes lφ lφ (∆L = 2) and lφ l 0φ0 (∆L = 1, ∆L0 = 1) mirror particle → → mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary L=2 L=1, L =1 Mirror Matter: general questions G L=2 G L=1 Chapter I: ordinary – mirror l l l l particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing After inflation, our world is heated and mirror world is empty:
Chapter III: but ordinary particle scatterings transform them into mirror particles, n n0 and UHECR− heating also mirror world. These processes should be out-of-equilibrium • Violate baryon numbers in both worlds, B L and B0 L0 • Violate also CP, given complex couplings − − • Green light to celebrated conditions of Sakharov Co-leptogenesis: Z.B. and Bento, PRL 87, 231304 (2001)
1 1 Mirror Matter as Operators (lφ¯)(lφ¯) and (lφ¯)(l φ¯ ) via seesaw mechanism – Dark Matter ... M M 0 0 heavy RH neutrinos Nj with ... and ordinary – 1 mirror particle Majorana masses Mg N N + h.c. mixings 2 jk j k
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
¯ ¯ Complex Yukawa couplings Yij li Nj φ + Yij0li0Nj φ0 + h.c.
Z2 (Xerox) symmetry Y 0 = Y , → PZ2 (Mirror) symmetry Y 0 = Y ∗ → Co-leptogenesis: Mirror Matter as hidden Anti-Matter Z.B., arXiv:1602.08599 Hot O World Cold M World Mirror Matter as −→ Dark Matter ... dnBL + (3H + Γ)n = ∆ n2 ... and ordinary – dt BL σ eq mirror particle mixings dnBL0 2 + (3H + Γ0)n0 = ∆σ0 neq Zurab Berezhiani dt BL − Summary σ(lφ l¯φ¯) σ(l¯φ¯ lφ) = ∆σ Mirror Matter: → − → general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings σ(lφ l¯0φ¯0) σ(l¯φ¯ l 0φ0) = (∆σ + ∆σ0)/2 0 (∆σ = 0) → − → − → Chapter II: σ(lφ l 0φ0) σ(l¯φ¯ l¯0φ¯0) = (∆σ ∆σ0)/2 ∆σ (0) neutron – mirror → − → − − → neutron mixing ∆σ = Im Tr[g 1(Y Y ) g 1(Y Y )g 2(Y Y )] T 2/M4 Chapter III: − † ∗ − 0† 0 − † n n and × − 0 ∆σ0 = ∆σ(Y Y 0) UHECR → Mirror (PZ2): Y 0 = Y ∗ ∆σ0 = ∆σ B, B0 > 0 → − → Xerox (Z2): Y 0 = Y ∆σ0 = ∆σ = 0 B, B0 = 0 → → Γ If k = 1, neglecting Γ in eqs nBL = nBL0 H T =TR → 3 3 13 4 3 JMPl TR 3 TR 10 GeV Ω0 = ΩB 10 4 10 J 11 B ' M ' 10 GeV M Cogenesis: Ω0 5ΩB Z.B. 2003 B '
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... If k = Γ2 1, Boltzmann Eqs. H T =TR ... and ordinary – ∼ mirror particle dn0 mixings dnBL 2 BL 2 dt + (3H + Γ)nBL = ∆σ neq dt + (3H + Γ0)nBL0 = ∆σ neq Zurab Berezhiani should be solved with Γ: Summary 1.0 Mirror Matter: general questions 0.8 D k Chapter I: ordinary – mirror H L particle mixings 0.6
Chapter II: x k neutron – mirror 0.4 neutron mixing H L
Chapter III: 0.2 n n and − 0 UHECR 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
D(k) = ΩB /ΩB0 , x(k) = T 0/T for different g (TR ) and Γ1/Γ2. ∗
So we obtain ΩB0 = 5ΩB when mB0 = mB but nB0 = 5nB – the reason: mirror world is colder Free Energy from DM for the future generations ?
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... n0 n¯ produces our antimatter from mirror DM ... and ordinary – → mirror particle mixings Zurab Berezhiani Encounter of matter and antimatter
Summary leads to immediate (uncontrollable)
Mirror Matter: annihilation which can be destructive general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror Annihilation can take place also bet- particle mixings ween our matter and dark matter, Chapter II: but controllable by tuning of vacuum neutron – mirror neutron mixing and magnetic conditions. Dark neu- Chapter III: trons can be transformed into our n n0 and UHECR− antineutrons ....
Two civilisations can agree to built scientific reactors and exchange neutrons ... and turn the energy produced by each reactor in 1000 times more energy for parallel world .. and all live happy and healthy ... Isaak Asimov
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Zurab Berezhiani First Part: Against Stupidity ...
Summary Mirror Matter: Second Part: ...The Gods Themselves ... general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror Third Part: ... Contend in Vain? particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: ”Mit der Dummheit k¨ampfenG¨otter n n0 and UHECR− selbst vergebens!” – Friedrich Schiller Chapter II
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Zurab Berezhiani Chapter I Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings Neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− B violating operators between O and M particles in Lmix
Mirror Matter as Ordinary quarks u, d ( antiquarksu ¯, d¯) Dark Matter ... ¯ Mirror quarks u0, d 0 ( antiquarksu ¯0, d 0) ... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings Neutron -mirror neutron mixing – (Active - sterile neutrons) Zurab Berezhiani • Summary 1 1 5 (udd)(udd) and 5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0) (+ h.c.) Mirror Matter: M M general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings B=2 B=1, B = 1 Chapter II: u u u u neutron – mirror neutron mixing d G B=2 d d G B=1 d Chapter III: d d d d n n0 and UHECR− Oscillations n(udd) n¯(¯ud¯d¯) (∆B = 2) ¯ ¯ ↔ ¯¯ n(udd) n¯0(¯u0d 0d 0), n0(udd) n¯(¯udd) (∆B = 1, ∆B0 = 1) → → − Can co-generate Baryon asymmetries in both worlds of the same sign, B, B0 > 0, with Ω0 5 ΩB B ' Neutron– antineutron oscillation
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... Majorana mass of neutron (nT Cn +n ¯T Cn¯) violating B by two units ... and ordinary – 1 mirror particle comes from six-fermions effective operator M5 (udd)(udd) mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary B=2 u Mirror Matter: u general questions d G B=2 d Chapter I: ordinary – mirror d d particle mixings Chapter II: ¯¯ 1 neutron – mirror It causes transition n(udd) n¯(¯udd), with oscillation time τ = − neutron mixing 6 → ΛQCD 100 TeV 5 25 Chapter III: ε = n (udd)(udd) n¯ M5 M 10− eV n n0 and h | | i ∼ ∼ × UHECR− Key moment: n n¯ oscillation destabilizes nuclei: (A, Z) (A 1−, n¯, Z) (A 2, Z/Z 1) + π’s → − → − − Present bounds on from nuclear stability 24 8 ε < 1.2 10− eV τ > 1.3 10 s Fe, Soudan 2002 × 24 → × 8 ε < 2.5 10− eV τ > 2.7 10 s O, SK 2015 × → × Free neutron– antineutron oscillation
Mirror Matter as Two states, n andn ¯ Dark Matter ...... and ordinary – mirror particle mn + µnBσ ε mixings H = ε mn µnBσ Zurab Berezhiani −
Summary 2 2 Mirror Matter: ε Oscillation probability Pnn¯(t) = 2 sin (ωB t), ωB = µnB general questions ωB Chapter I: 2 ordinary – mirror 1 2 (εt) If ωB t 1, then Pnn¯(t) = (ε/ωB ) = 2 particle mixings 2 (ωB t) Chapter II: 2 2 neutron – mirror If ωB t < 1, then Pnn¯(t) = (t/τ) = (εt) neutron mixing Chapter III: ”Quasi-free” regime: for a given free flight time t, magnetic field n n0 and UHECR− should be properly suppressed to achieve ωB t < 1. More suppression makes no sense !
Exp. Baldo-Ceolin et al, 1994 (ILL, Grenoble) : t 0.1 s, B < 100 nT 8 24 ' τ > 2.7 10 ε < 7.7 10− eV At ESS 2× orders of→ magnitude× better sensitivity can be achieved, 25 down to ε 10− eV ∼ Neutron – mirror neutron mixing
1 Mirror Matter as Effective operator M5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0) mass mixing nCn0 + h.c. Dark Matter ... → violating B and B0 – but conserving B B0 ... and ordinary – − mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani B=1, B = 1 u u Summary d G B=1 d Mirror Matter: general questions d d Chapter I: ordinary – mirror 6 ΛQCD 1 5 particle mixings TeV 10 = n (udd)(u0d 0d 0) n¯0 M5 M 10− eV Chapter II: h | | i ∼ ∼ × neutron – mirror neutron mixing Key observation: n n¯0 oscillation cannot destabilise nuclei: − Chapter III: (A Z) (A 1 Z) + n (p e ¯ ) forbidden by energy conservation n n and , , 0 0 0ν0 − 0 → − UHECR (In principle, it can destabilise Neutron Stars) 1 Even if mn = mn0 , n n¯0 oscillation can be as fast as − = τnn¯0 1 s, without contradicting− experimental and astrophysical limits. ∼ 8 (c.f. τnn¯ > 2.5 10 s for neutron – antineutron oscillation) 0 × Neutron disappearance n n¯0 and regeneration n n¯0 n can be searched at small scale→ ‘Table Top’ experiments→ → Neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Mirror Matter as The Mass Mixing (nCn0 + h.c.) comes from six-fermions effective Dark Matter ... 1 operator M5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0), M is the scale of new physics ... and ordinary – mirror particle violating B and B0 – but conserving B B0 mixings −
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary B=1, B = 1 B=2 u u u u Mirror Matter: general questions d G B=1 d d G B=2 d Chapter I: d ordinary – mirror d d d particle mixings 6 Chapter II: ΛQCD 10 TeV 5 15 neutron – mirror = n (udd)(u0d 0d 0) n0 M5 M 10− eV neutron mixing h | | i ∼ ∼ × Chapter III: Key observation: n n0 oscillation cannot destabilise nuclei: n n0 and − UHECR− (A, Z) (A 1, Z) + n0(p0e0ν¯0) forbidden by energy conservation → − 1 Surprisingly, n n¯0 oscillation can be as fast as − = τnn0 1 s, without contradicting− any experimental and astrophysical limits.∼ 8 (c.f. τnn¯ > 2.5 10 s for neutron – antineutron oscillation) × Disappearance n n¯0 (regeneration n n¯0 n) can be searched at → → → small scale ‘Table Top’ experiments Neutron – mirror neutron oscillation probability
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... ... and ordinary – mn + µnBσ mirror particle H = mixings mn + µnB0σ Zurab Berezhiani The probability of n-n’ transition depends on the relative orientation Summary of magnetic and mirror-magnetic fields. The latter can exist if mirror Mirror Matter: general questions matter is captured by the Earth
Chapter I: Neutron disappearance in the presence of B (Z. Berezhiani, 2009) ordinary – mirror particle mixings PtBBB() pt () dt () cos Chapter II: B 22 neutron – mirror sin ( )tt sin ( ) B neutron mixing pt() 2( 2222 ) 2( ) Chapter III: n n and − 0 22 UHECR sin ( )tt sin ( ) dt() 2( 222 ) 2( )2 B
11BB ; where =22 and - oscillation time
det Nt BB() Nt () AtBcollisB() = Ndt () cos assymetry Nt BB() Nt ()
22 Experimental limits on n n0 oscillation time −
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle 120 mixings
Zurab Berezhiani 100 Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions 80 Chapter I: ordinary – mirror
particle mixings [ s ]
β 60 Chapter II: neutron – mirror τ , neutron mixing
Chapter III: 40 n n0 and UHECR− 20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 B'[G] Mirror matter is a hidden antimatter: antimatter in the cosmos?
Mirror Matter as In mirror cosmic rays, disintegration of mirror nuclei by galactic UV Dark Matter ... background or in scatterings with mirror gas, frees out mirror ... and ordinary – mirror particle neutrons which the oscillate into our antineutron, n0 n¯, which then mixings → decays asn ¯ p¯ +e ¯ + νe . Zurab Berezhiani so we get antiprotons→ (positrons), with spectral index similar to that Summary of protons in our cosmic rays ?
Mirror Matter: ! general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
Figure 1. Antiproton to proton ratio measured by AMS. As seen, the measured ratio cannot be explained Fromby existing “AMS models Days of secondary at CERN” production and. Latest Results from the AMS Experiment
on the International Space Station, AMS Collaboration CERN, Geneva, 15 AprilMost surprisingly, 2015 (http:// AMS haspress.web.cern.ch also found, based on 50/sites/press.web.cern.ch/files/file/press/ million events, that the helium flux exhibits nearly identical and equally unexpected behavior as the proton flux (see Figure 3). AMS is currently studying 2015/04/pr05.15e_ams_days_results.pdf).the behavior of other nuclei in order to understand the origin of this unexpected change.
These unexpected new observations provide important information on the understanding of cosmic ray production and propagation.
The latest AMS measurements of the positron fraction, the antiproton/proton ratio, the behavior of the fluxes of electrons, positrons, protons, helium, and other nuclei provide precise and unexpected information. The accuracy and characteristics of the data, simultaneously from many different types of cosmic rays, require a comprehensive model to ascertain if their origin is from dark matter, astrophysical sources, acceleration mechanisms or a combination.
! "! Chapter III
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings Chapter II: Chapter III neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− n n0 and UHECR − Cosmic rays and GZK cutoff
K. Greisen, End to the cosmic ray spectrum?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966). UHECRG. Zatsepin, andV. Kuzmin, GZKUpper cutoff limit on the spectrum of cosmic rays, JETP Lett. 4, 78 ● Interests (1966). ● SM ● See-Saw ● Present Cosmology ● VisibleMirror vs. Dark matter: Matter as GZK cutoff: Ω Dark/Ω Matter5 ? ... D B ≃ mπ mp 19 ● Bvs.D Photo-pion production on the CMB if E>EGZK ε 6 10 eV : ● Unification... and ordinary – CMB 0 + ≈ 20≈ × ● Parallelmirror sector particle p + γ p + π (or n + π ), lmfp 5 Mpc for E>10 eV = 100 EeV ● Carrol’s Alice...mixings → ∼ E ● Mirror World Neutron decay: n p + e +¯νe, ldec = ` ´ Mpc ● TwinZurab Par ticles Berezhiani 100 EeV → 0 ● Alice Neutron on CMB scattering: n + γ n + π (or p + π−) ● InteractionsSummary → ● Interactions ● B&LviolationMirror Matter: ● Sterilegeneral questions Presence of n n′ oscillation with τosc τdec drastically changes ● See-Saw − ≪ ● B&LviolationChapter I: situation ● See-Sawordinary – mirror ● See-Sawparticle mixings ● Leptogenesis:Chapter diagrams II: ● Boltzmannneutron eqs. – mirror ● Leptogenesis:neutron formulas mixing ● Neutron mixing ● OscillationChapter III: ● Neutronn mixingn0 and ● NeutronUHECR− mixing ● Oscillation ● Experiment ● Ver tical B ● Ver tical B ● Ver tical B ●SW6Ver tical B -p.37/45 ● Ver tical B Neutron mixing UHECR and GZK cutoff
Mirror Matter as Two giant detectors see UHECR spectra different at E > EGZK Dark Matter ... Pierre Auger Observatory (PAO) – South hemisphere ... and ordinary – mirror particle Telescope Array (TA) – North hemisphere mixings Zurab Berezhiani At E < EGZK two spectra are perfectly coincident by relative energy shift 8 % Summary ≈ Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
+ older detectors: AGASA, HiRes, etc. (all in north hemisphere) Events with E > 100 EeV were observed Cosmic Zevatrons exist in the Universe – but where is GZK cutoff? But also other discrepancies are mounting ...
Mirror Matter as Who are carriers of UHECR ? Dark Matter ... PAO• and TA see different chemical content: TA is compatible with protons ... and ordinary – mirror particle at all energies, PAO insists UHECR become heavier nuclei above E > 10 mixings EeV or so – perhaps new physics ? Zurab Berezhiani Different anistropies from North and South ? Summary TA• excludes isotropic distribution at E 57 EeV, observes hot spot for Mirror Matter: > general questions events E > EGZK (which spot is cold for E < EGZK) . PAO anisotropies Chapter I: ordinary – mirror not so prominent: warm spot around Cen A, but observe dipole for E > 10 particle mixings EeV – are two skies realy different ? Chapter II: neutron – mirror From where highest energy events do come ? neutron mixing • Chapter III: E > 100 EeV are expected from local supercluster (Virgo, UM, PP etc.) n n0 and UHECR− and closeby structures. But they do not come from these directions. TA observes small angle correlation for E > 100 EeV events (2 doublets), which may indicate towards strong source – from where they come? Excess of cosmogenic photons ? Standard• GZK mechanism of UHECR produces too much cascades – contradicts to Fermi-LAT photon spectrum at E 1 TeV – local Fog ? ∼ trapolate the catalog data in a straightforward manner when computing average source densities just outside the excluded region: for every galaxywithcoordinatesl and b,where b < 30 ,weaddamirrorgalaxywithcoordinatesl = l and b = 30 b in the galactic | | ◦ ′ ′ ± ◦ − strip. Here the plus (minus) sign corresponds to b>0(b<0). In Fig. 3 we show the expected integral CR flux above 40 EeV in themattertracer model, using the KKKST catalog to reconstruct the local matter density in the Universe, together with the positions of some prominent groups and (super)clusters of galaxies. (We discuss how this figure is obtained in Sect. 2.4). In this figure, as in all figures in this paper showingFrom modelwhere CR highest fluxes on energythe sky, the CR gray are bands expected are chosen ? such that they contain 1/5 of the model flux each, with darker bands indicating larger flux. (We would like to stress that this division in a discrete number of bandsisforpresentationonly.) Mirror Matter as Dark MatterBoth ... far-away superclusters and close-by galaxy groups can be recognized in the figure,
... and ordinarythe – most prominent overdense region extending between the local (Virgo) and Centaurus mirror particle mixingssuperclusters.
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
Figure 3: Aitoff projection of the sky (galactic coordinates l and b)showingtherelativeintegral CR flux above 40 EeV in the matter tracer model (grayscale; matter densities derived from the KKKST catalog) together with the approximate positions of some prominent galaxy groups and (super)clusters. C: Centaurus supercluster (60 Mpc); Ca: Canes I group (4 Mpc) and Canes II group (9 Mpc); Co: Coma cluster (90 Mpc); E: Eridanus cluster (30 Mpc); F: Fornax cluster (20 Mpc); He: Hercules superclusters (140 Mpc); Hy: Hydra supercluster (50 Mpc); L: Leo supercluster (130 Mpc), Leo I group (10 Mpc), and Leo II group (20 Mpc); M81: M81 group (4 Mpc); M101: M101 group (8 Mpc); P: Pegasus cluster (60 Mpc); PI: Pavo-Indus supercluster (70 Mpc); PC: Pisces- Cetus supercluster (250 Mpc); PP: Perseus-Pisces supercluster (70 Mpc); S: Shapley supercluster (200 Mpc); UM: Ursa Major supercluster (240 Mpc), Ursa Major North group (20 Mpc), and Ursa Major South group (20 Mpc); V: Virgo cluster (20 Mpc); VII: Virgo II group (20 Mpc); VIII: Virgo III group (20 Mpc). The Pisces-Cetus supercluster extends between the two indicated points. Distances between parentheses are rough estimates.
2.2 Source density
The CR source density nsrc is unknown, but bounded from below by the scarcity of observed doublets and triplets, and also by the fact that the sources oftheobservedUHECRscannot
–7– Ordinary and Mirror UHECR
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
28 ... and ordinary – 10 mirror particle 21 mixings zmax = 3, Ecut = 10 eV, γg = 2. 6, m = 0, T0/T = 0. 2, q = 50 1027 Zurab Berezhiani Qp0/Qp = 5, QHe/Qp = 0. 12, QHe0/Qp0 = 0. 4 26 Summary 10 ]
Mirror Matter: 1 − general questions r 25
s 10 1
Chapter I: − s ordinary – mirror 2 24 particle mixings − 10 m
Chapter II: 2 23 neutron – mirror V 10 e neutron mixing [ )
E 22 Chapter III: ( 10 n n and J 0 3 UHECR− E 1021
20 10 our p mir. p our He mir. He 1019 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 E [eV] n n0 oscillation and UHECR propagation − n n′ oscillation and propagation of UHECR Mirror Matter as − Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle ● Interestsmixings ● SM ●ZurabSee-Saw Berezhiani ● Present Cosmology ● Visible vs. Dark matter: SummaryΩ /Ω 5 ? D B ≃ ● Bvs.D Mirror● Unification Matter: general● Parallel sector questions ● Carrol’s Alice... Chapter● Mirror World I: ordinary● Twin Par ticles – mirror particle● Alice mixings ● Interactions Chapter● Interactions II: neutron● B&Lviolation – mirror neutron● Sterile mixing ● See-Saw Chapter● B&Lviolation III: ● See-Saw Z. Berezhiani, L. Bento, Fast neutron – Mirror neutron oscillation and ultra high n n0 and UHECR● See-Saw− ● Leptogenesis: diagrams energy cosmic rays, Phys. Lett. B 635, 253 (2006). ● Boltzmann eqs. ● Leptogenesis: formulas 0 + ● Neutron mixing A. p + γ p + π or p + γ n + π Ppp,pn 0.5 lmfp 5 Mpc ● Oscillation → → E ≈ ∼ ● Neutron mixing ′ B. n n Pnn′ 0.5 losc ` 100 EeV ´ kpc ● Neutron mixing → ≃ ∼E ● Oscillation C. n′ p′ + e′ +¯νe′ ldec ` 100 EeV ´ Mpc ● Experiment → 0 ≈ + 3 ● Ver tical B D. p′ + γ′ p′ + π′ or p′ + γ′ n′ + π′ lmfp′ (T/T′) lmfp 5 Mpc ● Ver tical B → → ∼ ≫ ● Ver tical B ●SW6Ver tical B -p.38/45 ● Ver tical B Neutron mixing n n0 oscillation in the UHECR propagation −
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... Baryon number is not conserved in propagation of the UHECR ... and ordinary – mirror particle mn + µnBσ mixings H = mn + µnB0σ Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: In the intergalactic space magnetic fields are extremely small. general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror But for relativistic neutrons transverse component of B is enhanced particle mixings by Lorentz factor: B = γB (γ 1011 for E 100 EeV) Chapter II: tr neutron – mirror ∼ ∼ neutron mixing Average oscillation probability: P = 1 Chapter III: nn0 1+q(E) n n0 and UHECR− 2 2 2 τnn Btr B0 E q = 0.45 0 − tr × 1 s × 1 fG × 100 EeV
If q(E) < 1, n n0 oscillation becomes effective − 3 n n CMB0 = T 0 1 EBL0 1 M-star formation & evolution nCMB T nEBL ∼ Earlier (than GZK) cutoff in cosmic rays
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... Z.B. and Gazizov, Neutron Oscillations to Parallel World: Earlier End to
... and ordinary – the Cosmic Ray Spectrum? Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2111 (2012) mirror particle mixings Baryon number is not conserved in propagation of the UHECR Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− Swiss Cheese Model: UHECR from Voids – adjacent Void
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle 1026 mixings E = 1 ZeV, z = 3, γ = 2. 2, m = 0, T/T = 0. 2, q¯ = 50, Q /Q = 0. 5 Zurab Berezhiani 0cut 0max g0 0 0 He0 p0 void [0 50] Mpc, q = [0. 005, 0. 05, 0. 5, 5, 50, 500, 5000, 50000] − V 1025 Summary
Mirror Matter: ] 1
general questions −
r 24
s 10
Chapter I: 1 − ordinary – mirror s 2
particle mixings − 23 m 10 Chapter II: 2 neutron – mirror V e neutron mixing [ )
E 22 Chapter III: ( 10 J n n and 3 − 0 UHECR E
1021
1020 1018 1019 1020 1021 E [eV] More distant Void
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle 1026 mixings E = 1 ZeV, z = 3, γ = 2. 2, m = 0, T/T = 0. 2, q¯ = 50, Q /Q = 0. 5 Zurab Berezhiani 0cut 0max g0 0 0 He0 p0 void [50 100] Mpc, q = [0. 005, 0. 05, 0. 5, 5, 50, 500, 5000, 50000] − V 1025 Summary
Mirror Matter: ] 1
general questions −
r 24
s 10
Chapter I: 1 − ordinary – mirror s 2
particle mixings − 23 m 10 Chapter II: 2 neutron – mirror V e neutron mixing [ )
E 22 Chapter III: ( 10 J n n and 3 − 0 UHECR E
1021
1020 1018 1019 1020 1021 E [eV] Swiss Cheese Model
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... Z.B., Biondi, Gazizov, 2018 ... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani Mirror CRs are transformed into ordinaries in nearby Voids. n n0 Summary oscillation probability depends on the magnetic fields in the Voids.− Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− Are North Sky and South Sky different ?
Mirror Matter as The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,199:26(22pp),2012April Huchra et al. Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
Figure 7. Hockey Puck plot—a full cylinder section—of 2MRS in the north celestial cap. The view is looking downward from the NCP, the thickness of the “puck” 1 1 is 8000 km s− ,anditsradiusis15,000kms− . Two “Hockey Puck” diagrams shown in Figures 7 and 8 4.2. Onion Skins highlight the vast improvement in coverage through the galactic plane afforded by 2MRS as compared to even CfA2, the densest Another projection that can highlight the properties of nearby survey of the nearby universe (Huchra et al. 1995, 1999). Plotted structures are surface maps of the galaxy distribution as a are top-down views of cylindrical volumes with a radius of function of redshift. Since these are conceptually like peeling 1 1 an onion, they are best called “Onion Skins.” Figures 9–11 15,000 km s− and thickness of 8000 km s− ,yieldingan aspect ratio of about 3.5–1. The pucks show the galaxies in the show three sets of these skins, moving progressively outward northern and southern celestial hemispheres, respectively—i.e., in redshift, while Figure 12 shows the entire 2MRS catalog all galaxies above and below the celestial equator with redshifts with the major structures of the Local Universe labeled. These figures use Galactic coordinate projections; the corresponding placing them in the cylinder and with Ks ! 11.75 mag. Many of our favorite structures and several prominent voids are easily equatorial coordinate projections are shown in Figures 15–18. Figure 9 shows the distribution on the sky of all galaxies seen in these plots. 1 in the survey inside 3000 km s− color coded by redshift in The northern puck is dominated by the LSC at the center, 1 1000 km s− skins. The plane of the LSC dominates the map, but the Great Wall (now straight in this cylindrical projection) at 1 10–14.5 hr, and Pisces-Perseus at 0–5 hr. In addition, there are there is also a diffuse component between 2000 and 3000 km s− several new but smaller structures such as the one at 19 hr and and 6–13 hr in the south. The next two figures again show 1 some familiar structures but with a few surprises. The Great 4000 km s− ,probablybestassociatedwiththeCygnusCluster (Huchra et al. 1977). Wall, Pisces-Perseus, and the Great Attractor dominate the mid The southern celestial hemisphere is more amorphous. There ranges. The overdensity of galaxies in the direction of A3627 is the well-known Cetus Wall (Fairall et al. 1998)between0 is high, and the comparison of Figure 10 with 11 clearly shows and 4 hr, the southern part of the LSC at the center, and the why we are moving with respect to the CMB toward a point around l 270 and b 30 . Hydra-Centaurus region, but also a large and diffuse overdensity = ◦ = ◦ between 19 and 22 hr, a region hitherto not mapped because of its proximity to the galactic plane. This structure appears to be 5. GALAXY MORPHOLOGIES both large and rich and should have a large effect on the local Morphological types are listed in Table 3 for all of the 20,860 velocity field. galaxies in 2MRS11.25. We used the classifications listed in
9 Are South Sky and North Sky different ?
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ... The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,199:26(22pp),2012April Huchra et al.
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−
Figure 8. Same as Figure 7 but for the south celestial cap.
ZCAT (based on RC3, NED, and other catalogs) when available, 1. Erdogduˇ et al. (2006a)calculatedtheaccelerationonthe but 5682 of these galaxies had no type information. They were Local Group (LG). Their estimate of the dipole seems to 1 visually examined and classified by J. Huchra using blue plates converge to the CMB result within 60 h− Mpc, suggesting from the Digitized Sky Surveys. These new morphological types that the bulk of the motion of the LG comes from structures are identified by code “JH” in column 24 of the catalog. We also within that distance. They also carried out an analysis of list morphological types from the literature for fainter galaxies the dipole weighting the sample by its luminosity (rather in the catalog, when available. than the counts) and found relatively minor changes. Morphological typing in 2MRS uses the modified Hub- 2. Erdogduˇ et al. (2006b)calculateddensityandvelocity ble sequence (de Vaucouleurs 1963;deVaucouleursetal. fields. All major LSCs and voids were successfully identi- 1976). Elliptical galaxies have integer types 7through 5. − − fied, and backside infall on to the “Great Attractor” region S0 galaxies range from integer type 4(E/S0) through 0 (S0/ (at 50 h 1 Mpc) was detected. a), in a sequence from least to most− pronounced disks. Spirals − are assigned integer types 1 (Sa) through 9 (Sm), without dis- 3. Westover (2007)measuredthecorrelationfunctionand tinction between barred, unbarred or mixed-type. Irregular and found a steeper relationship between galaxy bias and peculiar galaxies are assigned integer types 10 and above. The luminosity than previously determined for optical samples, format for the morphological type designations is described in implying that near-infrared luminosities may be better mass detail in Table 5. tracers than optical ones. The relative biasing between The distribution of the galaxies in 2MRS11.25 by morpho- early- and late-type galaxies was best fit by a power law with logical type is shown in Figure 13, while Figure 14 shows his- no improvement when stochasticity was added, leaving tograms by redshift for the three broad morphological classes open the possibility that populations of galaxies may evolve described above. While the histograms show the same pattern as between one another. Figure 6,spiralsdominatethedatasetatlowerredshifts,while 4. Crook et al. (2007)producedacatalogofgalaxygroups, ellipticals flatten near z 0.03 and extend to higher redshifts, which was later used to model the local velocity field in as expected given their higher≈ luminosity. Crook et al. (2010). 5. Erdogduˇ & Lahav (2009)predictedtheaccelerationofthe 6. PREVIOUS RESULTS FROM 2MRS LG generated by 2MRS in the framework of ΛCDM and The 2MRS11.25 sample has been used in several publica- the halo model of galaxies. Their analysis suggested that tions. it is not necessary to invoke additional unknown mass
10 Arrival directions TA and PAO events of E > 100 EeV
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR− Arrival directions of E > 80 EeV events
Mirror Matter as Dark Matter ...
... and ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Mirror Matter: general questions
Chapter I: ordinary – mirror particle mixings
Chapter II: neutron – mirror neutron mixing
Chapter III: n n0 and UHECR−