Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? Zurab Berezhiani Thoughts on Dark Matter: Summary Introduction windows to dark world ? Dark Matter Enigma Mirror Matter Zurab Berezhiani B-L violating processes and origin of observable and University of L’Aquila and LNGS dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron ICNFP 2016, OAC, Kolymbari, 6-14 July 2016 oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Contents
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? 1 Introduction Zurab Berezhiani 2 Dark Matter Enigma Summary
Introduction 3 Mirror Matter Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter 4 B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
B-L violating processes and 5 origin of Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation observable and dark matter 6 The neutron lifetime enigma Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation 7 Conclusions The neutron lifetime enigma 8 Conclusions Backup
Backup 9 Supersymmetry Supersymmetry Some epochal discoveries after 30’s of XIX ...
Thoughts on Dark Matter: Anti-matter, 1931-32 windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction Dark matter , 1932-33
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of Neutron, 1932-33 observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation The neutron Parity Violation, 1956-57 lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry CP Violation, 1964 ...and a prophetic idea on the origin of matter
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani A dreamer ... Andrey Sakharov, 1967
Summary Matter (Baryon asymmetry) in the early universe Introduction can be originated (from zero) by processes that Dark Matter Enigma Violate B (better B L) − Mirror Matter Violate CP B-L violating processes and and go out-of-equilibrium at some early epoch origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma I want to pose a question in this way: Conclusions Can the issues of the antimatter, dark matter, neutron, parity, Backup CP-violation, baryon violation and some other issues of Standard Supersymmetry Model more intimately related ? Standard Model on T-shirts
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions Fermions (= matter): quarks and leptons, 3 generations Backup Bosons (= interactions): gauge fields + God’s particle – Higgs Supersymmetry Standard Model vs. P, C, T and B & L
Thoughts on Fermions: Dark Matter: windows to dark uL νL world ? qL = , lL = ; uR , dR , eR dL eL Zurab Berezhiani B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 Summary Introduction Anti-Fermions: Dark Matter Enigma u¯R ν¯R q¯R = , l¯R = ;u ¯L, d¯L, e¯L Mirror Matter d¯ e¯ R R B-L violating B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1 processes and origin of observable and dark matter = + + CPT is OK (Local Lagrangian) LSM LGauge LHiggs LYuk Neutron–mirror neutron ¯ oscillation P (ΨL → ΨR )& C (ΨL → ΨL) broken by gauge interactions The neutron ¯ u,d,e lifetime enigma CP (ΨL → ΨR ) broken by complex Yukawas Y = Yij Conclusions (¯u Y q φ¯+d¯ Y q φ+e ¯ Y l φ)+(u Y ∗q¯ φ+d Y ∗q¯ φ¯+e Y ∗l¯ φ¯) Backup L u L L d L L e L R u R R d R R e R Supersymmetry There are no renormalizable interactions which can break B and L ! Good for our stability, Bad for baryogenesis Baryogenesis requires new physics: B & L can be violated only in higher order (non-renormalizable) terms
Thoughts on Dark Matter: 1 ¯ ¯ 2 windows to dark M (lφ)(lφ) (∆L = 2) – neutrino (seesaw) masses mν v /M world ? • ∼ Zurab Berezhiani
Summary L=2 Introduction MM Dark Matter G L=2 Enigma NN Mirror Matter l l l l
B-L violating processes and 1 origin of M5 (udd)(udd) (∆B = 2) – neutron-antineutron oscillation n n¯ observable and • → dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron u u oscillation B=2 u u d d The neutron S M S lifetime enigma M d G B=2 d Conclusions NN d d Backup d d
Supersymmetry can originate from new physics related to scale M vEW via seesaw Dark matter requires new physics Standard Model has no candidate for dark matter
Thoughts on massive neutrino (∼ 20 eV) was a natural “standard” candidate of ”hot” Dark Matter: dark matter (HDM) forming cosmological structures (Pencakes) – windows to dark world ? but it was excluded by astrophysical observations in 80’s, Zurab Berezhiani and later on by the neutrino experiments! – RIP
Summary In about the same period the BBN limits excluded dark matter Introduction in the form of invisible baryons (dim stars, etc.) – RIP Dark Matter Enigma Then a new Strada Maestra was opened – USY Mirror Matter S B-L violating – well-motivated theoretical concept promising to be a highway processes and origin of for solving many fundamental problems, brought a natural and observable and dark matter almost “Standard” candidate WIMP – undead, but looks useless
Neutron–mirror neutron Another well-motivated candidate, Axion, emerged from Peccei-Quinn oscillation symmetry for solving strong CP problem – alive, but seems confused The neutron lifetime enigma Conclusions All other candidates in the literature are ad hoc ! Backup Apart one exception – Supersymmetry which may answer to tantalizing question: do baryogenesis and dark matter require two different new physics, or just one can be enough? Cosmic Concordance and Dark Side of the Universe
Thoughts on Todays Universe: flat Ωtot 1 (inflation) and multi-component: Dark Matter: ≈ electron, proton, neutron windows to dark ΩB 0.05 observable matter: world ? ' ΩD 0.25 dark matter: WIMP? axion? sterile ν? ... Zurab Berezhiani ' ΩΛ 0.70 dark energy: Λ-term? Quintessence? .... Summary ' (Ω = Ω + Ω ) Introduction Matter – dark energy coincidence: ΩM /ΩΛ 0.45, M D B 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 B-L violating Baryon and dark matter Fine Tuning: ΩB /ΩD 0.2 processes and 3 3 ' origin of ρB a− , ρD a− : why ρB /ρD 1 - Yesterday Today & Tomorrow? observable and ∼ ∼ ∼ dark matter – How Baryogenesis could know about Dark Neutron–mirror neutron Matter? popular models for primordial Ba- oscillation ryogenesis (GUT-B, Lepto-B, Affleck-Dine The neutron lifetime enigma B, EW B ...) have no relation to popular Conclusions DM candidates (Wimp, Wimpzilla, sterile ν, Backup axion, gravitino ...) Supersymmetry – Anthropic? Another Fine Tuning in Particle Physics and Cosmology? Coincidence of luminous and dark matter fractions: why ΩD /ΩB ∼ 1 ? or
why mB ρB ∼ mX ρX ?
Thoughts on Visible matter from Dark Matter: Baryogenesis ( Sakharov) windows to dark B (B L) & CP violation, Out-of-Equilibrium world ? − 9 ρB = mB nB , mB 1 GeV, η = nB /nγ 10− Zurab Berezhiani ' ∼ η is model dependent on several factors: Summary coupling constants and CP-phases, particle degrees of freedom, Introduction
Dark Matter mass scales and out-of-equilibrium conditions, etc. Enigma
Mirror Matter Dark matter: ρD = mX nX , but mX = ? , nX = ? B-L violating n is model dependent: DM particle mass and interaction strength processes and X origin of (production and annihilation cross sections), freezing conditions, etc. observable and dark matter 5 4 Neutron–mirror Axion ma 10− eV na 10 nγ - CDM neutron ∼ ∼ oscillation 1 Neutrinos mν 10− eV nν nγ - HDM ( ) The neutron ∼ ∼ 3 × lifetime enigma Sterile ν0 m 10 keV n 10− n - WDM ν0 ∼ ν0 ∼ ν Conclusions Para-baryons mB0 1 GeV nB0 nB - SIDDM Backup ' ∼ 3 Supersymmetry WIMP m 1 TeV n 10− n - CDM X ∼ X ∼ B 14 14 WimpZilla m 10 GeV n 10− n - CDM X ∼ X ∼ B How these Fine Tunings look ...
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? Zurab Berezhiani B-genesis + WIMP B-genesis + axion B-cogenesis
Summary 40 B"genesis ΕCP... 40 B-genesis HΕCP...L 40 B-genesis HΕCP...L
Introduction ΡB ΡB ΡB 20 ! # 20 20 DM"freezing Σann... # L L 4 Dark Matter 4 4 0 0 0 GeV GeV GeV " Enigma ! # ΡDM -4 ΡDM -4 Ρ "4 Ρ Ρ Ρ 'a ΡDM Ρrad~a Ρrad~a ! rad H H Log Mirror Matter -20 Log -20 Log -20
"3 % -3 M=R -3 M=R Ρmat'a M R Ρmat~a Ρmat~a B-L violating -40 Ρ& -40 ΡL -40 ΡL processes and origin of -60 Today -60 Today -60 Today observable and -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 dark matter Log a a0 LogHaa0 L LogHaa0 L
Neutron–mirror ! " # neutron oscillation mX nX mB nB mana mB nB mB0 nB0 mB nB ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ The neutron mX 10 mB ma 10− mB mB0 mB lifetime enigma ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ nX 10− nB na 10 nB nB nB Conclusions 0 Fine∼ Tuning? Fine∼ Tuning? Natural∼ ? Backup
Supersymmetry SU(3) SU(2) U(1) & SU(3)0 SU(2)0 U(1)0 × × × ×
Thoughts on G G 0 Dark Matter: Regular world × Mirror world windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter B-L violating 0 processes and • Two identical gauge factors, e.g. SU(5) × SU(5) , with identical field origin of 0 observable and contents and Lagrangians: Ltot = L + L + Lmix dark matter • Exact parity G → G 0: no new parameters in dark Lagrangian L0 Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation • M sector is dark (for us) and the gravity is a common force (with us)
The neutron lifetime enigma • M matter looks as non-standard for dark matter but it is truly standard
Conclusions in direct sense, just as our matter (self-interacting/dissipative/asymmetric)
Backup • New interactions are possible between O & M particles Lmix Supersymmetry • Natural in string/brane theory: O & M matters localized on two parallel 0 branes and gravity propagating in bulk: e.g. E8 × E8 SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) vs. SU(3)0 × SU(2)0 × U(1)0 generalized P and C parities Fermions and anti-fermions : Thoughts on Dark Matter: uL νL windows to dark qL = , lL = ; uR , dR , eR world ? dL eL
Zurab Berezhiani B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 Summary u¯R ¯ ν¯R ¯ q¯R = ¯ , lR = ;u ¯L, dL, e¯L Introduction dR e¯R Dark Matter B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1 Enigma Mirror Matter Twin Fermions and anti-fermions : B-L violating 0 0 processes and 0 uL 0 νL 0 0 0 origin of qL = 0 , lL = 0 ; uR , dR , eR observable and dL eL dark matter B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 Neutron–mirror neutron u¯0 ν¯0 oscillation 0 R ¯0 R 0 ¯0 0 q¯R = ¯0 , lR = 0 ;u ¯L, dL, e¯L The neutron dR e¯R lifetime enigma B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1 Conclusions ¯ ¯ ∗ ∗ ¯ ∗¯ ¯ (¯uLYuqLφ + dLYd qLφ +e ¯LYe lLφ) + (uR Y q¯R φ + dR Y q¯R φ + eR Y lR φ) Backup u d e (¯u0 Y 0q0 φ¯0 +d¯0 Y 0q0 φ0 +e ¯0 Y 0l 0 φ0)+(u0 Y 0∗q¯0 φ0 +d 0 Y 0∗q¯0 φ¯0 +e0 Y 0∗l¯0 φ¯0) Supersymmetry L u L L d L L e L R u R R d R R e R Doubling symmetry (L, R → L, R parity): Y 0 = YB − B0 → −(B − B0) Mirror symmetry (L, R → R, L parity): Y 0 = Y ∗ B − B0 → B − B0 Yin-Yang Theory: Dark sector ... similar to our luminous sector?
Thoughts on For observable particles .... very complex physics !! Dark Matter: G = SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) ( + SUSY ? GUT ? Seesaw ?) windows to dark ± world ? photon, electron, nucleons (quarks), neutrinos, gluons, W − Z, Higgs ... Zurab Berezhiani long range EM forces, confinement scale ΛQCD, weak scale MW
Summary ... matter vs. antimatter (B-conserviolation, CP ... )
Introduction ... existence of nuclei, atoms, molecules .... life.... Homo Sapiens !
Dark Matter Enigma If dark matter comes from extra gauge sector ... it is as complex: 0 0 0 0 0 Mirror Matter G = SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) ? ( + SUSY ? GUT ? Seesaw ?) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-L violating photon , electron , nucleons (quarks ), W − Z , gluons ? processes and 0 0 origin of ... long range EM forces, confinement at ΛQCD, weak scale MW ? observable and 0 dark matter ... asymmetric dark matter (B -conserviolation, CP ... ) ?
Neutron–mirror ... existence of dark nuclei, atoms, molecules ... life ... Homo Aliens ? neutron oscillation Let us call it Yin-Yang Theory
The neutron lifetime enigma in chinise, Yin-Yang means dark-bright duality Conclusions describes a philosophy how opposite forces are ac- Backup tually complementary, interconnected and interde- Supersymmetry pendent in the natural world, and how they give rise 0 E8 × E8 to each other as they interrelate to one another. Can mirror matter be dark matter ?
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark In spite of evident beauty of Yin-Yang dual picture, for a long while mirror world ? matter was not taken as a real candidate for dark matter. There were real Zurab Berezhiani reasons for that: if O and M sectors have exactly identical microphysics Summary and also exactly identical cosmologies, then one expected:
Introduction 0 0 eff • Equal temperatures, T = T , g∗ = g∗ → ∆ν = 6.15 against Dark Matter Enigma BBN limits
Mirror Matter 0 0 0 0 • equal baryon asymmetries, η = η (nB /nγ = nB /nγ ) and so ΩB = ΩB B-L violating 0 processes and while ΩB /ΩB ' 5 is needed for dark matter origin of observable and dark matter If T 0 T ? BBN is OK Neutron–mirror 0 0 0 3 neutron but η = η impliesΩ B ' (T /T ) ΩB ΩB oscillation
The neutron Such a mirror universe “can have no influence on the Earth lifetime enigma and therefore would be useless and therefore does not exist” Conclusions S. Glashow, citing Francesco Sizzi Backup
Supersymmetry Always the same difficult story ...
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? Understanding of astronomy, optics, and physics, a rumor about the four Zurab Berezhiani planets seen by the very celebrated mathematician Galileo Galilei with his Summary telescope, shown to be unfounded. Introduction Francesco Sizzi, crlticlsm of Galileo’s discovery of the Jupiter’s moons Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter The microphysics of the postulated mirror matter should be exactly the
Neutron–mirror same as that of the usual matter. However, we know that the spatial neutron oscillation distribution of the dark matter is very different from that of the ordinary
The neutron (baryonic) matter. On the face of it this makes mirror matter an lifetime enigma implausible candidate for dark matter. Conclusions Anonimuos Referee, a typical reviewer report on Mirror Matter Backup
Supersymmetry M baryons can be dark matter. If parallel world is colder than ours, all
problems can be settled Z.B., Comelli, Villante, 2000
Thoughts on It is enough to accept a simple paradigm: at the Big Bang the M world Dark Matter: was born with smaller temperature than O world; then over the universe windows to dark 0 world ? expansion their temperature ratio T /T remains constant. Zurab Berezhiani T 0/T < 0.5 is enough to concord with the BBN limits and do not affect Summary standard primordial mass fractions: 75% H + 25% 4He. Introduction Cosmological limits are more severe, requiring T 0/T < 0.2 os so. Dark Matter 0 4 0 Enigma In turn, for M world this implies helium domination: 25% H + 75% He .
Mirror Matter 0 0 Because of T < T , the situationΩ B > ΩB becomes plausible in B-L violating processes and baryogenesis. So, M matter can be dark matter (as we show below) origin of observable and Because of T 0 < T , in mirror photons decouple much earlier than ordinary dark matter photons, and after that M matter behaves for the structure formation and Neutron–mirror neutron CMB anisotropies essentially as CDM. This concordes M matter with oscillation WMAP/Planck, BAO, Ly-α etc. if T 0/T < 0.25 or so. The neutron lifetime enigma Halo problem – Mirror matter can be ∼ 20 % of dark matter, forming dark Conclusions disk, while ∼ 80 % may come from other type of CDM (WIMP?) Backup But perhaps 100 % ? – M world is helium dominated, and the star Supersymmetry formation and evolution should be much faster. Halos could be viewed as mirror elliptical galaxies, with our matter inside forming disks. Experimental and observational manifestations
0 0 Thoughts on A. Cosmological implications. T /T < 0.2 or so, ΩB /ΩB = 1 ÷ 5. Dark Matter: Mass fraction: H’ – 25%, He’ – 75%, and few % of heavier C’, N’, O’ etc. windows to dark world ? • Mirror baryons as asymmetric/collisional/dissipative/atomic dark matter: Zurab Berezhiani M hydrogen recombination and M baryon acoustic oscillations?
Summary • Easier formation and faster evolution of stars: Dark matter disk? Galaxy
Introduction halo as mirror elliptical galaxy? Microlensing ? Neutron stars? Black
Dark Matter Holes? Binary Black Holes? Central Black Holes? Enigma
Mirror Matter B. Direct detection. M matter can interact with ordinary matter e.g. via µν 0 B-L violating kinetic mixing F Fµν , etc. Mirror helium as most abundant mirror processes and matter particles (the region of DM masses below 5 GeV is practically origin of observable and unexplored). Possible signals from heavier nuclei C,N,O etc. dark matter Neutron–mirror C. Oscillation phenomena between ordinary and mirror particles. neutron oscillation The most interesting interaction terms in Lmix are the ones which violate The neutron B and L of both sectors. Neutral particles, elementary (as e.g. neutrino) or lifetime enigma composite (as the neutron or hydrogen atom) can mix with their mass Conclusions degenerate (sterile) twins: matter disappearance (or appearance) Backup phenomena can be observable in laboratories. Supersymmetry In the Early Universe, these B and/or L violating interactions can give 0 primordial baryogenesis and dark matter genesis, with ΩB /ΩB = 1 ÷ 5. CMB and LSS power spectra
80 Thoughts on #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 windows to dark 60
world ? (µ 1/2 ] !
2 / Zurab Berezhiani l
C ) 40 1
+ l ( l Summary [
Introduction 20 WMAP ACBAR
Dark Matter 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Enigma l 104 5 Mirror Matter 10 102 B-L violating 2df bin. ) 3 c processes and 4 p
) 0
3 10 M 10 ( origin of c p
3
M h
observable and ( )
k
( 3 -2 dark matter P h 10 )
k ( 3 "M=0.30,#b=0.001,h=0.70,n=1.00 P 10 Neutron–mirror "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 neutron "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.1,no CDM,n=1.00 oscillation "M=0.30,#b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.2,#b’=#CDM,n=1.00 10-6 2 The neutron 10 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 0.01 0.10 k/h (Mpc!1) lifetime enigma k/h (Mpc%1) Conclusions Acoustic oscillations and Silk damping Backup at short scales: x = T 0/T < 0.2 Supersymmetry Discussing Lmix: possible portal between O and M particles
µν Thoughts on Photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing F Fµν0 Dark Matter: • windows to dark Experimental limit < 4 10 7 world ? − × 9 Cosmological limit < 5 10− Zurab Berezhiani × Summary Makes mirror matter nanocharged (q ∼ ) and is a
Introduction promising interaction for dark matter direct detection
Dark Matter 25. Dark matter 15 Enigma
!38 Mirror Matter 10 DAMIC I B-L violating XENON10-LE CDMS-LE processes and CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE origin of Mirror atoms: He’ – 75 %, limit !40 observable and 10 C’,N’,O’ etc. few % CoGeNT DAMA/LIBRA dark matter ROI Neutron–mirror Rutherford-like scattering neutron !42 CDMS-Si CRESST II oscillation 2 10 ] (normalised to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III dσ (αZZ 0) 2 AA0 The neutron dΩ = 4µ2 v 4 sin4(θ/2) CDMS+EDELWEISS lifetime enigma AA0 cMSSM-preLHC or !44 Conclusions 10 68% 2 section [cm XENON100 dσ 2π(αZZ 0) ! AA0 Neutrino Backup = 2 2 dER M v E Background LUX A Cross R Projection for pMSSM- 95% Supersymmetry 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 : L and B violating operators Lmix
Thoughts on Neutrino -mirror neutrino mixing – (Active - sterile mixing) Dark Matter: • 1 1 L and L0 violating operators: (lφ¯)(lφ¯) and (lφ¯)(l 0φ¯0) windows to dark M M world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
L=2 L=1, L =1 Summary Introduction G L=2 G L=1 Dark Matter Enigma l l l l Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and M is the (seesaw) scale of new physics beyond EW scale. origin of observable and Mirror neutrinos are most natural candidates for sterile neutrinos dark matter Neutron–mirror Neutron -mirror neutron mixing – (Active - sterile neutrons) B and neutron oscillation • 1 1 B0 violating operators: M5 (udd)(udd) and M5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0) The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions B=2 B=1, B = 1 Backup u u u u Supersymmetry d G B=2 d d G B=1 d d d d d Low scale spontaneous B L violation −
Spontaneous Baryon Violation " " !"# Zurab Berezhiani ! ! % % # # Summary $ $$ $$ $ Neutron- antineutron ! ! oscillation Seesaw between ordinary and mirror neutrons Dark Matter
Supersymmetry Thoughts on and WIMPs Dark Matter: u u windows to dark Mirror Matter !"# world ? d d M M " "! Mirror Matter, Zurab Berezhiani S S B-violation and N N$ N$ N ! !! Cogenesis Summary # % #! d & Introduction d Conclusions $ $! Dark Matter Enigma ! !! Mirror Matter 2 2 B-L violating S u d + S †d + MD 0 + χ + χ† 0 processes and T N T NN N N origin of gn(χn Cn + χ†n0 Cn0 + h.c.) observable and dark matter 2 2 6 8 2 4 S u d + S †d +ΛMQCDDV !10+GeVχ +1 TeVχ† ! +V h.c. 24 Neutron–mirror 2 Nnn¯ M2 M4NN M N M N 1 MeV 10− eV neutron ∼ D S ∼ D S × φlNoscillation+ χ†N + h.c. 8 τnn¯ > 10 s The neutron lifetime enigma V n n0 oscillation with τnn0 1 s τnn0 M τnn¯ Conclusions − ∼ ∼ D Backup 6 8 4 ! ΛQCD ! "#$ 10 GeV 1 TeV 10 15 eV Supersymmetry nn0 M M4 M M − ∼ D S ∼ D S × " " M M4 (10 TeV)5 D S ∼ ! !! !! !
# #
1 χ = V /√2 MN , M V χ = (V + ρ) exp(iβ/V ) " # N ∼ √2 v 2 1014 GeV mν 0.1 eV ∼ MN ∼ V × ! " 6 4 14 ΛQCD 10 TeV 10 GeV 25 % 4 10− eV M M MS V ∼ S N ∼ × " ! " "1 !MeV " 30 gn = = 24 10− V 10− eV V × 8π 33 τ(n n¯ +#β) 2 $# 10 $ yr if V 1 MeV → ∼ gn ∆E ∼ ∼ Theory of cogenesis: B/L violating interactions between O and M worlds
Thoughts on Dark Matter: 1 1 L and L0 violating operators: (lφ¯)(lφ¯) and (lφ¯)(l 0φ¯0) windows to dark M M world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary L=2 L=1, L =1 Introduction
Dark Matter G L=2 G L=1 Enigma Mirror Matter l l l l
B-L violating processes and origin of After inflation, our world is heated and mirror world is empty: observable and dark matter but ordinary particle scatterings transform them into mirror particles, Neutron–mirror heating also mirror world. neutron oscillation
The neutron These processes should be out-of-equilibrium lifetime enigma • Violate baryon numbers in both worlds, B L and B0 L0 Conclusions • Violate also CP, given complex couplings − − Backup • Supersymmetry Green light to celebrated conditions of Sakharov Theory of cogenesis: Bento and Z.B., 2001
Thoughts on 1 1 Dark Matter: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Operators M (lφ)(lφ) and M (lφ)(l 0φ0) via seesaw mechanism – windows to dark world ? heavy RH neutrinos Nj with 1 Zurab Berezhiani Majorana masses 2 Mgjk Nj Nk + h.c.
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma Conclusions ¯ ¯ Backup Complex Yukawa couplings Yij li Nj φ + Yij0li0Nj φ0 + h.c. Supersymmetry Xerox symmetry Y 0 = Y , Mirror symmetry Y 0 = Y ∗ → → Theory of cogenesis: B/L violating interactions between O and M worlds
0 0 Thoughts on Hot World Cold World ΩB /ΩB = 1 − 5 if T /T < 0.2 Dark Matter: −→ windows to dark world ? 1
Zurab Berezhiani 0.8
Summary 0.6
Introduction 0.4
Dark Matter 0.2 Enigma
Mirror Matter 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
B-L violating dnBL 2 dnBL0 2 processes and + (3H + Γ)nBL = ∆σ neq + (3H + Γ0)n0 = ∆σ0 neq origin of dt dt BL − observable and 0 0 0 0 0 dark matter σ(lφ → l¯φ¯ ) − σ(l¯φ¯ → l φ ) = (−∆σ − ∆σ )/2 0 0 0 0 0 Neutron–mirror σ(lφ → l φ ) − σ(l¯φ¯ → l¯φ¯ ) = (−∆σ + ∆σ )/2 neutron oscillation σ(lφ → l¯φ¯) − σ(l¯φ¯ → lφ) = ∆σ The neutron 1 1 2 2 4 lifetime enigma ∆σ = Im Tr[g − (Y †Y )∗g − (Y 0†Y 0)g − (Y †Y )] T /M × Conclusions ∆σ0 = ∆σ(Y Y 0) Backup → Mirror (LR) symmetry:∆ σ0 = ∆σ B, B0 > 0 Supersymmetry − Xerox (LL) symmetry:∆ σ0 = ∆σ = 0 B, B0 = 0 The interactions able to make such cogenesis, should also lead to mixing of
our neutral particles into their mass degenerate mirror twins.
Thoughts on The Mass Mixing (¯nn0 +n ¯0n) comes from six-fermions effective Dark Matter: 1 M is the scale of new physics windows to dark operator M5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0), world ? violating B and B0 – but conserving B B0 Zurab Berezhiani −
Summary
Introduction B=1, B = 1 B=2 Dark Matter u u u u Enigma
d G B=1 d d G B=2 d Mirror Matter B-L violating d d d d processes and origin of observable and 6 dark matter ΛQCD 10 TeV 5 15 = n (udd)(u0d 0d 0) n0 M5 M 10− eV Neutron–mirror h | | i ∼ ∼ × neutron oscillation Oscillations n n¯0 (regeneration n n¯0 n) ... but n0 n¯ The neutron → → → → lifetime enigma m + µ Bσ Conclusions H = n n Backup m + µ B0σ n n Supersymmetry Surprisingly, n − n0 oscillation can be as fast as −1 = τ ∼ 1 s, without nn0 contradicting any experimental and astrophysical limits. Neutron – mirror neutron oscillation probability
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark The probability of n-n’ transition depends on the relative orientation world ?
Zurab Berezhiani of magnetic and mirror-magnetic fields. The latter can exist if mirror matter is captured by the Earth Summary Neutron disappearance in the presence of B (Z. Berezhiani, 2009) Introduction
Dark Matter PtBBB() pt () dt () cos Enigma B 22 Mirror Matter sin ( )tt sin ( ) B B-L violating pt() 2222 processes and 2( ) 2( ) origin of observable and 22 dark matter sin ( )tt sin ( ) dt() Neutron–mirror 2222 neutron 2( ) 2( ) B oscillation The neutron 11BB ; lifetime enigma where =22 and - oscillation time Conclusions Backup Nt() Nt () Atdet() BB= Ndt () cos assymetry Supersymmetry BcollisB Nt BB() Nt ()
22 A and E are expected to depend on magnetic field
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? E.g. assume B’=0.12 Gauss Zurab Berezhiani
Serebrov-1 PSI-1 Summary Serebrov-2
Introduction
Dark Matter E /A Enigma B B
1 Mirror Matter EPPBBB 2 (+ + ) P0 B-L violating A P P processes and B +BB origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Experiments
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? Several experiment were done, most sensitive by the Serebrov’s group Zurab Berezhiani Experimental installation search for n-n′ oscillation and at ILL, with 190 l beryllium plated trap for UCN Summary some members of PNPI-ILL-PTI collaboration
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry 16 Experimental Strategy
Thoughts on To store neutrons and to measure if the amount of the survived ones Dark Matter: depends on the magnetic field applied. windows to dark world ? Fill the Trap with the UCN Zurab Berezhiani Close the valve Summary Introduction Wait for TS (300 s ...) Dark Matter Enigma Open the valve Mirror Matter Count the survived Neutrons B-L violating processes and Repeat this for different orientation and values of Magnetic field. origin of observable and NB (TS ) = N(0) exp Γ + R + ¯B ν TS dark matter − P Neutron–mirror neutron NB1(TS ) ¯ ¯ oscillation = exp B2 B1 νTS NB2(TS ) P − P The neutron lifetime enigma Conclusions So if we find that:
Backup NB (TS ) N B (TS ) NB (TS ) Supersymmetry A(B, TS ) = − − = 0 E(B, b, TS ) = 1 = 0 NB (TS ) + N B (TS ) 6 Nb(TS ) − 6 − Serebrov experiment 2007 – magnetic field vertical
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark Exp. sequence: B , B+, B+, B , B+, B , B , B+ , B = 0.2 G world ? { − − − − } Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron Analysis pointed out the presence of a signal: oscillation
The neutron 4 2 lifetime enigma A(B) = (7.0 1.3) 10− χ/dof = 0.9 5.2σ Conclusions ± × −→
Backup interpretable by n n0 with τnn0 2 10s‘ and B0 0.1G Supersymmetry → ∼ − ∼ Z.B. and Nesti, 2012 Serebrov 2007 – magnetic field Horizontal
−3 {b−, B−, B+, b+, b+, B+, B−, b−} , B = 0.2 G , b < 10 G
Number of data: 26 Ab - 2007 H All Files Constant fit: 0.002 c= -1.927E-05 ± 5.394E-05 χ2 /ndf= 26.515/25 = 1.061
Fit by C + B cos( 2 π/T (t-t )) 0 Thoughts on C= -4.333E-05 ± 5.717E-05 0.0015 B= 1.841E-04 ± 9.069E-05 T = 321.567 ± 8.778 t = -489.352 ± 45.720 0 χ2 /ndf= 22.438/22 = 1.020 Dark Matter: 0.001
windows to dark 0.0005
world ? 0 Zurab Berezhiani -0.0005 -0.001
-0.0015 Summary -0.002 0 500 1000 1500 2000 t[h] Introduction
Number of data: 26 Dark Matter AB - 2007 H All Files Constant fit: 0.002 c= 1.699E-05 ± 5.393E-05 Enigma χ2 /ndf= 48.944/25 = 1.958 Fit by C + B cos( 2 π/T (t-t )) 0 C= -5.558E-05 ± 6.459E-05 0.0015 B= 5.000E-04 ± 0.000E+00 T = 298.000 ± 0.000 t = -36.771 ± 8.756 0 χ2 /ndf= 33.265/24 = 1.386
Mirror Matter 0.001
B-L violating 0.0005 processes and 0 origin of -0.0005 observable and -0.001 dark matter -0.0015
-0.002 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Neutron–mirror t[h] neutron oscillation E - 2007 H All Files Number of data: 26 B,b Constant fit: c= -1.571E-04 ± 7.626E-05 0.002 χ2 /ndf= 23.351/25 = 0.934 Fit by C + B cos( 2 π/T (t-t )) 0 The neutron C= -8.457E-05 ± 8.352E-05 0.0015 B= 5.000E-04 ± 0.000E+00 T = 298.000 ± 0.000 t = 65.591 ± 14.953 0 lifetime enigma χ2 /ndf= 23.828/24 = 0.993
0.001
Conclusions 0.0005
0 Backup -0.0005 Supersymmetry -0.001 -0.0015
-0.002 0 500 1000 1500 2000 t[h] PNPI A.P.Experiment Serebrov et al, toExperimental search searchfor n for→ neutron–mirrorn9 disappearance neutron at ILL/Grenobleoscillations using storage reactor, of ultra-cold A. Serebrov neutrons (at ILL/Grenoble)et al (2009) See also: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 611 (2009) 137-140
190 L volume stores ~ 500,000 ucn; with wall collision rate Serebrov 2007 – magnetic field Horizontal~ 10/n/s
Thoughts on Dark Matter: Ab - Binned 32 windows to dark 0.0010 world ? 0.0008 Zurab Berezhiani n lifetime in the trap is measured. 0.0006 One measurement: 130 s filling;
Summary B 0.0004 300 s storage; 130 s counting n’s Introduction
Dark Matter 0.0002 Enigma æ Magnetic field variation: 0.0000 Mirror Matter 0 200 400 600 800 ± 0.2 Gauss up/down T h - B-L violating Common - AB - Binned 32 Common EB,b Binned 32 0.0010 0.0010 processes and @ D Assuming zero B mirror magnetic field origin of (2008) 0.0008 0.0008 observable and 6 dark matter nn oscillation time limit (90%CL) > 414 s 0.0006 0.0006 A Neutron–mirror E B B neutron 0.0004 0.0004
æ
oscillation æ
The neutron 0.0002 0.0002 lifetime enigma 0.0000 0.0000 Conclusions 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 T h T h Backup @ D @ D Supersymmetry Earth mirror magnetic field via the electron drag mechanism
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating Earth can accumulate some, even tiny amount of mirror matter due processes and origin of to Rutherford-like scattering of mirror matter due to photon-mirror observable and dark matter photon kinetic mixing.
Neutron–mirror Rotation of the Earth drags mirror electrons but not mirror protons neutron oscillation (ions) since the latter are much heavier.
The neutron Circular electric currents emerge which can generate magnetic field. lifetime enigma Modifying mirror Maxwell equations by the source (drag) term, one Conclusions 2 15 gets B0 10 G before dynamo, and even larger after dynamo. Backup ∼ × Supersymmetry The neutron enigma ...
Thoughts on PARTICLE PHYSICS Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary Introduction the Dark Matter the Enigma
Mirror Matter neutron B-L violating neutron processes and origin of Peter Geltenbort observable and dark matter en gma Neutron–mirror neutron Two precision experiments disagree onUCKILY how FOR long LIFE ON EARTH, MOST MATTER IS NOT RADIOACTIVE. WE TAKE THIS FACT FOR oscillation granted, but it is actually somewhat surprising because the neutron, one of the neutrons live before decaying. Does the discrepancytwo components ref ofect atomic nuclei (along with the proton), is prone to radioac- The neutron measure ment errors or point to some deepertive decay. mystery? Inside an atomic nucleus, a typical neutron can survive for a very lifetime enigma long time and may never decay, but on its own, it will transform into other par- By Geofrey L. Greene and Peter Geltenbortticles within 15 minutes, more or less. The words “more or less” cover a disturb- Conclusions ing gap in physicists’ understanding of this particle. Try as we might, we have not been able to accurately measure the neutron lifetime. Backup IN BRIEF The best experiments in the world cannot agree on how iousThis intervals, “neutron and beam lifetime experiments puzzle” look is for not the just parti -embarrassing for us have sophisticated techniques for studying the process. We know, Supersymmetry long neutrons live before decaying into other particles. experimentalists;cles into which neutrons resolving decay. it is vital for understanding the na- for instance, that if a particle has the possibility of transforming Two main types of experiments are under way: Lbottle tureResolving of the the universe. discrepancy The is vitalneutron to answering decay a numberprocess is one of the sim- into a lower-mass particle or particles while conserving such char- traps count the number of neutrons that survive after var- of fundamental questions about the universe. plest examples of the nuclear “weak” interaction—one of nature’s acteristics as charge and spin angular momentum, it will. Free four fundamental forces. To truly understand the weak force, we neutrons display this instability. In a process called beta decay, a must know how long neutrons live. Furthermore, the survival neutron breaks up into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino
Illustration by Bill Mayer time of the neutron determinedApril how 2016 the, ScientificAmerican.com lightest chemical ele-37 (the antimatter counterpart of the neutrino), which collectively ments fi rst formed after the big bang. Cosmologists would like to sum to a slightly lower mass but the same total charge, spin angu- calculate the expected abundances of the elements and compare lar momentum and other conserved properties. These conserved them with astrophysical measurements: agreement would con- properties include “mass-energy,” meaning that the daughter
sad0416Gree3p.indd 37 fi rm our theoretical picture, and discrepancy could indicate that 2/11/16particles 6:07 PM carry the dif erence in mass in the form of kinetic ener- undiscovered phenomena af ected the process. To make such a gy, the energy of motion. comparison, however, we need to know the neutron lifetime. We cannot predict exactly when a particular neutron will de - More than 10 years ago two experimental groups, one a Rus- cay because the process is a fundamentally random quantum phe- sian-led team in France and the other a team in the U.S., attempt- nomenon—we can say only how long neutrons live on average. ed separately to precisely measure the lifetime. One of us (Gelten- Thus, we must measure the average neutron lifetime by studying bort) was a member of the fi rst team, and the other (Greene) was the decay of many neutrons. a member of the second. Along with our colleagues, we were sur- Investigators have employed two experimental methods—one prised and somewhat disturbed to fi nd that our results disagreed called the “bottle” technique and the other the “beam” ap proach. considerably. Some theoreticians suggested that the dif erence Bottle experiments confi ne neutrons in a container and count arose from exotic physics—that some neutrons in the experi- how many are left after a given time. The beam method, in con- ments might have transformed into particles never before detect- trast, looks not for the disappearance of neutrons but rather for ed, which would have af ected the dif erent experiments in diver- the appearance of the particles into which they decay. gent ways. We, however, suspected a more mundane reason—per- The bottle approach is particularly challenging because neu- haps one of our groups, or even both, had simply made a mistake trons can pass easily through matter and thus through the walls or, more likely, had overestimated the accuracy of its experiment. of most containers. Following a suggestion fi rst explicitly made by The U.S. team recently completed a long, painstaking project to Russian physicist Yuri Zel’dovich, experimentalists who use the study the most dominant source of uncertainty in its experiment bottle approach—as Geltenbort and his colleagues in France do— in hopes of resolving the discrepancy. Rather than clearing up the get around the problem by trapping extremely cold neutrons situation, that ef ort confi rmed our earlier result. Similarly, other (that is, those with a very low kinetic energy) within a container of re searchers later confi rmed the fi ndings of Geltenbort’s team. very smooth walls [see box on page 40]. If the neutrons are slow This discrepancy has left us even more perplexed. But we are not enough and the bottle smooth enough, they refl ect from the walls giving up—both groups and others continue to seek answers. and hence remain in the bottle. To achieve this ef ect, the neu- trons must move at speeds on the order of just a few meters per TIMING NEUTRONS second, as opposed to the roughly 10 million meters per second IN THEORY, measuring the neutron lifetime should be straightfor- neutrons travel when emitted during nuclear fi ssion, for instance. ward. The physics of nuclear decay are well understood, and we These “ultracold” neutrons are so slow that you could “outrun”
38 Scientifi c American, April 2016
sad0416Gree3p.indd 38 2/11/16 6:07 PM Two methods to measure the neutron lifetime
EXPERIMENTS the other hand, if the neutron lifetime were much longer than the Thoughts on time required to cool suf ciently for big bang nucleosynthesis, Dark Matter: Dif erent Techniques, The Beam Method the universe would have an overabundance of helium, which in windows to dark In contrast to the bottle method, the beam technique looks not for neutrons turn would have af ected the formation of the heavier elements world ? but for one of their decay products, protons. Scientists direct a stream involved in the evolution of stars and ultimately life. Thus, the Dif erent Results Fill with Fill with balance between the universal cooling rate and the neutron life- Zurab Berezhiani neutrons neutrons Scientists have tried two main techniques to measure the average and ring-shaped high-voltage electrodes. The neutral neutrons pass right time was quite critical for the creation of the elements that make through, but if one decays inside the trap, the resulting positively charged neutron lifetime: the “bottle” and the “beam” methods. The various up our planet and everything on it. Summary Count #1 Count #1 protons will get stuck. The researchers know how many neutrons were in bottle measurements over the years tend to agree with one an - the beam, and they know how long they spent passing through the trap, From astronomical data we can measure the cosmic ratio of Count #2 Count #2 other within their calculated error bars, as do Introductionthe beam measure- so by counting the protons in the trap they can measure the number of helium to hydrogen, as well as the amounts of deuterium and other Count #3 Count #3 neutrons that decayed in that span of time. This measurement is the decay light elements that exist throughout the universe. We would like to The discrepancy, about eight seconds betweenDark the Matterbottle and rate, which is the slope of the decay curve at a given point in time and see if these measurements agree with the numbers predicted by big Enigma which allows the scientists to calculate the average neutron lifetime. bang theory. The theoretical prediction, however, depends on the larger than the measurements’ uncertainty, which means the precise value of the neutron lifetime. Without a reliable value for it, Mirror Matter Neutron beamNeutron Electrodes beam Proton divergence repre sents a real problem. Either the researchers have Electrodes Proton our ability to make this comparison is limited. Once the neutron (known intensity)(known intensity) underestimated the uncertainty of their results,B-L or, violatingmore exciting, lifetime is known more precisely, we can compare the observed #1 #1 passes throughpasses +through – + processes and + – + ratio from astrophysical experiments with the predicted value origin of from theory. If they agree, we gain further confi dence in our stan- observable and Neutron Lifetime Measurements Number Number dard big bang scenario for how the universe evolved. Of course, if dark matter of neutrons #2 #2 900 of neutrons #3 #3 they disagree, this model might have to be altered. For instance, blue zone Beam method observed Trap Beam method average* ( ): Neutron–mirror observed Trap certain discrepancies might indicate the existence of new exotic 888.0 + 2.1 seconds Bottle method Time Count the number of decays within the time interval 895 – neutron Time Count the number of decays within the time interval particles in the universe such as an extra type of neutrino, which oscillation could have interfered in the process of nucleosynthesis. 890 The Bottle Method One way to resolve the dif erence between the beam and bot- The neutron tle results is to conduct more experiments using methods of com- 885 Uncertainty lifetime enigma parable accuracy that are not prone to the same, potentially con- 880 Conclusions Measured slopeMeasured slope founding systematic errors. In addition to continuing the beam and bottle projects, scientists in several other groups worldwide Number of Neutron Lifetime (seconds) 875 green zone BackupDisagreement Number of Bottle method average ( ): neutrons going are working on alternative methods of measuring the neutron + neutrons going 879.6 – 0.6 seconds through trap lifetime. A group at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Com- 870 Supersymmetry through trap Time plex (J-PARC) in Tokai is developing a new beam experiment that 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Time Year of Experiment will detect the electrons rather than protons produced when neu- trons decay. In another very exciting development, groups at ILL, *The beam method average does not include the 2005 measurement, which was superseded by the 2013 beam study. the Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute in Russia, Los Alamos dif erence of this size by chance alone is less than one part in suggested such a secondary process: a free neutron, they propose, examples of a weak force interaction. To calculate the details of National Laboratory, the Technical University of Munich and the 10,000. We must therefore seriously consider the possibility that might sometimes transform into a hypothesized “mirror neutron” other, more complex nuclear processes involving the weak force, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany plan to use the discrepancy results from an unknown unknown—we have that no longer interacts with normal matter and would thus seem we must fi rst fully understand how it operates in neutron decay. neutron bottles that confi ne ultracold neutrons with magnetic missed something important. to disappear. Such mirror matter could contribute to the total Discerning the exact rate of neutron decay would also help fi elds rather than material walls. This is possible because the neu- amount of dark matter in the universe. Although this idea is quite test the big bang theory for the early evolution of the cosmos. tron, though electrically neutral, behaves as though it is a small According to the theory, when the universe was about one second magnet. The number of neutrons accidentally lost through the EXOTIC PHYSICS stimulating, it remains highly speculative. More defi nitive con- AN EXCITING explanation for the dif erence could be that it actually fi rmation of the divergence between the bottle and beam meth- old, it consisted of a hot, dense mixture of particles: protons, neu- sides of such bottles should be quite dif erent from that of previ- re fl ects some exotic physical phenomenon not yet discovered. A ods of measuring the neutron lifetime is necessary before most trons, electrons, and others. At this time, the temperature of the ous measurements and thus should produce quite dif erent sys- reason to think such a phenomenon might exist is that although physicists would accept a concept as radical as mirror matter. universe was roughly 10 billion degrees—so hot that these parti- tematic uncertainties. We fervently hope that, together, continu- the bottle and beam methods disagree, other beam studies show Much more likely, we think, is that one (or perhaps even both) cles were too energetic to bind together into nuclei or atoms. ing bottle and beam experiments and this next generation of good agreement among them selves, as do other bottle studies. of the experiments has underestimated or overlooked a systemat- After about three minutes, the universe expanded and cooled to a measurements will fi nally solve the neutron lifetime puzzle. Imagine, for example, that in addition to the regular beta de- ic ef ect. Such a possibility is always present when working with temperature where protons and neutrons could stick together to make the simplest atomic nucleus, deuterium (the heavy isotope cay, neutrons decayed via some previously unknown process that delicate and sensitive experimental setups. MORE TO EXPLORE does not create the protons sought in beam experiments. The bot- of hydrogen). From here other simple nuclei were able to form— deuterium could capture a proton to make an isotope of helium, Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime Using a Gravitational Trap and a Low- tle experiments, which count the total number of “lost” neutrons, WHY THE NEUTRON LIFETIME MATTERS two deuterium nuclei could join together to create heavier heli- Temperature Fomblin Coating. A. Serebrov et al. in Physics Letters B, Vol. 605, would count both the neutrons that disappeared via beta decay FIGURING OUT WHAT WE MISSED will of course give us experimental- Nos. 1–2, pages 72–78; January 6, 2005. um, and small numbers of larger nuclei formed, up to the ele- as well as those that underwent this second process. We would ists peace of mind. But even more important, if we can get to the The Neutron Lifetime. Reviews of Modern ment lithium (all the heavier elements are thought to have been therefore conclude that the neutron lifetime was shorter than bottom of this puzzle and precisely measure the neutron lifetime, Physics, Vol. 83, No. 4, Article No. 1173; October–December 2011. produced in stars many millions of years later). Physical Review that from “normal” beta decay alone. Meanwhile the beam exper- we may be able to tackle a number of long-standing, fundamen- Improved Determination of the Neutron Lifetime. A. T. Yue et al. in This process is known as big bang nucleosynthesis. If, while Letters, Vol. 111, No. 22, Article No. 222501; November 27, 2013. iments would dutifully record only beta decays that produce pro- tal questions about our universe. the universe was losing heat, neutrons had decayed at a rate that tons and would thus result in a larger value for the lifetime. So First of all, an accurate assessment of the timescale of neutron FROM OUR ARCHIVES was much faster than the universe cooled, there would have been far, as we have seen, the beam experiments do measure a slightly decay will teach us about how the weak force works on other parti- no neutrons left when the universe reached the right tempera- Ultracold Neutrons. R. Golub, W. Mampe, J. M. Pendlebury and P. Ageron; June 1979. longer lifetime than the bottles. cles. The weak force is responsible for nearly all radioactive de cays The Proton Radius Problem. Jan C. Bernauer and Randolf Pohl; February 2014. ture to form nuclei—only the protons would have remained, and A few theorists have taken this notion seriously. Zurab Berezhi- and is the reason, for instance, that nuclear fusion occurs within we would have a cosmos made almost entirely of hydrogen. On scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa ani of the University of L’Aquila in Italy and his colleagues have the sun. Neutron beta decay is one of the simplest and most pure
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE See a video about neutron beta decay at April 2016, Scientifi cAmerican.com 41
sad0416Gree4p.indd 41 2/12/16 4:25 PM sad0416Gree4p.indd 40 2/12/16 4:25 PM EXPERIMENTS Dif erent Techniques,
Dif erent Results Fill with Scientists have tried two main techniques to measure the average neutrons neutron lifetime: the “bottle” and the “beam” methods. The various bottle measurements over the years tend to agree with one an - Count #1 other within their calculated error bars, as do the beam measure- Count #2 Count #3 The discrepancy, about eight seconds between the bottle and larger than the measurements’ uncertainty, which means the divergence repre sents a real problem. Either the researchers have Neutron beam Electrodes Proton (known intensity) underestimated the uncertainty of their results, or, more exciting, #1 passes through + – +
Neutron Lifetime Measurements Number of neutrons #2 900 Beam method #3 Beam method average* (blue zone): observed Trap 888.0 + 2.1 seconds 895 – Bottle method Time Count the number of decays within the time interval
890 The Bottle Method 885 Uncertainty EXPERIMENTS 880 Measured slope
Dif erent Techniques, Neutron Lifetime (seconds) 875 Bottle method average (green zone): Disagreement Number of + neutrons going 879.6 – 0.6 secondsEXPERIMENTS Dif erent Results 870Fill with through trap neutrons1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Time Scientists have tried two main techniques to measure the average Dif erentYear Techniques, of Experiment neutron lifetime: the “bottle” and the “beam” methods. The various *The beam method average does not include the 2005 measurement, which was superseded by the 2013 beam study. bottle measurements over the years tend to agree with one an - DiCountf erent #1 Results Fill with other within their calculated error bars, as do the beam measure- Scientists have tried two main techniquesCount to measure #2 the average neutrons dif erence of this size by chance alone is less than one part in suggested such a secondary process: a free neutron, they propose, neutron lifetime: the “bottle” and the “beam” methods. The variousCount #3 10,000. We must therefore seriously consider the possibility that might sometimesCount #1transform into a hypothesized “mirror neutron” The discrepancy, about eight seconds between the bottle and bottle measurements over the years tend to agree with one an - the discrepancyother within results their calculated from an error unknown bars, as do theunknown—we beam measure- have that no longer interacts withCount normal #2 matter and would thus seem missed something important. to disappear. Such mirror matter could contributeCount #3 to the total larger than the measurements’ uncertainty, which means the The discrepancy, about eight seconds between the bottle and amount of dark matter in the universe. Although this idea is quite divergence repre sents a real problem. Either the researchers have Neutron beam Electrodes Proton Problems to meet ... EXOTIC PHYSICS stimulating, it remains(known highly intensity) speculative. More defi nitive con- underestimated the uncertainty of their results, or, more exciting, larger than the measurements’ uncertainty, which means the AN EXCITINGdivergence explanation repre sents for#1 a the real diproblem.f erence Either could the researchers be that it have actually fi rmation of the divergencepasses through between the bottle and beam meth- Neutron beam Electrodes Proton + – + (known intensity) re fl ects someunderestimated exotic physical the uncertainty phenomenon of their results, not or, yetmore discovered. exciting, A ods of measuring the neutron lifetime is necessary before most #1 passes through reason to think such a phenomenon might exist is that although physicists would accept a concept as radical as mirror matter. + – + Thoughts on the bottle and Numberbeam methods disagree, other beam studies show Much more likely, we think, is that one (or perhaps even both) DarkNeutron Matter: Lifetime Measurements #2 Neutronof neutrons Lifetime Measurements Number 900 blue zone Beam method good agreement among them selves, as do other bottle studies.#3 of the experiments has underestimated#2 or overlooked a systemat- windows to darkBeam method average* ( ): 900observed of neutrons #3 Trap Imagine, for example,Beam method thataverage* in ( blueaddition zone): to the regularBeam method beta de- ic ef ect. Such a possibility is always present when working with world ? 888.0 + 2.1 seconds Bottle method observed Trap 895 – 888.0 + Time2.1 seconds Bottle method Count the number of decays within the time interval cay, neutrons895 decayed– via some previously unknown process that delicate and sensitiveTime experimental setups. Count the number of decays within the time interval Zurab Berezhiani does not create the protons sought in beam experiments. The bot- 890 The Bottle890 Method The Bottle Method tle experiments, which count the total number of “lost” neutrons, WHY THE NEUTRON LIFETIME MATTERS Summary would count885 both the neutrons that disappeared via beta decay FIGURING OUT WHAT WE MISSED will of course give us experimental- 885 Uncertainty Uncertainty Introduction as well as those that underwent this second process. We would ists peace of mind. But even more important, if we can get to the 880 Measured slope Dark Matter880 therefore conclude that the neutron lifetime was shorter than bottom of this puzzle and precisely measureMeasured the slopeneutron lifetime, Enigma that from “normal”Neutron Lifetime (seconds) 875 Bottle beta method decay average alone. (green zone Meanwhile): Disagreement the beam exper- we may be able to tackle a number of long-standing, fundamen- Number of neutrons going Neutron Lifetime (seconds) Disagreement + Number of 875 Bottle method average (green zone): iments would dutifully879.6 – 0.6 record seconds only beta decays that produce pro- tal questions about our universe. Mirror Matter 870 neutrons going through trap 879.6 +– 0.6 seconds 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Time tons and would thus result in a larger value for the lifetime. So First of all, an accuratethrough assessmenttrap of the timescale of neutron B-L violating870 Year of Experiment 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 far, as we have seen, the beam experiments do measure a slightly decay will teach us about how theTime weak force works on other parti- processes and *The beam method average does not include the 2005 measurement, which was superseded by the 2013 beam study. origin of Year of Experiment longer lifetime than the bottles. cles. The weak force is responsible for nearly all radioactive de cays 36 Scientific American, April 2016 observable and A few theorists have taken this notion seriously. Zurab Berezhi- and is the reason, for instance, that nuclear fusion occurs within *The beam method average does notsad0416Gree4p.indd include 36 the 2005 measurement, which was superseded2/12/16 1:58 PM by the 2013 beam study.dif erence of this size by chance alone is less than one part in suggested such a secondary process: a free neutron, they propose, dark matter ani of 10,000.the University We must thereforeof L’Aquila seriously in Italy consider and the his possibility colleagues that have might thesometimes sun. Neutron transform beta into adecay hypothesized is one “mirrorof the simplestneutron” and most pure diNeutron–mirrorf erence of this size by chance alone is less than one part in suggestedthe discrepancysuch a secondary results fromprocess: an unknown a free neutron, unknown—we they havepropose, that no longer interacts with normal matter and would thus seem missed something important. to disappear. Such mirror matter could contribute to the total 10,000.neutron We must therefore seriously consider the possibility that might sometimes transform into a hypothesized “mirror neutron” oscillation SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE See a video about neutron beta decay at amount of dark matter in the universe. Although this idea is quite the discrepancy results from an unknown unknown—we have that no longer interacts withEXOTIC normal PHYSICS matter and would thus seemstimulating, it remains highly speculative. More defi nitive con- missedThe neutron something important. to disappear.AN EXCITING Such explanation mirror for matter the dif erence could could contribute be that it to actually the totalfi rmation of the divergence between the bottle and beam meth- lifetime enigma amountre of fl ects dark some matter exotic in physical the universe. phenomenon Although not yet thisdiscovered. idea is A quite ods of measuring the neutron lifetime is necessary before most reason to think such a phenomenon might exist is that although physicists would accept a concept as radical as mirror matter. Conclusions stimulating, it remains highly speculative. More defi nitive con- EXOTIC PHYSICS the bottle and beam methods disagree, other beam studies show Much more likely, we think, is that one (or perhaps even both) ANBackup EXCITING explanation for the dif erence could be that sad0416Gree4p.inddit actually fi rmation 40 good of agreement the divergence among them between selves, as the do otherbottle bottle and studies. beam meth-of the experiments has underestimated or overlooked a systemat- 2/12/16 4:25 PM re fl ects some exotic physical phenomenon not yet discovered. A ods of measuringImagine, for the example, neutron that lifetime in addition is tonecessary the regular before beta de - mostic ef ect. Such a possibility is always present when working with reasonSupersymmetry to think such a phenomenon might exist is that although physicistscay, neutronswould accept decayed a via concept some previously as radical unknown as mirror process matter. that delicate and sensitive experimental setups. the bottle and beam methods disagree, other beam studies show Muchdoes more not create likely, the we protons think, sought is that in beam one (orexperiments. perhaps The even bot- both) tle experiments, which count the total number of “lost” neutrons, WHY THE NEUTRON LIFETIME MATTERS good agreement among themselves, as do other bottle studies. of the experimentswould count both has the underestimated neutrons that disappeared or overlooked via beta a systemat-decay FIGURING OUT WHAT WE MISSED will of course give us experimental- Imagine, for example, that in addition to the regular beta de- ic ef ect.as Suchwell as a those possibility that underwent is always this present second process.when workingWe would withists peace of mind. But even more important, if we can get to the cay, neutrons decayed via some previously unknown process that delicatetherefore and sensitive conclude experimental that the neutron setups. lifetime was shorter than bottom of this puzzle and precisely measure the neutron lifetime, does not create the protons sought in beam experiments. The bot- that from “normal” beta decay alone. Meanwhile the beam exper- we may be able to tackle a number of long-standing, fundamen- iments would dutifully record only beta decays that produce pro- tal questions about our universe. tle experiments, which count the total number of “lost” neutrons, WHY THE NEUTRON LIFETIME MATTERS tons and would thus result in a larger value for the lifetime. So First of all, an accurate assessment of the timescale of neutron would count both the neutrons that disappeared via beta decay FIGURINGfar, OUT as we WHAT have WEseen, MISSED the beam will experiments of course do give measure us experimental- a slightly decay will teach us about how the weak force works on other parti- as well as those that underwent this second process. We would ists peacelonger of lifetimemind. Butthan eventhe bottles. more important, if we can get to thecles. The weak force is responsible for nearly all radioactive de cays therefore conclude that the neutron lifetime was shorter than bottom ofA this few puzzletheorists and have precisely taken this notion measure seriously. the neutronZurab Berezhi- lifetime,and is the reason, for instance, that nuclear fusion occurs within that from “normal” beta decay alone. Meanwhile the beam exper- we mayani be of able the University to tackle of a L’Aquila number in ofItaly long-standing, and his colleagues fundamen- have the sun. Neutron beta decay is one of the simplest and most pure iments would dutifully record only beta decays that produce pro- tal questions about our universe. tons and would thus result in a larger value for the lifetime. So FirstSCIENTIFIC of all, anAMERICAN accurate ONLINE assessment See a video about of neutron the timescalebeta decay at of neutron far, as we have seen, the beam experiments do measure a slightly decay will teach us about how the weak force works on other parti- longer lifetime than the bottles. cles. The weak force is responsible for nearly all radioactive de cays A few theorists have taken this notion seriously. Zurab Berezhi- and is the reason, for instance, that nuclear fusion occurs within ani of the University of L’Aquila in Italy and his colleagues havesad0416Gree4p.indd the sun. Neutron 40 beta decay is one of the simplest and most pure 2/12/16 4:25 PM
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE See a video about neutron beta decay at
sad0416Gree4p.indd 40 2/12/16 4:25 PM Mirror matter is a hidden antimatter ...
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? why the neutron lifetime measured in UCN traps is smaller than that Zurab Berezhiani measured in beam method ?
Summary
Introduction I’ve taken my old calculations in the Yin-Yang dual cogenesis and
Dark Matter finds out that, at least in simplest scenarios, the sign of mirror baryo Enigma asymmetry tells that mirror neutrons born in parallel world, oscillate Mirror Matter into our antineutrons rather than in neutrons ! B-L violating processes and n n¯0 and n0 n¯ against n n0 origin of observable and − − − dark matter
Neutron–mirror This makes clear how discrepancy emerges – in traps our neutrons neutron oscillation oscillate into mirror antineutrons and annihilate with the mirror gas
The neutron with σv/c 50 mb. These are continuous loses which cannot be lifetime enigma distinguishedh i ' from the UCN decay. The oscillation probability at the Conclusions 6 Earth magnetic field can be order 10− which is sufficient for order Backup 5 second correction if the mirror gas density is about 10− atm. Supersymmetry Indirect detection: antimatter in the cosmos?
Thoughts on In mirror cosmic rays, disintegration of mirror nuclei by galactic UV Dark Matter: background or in scatterings with mirror gas, frees out mirror windows to dark world ? neutrons which the oscillate into our antineutron, n0 n¯, which then → Zurab Berezhiani decays asn ¯ p¯ +e ¯ + ν . → e Summary so we get antiprotons (positrons), with spectral index similar to that Introduction of protons in our cosmic rays ?
Dark Matter ! Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry
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.
! "! Mirror matter can be transformed into our antimatter !!!
Thoughts on Hence, in normal conditions n0 n oscillation proba- Dark Matter: → windows to dark bilities are tiny, mirror neutrons behave nicely and do world ? not disturb us: everyone stays on his side of the mirror Zurab Berezhiani
Summary However, under well-controlled vacuum and magnetic Introduction conditions, mirror neutrons can be transformed into our Dark Matter Enigma antineutrons with reasonable probabilities provided that
Mirror Matter the oscillation time n0 n¯ is indeed small ... the → B-L violating resulting annihilations give energy, and we can use it processes and origin of observable and dark matter ”It does not matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter Neutron–mirror neutron how smart you are ... if it is not confirmed by experiment, it’s oscillation wrong” The neutron lifetime enigma Now it is turn of experimentalists to turn this tale into reality .... Conclusions 3 or to exclude it – at least oscillation time τnn < 10 s Backup 0 Supersymmetry If discovered – impact can be enormous ... One could get plenty of energy out of dark matter ! Appendix
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani First Part: Against Stupidity ... Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Second Part: ...The Gods Themselves ... Enigma Mirror Matter Third Part: ... Contend in Vain? B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron ”Mit der Dummheit k¨ampfenG¨otter oscillation
The neutron selbst vergebens!” – Friedrich Schiller lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Summary
Thoughts on Dark Matter: Encounter of matter and windows to dark world ? antimatter leads to immediate Zurab Berezhiani (uncontrollable) annihilation
Summary which can be destructive
Introduction
Dark Matter Annihilation can take place al- Enigma so between our matter and Mirror Matter dark matter, but controllable B-L violating processes and by tuning of vacuum and ma- origin of observable and gnetic conditions. Dark neu- dark matter
Neutron–mirror trons can be transformed in- neutron oscillation to our antineutrons, or dark
The neutron hydrogen atom into our anti- lifetime enigma hydrogen, etc. Conclusions Backup Two civilisations can agree to built scientific reactors and exchange Supersymmetry neutrons ... and turn the energy produced by each reactor in 1000 times more energy for parallel world .. and all live happy and healthy ... Fine
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani Physics needs new ideas. But to have a new idea is a very difficult task: it does not mean to write a few lines in a paper. If you want to Summary be the father of new idea, you should fully devote your intellectual Introduction energy to understand all details and to work out the best way in Dark Matter Enigma order to put the new idea under experimental test. Mirror Matter
B-L violating This can take years of work. You should not give up. Do not be processes and origin of afraid to encourage others to pursue your dream. If it becomes real, observable and dark matter the community will never forget that you have been the first to open
Neutron–mirror the field. – I.I. Rabi neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma Conclusions hank You ! Backup Supersymmetry T Once upon a time ....
Thoughts on Dark Matter: Every epoch, starting from ancient times, had some windows to dark fundamental(ist)) ”understanding” of the Universe world ? – other ideas were coined as heres, heretics were ignored, some even Zurab Berezhiani killed Summary Introduction First Standard Model was based on flat Earth carried on shoulders by Dark Matter Enigma three elephants ... Mirror Matter The idea of round Earth was not sustainable: the antipodes would B-L violating processes and fall down origin of observable and dark matter The Earth was at rest, sun and planets moving around it ... Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation The idea of moving Earth was not sustainable – there had to be ever The neutron blowing wind lifetime enigma Conclusions Matter was built of continuous media ... Backup
Supersymmetry four elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire Someone courageously hypothesised existence of atoms ... Some Beautiful Minds advanced the understanding of Cosmo and Microcosm
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Standard Model: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) × ×
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Standard Model and Problems
Thoughts on Hierarchy problem: origin of electroweak (Higgs) mass scale Dark Matter: • MH 100 GeV (N.B. no problem with QCD scale ΛQCD 100 MeV) windows to dark ∼ ∼ world ? Family problems: Why 3 fermion families? Why hierarchy of Zurab Berezhiani fermion• masses and CKM mixing? CP-violation ? Summary
Introduction Strong CP-problem: Where ends up beautiful effect of CP-violation • ˜µν Dark Matter due to term θGµν G in non-perturbative QCD vacuum Enigma 10 θ 1 expected vs. θ < 10− – exp. DEMON (EDM of neutron) Mirror Matter ∼ B-L violating Neutrino masses: Why they are so small? .... (and why they have processes and • origin of large mixing?) observable and dark matter Lepton and Baryon numbers: why and how are violated ? (deep Neutron–mirror • neutron connection to the origin of matter in the Universe) oscillation Dark matter: from where it comes ? can it be detectable ? (can it The neutron • lifetime enigma have interactions to normal matter or self-interactions ? Is it just one Conclusions particle or multi-component ? Backup
Supersymmetry Scalar fields in cosmology: Inflaton? Quintessence ? Dark• energy: just cosmological constant or something time-variable ? (related: can be then also fundamental constants time variable ? ) Dunkle Materie
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? Zurab Berezhiani In 1933 Zwicky has hypothesised existence of Summary dark matter in galaxies and in the universe ... Introduction applied virial theorem to Coma Cluster Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and Later this was confirmed by several origin of observable and independent experimental Hints: dark matter Rotation Curves Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation Clusters of Galaxies
The neutron lifetime enigma CMB and LSS Conclusions Supernovae 1a Backup Gravitational Lensing Supersymmetry Galactic rotation velocities
Thoughts on Dark Matter: In disc galaxies (differential) rotation velocities, as a function of the windows to dark world ? distance from the center, indicate flat behaviour v Const. 1/2 ' Zurab Berezhiani instead of Keplerian Fall( v r − ) ∝ Summary 2 Grav. force = Centr. force m v = m GM(r) v GM(r)/r Introduction r r 2 → ' Dark Matter p Enigma Instead .... flat rotational curves were observed Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Precision Cosmology CMB, LSS, lensing ....
WMAP and Planck measurements of CMB anisotropies
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and 2 dark matter θ = (1.0415 0.0006) 10− ∗ ± × −1 Neutron–mirror H0 = (67.3 ± 0.6) km/s · Mpc , inflation ns = 0.960 ± 0.005 neutron oscillation ΩB = 0.0487 ± 0.0006, ΩD = 0.2647 ± 0.0060Ω tot ≈ 1 The neutron lifetime enigma ΩM = ΩB + ΩD ' 0.31 → ΩΛ ≈ 0.69
Conclusions Backup It became clear that dark matter is not built of baryons ! Supersymmetry ... but its identity remains unknown ... SUSY
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary Introduction Supersymmetry: Dark Matter Enigma symmetry between fermions and bosons Mirror Matter – extension of the Poincare symmetry: B-L violating processes and space (xµ) superspace (xµ, θα, θ¯α˙ ), origin of → observable and fields Φ(x) superfields Φ(x, θ, θ¯) dark matter → Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation spontaneously (softly) broken at weak scale
The neutron – medicine for the Higgs health (origin of the weak scale) lifetime enigma + gauge coupling unification etc. Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry SUSY and R-parity
Thoughts on Dark Matter: SM MSSM: fields superfields: V = (g, g˜), Q = (q, q˜) ... windows to dark → → world ? 2 2 4 V 2 = + = d θG + d θΦ†e Φ+ d θW Zurab Berezhiani LSUSY Lgauge Lmatter matter c c c Summary Wmatter = QU H2 + QD H1 +R LE H1 +RµH1H2 R 2 Introduction Yuk + µ H†H in SM Dark Matter ∼ L Enigma mass mass trilinear SSB = gaugino + scalars + scalars = Mirror Matter L L L L d 2ηθG 2 + d 4θηη¯Φ eV Φ + ηd 2θW B-L violating † matter processes and 2 origin of All superpartners get masses MS 1 TeV, from η = MS θ but observable and R R R ∼ dark matter µ-problem: why µ M ? ∼ S Neutron–mirror neutron c c c c c oscillation .... WR viol = QD L + U D D + E LL + µ0LH2 − The neutron problems for proton stability lifetime enigma 3B+L+2s Conclusions R = ( 1) (+ for SM particles, for superpartners) Backup − − or matter parity Z2: F F , H H Supersymmetry → − → makes lightest SUSY partner (LSP) stable ! SUSY + GUT = LOVE
Thoughts on Dark Matter: GUT: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) SU(5) windows to dark • × × → world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup
Supersymmetry Hierarchy (and doublet-triplet splitting) problems – 28 orders – between M2 (100 GeV)2 and M2 (1016 GeV)2 Higgs ∼ GUT ∼ Proton decay in SU(5) SU(3) SU(2) U(1) → × ×
Thoughts on Proton decay: p π0e+, p K +ν etc. Dark Matter: → → windows to dark gauge mediated D = 6: new gauge bosons X , Y violating baryon world ? • 1 ¯ µ ˜ and lepton numbers – 2 q¯γµu˜lγ d, etc. Zurab Berezhiani MX Higgs mediated D = 6: color scalar triplets (leptoquarks) T , Summary • 1 brothers of SM Higgs doublet φ,– 2 qqql, etc. Introduction MT 1 Dark Matter Higgsino mediated (D = 5): fermion superpartners of T ,– qqq˜l˜ Enigma • MT Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions 34 16 Backup proton stability limits τp > 10 yr require MX , MT > 10 GeV. 16 Supersymmetry D-T splitting: m 100 GeV , M > 10 GeV – 14 orders! φ ∼ T N.B. this B-violation not good for baryogenesis in the universe SUSY + GUT = SU(6) Z.B. and G. Dvali, 1989
Thoughts on SUSY can provide technical solution to the D-T splitting in SU(5) Dark Matter: but Fine Tuning is unavoidable windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani Good solution (GIFT) with larger symmetry: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) SU(5) SU(6) (SU(6) E6 ?) Summary × × → → → Introduction Pseudo-Goldstone mechanism: gauge SU(6) breaking in 2 channels Dark Matter SU(6) SU(5): fundamental reps H, H¯ 6, 6¯ (5, 5¯ in SU(5)) Enigma → ∼ Mirror Matter SU(6) SU(4) SU(2) U(1): - adjoint Σ 35 (24 in SU(5)) → × × ∼ B-L violating processes and while superpotential has double global symmetry SU(6)H SU(6)Σ origin of ¯ × observable and Fermions in 2 6 + 15 = 27 of E6 dark matter ×
Neutron–mirror Higgs (super)fields remain as Goldstone modes not eaten by gauge neutron oscillation (super)fields due to accidental global symmetry SU(6)H SU(6)Σ ¯ × The neutron (just kill the term HΣH by a discrete symmetry) lifetime enigma
Conclusions Higgs gets mass MSUSY 1 TeV after SUSY breaking: natural Backup D-T splitting. As∼ a bonus,∼ also many other problems are fixed: Supersymmetry (µ-problem: µ MSUSY, top quark mass 100 GeV, yt 1, while other fermions∼ are light but y y , etc.)∼ ∼ b ' τ LHC – run II: can SUSY be just around the corner?
Thoughts on So called Natural SUSY (2 Higgses with m 100 GeV + Higgsinos) Dark Matter: is dead ! One Higgs discovered by LHC perfectly∼ fits the SM Higgs ... windows to dark world ? but already at LEP epoch many theorists understood (felt) that Zurab Berezhiani MSUSY < 1 TeV was problematic Summary SUSY induced proton decays (D = 5) require M > 1 TeV or so Introduction • SUSY Dark Matter SUSY induced CP-violation: electron EDM, MSUSY > 1 TeV or so Enigma • But gauge coupling crossing requires MSUSY < 10 TeV or so Mirror Matter • B-L violating Generically, SUSY flavor limits in K K¯ mixing, µ eγ etc. processes and • − → origin of require MSUSY > 100 TeV or so observable and dark matter But can be quark-squark mass allignment: universal relations like 2 2 2 2 2 Neutron–mirror m˜ = m0 + m1(Y †Yd ) + m2(Y †Yd ) , etc. Z.B. 1996 neutron d d d oscillation assuming the gauge symmetry SU(3) between 3 fermion families The neutron later on coined as Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV), Giudice et al., 2002 lifetime enigma Conclusions SUSY at scale of few TeV is still the best choice for BSM physics: Backup maybe SUSY is indeed just around the corner? Supersymmetry Remains Little hierarchy problem – 2 orders Fine Tuning – between M2 (100 GeV)2 and M2 (1 TeV)2 Higgs ∼ SUSY ∼ WIMP detection modes
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark Weak scale MSSM + R-parity: lightest spartner (LSP) is stable ! world ? A perfect candidate for CDM with mass M ∼ 100 GeV Zurab Berezhiani X
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter
Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation
The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions
Backup LHC
Supersymmetry Direct Detection @ LNGS: DAMA, CRESST, XENON, DARKSIDE WIMP miracle and optimism for direct detection
Thoughts on Dark Matter: WIMP/LSP with mass MX 100 GeV – perfect candidate for CDM windows to dark ∼ world ? 2 0.02xf 1 pb 2 Zurab Berezhiani Ω h 1/2 vσ 1 pb Ω h 0.1 D vσann ann D ' gf ∼ → ∼ 2 Summary πα2 100 GeV 36 2 Introduction WIMP Miracle: vσann 2 10− cm MS MX ∼ ∼ × 25. Dark matter 15 Dark Matter Enigma !38 10 Mirror Matter DAMIC I But for elastic scattering XENON10-LE CDMS-LE B-L violating X + N X + N one ex- CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE processes and limit !40 origin of → 10 CoGeNT DAMA/LIBRA observable and pects σscat σann ∼ ROI dark matter which is important for di- Neutron–mirror !42 neutron rect detection 10 CDMS-Si CRESST II
] (normalised to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III oscillation 2 CDMS+EDELWEISS The neutron However ... no evidence at cMSSM-preLHC lifetime enigma !44 10 68% section [cm XENON100 Conclusions LHC and no evidence from ! Neutrino Background LUX DM direct search + many Cross Backup Projection for pMSSM- 95% postLHC !46 Direct Detection Supersymmetry problems to natural SUSY 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 Parity Violation & Mirror Fermions – Lee and Yang, 1956
Thoughts on The conservation of parity is usually accepted Dark Matter: without questions concerning its possible limit of windows to dark world ? validity being asked. The is actually no a priori Zurab Berezhiani reason why its violation is undesirable. Its viola- Summary tion implies the existence of right-left asymmetry Introduction and we have shown in the above some possible Dark Matter Enigma experimental tests os this asymmetry. Mirror Matter If such asymmetry is indeed found, the question could still be raised B-L violating processes and whether there could not exist corresponding elementary particles exhibiting origin of observable and opposite asymmetry such that in the broader sense there will still be dark matter over-all right-left symmetry. If this is the case, there must exist two kinds Neutron–mirror neutron of protons pR and pL, the right-handed one and the left-handed one. At oscillation the present time the protons in the laboratory must be predominantly of The neutron lifetime enigma one kind to produce the supposedly observed asymmetry. This means that Conclusions the free oscillation period between them must be longer than the age of Backup the Universe. They could therefore both be regarded as stable particles. Supersymmetry The numbers of pR and pL must be separately conserved. Both pR and pL could interact with the same E-M field and perhaps the same pion field ... Mirror Fermions as parallel sector – Kobzarev, Okun, Pomeranchuk, 1966
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ?
Zurab Berezhiani
Summary
Introduction
Dark Matter Enigma
Mirror Matter
B-L violating processes and origin of observable and In connection with the discovery of CP violation, we discuss the possibility dark matter that “mirror” (R) particles exist in addition to the ordinary (L) particles. Neutron–mirror neutron The introduction of these particles reestablishes the equivalence of left and oscillation right. It is shown that mirror particles cannot interact with ordinary The neutron lifetime enigma particles strongly, semistrongly or electromagnetically. L and R particles
Conclusions must have the same gravitational interactions. The possibility of existence
Backup and detection of macroscopic bodies (stars) made up of R-matter is
Supersymmetry discussed. Alice @ Mirror World – “Through the Looking-Glass” (1871)
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark world ? &$'($) Zurab Berezhiani I’ll tell you all my ideas about Looking-glass House.
Summary The room you can see through the glass – that’s just Introduction the same as our room ... the books there are something Dark Matter like our books, only the words go the wrong way ... Enigma
Mirror Matter I can see all of it – all but the bit just behind the
B-L violating fireplace. I want so to know whether they’ve a fire: you processes and origin of never can tell, you know, unless our fire smokes, and observable and dark matter then smoke comes up in that room too ... Oh, how nice
Neutron–mirror it would be if we could get through into Looking-glass neutron oscillation House! Let’s pretend there’s a way of getting through The neutron into it, somehow ... It’ll be easy enough to get through lifetime enigma I declare!’ Conclusions *+,!-./!01223242/56/7-/8!93268!,+0/!:23:/2-1/,!+,!;320+6! Backup 93268< !"#$%#$$ ! Supersymmetry Lewis Carroll Always the same difficult story ...
Thoughts on Dark Matter: windows to dark In spite of evident beauty of Yin-Yang dual picture, for a long while mirror world ? matter was not taken as a real candidate for dark matter. There were real Zurab Berezhiani reasons for that: if O and M sectors have exactly identical microphysics Summary and also exactly identical cosmologies, then one expects: Introduction 0 eff • Equal temperatures, TCMB = TCMB ∆ν = 6.15 against BBN limits Dark Matter Enigma 0 0 0 0 • equal baryon asymmetries, η (=nB /nγ ) = η(=nB /nγ ) and so ΩB = ΩB Mirror Matter 0 while ΩB ΩB ' 5 is needed for dark matter B-L violating 0 processes and If T T ? BBN is OK origin of 0 0 0 3 observable and but η = η implies ΩB ' (T /T ) ΩB ΩB dark matter
Neutron–mirror Such a mirror universe “can have no influence on the Earth neutron and therefore would be useless and therefore does not exist” oscillation S. Glashow, citing Francesco Sizzi The neutron lifetime enigma
Conclusions 0 • Even if ΩB > ΩB , Why M matter, as dissipative as O matter, would form Backup galactic halos and not disks? Supersymmetry More parallel worlds ?
Thoughts on Imagine there are 4 worlds all described by Standard Model, related by Dark Matter: mirror (LR) and xerox (LL) symmetries ... windows to dark world ? This can be used for solving little hierarchy problem, invoking also SUSY Zurab Berezhiani Consider superpotential Summary 2 0 0 0 0 2 W = λS1(H1H2 + Φ1Φ2 − Λ ) + λS2(H1H2 + Φ1Φ2 − Λ ) Introduction 0 0 Xerox symmetry: H , → Φ , , H → Φ Dark Matter 1 2 1 2 1,2 1,2 Enigma 0 0 Mirror symmetry: S1 → S2, H1,2 → H1,2,Φ1,2 → Φ1,2 Mirror Matter 0 B-L violating Global symmetries SU(4)H and SU(4)H processes and 2 origin of Take Λ ∼ 10 TeV and assume that SUSY breaking spurion η = MS θ is observable and odd against Xerox symmetry, η → −η. dark matter 0 Neutron–mirror Φ’s get VEVs v ∼ 10 TeV, H’s remain pseudo-Goldstone, then getting neutron oscillation VEVs v ∼ 100 GeV 0 The neutron Φ sectors – Standard Models with mE ∼ (v /v)me but mP,N ' (2 ÷ 3)mp,n lifetime enigma 0 (ΛΦ/ΛQCD rescales softer with v /v) Conclusions Dark matter can be very compact hydrogen atoms from Φ sectors, or even Backup neutrons if mP > mN Supersymmetry Self-collisional DM with right amount σ/mN ∼ 1 b/GeV – perfect candidate for Dark matter resolving many problems of halos Technical solution ... some uncounted systematics ?
Thoughts on Dark Matter: why the neutron lifetime measured in UCN traps is smaller than that windows to dark measured in beam method ? world ? Zurab Berezhiani May some factor contribute to the UCN continuous loses in the bottle?
Summary 3 Introduction In 2013, making an experiment at the ILL, I observed that He detectors Dark Matter had different capacities (one was counting twice less than another). Enigma 3 Mirror Matter I asked how this can occur? The answer: He is very volatile and it B-L violating processes and evaporates from the detector volume, typically during an year ... origin of observable and But where 3He ends up? Clearly inside the UCN trap, since the dark matter
Neutron–mirror aluminium folder covering the detector is not perfectly hermetic ... neutron oscillation but then it would eat the UCN stored inside the bottle, with a huge
The neutron cross section, σv/c 3 mb lifetime enigma h i '
Conclusions Nesvizhevsky helped me in technical details. We calculated that these
Backup continuous loses could give ∼ 1 second correction to the neutron lifetime
Supersymmetry He told me that this effect was never taken into account in the error budget of the bottle experiments