Getting Antimatter out of Dark Matter: 1Mm Introduction to Mirror (Anti)World

Home , EDELWEISS, Mirror matter

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world Getting antimatter out of dark matter: Zurab Berezhiani

Summary introduction to mirror (anti)world

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Zurab Berezhiani Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and University of L’Aquila and LNGS origin of observable and dark matter Zurich, 27 Sept. 2016 Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions Contents

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world 1 Introduction

Zurab Berezhiani 2 Summary Dark Matter Enigma

Introduction Dark Matter 3 Mirror Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter 4 B-L violating B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter processes and origin of observable and dark matter 5 Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation 6 The neutron lifetime enigma The neutron lifetime enigma 7 Conclusions Conclusions Some epochal discoveries after 30’s of XIX ...

Getting antimatter out of Anti-matter, 1931-32 dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary Dark matter , 1932-33

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter Neutron, 1932-33 B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation Parity Violation, 1956-57

The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions CP Violation, 1964 ...and a prophetic idea on the origin of matter

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror A dreamer ... Andrey Sakharov, 1967 (anti)world Zurab Berezhiani Matter (Baryon asymmetry) in the early universe

Summary can be originated (from zero) by processes that Introduction Violate B (better B L) Dark Matter − Enigma Violate CP Mirror Matter and go out-of-equilibrium at some early epoch B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation I want to pose a question in this way: The neutron lifetime enigma Can the issues of the antimatter, dark matter, neutron, parity, Conclusions CP-violation, baryon violation and some other issues of Standard Model more intimately related ? Standard Model on T-shirts

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)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 Fermions (= matter): quarks and leptons, 3 generations Conclusions Bosons (= interactions): gauge ﬁelds + God’s particle – Higgs Standard Model vs. P, C, T and B & L

Getting Fermions: antimatter out of dark matter: uL νL introduction to qL = , lL = ; uR , dR , eR mirror dL eL (anti)world B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 Zurab Berezhiani

Summary Anti-Fermions: Introduction u¯ ν¯ q¯ = R , l¯ = R ;u ¯ , d¯ , e¯ Dark Matter R d¯ R e¯ L L L Enigma R R Mirror Matter B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1

B-L violating processes and origin of SM = Gauge + Higgs + Yuk CPT is OK (Local Lagrangian) observable and L L L L dark matter ¯ Neutron–mirror P (ΨL → ΨR )& C (ΨL → ΨL) broken by gauge interactions neutron , , oscillation ¯ u d e CP (ΨL → ΨR ) broken by complex Yukawas Y = Yij The neutron lifetime enigma ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (¯uLYuqLφ+dLYd qLφ+e ¯LYe lLφ)+(uR Yu∗q¯R φ+dR Yd∗q¯R φ+eR Ye∗lR φ) Conclusions 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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: 1 ¯ ¯ 2 M (lφ)(lφ) (∆L = 2) – neutrino (seesaw) masses mν v /M introduction to • ∼ mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani L=2 Summary MM Introduction GL=2 NN Dark Matter l Enigma l l l

Mirror Matter 1 B-L violating M5 (udd)(udd) (∆B = 2) – neutron-antineutron oscillation n n¯ processes and • → origin of observable and dark matter u u Neutron–mirror B=2 neutron u u d d oscillation S MM S d GB=2 d The neutron NN lifetime enigma d d Conclusions d d

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

Getting massive neutrino (∼ 20 eV) was a natural “standard” candidate of ”hot” antimatter out of dark matter (HDM) forming cosmological structures (Pencakes) – dark matter: introduction to but it was excluded by astrophysical observations in 80’s, mirror (anti)world and later on by the neutrino experiments! – RIP Zurab Berezhiani In about the same period the BBN limits excluded dark matter

Summary in the form of invisible baryons (dim stars, etc.) – RIP

Introduction

Dark Matter Then a new Strada Maestra was opened – USY Enigma – well-motivated theoretical concept promisingS to be a highway Mirror Matter for solving many fundamental problems, brought a natural and B-L violating processes and almost “Standard” candidate WIMP – undead, but looks useless origin of observable and dark matter Another well-motivated candidate, Axion, emerged from Peccei-Quinn Neutron–mirror neutron symmetry for solving strong CP problem – alive, but seems confused oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma All other candidates in the literature are ad hoc ! Conclusions Apart one exception – 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

Getting Todays Universe: ﬂat Ωtot 1 (inﬂation) and multi-component: antimatter out of ≈ dark matter: Ω 0.05 observable matter: electron, proton, neutron B ' introduction to WIMP? axion? sterile ν? ... mirror ΩD 0.25 dark matter: (anti)world ' ΩΛ 0.70 dark energy: Λ-term? Quintessence? .... Zurab Berezhiani ' Matter – dark energy coincidence: ΩM /ΩΛ 0.45, (ΩM = ΩD + ΩB ) Summary 3 ' ρΛ Const., ρM a− ; why ρM /ρΛ 1 – just Today? Introduction ∼ ∼ ∼ Dark Matter Antrophic explanation: if not Today, then Yesterday or Tomorrow. Enigma

Mirror Matter Baryon and dark matter Fine Tuning: ΩB /ΩD 0.2 3 3 ' B-L violating ρB a− , ρD a− : why ρB /ρD 1 - Yesterday Today & Tomorrow? processes and ∼ ∼ ∼ origin of observable and – How Baryogenesis could know about Dark dark matter Matter? popular models for primordial Ba- Neutron–mirror neutron ryogenesis (GUT-B, Lepto-B, Aﬄeck-Dine oscillation B, EW B ...) have no relation to popular The neutron lifetime enigma DM candidates (Wimp, Wimpzilla, sterile ν, Conclusions axion, gravitino ...) – 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 ?

Getting Visible matter from antimatter out of Baryogenesis ( Sakharov) dark matter: B (B L) & CP violation, Out-of-Equilibrium introduction to − 9 mirror ρB = mB nB , mB 1 GeV, η = nB /nγ 10− (anti)world ' ∼ Zurab Berezhiani η is model dependent on several factors: coupling constants and CP-phases, particle degrees of freedom, Summary mass scales and out-of-equilibrium conditions, etc. Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Dark matter: ρD = mX nX , but mX = ? , nX = ? Mirror Matter nX is model dependent: DM particle mass and interaction strength B-L violating (production and annihilation cross sections), freezing conditions, etc. processes and origin of observable and 5 4 Axion m 10− eV n 10 n - CDM dark matter a ∼ a ∼ γ 1 Neutron–mirror Neutrinos mν 10− eV nν nγ - HDM ( ) neutron ∼ ∼ oscillation Sterile ν 3 × 0 mν0 10 keV nν0 10− nν - WDM The neutron ∼ ∼ lifetime enigma Para-baryons mB0 1 GeV nB0 nB - SIDDM Conclusions ' ∼ 3 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 ...

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world B-genesis + WIMP B-genesis + axion B-cogenesis

Zurab Berezhiani 40 B"genesis ΕCP... 40 B-genesis HΕCP...L 40 B-genesis HΕCP...L

ΡB ΡB ΡB Summary 20 ! # 20 20 DM"freezing Σann... # L L 4 4 4 Introduction 0 0 0 GeV GeV GeV " ! # ΡDM -4 ΡDM -4 Ρ "4 Ρ Ρ Ρ 'a ΡDM Ρrad~a Ρrad~a ! Dark Matter rad H H Log Log -20 Log -20 Enigma -20 "3 % -3 M=R -3 M=R Ρmat'a M R Ρmat~a Ρmat~a Mirror Matter -40 Ρ& -40 ΡL -40 ΡL

B-L violating -60 Today -60 Today -60 Today processes and -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Log a a LogHaa L LogHaa L origin of 0 0 0 observable and ! " # dark matter

Neutron–mirror mX nX mB nB mana mB nB mB0 nB0 mB nB neutron ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ oscillation mX 10 mB ma 10− mB mB0 mB ∼ 3 ∼ 13 ∼ The neutron nX 10− nB na 10 nB nB0 nB lifetime enigma Fine∼ Tuning? Fine∼ Tuning? Natural∼ ? Conclusions SU(3) SU(2) U(1) & SU(3)0 SU(2)0 U(1)0 × × × ×

Getting G G 0 antimatter out of Regular world × Mirror world dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Mirror Matter • Two identical gauge factors, e.g. SU(5) × SU(5)0, with identical ﬁeld B-L violating contents and Lagrangians: L = L + L0 + L processes and tot mix origin of 0 0 observable and • Exact parity G → G : no new parameters in dark Lagrangian L dark matter

Neutron–mirror • M sector is dark (for us) and the gravity is a common force (with us) neutron oscillation • M matter looks as non-standard for dark matter but it is truly standard The neutron in direct sense, just as our matter (self-interacting/dissipative/asymmetric) lifetime enigma

Conclusions • New interactions are possible between O & M particles Lmix • 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 : Getting antimatter out of uL νL dark matter: qL = , lL = ; uR , dR , eR introduction to dL eL mirror B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani u¯R ¯ ν¯R ¯ q¯R = ¯ , lR = ;u ¯L, dL, e¯L Summary dR e¯R

Introduction B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1

Dark Matter Enigma Twin Fermions and anti-fermions :

Mirror Matter 0 0 0 uL 0 νL 0 0 0 B-L violating qL = 0 , lL = 0 ; uR , dR , eR processes and dL eL origin of B=1/3 L=1 B=1/3 L=1 observable and dark matter u¯0 ν¯0 Neutron–mirror 0 R ¯0 R 0 ¯0 0 q¯R = ¯0 , lR = 0 ;u ¯L, dL, e¯L neutron dR e¯R oscillation B=-1/3 L=-1 B=-1/3 L=-1 The neutron lifetime enigma ¯ ¯ ∗ ∗ ¯ ∗¯ ¯ (¯uLYuqLφ + dLYd qLφ +e ¯LYe lLφ) + (uR Yu q¯R φ + dR Yd q¯R φ + eR Ye lR φ) Conclusions 0 0 0 ¯0 ¯0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0∗ 0 0 0 0∗ 0 ¯0 0 0∗¯0 ¯0 (¯uLYu qLφ +dLYd qLφ +e ¯LYe lLφ )+(uR Yu q¯R φ +dR Yd q¯R φ +eR Ye lR φ ) 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 [SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)] × [SU(3)0 × SU(2)0 × U(1)0] + SUSY + Flavor a deviation about gauge ﬂavor symmetries

Getting SU(3)q SU(3)u SU(3)d SU(3)l SU(3)e without anomalies antimatter out of × × × × dark matter: introduction to q ∼ 3 , l ∼ 3 ;u ¯ ∼ 3 , d¯ ∼ 3 , e¯ ∼ 3 mirror L q L l L u L d L e (anti)world Zurab Berezhiani ¯ q¯R ∼ 3¯q, lR ∼ 3¯l ; uR ∼ 3¯u, dR ∼ 3¯d , eR ∼ 3¯e Summary

Introduction —————————————————————————————– Dark Matter 0 ¯ 0 ¯ 0 ¯ ¯0 ¯ 0 ¯ Enigma qL ∼ 3q, lL = 3l ;u ¯L ∼ 3u, dL ∼ 3d , e¯L ∼ 3e

Mirror Matter B-L violating 0 ¯0 0 0 0 processes and q¯R ∼ 3q, lR = 3l ; uR ∼ 3u, dR ∼ 3d , eR ∼ 3e origin of observable and dark matter + Neutron–mirror Mirror parity (L, R → R, L): flavon superfields χL → χR = (¯χL) neutron 1 ¯ ¯ oscillation W = M (¯uχuqφ + dχd qφ +e ¯χe lφ) + h.c. 0 1 0 0 ¯0 ¯0 0 0 0 0 0 The neutron W = M (¯u χ¯uq φ + d χ¯d q φ +e ¯ χ¯e l φ ) + h.c. lifetime enigma ¯ ¯ χu Conclusions χu ∼ (3u, 3q),χ ¯u ∼ (3u, 3q) M → Yu, etc. Quark & lepton Yukawa (mass and mixing) structures is determined by the pattern and hierarchy of flavon VEVs hχi Z.B. 1982-83 Mirror parity and MFV

Getting antimatter out of • Generically, SUSY ﬂavor limits require MSUSY > 100 TeV or so ... dark matter: introduction to But assuming the gauge symmetry SU(3) × ... between 3 fermion families mirror (anti)world can be obtained quark-squark mass allignment: universal relations like Zurab Berezhiani 2 2 2 † 2 † 2 m˜d = m0 + m1(Yd Yd ) + m2(Yd Yd ) , etc. Z.B. 1996, Anselm, Z.B., 1997 Summary

Introduction later on (2002) coined as Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV)

Dark Matter Enigma F −terms can be easily handled

Mirror Matter gauge D− terms give problems 2 ∗ 3 B-L violating Flavon superpotential: WH = µχχ¯ + aχ + a χ¯ + h.c. processes and origin of → D-terms vanish because of mirror parity observable and dark matter

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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world So called Natural SUSY (2 Higgses with m 100 GeV + Higgsinos) Zurab Berezhiani has gone ! One Higgs discovered by LHC perfectly∼ ﬁts the SM Higgs Summary ... already at LEP epoch many theorists felt that MSUSY < 1 TeV Introduction was problematic Dark Matter Enigma SUSY induced proton decays (D = 5) require M > 1 TeV or so Mirror Matter • SUSY B-L violating SUSY induced CP-violation: electron EDM, MSUSY > 1 TeV or so processes and • origin of But gauge coupling crossing requires MSUSY < 10 TeV or so observable and • dark matter

Neutron–mirror SUSY at scale of few TeV is still the best choice for BSM physics: neutron oscillation maybe SUSY is indeed just around the corner? The neutron Remains Little hierarchy problem – 2 orders Fine Tuning – lifetime enigma between M2 (100 GeV)2 and M2 (1 TeV)2 Conclusions Higgs ∼ SUSY ∼ Yin-Yang Theory: Dark sector ... similar to our luminous sector?

Getting For observable particles .... very complex physics !! antimatter out of dark matter: G = SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) ( + SUSY ? GUT ? Seesaw ?) ± introduction to photon, electron, nucleons (quarks), neutrinos, gluons, W − Z, Higgs ... mirror (anti)world long range EM forces, conﬁnement scale ΛQCD, weak scale MW Zurab Berezhiani ... matter vs. antimatter (B-conserviolation, CP ... ) ... existence of nuclei, atoms, molecules .... life.... Homo Sapiens ! Summary Introduction If dark matter comes from extra gauge sector ... it is as complex: Dark Matter G 0 = SU(3)0 × SU(2)0 × U(1)0 ? ( + SUSY ? GUT 0? Seesaw ?) Enigma photon0, electron0, nucleons0 (quarks0), W 0 − Z 0, gluons0 ? Mirror Matter ... long range EM forces, conﬁnement at Λ0 , weak scale M0 ? B-L violating QCD W 0 processes and ... asymmetric dark matter (B -conserviolation, CP ... ) ? origin of observable and ... existence of dark nuclei, atoms, molecules ... life ... Homo Aliens ? dark matter

Neutron–mirror Let us call it Yin-Yang Theory neutron oscillation in chinise, Yin-Yang means dark-bright duality The neutron lifetime enigma describes a philosophy how opposite forces are ac- Conclusions tually complementary, interconnected and interde- 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 ?

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: In spite of evident beauty of Yin-Yang dual picture, for a long while mirror introduction to mirror matter was not taken as a real candidate for dark matter. There were real (anti)world reasons for that: if O and M sectors have exactly identical microphysics Zurab Berezhiani and also exactly identical cosmologies, then one expected:

Summary 0 0 eff • Equal temperatures, T = T , g∗ = g∗ → ∆ν = 6.15 against Introduction BBN limits Dark Matter Enigma 0 0 0 0 • equal baryon asymmetries, η = η (nB /nγ = nB /nγ ) and so ΩB = ΩB Mirror Matter 0 while ΩB /ΩB ' 5 is needed for dark matter B-L violating processes and origin of 0 observable and If T T ? BBN is OK dark matter 0 0 0 3 but η = η impliesΩ B ' (T /T ) ΩB ΩB Neutron–mirror neutron Such a mirror universe “can have no influence on the Earth oscillation and therefore would be useless and therefore does not exist” The neutron lifetime enigma S. Glashow, citing Francesco Sizzi Conclusions Always the same difficult story ...

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror Understanding of astronomy, optics, and physics, a rumor about the four (anti)world planets seen by the very celebrated mathematician Galileo Galilei with his Zurab Berezhiani telescope, shown to be unfounded. Summary Francesco Sizzi, crlticlsm of Galileo’s discovery of the Jupiter’s moons Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and The microphysics of the postulated mirror matter should be exactly the origin of observable and same as that of the usual matter. However, we know that the spatial dark matter

Neutron–mirror distribution of the dark matter is very diﬀerent from that of the ordinary neutron oscillation (baryonic) matter. On the face of it this makes mirror matter an

The neutron implausible candidate for dark matter. lifetime enigma Anonimuos Referee, a typical reviewer report on Mirror Matter Conclusions M baryons can be dark matter. If parallel world is colder than ours, all

problems can be settled Z.B., Comelli, Villante, 2000

Getting It is enough to accept a simple paradigm: at the Big Bang the M world antimatter out of dark matter: was born with smaller temperature than O world; then over the universe 0 introduction to expansion their temperature ratio T /T remains constant. mirror (anti)world T 0/T < 0.5 is enough to concord with the BBN limits and do not aﬀect Zurab Berezhiani standard primordial mass fractions: 75% H + 25% 4He. 0 Summary Cosmological limits are more severe, requiring T /T < 0.2 os so. 0 4 0 Introduction In turn, for M world this implies helium domination: 25% H + 75% He .

Dark Matter 0 0 Enigma Because of T < T , the situationΩ B > ΩB becomes plausible in Mirror Matter baryogenesis. So, M matter can be dark matter (as we show below)

B-L violating 0 processes and Because of T < T , in mirror photons decouple much earlier than ordinary origin of observable and photons, and after that M matter behaves for the structure formation and dark matter CMB anisotropies essentially as CDM. This concordes M matter with Neutron–mirror 0 neutron WMAP/Planck, BAO, Ly-α etc. if T /T < 0.25 or so. oscillation

The neutron Halo problem – Mirror matter can be ∼ 20 % of dark matter, forming dark lifetime enigma disk, while ∼ 80 % may come from other type of CDM (WIMP?) Conclusions But perhaps 100 % ? – M world is helium dominated, and the star 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 Getting A. Cosmological implications. T /T < 0.2 or so, ΩB /ΩB = 1 ÷ 5. antimatter out of dark matter: Mass fraction: H’ – 25%, He’ – 75%, and few % of heavier C’, N’, O’ etc. introduction to • Mirror baryons as asymmetric/collisional/dissipative/atomic dark matter: mirror (anti)world M hydrogen recombination and M baryon acoustic oscillations?

Zurab Berezhiani • Easier formation and faster evolution of stars: Dark matter disk? Galaxy halo as mirror elliptical galaxy? Microlensing ? Neutron stars? Black Summary Holes? Binary Black Holes? Central Black Holes? Introduction Dark Matter B. Direct detection. M matter can interact with ordinary matter e.g. via Enigma µν 0 kinetic mixing F Fµν , etc. Mirror helium as most abundant mirror Mirror Matter matter particles (the region of DM masses below 5 GeV is practically B-L violating processes and unexplored). Possible signals from heavier nuclei C,N,O etc. origin of observable and dark matter C. Oscillation phenomena between ordinary and mirror particles.

Neutron–mirror The most interesting interaction terms in Lmix are the ones which violate neutron oscillation B and L of both sectors. Neutral particles, elementary (as e.g. neutrino) or

The neutron composite (as the neutron or hydrogen atom) can mix with their mass lifetime enigma degenerate (sterile) twins: matter disappearance (or appearance) Conclusions phenomena can be observable in laboratories. 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 Getting #M=0.25, $b=0.023, h=0.73, n=0.97 antimatter out of x=0.5, no CDM x=0.3, no CDM dark matter: ) " x=0.2, no CDM 60

introduction to (µ 1/2 ]

mirror ! 2 / (anti)world l C ) 40 1

+ l ( l

Zurab Berezhiani [

20 WMAP ACBAR Summary

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

Mirror Matter 3 c

4 p

) 0

3 10 M 10 ( c

B-L violating p

M h processes and ( ) k

( 3 -2 origin of h P 10 )

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

M=0.30, b=0.02,h=0.70,x=0.2, b’= CDM,n=1.00 Neutron–mirror " # # # 10-6 neutron 2 10 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 oscillation 0.01 0.10 k/h (Mpc!1) k/h (Mpc%1) The neutron lifetime enigma Acoustic oscillations and Silk damping Conclusions at short scales: x = T 0/T < 0.2 Discussing Lmix: possible portal between O and M particles

µν Getting Photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing F Fµν0 antimatter out of • dark matter: Experimental limit < 4 10 7 introduction to − × 9 mirror Cosmological limit < 5 10− (anti)world × Zurab Berezhiani Makes mirror matter nanocharged (q ∼ ) and is a promising interaction for dark matter direct detection Summary

Introduction 25. Dark matter 15

Dark Matter !38 Enigma 10 DAMIC I XENON10-LE Mirror Matter CDMS-LE CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE Mirror atoms: He’ – 75 %, limit B-L violating !40 10 processes and C’,N’,O’ etc. few % CoGeNT DAMA/LIBRA origin of ROI observable and Rutherford-like scattering dark matter !42 CDMS-Si CRESST II Neutron–mirror 2 10 ] (normalised to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III dσ (αZZ 0) 2 neutron AA0 = 2 4 4 CDMS+EDELWEISS oscillation dΩ 4µ v sin (θ/2) AA0 cMSSM-preLHC The neutron !44 or 10 68% lifetime enigma 2 section [cm XENON100 dσ 2π(αZZ 0) ! AA0 Neutrino = 2 2 Conclusions dER M v E Background LUX A Cross R 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 : L and B violating operators Lmix

Getting Neutrino -mirror neutrino mixing – (Active - sterile mixing) antimatter out of • 1 ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ dark matter: L and L0 violating operators: M (lφ)(lφ) and M (lφ)(l 0φ0) introduction to mirror (anti)world Zurab Berezhiani L=2 L=1,L=1 Summary GL=2 GL=1 Introduction l Dark Matter l l l Enigma Mirror Matter M is the (seesaw) scale of new physics beyond EW scale. B-L violating processes and Mirror neutrinos are most natural candidates for sterile neutrinos origin of observable and dark matter Neutron -mirror neutron mixing – (Active - sterile neutrons) B and • 1 1 Neutron–mirror B0 violating operators: 5 (udd)(udd) and 5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0) neutron M M oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma B=2 B=1,B=1 Conclusions u u u u

d GB=2 d d GB=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 Getting and WIMPs antimatter out of dark matter: u u Mirror Matter !"# introduction to d d mirror M M " "! Mirror Matter, (anti)world S S B-violation and N N$ N$ N ! !! Cogenesis Zurab Berezhiani # %& #! d d Conclusions Summary $ $! Introduction ! !! Dark Matter Enigma 2 2 Mirror Matter S u d + S †d + MD 0 + χ + χ† 0 T N T NN N N B-L violating gn(χn Cn + χ†n0 Cn0 + h.c.) processes and origin of 2 2 6 8 2 4 Sobservable u d + andS †d +ΛMQCDDV !10+GeVχ +1 TeVχ† ! +V h.c. 24 dark matter 2 Nnn¯ M2 M4NN M N M N 1 MeV 10− eV φlN + χ†N + h∼.c.D S ∼ D S × Neutron–mirror τ > 108 s neutron nn¯ oscillation V n n0 oscillation with τnn 1 s τnn τnn¯ The neutron 0 0 MD lifetime enigma − ∼ ∼ 6 8 4 Conclusions! ΛQCD ! "#$ 10 GeV 1 TeV 15 nn0 M M4 M M 10− eV ∼ 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

Getting antimatter out of 1 ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ dark matter: L and L0 violating operators: M (lφ)(lφ) and M (lφ)(l 0φ0) introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani L=2 L=1,L=1 Summary G Introduction L=2 GL=1 Dark Matter l l l l Enigma

Mirror Matter B-L violating After inﬂation, our world is heated and mirror world is empty: processes and origin of but ordinary particle scatterings transform them into mirror particles, observable and dark matter heating also mirror world.

Neutron–mirror neutron These processes should be out-of-equilibrium oscillation • Violate baryon numbers in both worlds, B L and B0 L0 The neutron • − − lifetime enigma Violate also CP, given complex couplings Conclusions • Green light to celebrated conditions of Sakharov Theory of cogenesis: Bento and Z.B., 2001

Getting 1 1 antimatter out of Operators (lφ¯)(lφ¯) and (lφ¯)(l 0φ¯0) via seesaw mechanism – dark matter: M M introduction to heavy RH neutrinos Nj with mirror 1 (anti)world Majorana masses 2 Mgjk Nj Nk + h.c. 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 Complex Yukawa couplings Yij li Nj φ¯ + Y 0l 0Nj φ¯0 + h.c. Conclusions ij i

Xerox symmetry Y 0 = Y , Mirror symmetry Y 0 = Y ∗ → → Theory of cogenesis: B/L violating interactions between O and M worlds

0 0 Getting Hot World Cold World ΩB /ΩB = 1 − 5 if T /T < 0.2 antimatter out of −→ dark matter: 1.0 introduction to mirror 0.8 D k (anti)world

H L Zurab Berezhiani 0.6

x k 0.4 Summary H L Introduction 0.2

Dark Matter 0.0 Enigma 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Mirror Matter dnBL 2 dnBL0 2 dt + (3H + Γ)nBL = ∆σ neq dt + (3H + Γ0)nBL0 = ∆σ0 neq B-L violating − processes and ¯0 ¯0 ¯¯ 0 0 0 origin of σ(lφ → l φ ) − σ(l φ → l φ ) = −(∆σ + ∆σ )/2 observable and 0 0 ¯¯ ¯0 ¯0 0 dark matter σ(lφ → l φ ) − σ(l φ → l φ ) = −(∆σ − ∆σ )/2

Neutron–mirror σ(lφ → l¯φ¯) − σ(l¯φ¯ → lφ) = ∆σ neutron oscillation 1 1 2 2 4 ∆σ = Im Tr[g − (Y †Y )∗g − (Y 0†Y 0)g − (Y †Y )] T /M The neutron × lifetime enigma ∆σ0 = ∆σ(Y Y 0) → Conclusions Mirror (LR) symmetry:∆ σ0 = ∆σ B, B0 > 0 − Xerox (LL) symmetry:∆ σ0 = ∆σ = 0 B, B0 = 0 More parallel worlds ?

Getting Imagine there are 4 worlds all described by Standard Model, related by antimatter out of mirror (LR) and xerox (LL) symmetries ... dark matter: introduction to This can be used for solving little hierarchy problem, invoking also SUSY mirror (anti)world Consider superpotential Zurab Berezhiani 2 0 0 0 0 2 W = λS1(H1H2 + Φ1Φ2 − Λ ) + λS2(H1H2 + Φ1Φ2 − Λ ) Summary 0 0 Xerox symmetry: H1,2 → Φ1,2, H1,2 → Φ1,2 Introduction 0 0 Dark Matter Mirror symmetry: S1 → S2, H1,2 → H1,2,Φ1,2 → Φ1,2 Enigma Global symmetries SU(4) and SU(4)0 Mirror Matter H H Take Λ ∼ 10 TeV and assume that SUSY breaking spurion η = M θ2 is B-L violating S processes and odd against Xerox symmetry, η → −η. origin of observable and 0 dark matter Φ’s get VEVs v ∼ 10 TeV, H’s remain pseudo-Goldstone, then getting

Neutron–mirror VEVs v ∼ 100 GeV neutron 0 oscillation Φ sectors – Standard Models with mE ∼ (v /v)me but mP,N ' (2 ÷ 3)mp,n 0 The neutron (ΛΦ/ΛQCD rescales softer with v /v) lifetime enigma Dark matter can be very compact hydrogen atoms from Φ sectors, or even Conclusions neutrons if mP > mN

Self-collisional DM with right amount σ/mN ∼ 1 b/GeV – perfect candidate for Dark matter resolving many problems of halos More parallel worlds ?

Getting antimatter out of nB′ = nB .... but MB′ >MB dark matter: 2 introduction to broken M parity: v′/v 10 v′ 10 TeV, v 100 GeV mirror ∼ ∼ ∼ (anti)world Z.B., Dolgov & Mohapatra ’96

Zurab● Heisenberg Berezhiani ● SM 17.5 ● See-Saw Summary● Sterile ● See-Saw 15 Introduction● Again H ● Parallel sector 12.5

Dark● Present Matter Cosmology # Μ

● Visible vs. Dark matter: " 10

Enigma 1

Ω /Ω 5 ? # D B ≃ 3 Α3 Mirror● Bvs.D Matter Α 7.5 ● Uniﬁcation Α3 ’ B-L● Carrol’s violating Alice... 5 processes● Twin Par ticles and ● Mirror World origin of 2.5 ● VM and DM observable and ● Alice $$’ $’SUSY dark● BBN matter limits 1 10 2 10 4 10 6 ● Epochs Μ!GeV Neutron–mirror● CMB neutron● LSS (robust non-equilibrium) oscillation● Interactions nB′ nB k<1 ● Interactions ≃ The● Interactions neutron 0.3 M ′ /MN (Λ′/Λ) (v′/v) 5 —- MN 5 GeV lifetime● B&Lviolation enigma N ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ● B&Lviolation 2 — MeV Conclusions● See-Saw me′ /me v′/v 10 me′ 100 ● See-Saw ∼ ∼ ∼ ● Leptogenesis: diagrams –PropertiesofMB’sgetclosertoCDM:butalsoWDMfrommirrorneutrinos? ● Boltzmann eqs. 2 keV ● Leptogenesis: formulas mν′ /mν (v′/v) 1 ● VM and DM ≃ ∼ ● Neutron mixing ●SW6Oscillation -p.32/57 ● Neutron mixing Neutron mixing The interactions able to make such cogenesis, should also lead to mixing of

our neutral particles into their mass degenerate mirror twins.

Getting The Mass Mixing (¯nn0 +n ¯0n) comes from six-fermions eﬀective antimatter out of 1 dark matter: operator M5 (udd)(u0d 0d 0), M is the scale of new physics introduction to mirror violating B and B0 – but conserving B B0 (anti)world −

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary B=2 u B=1, B =1 u Introduction u u

Dark Matter d GB=1 d d GB=2 d Enigma d d d d Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and Λ6 5 origin of = n (udd)(u d d ) n QCD 10 TeV 10 15 eV observable and 0 0 0 0 M5 M − dark matter h | | i ∼ ∼ ×

Neutron–mirror neutron Oscillations n n¯0 (regeneration n n¯0 n) ... but n0 n¯ oscillation → → → →

The neutron mn + µnBσ lifetime enigma H = mn + µnB0σ Conclusions 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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: The probability of n-n’ transition depends on the relative orientation introduction to mirror of magnetic and mirror-magnetic ﬁelds. The latter can exist if mirror (anti)world matter is captured by the Earth Zurab Berezhiani Neutron disappearance in the presence of B (Z. Berezhiani, 2009)

Summary Pt() pt () dt () cos Introduction BBB B Dark Matter 22 Enigma sin ( )tt sin ( ) B pt() Mirror Matter 2(2222 ) 2( ) B-L violating processes and 22 origin of sin ( )tt sin ( ) observable and dt() dark matter 2(222 ) 2( )2 B Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation 11BB ; where =22 and - oscillation time The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions det NtBB() Nt () AtBcollisB()= Ndt () cos assymetry NtBB() Nt ()

22 A and E are expected to depend on magnetic ﬁeld

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to E.g. assume B’=0.12 Gauss mirror (anti)world

Serebrov-1 PSI-1 Zurab Berezhiani Serebrov-2

Summary

Introduction EB /AB Dark Matter EPP 1 (+ ) P Enigma BBB2 + 0

Mirror Matter AB P+BBP B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions Experiments

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror Several experiment were done, most sensitive by the Serebrov’s group (anti)world Experimental installation search for n-n′ oscillation and at ILL, with 190 l beryllium plated trap for UCN Zurab Berezhiani some members of PNPI-ILL-PTI collaboration

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 16 Experimental Strategy

Getting To store neutrons and to measure if the amount of the survived ones antimatter out of dark matter: depends on the magnetic ﬁeld applied. introduction to mirror Fill the Trap with the UCN (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani Close the valve

Summary Wait for TS (300 s ...) Introduction Open the valve Dark Matter Enigma Count the survived Neutrons Mirror Matter Repeat this for different orientation and values of Magnetic field. B-L violating ¯ processes and NB (TS ) = N(0) exp Γ + R + B ν TS origin of − P observable and dark matter NB1(TS ) ¯ ¯ Neutron–mirror = exp B2 B1 νTS neutron NB2(TS ) P − P oscillation The neutron So if we find that: lifetime enigma

Conclusions NB (TS ) N B (TS ) NB (TS ) 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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: Exp. sequence: B , B+, B+, B , B+, B , B , B+ , B = 0.2 G introduction to { − − − − } mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter Analysis pointed out the presence of a signal: Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation 4 2 A(B) = (7.0 1.3) 10− χ/dof = 0.9 5.2σ The neutron ± × −→ lifetime enigma

Conclusions interpretable by n n0 with τ 2 10s‘ and B0 0.1G → nn0 ∼ − ∼ 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 Getting 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 antimatter out of 0.001 dark matter: 0.0005

introduction to 0

mirror -0.0005 (anti)world -0.001 Zurab Berezhiani -0.0015 -0.002 0 500 1000 1500 2000 t[h] Summary

Number of data: 26 AB - 2007 H All Files Introduction Constant fit: 0.002 c= 1.699E-05 ± 5.393E-05 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 Dark Matter 0 χ2 /ndf= 33.265/24 = 1.386

Enigma 0.001

0.0005

Mirror Matter 0

B-L violating -0.0005 processes and -0.001 origin of -0.0015

-0.002 observable and 0 500 1000 1500 2000 dark matter t[h]

Neutron–mirror E - 2007 H All Files Number of data: 26 B,b Constant fit: c= -1.571E-04 ± 7.626E-05 neutron 0.002 χ2 /ndf= 23.351/25 = 0.934 Fit by C + B cos( 2 π/T (t-t )) 0 C= -8.457E-05 ± 8.352E-05 oscillation 0.0015 B= 5.000E-04 ± 0.000E+00 T = 298.000 ± 0.000 t = 65.591 ± 14.953 0 χ2 /ndf= 23.828/24 = 0.993

0.001 The neutron lifetime enigma 0.0005 0

Conclusions -0.0005

-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

Getting antimatter out of Ab - Binned 32 dark matter: 0.0010 introduction to mirror 0.0008 n lifetime in the trap is measured. (anti)world

0.0006 Zurab Berezhiani One measurement: 130 s filling; B

0.0004 300 s storage; 130 s counting n’s Summary

0.0002 Introduction æ Magnetic field variation: Dark Matter 0.0000 0 200 400 600 800 Enigma ± 0.2 Gauss up/down T h

Common - AB - Binned 32 Common EB,b - Binned 32 Mirror Matter 0.0010 0.0010 @ D Assuming zero B mirror magnetic field B-L violating (2008) 0.0008 0.0008 processes and 6 origin of nn oscillation time limit (90%CL) > 414 s observable and 0.0006 0.0006 A E B dark matter B 0.0004 0.0004

Neutron–mirror æ neutron 0.0002 0.0002 oscillation

The neutron 0.0000 0.0000 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 lifetime enigma T h T h Conclusions @ D @ D Earth mirror magnetic ﬁeld via the electron drag mechanism

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Earth can accumulate some, even tiny amount of mirror matter due Mirror Matter to Rutherford-like scattering of mirror matter due to photon-mirror B-L violating processes and photon kinetic mixing. origin of observable and Rotation of the Earth drags mirror electrons but not mirror protons dark matter

Neutron–mirror (ions) since the latter are much heavier. neutron oscillation Circular electric currents emerge which can generate magnetic ﬁeld.

The neutron Modifying mirror Maxwell equations by the source (drag) term, one lifetime enigma 2 15 gets B0 10 G before dynamo, and even larger after dynamo. Conclusions ∼ × The neutron enigma ...

Getting PARTICLE PHYSICS antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani Summary the Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma neutron Mirror Matter neutron

Peter Geltenbort B-L violating processes and origin of engma observable and engma dark matter Two precision experiments disagree onUCKILY how FOR long LIFE ON EARTH, MOST MATTER IS NOT RADIOACTIVE. WE TAKE THIS FACT FOR Neutron–mirror granted, but it is actually somewhat surprising because the neutron, one of the neutron neutrons live before decaying. Does the discrepancytwo components ref ofect atomic nuclei (along with the proton), is prone to radioac- oscillation measure ment errors or point to some deepertive decay. mystery? Inside an atomic nucleus, a typical neutron can survive for a very long time and may never decay, but on its own, it will transform into other par- The neutron By Geofrey L. Greene and Peter Geltenbortticles within 15 minutes, more or less. The words “more or less” cover a disturb- lifetime enigma ing gap in physicists’ understanding of this particle. Try as we might, we have not been able to accurately measure the neutron lifetime. IN BRIEF Conclusions 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, 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 neutrons 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 Getting time required to cool suf ciently for big bang nucleosynthesis, antimatter out of the universe would have an overabundance of helium, which in Dif erent Techniques,dark matter: The Beam Method In contrast to the bottle method, the beam technique looks not for neutrons turn would have af ected the formation of the heavier elements introduction to 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 Resultsmirror Fill with Fill with balance between the universal cooling rate and the neutron life- (anti)world 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 neutron lifetime: the “bottle” and the “beam” methods. The various through, but if one decays inside the trap, the resulting positively charged Zurab Berezhiani up our planet and everything on it. 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 the 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 Summary 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 betweenIntroduction the bottle 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 which allows the scientists to calculate the average neutron lifetime. bang theory. The theoretical prediction, however, depends on the larger than the measurements’ uncertainty, whichDark means Matter the precise value of the neutron lifetime. Without a reliable value for it, Enigma 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, or, more exciting, lifetime is known more precisely, we can compare the observed Mirror Matter #1 #1 passes throughpasses +through – + + – + ratio from astrophysical experiments with the predicted value B-L violating from theory. If they agree, we gain further confi dence in our stan- processes and Neutron Lifetime Measurements Number Number dard big bang scenario for how the universe evolved. Of course, if origin of of neutrons #2 #2 900 of neutrons #3 #3 they disagree, this model might have to be altered. For instance, blue zone observableBeam method and observed Trap Beam method average* ( ): observed Trap certain discrepancies might indicate the existence of new exotic 888.0 + 2.1 seconds dark matterBottle method Time Count the number of decays within the time interval 895 – Time Count the number of decays within the time interval particles in the universe such as an extra type of neutrino, which Neutron–mirror could have interfered in the process of nucleosynthesis. 890 neutron The Bottle Method One way to resolve the dif erence between the beam and bot- oscillation tle results is to conduct more experiments using methods of com- 885 Uncertainty parable accuracy that are not prone to the same, potentially con- The neutron Measured slope 880 lifetime enigma Measured 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 Disagreement Number of Bottle method average ( ): Conclusions 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 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 neutrons 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. + – + Getting the bottle and Numberbeam methods disagree, other beam studies show Much more likely, we think, is that one (or perhaps even both) antimatterNeutron out Lifetime of Measurements #2 Neutronof neutrons Lifetime Measurements Number dark900 matter: 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- Beam 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 introduction888.0 to + 2.1 seconds Bottle method observed Trap 895 – 888.0 + Time2.1 seconds Bottle method Count the number of decays within the time interval mirror cay, neutrons895 decayed– via some previously unknown process that delicate and sensitiveTime experimental setups. Count the number of decays within the time interval (anti)world 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 Zurab Berezhiani 885 885 would count both the neutronsUncertainty that disappeared via beta decay FIGURING OUT WHAT WE MISSED will of course give us experimental- Uncertainty Summary 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 880 therefore conclude that the neutron lifetime was shorter than bottom of this puzzle and precisely measureMeasured the slopeneutron lifetime, Introduction 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 DarkNeutron Lifetime (seconds) Matter875 green zone Disagreement 879.6 +– 0.6 seconds Number of Bottle method average ( ): iments would870 dutifully record only beta decays that produce pro- tal questions about our universe. through trap Enigma + neutrons going 879.6 – 0.6 seconds tons and would1990 thus result1995 in a2000 larger value2005 for2010 the lifetime.2015 So First of all, an accurate assessment of the timescale of neutron Time 870 Year of Experiment through trap Mirror Matter1990 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- Year of Experiment longer *Thelifetime beam method than average the does bottles. not include the 2005 measurement, which was superseded by the 2013 beam study.cles. The weak force is responsible for nearly all radioactive de cays B-L violating 36 Scientific American, April 2016 processes 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, origin of 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 observable and dif 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 dark matter missed something important. to disappear. Such mirror matter could contribute to the total 10,000. We must therefore seriously consider the possibility that might sometimes transform into a hypothesized “mirror neutron” Neutron–mirror SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE See a video about neutron beta decay at amount of dark matter in the universe. Although this idea is quite theneutron 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- missedoscillation 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- 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 The neutron reason to think such a phenomenon might exist is that although physicists would accept a concept as radical as mirror matter. stimulating, it remains highly speculative. More defi nitive con- lifetime enigma EXOTIC PHYSICS the bottle and beam methods disagree, other beam studies show Much more likely, we think, is that one (or perhaps even both) AN 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 Conclusions 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 reason 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 ...

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to why the neutron lifetime measured in UCN traps is smaller than that mirror (anti)world measured in beam method ?

Zurab Berezhiani I’ve taken my old calculations in the Yin-Yang dual cogenesis and Summary

Introduction ﬁnds out that, at least in simplest scenarios, the sign of mirror baryo

Dark Matter asymmetry tells that mirror neutrons born in parallel world, oscillate Enigma into our antineutrons rather than in neutrons ! Mirror Matter n n¯0 and n0 n¯ against n n0 B-L violating − − − processes and origin of observable and This makes clear how discrepancy emerges – in traps our neutrons dark matter oscillate into mirror antineutrons and annihilate with the mirror gas Neutron–mirror neutron with σv/c 50 mb. These are continuous loses which cannot be oscillation h i ' The neutron distinguished from the UCN decay. The oscillation probability at the 6 lifetime enigma Earth magnetic ﬁeld can be order 10− which is suﬃcient for order Conclusions 5 second correction if the mirror gas density is about 10− atm. Indirect detection: antimatter in the cosmos?

Getting In mirror cosmic rays, disintegration of mirror nuclei by galactic UV antimatter out of dark matter: background or in scatterings with mirror gas, frees out mirror introduction to neutrons which the oscillate into our antineutron, n0 n¯, which then mirror → (anti)world decays asn ¯ p¯ +e ¯ + ν . → e Zurab Berezhiani so we get antiprotons (positrons), with spectral index similar to that

Summary of protons in our cosmic rays ?

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

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 !!!

Getting Hence, in normal conditions n0 n oscillation proba- antimatter out of → dark matter: bilities are tiny, mirror neutrons behave nicely and do introduction to mirror not disturb us: everyone stays on his side of the mirror (anti)world Zurab Berezhiani However, under well-controlled vacuum and magnetic Summary conditions, mirror neutrons can be transformed into our Introduction antineutrons with reasonable probabilities provided that Dark Matter the oscillation time n0 n¯ is indeed small ... the Enigma → Mirror Matter resulting annihilations give energy, and we can use it

B-L violating processes and origin of ”It does not matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter observable and dark matter how smart you are ... if it is not conﬁrmed by experiment, it’s Neutron–mirror neutron wrong” oscillation

The neutron Now it is turn of experimentalists to turn this tale into reality .... lifetime enigma 3 or to exclude it – at least oscillation time τnn0 < 10 s Conclusions If discovered – impact can be enormous ... One could get plenty of energy out of dark matter ! Appendix

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani First Part: Against Stupidity ...

Summary Second Part: ...The Gods Themselves ... Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Third Part: ... Contend in Vain? Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter ”Mit der Dummheit k¨ampfenG¨otter Neutron–mirror neutron selbst vergebens!” – Friedrich Schiller oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions Summary

Getting antimatter out of Encounter of matter and dark matter: introduction to antimatter leads to immediate mirror (anti)world (uncontrollable) annihilation

Zurab Berezhiani which can be destructive

Summary

Introduction Annihilation can take place al-

Dark Matter so between our matter and Enigma dark matter, but controllable Mirror Matter by tuning of vacuum and ma- B-L violating processes and gnetic conditions. Dark neu- origin of observable and trons can be transformed in- dark matter to our antineutrons, or dark Neutron–mirror neutron hydrogen atom into our anti- oscillation

The neutron hydrogen, etc. lifetime enigma Conclusions 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 ... Fine

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror Physics needs new ideas. But to have a new idea is a very diﬃcult (anti)world task: it does not mean to write a few lines in a paper. If you want to Zurab Berezhiani be the father of new idea, you should fully devote your intellectual Summary energy to understand all details and to work out the best way in Introduction order to put the new idea under experimental test. Dark Matter Enigma This can take years of work. You should not give up. Do not be Mirror Matter

B-L violating afraid to encourage others to pursue your dream. If it becomes real, processes and origin of the community will never forget that you have been the ﬁrst to open observable and dark matter the ﬁeld. – I.I. Rabi

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma hank You ! Conclusions T Backup

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Backup Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions Once upon a time ....

Getting antimatter out of Every epoch, starting from ancient times, had some fundamental(ist) dark matter: ”understanding” of the Universe introduction to mirror – other ideas were coined as heres, heretics were ignored, some even (anti)world killed Zurab Berezhiani

Summary First Standard Model was based on ﬂat Earth carried on shoulders by Introduction three elephants ... Dark Matter Enigma The idea of round Earth was not sustainable: the antipodes would Mirror Matter fall down B-L violating processes and origin of observable and The Earth was at rest, sun and planets moving around it ... dark matter

Neutron–mirror The idea of moving Earth was not sustainable – there had to be ever neutron oscillation blowing wind

The neutron lifetime enigma Matter was built of continuous media ... Conclusions four elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire Someone courageously hypothesised existence of atoms ... Some Beautiful Minds advanced the understanding of Cosmo and Microcosm

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)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 Standard Model: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) × ×

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)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 Standard Model and Problems

Getting Hierarchy problem: origin of electroweak (Higgs) mass scale antimatter out of • dark matter: MH 100 GeV (N.B. no problem with QCD scale ΛQCD 100 MeV) introduction to ∼ ∼ mirror Family problems: Why 3 fermion families? Why hierarchy of (anti)world fermion• masses and CKM mixing? CP-violation ? Zurab Berezhiani Strong CP-problem: Where ends up beautiful effect of CP-violation Summary due• to term θG G˜µν in non-perturbative QCD vacuum Introduction µν 10 Dark Matter θ 1 expected vs. θ < 10− – exp. DEMON (EDM of neutron) Enigma ∼ Neutrino masses: Why they are so small? .... (and why they have Mirror Matter • B-L violating large mixing?) processes and origin of Lepton and Baryon numbers: why and how are violated ? (deep observable and • dark matter connection to the origin of matter in the Universe) Neutron–mirror neutron Dark matter: from where it comes ? can it be detectable ? (can it oscillation have• interactions to normal matter or self-interactions ? Is it just one The neutron lifetime enigma particle or multi-component ? Conclusions 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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world In 1933 Zwicky has hypothesised existence of Zurab Berezhiani dark matter in galaxies and in the universe ... Summary applied virial theorem to Coma Cluster Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma Mirror Matter Later this was conﬁrmed by several B-L violating processes and independent experimental Hints: origin of observable and Rotation Curves dark matter

Neutron–mirror Clusters of Galaxies neutron oscillation CMB and LSS The neutron lifetime enigma Supernovae 1a Conclusions Gravitational Lensing Galactic rotation velocities

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: In disc galaxies (differential) rotation velocities, as a function of the introduction to distance from the center, indicate flat behaviour v Const. mirror 1/2 ' (anti)world instead of Keplerian Fall( v r − ) ∝ Zurab Berezhiani v 2 GM(r) Grav. force = Centr. force m r = m r 2 v GM(r)/r Summary → ' Introduction p Instead .... flat rotational curves were observed 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 Precision Cosmology CMB, LSS, lensing ....

WMAP and Planck measurements of CMB anisotropies

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and 2 origin of θ = (1.0415 0.0006) 10− observable and H ∗= (67.3 ± 0.6)± km/s · Mpc× −1, inﬂation n = 0.960 ± 0.005 dark matter 0 s Neutron–mirror Ω = 0.0487 ± 0.0006, Ω = 0.2647 ± 0.0060Ω ≈ 1 neutron B D tot oscillation ΩM = ΩB + ΩD ' 0.31 → ΩΛ ≈ 0.69 The neutron lifetime enigma

Conclusions It became clear that dark matter is not built of baryons ! ... but its identity remains unknown ... SUSY

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary Supersymmetry: Introduction

Dark Matter symmetry between fermions and bosons Enigma – extension of the Poincare symmetry: Mirror Matter space (xµ) superspace (xµ, θα, θ¯α˙ ), B-L violating → processes and ﬁelds Φ(x) superﬁelds Φ(x, θ, θ¯) origin of → observable and dark matter spontaneously (softly) broken at weak scale Neutron–mirror neutron – medicine for the Higgs health (origin of the weak scale) oscillation

The neutron + gauge coupling uniﬁcation etc. lifetime enigma

Conclusions SUSY and R-parity

Getting antimatter out of SM MSSM: ﬁelds superﬁelds: V = (g, g˜), Q = (q, q˜) ... dark matter: → → introduction to 2 2 4 V 2 mirror SUSY = gauge + matter = d θG + d θΦ†e Φ+ d θWmatter (anti)world L L L c c c Zurab Berezhiani Wmatter = QU H2 + QD H1 +R LE H1 +RµH1H2 R 2 + µ H†H in SM Summary ∼ LYuk Introduction mass mass trilinear Dark Matter SSB = gaugino + scalars + scalars = Enigma L 2 L2 4 L V L 2 d ηθG + d θηη¯Φ†e Φ + ηd θWmatter Mirror Matter All superpartners get masses M 1 TeV, from η = M θ2 but B-L violating R R RS S processes and ∼ origin of µ-problem: why µ MS ? observable and ∼ dark matter c c c c c Neutron–mirror .... WR viol = QD L + U D D + E LL + µ0LH2 neutron − oscillation problems for proton stability The neutron 3B+L+2s lifetime enigma R = ( 1) (+ for SM particles, for superpartners) − − Conclusions or matter parity Z : F F , H H 2 → − → makes lightest SUSY partner (LSP) stable ! SUSY + GUT = LOVE

Getting antimatter out of GUT: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) SU(5) dark matter: • × × → introduction to mirror (anti)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 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) → × ×

Getting Proton decay: p π0e+, p K +ν etc. antimatter out of → → dark matter: gauge mediated D = 6: new gauge bosons X , Y violating baryon introduction to • 1 ¯ µ ˜ mirror and lepton numbers – M2 q¯γµu˜lγ d, etc. (anti)world X

Zurab Berezhiani Higgs mediated D = 6: color scalar triplets (leptoquarks) T , • 1 brothers of SM Higgs doublet φ,– 2 qqql, etc. Summary MT 1 Introduction Higgsino mediated (D = 5): fermion superpartners of T ,– qqq˜l˜ • MT Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and origin of observable and dark matter

Neutron–mirror neutron oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma 34 16 proton stability limits τp > 10 yr require MX , MT > 10 GeV. Conclusions D-T splitting: m 100 GeV , M > 1016 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

Getting SUSY can provide technical solution to the D-T splitting in SU(5) antimatter out of dark matter: but Fine Tuning is unavoidable introduction to mirror Good solution (GIFT) with larger symmetry: (anti)world SU(3) SU(2) U(1) SU(5) SU(6) (SU(6) E6 ?) Zurab Berezhiani × × → → →

Summary Pseudo-Goldstone mechanism: gauge SU(6) breaking in 2 channels Introduction SU(6) SU(5): fundamental reps H, H¯ 6, 6¯ (5, 5¯ in SU(5)) → ∼ Dark Matter SU(6) SU(4) SU(2) U(1): - adjoint Σ 35 (24 in SU(5)) Enigma → × × ∼ Mirror Matter while superpotential has double global symmetry SU(6) SU(6) H × Σ B-L violating Fermions in 2 6¯ + 15 = 27 of E processes and 6 origin of × observable and Higgs (super)ﬁelds remain as Goldstone modes not eaten by gauge dark matter (super)ﬁelds due to accidental global symmetry SU(6)H SU(6)Σ Neutron–mirror × neutron (just kill the term HΣH¯ by a discrete symmetry) oscillation

The neutron lifetime enigma Higgs gets mass M 1 TeV after SUSY breaking: natural ∼ SUSY ∼ Conclusions D-T splitting. As a bonus, also many other problems are ﬁxed: (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?

Getting So called Natural SUSY (2 Higgses with m 100 GeV + Higgsinos) antimatter out of ∼ dark matter: is dead ! One Higgs discovered by LHC perfectly ﬁts the SM Higgs ... introduction to mirror but already at LEP epoch many theorists understood (felt) that (anti)world MSUSY < 1 TeV was problematic Zurab Berezhiani SUSY induced proton decays (D = 5) require M > 1 TeV or so Summary SUSY • SUSY induced CP-violation: electron EDM, M > 1 TeV or so Introduction • SUSY Dark Matter But gauge coupling crossing requires MSUSY < 10 TeV or so Enigma • Generically, SUSY ﬂavor limits in K K¯ mixing, µ eγ etc. Mirror Matter • − → B-L violating require MSUSY > 100 TeV or so processes and origin of But can be quark-squark mass allignment: universal relations like observable and 2 2 2 2 2 dark matter m˜d = m0 + m1(Yd†Yd ) + m2(Yd†Yd ) , etc. Z.B. 1996 Neutron–mirror assuming the gauge symmetry SU(3) between 3 fermion families neutron oscillation later on coined as Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV), Giudice et al., 2002

The neutron lifetime enigma SUSY at scale of few TeV is still the best choice for BSM physics: Conclusions maybe SUSY is indeed just around the corner? Remains Little hierarchy problem – 2 orders Fine Tuning – between M2 (100 GeV)2 and M2 (1 TeV)2 Higgs ∼ SUSY ∼ WIMP detection modes

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: Weak scale MSSM + R-parity: lightest spartner (LSP) is stable ! introduction to mirror A perfect candidate for CDM with mass MX ∼ 100 GeV (anti)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 LHC Direct Detection @ LNGS: DAMA, CRESST, XENON, DARKSIDE WIMP miracle and optimism for direct detection

Getting antimatter out of WIMP/LSP with mass M 100 GeV – perfect candidate for CDM dark matter: X ∼ introduction to mirror 2 0.02xf 1 pb 2 Ω h 1/2 vσ 1 pb Ω h 0.1 (anti)world D vσann ann D ' gf ∼ → ∼ Zurab Berezhiani 2 πα2 100 GeV 36 2 WIMP Miracle: vσann 2 10− cm Summary MS MX ∼ ∼ × 25. Dark matter 15 Introduction !38 Dark Matter 10 DAMIC I Enigma But for elastic scattering XENON10-LE CDMS-LE Mirror Matter X + N X + N one ex- CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE limit !40 → 10 B-L violating pects σscat σann CoGeNT DAMA/LIBRA processes and ∼ ROI origin of which is important for di- observable and dark matter !42 rect detection 10 CDMS-Si CRESST II

] (normalised to nucleon) ] (normalised ZEPLIN III 2 Neutron–mirror CDMS+EDELWEISS neutron oscillation However ... no evidence at cMSSM-preLHC !44 10 68% The neutron section [cm XENON100 LHC and no evidence from ! lifetime enigma Neutrino Background LUX DM direct search + many Cross Conclusions Projection for pMSSM- 95% postLHC !46 Direct Detection 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.

August 21, 2014 13:17 Parity Violation & Mirror Fermions – Lee and Yang, 1956

Getting The conservation of parity is usually accepted antimatter out of dark matter: without questions concerning its possible limit of introduction to validity being asked. The is actually no a priori mirror (anti)world reason why its violation is undesirable. Its viola- Zurab Berezhiani tion implies the existence of right-left asymmetry

Summary and we have shown in the above some possible Introduction experimental tests os this asymmetry. Dark Matter Enigma If such asymmetry is indeed found, the question could still be raised Mirror Matter whether there could not exist corresponding elementary particles exhibiting B-L violating processes and opposite asymmetry such that in the broader sense there will still be origin of observable and over-all right-left symmetry. If this is the case, there must exist two kinds dark matter of protons pR and pL, the right-handed one and the left-handed one. At Neutron–mirror neutron the present time the protons in the laboratory must be predominantly of oscillation one kind to produce the supposedly observed asymmetry. This means that The neutron lifetime enigma the free oscillation period between them must be longer than the age of Conclusions the Universe. They could therefore both be regarded as stable particles.

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

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to mirror (anti)world

Zurab Berezhiani

Summary

Introduction

Dark Matter Enigma

Mirror Matter

B-L violating processes and In connection with the discovery of CP violation, we discuss the possibility origin of that “mirror” (R) particles exist in addition to the ordinary (L) particles. observable and dark matter The introduction of these particles reestablishes the equivalence of left and Neutron–mirror right. It is shown that mirror particles cannot interact with ordinary neutron oscillation particles strongly, semistrongly or electromagnetically. L and R particles The neutron must have the same gravitational interactions. The possibility of existence lifetime enigma and detection of macroscopic bodies (stars) made up of R-matter is Conclusions discussed. Alice @ Mirror World – “Through the Looking-Glass” (1871)

Getting antimatter out of dark matter: introduction to &$'($) mirror (anti)world I’ll tell you all my ideas about Looking-glass House. Zurab Berezhiani The room you can see through the glass – that’s just

Summary the same as our room ... the books there are something

Introduction like our books, only the words go the wrong way ... Dark Matter I can see all of it – all but the bit just behind the Enigma ﬁreplace. I want so to know whether they’ve a ﬁre: you Mirror Matter

B-L violating never can tell, you know, unless our ﬁre smokes, and processes and origin of then smoke comes up in that room too ... Oh, how nice observable and dark matter it would be if we could get through into Looking-glass

Neutron–mirror House! Let’s pretend there’s a way of getting through neutron oscillation into it, somehow ... It’ll be easy enough to get through

The neutron I declare!’ lifetime enigma *+,!-./!01223242/56/7-/8!93268!,+0/!:23:/2-1/,!+,!;320+6! Conclusions 93268< Lewis!"#$%#$$ Carroll ! More parallel worlds ?

Self-collisional DM with right amount σ/mN ∼ 1 b/GeV – perfect candidate for Dark matter resolving many problems of halos Neutron liftime enigma ... some uncounted systematics ?

Getting antimatter out of why the neutron lifetime measured in UCN traps is smaller than that dark matter: measured in beam method ? introduction to mirror (anti)world May some factor contribute to the UCN continuous loses in the bottle?

Zurab Berezhiani In 2013, making an experiment at the ILL, I observed that 3He detectors Summary

Introduction had diﬀerent capacities (one was counting twice less than another). Dark Matter 3 Enigma I asked how this can occur? The answer: He is very volatile and it Mirror Matter evaporates from the detector volume, typically during an year ... B-L violating 3 processes and But where He ends up? Clearly inside the UCN trap, since the origin of observable and aluminium folder covering the detector is not perfectly hermetic ... dark matter but then it would eat the UCN stored inside the bottle, with a huge Neutron–mirror neutron cross section, σv/c 3 mb oscillation h i ' The neutron Nesvizhevsky helped me in technical details. We calculated that these lifetime enigma

Conclusions continuous loses could give ∼ 1 second correction to the neutron lifetime He told me that this eﬀect was never taken into account in the error budget of the bottle experiments