DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation and Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter Model

Ariel Zhitnitsky Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada

The DAMA/LIBRA experiment shows 9.5σ evidence for an annual modulation in the (1 − 6) keV energy range, strongly suggesting that the observed modulation has the dark matter origin. How- ever, the conventional interpretation in terms of WIMP-nucleon interaction is excluded by other experiments. We propose an alternative source of modulation in the form of neutrons, which have been liberated from surrounding material. Our computations are based on the so-called Axion Quark Nugget (AQN) dark matter model, which was originally invented long ago to explain the similarity between the dark and visible cosmological matter densities, i.e. Ωdark ∼ Ωvisible. In our proposal the annual modulation is shown to be generated in keV energy range which is consistent with DL observation in (1 − 6) keV range. This keV energy scale in our proposal is mostly determined by spectral properties of the neutrinos emitted by the AQN dark matter particles, while the absence of the modulation with energies above 6 keV is explained by a sharp cutoff in the neutrino’s energy spectrum at ∼ 15 MeV. This proposal can be directly tested by COSINE-100, ANAIS-112, CYGNO and other similar experiments. It can be also tested by studying the correlations between the signals from these experiments and the signatures from drastically different detectors designed for studies of the infrasonic or seismic events using such instruments as Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS).

I. INTRODUCTION One should emphasize that the emission features of the neutrinos emitted by AQNs such as the intensity and The DAMA/LIBRA (DL) experiment [1–4] claims the spectrum (which ultimately determines the (1 − 6) keV observation for an annual modulation in the (1 − 6) keV energy recoil for the observed DL annual modulation) energy range at 9.5σ C.L. The C.L. even higher (12.9σ) have been computed in the AQN model long ago for for (2 − 6) keV energy range when DAMA/NaI and DL- completely different purposes, and we will use exactly phase1 can be combined with DL-phase2 results. The the same original parameters of the model without any measured period (0.999 ± 0.001) year and phase (145 ± intension to modify them to fit the DL observations. 5) strongly indicate to the dark matter (DM) origin of We overview the basic ideas of the AQN model in the modulation, the phenomenon which was originally the next sectionII. One should emphasize that this suggested in [5], see also review paper [6]. model is consistent with all available cosmological, as- However the annual modulation observed by DL is trophysical, satellite and ground based constraints, where excluded by other direct detection experiments if inter- AQNs could leave a detectable electromagnetic signature. preted in terms of the WIMP-nuclei interactions. This While the model was initially invented to explain the motivated a number of alternative explanations for the observed relation Ωdark ∼ Ωvisible, it may also explain DL signal. In the present work we argue that the modu- a number of other (naively unrelated) phenomena, such lation observed by DL is due to the neutrons surrounding as the excess of galactic emission in different frequency the detector. In this respect our proposal is similar to the bands. The AQN model may also resolve other, naively previous suggestions [7–10] where the authors agued that unrelated astrophysical mysteries. It includes, but not the induced neutrons (which have been liberated from limited: the so-called “Primordial Lithium Puzzle” [11], material surrounding the detector) may be responsible the so-called “The Solar Corona Mystery” [12, 13], the for the observed annual modulation. recent EDGES observations [14], and unexpected annual Our proposal is drastically different from previous sug- modulation in x-rays in (2−6) keV energy band observed arXiv:1909.05320v3 [hep-ph] 9 Apr 2020 gestions [7–10] in one but crucial aspect: the neutrons in by XMM -Newton observatory [15], among many others. our case are induced by neutrinos emitted by the Axion These cosmological puzzles could be resolved within AQN Quark Nugget (AQN) dark matter particles. Therefore, framework with the same set of physical parameters to the annual modulation observed by DL has truly gen- be used in the present work to explain the annual mod- uine DM origin, though it is manifested indirectly in our ulation observed by DL, without fitting or modifications framework through the following chain: of any of them. Our main results are formulated in sectionIII where we AQN → (neutrinos) → (surrounding neutrons) → DL.(1) estimate the intensity of modulation due to the neutrino flux emitted by dark matter nuggets when they traverse In this framework the modulation should obviously show through the earth. This section is separated to 4 dif- a proper period of 1 year with proper phase as the neu- ferent subsections,IIIA,IIIB,IIIC andIIID according trinos from (1) are originated from dark matter nuggets, to 4 different elements of the proposal (1). We use pre- and the corresponding time variation will be obviously cisely the same set of parameters obtained previously for transferred to the modification of the neutron flux, which a different purpose, as reviewed in the AppendixA. We eventually generates the modulation observed by DL. further estimate the neutrino- induced neutron’s flux in 2 surrounding rocks which according to the proposal (1) is • First, there is an additional stabilization factor pro- the source of the observed DL modulation signal. vided by the axion domain walls (with a QCD sub- In sectionIV we comment on DL arguments [1–4] sug- structure) which are copiously produced during the gesting the irrelevance of the induced neutron flux (due QCD transition and which help to alleviate a num- to muons and neutrinos). We explicitly show why DL ar- ber of the problems inherent in the older models1. guments are not applicable for our proposal (1) with its truly genuine DM nature, though manifested indirectly. • The core of the AQN is in CS phase, which implies that the two systems (CS and hadronic) can coexist In subsectionVA we comment on a number of ex- only in the presence of the external pressure which periments which exclude the DL results, while in sub- is provided by the axion domain wall. It should be sectionVB we make few comments on recent results contrasted with original models [21–24] which must by COSINE-100 [16–18] and ANAIS-112 [19], and recent be stable at zero external pressure. proposal CYGNO [20] which have been largely motivated by the DL observations. Finally, in subsectionsVC and • Another crucial additional element in the proposal VD we suggest few novel tests which could unambigu- is that the nuggets could be made of matter as well ously support or rule out the proposal (1). as antimatter in this framework. The direct consequence of this feature is that the dark II. AXION QUARK NUGGET DM MODEL matter density Ωdark and the baryonic matter density Ωvisible will automatically assume the same order of mag- nitude Ωdark ∼ Ωvisible without any fine tunings, and ir- In this section we overview the AQN model. Specifi- respectively to any specific details of the model, such as cally, in subsectionIIA we list most important and very the axion mass ma or size of the nuggets R. Precisely generic features of the framework, which do not depend this fundamental consequence of the model was the main on specific parameters of the model. In subsectionIIB we motivation for its construction. overview the observational constraints on a single funda- The presence of a large amount of antimatter in the mental parameter of this framework, the average baryon form of high density AQNs leads to many observable con- charge of the nugget hBi which enters all the observables. sequences as a result of possible (but, in general, very Finally, in subsectionIIC we highlight a number of other rare) annihilation events between antiquarks from AQNs model-dependent properties, such as ionization features and baryons from visible Universe. We highlight below of the AQNs, their survival pattern, their annihilation the basic results, accomplishments and constraints of this rate and some other questions which are relevant for the model. present studies. Let us recapitulate the original motivation for this model: it is commonly assumed that the Universe began in a symmetric state with zero global baryonic charge A. Generic features of the AQN model and later (through some baryon number violating pro- cess, non- equilibrium dynamics, and CP violation ef- The idea that the dark matter may take the form of fects, realizing three famous Sakharov’s criteria) evolved composite objects of standard model quarks in a novel into a state with a net positive baryon number. phase goes back to quark nuggets [21], strangelets [22], As an alternative to this scenario we advocate a model nuclearities [23], see also review [24] with large number in which “baryogenesis” is actually a charge separation of references on the original results. In the models [21– (rather than charge generation) process in which the 24] the presence of strange quark stabilizes the quark global baryon number of the universe remains zero at all matter at sufficiently high densities allowing strangelets times. In this model the unobserved antibaryons come being formed in the early universe to remain stable over to comprise the dark matter in the form of dense nuggets cosmological timescales. of antiquarks and gluons in CS phase. The result of this The axion quark nuggets (AQN) model advocated in “charge separation” process is two populations of AQN [25] is conceptually similar, with the nuggets being com- posed of a high density colour superconducting (CS) phase. As with other high mass dark matter candi- 1 dates [21–24] these objects are “cosmologically dark” not In particular, in the original proposal the first order phase tran- sition was the required feature of the construction. However it through the weakness of their interactions but due to is known that the QCD transition is a crossover rather than the their small cross-section to mass ratio. As a result, the first order phase transition. It should be contrasted with AQN corresponding constraints on this type of dark matter framework when the first order phase transition is not required place a lower bound on their mass, rather than coupling as the axion domain wall plays the role of the squeezer. Fur- thermore, it had been argued that the nuggets [21–24] are likely constant. to evaporate on the Hubble time-scale even if they were formed. There are several additional elements in AQN model in In the AQN framework the fast evaporation arguments do not comparison with the older well-known and well-studied apply because the vacuum ground state energies in the CS and constructions [21–24]: hadronic phases are drastically different. 3 carrying positive and negative baryon number. In other contribution to Ωdark as a function of mass ma has been words, the AQN may be formed of either matter or an- evaluated in [45], see Fig. 5 in that paper. timatter. However, due to the global CP violating pro- Unlike conventional dark matter candidates, such as cesses associated with θ0 6= 0 during the early formation WIMPs (Weakly interacting Massive Particles) the dark- stage, the number of nuggets and antinuggets will be dif- matter/antimatter nuggets are strongly interacting and ferent2. This difference is always an order of one effect macroscopically large. However, they do not contra- irrespectively to the parameters of the theory, the axion dict any of the many known observational constraints mass ma or the initial misalignment angle θ0. We re- on dark matter or antimatter due to the following main fer to the original papers [43–46] devoted to the specific reasons [47]: questions related to the nugget’s formation, generation of the baryon asymmetry, and survival pattern of the • They are absolutely stable configurations on cos- nuggets during the evolution in early Universe with its mological scale as the pressure due to the axion unfriendly environment. The only comment we would domain wall (with the QCD substructure) is equi- like to make here is that the disparity between nuggets librated by the Fermi pressure. Furthermore, it has been shown that the AQNs survive an unfriendly ΩN and antinuggets ΩN¯ generated due to CP violation unambiguously implies that the baryon contribution Ω environment of early Universe, before and after B BBN epoch [46]. The majority of the AQNs also must be the same order of magnitude as ΩN¯ and ΩN be- cause all these contributions are proportional to one and survive such violent events as the galaxy formation and star formation; the same fundamental dimensional parameter ΛQCD. If these processes are not fundamentally related the two 25 • They carry a huge (anti)baryon charge |B| & 10 , components Ωdark and Ωvisible could easily assume dras- and so have an extremely tiny number density; tically different scales. This represents a precise mecha- nism of how the “baryogenesis” can be replaced by the • The nuggets have nuclear densities, so their effec- “charge separation” processes in the AQN framework. tive cross section σ ∼ R2 is small relatively to its The remaining antibaryons in the early universe mass, σ/M ∼ 10−10 cm2/g. This key ratio is well plasma then annihilate away leaving only the baryons below the typical astrophysical and cosmological whose antimatter counterparts are bound in the excess limits which are on the order of σ/M < 1 cm2/g ; of antiquark nuggets and are thus unavailable for fast an- • They have a large binding energy such that the nihilation. All asymmetry effects are order of one which baryon charge locked in the nuggets is not available eventually results in similarities for all components, visi- to participate in big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) ble and dark, i.e. at T ∼ 0.1 MeV, and the basic BBN picture holds, −10 Ωdark ∼ Ωvisible, Ωdark ≈ [ΩN + ΩN¯ ], (2) with possible small corrections of order ∼ 10 which may in fact resolve the primordial lithium as they are both proportional to the same fundamen- puzzle [11]; tal ΛQCD scale, and they both are originated at the same QCD epoch. In particular, the observed matter • The nuggets completely decouple from photons as −1/3 to dark matter ratio Ωdark ' 5 · Ωvisible corresponds to a result of small σ/M ∼ B  1 ratio, such that a scenario in which the number of antinuggets is larger conventional picture for structure formation holds. than the number of nuggets by a factor of (ΩN¯ /ΩN ) ∼ 3/2 at the end of nugget formation. It is important to • The nuggets do not modify conventional CMB anal- emphasize that the AQN mechanism is not sensitive to ysis, with possible small corrections which, in fact, may resolve a tension [14] between standard pre- the axion mass ma and it is capable to saturate (2) it- self without any other additional contributors. It should diction and EDGES observation (stronger than an- be contrasted with conventional axion production mech- ticipated 21 cm absorption features). anisms when the corresponding contribution scales as To reiterate: the weakness of the visible-dark matter in- −7/6 Ωaxion ∼ ma . This scaling unambiguously implies teraction is achieved in this model due to the small geo- −5 −1/3 that the axion mass must be fine-tuned ma ' 10 eV to metrical factor σ/M ∼ B rather than due to a weak saturate the DM density today while larger axion mass coupling of a new fundamental field to standard model will contribute very little to Ωdark. The relative role be- particles. In other words, this small effective interaction −1/3 tween the direct axion contribution Ωaxion and the AQN ∼ σ/M ∼ B replaces a conventional requirement of sufficiently weak interactions of the visible matter with WIMPs.

2 This source of strong CP violation is no longer available at the present epoch as a result of the dynamics of the axion, which B. Mass distribution constraints remains the most compelling resolution of the strong CP prob- lem, see original papers on PQ symmetry [26], Weinberg-Wilczek axion [27, 28], KSVZ invisible axion [29, 30] and DFSZ invisible One should emphasize that the AQN construction does axion [31, 32] models. See also recent reviews [33–42]. not specify the size of the nuggets. In general, for a given 4

24 axion mass ma there is always a range of B when a stable quires |B| > 2.6 × 10 [51], which is also consistent with solution exists [25]. The average size of the nugget within (3). There is also a constraint on the flux of heavy dark −1 this stability range scales as R ∝ ma while the baryon matter with mass M < 55g based on the non-detection 3 −3 charge of the AQN itself scales as hBi ∝ R ∝ ma . In of etching tracks in ancient mica [52]. It slightly touches the AQN framework we treat hBi as a fundamental pa- the lower bound of the allowed window (3), but does not rameter to be constrained observationally. It is clear that strongly constraint entire window (5) because the domi- larger hBi values produce weaker observational signals as nant portion of the AQNs lies well above its lower limit σ/M ∼ B−1/3. Furthermore, any such consequences as- (3) assuming the mass distribution (6) as discussed be- sume the largest values where the densities of both visible low. and dark matter are sufficiently high such as in the core The authors of ref. [53] use the Apollo data to con- of the galaxy, the early universe, or the stars and plan- straint the abundance of quark nuggets in the region of ets. In other words, the nuggets behave like conventional 10 kg to one ton. It has been argued that the contri- cold dark matter in environments where the density of bution of such very heavy nuggets must be at least an the visible matter is small, while they become interact- order of magnitude less than would saturate the dark ing and radiating objects (i.e. effectively become visible matter in the solar neighbourhood [53]. Assuming that matter) if they enter an environment of sufficiently large the AQNs saturate the dark matter the constraint [53] density. can be reinterpreted that at least 90% of the AQNs must As mentioned above the flux of AQN on the earth’s sur- have the masses below 10 kg. This constraint can be ap- face is scaled by a factor of B−1 and is thus suppressed proximately expressed in terms of the baryon charge as for large nuggets, see eq. (8) below. For this reason the follows: experiments most relevant to AQN detection are not the 28 conventional high sensitivity dark matter searches but hBi . 10 [Apollo constraint]. (4) detectors with the largest possible search area. For ex- Therefore, indirect observational constraints (3) and (4) ample it has been proposed [48] that large scale cosmic suggest that if the AQNs exist and saturate the dark ray detectors such as the Auger observatory of Telescope matter density today, the dominant portion of them must Array may be sensitive to the flux of AQN in an inter- reside in the window: esting mass range. An obvious challenging problem with 24 28 such studies is that the conventional cosmic ray detectors 3 · 10 . hBi . 10 [constraints from observations].(5) are designed to analyze the time delays measured in µs Completely different and independent observations also as cosmic rays are assumed to be moving with the speed suggest that the galactic spectrum contains several ex- of light, while AQNs move with non-relativistic velocity cesses of diffuse emission the origin of which is not well v ' 10−3 c. It obviously requires the latency time to AQN established, and remains to be debated. The best known be measured in ms range in order to study the correlated example is the strong galactic 511 keV line. If the nuggets signals from AQN. The modern cosmic ray detectors are have a baryon number in the hBi ∼ 1025 range they could not designed to analyze such long time correlations, and offer a potential explanation for several of these diffuse normally such signals would be rejected as a background. components. It is very nontrivial consistency check that The strongest direct detection limit is set by the Ice- the required hBi to explain these excesses of the galactic Cube Observatory’s non-detection of a non-relativistic diffuse emission belongs to the same mass range as re- magnetic monopole [49]. While the magnetic monopoles viewed above. For further details see the original works and the AQNs interact with material of the detector in [54–59] with explicit computations of the galactic radi- very different way, in both cases the interaction leads ation excesses for varies frequencies, including excesses to the electromagnetic and hadronic cascades along the of the diffuse x- and γ- rays. In all these cases photon trajectory of AQN (or magnetic monopole) which must emission originates from the outer layer of the nuggets be observed by the detector if such event occurs. A known as the electrosphere, and all intensities in differ- non-observation of any such cascades puts the following ent frequency bands are expressed in terms of a single limit on the flux of heavy non-relativistic particles pass- parameter hBi such that all relatives intensities are un- ing through the detector, ambiguously fixed because they are determined by the hBi > 3 · 1024 [direct (non)detection constraint], (3) Standard Model (SM) physics. Yet another AQN-related effect might be intimately where we assume 100 % efficiency of the observation of linked to the so-called “solar corona heating mystery”. the AQNs passing through IceCube Observatory, see Ap- The renowned (since 1939) puzzle is that the corona has pendix A in ref.[50]. a temperature T ' 106K which is 100 times hotter than Similar limits are also derivable from the Antarctic Im- the surface temperature of the Sun, and conventional as- pulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) [51] though this re- trophysical sources fail to explain the extreme UV (EUV) sult depends on the details of radio band emissivity of the and soft x ray radiation from the corona 2000 km above AQN. In the same work the author also derives the con- the photosphere. Our comment here is that this puzzle straint arising from potential contribution of the AQN might find its natural resolution within the AQN frame- annihilation events to earth’s energy budget which re- work as recently argued in [12, 13, 60]. 5

In this scenario the AQN composed of antiquarks fully zero temperature T = 0 because the electrosphere made annihilate within the so-called transition region (TR) of leptons will be always formed even when the quark providing a total annihilation energy which is very close nuggets themselves are electrically charged (for example, to the observed EUV luminosity of 1027erg/s. The EUV due to the differences in quark’s masses). However, the emission is assumed to be powered by impulsive heating neutrality will be lost due to the ionization at T 6= 0, events known as nanoflares conjectured by Parker long in which case the nuggets will esquire the positive charge ago. The physical origin of the nanoflares remains to be due to the ionized electrons while the anti-matter nuggets unknown. If our identification of these nanoflares with will esquire the negative electric charge due to the ionized the AQN annihilating events is correct, we may extract positrons. The corresponding charge Q for AQNs can be the baryon charge distribution dN/dB for the AQNs be- estimated as follows [11, 12]: cause the energy distribution dN/dE of the nanoflares Z ∞ 2 has been previously modelled by the solar physics people 2 4πR  p  Q ' 4πR n(z)dz ∼ · T 2meT , (7) to fit the observations, i.e. z0 2πα dN ∝ E−αdE ∝ B−αdB, (6) where n(z) is the density of the positrons in electrosphere which has been computed in the mean field approxima- where slop parameter α slightly varies for different solar tion. In this estimate it is assumed that the positrons 3 2 models . It is a highly nontrivial consistency check that with p /(2me) < T will be stripped off the electrosphere 22 the typical nanoflare energy range Enano ' (10 − 6 · as a result of high temperature T . These loosely bound 1025) erg corresponds (within AQN framework) to the positrons are localized mostly at outer regions of elec- 24 28 −1/2 baryon charge window 3 · 10 . B . 2 · 10 which trosphere at distances z > z0 = (2meT ) which mo- strongly overlaps with all presently available constraints tivates our cutoff in estimate (7). Numerically Q ∼ 108 (5) on the AQN sizes as reviewed above. Precisely this represents very tiny portion Q/B in comparison with the highly nontrivial consistency check on size distribution baryon charge B ∼ 1025 even for relatively high temper- along with (essentially model-independent) computation ature T ' 100 eV in the solar corona. These objects of the total luminosity of the EUV radiation ∼ 1027erg/s behave in all respects as neutral objects (for example from the solar corona, which is consistent with observa- the cosmic magnetic field does not affect the AQN’s tra- tions, gives us a strong confidence for the plausibility of jectory) because Q/M  e/mp. Nevertheless, a non- the identification (6) between the nanoflares conjectured vanishing charge Q may play a very important role in by Parker long ago and the AQN annihilation events. some circumstances, such as propagation of AQNs in Encouraged by these consistency checks we adopted highly ionized plasma in solar corona [12, 13, 60]. The the AQN size distribution (6) with parameter α being non-vanishing charge Q may also suppress the primordial extracted from the heating corona studies for all our sub- lithium abundance at T ' 20 keV due to the strong at- sequent Monte Carlo simulations including the computa- traction between the negatively charged AQNs and pos- tions of the AQN flux on Earth as given by (8) to be itively charged lithium nuclei [11]. discussed in great details in next section. Our next comment is related to the survival pattern of the AQNs. The comprehensive studies on this matter can be found in the original work [46]. The only comment C. Few additional comments we would like to make here is that the dominant portion of the AQNs will survive the evolution of the Universe. Here we make few additional comments on basic fea- However, very small portion of the AQNs which is gravi- tures of the AQNs which are important for understanding tationally captured by stars and planets may drastically of this framework in general and for specific estimates (1) decrease their baryon charges and may even experience 4 relevant for DAMA/LIBRA signal in particular. of complete annihilation . The typical size L of the re- We start this overview with mentioning of the electric gion of the medium with density ρ where the complete charge which AQNs may carry while propagating in a annihilation occurs is estimated as σρL ' Bmp, where σ media. It is normally assumed that all types of nuggets including the old version models [21–24] are neutral at

4 The nuggets made of matter can be be stopped in dense environ- ment such as neutron stars, on the scales of order Lstop when the 2 stop number of hits is of order of B, i.e. πR L hρi ∼ Bmp. How- 3 One should comment here that the algebraic behaviour for the ever, in contrast with conventional nugget’s models [21–24] the distribution (6) is a very generic feature of the percolation the- AQNs will not turn an entire star into a new phase because the ory within AQN framework as recently argued in [46]. However, CS phase in AQN is supported by external pressure due to the ax- a numerical estimate of parameter α from the theoretical side ion domain wall, while the original nuggets [21–24] are assumed requires a deep understanding of the QCD phase transition dy- to be stable objects at zero external pressure. The phenomenon namics at θ 6= 0, when the axion domain walls are formed. This of collecting the matter nuggets in the cores of stars/planets knowledge is not likely to be available any time soon as the QCD might of interest by itself, but it is not the topic of the present lattice simulations cannot study a system with θ 6= 0, which rep- work devoted to antimatter AQNs capable to produce neutrinos resents a well-known sign problem in the lattice community. as a result of annihilation processes. 6 is an effective cross section which could be much larger III. DL MODULATION BY AQNS than naive πR2 due to the long-range Coulomb interac- tion when Q 6= 0 according to (7). This effect plays a This section is separated to four different subsections, very important role in the solar corona [12, 13, 60]. All IIIA,IIIB,IIIC andIIID according to four different nuggets which are gravitationally captured by the Sun elements of the proposal (1). will be completely annihilated.

One may wonder what happens to the axions from A. AQN flux on Earth AQNs which are now liberated and become propagating axions with average energy hEi ' 1.3ma. Small portion We start our task with the 1-st element from proposal of these axions will be converted to photons in the back- (1) by estimating the AQN hit rate per unit area on earth ground of the solar magnetic field, and in principle can surface assuming that ρDM is entirely saturated by the be observed on Earth. The effect is very small though nuggets. The relevant rate has been studied previously even if one takes into account the resonance condition in [50] for a different problem of computing the axion due to the plasma effects in the solar corona [61]. flux produced by the AQNs. Now we estimate the AQN hitting rate assuming conventional dark matter density −3 In case of the AQN traversing the Earth’s interior only ρDM ' 0.3GeVcm surrounding the Earth. Assuming some small portion of the baryon charge will be anni- the conventional halo model one arrives to the following hilated. The full scale Monte Carlo simulations sug- result [50]: gest that on average approximately (10-20)% of the total ˙ −2 ! !  25  baryon charge will be lost as a result of traversing of hNi 4 · 10 ρDM hvAQNi 10 ' . (8) the AQNs through the Earth’s interior, see column for 4πR2 km2 yr GeV km hBi ⊕ 0.3 cm3 220 s ∆B/B in table III in ref.[50]. The average amount of the lost baryon charge depends, of course, on the size dis- The averaging over all types of AQN-trajectories with tribution and parameter α defined by eq. (6). To avoid different masses MN ' mp|B|, with different incident confusion, let us emphasize one more time that all these angles and different initial velocities and different size AQNs which get completely annihilated or they lost a distribution does not modify much this estimate. The finite portion of their baryon charges represent a very result (8) suggests that the AQNs hit the Earth’s surface tiny portion of all AQNs during entire evolution of the with a frequency approximately once a day per 1002km2 Universe as estimated in [46]. area. The hitting rate for large size objects is suppressed by the distribution function f(B) ∝ B−α as given by (6). Final comment we would like to make in this subsec- The estimate (8) explicitly shows that conventional tion is related to the the spallation which represents a DM detectors are too small in size to detect AQNs di- very common process when heavy nuclei lose their baryon rectly as the corresponding flux is many orders of mag- charge as a result of interaction with a medium. In con- nitude smaller than the one due to the conventional trast with conventional nuclei the spallation cannot play WIMPs. However, some modern cosmic ray detectors, any essential role in AQN survival pattern due to several such as Pierre Auger observatory, in principle are capa- reasons. First of all, the gap ∆ in CS phase is typically ble to study small flux of order (8) as suggested in [48]. in 100 MeV range in contrast with conventional nuclear One should also mention that a smaller size IceCube de- physics where the binding energy normally is in few MeV tector imposes a direct constraint on the average baryon 24 range. The most important distinct feature, however, is charge of the nugget hBi ≥ 3 · 10 , see Appendix A in as follows. When a large amount of energy is injected ref.[50]. into a heavy nucleus, the spallation takes place and large From (8) one can derive the total hit rate for entire number of neutrons may be liberated leading to the de- earth’s surface which is given by [50]: creasing of the baryon charge of the heavy original nu- ! ! ρ hv i 1025  cleus. Such process cannot occur with AQN because all hN˙ i ' 0.67 s−1 DM AQN . (9) particles which get excited due to the energy injection in GeV km hBi 0.3 cm3 220 s CS phase are the coloured objects. Therefore, these el- ementary excitations cannot enter the hadronic vacuum After the nugget hits the surface it continues to prop- where the normal baryons live and must stay inside of the agate by annihilating the material along its path. The AQN. Therefore, the AQNs do not suffer from spallation trajectory of the AQN is a straight line as only small por- processes as heavy nuclei do. This is direct manifesta- tion of the momentum (and the baryon charge) will be tion of the same feature of the AQN construction already lost in this journey. The energy produced due to the an- mentioned in footnote1 which states that the confined nihilation events will be isotropically dissipating (in the hadronic and CS phases have different vacua. The same rest frame of the nugget) along the propagation. feature precludes transformation of the entire star/planet The rate (9) includes all types of the AQN’s trajecto- into a new phase if the AQNs made of matter stop in the ries inside the earth interior: the trajectories when AQNs deep interior of the star/planet, see also footnote4. hit the surface with incident angle close to 0o (in which 7 case the AQN crosses the earth core and exits from oppo- where coefficient κa determines the relative amount of site site of earth) as well as the trajectories when AQNs annihilating energy (per unit baryon charge) transferred just touch the surface with incident angle close to 90o to the axion production. The computation of the coeffi- (when AQNs leave the system without much annihilation cient κa ' 1/3 as well as hEai ' 1.3ma is straightforward events in deep underground). The result of summation exercise [61] as it represents a conventional quantum field over all these trajectories can be expressed in terms of theory problem for weakly interacting axion field. the average mass (energy) loss h∆mAQNi per AQN. The The energy flux of the axions (being averaged over all same information can be also expressed in terms of the emission angles and summed over all trajectories) mea- average baryon charge loss per nugget h∆Bi as these two sured on earth surface is estimated as [63]: are directly related: h∆mAQNi ≈ mph∆Bi. The corre- dE v h∆m c2i sponding MC simulations with estimates for h∆mAQNi a a ˙ AQN ' κah ihNi 2 , (11) have been carried out in [50], see table III in that paper. dtdA c 2πR⊕ This information will be very important for our analysis in next sectionIIIB as it provides a normalization for which has a proper dimensionality [GeV · cm−2 · s−1] for the total neutrino flux being emitted by the AQNs when the energy flux. The axion flux for this mechanism is they traverse the earth’s interior. estimated as 2 dNa va ˙ h∆mAQNc i ' κah ihNi 2 , (12) B. Neutrino production from AQNs dtdA c hEai2πR⊕ which has a proper dimensionality [cm−2 · s−1] for the The 2-nd element of the proposal (1) requires the es- axion flux. timation of the neutrino intensity due to the AQN anni- We are now ready to estimate the neutrino emission hilation processes. Before we proceed with correspond- from the AQNs, which is the main topic of this subsec- ing estimates we want to make a short detour related to tion. One could follow the same logic of computations as the axion production due to the same AQN annihilation highlighted above, with the only difference is that instead events. We also need to know the basic features of the of emission of the axions one should study the neutrinos, neutrino spectrum emitted by AQNs. The lessons from which are similar to axions as they can easily propagate that studies can be used for estimations of the neutrino through entire earth interior. This is because the relevant flux from AQNs, which is the main subject of this sub- cross section with surrounding material is very small in section. both cases, and formula (11) can be applied for estima- tion of the neutrino flux on the earth surface with cor- responding replacements κa → κν and Ea → Eν , while 1. Detour on the axion production factor hN˙ i in eq. (12) of course remains the same.

It has been noticed in [62] that the large number of ax- 5 ions will be produced because the axion domain wall will 2. On neutrino spectrum in CS phase start to shrink during the AQN annihilation events and emit the propagating axions which can be observed. The If we had a conventional hadronic phase inside the corresponding spectrum has been computed in [61] where nuggets the corresponding computations of neutrino it has been shown that the emitted axions will have a typ- emission would be a very simple exercise. Indeed, we ical velocities hv i ' 0.6c in contrast with conventional a know a typical yield of the pseudo Nambu Goldstone galactic axions characterized by small velocities ∼ 10−3c (NG) bosons per annihilation event of a single baryon such that these two different production mechanisms can charge (such aspp ¯ ). We also know a typical decay pat- be easily discriminated. tern for all NG bosons such as K → µν and π → µν The average number of the emitted axions hN i as a a with consequent µ decays. We also know with very high result of the AQN annihilation events in the earth’s in- precision the branching ratios for the non-leptonic de- terior can be estimated as follows [63]: cays of the NG bosons such as K → 3π and η → 3π with consequent decays to neutrinos. It would allow us h∆mAQNi hNai ≈ κa , (10) to compute the total number of neutrinos per single an- hE i a nihilation event. This would also allow us to compute the energy spectrum of neutrinos6 emitted by the AQNs.

5 As mentioned in Sect.II the axion domain wall plays an im- portant role of a squeezer stabilizing the nugget. This energy has been accumulated and stored during the QCD epoch at 6 This is precisely the set of assumptions adopted by ref.[64] where the moment of formation. The corresponding energy accounts the authors claimed that dark matter in the form of AQNs can- for a considerable portion of the nugget’s total energy which is not account for more than 20% of the dark matter density. This parametrized by κa ≈ 1/3, see below eq. (10) claim was based on assumption that the annihilation events fol- 8

Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury of knowing NG mass, see AppendixA3 with more comments on this all these key features in the CS phase. Therefore, we can- matter. not predict the spectrum of neutrinos emitted by AQNs. If this process indeed becomes the dominant mech- The only solid and robust information which is avail- anism of the neutrino emission from AQNs than one able today is the typical scale of the lightest NG mass in should expect that the number of neutrinos per single CS phase, which is normally estimated in (20 − 30)MeV event of annihilation should greatly exceed the number range. This scale for NG masses can be translated to of anti-neutrino per single event of annihilation, which an estimation for a typical neutrino’s energy scale in we assume to be the case. Formally, this case can be AQN framework. Assuming that one half of the lightest expressed as follows: NG mass goes to the neutrino’s energy we expect that  2   2  h∆mAQNc i h∆mAQNc i hEν i 15 MeV. . hNν i ≈ κν 2 , hNν¯i ≈ κν¯ 2 , While a typical energy scale for the NG mass and the mpc mpc corresponding neutrino’s energies in the AQN framework κν  κν¯,Eν . 15 MeV, κν & 1, (13) is established with a reasonable accuracy because it is where the coefficients κ and κ describe the number based on well established theory of CS phases [66, 67], ν ν¯ of neutrinos and antineutrinos produced per single anni- the computation of the corresponding neutrino spectrum hilation event, similar to parameter κ ' 1/3 entering is a much harder problem. The basic problem is of course, a expression (10) and describing the axion emission due to the lack of knowledge of CS phase (in contrast with the the AQN annihilation events. confined phase where all NG masses and relevant branch- We conclude this subsection with the following generic ing ratios are measured with very high accuracy). An comment. Our system is the strongly coupled gauge the- additional uncertainty also comes from the lack of un- ory, the QCD. It should be contrasted with conventional derstanding of the fermion excitations of the CS phases weakly coupled gauge theories when all computations are which may be, in fact, the dominant contributors to the under complete theoretical control. In our system it is neutrino fluxes. This is because the NG bosons which are very hard to predict realistic spectra and intensities for produced as a result of annihilation events in CS phase neutrino and anti-neutrino fluxes in the 15 MeV energy cannot leave the system and consequently decay to emit range due to variety of possible phases, high sensitivity neutrino, as they must stay inside the nuggets7. It should to the parameters and large number of possible decay be contrasted with hadronic phase when pions and Kaons channels producing neutrinos and antineutrons, as we (produced as a result of pp¯ annihilation) decay to muons discussed above. Such an analysis could be coined as and neutrinos in vacuum. Therefore, the NG bosons in “the nuclear physics of CS phases”. The complexity and CS phases are likely to be absorbed by fermion excita- uncertainties of such studies (though it is entirely based tions (if kinematically allowed), which consequently de- on the Standard Model physics) is the main reason to cay to neutrinos. introduce phenomenological parameters κν and κν¯ in eq. Indeed, in unpaired quark matter neutrino emissivity (13) which will be treated in what follows as unknown is dominated by the direct Urca processes8 such as d → − parameters and can only be constrained by experiment. u+e +¯νe. In case of antinuggets it should be replaced by + However, the basic scale of the problem is fixed by the anti-quarks with emission of neutrino νe and positron e lowest NG mass in CS phase with a reasonable accuracy, with the energy determined by the energy of the fermion and it is given by eq. (13), i.e. hEν i . 15 MeV. Precisely excitation, which itself assumes the energy of order of the this basic neutrino energy scale determines the maximum recoil energy around 6 keV in DL signal.

low conventional (for confined phase) pattern, in which case a 3. Neutrino flux from AQNs large number of neutrinos will be produced in the (20-50) MeV range, where the sensitivity of underground neutrino detectors such as Super-Kamiokande have their highest signal-to-noise ra- In what follows we need the expression for the neutrino tio. The basic claim of ref.[65] is that annihilation processes flux similar to our formula for the axion flux (12), involving an antiquark nugget in CS phase proceed in drasti- cally different way than assumed in [64] when the lightest pseudo dNν ˙ h∆mAQNi ' κν hNi 2 . (14) Nambu-Goldstone meson has mass in the (20-30) MeV range. As dtdA 2πR⊕mp a result of this crucial difference the neutrino’s energies will be in 15 MeV range, well below the present day constraints. Similar expression is also valid for antineutrinos: one 7 This is because all excitations in CS phase are the colour objects, should replace κν → κν¯ and dNν → dNν¯ in (14). Now we and cannot propagate in hadronic vacuum. 8 − are ready for the numerical estimates. We use h∆mAQNi Another direct Urca process e + u → d + νe which for antin- ˙ uggets would correspond to emission of the antineutrino is likely and hNi from subsectionIIIA to arrive to the follow- to be strongly suppressed as it requires the presence of the ing estimate for the neutrino flux in terms of unknown positrons with sufficiently high energy above the Fermi surface. parameter κν For low temperature the corresponding density for positron ex-   citations is exponentially small ∼ exp(−E + /T ). This argument dN h∆Bi 1 e ν ' 0.6 · 106 · κ · , (15) suggests that κν  κν¯ as eq. (13) states. dtdA ν hBi cm2 · s 9 and similar expression for antineutrinos obtained from ously in a number of papers, see [7–10]. This proposal, of (15) by replacing κν → κν¯ and dNν → dNν¯. In formula course, remains a subject of debates as the DL collabora- (15) the dimensionless ratio h∆Bi/hBi counts the rela- tion rejects the idea that surrounding neutrons could play tive portion of baryon charge being annihilated in the any essential role in their observations [2]. We will make interior while AQNs traversing the earth. This parame- some comments within AQN scenario in next sectionIV ter depends on the nugget’s size distribution as reviewed to address this question. in Sect.IIB. Numerically, it is close to 10% for models In the present subsection we elaborate on the 3-rd with large average charge hBi ' 1026 and around 30% for element of our proposal (1) by estimating the neutron models with smaller average charge hBi ' 1025 [50]. In flux which is induced by neutrinos. The crucial differ- what follows to simply things we want to ignore all these ence with previous proposals [7–10] is that the neutrino- numerical factors, and represent the total neutrino and induced neutron flux (17) manifests itself with proper antineutrino fluxes produced by AQN mechanism over annual DM modulation [5,6] characterized by the ex- entire energy range 0 . Eν,ν¯ . 15 MeV as follows pected phase t0 ' 0.4yr corresponding approximately to June 1 for the Standard Halo Model (SHM). dNν 5 1 dNν¯ 5 1 ∼ 10 · κν , ∼ 10 · κν¯ .(16) We use conventional expressions from [2, 10] for cross dtdA cm2 · s dtdA cm2 · s section σ and the number density n ' 1029m−3 of the It is instructive to quote few known constraints on neu- target to make straightforward comparison with the pre- vious estimates: trino and antineutrino fluxes in this energy band Eν,ν¯ ∼ 15 MeV in order to compare them with the fluxes pro-   AQN dNν −36 neutron duced by the AQN mechanism as expressed by eq.(16). R ' σ(nV ) ' 10 · κν · (nV ) ,(17) ν dtdA s The largest flux relevant for this energy band comes from 8 6 −2 −1 solar B which is around Φνe ' 5 · 10 (cm s ), while where we used the AQN induced neutrino flux (16) and 3 −2 −1 −41 2 solar “hep” component is close to Φνe ' 8·10 (cm s ) cross-section σ ' 10 cm for the neutrino-induced neu- [68]. The atmospheric and diffuse supernova neutrino tron spallation for 208Pb target. The effective volume V backgrounds are at least two orders of magnitude smaller entering eq. (17) will be discussed later in the text. The than “hep” component, and can be safely ignored in our AQN-induced neutron rate production per unit volume discussions. can be represented as follows One should also mention the Super-Kamiokande strin- gent constraint on anti-neutrino flux Φ < (1.4 − RAQN  neutron  ν¯e rAQN = ν ' 10−2 · κ . (18) 1.9)cm−2s−1 at large energies E > 19.3 MeV [69] and ν V ν day · m3 4 −2 −1 constraint Φν¯e < 4 · 10 cm s at smaller energies 8 MeV < E < 20 MeV [70]. KamLand collaboration This rate is approximately one order of magnitude lower [71] reports model-independent upper limit on the anti- if κν ' 1 in comparison with corresponding estimates 2 −2 −1 adopted in [2, 10] for the neutron’s rate induced by the neutrino flux Φν¯e < 10 cm s for every energy bin between 8.3 MeV and 11.3 MeV which becomes even solar neutrinos. It could be the same order of magnitude stronger for higher energies. as used in [2, 10] if κν ' 10, see estimate (13). We return To conclude this subsection we would like to emphasize to significance of the estimate (18) later in the text. The that the neutrino flux (16) generated by AQNs could be only comment we would like to make here is that the the same order of magnitude as the dominant 8B solar typical kinetic energy of the neutrons liberated by this 6 −2 −1 mechanism will be in the 102 keV range, see estimate contributor Φνe ' 5 · 10 (cm s ) in this energy band. It is not presently ruled out by any experiment. The (19) below. key point here is that the AQN-induced neutrino flux Indeed, the first thing to notice is that the typical (16) is the subject of the annual modulation as it has neutrino energy (13) is well above the neutron emission 208 inherent DM origin. Therefore, it could be the source of threshold Eν > 7.37 MeV for Pb target such that neu- the observed DL modulation signal. tron spallation is kinematically allowed. Furthermore, if one assumes that momentum resulting from the neutron spallation is mostly transferred to the liberated neutron, 0 C. Neutrino-induced Neutrons such that pn ' (pν − pν ), the kinetic energy of the neu- tron can be estimated as follows The 3-rd element of proposal (1) is the liberation of p2 E ' n ∼ 102 keV. (19) the neutrons from surrounding rocks due to the coupling n 2m with neutrinos. The intensity of these liberated neutrons n is the subject of annual modulation as the correspond- One should also add that there is a sharp cutoff of or- ing neutron intensity is proportional to the neutrino flux der ∼ 102 keV for the neutron’s energy (19) produced (16), which itself is directly proportional to the DM flux by this mechanism. It is determined by the neutrino en- in form of the AQNs according to (9). ergy (13) in 15 MeV range, which itself is kinematically The idea that the surrounding neutrons might be the bound from above by corresponding NG masses in CS origin of the DL modulations has been suggested previ- phase as reviewed in AppendixA. The presence of such 10 sharp cutoff will be important element in our arguments as eq. (9) states. Therefore, to describe the correspond- supporting the proposal (1). ing modulations one can use conventional formula [5,6]: What do the neutrons, characterized by the rate (18) and energy (19), do if they enter the DL detector? This hvAQN (t)i ' V + bV⊕ cos ω(t − t0) (22) is the subject of the next subsection. −1 where V = 220 km s is the Sun’s oribital speed −1 around the galactic center, V⊕ = 29.8 km s is the Earth’s orbital speed around the Sun, ω = 2π yr−1 is the D. DL modulation (1) due to the neutrons angular frequency of the annual modulation, and |b| ≤ 1 is the geometrical factor associated with the direction of The 4-th element of proposal (1) represents the most vAQN relative to the orbital plane of Earth, t0 ' 0.4yr controversial portion of our analysis. We shall try to corresponding to June 1. Hence, it is natural to expect argue that neutrons characterized by the flux (18) and the modulation must be of order O(V⊕/V ) ∼ 10%, as in- energy (19) may serve as the source of the observed DL coming flux of the AQN particle explicitly proportional to annual modulation. The corresponding computations are hvAQN (t)i according to equation (9). The corresponding very hard to carry out as they are inevitably based on value hN˙ (t)i enters the expression for the AQN-induced nuclear physics of large number of very complicated sys- neutrino flux (14), eventually generating the neutrons tems. Fortunately, there are many specific experiments (18). and tests which can be in principle performed, to be dis- The very hard and challenging question remains to be cussed in sectionsIV andV. These tests can support or answered if this neutron intensity (17) is sufficient for rule out the proposal (1). explanation of the observed DL modulation. To answer The starting point is the standard formula for energy this question one has to understand the numerical value transfer ∆E as a result of elastic 2 → 2 scattering when a for the effective volume V entering formula (17). As we target of mass m2 at rest, struck by a particle with mass already mentioned this is very complicated problem of m1 with kinetic energy En: nuclear physics as emphasized and nicely explained in [7]. m m 1 2 Therefore, instead of theoretical speculations about ∆E = 2En 2 (1 − cos θCM) . (20) (m1 + m2) the value for effective volume entering formula (17) we The entire section of ref. [7] was devoted for explanation reverse the problem and estimate the volume V which of numerous uses and misuses of this formula in different would match the DL modulation. We suggest several ex- circumstances. We agree with most of the comments, periments how this proposal (1) and large rate (17) with careful explanation of misconceptions, detail analysis of effective volume V can be tested in next two sectionsIV neutron-nuclear interaction given by Ralston in [7]. We andV. defer our specific comments within present context until The DL modulation amplitude in terms of (counts per next sectionIV. day) cpd [4] reads: Now we want to make numerical estimate for the recoil cpd DL modulation rate = (0.0103 ± 0.0008) . (23) energy using expression (20) and identifying m1 with the kg keV neutron characterized by the kinetic energy (19), while 11 m2 ' 23m1 with the lightest Na nucleon from DL de- This rate must be multiplied to 4 keV for (2-6) keV en- tector consisting 25 radio-pure NaI crystal scintillators: ergy range and 250 kg to get total modulation rate counts ∆E = 8.6 keV (1 − cos θCM) . (21) DL total modulation ' 10 . (24) day The significance of this estimate is hard to overstate as it unambiguously shows that the recoil energy cannot ex- On other hand, assuming that 10% of neutrons (18) is ceed the value (21) which is amazingly close to 6 keV cut- the subject of annual modulation with proper phase t0 off observed by DL. Furthermore, the scale (19) was not as explained in (22) we arrive to the following estimate 3 invented for the specific proposal (1), in contrast with in terms of the required effective volume V ≡ L which many different WIMP-based suggestions to fit the ob- saturates the DL modulation: served DL modulations. Rather, this scale is entirely neutrons  L 3 determined by the cutoff in neutrino energy (13) which AQN induced modulation ' κν . (25) day 10 m itself unambiguously fixed by typical NG masses in CS phase. All these scales have been known for quite some- Few comments are in order. First of all, parameter κν time, as reviewed in AppendixA. was introduced as a number of neutrinos being produced The key element of our proposal (1) is that the flux of as a result of annihilation of a single baryon charge, see the induced neutrons (18) with kinetic energy (19), which (13). It could be as small as κν ∼ 1, but it could be as eventually generates the signal in DL detector with recoil large as κν ∼ 10 being consistent with presently avail- energy (21), is the subject of annual modulation because able constraints as mentioned at the end of sectionIIIB. all the intensities are proportional to DM velocity hvAQN i The basic reason for this uncertainty is that our system 11 is the strongly coupled gauge theory, to be contrasted whole data sets (DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA-phase-1, with conventional weakly coupled gauge theories when DAMA/LIBRA-phase-2) is shown to be consistent with all computations are under complete theoretical control. zero, see Fig 11 in ref. [4]. This property is indeed very In our system it is very hard to predict realistic spec- hard to understand in terms of the conventional physics tra and intensities for neutrino and anti-neutrino fluxes advocated in [7–10]. in the 15 MeV energy range due to variety of possible At the same time this unique feature of the system phases, high sensitivity to the parameters and large num- (characterized by a sharp cutoff at ∼ 6 keV) automat- ber of possible decay channels producing neutrinos and ically emerges in our framework. Indeed, the neutrino antineutrons, as we discussed above. This deficiency in flux (16) with typical neutrino energy Eν ∼ 15 MeV is our computational power should not be treated as the determined in our framework by the NG masses in the weakness of the proposal. Instead, it should be consid- CS phase, see (A3). The corresponding neutrino-induced ered as a consequence of the complexity of the system. neutron flux (17) is characterized by the typical energy The observed rate (24) matches the AQN induced mod- (19) formulated in terms of Eν . The sharp cutoff for ulation (25) if κν ' 10 and L ∼ 10 m. This required the recoil energy (21) in this framework (which falls into length L ∼ 10 is definitely much greater than the neu- the proper ∼ 6 keV energy range) is determined by (19) tron’s mean free path λ ' 2.6 m which was extracted which essentially determined by the NG masses in CS from the studies on the muon-induced background [72] phase as reviewed in AppendixA. One should emphasize and adopted by refs. [2, 10] in the context of the present that all these energy scales have not been specifically work on DL modulations. In next sectionIV we comment invented in this work to explain the observed DL modu- on the consistency (25) with DL observations, while in lations with (1-6) keV energy; rather the relevant energy sectionV we make few comments on relation to other scales have been established long ago in unrelated studies experiments. In the same sectionV we also suggest pos- for different purposes in a different context. sible tests (such as the measuring of the spatial directions 3. The neutrino flux (16) originated from AQNs in this of moving neutrons along with time modulation) which framework is lower than the background solar neutrino 6 −2 −1 could support or rule out the proposal (1). flux Φνe ' 5·10 cm s for this energy band (originat- 8 ing from solar B) at least by factor of 5 for κν ' 10, as mentioned at the end of sectionIIIB. The corresponding IV. COMMENTS ON DL ARGUMENTS. neutrino-induced neutron flux (17) is also must be lower in comparison with intensity of neutrons induced by the The DL collaboration, of course, discussed the possi- solar neutrinos. However, the key point is that this sub- bility that their signal is associated with neutron flux dominant neutron component is originated from AQNs, (induced by muons or neutrinos or both). In fact, en- and therefore, is the subject of conventional DM annual tire paper [2] was devoted to analysis of a possible role modulation (22) with proper phase t0. Is the corresponding neutrino-induced neutron’s inten- of neutrino-induced and muon- induced neutrons. These 9 possibilities were discarded in [1–4] based on the follow- sity is sufficient to explain DL modulation? The DL ing arguments: argued that the answer is “No” [1–4]. However, the DL 1. Modulation phase arguments; arguments on the neutron’s intensity were challenged in 2. Energy range arguments; [7]. We have nothing new to add to these extensive dis- cussions on possible role of neutrino-induced neutrons. 3. Intensity arguments. Instead of speculations about this very complex nuclear We want to make few comments on each of the items physics system with complicated resonance structure, we from this list. We start with the modulation arguments, suggest to test the proposal (1) by measuring the modu- while the energy and intensity arguments will follow. lation, intensity and the directionality in coordinate space 1. Quote from [2]: “ ... It is worth noting that neu- of the neutrons which are responsible for the recoil (21). trons, muons and solar neutrinos are not competing back- The subdominant flux of the AQN-induced neutrons ground when DM annual modulation signature is inves- can be, in principle, discriminated from the dominant tigated since in no case they can mimic this signature...”. components, including the solar neutrino-induced neu- In the proposed scenario (1) this argument obviously does trons if the direction of the neutron’s momentum and not apply because both the neutrino flux (16) and the the modulation are measured. This is because the solar neutron flux (17) with typical energy (19) are automat- neutrinos are propagating from a single direction in the ically the subject of the annual modulation (22) with sky, while AQN-induced neutrinos (which have truly gen- proper phase t ' 0.4yr corresponding to June 1. This is 0 uine DM origin) are randomly distributed in space. This because the source of the modulation in this framework has truly genuine DM origin represented by AQNs. 2. The DL has carried out the comprehensive studies 9 As we already mentioned above, the question is essentially re- on dependence of the annual modulation as a function of duced to the quantitative understanding of the effective volume the energy interval. The claim is that the modulation is V = L3 which enters (25). Our estimates from previous section not observed above the energy ∼ 6 keV. In particular the show that if L ' 10m, the AQN induced rate (25) matches the modulation amplitude for the energy above 6 keV for the observed rate (24) with κν ' 10. 12 topic on possible tests of the proposal (1) represents the are bound from above with a cutoff being determined by subject of the next sectionV. energies of the AQN-induced neutrinos. The energies of these neutrinos are also bound from above and cannot exceed (13) as they are determined by NG masses in CS V. RELATION TO OTHER EXPERIMENTS. phase. As we already mentioned previously, all these en- POSSIBLE FUTURE TESTS. ergy scales in proposal (1) have not been invented to fit the DL signals. Rather the relevant energy scales have This section is separated to three different subsections. been established long ago in unrelated studies for differ- First, in subsectionVA we make few comments on the ent purposes in a different context. previous experiments which exclude the DL signal if in- terpreted in terms of WIMP-nuclei interactions. We con- tinue with more recent analysis in subsectionVB where B. Recent activities we make few comments on some recent experiments de- signed to reproduce (or rule out) the DL signals. Fi- Now we want to make few comments on recent ded- nally, in subsectionsVC andVD we offer few novel pos- icated experiments which were specifically designed to sible tests which can support or refute the proposal (1) test DL annual modulation signal. It includes COSINE- explaining the DL signal in terms of the AQN-induced 100 [16–18], ANAIS-112 [19] and CYGNO [20] experi- neutrons. In particular, in subsectionVD ments. We also want to mention other type of experi- ments [83–85] which were not originally designed to test DL annual modulation signal. However, their capabili- A. Previous experiments ties to measure the directionality could play a decisive role in detecting of the DM signals. To be more spe- We start with few comments on the experiments which cific, we choose to mention these experiments due to the exclude the DL results. The corresponding collabora- following reasons: tions include but not limited to: CDEX [73], CDMS- The COSINE-100 experiment was mostly motivated by II[74, 75], EDELWEISS-II [76], LUX [77], SuperCDMS DL annual modulation. The aim of the collaboration is to [78], XENON10 [79] and XENON100 [80], CoGeNT [81]. reproduce (or refute) the signal and to search for possible The main claim of these collaborations can be formu- origin for the modulation, if observed. The COSINE-100 lated as follows: if DL modulation is interpreted in terms collaboration uses the same target medium (sodium io- of WIMP-nuclei interactions with given σ and given dide) which is the crucial element in the context of the mWIMP then DL signal is excluded with very high level present proposal (1) as recoil energies fall into the (2-6) of confidence [82]. keV bin in our scenario according to (21). Presently the From the perspective of the proposal (1) it could be a COSINE-100 data is consistent with both a null hypoth- number of reasons of why DL observes the signal while esis and DL (2-6) keV best fit value with 68% confidence other collaborations do not. First of all, most of the col- level. More data are obviously needed. It is important laborations (with few exceptions such as CoGeNT [81] that COSINE-100 is planning to measure the neutron’s and CDMS- II [75]) did not carry out some dedicated intensity and neutron’s modulation [17], in which case studies on the time modulation, which was the crucial the COSINE-100 would know if the possible modulation ingredient in DL arguments. From the AQN perspective is due to the neutrons10. It is obviously the key element of the time modulation is the key element when the sub- the proposal (1) based on the subdominant AQN-induced dominant neutron flux can manifest itself if proper time component of neutrons which, however, manifests itself modulation studies are performed. by annual modulation. Another reason (for negative results) could be related The ANAIS-112 collaboration also uses the same tar- to different neutron shields used by different collabora- get medium as DL and the COSINE-100. The ANAIS- tions. We refer to paper by Ralston [7] where the sub- 112 has recently published the first results on annual ject on complex behaviour of neutrons in complicated modulation [19]. Their best fits are incompatible at 2.5σ environment is nicely presented. This analysis obviously with DL signal. The goal is to reach the sensitivity at 3σ shows that even minor differences in neutron shields may level in five years. As the ANAIS-112 collaboration uses have dramatic effects and drastically change the impact the same target material our comments from the previous of neutron’s background. paragraph in context of the present proposal (1) also ap- Yet, one more reason, probably the most important ply to ANAIS-112 experiment especially as ANAIS-112 one in context of the present work, is as follows. The and COSINE-100 agreed to combine their data. AQN-induced neutrons with energy (19) are scattering off Na in DL experiment generating recoil energies which fall into the (2-6) keV bin according to (21). The recoil energies for the heavier targets such as xenon or germa- 10 I thank G. Adhikari for answering a large number of my questions nium in different experiments could be below threshold during the PATRAS-2019 axion meeting about the future plans because the energies of the time modulated neutrons (19) of the collaboration. 13

The CYGNO proposal [20] is different from the AQN-induced neutrons which always accompany the neu- COSINE-100 and the ANAIS-112 experiments due to the trinos according to sectionIIIC. Therefore, this neutrino capability to measure the directionality which is the key amplification factor will be obviously accompanied by the element of the CYGNO [20] proposal. It is important corresponding amplification of the neutrino- induced neu- that it will be located at the same site (LNGS) where tron flux (17) and (18). DL is located. Therefore, the neutron flux must be the The idea was originally formulated for the axions in same, including the subdominant AQN-induced compo- [63], and the effect was coined as the “local flash”. The nent (25) which is the subject of annual modulation. The computations can be easily generalized for the neutrinos collaboration is planning to measure (initially) the neu- in straightforward way, see AppendixB with some tech- tron flux and its modulation without neutron shielding11. nical details. It can be explained as follows. Such measurements may play a key role in supporting (or If the AQN hits the surface at distance d  R⊕ from ruling out) the proposal (1) because the AQN-induced the detector the short-lasting flash occurs with amplifi- neutrons are responsible for the recoil (21). The col- cation factor Aν (d) measuring the relative short lasting laboration is also planning in future to reach the neu- spark of the neutrino flux with respect to the neutrino trino floor by measuring the neutrinos and their direc- flux (16) computed by averaging over entire earth sur- tions. In particular the CYGNO could discriminate the face over long period of time. The amplification Aν (d) is neutrinos from the sun by identifying their directions. highly sensitive to distance d and can be approximated Furthermore, the CYGNO instrument will be capable to as follows, see (B4) for derivation: determine nuclear recoil directions, which would allow  2 the collaboration to discriminate WIMP-like DM from 1 R⊕ Aν (d) ' . (26) AQN-induced events (1). Such measurements, if success- hN˙ ih∆ti d ful, would obviously play an important role in supporting (or ruling out) the proposal (1). In addition to that, the One should note that the correction to the neutrino flux dominant solar neutrinos in the energy range Eν . 12 (B3) due to the traversing of a nearby AQN depends on MeV could be discriminated from subdominant AQN- unknown parameter κν . However, the relative amplifica- induced neutrinos (A3). Furthermore, neutrinos in the tion Aν (d) with respect to the averaged neutrino flux (16) energy band Eν ≥ 12 MeV cannot be originated from does not depend on κν as eq. (26) states. In formula (26) 8 the Sun at all as a result of B threshold. The discovery hN˙ i is determined by eq. (9), while h∆ti ' 2R⊕/hvAQNi of such neutrinos and measuring of their annual modula- is the time for the AQN to cross the earth averaged tion with intensity in the range (16) would be enormous over entire ensemble of AQN’s trajectories traversing the support for the proposal (1) as the flux of the atmospheric earth. neutrino is at least three orders of magnitude lower than As one can see from (26) a huge amplification may (16). indeed occur for d  R⊕. However, the probability for We also want to mention several other experiments such event to happen is very tiny, and can be estimated [83–85] which are capable to measure the directionality. as The idea is to use the carbon nanotube arrays or the 1 1 graphene layers to measure the directionality of the DM Event rate ' 1 · 3 , (27) ˙ 3 2 2 signals. As we mentioned above, the measurements of [hNih∆ti ] Aν the directionality could play a decisive role in detecting see AppendixB with details. The “local flash” lasts for of the DM signal. a short period of time which can be estimated as follows

2d h∆ti1/2 1 C. Possible future tests τ ' ' 1 . (28) hv i ˙ 2 AQN hNi Aν We already mentioned in previous subsectionVB few We summarize in TableI few choices of time duration possible tests which can support or rule out the proposal τ and the event rate as a function of amplification fac- (1) with existing or planning experiments: COSINE-100 tor Aν . In particular, it would be a daily short last- [16], ANAIS-112 [19], CYGNO [20]. In this subsection we ing “flash” when the intensity of the subdominant AQN- want to mention a specific for the AQN framework phe- induced neutrino component (16) is amplified by factor 2 nomenon when the intensity of the AQN-induced neutri- Aν (d) ' 10 such that it becomes the dominant one for nos may be amplified by very large factor (up to 104) a short period of time lasting for about 1 second. which greatly increases the chance for discovery such Important lesson to be learnt from these estimates is as follows. A subdominant neutrino flux induced by AQNs may become a dominant portion of the neutrinos, over- passing the solar neutrino flux in this energy band for 11 I thank Elisabetta Baracchini for answering a large number of very short period of time. Needless to say, that this AQN- my questions during the PATRAS-2019 axion meeting about the induced neutrino flux (16) and the corresponding neutron future plans of the collaboration. flux (17) are also the subject of annual (22) and daily 14

TABLE I: Estimations of Local flashes for different Aν , In particular, the position of the Center for Axion adopted from [63]: the time duration, and the and Precision Physics Research located at Daejeon and corresponding event rate. COSINE -100 detector located at the Yangyang Under- ground Laboratory in South Korea obviously satisfy the

Aν τ (time span) event rate criterial dνa  0.1R⊕ when strongly correlated amplifi- 1 10 s 0.3 min−1 cations for Aν and Aa may occur in both detectors almost simultaneously with time delay of order of few seconds. 10 3 s 0.5 hr−1 102 1 s 0.4 day−1 Another correlation which is worthwhile to study can 103 0.3 s 5 yr−1 be explained as follows. It has been recently argued 104 0.1 s 0.2 yr−1 that the AQN propagating in the Earth’s atmosphere and underground emits the infrasound and weak seismic waves [87]. In fact one such event, according to [87], modulations12, similar to the ones studied for the axion occurred on July 31-st 2008. It was properly recorded search experiments [63]. The measure of directionality by the dedicated Elginfield Infrasound Array (ELFO) and modulation as described in previous subsectionVB near London, Ontario, Canada and corresponds to rel- may help to discriminate this subdominant AQN-induced atively large nugget13 with B ' 1027 if interpreted as neutrino flux from the dominant solar 8B component. AQN event [87]. The infrasound detection was accom- panied by non-observation of any meteors by an all-sky camera network. The impulses were also observed seis- D. Search for correlations with other AQN-induced mically as ground coupled acoustic waves around South phenomena Western Ontario and Northern Michigan. The estimates [87] for the infrasonic frequency ν ' 5 Hz and overpres- The flux (8) suggests that the AQNs hit the Earth’s sure δp ∼ 0.3 Pa are consistent with the ELFO record. surface with a frequency approximately once a day per It has been also proposed in [87] a detection strategy for 1002km2 area, which is precisely the source for a short- a systematic study to search for such events originating lasting amplification in the neutrino production discussed from much smaller and much more common AQNs with 25 in previous subsectionVC. It is important to empha- typical B ' 10 by using Distributed Acoustic Sensing size that such events occur along with other processes (DAS). which always accompany the AQNs propagation through Our original remark here is that the amplification in the atmosphere and the Earth’s underground. There- the neutrino flux (and corresponding enhancement in the fore, there will be always some correlations between the neutrino-induced neutrons) as discussed in previous sub- amplifications in the neutrino flux and other associated sectionVC must be accompanied by infrasonic and weak phenomena in the vicinity of the area where AQN event seismic waves which can be studied by the DAS instru- occurs. ments implemented in networks of optical-fiber telecom- For example, if the DM detector (sensitive to neutrino- munication cables. The observation for such correlations, induced neutrons such as DL) and an axion search detec- if successful, is absolutely unique to AQN framework and tor are localized close to each other on a distance dνa ∼ d would obviously play an important role in supporting of there will be the axion signal due to the amplification Aa the proposal. and the neutrino-induced neutron signal due to the am- plification Aν . These signals must be correlated in form In particular, the DL (and future CYGNO detector) is of two almost simultaneous short lasting sparks between located at the LNGS site with large number of seismic de- these two signals in two different detectors. The observa- tectors located in the same area. Proposal is to search for tion of these cross-correlated signals (collected during a the correlations between enhanced flux of neutrons and long period of time and by measuring the directionality weak seismic and infrasound events with delay measured in DM detector to discriminate the background) would in fraction of a second depending on a precise localiza- unambiguously support the proposal (1) on the nature tion of the seismic detectors. The measurements of the of the observed DL modulation signal. Similar cross- directionality by CYGNO would be the key element in correlation between different synchronized axion stations establishing such a correlation. from a Global Network as suggested in [86] and a nearby neutrino detector would also strongly support the pro- posal (1).

13 The frequency of appearance for such large nuggets is very tiny 12 Daily modulations with intensity around (1-10)% are similar in according to (6). This explains why such events occur approx- magnitude as annual modulations. These daily modulations are imtaely once every 10 years instead of observations them once unique for this type of DM, and not shared by any other DM a day which would be the case for much more common nuggets models, see [63] for the details. with B ∼ 1025. 15

VI. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The main results of our work can be summarized as I am thankful to G. Adhikari for answering my ques- follows: tions on present status and future plans for COSINE- 100 collaboration, see footnote 10, and Elisabetta Barac- 1.We argued that the annual modulation observed by chini for elaboration on future plans for CYGNO collab- DL might be explained as a result of the AQN-induced oration, see footnote 11 during the PATRAS-2019 ax- neutrons through the chain (1). In this framework the ion meeting in Freiburg in June 2019. I am thankful annual modulation has truly genuine DM origin, though to Maria Martinez [ANAIS-112] and Elisabetta Barac- it is manifested indirectly. chini [CYGNO] for correspondence. I am also thank- 2.We also argued that the recoil energy must have a ful to Hyunsu Lee [COSINE] and Maria Luisa Sarsa sharp cutoff at ∼ 6 keV consistent with the observed DL [ANAIS-112] for discussions during the “Conference on signal. Dark World” in Daejeon, Korea in November 2019, where 3. We proposed specific tests which can support or rule this work was presented. This research was supported in our the proposal (1), see subsectionVC. part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research 4. We proposed to study a specific correlation between Council of Canada. the amplification in the AQN-induced neutron flux and the impulses of the infrasound and weak seismic waves, which if found, would strongly support our proposal, see Appendix A: Neutrino spectrum from the Axion Quark Nuggets subsectionVD. Why should we consider this AQN model seriously? The main goal of this Appendix is to give a short There is a number of reasons. Originally, this model was overview of the basic results from ref.[65] regarding the invented to explain the observed relation Ω ∼ Ω DM visible neutrinos emitted by AQNs captured by the Sun. The and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe as two sides paper [65] was written in response to the claim made of the same coin, when the baryogenesis framework is re- in [64] that dark matter in the form of AQNs cannot ac- placed by a “charge separation” framework, as reviewed count for more than 20% of the dark matter density. This in SectionII. After many years since its original formula- claim was based on constraints on the neutrino flux in the tion this model remains to be consistent with all available (20-50) MeV range where the sensitivity of underground cosmological, astrophysical, satellite and ground based neutrino detectors such as Super-Kamiokande have their constraints, where AQNs could leave a detectable elec- highest signal-to-noise ratio. tromagnetic signature. Furthermore, it is shown that However, the estimates [64] were based on an assump- the AQNs can be formed and can survive the unfriendly tion that the annihilation processes between antimat- environment during the evolution of the early Universe, ter from AQNs and normal material from the Sun has such that they entitled to serve as the DM candidates. the same spectral features as conventional baryon- an- Finally, the same AQN framework may also explain a tibaryon annihilations which typically produce a large number of other (naively unrelated) observed phenomena number of pions which eventually decay though an in- such as excess of the galactic diffuse emission in different termediate muon and thus generate a significant number frequency bands, the so-called “Primordial Lithium Puz- of neutrinos and antineutrinos in the the (20-50) MeV zle” and “The Solar Corona Mystery”, the seasonal vari- range. ations observed by XMM-Newton observatory, to name However, as it has been argued in [65] the critical dif- just a few, see SectionI for the references. ference in the case of annihilation processes involving an We want to emphasize that all these cosmological puz- antiquark nugget is that the annihilation proceeds within zles mentioned in SectionI could be resolved within the the colour superconducting (CS) phase where the ener- AQN framework with the same set of physical parame- getics are drastically different. The main point is that ters being used in the present work on explanation of DL in most CS phases the lightest pseudo Goldstone mesons modulation signal. (the pions and Kaons) have masses in the 20 MeV range The observation of the subdominant AQN-induced [66, 67] in huge contrast with the hadronic confined phase neutrons by measuring the directionality and modulation where mπ ∼ 140 MeV. As a result of this crucial differ- as discussed in SectionVB would be a direct manifesta- ence the decay of light pseudo Goldstone mesons of the tion of the AQN dark matter model. The observation CS phase cannot produce neutrinos in the 20-50 MeV en- of variety of amplifications as discussed in SectionVC ergy range and are not subject to the SuperK constraints would be also a strong support for the proposal (1). Fi- employed in [64]. Instead, the pseudo Goldstone mesons nally, the recording of the correlations between the AQN of the CS phase produce neutrinos in 15 MeV range. induced neutrino amplification and the impulses of the These unique spectral features of the neutrinos emit- infrasound and weak seismic waves would strongly sup- ted by AQNs play the key role in our proposal suggesting port our proposal as argued in subsectionVD. We finish that the observed cutoff in DL modulations at 6 keV is this work on this positive and optimistic note. ultimately related to the cutoff in the neutrinos energies 16 at 15 MeV emitted by AQNs. The emergence of this new such that the rest energy of the lightest NG mesons does 15 MeV energy scale is the subject of the next subsec- not exceed the 10-20 MeV range. In fact EK0 may even tions. vanish, in which case the K0 field forms a condensate 0 (the so-called CFLK -phase). In these formula vNG deviates from speed of light c due to the explicit violation 1. Nambu-Goldstone modes in CS phase of the Lorentz invariance in the system such that the dispersion relations for all quasiparticles are drastically There are many possible CS phases due to the genera- different from their counterparts in vacuum. tion of a gap ∆ through different channels with slightly One should comment here that the dispersion relations different properties. While the relevant physics is a part for the NG modes within the anti-nuggets (which is most of the standard model, QCD with no free parameters, the relevant for our purposes) can be obtained from (A2) by corresponding phase diagram is still a matter of debate replacing µ → −µ such that the lightest NG states be- as it strongly depends on the precise numerical value of come the K¯ 0 and K− for nuggets made of antimatter. the gap ∆, see review articles [66, 67]. For our purposes This comment is important for identification of the neu- though the key characteristics are very much the same trino and anti-neutrino spectra to be discussed in next for all phases. Therefore, we limit ourself below to re- subsectionA2. viewing the most developed, the so called CFL (colour flavour locking) phase. The spontaneous breaking of chi- ral symmetry in colour-superconductors gives rise to low- 2. Neutrino emission from NG bosons energy pseudo–Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes with sim- ilar quantum numbers to the mesons (pions, kaons, etc.). The neutrino emission from CFL phase quark matter These objects, however, are collective excitations of the has been studied previously in a number of papers mostly CS state rather than vacuum excitations as is the case in context of the physics of neutron stars, see the original for the conventional confined hadronic phase. The finite papers [88–90] and the review article [66]. quark masses explicitly break chiral symmetry, giving rise In this subsection we will overview the basic results to these “pseudo”–Nambu-Goldstone modes on the order of [65] on neutrino and antineutrino fluxes from the sun. of 20 MeV, in huge contrast with the hadronic confined The main goal of ref. [65] was to argue that the Super- phase where the lightest mass meson has mπ ' 140 MeV. Kamiokande stringent constraint on anti-neutrino flux To be more precise, we consider large µ limit for which −2 −1 Φν¯e < (1.4 − 1.9)cm s at large energies E > 19.3 the masses and other relevant parameters in the CFL MeV [69] (which played the key role in analysis of [64]) phase can be explicitly computed [66, 67]: does not apply to our case on neutrino and antineutrino

2 2¯c 2 2 production by AQNs because the typical energies of neu- m ± ' m (m + m ), f ∼ µ π 2 s u d π trinos and antineutrinos will be much lower. fπ Indeed, the muons cannot be produced at all in the 2¯c 3∆2 2 CFL phase for purely kinematical reasons. Therefore, mK± ' 2 md(mu + ms), c¯ ' 2 fπ 2π the energetic antineutrinos which are normally produced ± ± 2 2¯c in the µ → e νeνµ decay channels are not produced in mK0 ' 2 mu(md + ms). (A1) fπ the CS matter. This is the crucial point of the arguments presented in [65]. As one can see from (A1) the NG bosons are much lighter In the simplest possible scenario (which was adopted than in vacuum. This is because their masses are pro- in ref. [65]) the majority of neutrinos will be emitted portional to m2 rather than to m , as at zero chemical q q by the lightest NG bosons, in which case the energy of potential. As a result, the lightest NG meson, the kaon, the emitted neutrinos does not normally exceed 15 MeV has a mass in the range of 10 to 20 MeV depending on for the CFL phase because the lightest NG bosons do precise value of ∆ and µ MeV, see for example [67]. not normally exceed mass in 30 MeV range as mentioned Another important difference between the NG modes in previous subsectionA1. This is very basic and very in dense matter and in vacuum is in the dispersion rela- generic feature of the CS phase. We postpone the impor- tions for the NG modes which assume the following form, tant discussions on basic features of the neutrinos emitted see for example [66]: by the quarks in CS phases to subsectionA3. Below we 2 q ms 2 2 2 list few features on the neutrino spectrum if it is satu- E ± = ∓ + v p + m (A2) K 2µ NG K± rated exclusively by NG bosons: 2 q 1. A specific choice of µ and ∆ determines the basic ms 2 2 2 E 0 = − + v p + m mass scales for the light NG modes, which eventually K 2µ NG K0 determine the ν spectrum; 2 q ms 2 2 2 2. It is normally assumed that a required value for µ for E ¯ 0 = + + v p + m K 2µ NG K0 CFL to be realized is µ ' 400 MeV. The corresponding q 2 value for ∆ is estimated in this case as ∆ ' 100 MeV in 2 2 2 2 c E ± = v p + m , v = . π NG π± NG 3 the CFL phase, see review [66]. Such large value of µ can 17 be indeed reached in the AQN’s core as recent numerical with increases of pF such that the gaps for p and n be- 2 studies suggest, see Fig. 2 in ref [46]; ms come lower. Indeed, ∆p,n = ∆ − such that p, n 2pF 3. The neutrino spectrum is qualitatively different fermion excitations could become completely ungapped. from that of the antineutrinos because the annihilation If this happens these modes may become the dominant occurs not in vacuum but in dense CS state with µ ' 400 producers of the neutrinos. MeV. Indeed, in unpaired quark matter neutrino emissivity 4. Larger chemical potentials µ generally lead to even is dominated by the direct Urca processes such as d → lighter NG modes while the masses increase with the size − u+e +¯νe. In case of antinuggets it should be replaced by of the gap ∆ as eqs. (A1) and (A2) state; + anti-quarks with emission of neutrino νe and positron e We conclude this subsection with the following generic with the energy determined by the energy of the fermion comment. The main goal of [65] was to argue (in sim- excitation, which itself assumes the energy of order of the plified setting) that the neutrino’s energies in the AQN lightest NG mode according to analysis of the previous framework are typically in the 15 MeV range (in contrast sectionA2. with 20-50 MeV range as assumed in [64]) such that the If this process indeed becomes the dominant mech- stringent constraint from SuperK [69] does not apply. anism of the neutrino emission from AQNs than one should expect that

3. Fermion excitations and neutrino’s production κν  κν¯,Eν . 15 MeV, κν & 1, (A3) in CS phases. which is assumed to be the case as Eq. (13) states. As we already mentioned the neutrino emission from CS phases quark matter have been studied previously in a number of papers mostly in context of the physics of Appendix B: Local flashes neutron stars, see the review article [66]. We cannot lit- erally apply the machinery developed in previous studies In this Appendix we generalize our axion studies [63] to because all excitations (such as NG bosons) in our case include the neutrinos into consideration, similar to what are produced not in a thermally equilibrium system when we have done in SectionIIIB. The main topic for the the density of of the excitations is unambiguously deter- present studies is the enhancement effect and great am- mined by the temperature. Instead, all excitations in plification of the axion density which was coined as a our scenario are produced as a result of rare annihilation “local flash” in [63]. It occurs on rare occasions when events. These annihilation events excite the NG bosons an AQN hits (or exits) the Earth surface in vicinity of as well as fermion excitations, which may decay by emit- an axion search detector. In this Appendix we generalize ting neutrinos. The coefficients κν and κν¯ entering (16) the arguments of SectionIIIB to estimate a similar local precisely correspond to this mechanism of the neutrino flash for neutrinos. production. We follow the same logic of ref [63] and consider a case In this subsection we want to overview some features when an AQN is moving in a distance d close enough to of the fermion excitations of the CS phases which may be the detector, as shown in Fig.1. The total number of the dominant contributors to the neutrino fluxes. This is because the NG bosons which are produced as a result of z annihilation events in CS phase cannot leave the system and consequently decay to emit neutrino, as they must stay inside of the nuggets. It should be contrasted with zcut hadronic phase when pions and Kaons (produced as a re- sult e.g. pp¯ annihilation) decay to muons and neutrinos in vacuum. Therefore, the NG bosons in CS phases are likely to be absorbed by fermion excitations (if kinemat- ically allowed), which consequently decay to neutrinos. Observer We start our overview by mentioning some CS phases β which support low energy fermion excitations. Detail 0 discussions can be found in review article [66]. First of all, the so-called 2SC phase (when two out of three d colours and flavours are paired and condensed) supports Trajectory of an AQN unpaired modes which could be light and couple to NG bosons. Another phase which also supports the light FIG. 1: Local flash occurs for short period of time τ fermion excitations is the so-called CFL−K0 phase when when an AQN moves at distance d  R⊕, adopted from K0 energy vanishes according (A2). For antinuggets this [63]. phase corresponds to K¯ 0 condensation. In both cases 0 (CFL and CFL-K ) the gap of the excitations decreases emitted neutrinos per unit area within z ∈ [−zcut, zcut] 18 as a result of passage of the AQN at distance d from an even parameter κν , and in fact identically coincides with observer is given by: expression obtained for the axion “local flash” derived previously in [63]. It is anticipated result as all these dN 1 Z zcut κ dm (z) numerical factors cancel out in the ratio (B4) as relative ∆ ν = ν AQN dA 4π z2 + d2 m amplification factor (B4) is entirely determined by the −zcut p (B1) β κ m˙ dynamics of the AQNs, not the particles they emit as ' ν AQN long as these particles are relativistic, which is the case 2πd vAQN mp for both species: the axions and neutrinos. As the final expression (B4) for the neutrino amplifi- where β is the angle related to zcut as shown in Fig.1, cation factor coincides with the corresponding expression and we used formula (13) which defines the coefficient κν for the axion [63] the consequences in both cases are the as the number of neutrinos produced due to the annihi- same, and we simply list them: lation of a single baryon charge. In obtaining (B1) the 1. for the typical ratio hN˙ ih∆ti ∼ 30 where hN˙ i is integration dz is replaced by integration dmAQN given by eq. (9) and β ∼ 1 one can infer that an ampli- fication becomes significant if d  0.1R⊕. κν κν m˙ AQN 2. the time duration τ of a local flash as a function of dNν ' dmAQN = dz , (B2) mp mp vAQN amplification Aν :

Now we can estimate the flux of neutrinos due to the 2d h∆ti1/2 1 passage of this nearby AQN as follows τ ' ' 1 , (B5) v ˙ 2 AQN hNi Aν     where in the last step, we approximate vAQN ' dNν 1 dNν κν β 2R⊕/h∆ti and assume β ∼ 1 for simplicity. We sum- ∆ ' ∆ = 2 m˙ AQN , (B3) dAdt τ dA mp 4πd marize a few choices of time duration τ as a function of amplification factor Aν in TableI. where we used expression (B1) and approximated τ ' 3. The probability to observe an AQN for z ≤ d be- 2d/vAQN as a typical travel time for an AQN inside the haves as a simple area law: interval [−zcut, zcut]. We want to compare this “local flash” (B3) with the  d 2 1 1 Prob(z ≤ d) ' ' · ,. (B6) average flux (14) by introducing the amplification factor R⊕ hN˙ ih∆ti Aν Aν (d) defined as the ratio: where we use Eq. (B4) to express d in terms of Aν . dNν
 2 4. the event rate can be expressed in terms of amplifi- ∆ dAdt β R⊕ Aν (d) ≡ ' , (B4) dNν
˙ d cation parameter Aν , dAdt hNih∆ti −3/2 hN˙ i · Prob(z ≤ d) · τ Aν where we approximatedm ˙ ' h∆m i/h∆ti. The Event rate = ' , (B7) AQN AQN h∆ti q physical meaning of h∆ti is the time duration of the hN˙ ih∆ti3 AQNs being averaged over all trajectories and over the velocity distribution. The result (B4) does not depend where averages hN˙ i and h∆ti have been numerically com- on neutrino’s spectrum, nor intensity. It does not include puted for different size distribution models in [63].

[1] R. Bernabei et al., Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2648 (2013), [6] K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. arXiv:1308.5109 [astro-ph.GA]. 85, 1561 (2013), arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]. [2] R. Bernabei et al., Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3196 (2014), [7] J. P. Ralston, (2010), arXiv:1006.5255 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1409.3516 [hep-ph]. [8] D. Nygren, (2011), arXiv:1102.0815 [astro-ph.IM]. [3] R. Bernabei et al., Proceedings, 19th Workshop on What [9] K. Blum, (2011), arXiv:1110.0857 [astro-ph.HE]. Comes Beyond the Standard Models?: Bled, Slovenia, [10] J. H. Davis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 081302 (2014), July 11-19, 2016, Bled Workshops Phys. 17, 1 (2016), arXiv:1407.1052 [hep-ph]. [EPJ Web Conf.136,05001(2017)], arXiv:1612.01387 [11] V. V. Flambaum and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, [hep-ex]. 023517 (2019), arXiv:1811.01965 [hep-ph]. [4] R. Bernabei et al., Proceedings, 7th International [12] A. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 1710, 050 (2017), arXiv:1707.03400 Conference on New Frontiers in Physics (ICNFP [astro-ph.SR]. 2018): Kolymbari, Crete, Greece, July 4-12, 2018, [13] N. Raza, L. van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Universe 4, 116 (2018), [Nucl. Phys. Atom. En- D98, 103527 (2018), arXiv:1805.01897 [astro-ph.SR]. ergy19,no.4,307(2018)], arXiv:1805.10486 [hep-ex]. [14] K. Lawson and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, [5] K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. Gould, Phys. Rev. D37, 100295 (2018), arXiv:1804.07340 [hep-ph]. 3388 (1988). [15] S. Ge, H. Rachmat, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waer- 19

beke, and A. Zhitnitsky, (2020), arXiv:2004.00632 [45] S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 97, [astro-ph.HE]. 043008 (2018), arXiv:1711.06271 [hep-ph]. [16] G. Adhikari and others (COSINE-100), Nature 564, [46] S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 83 (2018), [erratum: Nature566,no.7742,E2(2019)], 116017 (2019), arXiv:1903.05090 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1906.01791 [astro-ph.IM]. [47] A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D74, 043515 (2006), [17] G. Adhikari et al. (COSINE-100), JINST 13, T06005 arXiv:astro-ph/0603064 [astro-ph]. (2018), arXiv:1805.03381 [physics.ins-det]. [48] K. Lawson, Phys. Rev. D83, 103520 (2011), [18] G. Adhikari et al. (COSINE-100), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, arXiv:1011.3288 [astro-ph.HE]. 031302 (2019), arXiv:1903.10098 [astro-ph.IM]. [49] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2938 [19] J. Amar and others (ANAIS-112), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, (2014), arXiv:1402.3460 [astro-ph.CO]. 031301 (2019), arXiv:1903.03973 [astro-ph.IM]. [50] K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, [20] C. Collaboration (CYGNUS), (2019), arXiv:1901.04190 L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D100, [physics.ins-det]. 043531 (2019), arXiv:1905.00022 [astro-ph.CO]. [21] E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984). [51] P. Gorham, Phys. Rev. D86, 123005 (2012), [22] E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D30, 2379 (1984). arXiv:1208.3697 [astro-ph.CO]. [23] A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nature 312, 734 (1984). [52] D. M. Jacobs, G. D. Starkman, and B. W. Lynn, Mon. [24] J. Madsen, Hadrons in dense matter and hadrosynthe- Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 3418 (2015), arXiv:1410.2236 sis. Proceedings, 11th Chris Engelbrecht Summer School, [astro-ph.CO]. Cape Town, South Africa, February 4-13, 1998, Lect. [53] E. T. Herrin, D. C. Rosenbaum, and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Notes Phys. 516, 162 (1999), [,162(1998)], arXiv:astro- Rev. D73, 043511 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0505584 [astro- ph/9809032 [astro-ph]. ph]. [25] A. R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 0310, 010 (2003), arXiv:hep- [54] D. H. Oaknin and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, ph/0202161 [hep-ph]. 101301 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406146 [hep-ph]. [26] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 [55] A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D76, 103518 (2007), (1977). arXiv:astro-ph/0607361 [astro-ph]. [27] S. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 40, 223 (1978). [56] M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 0801, 023 [28] F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978). (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0611506 [astro-ph]. [29] J. E. Kim, Physical Review Letters 43, 103 (1979). [57] K. Lawson and A. R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 0801, 022 (2008), [30] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, arXiv:0704.3064 [astro-ph]. Nuclear Physics B 166, 493 (1980). [58] M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D78, [31] M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Physics Letters 083505 (2008), arXiv:0802.3830 [astro-ph]. B 104, 199 (1981). [59] M. M. Forbes, K. Lawson, and A. R. Zhitnitsky, [32] A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980), [Yad. Phys. Rev. D82, 083510 (2010), arXiv:0910.4541 [astro- Fiz.31,497(1980)]. ph.GA]. [33] K. Van Bibber and L. J. Rosenberg, Physics Today 59, [60] A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Dark Univ. 22, 1 (2018), 30 (2006). arXiv:1801.01509 [astro-ph.SR]. [34] S. J. Asztalos, L. J. Rosenberg, K. van Bibber, P. Sikivie, [61] X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 023015 and K. Zioutas, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle (2019), arXiv:1810.00673 [hep-ph]. Science 56, 293 (2006). [62] H. Fischer, X. Liang, Y. Semertzidis, A. Zhitnit- [35] P. Sikivie, in Axions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin sky, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D98, 043013 (2018), Springer Verlag, Vol. 741, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raf- arXiv:1805.05184 [hep-ph]. felt, and B. Beltr´an(2008) p. 19, astro-ph/0610440. [63] X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, [36] G. G. Raffelt, in Axions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043512 (2020), Springer Verlag, Vol. 741, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raf- arXiv:1908.04675 [astro-ph.CO]. felt, and B. Beltr´an(2008) p. 51, hep-ph/0611350. [64] P. Gorham and B. J. Rotter, Phys. Rev. D95, 103002 [37] P. Sikivie, International Journal of Modern Physics A 25, (2017), arXiv:1507.03545 [astro-ph.CO]. 554 (2010), arXiv:0909.0949 [hep-ph]. [65] K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D95, 063521 [38] L. J. Rosenberg, Proceedings of the National Academy (2017), arXiv:1510.07646 [astro-ph.HE]. of Science 112, 12278 (2015). [66] M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schfer, [39] D. J. E. Marsh, Physics Reports 643, 1 (2016), Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep- arXiv:1510.07633. ph]. [40] P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- [67] K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, in At the frontier of par- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Annual Review of Nuclear ticle physics. Handbook of QCD. Vol. 1-3 , edited by and Particle Science 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 M. Shifman and B. Ioffe (2000) pp. 2061–2151, arXiv:hep- [hep-ex]. ph/0011333 [hep-ph]. [41] A. Ringwald, in Proceedings of the Neutrino Oscillation [68] J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, Astrophys. Workshop (NOW2016). 4 - 11 September, 2016. Otranto J. 621, L85 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412440 [astro-ph]. (Lecce, Italy) (2016) p. 81, arXiv:1612.08933 [hep-ph]. [69] C. Lunardini and O. L. G. Peres, JCAP 0808, 033 (2008), [42] I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. arXiv:0805.4225 [astro-ph]. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]. [70] Y. Gando et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. [43] X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083502 90, 171302 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212067 [hep-ex]. (2016), arXiv:1606.00435 [hep-ph]. [71] A. Gando et al. (KamLAND), Astrophys. J. 745, 193 [44] S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 96, (2012), arXiv:1105.3516 [astro-ph.HE]. 063514 (2017), arXiv:1702.04354 [hep-ph]. [72] D. Barker, D. M. Mei, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D86, 20

054001 (2012), arXiv:1202.5000 [physics.ins-det]. [83] L. M. Capparelli, G. Cavoto, D. Mazzilli, and A. D. [73] Q. Yue et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. D90, 091701 (2014), Polosa, Phys. Dark Univ. 9-10, 24 (2015), [Erra- arXiv:1404.4946 [hep-ex]. tum: Phys. Dark Univ.11,79(2016)], arXiv:1412.8213 [74] Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 131302 [physics.ins-det]. (2011), arXiv:1011.2482 [astro-ph.CO]. [84] Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully, [75] Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS-II), (2012), arXiv:1203.1309 and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B772, 239 (2017), [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1606.08849 [hep-ph]. [76] E. Armengaud et al. (EDELWEISS), Phys. Rev. D86, [85] G. Cavoto, F. Luchetta, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Lett. 051701 (2012), arXiv:1207.1815 [astro-ph.CO]. B776, 338 (2018), arXiv:1706.02487 [hep-ph]. [77] D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 091303 [86] D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnit- (2014), arXiv:1310.8214 [astro-ph.CO]. sky, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043012 (2020), arXiv:1909.09475 [78] R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, [hep-ph]. 241302 (2014), arXiv:1402.7137 [hep-ex]. [87] D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Zhitnitsky, (2020), [79] J. Angle et al. (XENON10), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051301 arXiv:2003.07363 [hep-ph]. (2011), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.110,249901(2013)], [88] P. Jaikumar, M. Prakash, and T. Schafer, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1104.3088 [astro-ph.CO]. D66, 063003 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203088 [astro-ph]. [80] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, [89] S. Reddy, M. Sadzikowski, and M. Tachibana, Nucl. 181301 (2012), arXiv:1207.5988 [astro-ph.CO]. Phys. A714, 337 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0203011 [nucl- [81] C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT), (2014), arXiv:1401.3295 th]. [astro-ph.CO]. [90] S. Reddy, M. Sadzikowski, and M. Tachibana, Phys. Rev. [82] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D68, 053010 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306015 [nucl-th]. D98, 030001 (2018).