arxiv Find: Dark Matter and Sterile Neutrinos

By Sean Carroll | February 10, 2007 2:56 pm

Another interesting abstract from the arxiv: astro-ph/0702173, “Dark Matter and Sterile Neutrinos,” by Biermann and Munyaneza.

Dark matter has been recognized as an essential part of matter for over 70 years now, and many suggestions have been made, what it could be. Most of these ideas have centered on Cold Dark Matter, particles that are predicted in extensions of standard particle physics, such as supersymmetry. Here we explore the concept that dark matter is sterile neutrinos, particles that are commonly referred to as Warm Dark Matter. Such particles have keV masses, and decay over a very long time, much longer than the Hubble time. In their decay they produce X-ray photons which modify the ionization balance in the very early universe, increasing the fraction of molecular Hydrogen, and thus help early star formation. Sterile neutrinos may also help to understand the baryon-asymmetry, the pulsar kicks, the early growth of black holes, the minimum mass of dwarf spheroidal galaxies, as well as the shape and smoothness of dark matter halos. As soon as all these tests have been made quantitative in their various parameters, we may focus on the creation mechanism of these particles, and could predict the strength of the sharp X-ray emission line, expected from any large dark matter assembly. A measurement of this X-ray emission line would be definitive proof for the existence of may be called weakly interacting neutrinos, or WINs.

The three flavors of neutrinos we know and love (the electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino, or equivalently [but differently] their mass eigenstates) interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity, but not through electromagnetism or the strong force. A sterile neutrino is one that doesn’t even interact through the weak force! As of yet completely hypothetical, such sterile neutrinos can play an interesting astrophysical role, depending on their masses; Alex Kusenko, as well as the above authors, has been investigating their properties for some time. This is a review paper that touches on a number of the novel possibilities.

Some other interesting abstracts:

Note that co-bloggers are welcome to post their own favorites, and commenters are welcome to suggest theirs! (At least one frequent commenter is a co-author of one of the papers above.)

CATEGORIZED UNDER: arxiv, Science
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance JoAnne

    I was intrigued by the harmony of the spheres in “Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC.” (Sorry, inside joke, but I couldn’t resist!)

  • graviton383

    Harmony of the Spheres? Sounds like a good paper title…

  • http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/10/history-of-star-shine-to-now.html Plato

    Harmony of the spheres? Hmm………

    Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a “sterile” neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

    See here:

  • BruinCosmonaut

    Does anyone know if these sterile neutrinos are consistent with the extra gauge singlet neutrino that’s predicted from the GUT in which each generation of the standard model fermions is put into a 16* dimensional represenation of SO(10)? Might this not be strong circumstantial evidence in favor of a specific theory beyond the standard model?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/julianne Julianne

    if these sterile neutrinos are consistent with the extra gauge singlet neutrino that’s predicted from the GUT in which each generation of the standard model fermions is put into a 16* dimensional represenation of SO(10)?

    This is the line you’d have Keanu Reeves say in a movie, to convince the audience that he really was a scientist.

  • http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/ Lab Lemming

    Can neutrinos interact with each other (aside from gravitationlly)? Don’t astronomers have evidence of dark matter interaction from various colleding galaxy X-ray pictures?

  • http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~kev Kev Abazajian

    Great to see this taken “seriously” more often now! 😉

    It’s come from fringe work to a serious candidate. And, how can you loose with a moniker like “WINs”!!! 😀

    Ciao,
    Kev

  • Alex Nichols

    Lamda-WDM?

  • http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2007/01/search-for-dark-matter-in-unresolved-x.html Plato

    A candidate light particle that reduces small-scale structures is a neutrino-like particle that has no standard interactions, but can be produced in the early universe with its small coupling with the standard neutrinos, often described as a “sterile neutrino” (Dodelson & Widrow, 1994). The same coupling for its production requires a decay mode of the sterile neutrino into a photon and the standard neutrino with which it is coupled. The decay photon is mono-energetic and has X-ray energies. This has allowed the use of contemporary X-ray observatories such as NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory for a previously unintended purpose: the search for the signature of a dark matter candidate.

    See here

    Thanks Kev, from the Fringe :)

    If one was going to drive perspective to the “basis of interactions” then how was one supposed to do this? A whole area of research in Neutrinos forces one to continue to drive this perspective to “some point?”

    Look at the universe in a different way?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Lab Lemming, we don’t have any good evidence that dark matter interacts with itself or anything else. The Bullet Cluster, for example, puts an upper limit on any such interaction.

  • Doug

    This is a highly speculative comment.

    Neutrinos may be able to link QM and GR through stochastic dynamic noncooperative game theory.

    QM may run on ‘neutrino time’.
    Neutrinos travel near the speed of light, which if Einstein is correct, so time is considerably slower than anthropic time used in GR.
    Currently anthropic time appears to be used simultaneously for QM and GR.
    Perhaps some form of Itzhak Bars Two-Time Physics (2T-physics) is appropriate?
    http://physics1.usc.edu/%7Ebars/research.html#2T

    Events such as supernovas, GRB and comet collisions with planets are types of statistical mechanics [SM] in GR, which except for scale, are not unlike the SM of QM.

  • http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/07/right-spin-for-neutrino-superfluid.html Plato

    Of course I am never certain where this is leading. :)

    The right spin for a neutrino superfluid

    Kapusta points out that the condensation temperature would be well below the cosmic background temperature, so it would be quite a feat to make this superfluid. However, Kapusta also notes that a sufficiently advanced civilization might use pulses of neutrino superfluid for long-distance communications.

    See here.

  • anonymous too

    Sterile neutrinos are an interesting idea, but drop the name “WIN”. The term “weakly interacting neutrino” is not appropriate for a sterile neutrino, which just doesn’t have weak interactions! I find the term confusing.

  • http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2007/02/neutrino-mixing-explained-in-60-seconds.html Plato

    “Weakly interacting” may mean how “subtle the perception is ” of matter constitutions? A “truly scientific explanation” should be forth coming of course. :)

    For example, when neutrinos interact with matter they produce specific kinds of other particles. Catch the neutrino at one moment, and it will interact to produce an electron. A moment later, it might interact to produce a different particle. “Neutrino mixing” describes the original mixture of waves that produces this oscillation effect.

    See Here:

  • BruinCosmonaut

    Julianne — Okay, perhaps my comment was phrased a tad too pompously, but I’m actually interested in the answer to it if anyone knows offhand. Are there other theoretically motivated theories beyond the standard model besides the minimal SO(10) GUT that predict SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) singlets such as the DW sterile neutrino? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were, I just don’t happen to know of any. The closest thing I can think of would be the neutralino of the minimal supersymmetric standard model, but they’d be much to heavy, not to mention that they’re weakly interacting.

  • http://vacua.blgospot.com Jim Harrison

    Department of Probably Stupid Questions:

    Dark matter isn’t supposed to interact with ordinary matter except gravitationally. If there’s so much of it around, however, how come some of it doesn’t end up in stars like the Sun? And, even in the absence of stellar masses made of ordinary matter, why doesn’t dark matter collapse into star-sized objects under the force of gravity? Or do we know that it doesn’t? I assume that dark-matter stellar-sized objects would sometimes make their presence known by forming binary systems with regular stars.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Bruin– I don’t think Julianne was making fun of you, just struck by the technical language. I don’t know the answer to your first specific question, but to the second one, there are plenty of dark matter candidates that are singlets under the Standard Model gauge group. The most obvious example is the axion, which is probably the second-most-popular dark matter candidate.

    Jim– dark matter undoubtedly does clump, but on small scales ordinary matter clumps with much greater efficiency. That’s just because atoms can collide and cool, losing energy, which DM particles don’t do. There should be dark matter in the Solar System, but probably not with a very high density — nothing comparable to the ordinary matter.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/julianne Julianne

    Many apologies Bruin – Sean’s interpretation was correct, and I’m sorry if it seemed like I was poking at you. It’s just that I’m frequently struck when I step outside of myself and observe the practice of physics as an outsider would. Some of what we say sounds, frankly, bonkers, even when it actually makes perfect sense.

  • http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/ Ben

    The historical problem with neutrinos as the dominant DM is that they erase small scale structure on scales of galaxies and smaller by free streaming out of early potential wells. This makes it hard to form galaxies at a reasonable time and to match the observed power. The authors have an argument for why their particular set of decaying neutrino properties can enhance gas cooling at early times (to seed star formation) but I wasn’t quite persuaded that this actually staves off the erasure of structure by free streaming.

    There is a more serious problem, which is that WIN stands for Whip Inflation Now, of course, and so you can hardly go around calling a major constituent of an inflationary universe model a WIN.

  • http://www.pieterkok.com/index.html PK

    Interesting title & abstract on today’s quantum ArXiv:

    Title: Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?
    Authors: H. Nikolic

    I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.

    The URL can be found here.

  • Jeff

    Sean, you said: “The most obvious example is the axion, which is probably the second-most-popular dark matter candidate.”

    Really, what’s the most-popular DM candidate then? I’d honestly thought the axion would be “most popular”, since I thought upper limits on neutrino masses would keep them from even being a significant fraction of DM total mass. Am I forgetting something obvious?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Jeff, the most popular candidate (currently) would be the lightest supersymmetric particle. Much more popular than axions, actually. See Mark’s earlier post for some details.

  • http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/index.html Joseph Smidt

    Again, thanks for posting about helpful papers. This one seems great.

  • Alex Nichols

    Title: Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?
    Authors: H. Nikolic

    Is this the first Physics paper to quote F.Bulsara, the research assistant of astrophysicist B.H. May from Imperial College?

    “Is this the real life
    Is this just fantasy
    Caught in a landslide
    No escape from reality”

  • strategichamlet

    Are CDM particles thought not to interact at all with other CDM particles for theoretical reasons deriving from the possible canidates or because simulations would be really hard to do with interacting CDM and simulations using non-interacting CDM seem to get the right answer? Or some other reason?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Neither one, really — it’s because having the DM particles be non-interacting is what fits the data. Dark matter doesn’t scatter and cool, as far as we can tell. Probably the dark matter has some interactions — maybe even something that is astrophysically intereesting — but they are too small to be noticed yet, apparently.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/julianne Julianne

    Are CDM particles thought not to interact at all with other CDM particles for theoretical reasons deriving from the possible canidates or because simulations would be really hard to do with interacting CDM and simulations using non-interacting CDM seem to get the right answer? Or some other reason?

    For many years dark matter was assumed to be non-interacting, because it was the simplest assumption and still seemed to work very well in reproducing the statistical properties of the distribution of galaxies. At the time, the Hubble constant and the density of the universe were uncertain to at least a factor of two, and the properties of dark matter halos depended more on the value of these cosmological parameters, rather than the properties of the dark matter. Thus, why bother tinkering with the dark matter model? In the late 90’s, however, the background cosmology became more certain (and simulations improved), yielding more definitive predictions for how dark matter should cluster, particularly on the scale of individual galaxies. However, as the wiggle room went away, it became clear that there were real conflicts between the predicted high density of dark matter within galaxies, and the actual low density as inferred from the motions of galaxies. Several groups then began exploring more rococo forms of dark matter (“warm” (i.e. slightly relativistic) dark matter, self-interacting dark matter etc), largely after Spergel & Steinhart’s work reminded people that it was possible for dark matter to do more than interact gravitationally (really, it was like the whole community woke up, and there was a flurry of work testing alternate models). The early self-interacting models, however, suffer from the unfortunate “gravothermal catastrophe’, and tend to wind up making the predicted halos even denser, increasing the conflict with observations. Warm models, or models that act warm (such as in some decaying dark matter models) are still in play, but are subject to Goldilocks constraints, where everything has to be juuuuuuust right to make it all work out.

  • http://valatan.blogspot.com bittergradstudent

    How can sterile neutrinos decay? Is the claim that they decay via a Quantum-Gravity induced process?

  • BruinCosmonaut

    A shiny new arxiv find: “Three-Loop Superfiniteness of N=8 Supergravity,” by Bern et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702112

  • nick

    THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE AND SPECULATION ON THE MAKEUP OF DARK MATTER

    Perhaps this is not the right forum for this, but the latest article you talked about (Dark Matter and Sterile Neutrinos) point out the varied speculation about the make up of Dark Matter. One more speculation won’t corrupt good physics.
    At the risk of having reactions of “NONSENCE” by the community or having this “comment” deleted, I present this additional speculation. It seems that we should first not identify Dark Matter with names that present some mental bias of what it is, but be free to think “out of the box” and see where it leads to.
    First, a bit of chronology. This is part of a very extensive alternative hypothesis developed over decades (first partially published 1984) that predicted and/or can calculate, such things as voids, Dark Energy (DE 69.4% of total) and DM, Hubble-type age (13.572 x10^9 yr) and why only matter-type Baryonic (visible) Matter (BM) and others. Actually the states presented here did not come about from considering Dark Matter but initially (in the 60’s and 70’s) were the results of attempting to find the possibility for a fourth flavor of leptons..
    The path taken was one of choices of more or less likely, or more or less definitive based on known physics, or plausible alternatives. These alternatives must not only, not contradict known physics, but must also obey the Anthropic Principle where a choice must have a more likely path to our Universe. These were the guidelines for an alternative cosmology hypothesis developed several decades ago.
    For Dark Matter, the first choice to be made is between states that are totally “disconnected” or none interactive at the fundamental quantum level and those that can have some correlation with the familiar BM. The choice of states that are totally disconnected leaves almost everything as an ad hoc fabrication at this time and state of knowledge. The states to be considered, therefore, are states of fundamental nature that have some correlation with the known BM states. These states “obviously” must have some “strange” characteristics and are therefore identified as Xena (greek xi) states. The Xena interaction with BM can be taken as one of mostly gravitational at the macroscopic level. That leaves the basic possibility that BM can have some path as with the paths between leptons and quarks, to form, or “decay” into the Xena, or the Xena into the BM. If the BM had a path of decay into the Xena, most likely it would have been seen by experiment by now. This would mean that this path if it exists, is only available at very high energies. Also if not, the universe would have been all Xena by now. High energy forces the Xena to be very massive and much less in number than the BM and of course must be neutral. A neutral massive xena state may take a long time to “fall” into or form a black hole but at the present age of the universe it would be more likely, than observations indicate, to find a much larger number of massive black holes in clusters and galaxies. There appears to be no good candidate method for forming small freely roaming black holes that by the present age of the universe would not coalesce into very large black holes and loose some of the characteristics of the “observed” DM. If the Xena are not likely to be the decay products of BM matter, the other possibility is that the Xena are the Progenitors of Baryonic Matter and may therefore be the cause of our existence. This brings in the Anthropic Principle that also seems to be pervasive through our Universe. Attributing progenitor characteristics to the Xena forces the question of why not all the xena states decay into BM by now. Either there is a mechanism that makes further decay forbidden or the decay is still in progress. For the decay to be still in progress the difficulties of lack of observations of new BM “sources”, or alternatively, “cosmic” Xena lifetimes seems to rule this possibility out of a major role. There appears to be no obvious mechanism that can allow considerable production of BM in the past and then turn off this interaction. An answer for this is very obvious and is presented by both leptons and quarks. There are more than one xena states and at least the lowest mass xena is not able to decay, just as the electron is stable at the lowest mass position. This means that by this scenario the present Dark Matter could be the left-over xena state while the higher mass xena have long ago, decayed into Baryonic Matter. Up to the present a Xena Model seems to present desirable possibilities, but is by no means yet definitive. Obvious questions such as: Are the xena also matter and antimatter? Do they annihilate into photons and if so, does that make them more detectable. Do photons have a path with the xena? How many and what type are there? One can also ask the basic question of why is the present BM all matter-type and how is that related to the xena characteristics if at all?
    Some of these have possible simple answers if one follows the guidance of nature. The answer to how many, should be fairly straight forward. One is obviously out. A value of two types presents some good characteristics to allow one to decay 100% into BM while the other is left behind as DM. Nature however, has given a clue that two is not the answer. A characteristic to be given to the Xena is that they are also of matter and antimatter variety. This is to be expected of states that decay into matter, or antimatter BM. That is with only two types there is no good mechanism for creating the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) and still have remaining BM around. The existence of CMB, the existence of BM as well as some conservation rules eliminate the two-xena model. The next number considered is that of three types of xena. The value of three (again three!) seems to provide all the desirable conditions for all the tests that were historically considered by the proposed hypothesis.
    As will be shown below, a three-xena model presents solutions to several “puzzling” observed conditions. This, than means, that there should be three pairs of xena, or six states in total. Dark Matter does not seem to have the velocity of light as their velocity. This forces them to have mass and the mass of the different states must be different. The attribute of generation value (also defines matter, or antimatter) just as in leptons and quarks must also be given to the xena. The only other quantum attribute required is spin and because of the progenitor and total characteristics they are required to be bosons and have a spin of (nhc/2pi ) where n = 0,1,2,. The three types of the above massive xena cannot be scalars and cannot have zero spin. This is reserved for only one state as will be presented below. For the present hypothesis, it can be assumed that all three types have spin one and they are grouped into three different values of generation, namely Xi2 Xi4 Xi6. These even values of generation number (subscript) are required because of the decay modes and progenitor status and must follow rules that are similar to those of leptons. The identification of antimatter and matter is designated as (+ or – ) in front of the generation subscript.
    To sum the assigned characteristics to this point, one can state that the three pairs of massive xena have completely null electromagnetic and electroweak interactions. This means that they cannot directly annihilate into photons. They can however, form either a scalar, or a tensor (spin 2, possibly of significance) exchange state similar to lepton annihilation into photons. The behavior of the mass must also be given two additional strange attributes. The first is that unlike BM the rest mass value of the Xena is inversely proportional to the generation. The second attribute is more strange and seems to show that the mass behavior follows an inverse model of mass-vs-velocity, as compared to the BM. There are possible reasons for these, but the simplest is to invoke the Anthropic Principle because our Universe exists. That is if the xena have these attributes one can form a direct path to our Universe. The first of these mass attributes prevents the total xena decay into BM. The second (by Statistical Mechanics) seems to prevent galaxies and clusters from going into gigantic black holes by favoring distribution of DM in mostly shells or haloes around large BM structures. The spin value of one and the even values of the generation, correlates the Xena with specific generation of Leptons and Quarks. Quarks seem to play a subservient role, that is one of balancing conservation rules, in the xena decays into BM. Each Xena of a specific generation is associated with a doublet of Leptons having sum the same value of generation. The quarks involved play a role initially to balance the reaction, but of course are very crucial to our Universe. Nature appears to have made rules for quarks (correlated to the xena) to force them into composite states by “prohibiting” their singular existence. Again, a very strong Anthropic Principle behavior.
    Some of the so called conservation rules in particle physics are known not to be conserved under all interactions but of course they do help in the specific interactions. This is taken to mean that these semi-conservation rules are not really fundamental for every case. From the Xena behavior a xena decay into BM must explicitly show conservation of energy, spin and generation (defines matter-type). All other quantum values such as charge, lepton and baryonic numbers and weak charge are completely null for xena and must sum to zero (or to the xena value) for the decay products. By these limitations the most likely (lowest energy) decay mode of a xena into BM is the following and its mirror image:
    Xi(2i) => Leptons{Li0 + Li+} + Quarks{((neutral hyperon2+i )+ (charged hyperon2+i ) + mesons (2+i) (D0 +k0))} i = 1,2,3
    For example, the first flavor antimatter Xi+2, decays into {Li0 + Li+} (positron and antineutrino) ; {n0 + p-} (antinucleons) ; 3{D0 + k0} (matter mesons) . That is:
    Xi+2 => {e+ + neutrino + 6u +6d}antimatter + {3c +3s}matter
    The generation of the hyperons and mesons is defined by their constituent quarks. The leptons are always of the same type of matter as the xena. The quarks involved are always forming hyperons of the same matter-type as the xena and mesons always of the “opposite” matter-type of the xena.
    From this interaction relationship it becomes clear that the xena (if they exist) can be considered the progenitors of both leptons and quarks. It also presents a possible answer for the question of why three and only three flavors of leptons and quarks. Only three types of xena are required that must be correlated with only three flavors of leptons. The above relationship also shows that the Xi6 state needs to have a very large mass if it was to decay, since it requires the most massive and/or most number of both leptons and quarks. Since the mass of these states decreases with increasing generation the Xi6 has the lowest mass of the group and there may not be sufficient mass for the Xi6 to decay. If the quarks follow the same “strong” conservation rule as the leptons in the decay scheme, it places the required mass (for decay) for the xena-6 much above the value that appears to be likely.
    The xena can now be assumed to be not only the third family of fundamental states but also they seem to be the prime members (Progenitor states). The grouping can be as follows :

    FUNDAMENTAL STATES
    Xena Lepton Quark
    Xi2 neutrino e u d
    Xi4 muonic-type c s
    Xi6 tau-type t b
    Each group seems to have its own “fundamental” (two state) exchange state with its own characteristics. The xena appear to have (allow) both a tensor and a scalar, the leptons have a vector (photon) and ZW and the quarks have a scalar (gluons). A form of “mixing” or sharing appears to be possible between the xena and the quark exchange states that affects the strength of these states.
    Having proposed the existence of Xena and having elevated them as the progenitors of all matter, it appears prudent to examine how these states fit into the Dark Matter scheme and determine some values for the mass of both these states and the Dark Matter. The rest mass of both the xena-2 and xena-4 are considerably above (perhaps 10-11 g for the Xi2) the required value for decay, thus little if any information can be obtained concerning the present epoch DM from these two states. The CMB, however, is totally dependent on these. Assuming the above, it is not difficult to calculate estimates for the mass of the xena-6 and how they distribute in the universe. To complete the scenario for the relationship of all states and provide the foundation for a method of “creation” for the universe, one more xena state is required. This additional state () is the Prime Progenitor of all. It has no rest mass, no spin, no charge of any type, no generation (thus no matter or antimatter designation possible). The primary function of this state is to provide a means for the Universe to “begin” (from “emptiness”) and then through its decay to provide all there is in the universe. This state appears to be “just a cosmic vibration” and exists prior to any expansion of the Universe, or during what can be termed as the First Phase (Phase-1 that is collapsing) of the Universe. This state is a fundamental resonance (ringing) of the Universe itself (Pythagoras would have loved this) that “shatters” at the instant expansion starts. The details of the characteristics of this state need not be presented here except for the most likely decay path into massive xena at the “instant of start of the expansion”.
    Xi0 => Xi+2 + 2Xi-4 + Xi+6
    Of course the mirror image of this decay would normally be equally probable. Under some specific conditions (because of the universe geometry) it appears possible that this decay can occur about 100% and the mirror image is avoided. If this happens, than from this epoch, the rest of the fundamental observables in the Universe can follow by a direct Anthropic Princeple path and elementary physics. For example the information obtained through this is as diverse as the reason for the single (only) spin of the neutrino to the cause of the CMB photons. It is a path of forming a universe of a single matter-type of the Baryonic Matter without violating any fundamental conservation rules (sum of all equals zero). After about a thousand seconds, the universe evolves to a certain Phase and there is only the equivalent of two types of xena states that have remained and are important. One of the xena-4 (matter) and the xena-2 (antimatter) through baryonic paths have long ago, completely annihilated into photons that is the source of what will become the CMB. Over 50% of total matter of the universe annihilates. The products of the other xena-4 form the Baryonic Matter that is the present visible universe, while the left over xena-6 (antimatter) forms the present Dark Matter component. By this scenario the present make-up of our Universe by mass, has a number density of two matter-type nucleons (plus leptons) for every DM antimatter xena-6 (m).
    (mXi6 + 2mp)n = Mu ; where n = total number of xena states = half the number of nucleons
    The total mass of the universe can be inferred from several sources. One method based on data from the NASA WMAP experiments indicating an age of 13.7 x109 yr and a flat universe of critical density, indicates a mass Mu of about 1.3 x1056 g. From the above number ratio and the observational data indicating up to 80% of the matter is DM than the rest mass of the xena-6 must be about 8mp, or m Xi6 ~ 1.4 +/- 0.4 x10-23 g. This value is just below the minimum required for the xena-6 to decays via the lowest mass D0 and k0 mesons. If the xena-quark relationship is as strong as that of xena-lepton, than top and bottom mesons are required which puts the xena-6 rest mass much below the threshold. This xena-6 mass makes the value of n to be 7.3 x1078. If the Universe obeys an “Absolute Anthropic Principle” (PARTICLES AND UNIVERSE ARE CORRELATED QUANTA) than the mass of the xena-6 is 1.48 x10-23 g and the total number is 7.06 x1078. The Universe is exactly flat without the need of Standard Inflation and there is no horizon difficulty. These are all reasonable values based on an alternative cosmology (UNIVERSE VIA CONTINUUM CREATION AND ANNIHILATION) deduced from information of observations and guided by the Anthropic Principle.

  • spaceman

    Here is an interesting papper that ends with a suggestion that DM is made up of sterile neutrinos: “The Observed properties of Dark Matter on small spatial scales” (astro-ph/0703308)

    Has anyone explored the idea that there may be several kinds of particles that make up the DM?

  • spaceman

    Sean,

    By the way, speaking of DM, if you go to the American Physical Society website and look at the abstracts for next month’s meeting you will see on page 64 of the pdf an abstract titled “Test of F=ma for small accelerations.” According to the abstract, this test is 1000 times more sensitive to deviations from Newton’s laws compared with previous tests and it “provides a stringent constraint on theories involving a modification of Newtonian dynamics to explain the flatness of galactic rotation curves.”

    Is MOND one of the aforementioned theories? and am I correct in my guess that this result is good news for proponents of the particle DM idea?

    Lastly, most of the APS abstracts dealing with DM had to do with WIMP searches. So, I guess the question now becomes: Is the DM WIMPs, axions, or sterile neutrinos or perhaps some combination of these?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    spaceman, it definitely sounds like MOND is exactly what they are trying to constrain. But I don’t know anything about the experiment, so I have no idea what they’ve done.

    And yes, it’s certainly important to nail down what the DM actually is. It would be nice if it was WIMPs, as they can be experimentally probed in a variety of ways, but we have to take what Nature gives us.

  • http://countiblis.blogspot.com Count Iblis

    There was an article on the arXiv just a few days ago that claims that ordinary neutrinos could be the dark matter in a MOND scenario.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.

About Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. His most recent book is The Particle at the End of the Universe, about the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs boson. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] cosmicvariance.com .

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+