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:
- Davoudiasl and Rizzo, “Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC,” hep-ph/0702078.
- Hayes, “Is the outer Solar System chaotic?”, astro-ph/0702179.
- Romano, “Testing cosmic homogeneity,” astro-ph/0702229.
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.)
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.
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.
How can sterile neutrinos decay? Is the claim that they decay via a Quantum-Gravity induced process?
A shiny new arxiv find: “Three-Loop Superfiniteness of N=8 Supergravity,” by Bern et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702112
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 neutrinoï€ e u d
Xi4 muonic-type c s
Xi6ï€ 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 (ï¸ï€°) 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 (mï¸).
(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.
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?
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?
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.
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.