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.)
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!)
Harmony of the Spheres? Sounds like a good paper title…
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:
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?
This is the line you’d have Keanu Reeves say in a movie, to convince the audience that he really was a scientist.
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?
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
Lamda-WDM?
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?
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.
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.
Of course I am never certain where this is leading. 🙂
The right spin for a neutrino superfluid
See here.
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.
“Weakly interacting” may mean how “subtle the perception is ” of matter constitutions? A “truly scientific explanation” should be forth coming of course. 🙂
See Here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting title & abstract on today’s quantum ArXiv:
The URL can be found here.
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?
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.
Again, thanks for posting about helpful papers. This one seems great.
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”
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?