S0217751X18440347

International Journal of Modern Physics A
Vol. 33, No. 31 (2018) 1844034 (18 pages)

c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X18440347
by TULANE UNIVERSITY on 12/16/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Matter, dark matter, and antimatter in our Universe
Zurab Berezhiani
Dipartimento delle Scienze Fisiche e Chimiche,
Università di L’Aquila, I-67010 Coppito, AQ, Italy
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2018.33. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, I-67010 Assergi, AQ, Italy
zurab.berezhiani@aquila.infn.it
Published 19 November 2018
I discuss the possibility of dark matter conversion into our antimatter, assuming that a
part of dark matter is represented by a hypothetical mirror matter. In the Early Uni-
verse, B and L violating interactions between the particles of ordinary and mirror worlds
can co-generate their baryon asymmetries in comparable amounts, Ω′B /ΩB = 1–5, also
predicting the sign of mirror baryon asymmetry. At low energies, the same interactions
induce particle mixing phenomena between two sectors. In this way, e.g. mirror neutron
n′ should oscillate into our antineutron n̄, with probability that depends on environ-
mental conditions as matter density and magnetic fields. This oscillation can be faster
than the neutron decay itself, with n′ − n̄ conversion rate accessible for the experimental
search. It can have fascinating phenomenological and astrophysical consequences, and
can potentially open an unlimited source of energy by transforming dark mirror matter
into antimatter in a controllable way.
Keywords: Dark matter; baryon asymmetry; leptogenesis; neutrino oscillations; neutron

oscillations.
1. Introduction
The present CMB tests demonstrated that the Universe is spatially flat with
less than 1% precision, which means that its energy density is equal to critical,
Ω = ρ/ρcr = 1, confirming one of the main predictions of the inflation paradigm. In
addition, the determination of the spectral index of the primordial density fluctua-
tions confirms that cosmological inhomogeneities are originated from the quantum
fluctuations of the inflation field. However, the composition of the Universe energy
budget is a mystery since it is “concordantly” divided between the drastically dif-
ferent components: Ordinary (baryonic) matter constitutes only about 5% of total
energy density: ΩB ≈ 0.05, dark matter constitutes a bigger fraction: ΩD ≈ 0.25,
so that the total amount of matter is ΩM = ΩB + ΩD = 0.3, and dark energy
(or vacuum energy) constitutes the rest of total energy, ΩΛ = 1 − ΩM ≈ 0.70.
Relativistic component presented by relic photons and neutrinos represent a minus-
cule part of the total energy density, ΩR < 10−3 .
1844034-1
Z. Berezhiani
Identity of dark matter is yet unknown. Most interesting fact is that the fractions
or ordinary and dark matter fractions are comparable, ΩB /Ω′B ≃ 0.2. This looks as
a surprising cosmological Fine Tuning since the physics of popular candidates for
dark matter in different mass ranges as WIMPs, Wimpzillas, axions, keV neutrinos,
etc. is not related to popular baryogenesis mechanisms as are the GUT baryogenesis,
leptogenesis, Affleck–Dine baryogenesis, electroweak baryogenesis, etc. all based on
three Sakharov’s conditions1,2 (for a review, see e.g. Ref. 3). It is interesting that
a plausible candidate for dark matter which could shed the light on this mystery
was suggested yet before the necessity of dark matter was firmly established, in the
form of parallel mirror matter.
In fact, there may exist a hidden sector of particles which is an exact replica
of the observable particle sector, so that all ordinary (O) particles: the electron e,
proton p, neutron n, photon γ, neutrinos ν, etc. have invisible twins: e′ , p′ , n′ , γ ′ ,

ν ′ , etc., which are sterile to our interactions SU (3) × SU (2) × U (1) but have their
own gauge interactions SU (3)′ × SU (2)′ × U (1)′ with the same couplings. Such a
parallel world, coined as mirror (M) world was introduced long time ago against
parity violation: for our particles being left-handed (LH), parity was interpreted
as a discrete symmetry which exchanges them with their right-handed (RH) twins
from M sector4,5 (for a historical overview, see Ref. 6).
Mirror matter, invisible in terms of ordinary photons but gravitationally coupled
to our matter, could indeed play the role of dark matter in the Universe. Cosmo-
logical fraction of M matter is determined by mirror baryon asymmetry, i.e. excess
of M baryons over M antibaryons, right as for ordinary matter. One could naively
think that once O and M worlds have identical particle physics, their cosmologi-
cal realizations also should be identical, namely, two worlds should have the same
temperatures, T ′ = T , and the same baryon asymmetries, i.e. Ω′B = ΩB . However,
this assumption immediately encounters serious problems. At first, Ω′B = ΩB is not
sufficient for explaining the whole amount of DM, and other type of DM should
be introduced to obtain ΩDM ≃ 5ΩB . This is not dramatic, since there are many
well-motivated candidates for DM, e.g. WIMPs or axion. The equal temperatures,
T ′ = T , gives rise to more serious problems, since this would strongly disagree with
the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) limits on the effective amount of light degrees
of freedom. The contribution of M particles in the universe expansion rate at the
BBN epoch would be equivalent to the amount of extra neutrinos ∆Neff = 6.14,
while at most ∆Neff ≃ 0.5 is allowed by the present constraints. By these reasons,
and also because of self-interacting and dissipative nature, mirror matter was not
considered as a serious candidate for DM for a long time, though some interesting
works were done.7–10,a
a Deformed asymmetric versions of mirror matter were also considered, with spontaneously broken
mirror symmetry and mirror Higgs VEV v′ much larger than the ordinary electroweak scale v,11–14
where the mirror atoms, being heavier and more compact than ordinary atoms, and/or the sterile
mirror neutrinos with masses of few keV, could provide dark matter. These asymmetric models
can have interesting implications also for twin Higgs mechanism,15,16 for active-sterile neutrino
oscillations44–47 and for the axion physics17,18 (for a different version, see also Ref. 19).
1844034-2
Thus, the existence of parallel M world (or, more generically, any kind of hidden
sector) can be tolerated only if its temperature at the BBN epoch, T ∼ 1 MeV, is
smaller than the temperature of ordinary particles, T ′ < T . Then its contribution
will be equivalent to ∆Neff = 6.14x4 , and thus x = T ′ /T < 0.5 is sufficient for
achieving ∆Neff < 0.4. Therefore, for complementing the cosmological picture, one
can adopt the following paradigm:20
(A) Asymmetric reheating: After inflation the two sectors were heated in an non-
symmetric way, with T > T ′ . This can naturally occur in the context of certain
inflationary models;
(B) Out-of-equilibrium: The particle processes between O and M sectors should be
out-of-equilibrium at any epoch after inflation. This means that the possible
interaction portals between ordinary and mirror particles should be rather

feeble in order to not pump much entropy from O to M world and not to erase
their initial temperature asymmetry.
(C) No entropy production: There should be no first order phase transitions that
produce too much entropy in M sector. Both systems should evolve almost
adiabatically so that the temperature asymmetry T ′ /T should remain small in
all epochs from reheating to the present days.
Thus, if parallel mirror world exists, it should be at least twice colder than
our world. Moreover, with x = T ′ /T < 0.2 or so, M photons decouple much ear-
lier than ordinary photons, at the redshift zdec ≃ x−1 × 1100, yet before matter-
radiation equality, after which mirror atoms behave essentially as collisionless cold
dark matter, in good agreement with the CMB and large scale structure tests.20–23
Mirror matter, being asymmetric and dissipative (atomic) kind of dark matter, can
have specific implications for the cosmological evolution, formation and structure
of galaxies and stars, for direct and indirect search of dark matter, etc.11–14,20–25
Mirror world with T ′ < T seems as good starting point for understand-
ing the ratio ΩB /Ω′B ≃ 0.2. However, if baryogenesis in O and M worlds takes
place separately by the identical mechanisms, leading to equal baryon asymmetries
η = nB /nγ and η = n′B /n′γ between two sectors, η ′ = η. However, this would
imply Ω′B /ΩB ≃ x3 ≪ 1, and thus M baryon contribution in dark matter would
be negligible. In this paper we discuss a co-baryogenesis scenario via B − L violat-
ing processes between the O and M particles which can explain the correct ratio
Ω′B /ΩB ≃ 5. As we shall see, this scenario also implies that dark mirror matter
should have a tiny admixture of our antimatter, and in principle, upon proper
conditions, it can be converted into our antimatter.
2. Mirror World and Mirror Symmetry

One can consider a theory based on the product G × G′ of two identical gauge
factors (Standard Model or some its extension), O particles belonging to G and M
particles to G′ . As far as in general relativity the gravity is universally described
1844034-3
Z. Berezhiani
by the space–time metric gµν , the full dynamics of two sectors is governed by the
Einstein–Hilbert actionb
√

1
Z
S = d4 x −g MP2 R + L + L′ + Lmix , (1)
2
where MP is the reduced Planck mass, R is the space–time curvature, and the
Lagrangians
L = Lgauge + LYuk + LHiggs , L′ = L′gauge + L′Yuk + L′Higgs (2)
describe particle interactions respectively in ordinary and parallel worlds, while
Lmix stands for possible interactions between the particles of two sectors. The
identical forms of the Lagrangians L and L′ can be understood as a result of
discrete symmetry G ↔ G′ when all O particles (fermions, Higgses and gauge
fields) exchange places with their M twins (“primed” fermions, Higgses and gauge
fields). As we shall see below, such a discrete symmetry can be imposed with or
without chirality change between the O and M fermions, with drastically different
consequences.
In the Standard Model G = SU (3)×SU (2)×U (1) the fermions f are represented
as Weyl spinors f , the LH ones fL transforming as doublets of electroweak SU (2) ×
U (1) and the RH ones fR as singlets, whereas the antifermion fields f¯ (f¯R,L =
∗
Cγ0 fL,R ) have the opposite chiralities and opposite gauge charges:
! !
uL νL
fL,R : qL = , lL = , uR , dR , eR ;
dL eL
! ! (3)
ū R ν̄ R
f¯R,L : q̄R = , l¯R = , ūL , d¯L , ēL
d¯R ēR
(family indices are omitted). As a convention, one prescribes a global baryon charge
B = 1/3 to quarks qL , uR , dR , and a lepton charge L = 1 to the leptons lL , eR .
Then antiquarks q̄R , ūL , d¯L have B = −1/3, and antileptons ¯ lR , ēL have L = −1.
Clearly, this choice is related to a positive sign of baryon asymmetry which implies
that our matter is basically built out of particles f , while antiparticles f¯ can be
met only at accelerators or in high energy cosmic rays. Since particles have the LH
(V − A) weak interactions, we also say that our world is left-handed. If there would
exist an island of antimatter in the Universe, its habitants would say that their
world is right-handed since the constituents f¯ of their world have the RH (V + A)
weak interactions. As it is well known, conservation of baryon and lepton num-
bers in the Standard Model is related to accidental global symmetries U (1)B and
U (1)L possessed the renormalizable Lagrangian terms; all gauge couplings as well
as the Yukawa couplings (5) are automatically invariant under the fermion phase
b Inbigravity theories O and M sectors can have separate Einstein–Hilbert actions,26–28 and
gravitational force between O and M particles can be even repulsive at short distances, however
we do not consider this possibility here.
1844034-4
transformations U (1)B and U (1)L . Nonperturbative effects related to electroweak

anomalies of respective Noether currents violate both baryon and lepton numbers,
but B − L charge is anomaly free and it is conserved also at the quantum level.
Parallel M sector, which is a duplicate of O sector with the gauge symmetry
G = SU (3)′ × SU (2)′ × U (1)′ , should have an analogous fermion content:
′
! !
′ ′ u′L ′ νL′
fL,R : qL = , lL = , u′R , d′R , e′R ;
d′L e′L
! ! (4)
′ ′
ū ν̄
f¯R,L
′ ′
: q̄R = R
, ¯lR
′
= R
, ū′L , d¯′L , ē′L .
d¯′R ē′R
For definiteness, let us prescribe mirror fermion numbers as B′ = 1/3 to quarks qL ′
,
uR , dR and L = 1 to leptons lL , eR . Then antiquarks q̄R ,ūL , d¯L have B = −1/3,

′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
′
and antileptons l̄R , ēL have L′ = −1. However, without knowing the sign of baryon
asymmetry in M sector, we cannot tell a priori which species between f ′ and f¯′
should be termed as particles and which as antiparticles. In other words, we do
not know whether parallel sector is left- or right-handed with respect to its weak
interactions.
Let us discuss first the renormalizable couplings in Lagrangians (2). The gauge
parts Lgauge and L′gauge are self-explanatory, Lagrangians of O and M Higgs doublets
φ and φ′ have the standard form, LHiggs = µ2 φ̄φ − λ(φ̄φ)2 and L′Higgs = µ′2 φ̄′ φ′ −
λ′ (φ̄′ φ′ )2 , while the fermion Yukawa couplings can be conveniently presented as
LYuk = Yu ūL qL φ + Yd d¯L qL φ̄ + Ye ēL lL φ̄

+ Yu∗ uR q̄R φ̄ + Yd∗ dR q̄R φ + Ye∗ eR l̄R φ ,

(5)
L′Yuk = Yu′ ū′L qL φ + Yd′ d¯′L qL

′ ′ ′ ′
φ̄ + Ye′ ē′L lL
′ ′

φ̄
+ Yu′∗ u′R q̄R
′ ′
φ̄ + Yd′∗ d′R q̄R
′ ′
φ + Ye′∗ e′R l̄R ′ ′

φ , (6)
′
where Yu,d,e and Yu,d,e are 3 × 3 matrices of the Yukawa constants (C-matrix and
all convolutions of the gauge and family indices are omitted). Now one can impose a
discrete Z2 symmetry under exchange G ↔ G′ which transforms O fermions in (3)
into their M partners of the same chirality in (4), complemented by the respective
exchange of O and M gauge bosons:
′
Z2 : fL,R ↔ fL,R , f¯R,L ↔ f¯R,L
′
, φ ↔ φ′ ⇒ Yu,d,e
′
= Yu,d,e . (7)
In this case, parallel sector appears as just an exact replica of O sector and, in
particular, the Yukawa constants in (5) and (6) should be identical.
Alternatively, we can impose a mirror discrete symmetry P Z2 that exchanges
the particle sets (3) and (4) also exchanging the fermion chiralities:
PZ 2 : fL,R ↔ f¯R,L
′
, f¯R,L ↔ fL,R
′
, φ ↔ φ̄′ ⇒ Yu,d,e
′ ∗
= Yu,d,e (8)
also complemented with proper exchange of O and M gauge fields. P can be viewed
as a generalized parity transformation which exchanges the LH and RH fermions
1844034-5
Z. Berezhiani
between O and M Lagrangians and thus restores the symmetry between the left and
the right, right in the spirit of historical papers.4–6 It relates the quark and lepton
′ ∗
Yukawa constants in two sectors as it implies Yu,d,e = Yu,d,e , which means that the
weak CP-violating pattern that ordinary sector has in the basis of particles f in (3),
with LH weak interactions, in mirror sector is realised for antiparticles f¯′ (with RH
mirror weak interactions) in (4). Needless to say, if one imposes both symmetries
′ ∗
(7) and (8), then all Yukawa constants should be real, Yu,d,e = Yu,d,e = Yu,d,e , and
thus the theory will be CP invariant.
As for the Higgs potentials LHiggs and L′Higgs , both Z2 or PZ 2 lead to µ′ , λ′ =
µ, λ, so the Higgs VEVs hφi = v and hφ′ i = v ′ should be equal, v ′ = v. Therefore, in
both cases O and M sectors should have identical mass spectra; i.e. each ordinary
particle, the electron e, proton p, neutron n, etc., should have exactly the same
mass as its mirror twin: e′ , p′ , n′ , etc.

Regarding interaction terms Lmix in (1), the only two portals can be related
to the renormalizable terms, the Higgs–Higgs′ quartic interaction and the photon–
photon′ kinetic mixing:
ǫ µν ′
Lmix = κ(φ̄φ)(φ̄′ φ′ ) − F Fµν , (9)
2
where the latter term emerges, after the spontaneous breaking of electroweak sym-
metries, from the kinetic mixing between gauge bosons of two Abelian factors,
ǫ̃ µν ′ 2 29
2 B Bµν is allowed, with ǫ = ǫ̃ cos θW . There are experimental constraints on
the parameter ǫ which come from the limits on orthopositronium oscillation into
mirror orthopositronium.30,31 The latest limit on the experimental search reads
ǫ < 4 × 10−7 .32 As for to the first coupling in (9), the LHC limits on the width
and invisible decay modes of the 125 GeV Higgs boson leads only to mild bound
κ < 10−2 or so.
Let us note that the cosmological constraints on the interaction portals (9)
emerging from the out-of-equilibrium condition (B) are more stringent than the
direct experimental ones. The condition (B) implies an upper limit κ < 10−8 or so:
for larger coupling the reactions φ̄φ → φ̄′ φ′ in the Early Universe would bring M
sector into equilibrium with O sector before electroweak phase transition. As for the
processes e+ e− → e′+ e′− mediated by this kinetic mixing, they could transfer too
much entropy from O to M sector at the BBN epoch, unless for ǫ < 10−8 or so.33–35
Interestingly, these range of kinetic mixing is of interest for the direct detection of
dark mirror atoms via their Rutherford-like scattering in dark matter detectors, and
can explain the DAMA/LIBRA signal.36,37 In addition, after reionization epoch,
z < 5 or so, when the galaxies start to form, the interactions between O and M
matter via kinetic mixing could give rise to turbulent electric currents which can
be at the origin of the magnetic fields in galaxies and clusters.38,39
Ordinary and mirror sectors can have some common gauge interactions related,
for example, to common gauge flavor symmetry40 or common gauge symmetry
U (1)B−L .41,42
1844034-6
3. Baryon and Lepton Violating Interactions Between Two Sectors

In the Standard Model baryon and lepton numbers are conserved because the renor-
malizable terms in the Lagrangian have accidental global symmetries U (1)B and
U (1)L . However, B and L can be explicitly violated by higher order operators in-
volving a large mass scale M . Baryon violation is needed for generating the baryon
asymmetry in the Universe. On the other hand, nonperturbative B violation in the

Standard Model as well as B violation in the GUT as SU (5), both conserving B−L,
are not very suggestive for primordial baryogenesis.
The lowest dimension effective operator which violates B − L is the leptonic
1
operator (D = 5) O5 ∼ M (lφ)2 which violates the lepton number L by 2 units,
∆L = 2. After substitution of the VEV hφi = v, it gives small Majorana masses
to the neutrinos, mν ∼ v 2 /M . In mirror sector should exist an analogous leptonic
1 ′ ′ 2
operator O5′ = M (l φ ) (∆L′ = 2) which gives masses to M neutrinos ν ′ . However,
1
there can exist also a mixed operator O5mix = M (lφ)(l′ φ′ ) (∆L, ∆L′ = 1) that
′ 44,46
induces ν − ν (active–sterile) mixings. Therefore, system B − L and B′ − L′
violating D = 5 operators involving O and M leptons include the following:
Aij A′ij ′ ′ ′ ′ Dij
(li φ)(lj φ) + (l φ )(lj φ ) + (li φ)(lj′ φ′ ) + h.c. , (10)
M M i M
where i, j = 1, 2, 3 are the family indices, and Aij = Aji , A′ij = A′ji and Dij are
3 × 3 matrices of coupling constants. Thus, total 6 × 6 mass matrix of three ordinary
(active) and three mirror (sterile) neutrinos reads:c
 
! Av 2 Dvv ′
mν mνν ′ v2 A D

1  M M

Mν = = = . (11)

mTνν ′ mν ′ M  DT vv ′ A′ v ′2  M DT A′

M M
In this way, mirror neutrinos, being light on the same grounds as ordinary neutrinos,
are natural candidates for sterile neutrinos.
All operators (10) can be induced in seesaw manner by introducing RH neutrinos
NRa = Na or their LH antiparticles N̄La = N̄a (a = 1, 2, . . . , not necessarily three
species). Being gauge singlets, these fermions can have Yukawa couplings with both
ordinary l and mirror l′ leptons, and thus can play the role of messengers between
O and M sectors. The Yukawa Lagrangian
1
Y lN̄ φ + Y ′ l′ N̄ φ′ + M N gN + h.c. , (12)
2
c In the case of asymmetric mirror model, with v′ > v, ζ = v′ /v is a parameter that rescales
the particle spectrum in mirror sector in a specific way and renders the latter a sort of shadow
sector with predictable properties.11–13 Let us also remark a specific interesting case when the
combination of lepton numbers L̄ = L − L′ is conserved rather than L and L′ separately which
implies that the Majorana constants A and A′ are vanishing but D are nonzero. In this way,
neutrinos can have a naturally small Dirac neutrinos with masses ∼ Dvv′ /M , LH components
living in O world and RH components in M world.50
1844034-7
Z. Berezhiani
where Yia , Yia′ and gab = gba are the (symmetric) matrices of Yukawa constants,
i = 1, 2, 3 being the family index, and M is an overall mass scale of the RH Majorana
neutrinos which can be related to some relevant symmetry breaking scale, e.g. in
the context of grand unification. After integrating out of heavy N states, leads to
operators (10) with A = Y g −1 Y T , A′ = Y ′ g −1 Y ′T and D = Y g −1 Y ′T . Now if one
imposes Z2 symmetry (7) complemented by transformation of the heavy messengers
Na → Na , we obtain Yia′ = Yia while gab can be a generically complex symmetric

matrix, which can be taken diagonal and real without the loss of generality. Hence,
we have
Z2 (l ↔ l′ , N ↔ N ) : Y ′ = Y → A′ = A , D = DT . (13)
Analogously, mirror parity PZ 2 , with transformations (8) complemented by Na →
N̄a , instead would imply Yia′ = Yia∗ and in addition it restricts gab = gba
∗
to be a
real symmetric matrix. Hence, we have
PZ 2 (l ↔ l̄, N ↔ N̄ ) : Y ′ = Y ∗ , g = g ∗ → A′ = A∗ , D = D† . (14)
Analogously to D = 5 leptonic operators O5 , quantum number B − L can be
broken by 2 units also by D = 9 operators O9 ∼ M1 5 (udd)2 + h.c. which break
the baryon number by 2 units (∆B = 2) and give the Majorana mass terms to
baryons. In this way, these operators induce mixings between the neutral baryons
and antibaryons, e.g. neutron–antineutron (n − n̄) mixing.48,49 Then similar oper-
ator O9′ ∼ (a1/M5 )(u′ d′ d′ )2 + h.c. (∆B′ = 2) should act in M sector, while the
mixed ones
1
O9mix ∼ (udd)(u′ d′ d′ ) + h.c. (∆B, ∆B′ = 1) (15)
M5
lead to n−n′ mixing between the neutron and its mirror twin (which we shall discuss
later) and similar mixings between neutral O and M baryons (hyperons, etc.)
Also D = 9 operators can be seesaw-induced by the exchange of some heavy
singlet fermions N via the following Lagrangian terms50,51
Sud + S ′ u′ d′ + S̄dN + S̄ ′ d′ N + M N 2 + h.c. (16)
′
involving a color-triplet scalar S with mass MS and its mirror partner S (family
dependent coupling constants are suppressed). Integrating out the heavy states,
operators like (15) are induced effectively with M5 ∼ MS4 M . Taking, e.g. MS ∼
103 GeV and M ∼ 1013 GeV, one gets M ∼ 100 TeV. In the spirit of Weinberg
analysis,43 we restrict the strengths of hypothetical interactions between O and
M particles, i.e. mass scales of corresponding effective operators, only by existing
phenomenological bounds.d
d In particular, the heavy fermions N and N respectively in (12) and (16) cannot be the same
states, otherwise operator (1/MS2 )(dud)(lφ) will be induced which would lead to unacceptably fast
proton decay unless MS2 M > 1032 GeV3 . In addition, L violating couplings of color-triplet scalars
S̄ql should be suppressed by the same reason unless MS > 1015 GeV. In the simplest way, this can
be achieved by introducing a discrete Z2 symmetry acting only in the lepton sector: l, l′ → −l, l′ ,
N → −N .
1844034-8
4. Baryogenesis via Co-leptogenesis

B − L violating interactions between O and M particles discussed above can also co-
generate baryon asymmetries in both sectors, via processes that transform ordinary
leptons or quarks into mirror ones in the Early Universe. Let us discuss, e.g. the
co-leptogenesis scenario53–56 via the scattering processes lφ → ¯ l′ φ̄′ , etc. due to inter-
action terms (12). In a complete analogy, one can make consider the co-baryogenesis
scheme via processes dS̄ → d¯′ S ′ induced by couplings (16).50,51
Let us assume, for simplicity, that after inflation only O world heats up, TR being
the reheating temperature, while M sector is almost “empty” at the beginning,
T ′ = 0 (imagine, e.g. an inflation picture with two inflation scalars, where one
(ordinary) is excited and after inflation it decays into O particles, while another
(mirror) field has a small initial value). We assume also that the masses N fermions
are much larger than reheating temperature, M ≫ TR , so that they never appear
in the thermal bath but they mediate processes like lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ which heats up
also M sector. An imaginary astrophysicist living in the epoch T ∼ TR would
observe an additional (to the Hubble expansion) cooling of O world due to the
particle leakage to parallel world, and production of nonzero B − L as far as the
leptons l and antileptons ¯l leak with different rates. On the other hand, his mirror
colleague would observe the entropy production in M world, which was initially
empty, with the leptons l′ and antileptons ¯l′ emerging with different rates so that
a nonzero B′ − L′ is induced at the end. All three conditions for baryogenesis1,2
are fulfilled since these processes violate B − L in both sectors, violate CP due to
complex couplings Y and Y ′ in (12), and they are out of equilibrium (since after
their freezing two sectors should end up with different temperatures, T ′ /T < 0.3 or
so20–23 ).
Reheating temperature TR plays a crucial role in our considerations. At T = TR
the inflation decay and the entropy production is essentially over and thus at T < TR
the Universe is dominated by relativistic plasma of ordinary particles species. For
quantifying out-of-equilibrium conditions of L violating reactions it is convenient
to introduce parameters that describe their rates Γ(T ) at T = TR , k = (Γ/H)R .
1/2
Here H = 1.66g∗ T 2 /MPl is the Hubble parameter, with g∗ being the effective
number of particle degrees of freedom. For ∆L, ∆L′ = 1 reaction rate we have
Γ(lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ ) = Γ1 = σ1 neq where neq ≃ (1.2/π 2 )T 3 is the equilibrium density per
a scalar degree of freedom, and
Tr(D† D)
σ(li φ → ¯lj′ φ̄) =
X
σ1 = , (17)
i,j
8πM 2
where sum is taken over all flavor and isospin indices of initial and final states.
Hence, we obtain
Tr(D† D)TR MPl

Γ1
k1 = = 3 × 10−3 1/2
. (18)
H R g∗ M 2
1844034-9
Z. Berezhiani
The out-of-equilibrium condition is well satisfied for k1 ∼ 1, but the parameter

k1 should not be much larger than 1. Namely, the energy density transferred from
ordinary to mirror sectors by the processes lφ → l̄′ φ̄ and l̄φ̄ → l′ φ, by neglecting the
inverse reactions, can be crudely estimated as ρ′ ≃ (8k1 /g∗ )ρ. Assuming that at the
beginning mirror sector had zero initial temperature, for the final temperature ratio
between two sectors one√gets T ′ /T ≃ (8k1 /g∗ )1/4 . Thermal average c.m. energy for
lφ scattering is about 17T . For successful leptogenesis, also ∆L = 2 processes

lφ → l̄φ̄, ll → φ̄φ̄, etc. should be out-of-equilibrium, i.e. respective parameter k2 =
(Γ2 /H)R should not be much larger than 1, where overall rate of these processes
Γ2 = σ2 neq can be obtained via substituting in Eq. (18) the factor Tr(D† D) by a
factor 6 Tr(A† A).
CP-violation implies that the scattering processes with l and l̄ in initial state
have different cross-sections due to interference between the tree-level and one-loop
diagrams shown in Refs. 53–56:
σ(lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ ) = σ(l̄φ̄ → l′ φ′ ) − (∆σ + ∆σ ′ )/2 ,
σ(lφ → l′ φ′ ) = σ(l̄φ̄ → l̄′ φ̄′ ) − (∆σ − ∆σ ′ )/2 , (19)
σ(lφ → ¯lφ̄) = σ(l̄φ̄ → lφ) + ∆σ ,

wheree
3JS ′ 3J ′ S
∆σ = , ∆σ = , (20)
32π 2 M 4 32π 2 M 4
with S being the c.m. energy square (its thermal average in a relativistic medium
with temperature T is S ≈ 17T 2 ),
J = Im Tr g −1 (Y † Y )∗ g −1 (Y ′† Y ′ )g −2 (Y † Y )

(21)
and J ′ is obtained from J by exchange Y ↔ Y ′ . Notice that Eqs. (19) imply
that the total cross sections for particle and antiparticle scatterings are equal,
P P
X σ(lφ → X) = X σ(l̄ φ̄ → X), as required by CPT invariance, while the
partial cross sections can be different due to nonzero CP-violation factors J and J ′ .
Then evolution of B − L and B′ − L′ number densities are described by the
equations15,16,53–56
dnBL 3
+ (3H + Γ)nBL = ∆σn2eq ,
dt 4
(22)
′
dnBL ′ ′ 3 ′ 2
+ (3H + Γ )nBL = − ∆σ neq ,
dt 4
e Notice that lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ is the dominant channel induced by operator Omix , with tree level amplitude
∝ 1/M , but a radiative correction to it is ∝ 1/M 3 . The process lφ → l′ φ′ is subdominant, sort
of kinetic mixing (l̄φ̄)∂(lˆ ′ φ′ ) + h.c., with three level amplitude ∝ 1/M 2 induced by a momentum
dependent part in the propagator of the heavy fermions N , but its radiative correction also goes
as ∝ 1/M 2 . As a result, CP-asymmetries in cross sections lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ and lφ → l′ φ′ are comparable,
both ∼ 1/M 4 . Moreover, as we discuss below, in the case of mirror parity, when y ′ = y ∗ , one gets
σ(lφ → ¯l′ φ̄′ ) = σ(l̄φ̄ → l′ φ′ ) and thus only subdominant process lφ → l′ φ′ will have CP-violation
necessary for co-leptogenesis between two sectors.
1844034-10
where Γ ≃ Tr(A† A)neq /M 2 and Γ′ ≃ Tr(A′† A′ )(T ′ /T )3 neq /M 2 are ∆L, ∆L′ = 2
reaction rates in two sectors. Therefore, these equations produce B− L asymmetries
in both sectors, in the form of nonzero lepton numbers L and rL′ , and once B − L
and B′ − L′ is conserved in the later epochs while B + L and B′ + L′ are violated
by nonperturbative sphaleron effects, we end up with nonzero baryon asymmetries
in both sectors.
Until now we left the Yukawa coupling constants Y and Y ′ in (12) as independent
parameters. One can impose now a discrete symmetry Z2 (7) which transforms all O
states (3) into the respective M states (4) of the same chirality. Regarding combined
lepton and baryon numbers, L − L′ and B − B′ , they change the sign under Z2
transformation, and for the Yukawa constants in (12) it implies Y ′ = Y (see (13))
while g is chosen as diagonal and real. Then we can see from Eq. (21) that J = 0, and
thus ∆σ and ∆σ ′ on the right-hand side of Eqs. (22) are both vanishing. Therefore,
in the case of Z2 symmetry between two sectors our co-genesis mechanism becomes
ineffective and cannot produce neither ordinary nor mirror baryon asymmetries.57
In the case of discrete mirror symmetry PZ 2 (8) under the exchange between
the sets (3) and (4) between fermions of opposite chiralities the combined fermion
charges L̄ = L − L′ and B̄ = B − B′ remain invariant. For the quark and lepton
′ ∗
Yukawa constants of two sectors it implies Yu,d,e = Yu,d,e , i.e. the weak CP-violating
pattern that our particles fL have in the LH basis (3), mirror sector has for the
RH antiparticles f¯R′ in (4). Hence, should primordial baryogenesis in two sectors
occurred independently, e.g. via scenarios discussed in Ref. 20, PZ 2 symmetry
would imply that baryon asymmetries having the opposite signs, B > 0 and B′ < 0:
for our world being left-handed, mirror world would be right-handed.
However, in our cogenesis mechanism right the opposite takes place. According
to (14), now Y ′ = Y ∗ and g = g ∗ , so that generically J is nonzero but we have
J ′ = −J, and so −∆σ ′ = ∆σ. Therefore, the source terms on the right-hand sides
of Eqs. (22) are equal. Then O and M baryon asymmetries must have the same
sign: once B > 0, also B′ > 0. Hence, while the total action (1) is invariant under
the mirror (left–right) parity PZ 2 between two worlds, this symmetry is violated
in the material realization of the universe: O and M worlds both appear to be
left-handed.57
This result can be understood in a transparent way as follows. For Eqs. (19)
the relation ∆σ ′ = −∆σ implies that σ(lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ ) = σ(l̄φ̄ → l′ φ′ ), so that
the processes lφ → l̄′ φ̄′ are irrelevant for producing B − L asymmetry in either
sector. Hence, asymmetry between lφ → l̄φ̄ and l̄φ̄ → lφ scattering cross sections,
σ(lφ → l̄φ̄) − σ(l̄φ̄ → lφ) = ∆σ should produce lepton number L ∝ −2∆σ in
ordinary sector (in the reaction lφ → ¯lφ̄ one lepton disappears and one anti-
lepton appears, so that the lepton number changes by −2 units). On the other
hand, processes l̄φ̄ → l̄′ φ̄′ and lφ → l′ φ′ have the same cross-section asymmetry:
σ(l̄φ̄ → l̄′ φ̄′ ) − σ(lφ → l′ φ′ ) = ∆σ, and thus they should produce mirror lepton
number in M sector, L′ ∝ −∆σ and should contribute to ordinary lepton asymme-
try as L ∝ ∆σ (per every antilepton ¯l disappeared in l̄φ̄ → ¯ l′ φ̄′ reaction one unit
1844034-11
Z. Berezhiani
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fig. 1. (Color online) Black curve shows the ratio ΩB /Ω′B

as a function of k2 = (Γ2 /H)R . Red
and green curves show separate contributions obtained by integration of Eqs. (22) before and after
reheating epoch T = TR .
of ordinary lepton number is gained, but there emerges also mirror antilepton l̄′ so
that one unit of mirror lepton number is lost). Thus, putting together two contri-
butions, one finally obtains L ∝ −∆σ for ordinary lepton number vs. mirror lepton
number L′ ∝ −∆σ produced by CP violation in φ → l′ φ′ scatterings. Needless
to say, in this consideration it was assumed that the out-of-equilibrium condition
for all processes are good, and no damping effects were taken into account. These
effects, however, would not change the relative sign of baryon asymmetries between
two sectors but only their absolute values.
Out-of-equilibrium condition implies that H > Γ > Γ′ at T = TR . Neglecting
′
Γ and Γ in Eqs. (22), one gets equal cosmological fractions of ordinary and dark
baryons, ΩB h2 = Ω′B h2 ≃ 103 JMPl TR3 /M 4 (Refs. 15, 16, 53–56) which has the
right value, e.g. for M ∼ 1013 GeV, TR ∼ 1011 GeV and J ∼ 10−3 . If Γ > H,
the baryon asymmetry in O world will have some damping, but not in M sector
if Γ′ /H < 1 because it still remains colder.15,16 In this case one could even have
Ω′B somewhat bigger than ΩB . The damping factors were calculated in Refs. 24
and 25. In Fig. 1 we show the ratio ΩB /Ω′B as a function of the out-of-equilibrium
parameter k2 = (Γ2 /H)T =TR . We see that it has a right value, ΩB /Ω′B ≃ 0.2, at
k2 ≃ 1.5 or so.
Once again, instead of above discussed co-leptogenesis scenario based on Lagran-
gian terms (12), one could consider in completely the same lines a direct co-genesis
of baryon numbers via B-violating Lagrangian terms (16), making use of scattering
processes dS̄ → dS¯ ′ , dS̄ → d¯′ S̄ ′ etc. mediated by heavy singlet “baryons” N with
masses M ≫ TR , complemented by later decays S → ū, d, ¯ etc. at T < MS .
Therefore, if these interactions are responsible for the baryogenesis between two
1844034-12
sectors, at low energies they should induce phenomena as the neutron antineutron
oscillation n → n̄ as well as the neutron oscillation n → n̄′ into its mass degenerate
twin from the mirror sector.
5. Oscillation Phenomena between O and M Particles

A direct way to establish existence of mirror matter is the experimental search for
oscillation phenomena between O and M particles induced by the same B and L
violating interactions. In fact, any neutral particle, elementary (as e.g. neutrinos)
or composite (as the neutron or hydrogen atom) can have mixing with its mass
degenerate mirror twin and thus can oscillate into latter. A priori, these oscillations
could convert neutral mirror particles into our particles or antiparticles, depending
on the sign of baryon asymmetry in M world. In the latter case, mirror world can
be manifested experimentally as a hidden antiworld. As we have seen in previous
section, our co-genesis mechanism in the case of mirror PZ 2 symmetry suggests
that exactly this situation is realized: B and B′ are both positive, and both O and
M sectors are dominated by particles with LH weak interactions.
Let us discuss now the implications of the sign of baryon asymmetry in M
sector for the neutron oscillation phenomena between two sectors. Operator (15)
induces the mass mixing ǫnn′ + h.c. with ǫ ∼ Λ6QCD /M5 , which corresponds to the
oscillation time
!
M5
−1
τnn′ = ǫ ∼ ∼ (M/10 TeV)5 s . (23)
Λ6QCD
Since this operator, while violating B and B′ separately but conserves B̄ = B − B′ ,

then mirror neutron n′ (B′ = 1) should oscillate into our antineutron n̄ (B = −1),
and reciprocally, our neutron n (B = 1) will oscillate into mirror antineutron n̄′
(B′ = −1).f
The neutron oscillation into mirror antineutron can be experimentally detectable
as the neutron disappearance n → n̄′ into dark particle as well as regeneration n →
ñ′ → n after passing the neutron absorber60 (notice that due to conservation of B̄ =
B − B′ the neutron will always regenerate into neutron and not into antineutron).
As it was pointed out in Refs. 50 and 51, n − n′ oscillation time τnn′ can be
smaller than the neutron decay time; τdec ≈ 880 s, and therefore much smaller
than the neutron–antineutron oscillation time, τnn̄ > 108 s.58,59 Two moments are
important: in difference from n − n̄ oscillation, n → n̄′ oscillation is ineffective
for neutrons bound in nuclei and cannot destroy stable elements, simply because
of energy conservation, while for free neutrons it is suppressed by the matter and
magnetic field effects. On the other hand, τnn′ ∼ 1 s or even less is allowed by
f InRefs. 50 and 51 this phenomenon was coined as neutron–mirror neutron oscillation without
making an emphasis on the sign of baryon asymmetry in mirror world which is the main point
of the present paper: baryon asymmetries of two worlds have the same sign, B, B′ > 0, while
operator (15) conserves B − B′ .
1844034-13
Z. Berezhiani
cosmological and astrophysical bounds.50,51,g However, even with oscillation time

τnn′ ∼ 1 s or so, n − n′ conversion is strongly suppressed by the presence of matter
environment and magnetic fields.50,51 In a generic medium n − n̄′ oscillation is
described by the effective Hamiltonian

µBσ + Vn − iWn ǫ
H= , (24)
−µB ′ σ + Vn̄′ − iWn̄′
ǫ
where σ = (σx , σy , σz ) are the Pauli matrices, µ is the neutron magnetic moment,
B and B ′ are magnetic fields while Vn , Vn̄′ and Wn , Wn̄′ stand for the coherent
scattering and absorption of n and n̄′ in O and M media.
Several experiments studied the magnetic field dependence of the ultracold neu-
tron (UCN) loses,61–66 and their results were adopted by the Particle Data Group.67
Assuming that mirror magnetic fields are absent at the Earth, they achieved lower
bound on the oscillation time τnn′ > 448 s at 90% C.L.67 These bound, how-
ever, becomes invalid if mirror magnetic fields are present at the Earth, since they
cannot be screened in ordinary experiments. In the presence of M magnetic field
B ′ ≤ 0.3 G the strongest bound τnn′ > 17 s (95% C.L.) is set by last experiment in
Refs. 61–66. As for B ′ ≤ 0.3 G, the experimental limits are practically absent and
τnn′ below 1 second becomes allowed. Moreover, these experiments show several
anomalies indicating that such oscillations may indeed take place, e.g. the mea-
surements performed at B ≃ 0.2 G indicate to a deviation more than 5σ away
from the null hypothesis68 interpretable via n → n̄′ oscillation with τnn′ ∼ 10–30 s
in the presence of mirror field B ′ ∼ 0.1–0.2 G.h Oscillation n − n′ can be also
a possible solution70 of the neutron lifetime puzzle, about 9 s (4σ) discrepancy
between the neutron lifetimes measured by two different methods, trap and
beam.71,72
Let us discuss briefly some astrophysical and cosmological implications of n − n̄′
and n′ − n̄ oscillations. In the BBN epoch n → n̄′ oscillation is suppressed by
matter density.50,51 But for relatively small τnn′ , a late injection of some moderate
amount of antineutrons due to n′ → n̄ oscillation could attenuate the formation
of less stable nuclei heavier than 4 He and thus help for settling the low primordial
lithium problems. This question deserves a special numerical study.
In difference from nuclei, where n − n̄′ transition is ineffective, in neutron stars
(NS) it is possible and can be described by Hamiltonian (24) with Vn taken as the
neutron Fermi energy E ≃ (N/Nnuc )2/3 × 60 MeV, where N/Nnuc is the neutron
g Ifoperators O5mix and O9mix both exist, inducing respectively the neutron and neutrino mass
mixing terms ǫnn′ and mν νν ′ , then weak interactions induce at one-loop also effective operator
∼ G2F ǫmν (pe)(p′ e′ ) that gives rise to hydrogen oscillation to mirror anti-hydrogen. One can discuss
also oscillation of mirror hydrogen atom into our anti-hydrogen via operator M18 (uude)(u′ u′ d′ e′ ),
with reasonably small mass scale M ∼ 1 TeV and thus oscillation time ∼ 1012 yr.
h Even a tiny amount of M matter captured by the Earth via photon – M photon kinetic mixing
portal, could induce a M field at the Earth by the electron drag mechanism discussed in Refs. 38
and 39. Interestingly, geophysical constraints on the concentration of dark matter in the Earth
allow Mirror baryon fraction up to 4 × 10−3 M⊕ .69
1844034-14
number density in units of nuclear density. Then the average oscillation probability
between the neutron collisions is Pnn̄′ = (ǫ/E)2 . Taking the collision frequency as
σnn vN ≃ 1024 ×(N/Nnuc )4/3 s−1 (Pauli blocking is neglected), effective time of n →
n̄′ conversion can be estimated as T ≃ (σnn vN Pnn̄′ )−1 ∼ (10−14 ev/ǫ)2 × 1010 yr.
The n̄′ produced in scatterings decays as n̄′ → p̄′ ē′ νe′ and thus mirror particles
come into β-equilibrium inside neutron star, in fact creating mirror (anti)neutron
star inside the ordinary NS. Therefore, for asymptotically large times, ordinary
NS should be gradually transformed into mixed neutron star with 50% of its mass
composed by O neutrons and another 50% by √ M (anti)neutrons. What is inter-
esting, that radius of mixed NS should about 2 times smaller than the maximal
mass of ordinary NS (which of course depends on the stiffness of the equation
of state of dense nuclear matter, √ while the maximal allowed mass of mixed star
also is reduced by a factor of 2. Thus, the neutron stars of 2M⊙ (there are few
such stars discovered) should be still rather young but by the time they should
collapse to black holes, and only NS with mass less than 1.4M⊙ can survive full
n − n̄′ conversion forming more compact objects, with mass reduced from initial
14 km to final 10 km. The compactness of these objects can have interesting im-
plications for merger of NS binaries, in particular on the features of the gravita-
tional wave signal induced by this merger which is also known as a main source
of production of heavy elements (heavier than iron, and gold in particular) in the
Universe.
For mirror NS, reciprocal the same process should happen: n′ − n̄ conver-
sion induces its transformation, with and antineutron star growing in its interior.
This can have a particular observational interest since the merger of two com-
pact objects which initially were born as a binary mirror NS, will produce our
antinuclei, and anti-gold in particular. If so, then the rumors about anti-helium
discovered by AMS2 Collaboration in the spectrum of cosmic rays might be under-
stood. In this way, mirror NS can be seen as cosmic engines producing the amount
of positrons sufficient for explaining the 511 keV gamma excess from the galactic
bulge.73,74
Free n′ produced by disintegration of M helium and heavier M nuclei with ener-
gies ≥ TeV in galactic cosmic rays by mirror ultraviolet light or mirror gas can give
rise to antiprotons in ordinary cosmic rays, via oscillation n′ → n̄ and subsequent
decay n̄ → p̄e+ νe . These antiprotons would have same spectral index as progenitor
cosmic rays, as it is indicated by the data on antiproton to proton flux ratio mea-
sured by the AMS-2 experiment.75 Oscillations n − n̄′ and n′ → n̄ can have strong
effects also for ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, GZK cutoff and cosmogenic neutri-
nos.76,77 Unfortunately, at these energies cosmic protons and antiprotons cannot be
distinguished.
Oscillation of mirror hydrogen atoms into our anti-hydrogen via operator
1 ′ ′ ′ ′
M 8 (uude)(u u d e ), with reasonably small mass scale M ∼ 1 TeV and thus oscil-
lation time ∼ 1020 s, can also have interesting implications for galactic gamma
background.
1844034-15
Z. Berezhiani
6. Summary
Concluding, we have shown that mirror matter can be considered as anti-dark
matter, or grey antimatter, since M particles can be converted with some proba-
bilities into our antiparticles. Such a dark matter a hidden source of antimatter,
since M particles with some (environment dependent) probabilities can oscillate
into our antiparticles: mirror neutrons into our antineutron, and perhaps mirror
hydrogen atom into our anti-hydrogen. These phenomena subject to the tuning
of environmental conditions as matter density and magnetic fields, can have fasci-
nating physical and astrophysical implications for cosmological production of anti-
matter, and they can be tested in laboratory conditions. For the beginning, new
experiments on the neutron disappearance and regeneration are needed for verify-
ing the anomalous neutron loses observed at some values of magnetic fields which
can be an experimental evidence of n − n̄′ oscillation with τnn̄′ ∼ 10 s.68
However, this phenomenon can have far going consequences which by now were
touched only in science fiction: exchange of matter with parallel world could pro-
vide an alternative source of energy, as envisaged by Isaac Asimov in “The Gods
Themselves” in 1972. Imagine, e.g. that mirror physicists (after all, M world has
the same microphysics as ours, and life can exist also there) built a reactor in their
cosmic station in deep cosmos where the magnetic fields, ordinary as well as mir-
ror, are expected to be small enough, say < 1 mG or even smaller (Alternatively,
magnetic fields could even enhance n′ → n̄ conversion provided that transitional
nn′ magnetic or electric dipole moments exist.78 ) Then, if the oscillation time τnn′
is indeed smaller than the neutron decay time, mirror neutrons n′ produced by this
reactor before their decay would oscillate into our antineutrons n̄ in nearly reso-
nance regime, with large n′ − n̄ conversion probabilities. Hence, if in the vicinity of
mirror station we could construct our installations (in principle, we could commu-
nicate via electronic mail using the portal of electromagnetic kinetic mixing) then
the annihilation of these antineutrons into ordinary targets could give us enormous
energy, roughly a GeV per every MeV produced by M reactor.
References
1. A. D. Sakharov, JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967).
2. V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 155, 36 (1985).
3. A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rep. 222, 309 (1992).
4. T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956).
5. I. Y. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and I. Y. Pomeranchuk, Yad. Fiz. 3, 1154 (1966).
6. L. B. Okun, Phys. Usp. 50, 380 (2007).
7. S. I. Blinnikov and M. Khlopov, Sov. Astron. 27, 371 (1983).
8. M. Y. Khlopov et al., Sov. Astron. 35, 21 (1991).
9. R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 272, 67 (1991).
10. H. M. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D 47, 456 (1993).
11. Z. Berezhiani, A. D. Dolgov and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 375, 26 (1996).
12. Z. Berezhiani, Acta Phys. Polon. B 27, 1503 (1996).
13. Z. Berezhiani and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6607 (1995).
1844034-16
14. Z. Berezhiani, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 265-266, 303 (2015).

15. Z. Berezhiani, Through the looking-glass: Alice’s adventures in mirror world, in From
Fields to Strings, Circumnavigating Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, eds. M. Shifman
et al. (World Scientific, 2005), pp. 2147–2195, arXiv:hep-ph/0508233.
16. Z. Chacko, H. S. Goh and R. Harnick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 231802 (2006).
17. Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna and M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B 500, 286 (2001).
18. Z. Berezhiani and A. Drago, Phys. Lett. B 473, 281 (2000).
19. V. A. Rubakov, JETP Lett. 65, 621 (1997).

20. Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B 503, 362 (2001).
21. A. Y. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023518 (2003).
22. Z. Berezhiani, P. Ciarcelluti, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14,
107 (2005).
23. Z. Berezhiani, S. Cassisi, P. Ciarcelluti and A. Pietrinferni, Astropart. Phys. 24, 495
(2006).
24. Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 3775 (2004).

25. Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 163, 271 (2008).
26. Z. Berezhiani, F. Nesti, L. Pilo and N. Rossi, J. High Energy Phys. 0907, 083 (2009).
27. Z. Berezhiani, L. Pilo and N. Rossi, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 305 (2010).
28. Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli, F. Nesti and L. Pilo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 131101 (2007).
29. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986).
30. S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 167, 35 (1986).
31. S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 326, 317 (1994).
32. A. Badertscher et al., Phys. Rev. D 75, 032004 (2007).
33. E. D. Carlson and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 193, 168 (1987).
34. P. Ciarcelluti and R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B 679, 278 (2009).
35. Z. Berezhiani and A. Lepidi, Phys. Lett. B 681, 276 (2009).
36. R. Cerulli et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 83 (2017).
37. A. Addazi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 400 (2015).
38. Z. Berezhiani, A. D. Dolgov and I. I. Tkachev, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2620 (2013).
39. Z. Berezhiani, A. Dolgov and I. Tkachev, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1302, 010
(2013).
40. Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Lett. B 417, 287 (1998).
41. A. Addazi, Z. Berezhiani and Y. Kamyshkov, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 301 (2017).
42. Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 705 (2016).
43. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
44. E. K. Akhmedov, Z. Berezhiani and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3013 (1992).
45. R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6595 (1995).
46. Z. Berezhiani and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6607 (1995).
47. Z. Berezhiani, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 237-238, 263 (2013).
48. V. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 12, 228 (1970).
49. R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1316 (1980).
50. Z. Berezhiani and L. Bento, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 081801 (2006).
53. L. Bento and Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 231304 (2001).
54. L. Bento and Z. Berezhiani, Fortsch. Phys. 50, 489 (2002).
55. L. Bento and Z. Berezhiani, arXiv:hep-ph/0111116.
56. Z. Berezhiani, AIP Conf. Proc. 878, 195 (2006).
57. Z. Berezhiani, arXiv:1602.08599 [astro-ph.CO].
58. D. G. Phillips II et al., Phys. Rep. 612, 1 (2016).
1844034-17
Z. Berezhiani
59. K. Babu et al., arXiv:1310.8593 [hep-ex].

60. Z. Berezhiani, M. Frost, Y. Kamyshkov, B. Rybolt and L. Varriano, Phys. Rev. D 96,
035039 (2017).
61. G. Ban et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 161603 (2007).
62. A. Serebrov et al., Phys. Lett. B 663, 181 (2008).
63. I. Altarev et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 032003 (2009).
64. K. Bodek et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 611, 141 (2009).
65. A. Serebrov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 611, 137 (2009).

66. Z. Berezhiani et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 717 (2018).
67. Particle Data Group (M. Tanabashi et al.), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).
68. Z. Berezhiani and F. Nesti, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1974 (2012).
69. A. Y. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023508 (2000).
70. Z. Berezhiani, arXiv:1807.07906 [hep-ph].
71. A. Serebrov and A. Fomin, Phys. Procedia 17, 19 (2011).
72. G. L. Greene and P. Geltenbort, Sci. Am. 314, 36 (2016).

73. J. Knodlseder et al., Astron. Astrophys. 411, L457 (2003).
74. L. Bouchet et al., Astrophys. J. 679, 1315 (2008).
75. AMS Collab. (M. Aguilar et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091103 (2016).
76. Z. Berezhiani and L. Bento, Phys. Lett. B 635, 253 (2006).
77. Z. Berezhiani and A. Gazizov, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2111 (2012).
78. Z. Berezhiani and A. Vainshtein, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1844016 (2018),
arXiv:1809.00997 [hep-ph].
1844034-18

S0217751X18440347

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S0217751X18440347

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Modern Physics A

Vol. 33, No. 31 (2018) 1844034 (18 pages)

Matter, dark matter, and antimatter in our Universe

Published 19 November 2018

Keywords: Dark matter; baryon asymmetry; leptogenesis; neutrino oscillations; neutron

proton p, neutron n, photon γ, neutrinos ν, etc. have invisible twins: e′ , p′ , n′ , γ ′ ,

interaction portals between ordinary and mirror particles should be rather

2. Mirror World and Mirror Symmetry

transformations U (1)B and U (1)L . Nonperturbative effects related to electroweak

uR , dR and L = 1 to leptons lL , eR . Then antiquarks q̄R ,ūL , d¯L have B = −1/3,

+ Yu∗ uR q̄R φ̄ + Yd∗ dR q̄R φ + Ye∗ eR l̄R φ ,

L′Yuk = Yu′ ū′L qL φ + Yd′ d¯′L qL

mass as its mirror twin: e′ , p′ , n′ , etc.

3. Baryon and Lepton Violating Interactions Between Two Sectors

asymmetry in the Universe. On the other hand, nonperturbative B violation in the

Na → Na , we obtain Yia′ = Yia while gab can be a generically complex symmetric

4. Baryogenesis via Co-leptogenesis

Tr(D† D)TR MPl

The out-of-equilibrium condition is well satisfied for k1 ∼ 1, but the parameter

lφ scattering is about 17T . For successful leptogenesis, also ∆L = 2 processes

σ(lφ → ¯lφ̄) = σ(l̄φ̄ → lφ) + ∆σ ,

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Fig. 1. (Color online) Black curve shows the ratio ΩB /Ω′B

5. Oscillation Phenomena between O and M Particles

Since this operator, while violating B and B′ separately but conserves B̄ = B − B′ ,

cosmological and astrophysical bounds.50,51,g However, even with oscillation time

14. Z. Berezhiani, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 265-266, 303 (2015).

19. V. A. Rubakov, JETP Lett. 65, 621 (1997).

24. Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 3775 (2004).

59. K. Babu et al., arXiv:1310.8593 [hep-ex].

65. A. Serebrov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 611, 137 (2009).

72. G. L. Greene and P. Geltenbort, Sci. Am. 314, 36 (2016).

You might also like