Deep physics from Small Bodies : Dark Matter in the Solar System

8/12/2019 Deep physics from Small Bodies : Dark Matter in the Solar System

1/38

Deep physics from Small Bodies : Dark Matter in

the Solar System

T. Marshall Eubanks

Asteroid Initiatives LLC,

Clifton, Virginia

([email protected])

February 25, 2014

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Pasadena, California

1


2/38

Beautiful, if true.

Igor Mitrofanov (IKI)

January 10, 2014

2


3/38

Outline of Talk

Introduction : What is Dark Matter?

Quark Matter Nuggets

Basics of Quark Nugget theory

Current Limits on Quark Nuggets

Quark Matter and the Solar System

Capture of Dark Matter in the Proto-Solar Nebula

How to find Quark Nuggets in the Solar System

Evidence for Strange Asteroids

The Anomalous Rotation of Small Asteroids

Solar Prospectors - Finding Ultra-Dense Asteroids by Spacecraft

Conclusions : A Game-Changing Possibility for Space Exploration.

3


4/38

Introduction : What is Dark Matter?

4


5/38

What is Dark Matter?

Observations reveal a serious failure of physics at large astronomical scales (galactic disks

and halos, clusters of galaxies and larger).

Apparent gravitational accelerations on these scales are consistently larger than can be

explained by the matter we can see (stars, gas, etc.). This appears to be totally separate from the dark energy required to explain a rela-

tively recent acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

If these accelerations are attributed to some non-interacting (or dark) form of matter, then

roughly 84.5 % of the matter in the universe is dark.

There have been many proposals to explain these discrepancies in terms of new particlesfrom new physics.

E.g., WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)

After decades of searching, there is no conclusiveevidence that any such particles exist.

The field is wide open for alternative explanations. This talk will explore one of them.

5


6/38

Generic Constraints on Dark Matter

It is important to recognize that there are basically no generic constraints on either the mass

or cross section (with ordinary matter) of dark matter (assumed to be some sort of particles).

Individual theories may, and typically do, have such constraints, but these are theory

dependent and do not apply generally.

Astrophysical data do, however, limit the ratio of the cross-section, c, and typical mass,

mc, of any CDM particles; the best current limit coming from observations of the Bullet

Cluster (1E 065756), where two colliding galaxy clusters show the CDM (observable with

gravitational lensing) decoupled from the cluster gas [Clowe et al., 2006]

The best cross section mass ratio limit is [Markevitch et al., 2004]c

mc 0.1 m2 kg1. (1)

(Observational cross section limits for specific particles in specific mass ranges may of

course be significantly lower.)

Quark nuggets are consistent with the observational constraints on DM not through new

physics and weak interactions with ordinary matter, but through their macroscopic size, yield-

ing very small cross section to mass ratios and high binding energies.

They satisfy the above constraint by over 10 orders of magnitude; such data are unlikely

to rule out macroscopic condensed matter DM theory.

6


7/38

The Bullet Cluster

(Chandra X-ray image with gravitational lensing massestimates overlaid)

The Bullet Cluster is the best current test of the non-gravitational physics of dark matter. Two

clusters have slammed into each other; the stars and dark matter continue on while the gas is

stopped by fluid drag. This sets a strong constraint on the mass-cross section ratio of dark matter

[Clowe et al., 2006].

7


8/38

Quark Matter Nuggets

8


9/38

Condensed Quark Matter : An Alternate Explanation for

Dark Matter

Quark Nuggets are an alternative explanation for Dark Matter with profound implications for

the exploration of the Solar System.

There are numerous theories predicting that nuggets of condensed quark matter (Q-Balls, nucleates, etc.) would be left over from the early universe.

The Quark Nugget theory used here is that of Zhitnitsky [2003a,b], which makes specific

and testable predictions.

What is the relevance of this for Space Exploration?

If there is a significant density of primordial condensed quark matter, there will be some

in the solar system (including in asteroids).

Nuggets buried in small asteroids would be especially detectable, as nuggets should have

amass floor, and ordinary matter asteroids do not.

The most conclusive way to search for quark matter in the near term is to send space-

craft to selected small asteroids.

Searching for them is a huge bet on the future, as quark matter, if found, could be mined

for antimatter (currently valued at $ 65 trillion USD / gram).

9


10/38

A (brief) review of Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD)

Recent work indicates that at low temperatures and high densities the lowest QCD energy

state is Color-Flavor-Locked (CFL) superconducting quark matter [Alford, 1999, Madsen,

2001, Zhitnitsky, 2003a, Kogut and Stephanov, 2004, Alford et al., 2008].

In ordinary matter, quarks are confined. There are different flavors of quark (u,d and s arethe only ones of concern here) and each quark also has a color (r, g or b for normal matter).

Both flavor and color can be viewed as a charge, analogous to an electric charge, except

that

Color and flavor charges are not just + / - , but are multi-valued.

Color charges can be exchanged by gluons

Any free particle has to be color-neutral.

A proton, for example, is atriplet, and must have colors of, but it is

not possible to assign a particular color to any one of these quarks.

10


11/38

CFL Quark Matter

CFL quark matter is (roughly) similar to BCS superconductors for electrons. A dense sea of

cold quarks fill all available quantum states, allowing for quasiparticles, which can propa-

gate freely, and a superconducting gap, .

Some differences : CFL is acolorsuperconductor, but anelectricalinsulator.

CFL forms a superfluid, with rotation and magnetic field confined to vortex lines

Quasi particles are in color-flavor locked pairs, such as

These differences will be important for the potential generation of antimatter, to be dealt

with later.

CFL superfluids may be absolutely stable, in which case this, instead of the proton or 56Fe,

is the fundamental state of matter.

Qiark matterwasthe primary state of matter in the very early universe, and yet we exist. How

can some, butnotall, of the primordial quark matter have survived as CFL to the present?

11


12/38

QCD Phase Diagram

The schematic phase diagram for quark matter, in terms of the temperature and chemical poten-

tial. The Color-Flavor-Locked (CFL) superconducting phase has the highest density at near-zero

temperatures.

12


13/38

The QCD Era in the Early Universe

Quark Nuggets are a new version of an old idea.

The idea that condensed quark matter could form in the early universe and persist until

the present has a considerable history, dating back to the quark nugget proposal of

Witten [1984].

Other names for similar proposals are stranglets, nuclearites, Q-Balls..

Quark Nuggets would be relics of the QCD epoch, the period during the first few seconds

after the Big Bang when there were no baryons (protons, neutrons), but instead a quark-gluon

plasma (QGP).

At that time the Hubble distance, RH, was 10 km and the Hubble time 3seconds.

The density was >4 1017 kg m3 (the nuclear density).

The temperature was 160 MeV (1.9 1012 K).

The redshift, z, was 1012.

This represents the point, as the universe expanded and cooled, when quarks became confined

and the QGP froze out into hadrons, forming protons and neutrons.

If quark matter is stable (or sufficiently metastable) material from that epoch, if adequately

confined, could still exist today.

13


14/38

Basics of Zhitnitsky Quark Nugget theory

In the Zhitnitsky theory stable Quark Nuggets would be formed in a fairly narrow range of

masses, compressed by axion domain walls shortly afterthe QCD phase transition

The lower mass limit is set by the stability of the Quark Nugget against decay and the

upper mass limit by the requirement that the quark matter be compressed to greater thannuclear density. This mass range is less than two orders of magnitude in extent, but the

exact values are considerably more uncertain.

The stable Quark Nugget mass range is determined by fa, the axion decay constant. The

current uncertainty in fa [Lakic et al., 2012] constrains the stable Quark Nugget mass,

MQ, to 105 kg MQ 4 10

10 kg.

I will show evidence that MQis 1010 kg, implying a value for faat the upper end of

the allowed range.

Note that a 10 megaton Quark Nugget would have a radius of only 1.5 mm.

Zhitnitsky and his colleagues favor a small value for MQ, 1 gm, so that Quark Nuggets

could explain various anomalous radiation features in in the Galactic Bulge [Forbes and

Zhitnitsky, 2008a,b, Lawson and Zhitnitsky, 2013].

Such small Quark Nuggets would be inherently metastable, but normal matter nuggets

could merge, absorb ordinary matter, and grow to the maximum mass.

14


15/38

Current Limits on Quark Nugget Dark Matter

There are a variety of prior limits on Quark Nuggets as dark matter, which can be divided

into three mass ranges.

Low mass limits (MQ 1 gm) come from laboratory searches for dark matter.

The current best such limits are from the MACRO Collaboration [2002], which disallow

Quark Nuggets smaller than 10 milligrams.

Mid-range (kg to ton) limits come from seismology, with Lunar seismology being especially

important. [Herrin et al., 2006].

Finally, at the upper end of the mass range (planetary masses) there are limits from grav-itational lensing [Alcock et al., 1998], and (for primordial Quark Nuggets) from the re-

quirement that Quark Nuggets could not be larger than the horizon at the QCD era [Madsen,

2006]

Allof these constraints are consistent with the stable Quark Nugget mass range allowed by

the Zhitnitsky axion domain wall theory.

15


16/38

Observational Limits on Quark Nugget Dark Matter

1e-22

1e-21

1e+20 1e+25 1e+30 1e+35 1e+40 1e+45 1e+50

1e-05 1 100000 1e+10 1e+15 1e+20

Q(kgm-3)

Baryon Number(B)

Mass (kg)

MACRO

Apollo ALSEP

Kepler

Lensing

AxionDomain

Wall

Model

Mass

Range

VFR Asteroids

Femtolensing

CDM(Halo)

USGSLensing

This figure assumes a monochromatic Quark Nugget mass spectrum. The Halo CDM Density is

from local stellar kinematics [Bovy and Tremaine, 2012]. Note that the experimental asteroidconstraints and the theoretical axion domain wall mass range are consistent with each other

and with all the other experimental constraints.

16


17/38

Quark Matter and the Solar System

17


18/38

Why should there be Dark Matter in the Solar System?

Dark matter (whether microscopic or macroscopic) would be included in the Solar System

primordially (from its formation).

Planetary systems such as the Solar System appear to form in the collapse of molecular clouds

as they cool.

A small portion of the dark matter inside the collapsing cloud would have (by chance) relative

velocities 5 km sec1, and would be subject to capture.

Primordial capture probabilities are 2 104 and 3 106 for dark disk and Halo

dark matter, respectively.

The total amount of primordially captured dark matter would be 106 M or 3

1024 kg), with 98% of the captured material coming from the dark disk.

That corresponds to 3 1014 (1010 kg/ MQ) Quark Nuggets.

With their large superconducting gap energies, there is nothing to stop these Quark Nuggets

from beginning to accrete normal matter mantles, forming strange planetesimals. Bodies with radii 100 meters would have most of their mass coming from their strange

matter cores and would be truly strange asteroids.

18


19/38

Quark Matter and the Meter Barrier to Planetesimal Growth

Quark matter nuggets in the early Solar System could have profound (and observable) effects

on planetary formation.

Proto-planetary discs, the first step of planet formation is thought to be the conglomeration of

dust particles into small (sub-meter) bodies, which then must grow through conglomerationinto larger ones.

An obstacle in the current models for this process is the the so called meter-barrier [Brauer

et al., 2008, Mordasini et al., 2010].

In a proto-planetary disk the gas is subject to both pressure and gravity, and so does

not follow a Keplerian orbit, creating a headwind for orbiting bodies, and causing metersized objects to rapidly spiral into the central star [Weidenschilling, 1977, Birnstiel et al.,

2010].

In addition, collisions of meter size bodies appears unlikely to result in aggregation of

mass.

With their large mass floor, quark nuggets could solve the meter barrier.

They would provide proto-planetesimal population with minimum mass comparable to a

100 meter asteroid, nd thus evade the barrier.

19


20/38

Quark Matter : A source of Heating and High Energy Events

in the Early Solar System

Primordially-captured quark nuggets might be able to account for many of the heating and

high-energy radiation episodes in the early Solar System.

Quark nugget energy releases (due, say, to nugget mergers) would be primarily high

energy (MeV or higher)rays, together with pion or even proton pair production, which

would cause heating and spallation nucleosynthesis in adjacent ordinary matter.

Radiochemistry reveals that material in the early solar system was indeed subjected to multi-

ple episodes of high-energy radiation, which produced at least some of the fossil short-lived

radionuclides (those with half-lives< 107 yr) [McKeegan et al., 2000, Albarede et al., 2006,

Thrane et al., 2010, Wielandt et al., 2012]

The non-ferrous fossil radionuclides present in the early Solar System are all spallation prod-

ucts, and could be formed by high-energy nugget radiation; their inhomogeneous initial dis-

tributions [Makide et al., 2013] suggests a localized source within the early Solar System.

The evidence for supernova injection of 60Fe in the early Solar System is not conclusive

[Moynier et al., 2011, Tang and Dauphas, 2012].

I regard the possibility of nugget heating and radioisotope formation as an very open issue

that badly needs specialist attention.

20


21/38

How to find Quark Nuggets in the Solar System

Most Quark Nuggets in the Solar System should be currently located in the center of the Sun

and planets, where they would be hard to detect, and even harder to reach.

Small ( 200 meter radius) strange asteroids, if they exist at all, are both more likely to both

reveal their Quark Nugget cores and (if detected) could be suitable for direct exploration by

spacecraft.

Asteroids can be strongly perturbed by radiation pressure, both the Yarkovsky effect [Vokrouh-

licky et al., 2000], thrusting which changes orbits, and the Yarkovsky-OKeefe-Radzievskii-

Paddack (YORP) effect [Bottke et al., 2006], torquing of asteroidal rotation.

A small strange asteroid would respond very differently to Yarkovsky and YORP perturba-tions.

The mass would be increased over an ordinary matter body of the same size, which would

decrease Yarkovsky accelerations; such objects would have a longer residence time in

NEO orbits.

The moment of inertia change would be negligible, so there would be nothing to stop

YORP spin-up of rotation period.

AND, a small strange asteroid would have a higher than expected surface gravity, and

thus would be more resistant to rotational disruption, and thus could be spun up very fast.

21


22/38

Evidence for Strange Asteroids in the Solar System

22


23/38

Anomalous Rotation of Small Strange Asteroids

Small asteroids ( 200 meter radius) with quark matter cores can be considered strange

asteroids, as their mass will be dominated by their quark matter cores.

A small strange asteroid would respond differently to the Yarkovsky and the YORP effects.

The mass would be greatly increased over an ordinary matter body of the same size,which would greatly decrease Yarkovsky accelerations; such objects would have a longer

residence time in NEO orbits.

The moment of inertia change would be negligible, so there would be nothing to stop

YORP spin-up of rotation period.

However, a small strange asteroid would have a higher than expected surface gravity,would thus be more resistant to rotational disruption, and thus could be spun up very fast.

I originally thought that this would be a good way to disprove the massive CCO theory.

However

Fast rotating small asteroids are very common, with the shortest known period being 25

seconds. This tendency for fast rotation could be explained by CCO masses in the stable range

predicted by the Zhitnitsky theory, which of course is completely independent of any

asteroidal data.

23


24/38

Asteroid Rubble Pile rotation limits

Suppose that you have a spherical asteroid, with a bulk densityA, mass MAand radius RA,

being spun up by YORP. At what point will it be rotationally disrupted?

Disruption could come from internal fractures, but it is simple to consider the point at which

surface mass is lost, when the gravitational and rotational accelerations are equal on thesurface at the equator.

This is the so called Rubble Pile limit (RPL), which occurs at a rotational frequency, RPL,

with

2RPL=GMA

R3A=

4GA

3 (2)

Note that the RPL dependsonlyon the bulk density.

ForA= 2300 kg m3 the RPL rotation limit (PRP) is 2.2 hours.

For an asteroid of solid Osmium, PRP 0.7 hours.

I call asteroids with P < 0.5 hours Very Fast Rotators (VFR); they cannot be bound

gravitationally by ordinary matter.

24


25/38

The asteroid rotation period-radius relation

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

RotationPeriod(Hours)

Asteroid Radius (km)

NEOMain BeltTrans-Neptune ObjectsComet-Like OrbitsRPL (2.2 hr)Very Fast Rotator Limit (0.5 hr)

The change in the character of asteroid rotation rates at R 200 m is obvious to the eye, with

most asteroids with R 200 m have periods 2hours. The horizontal solid line is the Rubble Pile limit for a uniform

density of 2300 kg m3, and the horizontal dashed line is the 0.5 hour VFR limit.

25


26/38

Estimating Core Masses from Asteroid

Rubble Pile rotation limits

It is hard to directly determine asteroid masses (unless there is a satellite or spacecraft

present), but rotation rates are available for (at present) 5077 bodies.

Assuming a lack of internal cohesion it is straightforward to take the observed radius and

rotation frequency and estimate the mass of the Quark Nugget core, MQ, (assuming a default

density,O, for the ordinary matter mantle, and, e.g., a spherical body).

This indirect mass estimate is certainly not as firm as a direct mass estimate (say, from an

orbiting spacecraft), but it can be done for numerous bodies.

When this is done the centroid of the MQ distribution is 2 1010 kg within the range

predicted by the Zhitnitsky theory for stable Quark Nuggets.

This agreement between theory and observation is not proof, but it is powerfully suggestive.

26


27/38

Quark Nugget Core Mass Histograms from Asteroid Rotation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

32 34 36 38 40 42

1e+06 1e+08 1e+10 1e+12 1e+14

#Asteroids/Bin

Log 10 Baryon Number

Mass (kg)

Axion Model

Prediction

Range for

Maximum fa

R < 50 mR > 50 m

Histogram of the Quark Nugget core mass required to prevent rotational disruption assuming

gravitational binding and no internal tensile strength, for two independent sets of asteroids. These

core mass estimates are based on a rubble pile model with a default = 2300 kg m3

for allasteroid mantles. Also shown (as vertical lines) is the Quark Nugget mass range allowed by

the axion domain wall theory given current experimental constraints on the axion delay constant

fa and, as marked, the narrower range consistent with the maximum allowed value [Wantz and

Shellard, 2010] for fa(2.8 1011 GeV).

27


28/38

What About Asteroid Cohesion

The existence of rapidly rotation asteroids is of course not new; these are generally assumed

to be stable due to internal cohesion, most realistically due to van der Waals forces [Scheeres,

2011].

Van der Waals forces appear to be the strongest source of cohesion [Scheeres et al., 2010].Scheeres [Scheeres, 2011] provides a model for the maximum grain size to avoid rotational

disruption in a sand pile model, assuming cohesion from van der Waals forces with a modified

Hamaker constant of 0.05 N m1.

(Van der Waals forces are contact forces and are thus increased by decreasing the mean

particle size.)

The VFR asteroids require very small grain sizes in the asteroid center (assuming an absence

of quark matter).

These same asteroids can have 10 cm sec2 surface accelerations directedoutwardsfrom the

surface.

It is very hard for me to see how these dust piles in the sky could survive even gentle

shaking from meteorite impacts.

28


29/38

Maximum Grain Size Allowed for van der Waals force

cohesion against disruption)

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Maximum

StableBodyGrainRadius

(m)


FR NEOVFR

HA-VFR

Maximum grain size consistent with stability of the asteroid centeragainst rotational disruption,assuming cohesion from van der Waals forces [Scheeres et al., 2010, Scheeres, 2011] and a mod-

ified Hamaker constant of 0.05 N m1.

29


30/38

Positive outward equatorial accelerations

(rotational minus gravitational)

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Outwar

dAccelerationattheEquator(ms

ec-2)


Near Earth AsteroidsMain BeltP = 0.5 hr (VFR Limit)

P = 1.3 hrP = 2.0 hr

Positive outward equatorial accelerations (rotational minus gravitational), assuming spherical

bodies with a density of 2300 kg m3. (Positive outward accelerations of course imply that anyloose material at the equator would be lost to space.) A set of asteroids with a common density

rotating at their rubble pile limit would form a diagonally sloping cluster of points. Two such

clusters are visible and are marked by a diagonal dashed lines.

30


31/38

Solar Prospectors

Finding Ultra-Dense Asteroids by Spacecraft

31


32/38

Strange Asteroid Prospectors

What is the best way to confirm (or refute) the existence of Quark Nuggets in the NEO?

The best way toconfirmthe existence of strange asteroids would be simply to visit them.

With a low speed rendezvous, or after going into orbit, it would be straightforward to

determine the mass and density of a strange asteroid candidate.

From the current set of asteroids in the Light Curve Database, we have identified 12 strange

asteroid candidates withV 6 km / sec relative to the Earth.

Preliminary design work indicates an adequate prospector spacecraft could have

Mass


33/38

Conclusions

There are both theoretical and observational reasons to believe that there is condensed quark

matter in the Solar System.

If such matter is locally available, it can be found and used for scientific research and resource

(energy) extraction.

Phenomenal amounts of energy are potentially available. A 1010 kg Quark Nugget could

potentially yieldmegatonsof antimatter.

An initial production of micrograms would be difficult enough (as it would have to be done

in deep space) but it would be sufficient to enable antimatter catalyzed fusion.

Although the proposition is risky, the potential payoff would be immense. This is truly a

game-changing possibility for space exploration.

Asteroid Initiatives is seeking partners and funding to prospect the Near Earth Objects for

ultra-dense strange asteroids. The information gained from these prospectors would also be valuable for more conven-

tional mining.

33


34/38

References

F. Albarede, E. E. Scherer, J. Blichert-Toft, M. Rosing, A. Simionovici, and M. Bizzarro. -ray ir-radiation in the early Solar System and the conundrum of the 176Lu decay constant.Geochimica

et Cosmochimica Acta, 70:12611270, Mar. 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2005.09.027.

C. Alcock, R. A. Allsman, D. Alves, R. Ansari, E. Aubourg, T. S. Axelrod, P. Bareyre, J.-P.

Beaulieu, A. C. Becker, D. P. Bennett, S. Brehin, F. Cavalier, S. Char, K. H. Cook, R. Ferlet,

J. Fernandez, K. C. Freeman, K. Griest, P. Grison, M. Gros, C. Gry, J. Guibert, M. Lachieze-Rey,

B. Laurent, M. J. Lehner, E. Lesquoy, C. Magneville, S. L. Marshall, E. Maurice, A. Milsztajn,D. Minniti, M. Moniez, O. Moreau, L. Moscoso, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, B. A. Peterson,

M. R. Pratt, L. Prevot, F. Queinnec, P. J. Quinn, C. Renault, J. Rich, M. Spiro, C. W. Stubbs,

W. Sutherland, A. Tomaney, T. Vandehei, A. Vidal-Madjar, L. Vigroux, and S. Zylberajch.

EROS and MACHO Combined Limits on Planetary-Mass Dark Matter in the Galactic Halo.

Ap. J. Lett., 499:L9, 1998.

M. Alford. New possibilities for QCD at finite density. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 73:161166,

1999. doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(99)85015-4.

M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schafer. Color superconductivity in dense quark

matter. Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:14551515, Nov 2008. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1455.

T. Birnstiel, C. P. Dullemond, and F. Brauer. Gas- and dust evolution in protoplanetary disks.

Astron. Astrophys., 513:A79, 2010.

W. F. Bottke, Jr., D. Vokrouhlicky, D. P. Rubincam, and D. Nesvorny. The Yarkovsky and Yorp

34


35/38

Effects: Implications for Asteroid Dynamics. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,

34:157191, May 2006. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154.

J. Bovy and S. Tremaine. On the Local Dark Matter Density.Ap. J., 756:89, 2012. doi: 10.1088/

0004-637X/756/1/89.

F. Brauer, C. P. Dullemond, and T. Henning. Coagulation, fragmentation and radial motion of

solid particles in protoplanetary disks. Astron. Astropys., 480:859877, 2008.

D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky.

A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter. Ap. J., 648:L109L113, Sept. 2006.doi: 10.1086/508162.

P. DArrigo and S. Santandrea. The APIES microsatellite mission to explore the asteroid belt.

In B. Warmbein, editor, Small Satellites, Systems and Services, volume 571 ofESA Special

Publication, Nov. 2004.

M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky. WMAP haze: Directly observing dark matter? Phys. Rev. D,78:083505, 2008a.

M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Diffuse x-rays: Directly observing dark matter? J. Cosmology

and Astroparticle Physics, page 023, 2008b. doi: doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/01/023.

E. T. Herrin, D. C. Rosenbaum, and V. L. Teplitz. Seismic search for strange quark nuggets. Phys.

Rev. D, 73(4):043511, Feb. 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043511.J. B. Kogut and M. A. Stephanov. The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics. Cambridge Mono-

graphs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge University Press, Mar.

2004.

35


36/38

B. Lakic, M. Arik, S. Aune, K. Barth, A. Belov, S. Borghi, H. Brauninger, G. Cantatore, J. M.

Carmona, S. A. Cetin, J. I. Collar, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, C. Eleftheriadis, N. Elias, C. Ezer,

G. Fanourakis, E. Ferrer-Ribas, P. Friedrich, J. Galan, J. A. Garca, A. Gardikiotis, E. N.Gazis, T. Geralis, I. Giomataris, S. Gninenko, H. Gomez, E. Gruber, T. Guthorl, R. Hartmann,

F. Haug, M. D. Hasinoff, D. H. H. Hoffmann, F. J. Iguaz, I. G. Irastorza, J. Jacoby, K. Jakovcic,

M. Karuza, K. Konigsmann, R. Kotthaus, M. Krcmar, M. Kuster, J. M. Laurent, A. Liolios,

A. Ljubicic, V. Lozza, G. Lutz, G. Luzon, J. Morales, T. Niinikoski, A. Nordt, T. Papaevan-

gelou, M. J. Pivovaroff, G. Raffelt, T. Rashba, H. Riege, A. Rodrguez, M. Rosu, J. Ruz, I. Sav-

vidis, P. S. Silva, S. K. Solanki, L. Stewart, A. Tomas, M. Tsagri, K. van Bibber, T. Vafeiadis,J. Villar, J. K. Vogel, S. C. Yildiz, K. Zioutas, and Cast Collaboration. Status and perspectives

of the CAST experiment. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 375(2):022001, July 2012. doi:

10.1088/1742-6596/375/1/022001.

K. Lawson and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Quark (Anti) Nugget Dark Matter. In Cosmic Frontier Workshop

(CF3 and CF6 groups), SLAC 2013. Snowmass 2013 e-Proceedings, May 2013.

MACRO Collaboration. Search for massive rare particles with MACRO. Nucl. Phys. B Proc.

Suppl., 110:186188, 2002.

J. Madsen. Color-Flavor Locked Strangelets. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:172003, Oct 2001. doi: 10.

1103/PhysRevLett.87.172003.

J. Madsen. Strangelets, Nuclearites, Q-ballsA Brief Overview. Invited talk at Workshop onExotic Physics with Neutrino Telescopes, 2006.

K. Makide, K. Nagashima, A. N. Krot, G. R. Huss, I. D. Hutcheon, E. Hellebrand, and M. I.

Petaev. Heterogeneous distribution of 26Al at the birth of the Solar System: Evidence from

36


37/38

corundum-bearing refractory inclusions in carbonaceous chondrites. Geochimica et Cos-

mochimica Acta, 110:190215, June 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2013.01.028.

M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, andW. Tucker. Direct Constraints on the Dark Matter Self-Interaction Cross Section from the

Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56. Ap. J., 606:819824, 2004.

K. D. McKeegan, M. Chaussidon, and F. Robert. Incorporation of Short-Lived 10Be in a Calcium-

Aluminum-Rich Inclusion from the Allende Meteorite. Science, 289:13341337, Aug. 2000.

doi: 10.1126/science.289.5483.1334.

C. Mordasini, H. Klahr, Y. Alibert, W. Benz, and K.-M. Dittkrist. Theory of planet formation.

Proceedings Workshop Circumstellar disks and planets: Science cases for the second gener-

ation VLTI instrumentation, to appear in Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, ed. Sebastian

Wolf, 2010.

F. Moynier, J. Blichert-Toft, K. Wang, G. F. Herzog, and F. Albarede. The Elusive 60Fe in the

Solar Nebula. Ap. J., 741:71, Nov. 2011. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/71.

D. J. Scheeres, C. M. Hartzell, P. Sanchez, and M. Swift. Scaling forces to asteroid surfaces: The

role of cohesion. Icarus, 210:968984, Dec. 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.009.

P. Scheeres, D. J.and Sanchez. Evolution of Small, Rapidly Rotating Asteroids. In Lunar and

Planetary Institute Science Conference Abstracts, volume 42 ofLunar and Planetary Inst. Tech-

nical Report, page 2307, Mar. 2011.H. Tang and N. Dauphas. Abundance, distribution, and origin of 60Fe in the solar protoplanetary

disk. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 359:248263, Dec. 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.

10.011.

37


38/38

K. Thrane, J. N. Connelly, M. Bizzarro, B. S. Meyer, and L.-S. The. Origin of Excess 176Hf in

Meteorites. Ap. J., 717:861867, July 2010. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/861.

D. Vokrouhlicky, A. Milani, and S. R. Chesley. Yarkovsky Effect on Small Near-Earth Asteroids:

Mathematical Formulation and Examples. Icarus, 148:118138, Nov. 2000. doi: 10.1006/icar.

2000.6469.

O. Wantz and E. P. S. Shellard. Axion cosmology revisited. Phys. Rev. D, 82:123508, Dec 2010.

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.123508.

S. J. Weidenschilling. Aerodynamics of solid bodies in the solar nebula. Mon. Not. R.A.S., 180:

5770, 1977.

D. Wielandt, K. Nagashima, A. N. Krot, G. R. Huss, M. A. Ivanova, and M. Bizzarro. Evidence

for Multiple Sources of 10Be in the Early Solar System. Ap. J. Lett., 748:L25, Apr. 2012. doi:

10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L25.

E. Witten. Cosmic separation of phases. Phys. Rev. D, 30:272285, Jul 1984. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272.

A. Zhitnitsky. Dark matter as dense color superconductor. In Nuclear Physics B Proceedings

Supplements, volume 124, pages 99102, July 2003a. doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(03)02087-5.

A. Zhitnitsky. Nonbaryonic dark matter as baryonic colour superconductor. J. Cosmology and

Astroparticle Physics, 10:010, Oct. 2003b. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2003/10/010.

38

Deep physics from Small Bodies : Dark Matter in the Solar System

Documents

Transcript of Deep physics from Small Bodies : Dark Matter in the Solar System