Cosmological axion and a quark nugget dark matter model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a dark matter (DM) model offering a very natural explanation of two (naively unrelated) problems in cosmology: the observed relation ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}\ensuremath{\sim}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\text{visible}}$ and the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the Universe, known as the ``baryogenesis'' problem. In this framework, both types of matter (dark and visible) have the same QCD origin, form at the same QCD epoch, and are proportional to one and the same dimensional parameter of the system, ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}}_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, which explains how these two naively distinct problems could be intimately related, and could be solved simultaneously within the same framework. More specifically, the DM in this model is composed by two different ingredients: the (well-studied) DM axions and the (less-studied) quark nuggets made of matter or antimatter. We focus on the quantitative analysis of the relation between these two distinct components contributing to the dark sector of the theory determined by ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}\ensuremath{\equiv}[{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}(\text{nuggets})+{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}(\text{axion})]$. We argue that the nuggets' DM component always traces the visible matter density, i.e., ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}(\text{nuggets})\ensuremath{\sim}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\text{visible}}$, and this feature is not sensitive to the parameters of the system such as the axion mass ${m}_{a}$ or the misalignment angle ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{0}$. It should be contrasted with conventional axion production mechanisms due to the misalignment when ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{DM}}(\text{axion})$ is highly sensitive to the axion mass ${m}_{a}$ and the initial misalignment angle ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{0}$. We also discuss the constraints on this model related to the inflationary scale ${H}_{I}$, nonobservation of the isocurvature perturbations and the tensor modes. We also comment on some constraints related to various axion search experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".