Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review a testable, the axion quark nugget (AQN) model outside of the standard WIMP paradigm. The model was originally invented to explain the observed similarity between the dark and the visible components, [Formula: see text], in a natural way as both types of matter are formed during the same QCD transition and proportional to the same dimensional fundamental parameter of the system, [Formula: see text]. In this framework, the baryogenesis is actually a charge segregation (rather than charge generation) process which is operational due to the [Formula: see text]-odd axion field, while the global baryon number of the Universe remains zero. The nuggets and anti-nuggets are strongly interacting but macroscopically large objects with approximately nuclear density. We overview several specific recent applications of this framework. First, we discuss the “solar corona mystery” when the so-called nanoflares are identified with the AQN annihilation events in corona. Secondly, we review a proposal that the recently observed by the Telescope Array puzzling events is a result of the annihilation events of the AQNs under thunderstorm. Finally, we overview a broadband strategy which could lead to the discovery the AQN-induced axions representing the heart of the construction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".