- Access by Xinjiang University
New interpretation of matter-antimatter asymmetry based on branes and possible observational consequences
Phys. Rev. D 76, 103513 – Published 7 November, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103513
Abstract
Motivated by the alpha-magnetic-spectrometer (AMS) project, we assume that after the big bang or inflation epoch, antimatter was repelled onto one brane which is separated from our brane where all the observational matter resides. It is suggested that may be spontaneously broken, the two branes would correspond to ground states for matter and antimatter, respectively. Generally a complex scalar field which is responsible for the spontaneous violation, exists in the space between the branes. The matter and antimatter on the two branes attract each other via gravitational force, meanwhile the scalar field causes a Casimir effect to result in a repulsive force against the gravitation. We find that the Casimir force is much stronger than the gravitational force, as long as the separation of the two branes is small. Thus at early epoch after the big bang, the two branes were closer and then have been separated by the Casimir repulsive force from each other. The trend will continue until the separation is sufficiently large and then the gravitational force observed in our four-space would obviously deviate from the Newton’s universal gravitational law. We suppose that there is a potential barrier at the brane boundary, which is similar to the surface tension for a water membrane. The barrier prevents the matter (antimatter) particles from entering the space between two branes and jump from one brane to another. However, by the quantum tunneling, a sizable antimatter flux may come to our brane and be observed by the AMS. In this work by considering two possible models, i.e. the naive flat space-time and Randall-Sundrum models, and using the observational data on the visible matter in our universe as inputs, we derive the antimatter flux which comes to our detector in the nonrelativistic approximation and make a rough numerical estimate of possible numbers of antihelium at AMS.
Article Text
References (21)
- M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1 (2003); W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher, Nucl. Phys. B643, 367 (2002); A. G. Cohen, A. De Rujula, and S. L. Glashow, Astrophys. J. 495, 539 (1998).
- F. W. Stecker, in Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry, edited by. L. I. Fayard and J. T. T. Van (The Gioi, Hanoi, 2003), pp. 5-14.
- M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973); N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963).
- A. J. Buras and M. K. Harlander, in Heavy Flavours, edited by A. J. Buras and M. Lindner, Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics Vol. 10 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 58.
- L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 562 (1964); H. Sonoda, Nucl. Phys. B326, 135 (1989); J. Ellis et al., CERN Report No. CERN-TH-6755-92 (1992).
- A. Barrau et al. (AMS Collaboration), arXiv:astro-ph/0103493.
- J. Alcaraz et al. (AMS Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 478, 119 (2002).
- B. Borgia et al. (AMS Collaboration), IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 2786 (2005).
- V. M. Chechetkin, M. G. Sapozhnikov, M. Yu. Khlopov, and Ya. B. Zeldovich, Phys. Lett. 118B, 329 (1982); K. M. Belotsky, Yu. A. Golubkov, M. Yu. Khlopov, R. V. Konoplich, and A. S. Sakharov, Phys. At. Nucl. 63, 233 (2000); A. S. Sakharov, M. Yu. Khlopov, and S. G. Rubin, CAPP2000 Conference on Cosmology and Particle Physics 2000, Verbier, Switzerland, AIP Conference Proceedings No. 555 (AIP, New York, 2001), p. 421; M. Yu. Khlopov, S. G. Rubin, and A. S. Sakharov, hep-ph/0210012.
- T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 8, 1226 (1973).
- S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 657 (1976).
- W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922 (1999).
- L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999); 83, 4690 (1999).
- E. G. Floratos and G. L. Leotaris, Phys. Lett. B 465, 95 (1999).
- A. Kehagias and C. Sfetsos, Phys. Lett. B 472, 39 (2000).
- E. Ponton and E. Poppitz, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2001) 019.
- M. Ito, Nucl. Phys. B668, 322 (2003).
- P. Binétruy, C. Deffayet, and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys. B615, 219 (2001); D. Langlois and L. Sorbo, Phys. Lett. B 543, 155 (2002).
- P. Binétruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger, and D. Langlois, Phys. Lett. B 477, 285 (2000).
- W.-M. Yao, et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
- R. Cowsik, C. Ratnam, and P. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3886 (1996).