Re: Mirror Symmetry

From: Saibal Mitra <>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:08:27 +0100

It really depends on how strong WIMPs interact with ordinary matter. If
interaction too weak, WIMPs won't loose much energy while moving through
objects composed of ordinary matter. The effect you mention would then
visible on the scale of galaxies (that would be consistent with the
curves of stars in galaxies).

In the case of mirror matter with the particular kind of interaction
proposed by Foot, mirror objects falling on, say, the Earth would end
in the center of the Earth. The fact that fusion processes in theSun
be affected has been used to constrain the exact parity model.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Mirror Symmetry

> Saibal Mitra:
> > ... a so-called mirror world could exist. Nature would then be
> > symmetric under parity. Their so-called exact parity model predicts
> > the existence of so-called ''mirror matter''. Each particle is
> > postulated to have a mirror partner with similar properties (they
> > behave exactly as the mirror image of there partners, e.g. mirror
> > neutrino's would be right-handed). This is thus similar to
> > anti-mater, the main difference is that mirror particles and
> > ordinary particles only have very weak interactions ...
> Now that would be neat. Too bad some authors have used "mirror
> matter" as a synonym for antimatter. Well, if it turns out to be real
> we might still call it dark matter, though that usage will also have
> to be sharpened.
> Something that has bothered me regarding WIMP dark matter in general,
> shouldn't there be a lot of it at the bottom of familiar gravity wells
> like the sun and the earth, and wouldn't that hugely confuse the
> conventional matter models that most everyone uses to deduce, for
> instance, the composition of the earth's core or the sun and its
> fusion processes? Dark matter that has fallen to earth (and into the
> sun) and expended its energy on impact would accumulate, probably deep
> down, no?
Received on Tue Feb 05 2002 - 04:12:25 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST