Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Dark energy and spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dark energy is the residual of a near-total cancellation between ordinary and mirror Higgs vacuum energies.

desk verdict The dark energy number is an input, not an output: the superposition rule in Eq. (14) is assumed, and standard QFT disagrees. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11838 v7 pith:P7PHHIRQ submitted 2019-08-30 physics.gen-ph

Wanpeng Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph
keywords darkenergyvacuummirrormatterspontaneoussymmetrybreakingcosmologicalconstantproblemneutrinomassesquarkcondensationbaryogenesis
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that dark energy is the leftover of a near-perfect cancellation between the vacuum energy of the ordinary Higgs field and that of its mirror partner. The cancellation is controlled by spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking (SMSB) at the electroweak scale; with a relative breaking of about $10^{-14}$, the 246 GeV electroweak scale is reduced to a predicted vacuum density of roughly $(10^{-3}\ \mathrm{eV})^4$, which matches the observed dark energy density. The paper builds an extended Standard Model with mirror matter to show that this same tiny breaking also fixes the dark-to-baryon matter ratio, drives baryogenesis, explains the neutron lifetime anomaly, and gives the three neutrinos masses of order $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3}$ eV. A sympathetic reader would care because the argument turns a severe fine-tuning problem into a single dimensionless ratio that is independently constrained by particle-oscillation data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (14), $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}} \sim (\sum_i v_i)^4$, applied to two Higgs fields that transform with opposite signs under the mirror transformation, so their combined vacuum expectation value is $\delta v = v - v' \approx 10^{-14} v$. The second piece of machinery is the four-fermion interaction from quark condensation, which makes the Higgs a composite top-quark condensate and fixes the electroweak relations $v^2 = 2m_t^2 = 4m^2$; this is what converts the SMSB scale into concrete particle masses. The third is cross-sector quark mixing in the extended CKM matrix, which produces neutral hadron ($n{-}n'$, $K^0{-}K'^0$) oscillations and supplies the independent measurements of $\delta v/v$ that set the input scale.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to measure the neutron-mirror-neutron mass splitting or oscillation time with ultracold neutrons: if the splitting is not in the $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-5}$ eV range (relative scale $10^{-15}$ to $10^{-14}$), the input scale of Eq. (15) is wrong and the dark energy estimate collapses. A second decisive check is a first-principles calculation of the vacuum energy of two decoupled scalar fields: if it produces $v^4 + v'^4$ rather than $(v - v')^4$, the central identity Eq. (14) is not a consequence of standard quantum field theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that vacuum energy in the extended Standard Model with mirror matter is given by $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}} \sim \langle \sum_i \phi_i\rangle^4$, so for the ordinary Higgs and mirror Higgs, whose vacuum values are opposite in sign, it is $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}} \sim (v - v')^4 \equiv (\delta v)^4$ rather than the incoherent sum $v^4 + v'^4$. With SMSB pinned to $\delta v/v \sim 10^{-15}{-}10^{-14}$ by neutron and kaon oscillation data, $v = 246$ GeV yields $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}} \sim (10^{-3}\ \mathrm{eV})^4$, the observed dark energy density. The same chiral-odd mirror transformation makes the Higgs field composite: staged quark condensation through four-fermion interactions produces the electroweak VEV, and the relations $v^2 = 2m_t^2 = 4m^2$ predict the top quark and Higgs masses close to their measured values. Neutrino degeneracy between the sectors turns the Yukawa term into $-y(\bar{\nu}_L \nu_R(\phi - \phi') + \mathrm{h.c.})$, giving $m_\nu \sim \delta v$ and thereby explaining the tiny neutrino masses without introducing new scales.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dark energy prediction rests on the unproven assumption that two sectors that do not interact except through gravity still combine their vacuum energies coherently, as if only the difference of the two Higgs field values exists, rather than adding two independent energies; if the two contributions simply add, the predicted density is the usual enormous $v^4$ and the argument fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark energy needs no new constant: $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}$ is predicted to be $(\delta v)^4 \approx (10^{-3}\ \mathrm{eV})^4$, matching the observed density within the model's parameter range.
  • The top quark and Higgs masses are fixed once the electroweak VEV is known, with $v^2 = 2m_t^2 = 4m^2$ giving $m_t \approx 174$ GeV and $m_H \approx 123$ GeV.
  • Charged leptons inherit masses from their generation's down-type quark condensates, for example $m_\tau \approx 0.3\, m_b$, and neutrinos become Dirac fermions with masses $m_\nu \sim \delta v$ in the $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3}$ eV range.
  • The same SMSB scale ties together the dark-to-baryon matter ratio of about 5.4, the baryon asymmetry, and the neutron lifetime anomaly, making dark energy and dark matter one phenomenon.
  • If the proposed mirror-cosmology model replaces $\Lambda$CDM, the Hubble tension could be a relic of mini-inflations triggered by the ordinary/mirror VEV difference, changing how early-universe distances are interpreted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not develop this, but if the residual vacuum energy is literally a cosmological constant, the model predicts a dark energy equation of state $w = -1$; future surveys that detect any significant deviation would contradict this picture.
  • The staged quark condensation scales ($10^{11}$, $10^{10}$, $10^9$, $10^8$ eV) suggest a sequence of early-universe phase transitions; if any are strongly first-order, a stochastic gravitational-wave background at the corresponding frequencies should exist and could be searched for with future detectors.
  • If the double-inflation scenario with mirror scalar fields is right, the cosmic expansion should carry a dipole component; the claimed dipole in supernova data could be confirmed or refuted with larger, more isotropic samples.
  • The model implies the lightest neutrino has a mass of at least about $10^{-4}$ eV, a concrete lower bound that neutrino oscillation, beta-decay, and cosmological probes could test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that dark energy is the residual vacuum energy left after spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking (SMSB) in an extended Standard Model with a mirror sector (SM3). The central quantitative claim is Eq. (15): if the ordinary and mirror Higgs VEVs enter with opposite signs and nearly cancel, the vacuum energy is ρ_vac ∼ (δv)^4, and with the relative breaking scale δv/v ∼ 10^-14, this gives ρ_vac ∼ (10^-3 eV)^4, matching the observed dark-energy density. The paper further argues that the same SMSB mechanism explains dark matter, baryogenesis, neutrino masses, charged-lepton mass relations, and several other puzzles, and it speculates about a maximally interacting, supersymmetric, mirrored world. The main body constructs SM3, proposes staged quark condensation as the source of SMSB, and derives estimates for the top quark, Higgs, and neutrino masses.

Significance. If the central dark-energy result were sound, it would offer an elegant resolution of the cosmological-constant problem by tying the vacuum energy to a broken discrete symmetry, and it would connect dark energy to a single breaking scale that also explains dark matter and baryon asymmetries. The paper also contains explicit and falsifiable predictions, notably for neutrino masses and for invisible decays of neutral hadrons, and it constructs a concrete Lagrangian for the mirror-matter sector. However, the quantitative bridge from SMSB to ρ_Λ rests on a new vacuum-energy superposition rule that is not derived and is not part of standard quantum field theory, and the input breaking scale is taken from the author's own earlier fits, making the agreement with observation largely circular. The paper's strengths — its wide scope and specific predictions — do not compensate for the unsupported load-bearing step in Eq. (14).

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (14) and preceding paragraph] The central dark-energy result rests entirely on the asserted rule ρ_vac ∼ (Σ_i v_i)^4 for two decoupled scalar sectors. In standard quantum field theory the vacuum energy of decoupled sectors is additive: the effective potential at the minima is V(v) + V(v') ∼ λ v^4/4 + λ (v')^4/4, with no cross-term between the two sectors. The paper's justification — that the two sectors 'participate in gravity coherently' and that the quantum superposition principle should be applied — is an assertion, not a derivation, and the paper itself concedes immediately before Eq. (14) that a full description 'could not be obtained without a valid theory of quantum gravity.' Since Eq. (15) is the only quantitative connection between the SMSB scale and the observed dark-energy density, the unsupported superposition rule is load-bearing; if it fails, the dark-energy prediction collapses.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (14)–(15)] The numerical 'agreement' with observation is circular. The relative breaking scale δv/v ∼ 10^-14 is not derived in this paper; it is imported from the author's previous fits to the neutron lifetime anomaly, the dark-to-baryon matter ratio, and CP-violating kaon oscillations (Refs. [14–18]). Because Eq. (15) is literally ρ_vac ∼ (δv)^4, substituting a value of δv chosen to make other phenomena fit cannot count as a prediction of the dark-energy density. A genuine prediction would require computing δv/v from the model's dynamics or relating it to an independent observable within this paper.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (9) and the sign of the mirror VEV] The claimed cancellation to (δv)^4 depends on the two Higgs VEVs having opposite signs, but the mirror potential is even under φ' → −φ', so the sign of the VEV does not change the energy density: V(v') = V(−v') is positive. The cancellation would require a negative cross-sector contribution, which is absent from the Lagrangian in Eq. (10), since the two sectors share no gauge or quartic interactions. The coherent superposition in Eq. (14) is therefore not a consequence of the stated Lagrangian; it amounts to a new, unexplained physical principle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I, Eq. (4)] The equation ρ_vac = λ⟨φ⟩^4 = λ v^4/4 mixes conventions: with the Lagrangian (3) containing −λφ^4 the standard potential gives λ v^4/4 only if the quartic term is written as λ(φ†φ)^2 with an additional factor. Please clarify the convention used.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (13)] The extended CKM matrix is introduced without defining the notation for the mirror-sector block V′ or the cross-sector elements V_ij′; a short explanation of which entries are fitted and which are predicted would help the reader follow the later arguments.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (20)] The derivation of the neutrino mass term m_ν = y δv/√2 is compressed. The text jumps from the degeneracy relations ν_L = −ν′_L and ν_R = ν′_R to the Yukawa combination (φ − φ′); spelling out the contraction in the Lagrangian would make this step transparent.
  4. [Section IV, Table I] The degree-of-freedom counting assumes the gauging of a flavor U(6) before SMSB, but the origin and breaking of this U(6) are not developed; since the (pseudo-)SUSY argument depends on it, adding a few sentences on how the gauge symmetry emerges would strengthen the presentation.
  5. [References] Several central references (e.g., Refs. [43]–[45]) are listed as OSF preprints rather than peer-reviewed or arXiv-published works; for a journal submission, citing published versions or clearly marked preprints with DOIs would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The dark-energy 'prediction' reduces to its own input: Eq. (14) defines vacuum energy as (Σv_i)^4 so opposite-sign mirror VEVs cancel, and the remaining δv/v is carried in from the author's earlier fits.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Eq. (14) and preceding paragraph]
    "Therefore, it is natural to apply the quantum superposition principle to obtain vacuum energy density as ⟨φ −φ′⟩4 ∼ δv4 instead of an incoherent sum like ⟨φ⟩4 + ⟨φ′⟩4. In general, the extension of vacuum energy defined by multiple scalar fields can then be expressed as, ρvac ∼ ⟨∑ φi⟩4 ∼ (∑ vi)4."

    The SM^3 Lagrangian (Eq. 10) has no cross-sector gauge or quartic couplings, so the two Higgs sectors are decoupled; standard QFT would give an additive vacuum energy V(φ)+V(φ′) from the separate quartic terms. The paper instead defines the multi-field vacuum energy as the fourth power of the sum of VEVs. Since the mirror transformation (9) makes the two VEVs opposite in sign, this definition forces the cancellation down to (δv)^4. Eq. (15), the central dark-energy result, is therefore not derived from the Lagrangian but is the content of the definition in Eq. (14).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section I and Section II, Eq. (15)]
    "Our earlier studies have revealed that the mirror symmetry breaking scale is δv/v = δm/m ∼ 10−15–10−14 [14–18]. ... Using the fairly well constrained mirror symmetry breaking scale of 10−14 and the Higgs VEV of v = 246 GeV, therefore, we can estimate the vacuum energy density as, ρvac ∼ (δv)4 ∼ (10−3 eV)4 (15) which agrees remarkably well with observation."

    The scale δv/v is not derived in this paper; it is “proposed” and “revealed” by Refs. [14–18], all authored by the present author, from fits to neutron lifetime, dark-to-baryon ratio, kaon oscillations, and related data. Eq. (15) is v^4×(δv/v)^4, a one-to-one function of that fitted input. Even though the earlier fitted observables are not dark energy itself, this step adds no new first-principles information: the “remarkable agreement” is just the chosen δv/v exponentiated. The central dark-energy claim therefore rests on the self-citation chain that fixes δv/v, with no independent derivation supplied.

full rationale

The central dark-energy claim is circular in two linked ways. First, Eq. (14) defines the vacuum energy of multiple scalar fields as (Σ v_i)^4, replacing the standard additive sum of separate quartic potentials. Because the mirror Higgs VEV enters with the opposite sign (Eq. 9), this definition makes the cancellation to (δv)^4 automatic; without it, the paper's own decoupled Lagrangian would give a vacuum energy of order λv^4, not (10^-3 eV)^4. Second, the input scale δv/v ∼ 10^-14 is not independently established here but is taken from the author's prior M^3 papers, where it was chosen to accommodate neutron lifetime, dark matter, and kaon-oscillation observations. Eq. (15) is then a direct monomial of this input, so the “agreement with observation” is a restatement of the fitted parameter. Some parts of the paper, such as the top-quark/Higgs mass relations v^2=2m_t^2=4m^2 and the lepton mass estimates, have independent empirical content and are not circular; however, they do not rescue the paper's headline dark-energy result, which is forced by definition and by the self-cited fit. Score 8: the central result is forced by definition and by a self-citation chain, though the paper also contains some non-circular ancillary relations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest primarily on the fitted mirror-symmetry breaking scale δv/v and on an unproven coherent-superposition rule for vacuum energies. The model also assumes a mirror sector with no direct coupling, a composite-Higgs mechanism, and staged quark condensation; none of these are independently established.

free parameters (2)
  • Relative mirror symmetry breaking scale δv/v = 10^-15 to 10^-14 (10^-14 used for dark energy)
    Set by fits to neutron lifetime anomaly, dark-to-baryon ratio, and kaon CP violation in refs 14-18; used to compute dark energy density and neutrino masses.
  • Composite Higgs condensation scales v_t, v_b, v_c, v_s, v_ud = ~10^11, 10^10, 10^9, 10^8, 10^8 eV
    Order-of-magnitude estimates from quark mass hierarchy (Section III); used to compute neutrino masses and staged vacuum energy contributions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mirror transformation M with chiral oddity: ψ_L -> -ψ'_L, ψ_R -> ψ'_R, φ -> -φ' (Eq. 9)
    The model postulates this specific mirror parity to produce a near cancellation of VEVs; it is not derived from a deeper principle.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum energy of multiple scalar fields is (Σ v_i)^4 (Eq. 14), with antiphase VEVs canceling
    The paper asserts a coherent superposition of vacuum energies of two decoupled sectors; this is not standard QFT and is essential for the dark energy result.
  • domain assumption SMSB occurs at the electroweak phase transition with universal relative breaking δv/v ~ 10^-15 to 10^-14
    Taken from the author's prior model (refs 14-18) and applied here to all sectors; no derivation is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption No explicit cross-sector interaction except gravity
    Defines the mirror-matter model; the only mixing is via weak interactions after SMSB.
  • domain assumption Composite Higgs from top quark condensation via four-fermion interactions
    Borrowed from NJL/top-condensate literature (refs 31-37); used to derive v^2 = 2m_t^2 = 4m^2 and lepton mass relations.
invented entities (1)
  • Mirror matter sector (mirror quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, mirror Higgs)
    purpose: Provides the mirror copy that cancels vacuum energy, serves as dark matter, and enables n-n' oscillations and other proposed phenomena.
    No direct experimental detection; the model proposes indirect tests (e.g., neutron-mirror-neutron oscillations, invisible hadron decays) but none have been observed. The sector is a postulate of the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark energy and spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7PHHIRQ

@misc{pith2026190811838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark energy and spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7PHHIRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11838}
}
abstract

Dark energy is interpreted as the leftover of mostly canceled vacuum energy due to the spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking (SMSB) at the electroweak phase transition. Based on the newly proposed mirror-matter model (M$^3$), the extended standard model with mirror matter (SM$^3$) is elaborated to provide a consistent foundation for understanding dark energy, dark matter, baryogenesis, and many other puzzles. New insights of Higgs, top quark, and lepton masses are presented under SM$^3$ using staged quark condensation and four-fermion interactions for SMSB. In particular, the nature and mass scales of neutrinos are naturally explained under the new theory. The new cosmology model based on SM$^3$ could potentially resolve more cosmic enigmas. The possible underlying principles for SMSB and SM$^3$ of a maximally interacting, supersymmetric, and mirrored world are also discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,

    Adam G. Riess, Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Challis, Alej andro Clocchiatti, Alan Diercks, Peter M. Garnavich, Ron L. Gilliland, Craig J. Hogan, Saurab h Jha, Robert P. Kirshner, and others, “Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,” Astrophys. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High- Redshift Supernovae,

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. N ugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, and others, “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High- Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Observational probes of co smic acceleration,

    David H. Weinberg, Michael J. Mortonson, Daniel J. Eisen stein, Christopher Hirata, Adam G. Riess, and Eduardo Rozo, “Observational probes of co smic acceleration,” Phys. Rep. 530, 87–255 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Dark energy two dec ades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests,

    Dragan Huterer and Daniel L. Shafer, “Dark energy two dec ades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 016901 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Pl anck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,

    Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Bal- lardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, and others, “Pl anck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,” (2018), arXiv:1807 .06205 [astro-ph]

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Dyna mics of dark energy,

    Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Dyna mics of dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753–1935 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Dark Energy and the Acceler- ating Universe,

    Joshua A. Frieman, Michael S. Turner, and Dragan Huterer , “Dark Energy and the Acceler- ating Universe,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385–432 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Dark Ene rgy,

    Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, and Yi Wang, “Dark Ene rgy,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525–604 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Dark energy cosmology: The equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests,

    Kazuharu Bamba, Salvatore Capozziello, Shin’ichi Nojir i, and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Dark energy cosmology: The equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests,” Astrophys. Space Sci. 342, 155–228 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    What makes the Universe accelerate? A re view on what dark energy could be and how to test it,

    Philippe Brax, “What makes the Universe accelerate? A re view on what dark energy could be and how to test it,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 016902 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    The cosmological constant problem,

    Steven Weinberg, “The cosmological constant problem, ” Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1–23 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    Comparing d ark energy models with current 17 observational data,

    Sixiang Wen, Shuang Wang, and Xiaolin Luo, “Comparing d ark energy models with current 17 observational data,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018, 011–011 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Constraints on Symme tries from Holography,

    Daniel Harlow and Hirosi Ooguri, “Constraints on Symme tries from Holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191601 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Neutron oscillations for solving neutro n life- time and dark matter puzzles,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Neutron oscillations for solving neutro n life- time and dark matter puzzles,” Phys. Lett. B 797, 134921 (2019), arXiv:1902.01837 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph, physics:nu cl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Neutron-mirror neutron oscillations in stars,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Neutron-mirror neutron oscillations in stars,” (2019), arXiv:1902.03685 [astro-ph, physics:hep-th, physics:nu cl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Neutron-mirror neutron oscillations fo r solving the puzzles of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Neutron-mirror neutron oscillations fo r solving the puzzles of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,” (2019), arXiv:1903.07474 [astro-ph, physic s:hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Note that this mirror mixing mechanism is similar t o that of the generation mixing for quarks and neutrinos

    are possible leading to many important results and appl ications [14–18]. Note that this mirror mixing mechanism is similar t o that of the generation mixing for quarks and neutrinos. However, it is evident that quarks and mirror quarks are charged differently and therefore the...

  10. [18]

    Laboratory tests of the ordinary-mirror particle oscillations and the extended CKM matrix,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Laboratory tests of the ordinary-mirror particle oscillations and the extended CKM matrix,” (2019), arXiv:1906.10262 [hep-ex, physics:h ep-ph, physics:nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kaon oscillations and baryon asymmetry o f the universe,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Kaon oscillations and baryon asymmetry o f the universe,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 063537 (2019), arXiv:1904.03835 [astro-ph, physics:hep -ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    On the p ossibility of experimental observation of mirror particles,

    I. Yu Kobzarev, L. B. Okun, and I. Ya Pomeranchuk, “On the p ossibility of experimental observation of mirror particles,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 3, 837–841 (1966)

    1966

  13. [21]

    Question of Parity Conservatio n in Weak Interactions,

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, “Question of Parity Conservatio n in Weak Interactions,” Phys. Rev. 104, 254–258 (1956)

    1956

  14. [22]

    Th e shadow world of superstring theories,

    Edward W. Kolb, David Seckel, and Michael S. Turner, “Th e shadow world of superstring theories,” Nature 314, 415 (1985)

    1985

  15. [23]

    Possible Astronomica l Effects of Mirror Particles,

    S. I. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, “Possible Astronomica l Effects of Mirror Particles,” Sov. Astron. 27, 371–375 (1983)

    1983

  16. [24]

    Mirror world and its cosmological co nsequences,

    Zurab Berezhiani, “Mirror world and its cosmological co nsequences,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 3775–3806 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Mirror baryons as the dark matter,

    Hardy M. Hodges, “Mirror baryons as the dark matter,” Ph ys. Rev. D 47, 456–459 (1993)

    1993

  18. [26]

    Spontaneous mirror parity violation, common origin of matter and dark matter, a nd the LHC signatures,

    Jian-Wei Cui, Hong-Jian He, Lan-Chun Lü, and Fu-Rong Yi n, “Spontaneous mirror parity violation, common origin of matter and dark matter, a nd the LHC signatures,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 096003 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Neutron–Mirror-Neutr on Oscillations: How Fast Might They Be?

    Zurab Berezhiani and Luís Bento, “Neutron–Mirror-Neutr on Oscillations: How Fast Might They Be?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 081801 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Natural Ele ctroweak Breaking from a Mirror Symmetry,

    Z. Chacko, Hock-Seng Goh, and Roni Harnik, “Natural Ele ctroweak Breaking from a Mirror Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 231802 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Mirror dark matter: Cosmology, galaxy struct ure and direct detection,

    R. Foot, “Mirror dark matter: Cosmology, galaxy struct ure and direct detection,” 18 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430013 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Edward Kolb and Michael Turner, The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    Invisible decays of neutral hadrons,

    Wanpeng Tan, “Invisible decays of neutral hadrons,” (2 020), arXiv:2006.10746 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  24. [32]

    New approach to collective phenomena in superconductivity models,

    Tohru Eguchi, “New approach to collective phenomena in superconductivity models,” Phys. Rev. D 14, 2755–2763 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    Dynamical Model of Eleme ntary Particles Based on an Anal- ogy with Superconductivity. I,

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, “Dynamical Model of Eleme ntary Particles Based on an Anal- ogy with Superconductivity. I,” Phys. Rev. 122, 345–358 (1961)

    1961

  26. [34]

    BCS mechanism, quasi supersymmetry, a nd fermion masses,

    Yoichiro Nambu, “BCS mechanism, quasi supersymmetry, a nd fermion masses,” in New The- ories in Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, Kazimierz, Poland, 1988) pp. 1–10

    1988

  27. [35]

    The equivalence of the top quark condensate and the elementary Higgs field,

    Anna Hasenfratz, Peter Hasenfratz, Karl Jansen, Juliu s Kuti, and Yue Shen, “The equivalence of the top quark condensate and the elementary Higgs field,” N ucl. Phys. B 365, 79–97 (1991)

    1991

  28. [36]

    Dynamical elec- troweak symmetry breaking with large anomalous dimension a nd t quark condensate,

    V. A. Miransky, Masaharu Tanabashi, and Koichi Yamawak i, “Dynamical elec- troweak symmetry breaking with large anomalous dimension a nd t quark condensate,” Phys. Lett. B 221, 177–183 (1989)

    1989

  29. [37]

    Quasisupersymmetry, Bootstrap Symme try Breaking And Fermion Masses,

    Yoichiro Nambu, “Quasisupersymmetry, Bootstrap Symme try Breaking And Fermion Masses,” in New Trends in Strong Coupling Gauge Theories (World Scientific, Singapore, Nagoya, Japan,

  30. [38]

    Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    quarki ton

    show strong support for the idea of staged quark condens ation leading to SMSB and other symmetry breaking transitions including the electro weak phase transition [17]. Here we shall present how the four-fermion interactions and stag ed quark condensation under SM3 lead to the...

  32. [40]

    Minimal dynamical symme- try breaking of the standard model,

    William A. Bardeen, Christopher T. Hill, and Manfred Lin dner, “Minimal dynamical symme- try breaking of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 41, 1647–1660 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    From controversy to precision on the si gma meson: A review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,

    José R. Peláez, “From controversy to precision on the si gma meson: A review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,” Phys. Rep. 658, 1–111 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    R eview of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hika sa, K. Nakamura, Y. Sumino, F. Takahashi, J. Tanaka, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, and others, “R eview of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,

    Jacques Colin, Roya Mohayaee, Mohamed Rameez, and Subi r Sarkar, “Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,” Astron. Astrophys. 631, L13 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Large 19 magellanic cloud cepheid standards provide a 1% foundation for the determination of the hub- ble constant and stronger evidence for physics beyond Λ CDM,

    Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M . Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “Large 19 magellanic cloud cepheid standards provide a 1% foundation for the determination of the hub- ble constant and stronger evidence for physics beyond Λ CDM,” Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Wanpeng Tan, Supersymmetric Mirror Models and Dimensional Evolution of Spacetime, Preprint: https://osf.io/8qawc (Open Science Framework, 2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    No single unification theory of everythin g,

    Wanpeng Tan, “No single unification theory of everythin g,” (2020), arXiv:2003.04687 [physics]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wanpeng Tan, From Neutron and Quark Stars to Black Holes , Preprint: https://osf.io/2jywx (Open Science Framework, 2020). 20

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.