Open questions of BSM Cosmology

Maxim Khlopov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Open questions of BSM Cosmology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that five unexplained cosmic observations may already be the first confirmations of physics beyond the Standard Model.

desk verdict A candid but overframed review of Khlopov's own dark atom and ALP cosmology program; the abstract's talk of 'confirmations' outruns the body's conditional statements. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17718 v1 pith:WDTB7GCO submitted 2024-11-20 physics.gen-ph

Maxim Khlopov This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords BSMcosmologydarkatomsaxion-likeparticlesprimordialblackholesstochasticgravitational-wavebackgroundantimatterdomainsantiheliumcosmologicalmessengers

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

The paper proposes that several unexplained observations—the annually modulated signal in DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA, the heavy black hole mergers seen by LIGO/Virgo, the stochastic gravitational-wave background reported by pulsar timing arrays, the surprisingly early galaxies seen by JWST, and a suspected antihelium event in AMS02—may all be the first cosmological signatures of physics beyond the Standard Model. It argues that specific BSM scenarios, namely nuclear-interacting dark atoms and axion-like particle models with domain walls, can account for these anomalies, and that antimatter domains created by inhomogeneous baryosynthesis could produce a cosmic antihelium flux. The paper does not present a new derivation; it lays out the open questions that must be answered before these interpretations become predictive, and it states that if confirmed, these messengers would sharply restrict which BSM models can be realistic.

What carries the argument

The unifying mechanism is the concept of "cosmological messengers": model-dependent BSM physics leaves observable imprints in cosmology, and those imprints are the only way to probe the BSM parameter space. Within that, the specific working mechanisms are the dark atom (a −2 charged lepton-like core surrounded by a nuclear-interacting helium shell) for direct-detection signals, and the axion-like particle field whose second phase transition creates closed domain walls—these walls either collapse to PBHs, generate a stochastic gravitational-wave background, or create overdense regions that accelerate galaxy formation; the same ALP phase structure can generate antibaryon domains when baryon number is nonconserved.

What would settle it

A quantum-mechanical calculation of the dark atom–sodium system that shows no bound state at 3 keV (or a capture rate incompatible with the DAMA modulation amplitude) would falsify the DAMA interpretation; likewise, a demonstration that the PTA background is entirely from astrophysical supermassive black hole binaries, with no component from domain walls, would falsify the ALP explanation for that signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that model-dependent BSM cosmological predictions "may have already found confirmations" in five observational hints. The author's case: dark atoms, made of a stable −2 charged particle bound to helium nuclei, naturally explain why direct WIMP searches see nothing while DAMA sees an annually modulated few-keV signal, provided a 3 keV dark atom–sodium bound state exists with E1 radiative capture; ALP models in which the phase crosses π during inflation produce closed domain walls that collapse into primordial black holes (LIGO/Virgo), emit gravitational waves (PTA), and leave regions of enhanced ALP density that form galaxies early (JWST); and ALP-based inhomogeneous baryosynthesis can create antimatter domains whose globular-cluster-sized remnants would be sources of antihelium. The paper treats these as working hypotheses with specific open problems rather than as established results.

Load-bearing premise

That a 3 keV bound state of a dark atom with a sodium nucleus exists, with a radiative capture rate set by an E1 transition and isospin symmetry breaking; the paper states that the proper quantum-mechanical description of dark atom–nucleus interaction is still an open problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If DAMA's annual modulation is dark atom capture, then the dark matter particle's terrestrial concentration follows the incoming cosmic flux, and other direct detectors using iodine or xenon would see different or no signals because their nuclear binding energies differ.
If LIGO/Virgo's heavy mergers are PBHs from ALP domain walls, the primordial black hole mass function has a minimum and maximum mass set by the ALP scales f and Λ, predicting a specific mass range that future gravitational-wave statistics can test.
If the PTA background comes from ALP domain walls, its spectral index and amplitude are tied to the same f and Λ, so combining PTA data with LIGO/Virgo counts and JWST galaxy numbers would over-constrain the model.
If antimatter domains exist, their antihelium flux is limited by the observed gamma-ray background to a globular-cluster mass range of 10^3 to 10^5 solar masses, so a confirmed AMS02 antihelium event would require a specific annihilation and propagation model.
Confirmation of any one of these messengers would reclassify the corresponding observation from an anomaly to a BSM probe, forcing a reanalysis of constraints on inflation, baryosynthesis, and dark matter in that model.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension of the paper's logic: if dark atoms explain DAMA, the same nuclear interaction should produce anomalous helium isotopes in the early universe, a signal the paper lists as an open problem but does not pursue; this could be searched in primordial abundance data.
The paper does not state it, but the ALP domain-wall scenario implies that the early galaxies seen by JWST should be spatially correlated with anisotropies in the PTA gravitational-wave background, since both trace the same wall contours.
A testable quantitative extension would be to compute the full dark atom–nucleus bound-state spectrum from the numerical three-body methods cited; the 3 keV sodium binding energy is the single load-bearing number for the DAMA interpretation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take: this is a conference proceedings review of Khlopov's long-running dark atom and ALP cosmology program, not a paper that establishes anything new. The abstract's 'may have already found confirmations' is not supported by the internal argument; every listed anomaly is conditional on an unverified input or a parameter choice. That said, the paper is honest about most of these gaps and is a serviceable map of open questions.

The genuinely useful part is the candid admission of the load-bearing assumptions. Section 2.1 states that the DAMA explanation requires a 3 keV bound state of the dark atom with sodium and an E1 capture rate, then immediately labels the proper quantum-mechanical description of dark atom-nucleus interaction an open problem needed 'for the proof of dark atom interpretation.' The ALP section similarly notes that 'appropriate' values of f and Lambda are needed to match PBH/PTA/JWST signals, which is fitting rather than prediction. The AMS02 antihelium case is explicitly flagged as resting on an unpublished event. A review that names its own missing calculations is rare and commendable.

The weak spots are the framing and the lack of new content. The abstract converts hints into 'confirmations,' which the body repeatedly contradicts. There are no new equations, data, or falsifiable predictions; it is a review of prior work by the author and close collaborators. The citation pattern is heavy on self-citation, though that is not disqualifying for an agenda piece. The main problem is the mismatch between the abstract's confident tone and the body's conditional statements.

Would I send this to a serious referee? No. It is a proceedings note, not a research paper. It does not need full peer review; it needs an editor with a sharp pencil on the abstract. If a venue insists on refereeing, a referee should verify that the claims are properly hedged and that the cited prior work actually contains the derivations. As a workshop proceedings contribution, it is acceptable in principle.

For whom: readers wanting a condensed overview of the dark atom and ALP domain wall scenarios and their specific open problems. I would not cite it in my own work; I would cite the underlying papers it reviews.

Recommendation: desk-reject for a research journal, but accept as a proceedings piece after abstract revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that several current astrophysical anomalies — the DAMA annual modulation, LIGO/Virgo black-hole merger masses, the PTA stochastic gravitational-wave background, JWST early galaxies, and a possible AMS02 antihelium event — may be cosmological messengers of beyond-Standard-Model (BSM) physics, specifically the dark-atom (XHe) scenario and axion-like-particle (ALP) models with closed domain walls and antimatter domains. It reviews the structure of these scenarios and lists the open questions that would need to be resolved before the claimed interpretations can be considered established, including the quantum-mechanical treatment of dark-atom–nucleus interactions and the survival and evolution of antimatter domains.

Significance. If the proposed scenarios were confirmed, the paper's unification of disparate anomalies under BSM cosmology would be a major development, sharply reducing the allowed BSM parameter space. The paper is candid in flagging the unresolved calculations and observational ambiguities, which is a useful feature for a community assessing these non-mainstream proposals. However, the manuscript does not contain a single quantitative derivation of the claimed signatures; the confirmatory statements in the abstract rest on assumed bound-state energies, freely chosen ALP scales, and an unpublished experimental event. Its value is therefore primarily as a programmatic survey rather than as a demonstration of confirmations.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1] The DAMA interpretation is load-bearing for the abstract's claim, yet it depends entirely on an uncalculated input. The paper states that the explanation requires 'a 3 keV bound state of dark atom with sodium nucleus' and a radiative capture rate set by an E1 transition with an isospin-breaking factor, and then immediately notes that the 'proper quantum-mechanical description of the nuclear interaction of dark atoms' is an open problem, whose development is necessary 'for the proof of dark atom interpretation of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA results.' Without a calculation showing that the XHe–Na system actually supports a keV-scale bound state with the assumed capture rate, the DAMA signal is not 'explained' but merely assumed to fit. The abstract should not count DAMA as one of the 'confirmations.'
[Section 3.1] The claim that ALP physics can explain the PTA and JWST observations, and the PBH interpretation of LIGO/Virgo events, is not backed by any calculation in this paper. The text says that 'at the appropriate value of f and Λ' the ALP mechanism can produce stellar-mass PBHs, and states that the SGWB can 'reproduce the PTA data' and that galaxy formation at z>10 'can happen' in the enhanced-density regions, citing earlier work. Since the free scales f and Λ are not fixed by independent constraints, this is a consistency check or parameter fit rather than a confirmation. The manuscript should state explicitly which values of f and Λ are required and whether they are natural, and should soften the 'confirmations' language accordingly.
[Section 3.2] The AMS02 antihelium case is presented as one of the 'confirmations' in the abstract, but the only evidence is 'a suspected antihelium-4 event' that 'remains unpublished.' A peer-reviewed claim of confirmation cannot rest on unpublished seminar results. The paper should either relegate AMS02 to a speculative target for future searches or wait for the collaboration's publication.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2] The sentence 'Therefore. in spite of a very small mass' uses a period instead of a comma after 'Therefore'; please correct the punctuation.
[Section 3] The phrase 'discussed in the next section 3, .' has a stray comma-period and should read 'discussed in Section 3.'
[Equation (7)] Equation (7) is poorly typeset in the provided text: the expressions for Mmin and Mmax in terms of f, Λ, and mPl are garbled. Please ensure the equation renders correctly.
[References] References [17] and [26] cite 'This issue' without volume, page, or DOI information; provide full bibliographic details if the proceedings are now published.
[Abstract] The abstract's phrase 'searches for cosmic antihelium in the AMS02 experiment' is more precise than the confirmatory wording used for the other anomalies; consider aligning the abstract's language with the actual evidence level discussed in the text.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

DAMA 'confirmation' assumes the 3 keV bound state it claims to confirm; ALP 'explanations' fit f and Lambda to the same PTA/JWST/PBH data, with the joint PTA+JWST claim self-cited.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Dark atom probe in direct dark matter searches, paragraph beginning 'If dark atoms can form low energy (few keV) bound states']
"assuming that the dark atom number density in the detector is adjusted to the incoming flux, that there is a 3 keV bound state of dark atom with sodium nucleus and that the rate of radiative capture to this bound state is determined by the E1 transition with the account for isospin symmetry breaking factor (given by the ratio of the neutron and proton mass difference to the nucleon mass). Under these assumptions the results of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA can be explained"

The DAMA signal is not predicted from the dark atom model; the 3 keV binding energy, the radiative-capture rate, and the in-detector number density are assumed ad hoc to reproduce the observed keV-scale annual modulation. The paper then counts DAMA as the first 'confirmation' in the abstract. It later concedes that a proper quantum-mechanical description of dark atom-nucleus interaction is 'necessary ... for the proof of dark atom interpretation of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA results.' Thus the claimed confirmation reduces by construction to assuming a bound state with the very properties needed to fit the signal.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, PBH, SGWB and JWST signatures of ALP physics, paragraph on PBH and the closing sentence on PTA and JWST]
"At the appropriate value of f and Λ the ALP mechanisms can provide formation of PBHs with stellar mass... In that way ALP physics can simultaneously explain the PTA and JWST data [38]."

No independent determination of f and Λ is provided; 'appropriate value' is a free choice selected so that the mechanism yields stellar-mass PBHs matching LIGO/Virgo, reproduces the PTA stochastic background, and produces sufficiently early galaxies for JWST. These same observations are then presented as 'confirmations' of BSM predictions in the abstract. With f and Λ free and chosen to match the data, the ALP 'explanation' is a parameter fit rather than a prediction, so the claimed confirmation is not independent of the inputs.

1 more flagged steps

self citation load bearing [Section 3.1, final sentence of the ALP/PBH/SGWB/JWST discussion]
"In that way ALP physics can simultaneously explain the PTA and JWST data [38]."

The central joint claim that one ALP mechanism explains both the PTA and JWST anomalies is supported only by reference [38], which is authored by Guo, Khlopov, Liu, Wu, Wu, and Zhu and therefore includes the present author. The present text gives only a qualitative sketch—enhanced ALP density around domain walls—without reproducing the quantitative simultaneous fit. Since the cited analysis itself depends on the 'appropriate value of f and Λ' fitted to the data, the PTA+JWST confirmation is imported from the authors' own prior fitted analysis rather than independently derived here.

full rationale

This paper is a review/position piece rather than a quantitative derivation, and much of it is appropriately framed as open questions. However, the abstract's central claim that model-dependent BSM predictions 'may have already found confirmations' is not supported by an independent derivation chain. The DAMA pillar is explicitly built on an assumed 3 keV bound state and an assumed E1 radiative-capture rate, with the paper itself stating that the quantum-mechanical description needed 'for the proof' is still missing; the 3 keV scale is chosen to match the observed signal, so this confirmation reduces to a fitted input. The ALP discussion likewise selects 'appropriate' values of f and Lambda to produce stellar-mass PBHs, the PTA background, and early JWST galaxies, and the joint PTA+JWST explanation is attributed to a self-cited paper by the same author group. These are real instances of partial circularity: the confirmatory statements are equivalent to the assumptions or fits made to obtain them. The antimatter/antihelium discussion is more openly a future program, and the author is candid about open problems, which limits the score to partial rather than total circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central scenarios rest on unverified model assumptions: a dark atom bound state, an ALP phase-transition history, and a sphaleron-generated excess of charged constituents. Several scalar parameters, such as the dark atom mass, the 3 keV sodium binding energy, and the ALP scales f and Lambda, are tuned to the very signals they are used to explain.

free parameters (3)

Mass of stable -2n charged dark atom constituent = Not fixed exactly; upper limit of a few TeV from requiring dark atoms explain all dark matter density
Section 2.1 states 'The only parameter of dark atom model is the mass of the stable -2n charged particles' and that it is determined by matching the observed dark matter density.
3 keV binding energy of dark atom with sodium nucleus = 3 keV
Assumed in Section 2.1 to make the DAMA annual modulation fit the dark atom model; no independent derivation is provided.
ALP scales f and Lambda = Not specified; described as 'appropriate value'
Section 3.1 explains that 'at the appropriate value of f and Lambda' the ALP mechanism can produce stellar-mass PBHs and match PTA and JWST data, making these free parameters tuned to observations.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Stable particles with charge -2n exist and are generated with an excess over antiparticles via electroweak sphaleron transitions in Walking Technicolor or a new particle family.
Invoked in Section 2.1 to relate dark atom density to baryon asymmetry; no direct experimental evidence is cited.
ad hoc to paper Dark atoms form low-energy bound states with detector nuclei and the radiative capture rate is set by an E1 transition with an isospin breaking factor.
Assumed in Section 2.1 specifically to explain the DAMA signal; the paper itself notes the quantum-mechanical description of dark atom nuclear interaction is still an open problem.
domain assumption The ALP field undergoes two phase transitions and its quantum fluctuations at inflation create closed domain walls; the field can decay with baryon and lepton number nonconservation.
Used in Section 3 and Section 3.2 for PBH, gravitational wave, and antimatter domain production; this is a model-specific extension not derived in the paper.

invented entities (3)

Dark atoms (XHe)
purpose: Explain DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation and serve as non-WIMP dark matter.
No confirmed external detection; depends on assumed bound states and detector interactions described in Section 2.1.
ALP closed domain walls
purpose: Provide PBH seeds, stochastic gravitational wave background, and early galaxy formation.
No direct observation of domain walls; parameters f and Lambda are chosen to match the signals in Section 3.1.
Antimatter globular clusters in the Galaxy
purpose: Explain a possible AMS02 antihelium-4 signal.
The AMS02 candidate is unpublished, and gamma-ray limits only constrain a mass range, not the existence of such clusters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open questions of BSM Cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDTB7GCO

@misc{pith2026241117718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open questions of BSM Cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDTB7GCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17718}
}

read the original abstract

BSM physics, on which the now standard inflationary cosmology with baryosynthesis and dark matter/energy is based, inevitably leads to cosmological scenarios beyond this standard model, involving specific model dependent choice of models and parameters of BSM physics. Such model dependent cosmological predictions may have already found confirmations in the positive results of direct dark matter searches by DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA experiments, interpretation of the results of Gravitational Wave experiments in terms of Primordial Black Hole merging, observation of Stochastic GravitationalWave background by Pulsar Timing Arrays, indications of early galaxy formation in the observations of James Webb Space Telescope and searches for cosmic antihelium in the AMS02 experiment. We discuss the open questions in studies of these signatures of BSM cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17718 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

M.Khlopov: What comes after the Standard model? Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics 116 (2021) 103824. 11

work page 2021
[2]

Linde: Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology , Harwood, Chur, 1990

A.D. Linde: Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology , Harwood, Chur, 1990

work page 1990
[3]

Kolb and M.S

E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner: The Early Universe , Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA,USA, 1990

work page 1990
[4]

Gorbunov and V.A

D.S. Gorbunov and V.A. Rubakov: Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe Hot Big Bang Theory. Cosmological Perturbations and Inflationary Theory, World Scientific, Singapore, 2011

work page 2011
[5]

Gorbunov and V.A

D.S. Gorbunov and V.A. Rubakov: Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe Hot Big Bang Theory , World Scientific, Singapore, 2011

work page 2011
[6]

Khlopov: Cosmoparticle Physics , World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

M.Y. Khlopov: Cosmoparticle Physics , World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

work page 1999
[7]

Khlopov: Fundamentals of Cosmoparticle Physics , CISP- Springer, Cambridge, UK: 2012

M.Y. Khlopov: Fundamentals of Cosmoparticle Physics , CISP- Springer, Cambridge, UK: 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Khlopov: Cosmological Reflection of Particle Symmetry, Symmetry 8 (2016) 81

M. Khlopov: Cosmological Reflection of Particle Symmetry, Symmetry 8 (2016) 81

work page 2016

Show all 50 references

[9]

Khlopov: Fundamental particle structure in the cosmological dark matter, Int

M. Khlopov: Fundamental particle structure in the cosmological dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1330042

2013
[10]

Bled Workshops in Physics

M.Khlopov: BSM Cosmology from BSM Physics. Bled Workshops in Physics. 22 (2021) 153-160

2021
[11]

Physics of Particles and Nuclei 54 (2023) 896–901

M.Khlopov: Physics and Cosmology Beyond the Standard Models. Physics of Particles and Nuclei 54 (2023) 896–901

2023
[12]

Sakharov’s Legacy in Cosmoparticle Physics

M.Khlopov: Multimessenger Probes for New Physics in Light of A. Sakharov’s Legacy in Cosmoparticle Physics. Universe 7 (2021) 222

2021
[13]

Khlopov: Removing the conspiracy of BSM physics and BSM cosmology, Int

M.Yu. Khlopov: Removing the conspiracy of BSM physics and BSM cosmology, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1941012

2019
[14]

Mankoc-Borstnik: Unification of spins and charges in Grassmann space? Mod

N.S. Mankoc-Borstnik: Unification of spins and charges in Grassmann space? Mod. Phys. Lett.A 10 (1995) 587-596

1995
[15]

Mankoc-Borstnik: Achievements of spin-charge family theory so far

N.S. Mankoc-Borstnik: Achievements of spin-charge family theory so far. Bled Workshops in Physics. 22 (2021) 202–232

2021
[16]

Ketov, M.Yu

S.V. Ketov, M.Yu. Khlopov: Cosmological Probes of Supersymmetric Field Theory Models at Superhigh Energy Scales, Symmetry 11 (2019) 511. 12

2019
[17]

Bled Work- shops in Physics

R.Bernabei, et al: Recent efforts in the DAMA project. Bled Work- shops in Physics. 24 (2023), This issue

2023
[18]

M. Y. Khlopov: Composite dark matter from 4th generation, JETP Letters 83 (2006) 1 –4

2006
[19]

Beylin, M

V. Beylin, M. Khlopov, V .Kuksa, N. Volchaanskiy: New physics of strong interaction and Dark Universe, Universe 6 (2020) 196

2020
[20]

Universe 7 (2021) 275

A.Chaudhuri, M.Khlopov: Balancing asymmetric dark matter with baryon asymmetry and dilution of frozen dark matter by sphaleron transition. Universe 7 (2021) 275

2021
[21]

Sopin: Balancing multiple charge particle excesses with baryon asymmetry

V.A.Beylin, M.Yu.Khlopov, D.O. Sopin: Balancing multiple charge particle excesses with baryon asymmetry. International Journal of Modern Physics D (2023) 2340005

2023
[22]

Beylin, T.E

V.A. Beylin, T.E. Bikbaev, M.Y. Khlopov, A.G. Mayorov, D.O. Sopin: Dark Atoms of Nuclear Interacting Dark Matter. Universe 10 (2024) 368

2024
[23]

V. A. Gani, M.Yu.Khlopov and D. N. Voskresensky: Double charged heavy constituents of dark atoms and superheavy nuclear objects. Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 015024

2019
[24]

Bikbaev, M.Yu

T.E. Bikbaev, M.Yu. Khlopov, A.G. Mayorov: Numerical simulation of dark atom interaction with nuclei, Bled Workshops in Physics 21 (2020) 105–117

2020
[25]

Mayorov: Numerical simula- tion of Bohr-like and Thomson-like dark atoms with nuclei

T.E.Bikbaev, M.Yu.Khlopov and A.G. Mayorov: Numerical simula- tion of Bohr-like and Thomson-like dark atoms with nuclei. Bled Work- shops in Physics 22 (2021) 65–77

2021
[26]

Mayorov: Quantum- mechanical numerical model of interaction between dark atom and nucleus of substance

T.E.Bikbaev, M.Yu.Khlopov and A.G. Mayorov: Quantum- mechanical numerical model of interaction between dark atom and nucleus of substance. Bled Workshops in Physics. 25 (2024), This is- sue

2024
[27]

I. I. Tkachev: Coherent scalar-field oscillations forming compact as- trophysical objects. Sov. Astron. Lett. 12 (1986) 305–308

1986
[28]

Dolgov: Matter and antimatter in the universe, Nucl

A.D. Dolgov: Matter and antimatter in the universe, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 113 (2002) 40

2002
[29]

Khlopov: Primordial black holes, Res

M.Yu. Khlopov: Primordial black holes, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10 (2010) 495. 13

2010
[30]

Rubin, A.S

S.G. Rubin, A.S. Sakharov, M.Y. Khlopov: Formation of primordial galactic nuclei at phase transitions in the early Universe, JETP 92 (2001) 921

2001
[31]

Belotsky, V.I

K.M. Belotsky, V.I. Dokuchaev, Y.N. Eroshenko, E.A. Esipova, M.Y. Khlopov, L.A. Khromykh, A.A. Kirillov, V.V. Nikulin, S.G. Rubin, I.V. Svadkovsky: Clusters of primordial black holes, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 246

2019
[32]

Dolgov: Massive primordial black holes in contemporary and young universe (old predictions and new data) Int.J.Mod.Phys

A.D. Dolgov: Massive primordial black holes in contemporary and young universe (old predictions and new data) Int.J.Mod.Phys. A 33 (2018) 1844029

2018
[33]

Ab- bott et al: GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 M⊙, Phys

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration; the Virgo Collaboration; R. Ab- bott et al: GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 M⊙, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 101102

2020
[34]

Ab- bott et al : Properties and astrophysical implications of the 150 Msun binary black hole merger GW190521, Astrophys J

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration; the Virgo Collaboration; R. Ab- bott et al : Properties and astrophysical implications of the 150 Msun binary black hole merger GW190521, Astrophys J. Lett. 900 (2020) L13

2020
[35]

Agazie et al.; The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background, Astrophys J

NANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazie et al.; The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background, Astrophys J. Lett. 951 (2023) L8

2023
[36]

Sakharov, Y

A.S. Sakharov, Y. N. Eroshenko, S. G. Rubin: Looking at the NANOGrav signal through the anthropic window of axionlike parti- cles, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 043005

2021
[37]

Robertson, S

B.E. Robertson, S. Tacchella, B.D. Johnson, K. Hainline, L. Whitler, D.J. Eisenstein, R. Endsley, M. Rieke, D.P. Stark, S. Alberts, et al: Identification and properties of intense star-forming galaxies at red- shifts z ¿ 10, Nat. Astron. 7 (2023) 611–621

2023
[38]

SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy

Shu-Yuan Guo, Maxim Khlopov, Xuewen Liu, Lei Wu, Yongcheng Wu, Bin Zhu: Footprints of Axion-Like Particle in Pulsar Timing Array Data and JWST Observations. SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy. 67 (2024) 111011

2024
[39]

Chechetkin, M.Yu

V.M. Chechetkin, M.Yu. Khlopov, M.G. Sapozhnikov, Y.B. Zeldovich: Astrophysical aspects of antiproton interaction with He (Antimatter in the Universe), Phys. Lett. B 118 (1982) 329

1982
[40]

Dolgov, J

A. Dolgov, J. Silk: Baryon isocurvature fluctuations at small scales and baryonic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4244. 14

1993
[41]

Dolgov, M

A.D. Dolgov, M. Kawasaki, N. Kevlishvili: Inhomogeneous baryogen- esis, cosmic antimatter, and dark matter, Nucl. Phys. B 807 (2009) 229

2009
[42]

Khlopov, S.G

M.Y. Khlopov, S.G. Rubin, A.S. Sakharov: Possible origin of antimat- ter regions in the baryon dominated Universe, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 083505

2000
[43]

Belotsky, Y.A

K.M. Belotsky, Y.A. Golubkov, M.Y. Khlopov, R.V. Konoplich, A.S. Sakharov: Anti-helium flux as a signature for antimatter globular clus- ter in our Galaxy, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 63 (2000) 233

2000
[44]

Khlopov: An antimatter globular cluster in our Galaxy - a probe for the origin of the matter, Gravitation and Cosmology, 4 (1998) 69– 72

M.Yu. Khlopov: An antimatter globular cluster in our Galaxy - a probe for the origin of the matter, Gravitation and Cosmology, 4 (1998) 69– 72

1998
[45]

Blinnikov, A.D

S.I. Blinnikov, A.D. Dolgov, K.A. Postnov: Antimatter and antistars in the universe and in the Galaxy, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 023516

2015
[46]

Astronomy Reports, 65 (2021) 967—972

M.Yu.Khlopov, O.M.Lecian: Analyses of Specific Aspects of the Evo- lution of Antimatter Globular Clusters Domains. Astronomy Reports, 65 (2021) 967—972

2021
[47]

Galaxies, 11 (2023) 50

M.Khlopov, O.M.Lecian: The Formalism of Milky-Way Antimatter- Domains Evolution. Galaxies, 11 (2023) 50

2023
[48]

Khlopov, A.O

M.Yu. Khlopov, A.O. Kirichenko, A.G. Mayorov: Anihelium flux from antimatter globular cluster, Bled Workshops in Physics,21 (2020) 118- 127

2020
[49]

Poulin, P

V. Poulin, P. Salati, I. Cholis, M. Kamionkowski, J. Silk: Where do the AMS-02 anti- helium events come from? Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 023016

2019
[50]

Mayorov Researching of magnetic cutoff for local sources of charged particles in the halo of the Galaxy

A.O.Kirichenko, A.V.Kravtsova, M.Yu.Khlopov and A.G. Mayorov Researching of magnetic cutoff for local sources of charged particles in the halo of the Galaxy. Bled Workshops in Physics, 22 (2021) 171– 177. 15

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M.Khlopov: What comes after the Standard model? Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics 116 (2021) 103824. 11

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Linde: Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology , Harwood, Chur, 1990

A.D. Linde: Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology , Harwood, Chur, 1990

work page 1990

[3] [3]

Kolb and M.S

E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner: The Early Universe , Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA,USA, 1990

work page 1990

[4] [4]

Gorbunov and V.A

D.S. Gorbunov and V.A. Rubakov: Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe Hot Big Bang Theory. Cosmological Perturbations and Inflationary Theory, World Scientific, Singapore, 2011

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Gorbunov and V.A

D.S. Gorbunov and V.A. Rubakov: Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe Hot Big Bang Theory , World Scientific, Singapore, 2011

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Khlopov: Cosmoparticle Physics , World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

M.Y. Khlopov: Cosmoparticle Physics , World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Khlopov: Fundamentals of Cosmoparticle Physics , CISP- Springer, Cambridge, UK: 2012

M.Y. Khlopov: Fundamentals of Cosmoparticle Physics , CISP- Springer, Cambridge, UK: 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Khlopov: Cosmological Reflection of Particle Symmetry, Symmetry 8 (2016) 81

M. Khlopov: Cosmological Reflection of Particle Symmetry, Symmetry 8 (2016) 81

work page 2016