A Matter-Antimatter Universe?

A. De Rujula; A.G. Cohen; S.L. Glashow

REVIEW

A Matter-Antimatter Universe?

A.G. Cohen, A. De Rujula, S.L. Glashow

Astrophysics · Submitted 7 Jul 1997 · 25 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, well-known exclusion of baryon-symmetric universes, built on a genuinely new dynamical calculation — but the abstract's 'empirically excluded' leans harder on the adiabaticity prior than the body does.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDastro-ph/9707087 (version 2)

Pith IDWWIOOV5D, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. De Rujula, A.G. Cohen, S.L. Glashow. "A Matter-Antimatter Universe?." arXiv:astro-ph/9707087 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/WWIOOV5D

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is the paper that closes the book on patchwork matter-antimatter universes, and the closing argument is better than most citations of it suggest. But it does rest on one cosmological prior that the authors name and then decline to quantify, and the abstract's phrasing papers over that. The classifier's 'no limitations found' is simply wrong — Section 6 lists two escape routes in plain text, and Section 2 already flags the isothermal caveat in a footnote-style aside before Section 6 returns to it. Read the body, not the abstract, for the actual scope of the claim. What is genuinely new is the dynamics. Prior work (Steigman; Stecker et al.; Dudarewicz and Wolfendale) argued from static or ad hoc assumptions and reached opposite conclusions. Cohen, De Rujula and Glashow actually solve the fluid equations with annihilation source terms, and the key physical finding is that energy deposition by annihilation electrons heats the inflowing plasma and raises the annihilation rate by up to two orders of magnitude over the naive estimate. That feedback is the paper's real contribution, and it is what turns a marginal signal into an orders-of-magnitude overshoot of the COMPTEL diffuse gamma-ray data for any domain size below roughly 1000 Mpc. The calculation is conservative in ways that are easy to miss: scattered photons are treated as fully absorbed, the heating coefficient a is taken at its minimum, and Section 6 shows the conclusion survives factor-of-two changes in cosmological parameters and factor-of-three changes from primordial magnetic fields. The gamma-ray flux is computed forward from standard inputs and the measured pbar-p spectrum, not fitted to the gamma-ray data, so there is no circularity to worry about. Two soft spots worth a referee's attention. First, the turbulence argument: neglecting Coulomb scattering in the annihilation zone is justified by a Reynolds-number estimate and a flame-front analogy, not a calculation. If the flow were laminar, J drops by roughly (sigma_ann/sigma_C)^(1/2), which is not small. That is load-bearing and argued rather than shown. Second, the adiabaticity prior the stress-test note identifies is real: strictly isothermal voids of vanishing baryon density would evade the Silk-damping and CMB-uniformity arguments entirely, and the authors say so and move on. That is a complete evasion, not a correction, so 'empirically excluded' should be read as 'excluded given adiabatic initial conditions.' The authors know this; the abstract does not say it. No code is shipped and the numerical integration of Eqs. 1-3 is not reproducible in detail, which is a minor complaint for a 1997 paper with the equations fully stated. Who should read it: anyone working on cosmic antimatter, AMS/PAMELA forecasts, or inflationary baryogenesis with domain structure. It deserves a serious referee, and the referee should press on the turbulence justification.

Referee report

Significance

This is a careful and unusually conservative negative result. The calculation is deliberately biased toward underestimating the signal: scattered photons are treated as absorbed, the heating coefficient a is taken at its smallest value, the baryon-to-photon ratio is taken at the low end of the BBN range, and the annihilation era is truncated at the onset of structure formation. The authors show explicitly that varying Omega_m, Omega_Lambda, and H0 within empirically allowed ranges changes the gamma-ray flux by at most a factor of two, and that primordial magnetic fields can weaken the bound by at most a factor of three. The prediction is falsifiable and the parameter space is one-dimensional (d0), which makes the exclusion sharp. The paper also reports a genuine null result on the CBR distortion, which is useful in its own right. The authors are explicit about the escape routes they can and cannot close (Section 6), which is a strength rather than a weakness of the presentation.

Major objections (2)

[Abstract (abstract:s4) and Section 7, in light of Section 6] The abstract states without qualification that 'a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded,' and Section 7 repeats that domains smaller than the visible universe are ruled out. Section 6, however, concedes two escape routes: strictly isothermal voids of vanishing baryon density separating the domains, and domain walls engineered to block thermal contact. The authors dismiss these as 'contrived' but give no quantitative bound. This matters because the entire signal scales as J/d0 and J tends to zero if the domains never touch, so the isothermal case is not a factor-of-few correction but a complete evasion of the bound. The Section 2 contact argument (CMB uniformity plus Silk damping) is formulated for isentropic perturbations, where baryon and photon perturbations are proportional; for strictly isothermal voids there is no photon perturbation to Silk-damp and no potential perturbation to source a Sachs-Wolfe signal, so the argument does not directly apply. I recommend either (a) quantifying how narrow and how fine-tuned such baryon-free voids must be, and whether any known mechanism produces them, or (b) softening the abstract and Section 7 to state that the exclusion holds under the standard assumption of isentropic primordial perturbations. The authors already acknowledge the loophole, so the fix is local, but the present wording overstates what the body establishes.
[Section 3.2, discussion of turbulence and the Coulomb cross section] The annihilation rate J, and therefore the gamma-ray bound, depends on the assumption that the annihilation zone is fully mixed by turbulence. The manuscript states that 'an analysis of fluctuations about a laminar flow into the annihilation zone demonstrates an instability towards turbulent mixing,' citing only Landau and Lifshitz for the flame-front analogy, but the stability analysis itself is not presented. The alternative is quantified only symbolically: if mixing were laminar, J would be reduced by a factor of order (sigma_ann/sigma_C)^{1/2}. Because sigma_C for proton-antiproton Coulomb scattering is much larger than sigma_ann at the flow velocities involved, this factor could plausibly be several orders of magnitude, which would weaken the lower bound on d0 from roughly 1000 Mpc to tens of Mpc and change the conclusion. Please give the numerical value of (sigma_ann/sigma_C)^{1/2} at representative redshifts, present the growth rate of the instability and the resulting mixing length, and show explicitly that the bound survives even if the turbulent mixing is only partially effective. The Reynolds number estimate R_A > 10^5 is suggestive but is not by itself a demonstration that mixing reaches the annihilation zone.

Minor objections (8)

[Section 1, reference [10]] The statement that 'explicit inflationary models satisfying these constraints exist [10]' rests on a citation listed as 'unpublished.' Since this claim is used to establish that the B = 0 universe is a realizable cosmological model rather than a straw man, please cite a published version or soften the statement to indicate that the construction is not yet in the literature.
[Section 1, reference [4]] The claimed AMS reach of 150 Mpc is attributed to S.P. Ahlen et al., Ap. J. 260 (1982) 20, which predates the AMS project by more than a decade. Please check that this is the intended source and, if not, cite the appropriate AMS document.
[Section 5 and Figure 5] The exclusion is stated relative to the preliminary COMPTEL data, which the text notes lie roughly an order of magnitude below the earlier balloon measurements. Because the predicted flux exceeds the data by 'several orders of magnitude,' the conclusion is probably robust, but the manuscript should state explicitly the bound on d0 that would follow from the higher balloon fluxes, so the reader can see the margin.
[Section 3, Eqs. (6)-(8) and Appendix A] The manuscript uses c = 1 in some places (e.g., Eq. (6)) and writes c explicitly in others (e.g., Eqs. (12)-(14)). Please state the convention once and apply it consistently, since a reader checking the dimensions of D_eγ and J will otherwise be confused.
[Section 3, Eq. (8) and surrounding text] The coefficient C is given as (3/4)^4 for the adiabatic case and 1/e for the isothermal case, with a transition stated to occur over 100 <~ y <~ 200. A brief justification of these values, or a pointer to where they are derived, would help the reader assess the accuracy of the dashed curve in Figure 3.
[Section 3 and Appendix A.2] The cross section is repeatedly called the 'Thompson' cross section and the 'Thompson' limit; the standard spelling is 'Thomson.' Similarly, 'Roberston-Walker' in the text near Eq. (1) should read 'Robertson-Walker.'
[Figure 1] The caption describes the ordering of the curves at large y, but the curves themselves are not individually labeled. Direct labels on the plot would make the figure easier to read, particularly for the electron range, depletion zone, and annihilation zone.
[Section 1, choice of eta] The choice eta = 2 x 10^-10 at the low end of the BBN range is conservative because the signals scale linearly in eta. It would be worth stating explicitly that a higher eta strengthens the bound, so that the quoted limit is indeed a lower limit on d0.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that a universe divided into separate matter and antimatter regions is ruled out by observation: annihilation along the borders between domains would produce a diffuse gamma-ray flux orders of magnitude larger than the one,

The reading

The paper asks whether the universe could be a patchwork of matter and antimatter regions, so that the baryon asymmetry is zero globally while every local neighborhood is strongly asymmetric. The authors argue that once matter and antimatter domains touch, annihilation at their borders cannot be avoided after recombination, because any buffer void wide enough to keep the two apart would have left a detectable imprint on the microwave background. They then compute how fast a boundary burns, and from that rate derive two observable consequences: a relic flux of gamma rays and a distortion of the microwave background spectrum. The microwave distortion lands below existing limits, but the gamma-ray flux does not, overshooting the measured diffuse background by orders of magnitude unless the matter domain we inhabit is essentially the whole visible universe. On that basis they conclude that a globally matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the one-dimensional fluid description of a matter-antimatter interface, organized by three widely separated length scales: the annihilation zone width $A$, the depletion zone width $D$ over which fluid flows toward the interface, and the electron range $L$ over which annihilation debris deposits heat. The hierarchy $A$ much less than $D$ much less than $L$ justifies treating the flow as planar, and the annihilation rate per unit area $J$ is then fixed by the flux of material arriving at the interface rather than by the annihilation cross section itself. The equations are conservation laws for mass, momentum and energy in an expanding Robertson-Walker background, with source terms for annihilation losses, Compton drag against the microwave background, and a heat function $H_epsilon$ describing energy deposited by annihilation electrons and by UV photons they up-scatter. Because the fluid is held almost fully ionized by the annihilation debris, the flow is diffusive at high redshift (drag-dominated, $J$ proportional to the square root of a diffusion constant over time) and hydrodynamic at low redshift (pressure-driven, $J$ proportional to the sound speed). The heating feedback is what makes the constraint bite: using the matter temperature of a conventional universe instead would give an annihilation rate nearly two orders of magnitude smaller.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a $B=0$ universe, one containing comparable numbers of matter and antimatter domains, is incompatible with the observed cosmic diffuse gamma-ray background. The argument runs in three steps. First, matter and antimatter must be in contact from recombination onward: voids between domains would have to be smaller than about $15$ Mpc in comoving size, since larger baryon-depleted regions would either survive Silk damping and show up as microwave background temperature structure, or be erased before recombination. Second, the annihilation rate at such a contact surface is set by how fast fluid can be delivered to the interface, and this rate is amplified by roughly two orders of magnitude because the annihilation electrons and their up-scattered UV photons heat the inflowing plasma, raising its sound speed. Third, integrating the resulting pion-decay photons over the era $1100 > y > 20$ gives a gamma-ray flux that, for a domain size $d_0 = 20$ Mpc, exceeds the measured diffuse background by several orders of magnitude across a wide energy range, and still does so for $d_0$ up to about $10^3$ Mpc, comparable to the size of the visible universe. The same calculation applied to the microwave background yields a spectral distortion about four times below the COBE-FIRAS limit and a Sunyaev-Zeldovich parameter $Y$ more than an order of magnitude below its bound, so the microwave data give no constraint at all.

Load-bearing premise

The argument requires that matter and antimatter domains be in immediate contact from recombination onward, which fails if primordial density fluctuations are strictly isothermal and leave wide voids of vanishing baryon density between the domains; the authors acknowledge this escape route in Section 6 and set it aside as contrived without giving a quantitative bound on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any antimatter within roughly $20$ Mpc is already excluded by the absence of annihilation radiation from clusters; the new bound pushes the required domain size up to about $10^3$ Mpc, comparable to the horizon.
Microwave background spectrum measurements do not constrain the scenario: the computed distortion is about four times below the COBE-FIRAS limit and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal is more than an order of magnitude below its bound.
Varying the cosmological parameters within their allowed ranges, or allowing primordial magnetic fields, changes the predicted gamma-ray flux by at most factors of two or three, so neither rescues the model.
A cosmic-ray detection of anti-nuclei with charge greater than one would conflict with standard cosmology as currently understood, since the gamma-ray argument leaves no room for nearby antimatter domains.
The bound scales as the inverse domain size, so the surviving window is one in which our matter domain is virtually the entire visible universe.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the excluded domain size approaches the horizon, the surviving corner of the parameter space is not really a patchwork at all: it is one domain plus slivers too small or too distant to see, which is operationally indistinguishable from the standard asymmetric universe.
The heating feedback matters beyond this paper: whenever relativistic electrons are injected between recombination and structure formation, the annihilation or energy-injection rate rises with temperature rather than saturating, so similar constraints on decaying particles or evaporating remnants should include this amplification.
The one acknowledged escape route, strictly isothermal voids of vanishing baryon density separating the domains, is dismissed as contrived rather than bounded; a quantitative treatment of the microwave signature of a large baryon-free void would close the argument.
Since the predicted flux scales as the inverse domain size and the constraint already sits at the horizon, further gains in MeV gamma-ray sensitivity cannot strengthen the exclusion much; only a positive detection of an annihilation spectrum would change the picture.

Original abstract

We ask whether the universe can be a patchwork consisting of distinct regions of matter and antimatter. We demonstrate that, after recombination, it is impossible to avoid annihilation near regional boundaries. We study the dynamics of this process to estimate two of its signatures: a contribution to the cosmic diffuse gamma-ray background and a distortion of the cosmic microwave background. The former signal exceeds observational limits unless the matter domain we inhabit is virtually the entire visible universe. On general grounds, we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,148 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.41 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.34 · compares with prior results 0.14 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We ask whether the universe can be a patchwork consisting of distinct regions of matter and antimatter. We demonstrate that, after recombination, it is impossible to avoid annihilation near regional boundaries. We study the dynamics of this process to estimate two of its signatures: a contribution to the cosmic diffuse gamma-ray background and a distortion of the cosmic microwave background. The former signal exceeds observational limits unless the matter domain we inhabit is virtually the entire visible universe. On general grounds, we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We ask whether the universe can be a patchwork consisting of distinct regions of matter and antimatter.	background 0.80	0.40	0.03	hedged possibility 0.40
s1	We demonstrate that, after recombination, it is impossible to avoid annihilation near regional boundaries.	result 0.99	0.89	0.20	asserted 1.00
s2	We study the dynamics of this process to estimate two of its signatures: a contribution to the cosmic diffuse gamma-ray background and a distortion of the cosmic microwave background.	contribution 0.77	0.91	0.03	asserted 0.92
s3	The former signal exceeds observational limits unless the matter domain we inhabit is virtually the entire visible universe.	result 0.88	0.86	0.15	asserted 0.99
s4	On general grounds, we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded.	interpretation 0.89	0.74	0.95	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.60.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Read from the top at large y: the horizon, the look-back size of a 20 Mpc domain, the widths of the reheated zone, the depletion zone, and the annihilation zone. The expansion of the universe is taken into account by expressing the conservation laws in a Roberston–Walker universe [16]. The metric is ds2 = dt2 − R2 (t)dχ2 , with χ a comoving spatial coordinate normal to a domain boundary. The remaining effects are dealt with by including appropriate source terms in the fluid equations: ∂ρ ∂t + 3 R˙ R ρ + 1 R ∂(ρv) ∂χ = −Γann ρ (1) ∂(ρv) ∂t + 4 R˙ R ρv + 1 R ∂ ∂χ[ρv2

**Figure 2.** Outside the electron range, reheating is due to photo

**Figure 3.** Annihilation rate J (in particles per cm2 per second) as a function of redshift y. The solid curve is our numerical solution; the dashed curve is an approximate result discussed in the text. 13

**Figure 4.** The CBR spectral distortion. Beyond the range show

**Figure 5.** Data [23] and expectations for the diffuse

Figures reproduced from arXiv:astro-ph/9707087 by the authors.

References

Works cited (25)

[1]

The Astromag Project. See, for instance, J.F. Ormes and R.E. Streitmat- ter, NASA report 91-047; The Magnetic Spectrometer PAMELA, O. Adri- ani et al. , WIZARD Collaboration, LNF-95-051-PF Report (1995) 23, Presented at 24th International Cosmic Rays Conference, Ro me, Italy, 1995

View on Pith 1995
[2]

S.P. Ahlen et al., N.I.M. A350 (1994) 351

View on Pith 1994
[3]

The Alpha Matter Spectrometer , MIT, 1995

View on Pith 1995
[4]

S.P. Ahlen et al. , Ap. J. 260 (1982) 20

View on Pith 1982
[5]

G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Astr. Ap. 14 (1976) 339

View on Pith 1976
[6]

F.W. Stecker, D.L. Morgan and J. Bredekamp, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 27 (1971) 1469; F.W. Stecker, Nucl. Phys. B252 (1985) 25; A.K. Mohanty and F.W. Stecker, Phys. Lett. 143B (1984) 351; Y.T. Gao, F.W. Stecker, M. Gleiser and D.B. Cline, Ap. J. L37 (1990) 361

View on Pith 1971
[7]

R. Omn` es, Phys. Rep.C3 (1970) 1. For a recent review, see A.D. Dolgov, Hyperﬁne Interactions 76 (1993) 17

View on Pith 1970
[8]

A. Dudarewicz and A.W. Wolfendale, Mon. Not. R. Astron. S oc. 268 (1994) 609

View on Pith 1994
[9]

A. Sakharov, JETP Lett. 5 (1967) 24

View on Pith 1967
[10]

A.G. Cohen, A. De R´ ujula and M.B. Gavela, unpublished

View on Pith
[11]

For a recent discussion, see N. Hata, G. Steigman, S. Blu dman and P. Langacker, astro-ph/9603087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

R. Sachs and A. Wolfe, Astrophys. J. 147 (1967) 73

View on Pith 1967
[13]

J. Silk, Ap. J. 151 (1968) 459

View on Pith 1968
[14]

P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993), 611

View on Pith 1993
[16]

See for instance S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity , Wiley (1972)

View on Pith 1972
[17]

D.L. Morgan and V.W. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1389

View on Pith 1970
[18]

W.H. Kinney, E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, astro-ph/9704070

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics , Pergamon Press (1959)

View on Pith 1959
[20]

L. Adiels et al. , Phys. Lett. B182 (1986) 405; S. Ahmad et al. , Phys. Lett. 152 (1985) 135

View on Pith 1986
[21]

D.J. Fixsen, E.S. Cheng, J.M. Gales, J.C. Mather, R.A. S hafer and E.L. Wright, astro-ph/9605054

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

Ya.B. Zeldovich and R.A. Sunyaev, Ap. Space Sci. 4 (1969) 301

View on Pith 1969
[23]

S.C. Kappadath et al. , Proc. 12th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. 25 (1995) Vol. 2; S.G. Kappadath et al., ftp://unhgro.unh.edu/pub/papers/kappadath cdg 24icrc.ps.gz

View on Pith 1995
[24]

C.E. Fichtel et al. , Ap. J. 198 (1975) 163; E.P. Mazets et al. , Astro- physics and Space Science 33 (1975) 347; J.I. Trombka et al. , Ap. J. 212 (1977) 925; V. Schonfelder et al. , Ap. J. 240 (1980) 350; V. Schonfelder et al. Ap. J. Supp. 86 (1993) 657; R.S. White et al. , Ap. J. 218 (1977) 920

View on Pith 1975
[25]

Ya. B. Zeldovich, I. Yu. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, Sov. Phy s. JETP 40 (1974) 1

View on Pith 1974
[26]

A.D. Dolgov and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 4244. 28

View on Pith 1993

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Modelling electroweak interactions at lepton colliders - from the Z pole to the highest energies
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A thesis that shows how to measure light-quark Z couplings to sub-percent precision at future colliders, revalidates the Equivalent Vector Boson Approximation at TeV energies, and implements Electroweak Parton Distrib...
Unveiling the inert Triplet desert region with a pNGB Dark Matter and its Gravitational Wave signatures
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-component dark matter model combining an inert scalar triplet with a pseudo-Goldstone singlet revives the sub-TeV triplet desert region and predicts gravitational waves detectable by LISA, BBO, and DECIGO.
Low-scale leptogenesis in the scotogenic model: spectator processes and benchmark points
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

TeV-scale leptogenesis in the scotogenic model is viable with proper treatment of spectator processes, yielding benchmark points that reproduce the baryon asymmetry and predict observable CLFV rates.
Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models
hep-ph 2011-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A composite Higgs model with a light singlet scalar (SO(6)/SO(5)) can produce the observed baryon asymmetry through a strong first-order electroweak phase transition and a CP-violating dimension-five singlet-top coupling.
Doubly peaked induced stochastic gravitational wave background : Testing baryogenesis from primordial black holes
astro-ph.CO 2022-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A brief era of primordial-black-hole domination before Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves a two-peaked induced gravitational wave spectrum whose detection would probe non-thermal baryogenesis at GUT-scale energies.

Show 6 more citing papers

Inhomogeneous baryogenesis, cosmic antimatter, and dark matter
hep-ph 2008-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A coupling of the Affleck-Dine field to the inflaton can produce compact bubbles of huge baryon or antibaryon density whose log-normal mass spectrum could, for suitable parameters, account for all cosmological dark matter.
Primordial Black Hole Baryogenesis
hep-th 2007-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Primordial black hole evaporation yields a baryon asymmetry fixed by black hole mass and CP violation, independent of initial abundance, and cannot simultaneously explain dark matter unless CP violation is unusually large.
Cosmological consequences of MSSM flat directions
hep-ph 2002-09 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review of how MSSM flat directions generate baryon asymmetry, fragment into Q-balls, and can source dark matter and density perturbations.
Antimatter in the universe and Milky Way
astro-ph.GA 2026-08 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

A review-style paper asserts that primordial antimatter produced during inflation populates the Milky Way and that observations of positrons, antihelium, and antistar candidates confirm this prediction.
Matter and Antimatter in the Universe
hep-ph 2012-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Observations show a baryon-to-photon ratio near 6e-10 and no significant antimatter, and a sterile-neutrino extension can in principle generate the asymmetry alongside neutrino masses and dark matter.
An introduction to leptogenesis and neutrino properties
hep-ph 2012-06 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

Leptogenesis, the generation of the matter-antimatter asymmetry from heavy right-handed neutrino decays, is reviewed together with its dependence on neutrino masses and mixing.

How the literature uses it

38 arXiv papers cite this in 42 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 28 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 4 papers

Independent measurements of the number density $n_b$ of baryons (i.e. particles with a non-zero baryon number $B$) with the cosmic microwave background [ref] and big bang nucleosynthesis [ref] , combined with the lack of evidence for primordial antibaryons [ref] , imply a baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU)

Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis from Supercooled Confinement · Introduction · 0.84
Detailed studies of antiparticles in cosmic rays [ref] , big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) measurements [ref] and very precise understanding of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) from the Planck satellite [ref] provide us with stringent constraints on the number density of baryons per entropy density, $Y_B = n_b-n_b̅/s = 8.8×10^-11$.

Superradiant Leptogenesis · Introduction · 0.83
When normalized to the cosmic microwave background radiation density, it is equal to [ref] [equation] The interaction of cosmic protons and high-energy nuclei in the interstellar medium and in the Earth's atmosphere explains the observed antiproton fluxes [ref] , and there are convincing arguments against the existence of galactic antimatter clusters in the observable Universe [ref] .

General relativity effects in precision spin experimental tests of fundamental symmetries · Introduction · 0.93

Cites it as support 4 papers

Therefore, today, barring some caveats, one arrives to the conclusion that a matter-antimatter asymmetry had to exist prior to recombination [ref] .

On the origin of matter in the Universe · Matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe · 0.98
As a result, one can compellingly argue that should there be large regions of space containing antimatter, they must be beyond the observable universe [ref] , and hence on general grounds, one can conclude that the possibility of our universe containing the same amount of matter and antimatter today is empirically excluded.

Neutrino Models and Leptogenesis · Evidence for a baryon asymmetry · 1.00
Both [ref] and [ref] have shown that the observed diffuse $$-ray background is inconsistent with the existence of significant antimatter domains within the Hubble volume.

Review of the theoretical and experimental status of dark matter identification with cosmic-ray antideuterons · Extragalactic transport of antideuterons · 0.97

Cites it as background 6 papers

In the framework of EWBG, the EWPT (see Ref. [ref] for a recent review) plays a key role in generating the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe [ref] by providing an out-of-equilibrium environment – one of the three Sakharov conditions [ref] .

Unveiling the inert Triplet desert region with a pNGB Dark Matter and its Gravitational Wave signatures · Phase transitions and gravitational waves · 0.97
It has been suggested that the Universe may be partitioned in vast ($>$ 100 Gly) matter and antimatter domains [ref] , but no mechanism capable to explain the formation of such domains is known (see, however, [ref] ).

Gravitational baryogenesis without CPT violation · Introduction · 0.85
However, among the few observations it cannot explain, is the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe [ref] : it is observed that locally, in our patch of the Universe, there is an excess of visible matter (baryons) over anti-matter, and this excess must extend to the whole observable Universe, because we do not see gamma rays from proton anti-proton annihilation [ref] .

Flavoured Leptogenesis · The Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe · 0.82

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

The Astromag Project. See, for instance, J.F. Ormes and R.E. Streitmat- ter, NASA report 91-047; The Magnetic Spectrometer PAMELA, O. Adri- ani et al. , WIZARD Collaboration, LNF-95-051-PF Report (1995) 23, Presented at 24th International Cosmic Rays Conference, Ro me, Italy, 1995

View on Pith 1995

[2] [2]

S.P. Ahlen et al., N.I.M. A350 (1994) 351

View on Pith 1994

[3] [3]

The Alpha Matter Spectrometer , MIT, 1995

View on Pith 1995

[4] [4]

S.P. Ahlen et al. , Ap. J. 260 (1982) 20

View on Pith 1982

[5] [5]

G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Astr. Ap. 14 (1976) 339

View on Pith 1976

[6] [6]

F.W. Stecker, D.L. Morgan and J. Bredekamp, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 27 (1971) 1469; F.W. Stecker, Nucl. Phys. B252 (1985) 25; A.K. Mohanty and F.W. Stecker, Phys. Lett. 143B (1984) 351; Y.T. Gao, F.W. Stecker, M. Gleiser and D.B. Cline, Ap. J. L37 (1990) 361

View on Pith 1971

[7] [7]

R. Omn` es, Phys. Rep.C3 (1970) 1. For a recent review, see A.D. Dolgov, Hyperﬁne Interactions 76 (1993) 17

View on Pith 1970

[8] [8]

A. Dudarewicz and A.W. Wolfendale, Mon. Not. R. Astron. S oc. 268 (1994) 609

View on Pith 1994

[9] [9]

A. Sakharov, JETP Lett. 5 (1967) 24

View on Pith 1967

[10] [10]

A.G. Cohen, A. De R´ ujula and M.B. Gavela, unpublished

View on Pith

[11] [11]

For a recent discussion, see N. Hata, G. Steigman, S. Blu dman and P. Langacker, astro-ph/9603087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [12]

R. Sachs and A. Wolfe, Astrophys. J. 147 (1967) 73

View on Pith 1967

[13] [13]

J. Silk, Ap. J. 151 (1968) 459

View on Pith 1968

[14] [14]

P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993), 611

View on Pith 1993

[15] [16]

See for instance S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity , Wiley (1972)

View on Pith 1972

[16] [17]

D.L. Morgan and V.W. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1389

View on Pith 1970

[17] [18]

W.H. Kinney, E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, astro-ph/9704070

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [19]

L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics , Pergamon Press (1959)

View on Pith 1959

[19] [20]

L. Adiels et al. , Phys. Lett. B182 (1986) 405; S. Ahmad et al. , Phys. Lett. 152 (1985) 135

View on Pith 1986

[20] [21]

D.J. Fixsen, E.S. Cheng, J.M. Gales, J.C. Mather, R.A. S hafer and E.L. Wright, astro-ph/9605054

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[21] [22]

Ya.B. Zeldovich and R.A. Sunyaev, Ap. Space Sci. 4 (1969) 301

View on Pith 1969

[22] [23]

S.C. Kappadath et al. , Proc. 12th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. 25 (1995) Vol. 2; S.G. Kappadath et al., ftp://unhgro.unh.edu/pub/papers/kappadath cdg 24icrc.ps.gz

View on Pith 1995

[23] [24]

C.E. Fichtel et al. , Ap. J. 198 (1975) 163; E.P. Mazets et al. , Astro- physics and Space Science 33 (1975) 347; J.I. Trombka et al. , Ap. J. 212 (1977) 925; V. Schonfelder et al. , Ap. J. 240 (1980) 350; V. Schonfelder et al. Ap. J. Supp. 86 (1993) 657; R.S. White et al. , Ap. J. 218 (1977) 920

View on Pith 1975

[24] [25]

Ya. B. Zeldovich, I. Yu. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, Sov. Phy s. JETP 40 (1974) 1

View on Pith 1974

[25] [26]

A.D. Dolgov and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 4244. 28

View on Pith 1993