Daemons? (DArk Electric Matter Objects)

[RussDill]

I came across this article on wikipedia while reading about dark matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28astrophysics%29

A DAEMON (DArk Electric Matter Object) is a micro black hole (also called a Planck particle) – presumed to be electrically charged – which is a candidate for dark matter. Its Compton wavelength is the same as its Schwarzschild radius. Its mass is thus (by definition) equal to the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal (also by definition) to the Planck length.

I'm not sure if it's one person, or two people with very similar names putting this forward, E.M. Drobyshevski, and M.E. Drobyshevski.

Here's a link to some power point slides:

http://cns.pnpi.spb.ru/ucn/articles/Drobyshevski.pdf

Is this stuff on the level?

[INRM]

If these tiny black holes exist, how long would they last? How come planets and stars don't periodically get swallowed up when they fly into these things?

[RussDill]

Also, the negative daemon can capture atomic nucleus with a liberation of about 100 MeV of energy. The last process excites the nucleus with resulting emission of nucleons and atomic (and refilling) electrons capable of creation of strong scintillation, while the daemon finds itself inside the remnant of the nucleus captured. Here the daemon has supposedly to catalyze decays of one nucleon by another, with a mean interval of ~10−6 s, becoming thus finally free and able of capturing a new nucleus.

It seems to be saying that it blows right through it (after converting the atom to energy)

[ben m]

I came across this article on wikipedia while reading about dark matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28astrophysics%29

Is this stuff on the level?

Interesting. My first impression of this work is that the authors have an interesting DM hypothesis, which deserves to be looked at carefully and completely; this is basically strongly-interacting dark matter, but with the mass cranked up so high that the rate of interaction (and the energy loss per interaction) is quite low. Not unreasonable, and in principle not unlike the CHAMPs (see ArXiV:0809.0436) proposed on other occasions.

However, the theories authors have not convinced me that they *are* looking at things completely enough or carefully enough. It is probably possible to:

(a) come up with a coherent theory (or at least a model) for how DAEMONs interact with each other and with matter
(b) use that theory to learn whether DAEMONs are or are not compatible with the various known dark matter properties
(c) build a detector, or analyze data from existing detectors, in a way sensitive to the DAEMONs that passed (b).

I am willing to believe, based on some quick reading, that the authors have done (a). I am less confident in their performance on (b), although perhaps Kolb paper (now) takes care of that. But I'm extremely wary of how they have done (c). They have a lot of what looks like quick-and-dirty, back of the envelope analysis of DAMA and CDMS which they interpret as positive discoveries (!!!!), and even dirtier analysis of the Troitsk neutrino mass experiment, where they claim that an endpoint anomaly can arise from some sort of long-distance DAEMON-mediated niobium sputtering from the superconducting magnets (!!!!!!!!eleven). This is extremely sloppy phenomenology, and should not be given much credence.

That's not to say that the hypothesis is bad; the hypothesis is kind of intriguing. But you should wait for a disinterested party, not these authors, to work through the experimental constraints.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Microsized black holes have this astounding property of evaporating, from which follows that black holes aren't really black, but rather radiate as they evaporate. Not a very good canidate for dark matter, in my humble opinion.

A

[ben m]

Microsized black holes have this astounding property of evaporating, from which follows that black holes aren't really black, but rather radiate as they evaporate. Not a very good canidate for dark matter, in my humble opinion.


Yeah, I realized that might be a problem. From the perspective of "is this the dark matter", I would be content to write down the phenomenology of a "black box": some particle with M=Mplanck, Q = e, and thus-and-such list of cross sections. That gives you enough detail to figure out how this black box behaves astrophysically, how it interacts in the Sun and the Earth, and (maybe) what sort of events you see in your particle detector.

Later on you can tell me what was in the box. If you tell me "it was a micro-black hole" then we will raise the Hawking radiation objection. If you tell me "it's a right-handed SUSY sneutrino and stable because of blah blah blah" then maybe it's OK.

[RussDill]

I think the article is stating that the configuration is somehow stable and will not emit further radiation.

[ben m]

I spent a little more time following this literature around. Some thoughts:

a) The argument that Planck-mass black holes would be stable: it comes (basically uniquely) from Physics Letters B, Volume 191, Issues 1-2, 4 June 1987, Pages 51-55, by
"The unitarity puzzle and Planck mass stable particles", by Aharonov, Casher, and Nussinov. This doesn't even rise to the level of a prediction; it basically says "If somehow Hawking radiation stopped at this point, it would sweep the black hole information paradox under the rug." The paper is cited a handful of times and several of the citations point out a glaring observational problem. I saw no citations containing supportive detail or further work.

2) Drobyshevski and his coauthors seem to be off the deep end in terms of seeing DAEMONS everywhere; in one paper they blame them for ball lightning.