Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

Could ‘Higgsogenesis’ explain dark matter?
Simulated production of a Higgs event in ATLAS. Credit: CERN

(Phys.org) —The recently discovered Higgs boson is best known for its important role in explaining particle mass. But now some physicists are wondering if the Higgs could have played an equally significant role in generating dark matter and baryonic matter in the early Universe, as well as causing the hypothetical dark matter asymmetry and the observed baryon asymmetry between matter and antimatter particles.

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Géraldine Servant at CERN, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and CEA Saclay in France, and Sean Tulin at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, call this theoretical scenario "Higgsogenesis."

"With the Higgs discovery, the final piece of the Standard Model of particle physics has been put into place," Servant told Phys.org. "Now, it is a natural question to ask: could the Higgs boson have been important in the early Universe to help explain two observational puzzles that the Standard Model cannot: the origin of dark matter and the matter-antimatter asymmetry? In the very early Universe, the Higgs particle was distinct from its antiparticle. We show that an asymmetry between Higgs and anti-Higgs might have been the missing link connecting the densities of visible and dark matter, which observationally are quite similar."

This Higgs could have provided the missing link in one of two ways. One possibility is that, if there were a dark matter asymmetry in the early Universe, then this asymmetry could have transferred to an asymmetry between the Higgs and the anti-Higgs, which then could have transferred to a baryon asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Another possibility is that this sequence could have happened in reverse, where a baryon asymmetry first transferred to a Higgs asymmetry, which then transferred to a dark matter asymmetry.

In both cases, the Higgs provides a "portal" through which asymmetries can flow from the dark sector to the visible sector or vice versa. In these scenarios, dark matter would have an asymmetry just like baryonic matter. The physicists proposed two new fermions that couple to the Higgs boson that could have mediated the asymmetry transfers.

"Our mechanism relies on the existence of an interaction between the Higgs field and the dark sector, which is a natural assumption in many extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics," Tulin said. "The novelty of our work is to investigate the role of the Higgs in transferring matter asymmetries between the dark and visible sectors. It offers new opportunities for baryogenesis and dark matter generation."

In fact, previous research has shown that the Higgs boson may play a role in electroweak baryogenesis and leptogenesis, both of which describe asymmetries in the early Universe.

Future experiments may be able to test these proposals. For instance, physicists could investigate Higgs decays at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In these decays, the proposed fermions may escape as missing energy that could be detected.

"For Higgsogenesis to work, there must be new particles that interact through the weak force," Servant said. "Actually, new weakly interacting particles are not unique to Higgsogenesis, but are part of many different new physics models, and the LHC is actively searching for them. A second prediction is that the Higgs boson can decay invisibly to particles, and again the LHC is looking for this signature as well."


Explore further

Nobel physics laureate Higgs 'overwhelmed' (Update)

More information: Géraldine Servant and Sean Tulin. "Baryogenesis and Dark Matter through a Higgs Asymmetry." PRL 111, 151601 (2013). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.151601
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

© 2013 Phys.org. All rights reserved.

Citation: Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter? (2013, October 22) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-10-higgsogenesis-dark.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days!

Oct 22, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 22, 2013
Is this just a variation on CP violation?

Oct 22, 2013
Are all these dense aether model comments just cut and pasted into every article the mentions Higgs or dark matter?

We get it, you disagree. Can you present your opinion more succinctly....or if not, than don't present it at all in the comment section

Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days! -cantdrivel85

Nowhere did they say they believed this to be the correct scenario. This is simply another hypothesis which can be compared to observation. This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation. You still believe in it, though, so that makes you the religious nut.

Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days! -cantdrivel85

Nowhere did they say they believed this to be the correct scenario. This is simply another hypothesis which can be compared to observation. This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation. You still believe in it, though, so that makes you the religious nut.

i actually think you have it backwards: it's not that belief in EU makes them similar to relgious nuts - no, they ARE religious nuts who cannot bring themselves to believe in the (non-fundie, in their eyes, i still don't understand why) big bang, and therefore in a quest for a steady-state solution that feeds their preconceived religions notions they landed on plasma/EU/AWT/etc. subtle but important difference, and it makes it easier to understand em when viewed this way.

Oct 22, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 22, 2013
Are all these dense aether model comments just cut and pasted into every article the mentions Higgs or dark matter?

We get it, you disagree. Can you present your opinion more succinctly....or if not, than don't present it at all in the comment section
I wonder if anybody ever reads them. Ive never seen any meaningful discussion about their content, only their presence.

Oct 22, 2013
I wonder if anybody ever reads them. Ive never seen any meaningful discussion about their content, only their presence.


I read them when I first came to this site. then i asked some questions and asked for proof ... and the more i asked, the more they cut-and-paste... they offered NO evidence of any kind, but ramblings and double-talk and argued with their links to crazy sh*t .... i learned quickly to just ignore them ...

Oct 23, 2013
Re: "This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation."

That's an incredibly biased portrayal of the debate. The quantified models that are being pointed to as superior are filled with inferred constructs. The baryonic matter is apparently only around 4% the total. And as for that which dominates the baryonic matter -- the cosmic plasma -- the models are widely applied to circumstances for which they are not applicable, and their creator has basically recused himself from the way in which they are being used.

If what you mentioned was the whole story, I'd agree with you. These other circumstances, however, should induce some skepticism of the textbook story. What I think happens is that when people don't fully understand something, they tend to defer to authority. That probably works for most of science, but not when the textbooks are only covering half of what you need to know.

Oct 23, 2013
We saw this quantification argument made on the two flashes observed by Deep Impact at Tempel 1 too. It's not clear to me if anybody in the world knew how to quantify those two flashes at that time. Wal is suggesting that Tempel 1's charge density adjusts to its surrounding space. How would anybody actually know how much charge was supposed to be on Tempel 1 when that first of the two flashes -- the charge-neutralizer -- occurred? Perhaps I'm missing something, but we should all probably be wise to the danger of favoring what could really just be unfounded guesses. Sounds like another example of experimenter's regress to me ...

The fact remains that Wal was the only theorist predicting two distinct flashes, and that is because the charge neutralization should precede impact ... Right? This is really an either-or scenario: Either it happens or it does not. Nobody actually disputes that two flashes occurred, so why did it happen?

Oct 23, 2013
I think that much is lost when we view science as a system of equations. The concepts and the relationships between the concepts are more fundamental. And if you don't attach the formulary to these systems of concepts, you'll never succeed at effectively questioning the models such that you can make a meaningful judgment for one model over another. At the end of the day, a human makes a decision about what to put into the model based upon concepts and propositions of concepts -- and he then chooses the mathematics to make it happen. Mathematics may be the language of nature, but concepts are the language of humans.

Oct 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 23, 2013
Dueling aethern(a)uts. How droll. Something tells me you are talking about 2 entirely different things, both of which are crap. How would I know? It will be in the paper I intend to publish one day. But we must accept that conclusions drawn about unfalsifiable crap are themselves unfalsifiable. But this does not mean they are any less valid. Or more I suppose.

Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2013
"With the Higgs discovery, the final piece of the Standard Model of particle physics has been put into place," Servant told Phys.org. "Now it's a natural question to ask what other pieces are missing."

Oct 26, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 26, 2013
DM and DE are only useful for failed theories which need to be saved with ad hoc additions.

Oct 26, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 26, 2013
@ mohammadshafiq_khan_1

I have an open challenge for ya. Would ya care to explain this in layman's terms?

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

Oct 26, 2013
@ Anyone

For some good big fun, take a peek at this gem. Mr. Khan has been banned on more sites then Zephyr has.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

Now he is going to try sell his crackpottery under another name,,,, I wonder how much trouble it is to change the name on all those "peer reviewed" articles?

Naaa, it's easier just pretend that only one or at most two people would think a fake letter from Dr. Hawking would subtract from your creditability.

Oct 26, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 26, 2013
Q-Star
Please ask Hawking, Krauss, Tyson, Michio and whole of NASA & CERN to produce the rebuttal of my articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward..


No, I'm challenging ya to tell us about the letter that Dr Hawking sent ya telling ya how ya opened his eyes to truth and the errors of his thinking.

Why would any of those people take the time to rebut a "challenge" from a crank? Ya realize those people get literally HUNDREDS of crank challenges every week? If they responded to them they wouldn't have any time to do real science.

Oct 26, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2013
Please ask Hawking, Krauss, Tyson, Michio and whole of NASA & CERN to produce the rebuttal of my articles


The answer why this isn't happening you can find in this video (if you're impatient skip to the 9 minute mark, but the entire thing is relevant to your misconceptions about science.)

http://www.geek.c...1488517/

Cranks aren't heard not because no one wants to hear them. Cranks aren't heard because their science is bad (if it's science at all). That they can't see the fault in their own work is a pity (but otherwise they wouldn't champion it, so there's no easy 'out' there).
It's just like kids stating that "magic is true" (or adults that "gods exist"). There's no way to dissuade them from that belief because the capacity for understanding is missing.

This is something no one wants to acknowledge of themselves - so rather they turn to conspiracy theories of being 'snubbed by science'.

Oct 27, 2013
should rather divert their energies for producing the rebuttal article to the articles on the basis of which standing open challenge


Okay, I'll give it go and rebut your challenge. Here is my rebuttal and I await your response with bated breath.

It takes only 5 minutes of reading to show the flaws in your theory. So here's my answer to your challenge.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1


Oct 27, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2013
should rather divert their energies for producing the rebuttal article to the articles on the basis of which standing open challenge


Okay, I'll give it go and rebut your challenge. Here is my rebuttal and I await your response with bated breath.

It takes only 5 minutes of reading to show the flaws in your theory. So here's my answer to your challenge.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1


Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?

Oct 27, 2013
There are many idiots & lunatics making all sorts of comments here but they should know that no Tom, Dick & Harry has any right to set aside the findings of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.


Then why are ya trying to set aside this little gem?

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

Maybe I not as modest and humble as ya are, but I would be proud to show off and talk about the letter Steven Hawkin wrote me about how I had opened his eyes and changed the way physics would be done in the future.

Oct 27, 2013
Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?


That's about par for your level of maturity,,,, ya wouldn't have been able to understand if he had used different words. Did ya also get a personal letter from him telling ya that ya had opened his eyes and had ushered in a new era in physics?

Oct 27, 2013
Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?


That's about par for your level of maturity,,,, ya wouldn't have been able to understand if he had used different words. Did ya also get a personal letter from him telling ya that ya had opened his eyes and had ushered in a new era in physics?

Well dern tootin' ya'll. At least ya and Hawking share a trait, ya'll both need subtitles to understood what the hell ya are talkin' bout.

Oct 27, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2013
So anonymous Tom, Dick & Harry should keep their senseless comments in their brainless head.

Read more at: https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1]https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1[/url]


I agree read more at: https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1]https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1[/url]


Oct 29, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 29, 2013
@ Q-Star
Now he is going to try sell his crackpottery under another name,,,, I wonder how much trouble it is to change the name on all those "peer reviewed" articles?


unfortunately, it is quite easy. even with the older versions of MS Office, you would only need a few programs, like Word and Excel... with Mail-merge feature you could change everything just by adjusting a few names on a list, or on an access DB, then with the additional integrations you are capable of with VAB, you can publish it to the web easily.

I used to have to do things like this quite often when I worked with my State building a database for what is now ADEQ and the EPA in our area.

Oct 29, 2013
@mohammadshafiq_khan_1

Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time.

and
There is just no Dark Matter or Dark Energy but aether.


i need more data, please. Empirical data for the first (please show peer reviewed articles and experimental results so that it can be verified). i have found nothing. Please do not include links to crank sites, i will not go back to those... instead, some verifiable empirical data would be nice.

also, what exactly is the method for aether to continue to expand the universe. the CURRENT physics models show how it is possible, but i dont see where aether shows how a substance, even as ethereal as aether, can assist in universal expansion. Or is it the opposite, and Aether causes friction and the friction in certain areas causes a reaction and then it ripples? what?

a soliloquy is nice, but empirical data is what i am after, so save your writing fingers.

Oct 29, 2013
What ever happened to guidelines in posting? Does physorg have any?

It does:
http://phys.org/help/comments/

One of these should be pointed out to you as particularly interesting:
Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.

Oct 29, 2013
sorry... VAB in my above post should be VBA.

got rushed... didn't bother to look over the post.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more