# Physical Origin, Evolution and Observational Signature of Diffused Antiworld

(<sup>1</sup>Dipartimento di Fisica ”E.Amaldi”, III Universita’ di Roma ”Roma Tre”, Rome, Italy, and INFN, Sezione di Roma III   
<sup>2</sup>Center for CosmoParticle Physics ”Cosmion”, Moscow, Russia   
<sup>3</sup>Institute of Applied Mathematics, Moscow, Russia   
<sup>4</sup>Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (Technical University), Moscow, Russia)  

## Abstract

The existence of macroscopic regions with antibaryon excess in the baryon asymmetric Universe with general baryon excess is the possible consequence of practically all models of baryosynthesis. Diffusion of matter and antimatter to the border of antimatter domains defines the minimal scale of the antimatter domains surviving to the present time. A model of diffused antiworld is considered, in which the density within the surviving antimatter domains is too low to form gravitationally bound objects. The possibility to test this model by measurements of cosmic gamma ray fluxes is discussed. The expected gamma ray flux is found to be acceptable for modern cosmic gamma ray detectors and for those planned for the near future.

It was recently stated that the existence of antimatter domains with scale up to 1000 Mpc in a baryon-symmetric Universe cannot escape contradiction with the observed gamma background. This argument does not exclude the case when the Universe is globally baryon asymmetric and the antibaryons within antimatter domains contribute a small fraction of the total baryon charge. On the other hand, it was shown  that the existence of antimatter domains in the baryon dominated Universe is a profound signature for the origin and evolution of baryon matter and its inhomogeneity. Depending on its parameters, the mechanism of inhomogeneous baryosynthesis can lead to both high- and low-density antibaryon domains. According to , high-density domains can evolve into antimatter stellar objects, so that a globular cluster of antimatter stars can exist in our Galaxy, what may be tested in the cosmic searches for antimatter planned for the near future. On the other hand, as it was mentioned in , low-density antibaryon domains cannot evolve into gravitationally bound objects. The case of such ”diffused antiworld” is considered in the present paper.

A simple modification of the baryogenesis scenario will lead to formation of domains with different signs of baryon asymmetry. To achieving this, the condition should be satisfied that C- and CP- violation must have different signs in different space points . For instance, this can occur if there exist two sources of CP violation, a spontaneous and an explicit one. Spontaneous symmetry breaking naturally proceeded through the second order phase transition which started after the inflationary stage . One would expect that CP- odd amplitudes are not universal, space-independent quantities, but have different signs and values in different space points: $`\varphi _s=\varphi _s(x)`$. If the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking is small in comparison with the explicit one, $`\varphi _s<\varphi _e`$ , there would be relatively small fluctuations in the baryonic number density around the uniform baryonic background. In the opposite case, $`\varphi _e<\varphi _s`$ , the amplitude of fluctuations is large with respect to the baryonic background density. One can see that if the domains with high antibaryonic density are formed in the second-order phase transition, their elementary size $`l_i`$ at the moment of formation is determined by $`l_i1/(\lambda T_c)`$ , where $`T_c`$ is the Ginzburg critical temperature at which the phase transition takes place and $`\lambda `$ is the self-interaction coupling constant of the field which breaks CP symmetry. In this case different elementary domains would expand together with the Universe and now their size would reach the value $`l_0l_i(T_c/T_0)=1/(\lambda T_0)10^5cm/\lambda `$, where $`T_0`$ is the present temperature of the background radiation.

Another possible mechanism for generation of large fluctuations of baryon asymmetry in space is based on the model of baryogenesis with baryonic charged condensate. At first, the baryon asymmetry is accumulated in the form of a condensate of the scalar superpartner of the colorless and electrically neutral combination of quark and lepton fields $`X`$ . This condensate might be formed during the inflationary stage if baryonic and leptonic charges were not conserved and the potential $`U(X)`$ had a flat direction. The subsequent decay of this condensate would result in a considerable baryon asymmetry. Depending upon the initial conditions in the different space points, it is possible to produce baryons or antibaryons in the decay of the condensate $`X`$ . The characteristic size of an elementary domain with a definite sign of baryonic charge was estimated in . At the end of inflation it is equal to $`l_iH^1\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _X^{1/2})`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter at the end of inflation and $`\lambda _X`$ is the constant of self-interaction of the field $`X`$.

The next possibility to generate antimatter domains is connected to the existence of topological defects of the CP-violating axionic field. The existence of the vacuum angle $`\theta `$ leads to strong CP nonconservation . The famous solution of the strong CP problem is the introduction of the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry together with an axion field . In this solution, $`\theta `$ has the dynamical meaning of axion field amplitude, and goes to zero for zero vacuum expectation value of this amplitude. However, in the early Universe the effective vacuum angle $`\theta `$ varies in the range $`[0,2\pi ]`$, and this could imply a significant role of strong CP violation in baryogenesis. The point is that, in the standard model of invisible axion, one of the consequences of the effective vacuum angle $`\theta `$ is the existence of P- and CP- odd condensates. Consider the cosmological properties of the $`N=`$ $`1`$ axion model. Here $`N=`$ $`1`$ means that the axion model has a unique vacuum. The following potential embodies the qualitative features of the model of interest to us:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^+^\mu \varphi \frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^+\varphi F_a^2)^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(1)   
where $`\varphi =`$ $`\varphi _1+i\varphi _2`$ is a complex scalar field. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ $`0`$ this model has a $`U(1)`$ global symmetry under which $`\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\varphi (x)`$. This $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken by the vacuum expectation value $`\varphi =`$ $`F_a\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$. The associated Nambu-Goldstone boson is the axion. The last term in Eq.(1) represents the non-perturbative QCD effects that give the axion its mass $`m_a`$. The model has global string solutions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ $`0`$. A straight global string along the $`z`$-axis is the static configuration $`\varphi =`$ $`F_af(\rho )\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$, where $`(z,\rho ,\theta )`$ are cylindrical coordinates. The surprising result that emerges from numerical simulations is that most of the energy in the string network corresponds to infinite strings. Precisely, the density in infinite strings was estimated to be the $`80\%`$ of the total string density .

In the early Universe, the standard axion is essentially massless in the time interval from the PQ phase transition at temperature of order $`F_a`$ to the QCD phase transition at temperature $`1GeV`$. During that epoch, axion strings are present as topological defects. At first the strings are frozen in the plasma stretched by the Hubble expansion. However the plasma becomes more dilute with time and, when the temperature decreases below $`T210^7GeV(F_a/10^{12}GeV)^2`$ , the strings move freely and decay efficiently to axions. Since this decay mechanism is very effective, there is approximately one string per horizon from the temperature $`T`$ to the temperature $`T_11GeV`$, when axion acquires mass. The existence of linear topological defects implies that the effective angle $`\theta `$ varies by $`2\pi `$ around the string, and this fact might be responsible for spatial modulation of the baryonic charge density in the Universe. Let us suppose, according to , that, owing to the spatial variation of the CP -violating axionic phase, the baryon excess is also space dependent and given by

$$B(x)=A+b\mathrm{sin}\theta (x).$$
(2)   
Here $`A`$ is the baryon excess induced by explicit CP-violation processes, which gives rise to global baryon asymmetry of the Universe, and $`b`$ is the measure of the baryon asymmetry dynamically induced by axion. The antibaryon excess is generated within a wedge, which is symmetrical relative to a sheet along the direction $`\theta =`$ $`3\pi /2`$, and the facet of this wedge is connected to the axionic string. The intersection of such wedges gives a domain with antibaryonic excess. Thus the typical size of an elementary domain will be as large as the horizon scale $`l_im_{Pl}/T_{BS}^2`$, where $`m_{Pl}`$ is the Plank mass and $`T_{BS}`$ is the temperature of baryogenesis. Note that the defect formation can be triggered by inflation . If it takes place during the end of the inflation epoch, the defects will not be completely diluted away but can increase the typical distance between strings and, consequently, the typical size of an elementary domain.

In any case all the above-mentioned mechanisms are able to generate domains of antimatter of any baryon density and on any scale. Such domains may consist of many elementary domains of small scale, as in the case of the standard phase transition, or it can appear like one moderately inflated elementary domain as in the case of the phase transition triggered by inflation.

Let us consider the case of low-density antimatter regions, corresponding to the model of diffused antiworld.

When the density of antimatter $`\rho _{\overline{b}}`$ within a domain is 3 orders of magnitude less than the baryon density $`\rho _b`$ (which we assume in the further discussion corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=`$ $`0.1`$ , where $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter normalized to $`100kms^1Mpc^1`$), the cosmological nucleosynthesis in the period $`t110s`$ results in a nontrivial chemical composition. For $`10^4<\rho _{\overline{b}}/\rho _b<10^3`$ antideuterium is the dominant product. For smaller densities of antibaryons within domains no antinuclei are formed. At the density $`\rho _{\overline{b}}/\rho _b<10^4`$ , owing to the low antimatter density inside the domain, no recombination takes place at $`z1500`$ and the antimatter domain remains ionized after recombination in regions of baryonic matter. The radiation pressure and the energy density dominance within the domain suppress then the development of gravitational instability, so that the antimatter domains of sufficiently large size should be now clouds of ionized positron - antiproton plasma presumably situated in voids.

Let us give a quantitative estimation of the surviving size and the observational effects of domains of a diffused antiworld. Let us assume that the Universe contains regions of very small antibaryon excess density. At temperatures above several MeV these regions cannot be strongly affected by the diffusion of surrounding particles, because their mean free path length is small enough. Therefore we will consider the evolution of these antibaryon domains at temperatures $`410^3K<T<10^9K`$, when the Universe is radiation – dominated and contains mainly electrons, protons, photons and neutrinos. If the size of the antibaryon region is much greater than the mean free path of surrounding particles we can solve a one – dimensional problem assuming that the ”initial” baryon density at $`T=`$ $`10^9K`$ is given by

$$n_b(𝐑,t_0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}n_0,\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)   
In this case the diffusion equation for baryons is

$$\frac{n_b}{t}=D(t)\frac{^2n_b}{x^2}\alpha n_b$$
(4)   
where $`D(t)`$ is a diffusion coefficient. The last term in Eq.(4) takes into account the expansion of the Universe. Note that, since the antibaryon component is very small, we neglected it in the diffusion equation.

Let us introduce a new variable $`r`$ defined as the baryon to photon ratio, $`r=`$ $`n_b/n_\gamma `$. Since the evolution of the photon density is given by the equation $`n_\gamma /t=`$ $`\alpha n_\gamma `$, we can rewrite Eq.(4) in terms of $`r`$ as

$$\frac{r}{t}=D(t)\frac{^2r}{x^2}$$
(5)   
where

$$r(𝐑,t_0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}r_0,\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x>0\hfill \end{array}$$

We note that in the problem under consideration photons are distributed uniformly in baryon domains as well as in the antibaryon ones. Due to electroneutrality of the media, the motion of protons is strongly related with the motion of electrons. The last ones interact with photons, and this interaction defines the diffusion coefficient $`D(t)`$ for protons. According to  this coefficient (in units where the Boltzmann constant $`k_b=`$ $`1`$) is given by

$$D(t)\frac{3T_\gamma c}{2\rho _\gamma \sigma _T}0.6110^{32}Z^3cm^2/s,$$
(6)   
where $`T_\gamma `$ and $`\rho _\gamma `$ are the temperature and the energy density of the radiation, respectively, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`Z`$ is the red shift which is related with the time $`t`$ at this stage by $`t2.610^{19}s/Z^2`$. It is convenient to extract the $`t`$ – dependence and to write $`D(t)`$ in the following form

$$D(t)=D(t_0)\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(7)   
At the initial time $`t_0`$, corresponding to the temperature $`T_0=`$ $`10^9K`$, $`D(t_0)`$ is given according to Eq.(6) by

$$D(t_0)1.2410^6cm^2/s.$$
(8)   
Solving Eq.(5) with the diffusion coefficient (6) we find

$$r(𝐑,t)=\frac{r_0}{2}\left\{1\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}\frac{x}{\sqrt{D_0t_0[(t/t_0)^{5/2}1]}}\right]\right\}$$
(9)   
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the error function.

Assuming $`t>>t_0`$ we get

$$r(𝐑,t)\frac{r_0}{2}\left\{1\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}\frac{x}{\sqrt{Dt}}\right]\right\}$$
(10)   
or, in terms of temperature,

$$r(𝐑,t)\frac{r_0}{2}\left\{1\mathrm{\Phi }\left[0.52710^4\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{5/2}\frac{x}{cm}\right]\right\}.$$
(11)   
If we choose $`T=`$ $`4000K`$ at the end of the radiation - dominated epoch, then

$$r(𝐑,t)|_{4000k}\frac{r_0}{2}\left\{1\mathrm{\Phi }\left[0.524\frac{x}{pc}\right]\right\}.$$
(12)   
It follows from Eq.(12) that the average displacement of the boundary between baryon and antibaryon domains is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }x0.2pc`$. Therefore, the primordial antibaryon regions of low density, which grow up to $`1pc`$ or more at the end of the radiation – dominated stage, remain practically unaffected by the diffusion of the ordinary matter.

Note that according to Eq.(9) in the limit $`t>>t_0`$ the motion of the boundary is determined by the final time $`t`$ and does not depend on $`t_0`$. This is due to the fact that at the end of the radiation – dominated stage the particle number density drops significantly and as a consequence the mean free-path length increases, thus giving an important contribution to the boundary motion.

Below $`4000K`$ atoms are formed in baryon domains. Since the antibaryon density is assumed to be small enough ($`\rho _{\overline{b}}/\rho _b<10^4`$) in our approach, we can consider the flow of hydrogen atoms into antibaryon regions as a motion of free – streaming atoms. The physical distance traveled by the atoms after recombination until the present time $`t_p`$ is given by

$$da_p_{t_{rec}}^{t_p}\frac{v(t)dt}{a(t)}$$
(13)   
where $`v(t)`$ is the average velocity of atoms and $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor of the Universe. It is convenient to set $`a=`$ $`ya_p`$, where $`y=`$ $`1/(1+Z)=`$ $`=T_p/T`$ , and to rewrite Eq.(13) as

$$d_{a_{rec}}^{a_p}\frac{v(a)da}{a\dot{a}}=_{a_{rec}/a_p}^1\frac{v(y)dy}{y\dot{y}}.$$
(14)   
At the instant of recombination the velocity of atoms is given by the thermal value $`v_{rec}c\sqrt{T_{rec}/m}`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the atom. After $`4000K`$, the typical velocity of atoms $`vp/m`$ is red – shifted down as $`1/aT`$. Therefore below $`4000K`$ we have $`vc(T_p/m)\sqrt{m/T}(1/y)`$. Taking the equation

$$(\dot{y})^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}G\rho (y)y^2$$
(15)   
(where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant) and substituting for the density the expression $`\rho (y)=`$ $`\rho _0/y^3`$ , in the case of a matter – dominated Universe we find

$$d\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _0}}\frac{cT_p}{m}\sqrt{\frac{m}{T_{rec}}}_{T_p/T_{rec}}^1\frac{dy}{y^{3/2}}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _0}}\sqrt{\frac{m}{T_{rec}}}.$$
(16)   
Substituting $`\rho _0=`$ $`\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c=`$ $`1.8810^{29}h^2=g/cm^3`$ is the critical density of the Universe, we obtain $`d3/h`$ kpc. In the wide range of the Hubble constant $`h`$ between 0.4 and 1 the free – streaming length of atoms will be of the order of several kpc. Therefore antibaryon regions of the same size will be filled at present by hydrogen atoms.

A key observation to test the model of diffused antiworld could be the search for gamma rays from a boundary annihilation of antimatter and hydrogen atoms.

Let us consider first the possibility of annihilation in antimatter domains filled with hydrogen atoms (the annihilation of matter – antimatter domains in baryon symmetric Universe was considered in ). The equation for the number density of antiprotons which takes into account both the annihilation and the expansion of the Universe is given by

$$\frac{dn_{\overline{b}}}{dt}=\sigma vn_bn_{\overline{b}}\alpha n_{\overline{b}}.$$
(17)   
In the limit $`n_b>>n_{\overline{b}}`$ we can neglect the variation of $`n_b`$ due to annihilation. Then , introducing $`r=`$ $`n_b/n_\gamma `$, $`\overline{r}=`$ $`n_{\overline{b}}/n_\gamma `$, and solving Eq.(17), we find that at present time in antimatter domains filled with hydrogen atoms

$$\overline{r}_p=\overline{r}_{rec}\mathrm{exp}[_{t_{rec}}^{t_p}\sigma vn_\gamma r𝑑t].$$
(18)   
Since according to  at energies below $`10eV`$ the cross section of $`\overline{p}H`$ annihilation is given by

$$\sigma v2.710^9cm^3/s$$
(19)   
we find that the integral in Eq.(18) is much greater than unity. So, no gamma radiation occurs at present from such regions because practically all antiprotons have been already annihilated.

Therefore the radiation comes only from the narrow region of the boundary between matter and antimatter domains, where antibaryons have not annihilated yet. The width of this region is $`dv\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is defined from the condition

$$_{t_p\mathrm{\Delta }t}^{t_p}\sigma vn_b𝑑t\sigma vn_b\mathrm{\Delta }t1,$$
(20)   
and the velocity $`v`$ is given by

$$vc\frac{T}{m}\sqrt{\frac{3m}{T_{rec}}}$$
(21)   
Substituting all numerical values, we find for the width of the region :

$$dc\sqrt{3\frac{T_p}{T_{rec}}\frac{T_p}{m}}\frac{1}{\sigma vn_b}0.86\left(\frac{10^7cm^3}{n_b}\right)pc.$$
(22)   
The gamma flux near Earth in this case is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{dn}{dt}\frac{dN_\gamma }{d\omega }\frac{V}{4\pi r_A^2},$$
(23)   
where $`dn/dt=`$ $`\sigma vn_bn_{\overline{b}}`$ is the rate of annihilation per unit volume and per unit time; $`dN_\gamma /d\omega `$ is the differential cross section for an inclusive gamma production; $`V=`$ $`4\pi R^2d`$ is the volume of the annihilating boundary of the diffused antiworld at present; $`R`$ is the size of the diffused antiworld region; $`r_A`$ is the distance between Earth and the diffused antiworld region.

Integrating Eq.(23) over photon energy we obtain

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\sigma v\beta n_b^2N_\gamma d\left(\frac{R}{r_A}\right)^2,$$
(24)   
where $`N_\gamma `$ is the average number of photons per one act of annihilation (typically $`N_\gamma 4`$) , $`\beta =`$ $`n_{\overline{b}}/n_b<<1`$. Finally, taking into account Eq.(20) we get

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\beta n_bN_\gamma \left(\frac{R}{r_A}\right)^2c\sqrt{3\frac{T_p}{T_{rec}}\frac{T_p}{m}}2.610^4\beta \left(\frac{n_b}{10^7}\right)\left(\frac{R}{r_A}\right)^2cm^2s^1sr^1.$$
(25)   
The absence of absorption bands in the spectra of long-distance quasars indicates that the temperature of the intergalactic gas is high enough and that this gas is ionized. If this is the case we have to change the cross section in Eq.(19) by the corresponding cross section for $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation 

$$\sigma v6.510^{17}(v/c)cm^3/s.$$
(26)   
However, for $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation the integral in Eq.(18) will be much greater than unity, similarly to the $`\overline{p}H`$ case. Therefore expression (25) for the photon flux remains valid for $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation because this flux does not depend explicitly on $`\sigma v`$.

Up to now, no evidence for a major anisotropy in the gamma background has been observed. Below 1 GeV at high latitudes the diffused photon background is given by 

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{dif}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}10^6cm^2s^1sr^1.$$
(27)   
According to  a diffused antiworld can exist if $`\beta <10^4`$. Therefore it follows from Eq.(25) that the possible gamma flux from the annihilation at the boundary of two worlds should be less than $`10^8cm^2s^1sr^1`$. This means that such diffused antiworlds could exist , in particular not far from our Galaxy, successfully avoiding to be detected. However, the development of modern detectors of gamma rays, like EGRET and AMS with the flux sensitivity up to $`10^8cm^2s^1sr^1`$, gives a hope to detect diffused antiworlds.

In this article we have found that the minimal scale of an antibaryon domain, which was not destroyed by annihilation, must be larger then 1 kpc at present. Independently of the conditions of creation of such an antiworld domain, the density within it will not increase due to gravitational instability, provided that two conditions are satisfied. Namely, this domain must be located in the void and the density of antimatter must be less than the critical density. It means that the space structure and geometrical form of the annihilation boundary of such a domain is conserved. In the case when the antiworld region of scale $`R`$ consists of many antimatter domains of minimal annihilation scale $`d`$, the annihilation in such a region takes place at the border of each little domain. As a result the annihilation occurs in the whole volume of this region and, as a consequence, the gamma flux increases, owing both to the volume effect and the possibility for the antimatter density within a small domain to be as high as $`\beta 1`$. This picture of volume annihilation in antiworld regions can be tested in searches for the angular variation of gamma flux in the angular range $`\alpha R/r_A`$.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the scientific and educational center ”Cosmion” and performed within the framework of the International projects Astrodamus, Coseth and Eurocos-AMS. M.K. and R.K. are grateful to I Rome University ”La Sapienza” and III Rome University ”Roma Tre” for hospitality and support. We thank B.Kerbikov, A.Kudrjavtsev, and A.Sudarikov for interesting discussions and suggestions.