Powering Starships with Compact Condensed Quark Matter

Marshall Eubanks Asteroid Initiatives LLC, Clifton, Virginia (tme@asteroidinitiatives.com)

October 12, 2013

100 Year StarShip Symposium 2013 Houston, Texas

1

Outline of Talk
Introduction Quark Matter Nuggets A Different Solution for Dark Matter Basics of CCO theory Quark Matter and the Solar System Capture of Dark Matter in the Proto-Solar Nebula Can Quark Matter Simplify the Early Solar System? Evidence for Strange Asteroids The Anomalous Rotation of Small Asteroids Extracting Energy From Strange Asteroids Andreev Reection in BCS Superconductivity Conclusions : Condensed Matter as a Source of Energy

Introduction

And Now For Something Completely Different

This presentation is based on work on Compact Condensed Objects (CCOs), an alternative explanation for Dark Matter. These would be nuggets of condensed quark matter (Q-Balls) left over from the early universe. The CCO theory is from Zhitnitsky [2003a,b], which makes specic and testable predictions. What is the relevance of this for Starship Propulsion ? If there is a signicant density of primordial condensed quark matter, there will be some in the solar system (including literally below our feet). If this material can be found, it can be used both as energy source and (through an analog to Andreev reection) to produce antimatter. It should be possible to do this in the near term, starting with existing technology. There is as yet no proof that CCOs exist, but there is some suggestive evidence from Solar System observations, and many opportunities to confront the new theory with observation. It should be possible to conrm or deny this new theory within a few years. I thus feel that these ideas are important for the 100YSS effort.
4

An Introduction to Dark Matter

Observations reveal a serious failure of physics at large astronomical scales (galactic disks and halos, clusters of galaxies and larger). Apparent gravitational accelerations on these scales are consistently larger than can be explained by the matter we can see (stars, gas, etc.). This appears to be totally separate from the dark energy required to explain a relatively recent acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Dark energy may be just the cosmological constant, which is simply a parameter in General Relativity and need not indicate new physics. The galactic rotation and galactic cluster data denitely seem to indicate new physics. The question is, where ? If these accelerations are attributed to some non-interacting (or dark) form of matter, then roughly 85% of the matter in the universe is dark. There have been many proposals to explain these discrepancies in terms of new particles from new physics. E.g., WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) After decades of searching, there is no conclusive evidence that any such particles exist, which motivates a search for alternatives.
5

Quark Matter Nuggets

The QCD Era in the Early Universe

CCOs are a new version of an old idea. The idea that condensed quark matter could form in the early universe and persist until the present has a considerable history, dating back to the quark nugget proposal of Witten [1984]. Other names for similar proposals are stranglets, nuclearites, Q-Balls.. CCOs would be relics of the QCD epoch, the period during the rst 10 seconds after the Big Bang when there were no baryons (protons, neutrons), but instead a quark-gluon plasma (QGP). At that time the Hubble distance, RH , was 10 km. The density was > 4 1017 kg m3 (the nuclear density). The temperature was 160 MeV (1.9 1012 K). The redshift, z, was 1012 . As the universe expanded and cooled, this represents the point where quarks became conned and the QGP froze out into hadrons, forming protons and neutrons.

A (brief) review of Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD)

Recent work indicates that at low temperatures and high densities the lowest QCD energy state is Color-Flavor-Locked (CFL) superconducting quark matter [Alford, 1999, Madsen, 2001, Zhitnitsky, 2003a, Kogut and Stephanov, 2004, Alford et al., 2008]. In ordinary matter, quarks are conned. There are different avors of quark (u,d and s are the only ones of concern here) and each quark also has a color (r, g or b for normal matter). Both avor and color can be viewed as a charge, analogous to an electric charge, except that Color and avor charges are not just + / - , but are multi-valued. Color charges can be exchanged by gluons Any free particle has to be color-neutral. A proton, for example, is a <u, u, d> triplet, and must have colors of <r, g, b>, but it is not possible to assign a particular color to any one of these quarks.

CFL Quark Matter

CFL quark matter is similar to BCS superconductors for electrons. A dense sea of cold quarks ll all available quantum states, allowing for quasiparticles, which can propagate freely. Some differences : CFL is a color superconductor, but an electrical insulator. CFL forms a superuid, with rotation and magnetic eld conned to vortex lines Quasi particles are in color-avor locked pairs, such as < dred , ugreen > These differences will be important for power generation, to be dealt with later. CFL superuids may be absolutely stable, in which case this, instead of the proton or 56 Fe, is the fundamental state of matter. This state was the primary state of matter in the very early universe, and yet we exist. How can some, but not all, of the primordial CFL have survived to the present?

QCD Phase Diagram

The schematic phase diagram for quark matter, in terms of the temperature and chemical potential. The Color-Flavor-Locked (CFL) superconducting phase has the highest density at near-zero temperatures.
10

Why CCOs ?
The quark nugget proposal of Witten [1984] envisioned quark matter being conned in bubbles in a violent rst-order QCD phase transition. Numerical results from lattice QCD modeling currently do not support a rst-order QCD phase transition [Aoki et al., 2006], thus suggesting that this mechanism is not available. Zhitnitsky and his colleagues, however, hypothesize that the collapse of axion domain walls created CCOs [Forbes and Zhitnitsky, 2000, 2001, Son et al., 2001, Zhitnitsky, 2003a, Oaknin and Zhitnitsky, 2005, Zhitnitsky, 2006]. In this mechanism, the axion phase transition generates bubbles with sufcient pressure to form condensed quark superconductors. Axions were hypothesized to explain the Charge-Parity conservation by the strong interaction, by turning a QCD constant, , into a eld and thus a particle [Peccei, 2008, Srednicki, 2002].

11

Basics of CCO theory

In the Zhitnitsky theory stable CCOs would be formed in a fairly narrow range of masses. The lower mass limit is set by the stability of the CCO against decay and the upper mass limit by the requirement that the quark matter be compressed to greater than nuclear density. The stable CCO mass range is determined by fa , the axion decay constant. The current uncertainty in fa [Laki c et al., 2012] constrains the stable CCO mass, MQ , to 105 kg MQ 4 1010 kg. I will show evidence that MQ is 1010 kg, implying a value for fa at the upper end of the allowed range. Note that a 10 megaton CCO would have a radius of only 1 mm. Zhitnitsky and his colleagues favor a small value for MQ , 1 gm, so that CCOs could explain various anomalous radiation features in in the Galaxy [Forbes and Zhitnitsky, 2008a,b, Lawson and Zhitnitsky, 2013]. Such small CCOs would be inherently metastable, and would eventually decay. I prefer to examine the case for stable CCOs.

12

What is the role for anti-matter in Primordial Quark Matter?

An open question is the matter / antimatter ratio for CCOs. Oaknin and Zhitnitsky [2005] proposed a 3:2:1 mass ratio for (matter in CCOs, antimatter in CCOs and ordinary matter), in order to provide for the cosmological baryon asymmetry. With the latest Planck data these ratios would not be exact integers, but more like 3.3:2.3:1 These ratios are not mandated by the underlying theory. Other possibilities would include 5.6:0:1 : baryon asymmetry is from before the QCD era, as is commonly supposed. 2.8:2.8:1 : baryon asymmetry in ordinary matter is from after the QCD era, which seems unlikely. I prefer to leave this as a parameter to be constrained by observations. In any case CFL CCOs would have a large superconducting gap energy, , with 100 MeV, so antimatter CCOs would not annihilate on contact with cold ordinary matter. Temperatures in the center of the Sun are only a few MeV, so everywhere in the Solar System would be cold to CCOs.

13

Current Limits on CCO Dark Matter

There are a variety of prior limits on CCOs as dark matter, which can be divided into three mass ranges. Low mass limits (MQ 1 gm) come from laboratory searches for dark matter.

The current best such limits are from the MACRO Collaboration [2002], which disallow CCOs smaller than 10 milligrams. Mid-range (kg to ton) limits come from seismology [Herrin et al., 2006]. Finally, at the upper end of the mass range (planetary masses) there are limits from gravitational lensing [Alcock et al., 1998], and (for primordial CCOs) from the requirement that CCOs could not be larger than the horizon at the QCD era [Madsen, 2006] All of these constraints are consistent with the CCO mass range allowed by the Zhitnitsky axion domain wall theory.

14

Limits on CCO Dark Matter

1e-05 1e-21 Halo CDM Density VFR Asteroids 1 Mass (kg) 100000 1e+10 1e+15 1e+20

Q (kg m-3)

Horizon Mass MACRO 1e-22 Apollo ALSEP

Axion Domain Wall Model Mass Range Lensing

USGS 1e+20 1e+25 1e+30

1e+35

1e+40

1e+45

1e+50

Baryon Number(B)

This gure assumes a monochromatic CCO mass spectrum. The Halo CDM Density is from local stellar kinematics [Bovy and Tremaine, 2012]. 15 Note that the experimental asteroid constraints and the theoretical axion domain wall mass range are consistent with each other and with all the other experimental constraints.

Quark Matter and the Solar System

16

Why should there be Dark Matter in the Solar System?

Dark matter (whether microscopic or macroscopic) would be included in the Solar System primordially (from its formation). Planetary systems such as the Solar System appear to form in the collapse of molecular clouds as they cool. The formation of molecules reduces the gas pressure, disrupting the balance between pressure and gravitational attraction. Dark matter would not be subject to gas pressure, but would respond to subsequent changes in the gravitational potential. Most dark matter would have a large relative velocity ( 300 km sec1 ) and would pass rapidly through the collapsing cloud (vcollapse 5 km sec1 ) before the potential could change much. However, a small portion would have (by chance) relative velocities < 5 km sec1 , and would be subject to capture. This is especially true for matter in the so called dark disk [Purcell et al., 2009], with typical relative velocities 50 km sec1 .

17

Primordial Dark Matter in the Solar System

Assuming the Sun formed under conditions similar to its location in the Galaxy today : Primordial capture probabilities are 2 104 and 3 106 for dark disk and Halo dark matter, respectively. The total amount of primordially captured dark matter would be 106 M or 3 1024 kg), with 98% of the captured material coming from the dark disk. That corresponds to 3 1014 (1010 kg/ MQ ) CCOs. With their large superconducting gap energies, there is nothing to stop these CCOs from beginning to accrete normal matter mantles, forming strange planetesimals. Bodies with radii 100 meters would have most of their mass coming from their strange matter cores and would be truly strange asteroids. CCOs could thus serve as planetesimal nucleation centers, and could help to resolve both the meter-barrier to planetesimal growth [Brauer et al., 2008, Mordasini et al., 2010], and the complicated history of heating and high energy irradiation in the early Solar System, as revealed by meteorite samples.

18

Evidence for Strange Asteroids

19

How to nd CCOs in the Solar System

Much of the primordial CCO dark matter should be currently located in the center of the Sun and planets, where it would be hard to detect, and even harder to reach. The Earth, for example, would be expected to have about 3 105 of its total mass residing in an 4 meter radius strange matter sphere at its center. This could be detected by aiming a neutrino beam from a terrestrial accelerator [Kopp, 2007] directly down at the core and placing a neutrino telescope in the 10 m neutrino shadow of the CCO core at the beam antipode. Although feasible, this is not going be done in the immediate future. Small ( 100 meter radius) strange asteroids are both more likely to both reveal their CCO cores and (if detected) could be suitable for direct exploration by spacecraft. Asteroids in that size range are strongly perturbed by radiation pressure, which can be divided into The Yarkovsky effect [Vokrouhlick y et al., 2000], effectively a proton rocket effect from IR emission, which changes orbits, sweeping small asteroids into and then out of Near Earth Object (NEO) orbits. The Yarkovsky-OKeefe-Radzievskii-Paddack, or YORP, effect [Bottke et al., 2006], which speeds up (or slows down) asteroidal rotation.
20

Anomalous Rotation of Small Asteroids

A small ( 200 meter radius) strange asteroid would respond differently to the Yarkovsky and the YORP effects. The mass could be greatly increased over an ordinary matter body of the same size, which would greatly decrease Yarkovsky accelerations; such objects would have a longer residence time in NEO orbits. The moment of inertia change would be negligible, so there would be nothing to stop YORP spin-up of rotation period. However, a small strange asteroid would have a higher than expected surface gravity, and thus would be more resistant to rotational disruption, and thus could be spun up very fast. I actually thought that this would be a good way to disprove the massive CCO theory. However Fast rotating small asteroids are very common, with the shortest known period being 25 seconds. This tendency for fast rotation could be explained by CCO masses in the stable range predicted by the Zhitnitsky theory, which of course is completely independent of any asteroidal data. It is fair to say that this surprised me.
21

Asteroid Rubble Pile rotation limits

It is hard to directly determine asteroid masses (unless there is a satellite or spacecraft present), but rotation rates are available for (at present) 5077 bodies, and it is simple to determine the disruption rotation period, at least for so-called rubble piles with no internal strength (cohesion). Suppose that you have a spherical asteroid, with a bulk density A , mass MA and radius RA , being spun up by YORP. At what point will it be rotationally disrupted? Disruption could come from internal fractures, but it is simple to consider the point at which surface mass is lost, when the gravitational and rotational accelerations are equal on the surface at the equator. This is the so called Rubble Pile limit (RPL), which occurs at a rotational frequency, RP L , with GMA 4GA = (1) 2 RP L = 3 RA 3 Note that the RPL depends only on the bulk density. For A = 2300 kg m3 the RPL rotation limit (PRP ) is 2.2 hours. For an asteroid of solid Osmium, PRP 0.7 hours. I call asteroids with P < 0.6 hours Very Fast Rotators (VFR).
22

The asteroid rotation period-radius relation

0.01 (66391) 1999 KW4 0.1 Rotation Period (Hours) 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.001 2008 TC3 NEO Main Belt Trans-Neptune Objects Comet-Like Orbits RPL (2.2 hr) Very Fast Rotator Limit (0.6 hr) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Asteroid Radius (km) (2981) Chagall (216) Kleopatra

The change in the character of asteroid rotation rates at R 200 m is obvious to the eye, with most asteroids with R < 200 m having rotation periods < 1 hour while almost all asteroids with R > 200 m have periods 2 hours. The horizontal solid line is the Rubble Pile limit of Equation 1 for a uniform density of 2300 kg m3 , and the horizontal dashed line is the 0.6 hour VFR limit.

23

Estimating Core Masses from the Rubble Pile Model

The Rubble Pile limit of Equation 1 can be inverted : Assuming a lack of internal cohesion it is straightforward to take the observed radius and rotation frequency and estimate the mass of the CCO core, MQ , (assuming a default density, O , for the ordinary matter mantle, and a spherical body). This indirect mass estimate is not as rm as a direct mass estimate (say, from an orbiting spacecraft), but it can be done for numerous bodies. When this is done the centroid of the MQ distribution is 2.0 and 2.2 1010 kg, for all bodies and the VFR respectively, towards the upper end but still within the range predicted by the axion domain wall model for CCO formation. The CCO theory can thus constrain the axion decay constant, fa , to near the upper end of its predicted range (i.e., fa 2.8 1011 GeV).

24

CCO Core Mass Histograms from Asteroid Rotation

1e+06 45 40 35 # Asteroids / Bin 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Log 10 Baryon Number Consistent with Maximum fa Axion Model Range 1e+08 1e+10 Mass (kg) 1e+12 1e+14 1e+16 1e+18

All Rotation Data VFR (P < 0.6 hr) Gaussian Fit : All Data Gaussian Fit : VFR Data

Histogram of the CCO core mass required to prevent rotational disruption, assuming gravitational binding only. Estimates are referenced to a rubble pile model with a default = 2300 kg m3 . Note that the centroids of these distributions are within the mass region predicted (completely independently) by the axion domain wall theory.

25

What About Cohesion?

Real small asteroids are likely to have some cohesion, which will violate the Rubble Pile limit of Equation 1. For example, a rotation estimate of 97 seconds is available for the 2 meter body 2008 TC3, which impacted the Earth over the Sudan, with no sign of a CCO core. This body was presumably held together This is a complicated topic, but note that some of the VFR have large surface accelerations (up to 1 m sec2 ); it is hard to see how cohesion could be maintained over time (i.e., the rst meteorite strike would disrupt the object). This argument is more persuasive for the larger objects.

26

Positive outward equatorial accelerations (rotational minus gravitational)

(2981) Chagall 2008 TC3 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 1e-05 1e-06 0.001 0.01 0.1 Near Earth Asteroids Main Belt P = 0.6 hr (VFR Limit) P = 1.3 hr P = 2.0 hr 1 10 100 Asteroid Radius (km)

Outward Acceleration at the Equator (m sec-2)

Positive outward equatorial accelerations (rotational minus gravitational), assuming spherical bodies with a density of 2300 kg m3 . (Positive outward accelerations of course imply that any loose material at the equator would be lost to space.) A set of asteroids with a common density rotating at their rubble pile limit would form a diagonally sloping cluster of points. Two such clusters are visible and are marked by a diagonal dashed lines.
27

Extracting Energy From Strange Asteroids

28

Andreev reection and Extracting Energy from a CCO

Suppose that CCOs are indeed found in the NEO. Can energy be extracted from them? This would be most straightforward from an antimatter CCO, but suppose that all CCOs are normal matter. The answer is that material added to a CCO would release a substantial amount of its total energy as they compress to the lower energy of the CFL condensate. This depends on the axion decay constant and the mass of the CCO, but would be in the 10% to 20% range. Further, there is the possibility of Andreev reection [Sadzikowski and Tachibana, 2002] In Andreev reection, quarks impacting on the CCO surface at or above the superconducting gap energy, , can pass inside the CCO, creating a new Cooper pair inside the superconductor through the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs, yielding one or more antiparticles leaving the CCO boundary. In other words, as seen from the outside, Andreev reection consists of the reection of an incoming particle as an antiparticle. Andreev reection offers the possibility of creating antimatter by exposing a normal matter CCO to a beam of 200 MeV protons.

29

Conclusions

30

Conclusions
Thank you for your patience for a long review touching on a wide variety of subjects. There is a theoretical justication for assigning the dark matter to condensed quark matter, and observational justication to conclude that such matter is present in the Solar System. If such matter is available, it can be found and used for scientic research and resource (energy) extraction. The NASA Asteroid Rendezvous and Retrieval Mission (ARRM), and the various commercial efforts in the same direction, would thus assume even greater importance. How much energy is potentially available? A 1010 kg CCO could potentially produce 4 1025 Joules worth of high energy and antimatter. While there would certainly be capture losses, it is worth pointing out that this is 85,000 years worth of current human energy consumption, based on the 2013 Statistical Review of World Energy [BP, 2013], and this would sufce to accelerate a megaton mass spacecraft to close to the speed of light and there should be substantially more than 1 CCO available for NEO utilization.
31

Supporting Information

32

The Bullet Cluster (Chandra X-ray image with gravitational lensing mass estimates overlaid)

The Bullet Cluster is the best current test of the non-gravitational physics of dark matter. Two clusters have slammed into each other; the stars and dark matter continue on while the gas is stopped by uid drag. This sets a strong constraint on the mass-cross section ratio of dark matter 33 [Clowe et al., 2006].

References C. Alcock, R. A. Allsman, D. Alves, R. Ansari, E. Aubourg, T. S. Axelrod, P. Bareyre, J.-P. Beaulieu, A. C. Becker, D. P. Bennett, S. Brehin, F. Cavalier, S. Char, K. H. Cook, R. Ferlet, J. Fernandez, K. C. Freeman, K. Griest, P. Grison, M. Gros, C. Gry, J. Guibert, M. Lachieze-Rey, B. Laurent, M. J. Lehner, E. Lesquoy, C. Magneville, S. L. Marshall, E. Maurice, A. Milsztajn, D. Minniti, M. Moniez, O. Moreau, L. Moscoso, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, B. A. Peterson, M. R. Pratt, L. Prevot, F. Queinnec, P. J. Quinn, C. Renault, J. Rich, M. Spiro, C. W. Stubbs, W. Sutherland, A. Tomaney, T. Vandehei, A. Vidal-Madjar, L. Vigroux, and S. Zylberajch. EROS and MACHO Combined Limits on Planetary-Mass Dark Matter in the Galactic Halo. Ap. J. Lett., 499:L9, 1998. M. Alford. New possibilities for QCD at nite density. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 73:161166, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(99)85015-4. M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch afer. Color superconductivity in dense quark matter. Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:14551515, Nov 2008. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1455. Y. Aoki, G. Endr odi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szab o. The order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics. Nature, 443:675678, Oct 2006. doi: 10.1038/nature05120. W. F. Bottke, Jr., D. Vokrouhlick y, D. P. Rubincam, and D. Nesvorn y. The Yarkovsky and Yorp Effects: Implications for Asteroid Dynamics. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34:157191, May 2006. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154.

34

J. Bovy and S. Tremaine. On the Local Dark Matter Density. Ap. J., 756:89, 2012. doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637X/756/1/89. BP. Statistical Review of World Energy 2013. Technical report, BP p.l.c., London UK, 2013. URL http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/ statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf. F. Brauer, C. P. Dullemond, and T. Henning. Coagulation, fragmentation and radial motion of solid particles in protoplanetary disks. Astron. Astropys., 480:859877, 2008. D. Clowe, M. Brada c, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky. A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter. Ap. J., 648:L109L113, Sept. 2006. doi: 10.1086/508162. M. M. Forbes and A. Zhitnitsky. Primordial Galactic Magnetic Fields from Domain Walls at the QCD Phase Transition. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:52685271, Dec 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 85.5268. M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Domain walls in QCD. J. High Energy Phys., art. 013, Oct. 2001. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/10/013. M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky. WMAP haze: Directly observing dark matter? Phys. Rev. D, 78:083505, 2008a. M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Diffuse x-rays: Directly observing dark matter? J. Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, page 023, 2008b. doi: doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/01/023. E. T. Herrin, D. C. Rosenbaum, and V. L. Teplitz. Seismic search for strange quark nuggets. Phys. Rev. D, 73(4):043511, Feb. 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043511.
35

J. B. Kogut and M. A. Stephanov. The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics. Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge University Press, Mar. 2004. S. E. Kopp. The NuMI Beam at FNAL and its Use for Neutrino Cross Section Measurements. In G. P. Zeller, J. G. Morn, and F. Cavanna, editors, Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions in the FewGeV Region, volume 967 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series, pages 4952, Dec. 2007. doi: 10.1063/1.2834509. B. Laki c, M. Arik, S. Aune, K. Barth, A. Belov, S. Borghi, H. Br auninger, G. Cantatore, J. M. Carmona, S. A. Cetin, J. I. Collar, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, C. Eleftheriadis, N. Elias, C. Ezer, G. Fanourakis, E. Ferrer-Ribas, P. Friedrich, J. Gal an, J. A. Garc a, A. Gardikiotis, E. N. Gazis, T. Geralis, I. Giomataris, S. Gninenko, H. G omez, E. Gruber, T. Guth orl, R. Hartmann, F. Haug, M. D. Hasinoff, D. H. H. Hoffmann, F. J. Iguaz, I. G. Irastorza, J. Jacoby, K. Jakov ci c, M. Karuza, K. K onigsmann, R. Kotthaus, M. Kr cmar, M. Kuster, J. M. Laurent, A. Liolios, A. Ljubi ci c, V. Lozza, G. Lutz, G. Luz on, J. Morales, T. Niinikoski, A. Nordt, T. Papaevangelou, M. J. Pivovaroff, G. Raffelt, T. Rashba, H. Riege, A. Rodr guez, M. Rosu, J. Ruz, I. Savvidis, P. S. Silva, S. K. Solanki, L. Stewart, A. Tom as, M. Tsagri, K. van Bibber, T. Vafeiadis, J. Villar, J. K. Vogel, S. C. Yildiz, K. Zioutas, and Cast Collaboration. Status and perspectives of the CAST experiment. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 375(2):022001, July 2012. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/375/1/022001. K. Lawson and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Quark (Anti) Nugget Dark Matter. In Cosmic Frontier Workshop (CF3 and CF6 groups), SLAC 2013. Snowmass 2013 e-Proceedings, May 2013. MACRO Collaboration. Search for massive rare particles with MACRO. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 110:186188, 2002.
36

J. Madsen. Color-Flavor Locked Strangelets. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:172003, Oct 2001. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.87.172003. J. Madsen. Strangelets, Nuclearites, Q-ballsA Brief Overview. Invited talk at Workshop on Exotic Physics with Neutrino Telescopes, 2006. C. Mordasini, H. Klahr, Y. Alibert, W. Benz, and K.-M. Dittkrist. Theory of planet formation. Proceedings Workshop Circumstellar disks and planets: Science cases for the second generation VLTI instrumentation, to appear in Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, ed. Sebastian Wolf, 2010. D. H. Oaknin and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Baryon asymmetry, dark matter, and quantum chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D, 71(2):023519, Jan 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.023519. R. D. Peccei. The Strong CP Problem and Axions. In M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, and B. Beltr an, editors, Axions, volume 741 of Lecture Notes in Physics, pages 3540. Springer Verlag, 2008. C. W. Purcell, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat. The Dark Disk of the Milky Way. Ap. J., 703: 22752284, 2009. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2275. M. Sadzikowski and M. Tachibana. Andreev Reection in Superconducting QCD. Acta Physica Polonica B, 33:41414164, 2002. D. T. Son, M. A. Stephanov, and A. R. Zhitnitsky. Domain Walls of High-Density QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:39553958, Apr. 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3955. M. Srednicki. Axions:. Past, Present, and Future. In K. A. Olive, M. A. Shifman, and M. B. Voloshin, editors, Continuous Advances in QCD 2002, pages 509520, Dec. 2002. doi: 10. 1142/9789812776310 0032.
37

D. Vokrouhlick y, A. Milani, and S. R. Chesley. Yarkovsky Effect on Small Near-Earth Asteroids: Mathematical Formulation and Examples. Icarus, 148:118138, Nov. 2000. doi: 10.1006/icar. 2000.6469. E. Witten. Cosmic separation of phases. Phys. Rev. D, 30:272285, Jul 1984. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.30.272. A. Zhitnitsky. Dark matter as dense color superconductor. In Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, volume 124, pages 99102, July 2003a. doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(03)02087-5. A. Zhitnitsky. Nonbaryonic dark matter as baryonic colour superconductor. J. Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 10:010, Oct. 2003b. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2003/10/010. A. Zhitnitsky. Cold dark matter as compact composite objects. Phys. Rev. D, 74:043515, Aug 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043515.

38