Yo dawg, I heard you like big bangs...
Science
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
Sadly archive.li seems to be in a broken CAPTCHA loop, so I can't see the full article. However, I'm struggling to imagine a fundamental universe-spanning interaction that triggers weeks after the big bang, given that the universe has already expanded/cooled enough by 20 minutes to stop fusing nuclei. If there is evidence for a Dark Matter big bang for weeks after the Matter big bang, surely this must have some extreme implications about the possible mass range of DM particles?
One thing nobody seems to be talking about: Just like String Theory, the more new phenomena are needed to make the Dark Matter model work, the further we stray from the edge of Occam's Razor. While all the research into detecting hypothetical particles has been fun to follow, I can't help but feel we're just a few equations away from discovering that the universe is actually pretty MONDane.
Check out this link. It is a link to the study referenced in the article. It talks about this dark big bang concept and the range of hypothesised particles https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11579
Thanks! That's a well-written paper. I don't know why I keep falling for science journalism's simplified explanations.
I've so-far only skimmed it, but to answer my question they find light dark matter to be the simplest case (I didn't see a specific range, but they used 250keV as an example), but they also considered a scenario where "dark-zillas" (mass >> 10^10 GeV) are plausible. At least that still narrows the search space a bit 😅
And speaking of crappy science journalism, this paper was not linked or referenced properly in the article. I did a search on dark big bang and this was the 2nd or 3rd result.