Low-scale Mirror Standard Model Dark Matter and its Detection via Gravitational

Waves and the Guitar Nebula

V.K. Oikonomou1,2
1)
Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece and
2)
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University - Astana, 010008, Kazakhstan

What if the dark matter Sector is truly dark, self-interacting and unreachable by terrestrial
experiments? How could we find hints of such dark sector if it is experimentally unreachable by any
terrestrial experiment? In this work we study a low-mass-scale mirror Standard Model which can act
as a model for dark matter, which interacts only gravitationally with the Standard Model particles.
The mirror Standard Model sector particles can form mirror atoms and hadrons and all these stable
particles can comprise a large part of the dark matter of the Universe. These mirror Standard Model
particles acquire mass through a low-temperature dark first order phase transition. We examine in
detail this dark phase transition and we indicate how stochastic gravitational waves can be generated
through this transition. Such a phase transition can generate stochastic gravitational waves that
arXiv:2409.16095v1 [gr-qc] 24 Sep 2024

can be detected by the future gravitational wave experiments. For the model we use, the produced
energy spectrum of the gravitational waves can be detected by the SKA. Moreover, we propose a
possible way to detect effects of the particle nature of dark matter, using observational data coming
from the guitar nebula. We assume that the guitar nebula bow shock is generated by the interaction
of the high speed neutron star that passes through the interstellar medium, which is assumed to be
comprised by collisional dark matter and hydrogen. Our main proposal is that the opening angle
of the bow shock can be directly related to the speed of sound of the dark matter particles, and a
large angle of the bow shock could be a strong indicator that the interstellar medium is comprised
by collisional dark matter and hydrogen gas. This is motivated by the Bosma effect which indicates
that hydrogen is always in correlation with dark matter, and hydrogen gas is strongly present in the
guitar nebula.

PACS numbers: 04.50.Kd, 95.36.+x, 98.80.-k, 98.80.Cq,11.25.-w

I. INTRODUCTION

The mysteries of the early Universe are difficult to be revealed by terrestrial particle accelerations currently, so the
focus of the scientific community is nowadays turned to the sky. Specifically, the near future stage-4 Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB) experiments [1, 2] and also the current and future gravitational wave (GW) experiments like the
LISA, SKA, BBO, DECIGO, and the Einstein telescope [3–11], are highly anticipated to provide information regarding
the early Universe. Already in 2023 a major observational breakthrough was achieved, since the NANOGrav and other
PTA collaborations [12–15] verified the existence of a stochastic GW background. This can be due to astrophysical
sources, like supermassive black hole mergers, or due to cosmological reasons.
However, a long standing problem in modern theoretical physics, is the dark matter (DM) problem. To date, this
elusive major component of the Universe remains undetected, and its particle nature is questioned. Alternatives to DM
exist, like Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theories, but there are many conceptual problems in these theories,
like for example the lack of a consistent relativistic framework compatible with the GW170817, or the inability to
explain the CMB and large scale structure formation. However, there exist in the literature several recent interesting
relativistic frameworks that may mimic the MOND effects [16–19], however these theories must also explain several
gaps that DM fills very well, like the matter perturbation issues, baryon acoustic oscillations and other minor or major
issues related with the CMB.
Regarding DM, there is a not so well popular class of DM theories, which have incredibly interesting phenomeno-
logical features, the mirror DM theories firstly introduced in [20] and further developed in Refs. [21–23] see also
Refs. [24–61] for further applications. In this article we shall assume that a large part of the DM of the Universe is
comprised by low-mass-scale of mirror DM. In our model, the DM particles can actually be low-mass stable mirror
SM particles or even atoms and hadrons formed by the stable mirror SM particles. This type of theories basically
are self-interacting DM theories, but with very interesting phenomenological features, since mirror DM theories can
behave as collisionless DM at very large scales (like galactic superclusters) and also like collisional at galactic scales, so
problems like the cusp-core problem, the diversity problem of rotation curves for spiral galaxies, the missing satellites
problem and the too-big-to-fail problems, are nicely explained. The mirror SM particles are in thermal equilibrium
but do not interact with the SM particles, an also their equilibrium temperature is lower than that of the SM particles,
for phenomenological reasons related with the nucleosynthesis. One of the assumptions we made is that the low-mass-
scale mirror DM sector has a distinct vacuum compared to the ordinary Higgs vacuum, and the mirror SM sector
 2

acquires mass once the mirror SM symmetry breaks, at a low temperature, at which a first order phase transition
occurs. We calculate in detail the thermal effective potential of our mirror SM and we prove that the energy density
contribution of the mirror SM world is ΩM = 0.11, hence a large part of the total DM energy density is described by
mirror DM particles. We also calculate the implications of this dark phase transition on the energy spectrum of GWs
and we proved that such a transition may be detected by future GW experiments. Overall, this detection depends
on the specific masses and couplings of the model, and in our case the model can produce a stochastic GW signal
which can be detected by the SKA. Furthermore, we provide a possible way to detected the particle nature of DM,
using observations coming from the guitar nebula. Specifically, we assumed that the guitar nebula is generated by
the interaction of the high speed neutron star passing through the interstellar medium which is mainly comprised
by collisional DM and hydrogen. We show that the opening angle of the bow shock can be related to the speed of
sound of the DM particles, and a large angle may indicate that the interstellar medium is comprised by collisional
DM and hydrogen. Several phenomenological aspects of mirror DM theories and future perspectives of this work are
also discussed.

II. OVERVIEW OF SMALL MASS SCALE MIRROR SM AS DM AND ITS IMPLIED COSMOLOGY

Mirror DM theory is a well known candidate for DM, although not so popular for quite some time, due to the fact
that DM candidates from supersymmetric SM extensions overwhelmed the literature for quite some time. However,
since supersymmetry is not observed by the LHC, at least to date, mirror DM serves as a viable DM candidate. Mirror
DM was firstly introduced in [20] and further developed and brought to the mainstream in Refs. [21–23]. Since then,
a considerable amount of literature developed the cosmological and astrophysical phenomenological implications of
mirror DM, for a stream of articles and reviews on this subject see for example [24–61] and references therein. Mirror
DM satisfies all the necessary requirements that a viable DM candidate should satisfy, that is stability of the DM
particles, darkness-non interaction with SM particles and baryons, the similarity of the ordinary baryon and DM
cosmic abundances, large scale structure formation and asymptotically flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies. Mirror
DM can have a mild interaction with SM particles, but in this work we confine ourselves to the case that mirror DM
cannot interact at all with the SM particles and ordinary baryons, only the gravitational interaction between the two
sectors is allowed.
Mirror DM in its original form, was motivated by requiring that the symmetry x → −x is an exact symmetry
in nature. Weak interactions violate parity, so if a mirror SM existed the parity would be an unbroken symmetry
in nature. This parity would indeed be an exact symmetry of nature if the mirror SM had the same electroweak
vacuum as the SM, however we will assume that the mirror SM sector has a distinct vacuum from that of the SM.
Thus the parity in our combined SM and mirror SM theory is spontaneously broken, see for example [25]. Thus
the theoretical framework of our model has two copies of the SM, one being the ordinary SM with gauge group
G = SU (3) × SU (2) × U (1) and a mirror low scale SM with gauge group GM = SUM (3) × SUM (2) × UM (1), hence the
total gauge group of the theory is G ⊗ GM . There can be a common grand unified theory (GUT) origin of the above
group, for example by thinking the fact that SU (4) can be broken in SU (4) → SU (2) × SU (2), the common origin of
the theory G × GM could be a grand unified theory of the form SU (3) × SUM (3) × SU (4) × U (1) × UM (1), but we
shall not analyze the possible GUT origin of the particle content of our model. Some similar line of reasoning but for
an entirely different theoretical context, was given in [62]. In our context, mirror DM is a low-scale copy of our world,
so cosmologically the mirror world can evolve in the same way as ordinary SM particles, thus they can participate
to the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), form atoms and so on. Thus, the mirror DM model we shall consider, is
a self-interacting DM model, and stable dark particles and even dark atoms comprise the DM. Of course it is not
necessary for the total DM to be comprised by mirror DM, in fact we will prove that the Universe is comprised by the
mirror DM at an extent of ΩM = 0.11, thus the rest of DM can be of other types of DM, like axions or other viable
candidates. Now coming to the mirror DM we propose, the evolution of mirror DM is similar to the SM particles, but
not identical. The major difference is in the temperature of mirror DM particles. These are reheated by the inflaton,
and self interactions among the mirror DM particles keep the mirror SM particles in thermal equilibrium, but their
temperature must be smaller that the temperature of the ordinary SM particles [22, 26]. Indeed due to the fact that
the mirror SM particle would contribute the BBN epoch, thus we would have a double of the standard value for the
energy density. Also the contribution of mirror neutrinos and mirror photons would lead to an extra neutrino species
 ′ 4
δNν = 6.14. Taking into account the fact that δNν = 6.14 TT , where T ′ and T stand for the mirror and ordinary
SM particles equilibrium temperature, then by demanding that δNν < 1 yields T ′ < 0.64T . We shall assume that
T ′ = 0.64T so let us calculate the energy density of the mirror SM particles in our Universe. The exact relation
 3

between the energy density of the mirror SM energy density ΩM SM and the ordinary SM energy density ΩSM is [26],
ΩM SM
= x3 D−K(x) , (1)
ΩSM
2
where K(x) is K(x) = √1−x 1+x4
, and D is the coefficient ∼ T 2 of the finite temperature effective potential for the mirror
SM particles. As we show later, an exact calculation for our model will yield approximately ΩM SM ∼ 0.11, thus a
large part of the present day DM is comprised by mirror DM, recall that ΩDM ∼ 0.23, so almost half of the DM can
be mirror DM. The important feature is that the equilibrium temperature of mirror DM is actually smaller than the
SM temperature. Thus, the mirror photon decoupling occurs before the ordinary photon decoupling in the visible
SM world, and therefore, mirror structure formation begins earlier than ordinary baryon structure creation. In some
sense the mirror world is being build earlier than the baryonic world. If an analogy is used, the cup of coffee is our
world, the water mimics the mirror DM and other DM particles, and sugar and coffee can be the baryonic world.
Thus coffee and sugar are built into the matter structure offered by water, already existing before sugar and coffee
were created in the world. Due to the fact that mirror BBN occurs earlier than the ordinary matter BBN, this means
that the abundances of mirror helium and hydrogen will be different compared to the ordinary matter ones, and in
fact the ratio of mirror helium to mirror hydrogen will be greater that the ordinary matter one. Also, the baryon
asymmetry in mirror DM theories is proven to be larger [26] and as we already mentioned, the mirror world has a
larger helium abundance, compared to the ordinary SM world. The important feature of mirror DM is that it is
self-interacting, which can significantly affect the small galactic scales behavior of DM, but would unaffect the cluster
galactic dynamics. We shall discuss this issue later on in this section, but also in the section discussing the guitar
nebula phenomenology, the interacting DM will play a crucial role in the analysis. For a thorough analysis of the
cosmological consequences of mirror DM, see for example [26].
Now let us discuss our motivation for using low-scale mirror SM as DM, which is a form of collisional DM. Collisional,
or self-interacting DM is motivated by the fact that it may explain some old and new problems of small scale structure
observations (galactic scales) which are in tension with standard collisionless cold DM predictions, while at the same
time leaving intact the successes of the ΛCDM model on large (cluster and supercluster galactic scales). For a recent
review on this see [28]. Self-interacting DM offers a successful explanation for the cusp-core problem (applied for dwarf
and low surface brightness galaxies), the diversity problem of rotation curves for spiral galaxies, the missing satellites
problem and the too-big-to-fail problem. We need to comment that on galactic cluster scales and beyond, collisionless
DM offers a nice description of nature, while it fails to provide a solid explanation for the small galactic scale problems
we just mentioned. Also dark/mirror atoms can in principle produce velocity dependent scattering cross sections,
mostly preferred for viable self-interacting DM models [28]. The reason is that DM particles in larger mass halos have
much larger velocities compared to the small halos, thus the behavior of DM in small galactic structures, like dwarf
galaxies, can significantly differ from larger galactic structures. Finally, let us comment on the ability of mirror DM
to explain somewhat successfully the diverse galactic mergers like the Bullet cluster and Abell 520. The Bullet cluster
indicates that DM behaves as collisionless DM, while on the contrary the Abell 520 prefers self-interacting DM. It is
remarkable that mirror DM can reconcile both these galactic mergers, since in the case of Abell 520, a large portion
of mirror DM can be in the form of gas, which is impossible for WIMPs or other collisionless DM candidates, while
in the case of the Bullet cluster, DM behaves as ordinary stars [27]. For a detailed discussion on the diverse ability of
mirror DM to explain galactic scale mergers and structures, see for example [24], where the Bullet cluster, the Abell
520, Hoag’s object and other exotic galactic structures are viewed through the prism of mirror DM.
Low scale collisional DM however does not suppress dissipation effects for the mirror atoms, thus this would not
prevent the mirror halo DM to collapse to a disk. This feature however is not necessarily a disadvantage of the theory.
In fact if viewed in conjunction with the Bosma effect [63], it can lead to some interesting physics which we now briefly
discuss. As it was shown recently in Ref. [63], DM and HI distributions at large radii in a spiral galaxy are strongly
correlated. Thus there are strong hints that DM is found in the disk of spiral galaxy, the roots of this suggestion was
the Bosma effect [64]. In effect, the distribution of DM follows that of HI and it is confined in the disk. This kind of
modelling, can provide a nice fit in several spiral galaxies [63] and thus imposes the question whether DM is actually
found in a disk in spiral galaxies and not in halos. This is quite compatible with the mirror DM paradigm, especially
for the case that the mass scale of the mirror DM theory is a low mass scale, which is the case we shall consider in
this work.

III. SMALL MASS SCALE MIRROR SM AND THE CORRESPONDING LOW TEMPERATURE
MIRROR ELECTROWEAK PHASE TRANSITION

We consider a mirror SM, which contains all the particles of the SM with a mirror Higgs particle, however with a
much smaller scale of the order v = 0.778 GeV. Note that the scale is free to model, and the value v = 0.778 GeV is
 4

not of particular importance, it is just a toy model choice. Initially, the mirror SM is massless because the SUM (2)
symmetry is unbroken. This symmetry is unbroken until the temperature T in the mirror SM sector drops below a
specific value, at which point a first order phase transition occurs, and then the particles of the mirror SM sector
acquire masses. We need to stress that the mirror SM is not in thermal equilibrium with the SM and recall that its
temperature is actually 0.64 times smaller than the SM temperature. The electroweak phase transition is expected
to occur at 100 GeV, but the mirror SM symmetry breaking is expected to occur at a much smaller temperature, and
for the mirror SM energy scale chosen as v = 0.778 GeV, the temperature for which the transition in the mirror SM
sector occurs is of the order ∼ O(1) GeV. Now, let us consider the 1-loop effective potential of the mirror SM, taking
into account the mirror Higgs, mirror gauge bosons, mirror goldstone bosons and the mirror top quark, and it has
the following form [65–72],

m4i (h′ )
  2 ′ 
nt m4t (h′ )
  2 ′ 
µ2H ′ ′ 2 λH ′ ′ 4 X
 
M SM ′ ′ Fi mi (h ) mt (h )
Vef f (h , T ) = − h + h + (−1) ni ln − Ci − ln − Ct
2 4 i
64π 2 µ2R 64π 2 µ2R
X ni T ′4  2 ′ 
mi (h ) nt T ′4
 2 ′ 
mt (h )
+ J B ′2
− J F
i
2π 2 T 2π 2 T ′2
X ni T ′ h
3/2 i
+ m3i (h′ ) − Mi2 (h′ , T ′ ) ,
i
12π
(2)

where i = {h′ , χ′ , W ′ , Z ′ , γ ′ } corresponds to the bosons in the mirror SM, and the primes denote that the particles
correspond to the mirror SM sector. Making a high-temperature expansion of the above effective potential, and also
by including all the daisy graphs, we obtain the following expression for the 1-loop effective potential of the mirror
SM,
" ! #
2 2 ′ ′  4 ′ ′2
µ ′ 2 λ H ′ 4 m ′ (h ) 2 T 3/2 m ′ (h ) ab T 3
M SM
(h′ , T ′ ) = − H h′ + h′ + h T′ − m2h′ (h′ ) + Πh′ (T ′ ) + h 2

Vef f ln −
2 4 24 12π 64π µ2R 2
" ! #
3m2χ′ (h′ ) ′ 2 3T ′  2 ′ 3/2 3m4χ′ (h′ ) ab T ′
2
3
+ T − mχ′ (h ) + Πχ′ (T ′ ) + 2
ln 2 −
24 12π 64π µR 2
" ! #
′2
6m2W ′ (h′ ) ′ 2 4T ′ 3 2T ′ 
3/2 6m 4
′ (h ′
) a b T 5
m ′ (h′ ) − m2W ′ (h′ ) + ΠWL′ (T ′ ) W

+ T − + ln −
24 12π W 12π 64π 2 µ2R 6
" ! #
2
3m2Z ′ (h′ ) ′ 2 2T ′ 3 ′ T′ h 2 i3/2 3m4 (h′ )
Z′ ab T ′ 5
+ T − mZ ′ (h ) − MZ ′ (h′ , T ′ ) + 2
ln 2 −
24 12π 12π L 64π µR 6
" ! #
2
12m2t′ (h′ ) ′ 2 12m4t′ (h′ ) af T ′ 3 T ′ h 2 ′ ′ i3/2
+ T − ln 2 − − Mγ ′ (h , T ) ,
48 64π 2 µR 2 12π L

(3)

where ab = 223.0993 and af = 13.943 and with the field-dependent effective masses being equal to,
2
m2h′ (h′ ) = −µ2H ′ + 3λH ′ h′ , (4)

2
m2χ′ (h′ ) = −µ2H ′ + λH ′ h′ , (5)

and also
2
g′ ′ 2
m2W ′ (h) = h , (6)
4

2 ′
g ′ + g̃ 2 ′ 2
m2Z ′ (h) = h , (7)
4

yt2′ ′ 2
m2t′ (h) = h , (8)
2
 5
′
where g ′ ,g̃ and yt′ are the SU ′ (2)L , U ′ (1)Y and top quark Yukawa couplings, respectively and µ2H ′ = 0.088. Further-
more, the temperature-dependent self-energy corrections for the mirror Higgs and the mirror Goldstone bosons are
equal to,
2
!
2
′ ′ 3g ′ g˜′ yt2′ λH ′ 2
Πh′ (T ) = Πχ′ (T ) = + + + T′ (9)
16 16 4 2

and in addition, the thermal masses of the mirror gauge bosons are equal to
11 ′ 2 ′ 2
ΠWL (T ) = g T , (10)
6

 s 
2 2
1  1  ′ 2 ˜′ 2  ′ 2 11  ′ 2 ˜′ 2  ′ 2  2
2  1 11 g ′ 2 g˜′
MZ2 L = g +g h + g +g T + g ′ 2 − g˜′ h′ 2 + T ′ 2 + h′ 4  , (11)
2 4 6 4 6 4

 s 
2 2
1  1  ′ 2 ˜′ 2  ′ 2 11  ′ 2 ˜′ 2  ′ 2  2
2  1 11 g ′ 2 g˜′
Mγ2L = g +g h + g +g T − g ′ 2 − g˜′ h′ 2 + T ′ 2 + h′ 4  . (12)
2 4 6 4 6 4

We shall assume that the mirror Higgs self coupling and the mirror top quark Yukawa coupling and also the mirror
gauge boson couplings are the following, λH ′ = 0.012, yt = 0.314 g ′ = 0.2, and g˜′ = 0.11 respectively. Also, with the
mirror energy scale being v = 0.778 GeV, the masses of the mirror SM particles after the mirror SM phase transition
occurs, are given in Table I. For the phase transition study that follows, we assume that µR = 2 mt′ . Now let us

Particle Mass (GeV)

h′ mh′ = 0.125 GeV
W′ mW ′ = 0.08 GeV
Z′ mZ ′ = 0.091 GeV
t′ mt′ = 0.173 GeV

TABLE I. Masses of the mirror SM particles, considering only the mirror top-quark from the fermions.

proceed to the study of the phase transition for the low-scale mirror SM effective potential, and we shall also investigate
whether it is a strong phase transition or not. In Fig. 1 we plot the finite temperature effective potential of the mirror
SM for various temperatures. It ′is apparent that the phase transition is first order and the critical temperature where
the two vacua are equivalent is Tc ∼ 0.4484352 GeV. Thus the phase transition is a supercooled phase transition, which
′
occurs well after the two inequivalent vacua are formed, at an approximate percolation temperature T∗ ∼ 0.35 GeV,
and proceeds by vacuum penetration between the two vacua. The procedure is standard in the literature and we shall
consider only bubble nucleation effects. In the supercooled phase, the bubbles of the new phase expand and collide,
converting the old phase to the new phase. Thus the previously massless mirror SM particles, acquire a non-zero
mass after the phase transition. The collisions of the expanding bubbles of the new phase are a source of primordial
gravitational waves, and the complete prediction of the theory at hand for the amount of primordial gravitational
waves produced will be given later on in this section. In some sense, this first order phase transition we describe
is a dark phase transition, and in the literature such phase transitions have also been studied, in different contexts
though, see for example Refs. [73–76]. Let us see whether the above phase transition described by Fig. 1 is a strong
phase transition or not. Let us recall the sphaleron rate criterion,
υc
> 0.6 − 1.4. (13)
Tc
In our case, the fraction Tυc′ is of the order Tυc′ ∼ O(1.73629). Thus the phase transition is a strong phase transition.
c c
However, the sphaleron criterion is the first step toward characterizing the transition strong, and thus further analysis,
perhaps numerical too is needed. We perform an analytical approach on this issue in the next section. We also need
to note, that the mirror SM we presented can be implemented easily with additional scalars which can make the
phase transition even stronger. Note that the scalars are allowed to have any mass or couplings to the mirror Higgs
(customary approach) or any other particle, thus the phenomenological model building is quite rich. Now, regarding
this mirror SM sector dark first order phase transition, it definitely satisfies the Sakharov criteria [77] which recall
 6

FIG. 1. The high temperature effective potential of the mirror SM for various temperatures. The phase transition is a
′
supercooled phase transition starting at a critical temperature Tc ∼ 0.4484352 GeV and being concluded at an approximate
′
percolation temperature T∗ ∼ 0.35 GeV.

are (i) baryon number violation, (ii) C-CP violation, and (iii) departure from thermal equilibrium. The above dark
phase transition satisfies these criteria since the phase transition is of first order [66, 78–80]. Thus we have baryon
creation ahead of the expanding bubble walls where the mirror CP and C asymmetries in the mirror baryonic particle
number densities can be generated by CP -violating interactions of the mirror plasma with the expanding bubble wall
of the true mirror vacuum [69]. Accordingly, these asymmetries are diffused into the symmetric phase in the front of
the bubble wall, at which point they are converted to mirror baryons by mirror sector sphalerons, in a similar way
as in the ordinary SM [81]. In the broken mirror phase, the rate of sphaleron transitions can in principle be strongly
suppressed in order to avoid the washing out the generated baryons. Hence, in our low-scale mirror SM, the DM
particles which are basically the mirror SM particles, acquire masses at a mirror temperature T ′ ∼ 0.35 GeV and since
the mirror SM temperature and the SM temperatures are related as T ′ = 0.64T , it seems that the mirror particles
acquire a mass when T ∼ 0.54 GeV. Also the mirror baryon asymmetry occurs exactly at T . Note that both of these
eras are deeply in the radiation domination era at a high redshift z ∼ 3 × 1012 regarding the ordinary SM world.
At this point let us also consider two important issues, related with the phase transition in the mirror SM sector.
Firstly, let us consider the question why does not the mirror SM vacuum decay to the Higgs vacuum. This is easy
to answer, since the physics is similar to the case of the QCD vacuum and why it does not decay to the Higgs
vacuum. The answer is basically because the energy scale that separates the two transitions is enormous, the mirror
SM corresponds to an energy scale v = 0.778 GeV, while the Higgs vacuum vH = 246 GeV, so the barrier separating
the two transitions is huge. Now the second issue we need to discuss is the prediction of the mirror DM abundance,
compared to ordinary baryons. Having the effective potential available in Eq. (3), it is easy to write it in the form,
2 ′ 2
V (h′ , T ′ ) ∼ D(T ′ − T02 )h′ , (14)

at leading order to the temperature expansion. The parameter D in our case is equal to,

3 ′2 1 2 1 λH ′ µ2 ′
D= g + g˜′ + yt2′ + + H2 , (15)
32 32 8 8 v
so using the numerical values for the mirror SM particle masses we have that D ∼ 0.01994. The fraction of the energy
densities of the mirror baryons ΩB ′ over the ordinary baryons ΩB is equal to,
ΩB ′
= x3 DK(x) , (16)
ΩB
 7

2
FIG. 2. The high temperature expansion validation m2i h′ , T ′ /T ′ ≪ 1 for the effective masses of the mirror W’, Z’ bosons,
the mirror top quark and the mirror Higgs particle, for T ′ = 0.4487 GeV (upper left) T ′ = 0.4487 GeV (upper right) and for
T ′ = 0.35 GeV (bottom).

′
where x = TT = 0.64, so with D = 0.01994, we obtain ΩB ′ = 2.22 ΩB and with ΩB ∼ 0.05 in the present Universe,
we have ΩB ′ ∼ 0.11. Thus a large part of the DM of the Universe can be mirror DM, and recall that ΩDM ∼ 0.23 at
present day.
Before closing, let us demonstrate that the high temperature expansion remains valid for the model we used in this
section. In order for the high temperature expansion to be valid, one must ensure that the field and temperature
2
dependent masses over the temperature satisfy m2i (h′ )/T ′ ≪ 1. In Fig. 2 we present the fractions of all the field and
temperature masses over the temperature, and as we can see, the high temperature expansion approximation remains
valid for all the involved temperatures.

IV. STOCHASTIC GW SIGNALS WITH THE MIRROR SM FIRST ORDER PHASE TRANSITION: A
DETAILED ANALYSIS

In the previous section we considered the low-scale mirror SM phase transition and we found that it starts to
occur at a critical temperature Tc′ ∼ 0.4484352 GeV so when the ordinary (baryonic) Universe’s temperature is
T ∼ 0.70068 GeV. Now we shall consider the observational effects of such a phase transition in terms of stochastic
gravitational waves. In the literature, there exists a vast literature on how stochastic gravitational waves can be
produced in the early Universe [82–125] including cosmological phase transitions [11, 72, 126–148]. Let us briefly
recall how a first order phase transition can lead to gravitational wave production and also we shall quote the energy
spectrum of primordial gravitational waves produced by bubble collisions solely. We are considering a supercooled
phase transition in the thin wall approximation. For the whole phase transition, there exist bubbles of the old and
the new vacuum state of the Universe. The bubbles of the new vacuum grow with a bubble wall velocity vw and we
assume that the bubbles of the new vacuum have a thin wall. These nucleate and grow and thus collisions between
the bubbles of the new vacuum are inevitable. When the bubbles of the new vacuum grow significantly enough,
these start to collide and coalesce, and the old vacuum is transformed through this process to the new vacuum. At
exactly this point of bubble collision and coalescence, gravitational waves are produced. We shall compute the energy
spectrum of the primordial gravitational waves from bubble collisions using the envelope approximation [99] and in
 8

the thin bubble wall limit [149]. There are other sources of stochastic gravitational waves during a first order phase
transition, like sound waves and turbulence, which however we will not consider in this work. For the energy spectrum
of the primordial gravitational waves during a first order phase transition we shall use the expression and conventions
used by the NANOGrav collaboration in [150], see also [99, 149, 151–153]. Specifically, the energy spectrum of the
primordial gravitational waves caused by the collision of bubbles as a function of the frequency is,
eq 4/3 2
π 2 T04
 
g∗,s α∗ 2
Ωb = g∗ Ω̃b (H∗ R∗ ) S(f /fb ) , (17)
90 Mp2 H02 g∗,s 1 + α∗

with Ω̃b = 0.0049, and the spectral function S(f /fb ) is equal to,

1 (a + b)c
S(x) = , (18)
N (b x−a/c + a xb/c )c
where the positive numbers a and b characterize the slope of the spectrum at the limits of low and high frequencies,
and c indicates the width of the peak, while N is a normalization constant,
 a/n  
b n c c Γ(a/n)Γ(b/n)
N = , (19)
a b nΓ(c)

with n = a+b c and Γ(z) is the gamma function. The values of the slope parameters a, b and of the width parameter c
are estimated by numerical calculations, but we will use the priors used in NANOGrav [150] for bubble wall collisions,
so all these parameters take values in the range [1, 3] and specifically a = 1, b = 1, c = 3. Now regarding the rest
of the parameters appearing in the energy spectrum (17), the parameter α∗ characterizes the strength of the phase
transition, and values of the order α∗ ∼ O(0.01) indicate a weak transition, values of the order α∗ ∼ O(0.1) indicate
an intermediate phase transition, while values of the order α∗ ∼ O(1) or larger, indicate a strong phase transition
[148]. The parameters H∗ R∗ are also important since these are related to the bubble wall velocity and the duration
of the phase transition, since H∗ R∗ = (8π)1/3 vw H∗ /β, where β is a parameter that characterizes the duration of the
phase transition and we shall calculate this soon, since it is related to the effective potential, vw is the velocity of
the bubble walls, which we shall take it equal to unity, following NANOGrav’s approach [150], and H∗ is the Hubble
radius at the percolation temperature. Regarding the bubble wall velocity, it is an open problem to determine this
concretely, so we follow the modest path and we adopt the value used by the NANOGrav collaboration corresponding
to bubble collisions, as we already mentioned. Also, for bubble wall collisions, the frequency fb appearing in Eq. (17)
is equal to,
!1/3 
e1q
fb∗ R∗

1/2 g∗,s T∗
fb ≃ 48.5 nHz g∗ , (20)
g∗,s GeV H∗ R∗

where fb∗ = 0.58/R∗ , where R∗ the radius of the wall at the percolation temperature T∗ , g∗ is the number of relativistic
eq
degrees of freedom, g∗,s , and g∗,s the number of relativistic degrees of freedom contributing to the entropy at the
matter-radiation equality. Now the most important parameters to be evaluated for the effective potential (3) are α∗
and β, which recall that characterize the strength and the duration of the phase transition. We shall evaluate these
in the thin-wall approximation, using the approach of Ref. [149]. For the calculation of these we need to calculate
numerically the parameter σ defined as,
Z h′true q
σ= dh′ SM (h′ , 0) − V
2Vef f true , (21)
h′ f alse

where h′ true and h′ f alse are the values of the mirror Higgs particle at the false and true vacua respectively. From this,
the Euclidean action S3 reads,
′
72σ 3 T 8
S3 = , (22)
α∗2 ξg4
q
30
where ξg = π 2 g∗ and the strength of the phase transition α∗ is evaluated as follows,

∆V
α∗ = (23)
ρr T =T∗
 9

where ∆V the difference of the true and false vacua in the effective potential at finite temperature. Now, the duration
of the phase transition is measured by,
8
576 σ 3 T ′
 
β d S3
= T′ ′ = . (24)
H dT T′ α∗2 ξg4
For the case of the effective potential (3), and by assuming that probably the percolation temperature is of the
order T∗′ ∼ O(0.35) GeV, which in the real baryonic world corresponds to the temperature T∗ ∼ 0.54 GeV we get
approximately α∗ = 0.0019 and H∗ R∗ = 0.0111423 so apparently in the thin wall approximation the transition is
relatively weak and fast. In Fig. 3 we plot the energy spectrum of the primordial gravitational waves (17) as a
function of the frequency. As it can be seen, the predicted signal can be detected by the Square Kilometer Array. We
have to note though that a detailed numerical evaluation is needed for the model we used, and also in principle the
conventions we used for the masses and the couplings in the mirror SM sector can be appropriately chosen so that
the gravitational wave signal is detected by other future experiments, or even the NANOGrav 2023 signal may be
explained in this way. We do not pursue this analysis further though in this introductory article and this issue will be
addressed in a future work. Let us note that low-temperature phase transitions were also studied in Ref. [151], but in

FIG. 3. The h2 -scaled gravitational wave energy spectrum for the first order phase transition occurring in the low-scale mirror
SM model with effective potential appearing in Eq. (3).

a different context and in relation to the NANOGrav 2023 signal. As a final comment, let us note that in general, in
such complicated models, a detailed numerical analysis is needed and this analysis will heavily depend on the choices
of the couplings and masses of the mirror SM sector, so we postpone this for a future work, since our aim in this
work was simply to demonstrate the gravitational wave phenomenology of such low-temperature phase transitions
in a simple and straightforward way. Also it is possible to include a mirror SU ′ (2)-singlet mirror scalar field with
variable mass, in order to make the phase transition stronger. In these mirror SM models, there is no restriction on
the extra scalar field mass and couplings to the mirror Higgs particle, thus rich phenomenology can be obtained. Such
an analysis will be performed in a future work, since this was an introductory work in this kind of phenomenology.

V. FINDING DIRECT IMPRINTS OF COLLISIONAL DM IN THE GUITAR NEBULA: AN

AGNOSTIC AND MODEL INDEPENDENT APPROACH

Now let us proceed to something different in spirit, regarding the scientific approach. We shall introduce a way
which we believe can provide solid information regarding the particle nature of DM. We shall consider the possible
observational effects that particle DM can generate to a well-known nebula, the guitar nebula. We shall not consider
a specific model of DM, our main assumption is that DM is self-interacting, so it can be mirror SM like in the previous
section, or some other model. We shall compare the effects of non-collisional and collisional DM on the guitar nebula
and by this we shall propose a method of identifying indirectly the presence and effects of DM on the guitar nebula.
 10

The guitar nebula [154–158] is a spectacular bow-shock in our galaxy, around 1.9Kpc from the Sun, created by a
rapidly moving neutron star (NS) known as PSR B2225+65 in the interstellar medium. The speed of the neutron
star is incredible, v ∼ 1600 Km/sec, thus this supersonic motion generates the bow shock, which is attributed to the
pulsar wind. In this article we shall make the crucial assumption that the interstellar medium is a combination of
collisional DM and neutral hydrogen HI. The supersonic motion of the NS creates an accretion of DM and other
interstellar gas components, so we will study the behavior of the bow shock created by the supersonic motion of the
NS through the DM and hydrogen interstellar medium. As we will show, the shape of the nebula depends crucially
on the average speed of sound of the interstellar medium, and this can give us hints on whether one component of
the interstellar medium is actually collisional DM. To start with, in Fig 4 we present schematically the changes in the

FIG. 4. Approximate schematic differences of the guitar nebula from the 1994 and 2001 observations. This is not an actual
astronomic figure, but some graphic representation of the guitar bow shock.

guitar nebula from its 1994 observation to 2001 and 2006 observations. Fig. 4 is not an astronomic figure, but some
graphic representation of the guitar bow shock. In the following sections we shall try to explain these changes by
using DM accretion on the NS. The idea is simple, DM and other interstellar medium gases are accreted on the NS,
thus the star feels a dynamical friction and the matter density of the interstellar medium around the NS is perturbed
and changes with a bow shock being created. The density behind the NS is maximum, so basically due to the motion
of the rapidly moving neutron star, the bow shock is filled with DM clumps and hydrogen, which in turn over the
years attract interstellar matter and DM in the bow shock area. The bow shock looks like an ice cream cone, with
the NS being in its peak, and the density on the sides of the cone and behind the NS is maximized, so interstellar
matter is attracted to these areas. This way of thinking is motivated by the fact that HI is a good DM tracker, and
since the guitar nebula is observed via HI, it is tempting to think that DM is actually in the guitar nebula and plays
some important role.
Let us discuss how such a scenario can be realized in reality. Let us consider the linearized equations of motion
of a perturbed density ρ(x, t) of an adiabatic interstellar medium, which in our case is DM and HI, with average
sound speed cs , which is externally perturbed by the gravitational potential Φ(x, t), basically the NSs gravitational
potential. If the density is perturbed by ρ(x, t) = ρ0 (1+a(x, t)) and the average medium sound speed is also perturbed
as u = cs β(x, t), then we have [159],

1 ∂a
+ ∇β = 0 , (25)
cs ∂t
 11

1 ∂β 1
+ ∇a = − 2 ∇Φ , (26)
cs ∂t cs
 1/2
∂P
with cs = ∂ρ being the average sound speed of the interstellar medium, ρ0 is the average unperturbed density,
and the perturbations satisfy a(x, t), β(x, t) ≪ 1. The solution for constant speed perturber with speed V and mass
M , like the guitar nebula NS, the density perturbation solution has the following form,
GMp 2
a(t) = 2
p , (27)
cs s + R (1 − M 2 )
2 2

⃗ = V ⃗z, s = z − V t, R = x2 + y 2 and M = V , and

p
where we assumed that the movement is along the ⃗z axis V cs
Mp is the mass of the perturber. Thus the perturber is considered like a point mass Mp moving on a straight line
⃗ = V ⃗z, passing at t = 0 through x = 0. Now it is important to notice that the supersonic
trajectory with velocity V
NS perturber generates a density wake only within the Mach cone which has the following opening angle,
1 cs
sin θ = = . (28)
M V
This is a very important feature of our approach, since a large opening angle in the Mach cone of the NS perturber
will indicate a large average sound speed of the interstellar gaseous medium and the opposite, a small sound speed
indicates a small opening angle. Let us proceed with the analysis, so the surfaces of constant density within the
wake correspond to hyperbolae in the s − R plane with eccentricity e = M in the rear of the Mach cone with
s/R < −(M 2 − 1)1/2 . Let us present the Mach cone of the wake by plotting the density perturbation profiles of the
supersonic perturber, and this can be found in Fig. 5, where we plot the isosurfaces of log ã = log a − log( GM tc3s ). As
it can be seen in Fig. 5, the region of the perturbed density has the shape of a loaded ice cream cone dragged by its
peak point where the perturber NS is. The density increases toward the perturber NS which is situated in the apex
of the Mach cone, and initially the position of the perturber was at the origin, in the center of the circles appearing
in Fig. 5. Note that the opening angle of the Mach cone sin θ = M 1
= cVs , determines indirectly the average sound
speed of the interstellar medium. A large opening angle indicates a large average sound speed for the interstellar
medium. This can be seen clearly in Fig. 5, and specifically in the upper plot we assumed that the average sound
speed is cs = 200 Km/sec, while in the bottom plot we assumed that the average sound speed is cs = 40 Km/sec.
Clearly the opening angle in the left plot is significantly larger. This is our main point and our proposal on how it
possible to validate the presence of particle DM effects on the guitar nebula. Also the length of the Mach cone in the
small sound speed case is quite larger than the large sound speed case, which is a rather expected feature, because
the NS can travel faster in an interstellar medium with small sound speed. Let us elaborate on our argument. The
presence of a large sound speed interstellar medium would be a direct probe of collisional particle DM. This is simple
to understand why, for a temperature T ∼ 104 K [156], the hydrogen sound speed is given by the sound speed of an
ideal gas at temperature T so cs = γk BT
mH where kB is Boltzmann’s constant, γ the adiabatic index and mH is the
hydrogen mass, so in our case cs ∼ 11 Km/sec. In the case of collisional DM, an estimate of the local sound speed is
vs ∼ 100 − 300 Km/sec, since we assume that the sound speed is determined only by the local velocity distribution,
which is assumed to obey a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which has an one-dimensional velocity dispersion σDM
√
[160] and it obeys cs = γσDM , where γ = 5/3 is the adiabatic index. For the Milky Way the velocity distribution
σDM ∼ 100 − 300 Km/sec is sufficient. In general, the speed of sound of DM can be larger than the values we consider
in this work. In general in DM contexts, zero or low values of the sound speed often reflect the cold nature of DM (low
velocity dispersion and minimal pressure), while high sound speeds indicate stronger self-interactions. Our approach
can indicate if the interstellar medium is comprised by high or low sound speed components.
Let us now consider the collisionless DM case. We compare this physical picture with the scenario that DM is
collisionless and it accretes on the NS. We shall calculate again the density perturbations of the collisionless medium,
with velocity dispersion σ. This calculation can be found in the textbook [161], and the density response of the wake
is,
  
GMp V 2 sin2 θ V
ρ(x, t) = 2 e− 2σ2 1 − erf , (29)
σ r cos θ

with r = x − xM and θ is the angle between r and V . The motion is along the z axis. In Fig. 6 we present the
Mach cone of the wake of the collisionless medium, for collisionless DM fluid with velocity dispersion σ = 200 Km/sec
and for V = 1600 Km/sec. The plots correspond to density perturbation profiles of the supersonic perturber. By
comparing Figs., 5 and 6, the differences are apparent. This way of thinking may provide an important hint on
 12

FIG. 5. The Mach cone of the wake for various values of the sound speed cs and for V = 1600 Km/sec. The plots correspond
GM
to density perturbation profiles of the supersonic perturber, and specifically the isosurfaces of log ã = log a − log( tc3p ) are
s
presented, with V = 1600 Km/sec. The density increases toward the perturber NS which is situated in the apex of the Mach
1 cs
cone. The opening angle of the Mach cone sin θ = M = V , thus a large opening angle indicates a large average sound speed for
the interstellar medium. In the upper plot we assumed that the average sound speed is cs = 200 Km/sec, while in the bottom
plot we assumed that the average sound speed is cs = 40 Km/sec.

whether DM affects the shape and structure of the guitar nebula. If DM affects the guitar nebula, and if it is indeed
self-interacting, then Fig. 5 is more likely to mimic the guitar nebula, and it seems schematically that this is true. In
fact, if Fig. 5 is an actual description of the reality of the guitar nebula, then it is not hard to interpret the behavior
and evolution of the guitar nebula. Over the years, the DM and HI clumps behind the NS, will accrete more DM and
 13

FIG. 6. The Mach cone of the wake for collisionless DM fluid with velocity dispersion σ = 200 Km/sec and for V = 1600 Km/sec.
The plots correspond to constant density profiles of the supersonic perturber.

HI and thus several morphological and observational features of the guitar nebula may be explained. Let us describe
one such feature. It was shown in [154] that the scale factor of the guitar nebula changed between the 1994 and the
2001 observations. The changes in the stand-off radius were interpreted in terms of the passage of the NS through
distinct density areas of the interstellar medium. We shall give a different interpretation that does not rely on NS
wind physics. The stand-off radius is larger in the 2001 observation. Assume that DM and hydrogen are accreted on
the NS while it passes through the combined DM-hydrogen medium. So if DM particles are accreted on the NS, the
2GM
stand-off radius is, Rs = V 2 p , hence the fraction of the 2001 and 1994 observations is,
 2 
R1994 M1994 v2001
= 2 , (30)
R2001 M2001 v1994

where M1994 and M2001 are the masses of the NS in 1994 and 2001 respectively, while v1994 and v2001 are the speeds
of the NS in 1994 and 2001 respectively. Thus since R2001 > R1994 this can be explained since M1994 < M2001 and
R1994
v1994 > v2001 . In fact, we have R2001
∼ 0.83 [154] so in principle one can perform a detailed calculation. We shall give
some hints on this. The Bondi-Hoyle accretion of DM and HI on the NS, would increase its mass as follows,

dM GMp2
∼ 2π −3 ρ0 , (31)
dt V
where ρ0 is the average medium density. Now the NS will feel a drag force on it, which in the case of collisionless DM
reads,

4π(G Mp )2
    
1 1 Vt
Fdrag = ρ0 ln 1 − 2 + ln , (32)
V2 2 M RN S

assuming moving along with the z-axis as in the example we presented earlier. Note that RN S in Eq. 32 is the radius
of the NS. In principle one can proceed with the details of this calculations, but it is not our aim to do so, since the
drag force of Eq. (32) corresponds to collision-less DM, so it might not be so accurate, however we wanted to point
out that several morphological aspects of the guitar nebula can be explained with the accretion of DM and perhaps
 14

HI on it. In fact, the morphological feature in the back of the bow of the nebula may be explained, since the clumps
of DM created in the bow can attract more DM and neutral hydrogen, and can thus describe this expansion of the
nebula in its rear end and also the brightening along the bow edges. Notice in Fig. 4 the bow edges which are basically
the same and do not expand. In our perspective, this is due to the fact that the bow density in the edges is as in
Fig. 5. Thus DM and HI is concentrated on the edges of the nebula and no expansion is predicted in the edges. The
rear however corresponds to places where the NS was in the past and recall that the density in the back of the NS is
maximum. Thus DM clumps are more dense there, thus the expansion of the rear end is anticipated. Of course, this
is a speculative approach of ours, and needs to be verified by high-resolution monitoring observations of the nebula.
Our aim was to draw the scientific community’s interest in this speculative perspective.
Let us recapitulate our speculative explanation on the guitar nebula morphological aspects. The bow shock might
be a synergistic effect of collisional or not DM and neutral hydrogen accretion on the NS. One can perform exact
simulations to determine the sound speed of the combined DM hydrogen fluid. If DM is collisional then it is expected
to have non-trivial and high sound speed, and also if the combined effect is given, then powerful simulations taking
into account the hydrogen and DM of collisional nature, might give an exact explanation of the bow shock nebula
form. The magnetic field wind cannot affect the neutral hydrogen, there might be some other charged material there,
but in the outer skirts of the galaxy it is more wise to assume that neutral hydrogen and DM might be there. So one
may perform two kinds of simulations, one with only hydrogen, which has some specific sound speed rather easy to
reproduce at lab, then only DM and then combinations. The correct simulation will reveal if DM plays some role in the
form of the nebula, how its stand-off radius is decreased and why the parts in the back increased in such a way between
the 1994 and 2004 screenshots of the nebula. I do not have the computing abilities or scientific knowledge to produce
such simulations, so we leave this work to experts in the specific fields. Our theory is that hydrogen is attracted to
the local DM, which probably is collisional to some extent, and hydrogen clumps and this might explain the boundary
increase in luminosity in the sides of the nebula and increase in the size of the rear end of the nebula, since DM and
neutral hydrogen HI is attracted to the local clump created there. Even combinations of several component interstellar
medium can be simulated to try to produce the shape and evolution of the nebula during the years 1994 and 2004,
this could probably reveal whether a hidden component of DM with perhaps-if at all-non trivial sound speed and
collisional nature, can participate in the forming of the guitar nebula and its evolution. If magnetic fields are not
responsible, then a dense unseen medium in conjunction with the hydrogen composed interstellar medium, might be
responsible for the morphology of the guitar nebula. The density plots we presented reluctantly indicate that such a
physical picture might be true.
So the point is to reveal the particle nature of DM and if possible, if it is interacting, like the model we presented in
the previous section, or non-interacting. This can be revealed if the nebula size and shape can be reproduced with a
combination of gases known to exist in the outer parts of our galaxy. So if the study reveals a hidden component, this
has to be particle DM which interacts or does not interact. Such a study might actually reveal the particle nature of
DM.
High sound speed velocity of a component of the interstellar medium at the edge of the galaxy, where the guitar
nebula is situated, could only point to interacting DM. It is hard to find ordinary matter in the outer galaxy with
such high sound speeds. So simulations will reveal if a dark component is actually there or not.

VI. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES, DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this work we presented a model of DM in which a large portion of the total DM contained in the Universe
is comprised by a low-mass scale mirror SM. In this model, the DM particles can be low-mass stable mirror SM
particles or even atoms formed by the mirror SM particles, like mirror hadrons, mirror hydrogen, mirror helium and
so on. Thus this type of mirror DM is self interacting. The mirror DM particles are in thermal equilibrium with
a smaller temperature compared to the ordinary SM particles, due to BBN constraints. This type of collisional, or
self-interacting DM is motivated by the fact that it is possible in this context to explain some old and new problems of
small scale structure observations (galactic scales), which are currently in tension with standard collisionless cold DM
predictions, and at the same time the same theory leaves intact the successes of the ΛCDM model on large (cluster and
supercluster galactic scales). For example, the cusp-core problem, the diversity problem of rotation curves for spiral
galaxies, the missing satellites problem and the too-big-to-fail problems are nicely explained by mirror DM models,
while also the Bullet cluster which supports collisionless DM can also be explained if a part of DM in the Universe
is comprised by mirror DM. However, an observational feature of mirror DM is that it does not suppress dissipation
and thus it is possible that mirror DM collapses to a disk, like ordinary baryonic DM. This is a phenomenologically
interesting situation in view of the Bosma effect, which indicates that hydrogen HI is strongly correlated with DM
and it is always found in places where DM is. We assumed that the low-scale mirror DM sector has a distinct vacuum
compared to the ordinary Higgs vacuum, thus a low-temperature first order phase transition can occur in the mirror
 15

DM sector. We calculated the finite temperature effective potential of this mirror DM sector and we demonstrated
that in the context of our model the total mirror DM energy density is ΩM = 0.11 thus a large part of the total DM
energy density is described by mirror DM particles. We also studied in detail the phase transition properties and we
demonstrated that the resulting GW energy spectrum can be detectable by future experiments like the SKA. After
that, we discussed how such sort of collisional DM can be indirectly observed by using observations coming from the
guitar nebula, by studying the morphology of the bow shock. The main point is that the angle of the bow shock may
provide hints for the sound speed of the interstellar medium, and thus a large sound speed of the medium can indicate
that the interstellar medium itself is comprised by self-interacting DM.
Let us discuss some other phenomenological features of mirror DM based on the vast existing literature [21–23] see
also Refs. [24–61]. If mirror DM comprises a large part of DM, then it could be possible that a large fraction of this
hidden matter be in the form of compact objects, like for example mirror stars and mirror neutron stars. These stars
could create mirror supernovae explosions and from these dark radiation would be emitted which could affect the
temperature of the mirror DM halo and the hydrodynamical processes of DM in the DM halo. Also the mirror DM
halo might be dominated by mirror hydrogen or mirror helium. Another issue is the heating process of the mirror SM
sector, and a reliable explanation of why mirror DM may actually form a disk, like ordinary matter. We discussed this
issue in the previous sections, and we evinced that actually such a collapse is in principle phenomenologically allowed
and motivated by the Bosma effect. Another good question is whether DM received matter before the SM particles or
after. In our case, the mirror DM particles received mass after the SM particles. In mirror DM, the mirror SM could
receive their mass earlier if a high temperature occurred at a much larger temperature than the electroweak phase
transition one. Also singlet extensions of mirror SM models are possible to provide stronger first order transitions.
There also exist many galaxies which are speculated to be formed solely by DM, that may be well described by mirror
DM, like for example the diffuse galaxy Dragonfly 44-VIRGOHI21 which is inconsistent with the MOND descriptions,
and also FASTJ01139+4328. Also there might be dark planets, dark stars, and other perspectives were already studied
in the literature, along with exotic possibilities. This is a lively and fruitful scientific area. Furthermore, mirror DM
reconciles observational data coming from large scales, like the Bullet Cluster, which support collisionless DM and
small scale observations, which support collisionless DM, like the Abell 520 and other collision of galaxies. Finally,
an interesting question is related to the inflationary era, how is the inflaton coupled to mirror DM, is there a uniform
coupling in the SM and mirror SM, or some distinct coupling, or even two inflatons. It appears that some non-trivial
inflationary mechanism applies, since the two sectors must have different temperatures. It is also interesting to see this
reheating phenomenology through the prism of theories with geometric inflation descriptions, like modified gravity
for example.
The future observations along the lines we described in this work may reveal the particle nature of the mysterious
DM component of our Universe. For the moment it is very difficult to prove it is out there directly, in the same way
that it is difficult to prove to someone that the main ingredient of coffee is not the brown coffee that colors coffee and
we see it, but water is the main ingredient.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research has been is funded by the Committee of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of the
Republic of Kazakhstan (V.K.O) (Grant No. AP19674478).

[1] K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4], [arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]].

[2] M. H. Abitbol et al. [Simons Observatory], Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51 (2019), 147 [arXiv:1907.08284 [astro-ph.IM]].
[3] S. Hild, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and
M. Beker, et al. Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011), 094013 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 [arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]].
[4] J. Baker, J. Bellovary, P. L. Bender, E. Berti, R. Caldwell, J. Camp, J. W. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cutler and R. DeRosa,
et al. [arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]].
[5] T. L. Smith and R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.10, 104055 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104055 [arXiv:1908.00546
[astro-ph.CO]].
[6] J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 083005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.083005 [arXiv:gr-qc/0506015
[gr-qc]].
[7] T. L. Smith and R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 044036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044036 [arXiv:1609.05901
[gr-qc]].
[8] N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001), 221103 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.221103
[arXiv:astro-ph/0108011 [astro-ph]].
 16

[9] S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, M. Musha, I. Kawano, J. Yokoyama, T. Tanaka, K. Ioka and T. Akutsu, et al.
[arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]].
[10] A. Weltman, P. Bull, S. Camera, K. Kelley, H. Padmanabhan, J. Pritchard, A. Raccanelli, S. Riemer-Sørensen, L. Shao
and S. Andrianomena, et al. Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37 (2020), e002 doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.42 [arXiv:1810.02680
[astro-ph.CO]].
[11] P. Auclair et al. [LISA Cosmology Working Group], [arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]].
[12] G. Agazie et al. [NANOGrav], doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]].
[13] J. Antoniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A. S. B. Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, A. Berthereau
and M. Bonetti, et al. [arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]].
[14] D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane and
J. Askew, et al. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 [arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]].
[15] H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan and Y. Xu, et al. doi:10.1088/1674-
4527/acdfa5 [arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]].
[16] C. Deffayet and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 05 (2024), 042 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/042 [arXiv:2402.11716 [gr-qc]].
[17] S. Boran, S. Desai, E. O. Kahya and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.4, 041501
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.041501 [arXiv:1710.06168 [astro-ph.HE]].
[18] C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.6, 064038
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.089901 [arXiv:1405.0393 [astro-ph.CO]].
[19] C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 124054 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124054
[arXiv:1106.4984 [gr-qc]].
[20] I. Y. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and I. Y. Pomeranchuk, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 3 (1966) no.6, 837-841
[21] H. M. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 456-459 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.456
[22] R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13 (2004), 2161-2192 doi:10.1142/S0218271804006449 [arXiv:astro-ph/0407623 [astro-ph]].
[23] Z. Berezhiani, P. Ciarcelluti, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005), 107-120
doi:10.1142/S0218271805005165 [arXiv:astro-ph/0312605 [astro-ph]].
[24] Z. K. Silagadze, ICFAI U. J. Phys. 2 (2009), 143-154 [arXiv:0808.2595 [astro-ph]].
[25] R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, JHEP 07 (2000), 032 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/07/032 [arXiv:hep-ph/0006027
[hep-ph]].
[26] Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001), 362-375 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00217-9
[arXiv:hep-ph/0008105 [hep-ph]].
[27] S. I. Blinnikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 73 (2010), 593-603 doi:10.1134/S1063778810040034 [arXiv:0904.3609 [astro-ph.CO]].
[28] S. Tulin and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018), 1-57 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 [arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]].
[29] R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 063002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063002
[arXiv:hep-ph/0111381 [hep-ph]].
[30] S. I. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36 (1982), 472 ITEP-11-1982.
[31] S. I. Blinnikov and M. Khlopov, Sov. Astron. 27 (1983), 371-375
[32] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP 07 (2016), 013 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/013 [arXiv:1602.02467 [astro-ph.CO]].
[33] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Lett. B 748 (2015), 61-66 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.063 [arXiv:1412.0762 [hep-ph]].
[34] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), 023512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023512 [arXiv:1409.7174 [hep-ph]].
[35] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 123510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123510 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402267
[hep-ph]].
[36] R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B 505 (2001), 1-5 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00361-6 [arXiv:astro-ph/0101055 [astro-ph]].
[37] R. Foot, Acta Phys. Polon. B 35 (2004), 2473-2478 [arXiv:astro-ph/0406257 [astro-ph]].
[38] R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999), 83-86 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00230-0 [arXiv:astro-ph/9902065 [astro-ph]].
[39] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001), 13-17 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01011-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108051
[hep-ph]].
[40] R. Foot and Z. K. Silagadze, Acta Phys. Polon. B 32 (2001), 2271-2278 [arXiv:astro-ph/0104251 [astro-ph]].
[41] R. Foot, A. Y. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Astropart. Phys. 17 (2002), 195-198 doi:10.1016/S0927-6505(01)00149-9
[arXiv:astro-ph/0010502 [astro-ph]].
[42] M. Pavsic, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 9 (1974), 229-244 doi:10.1007/BF01810695 [arXiv:hep-ph/0105344 [hep-ph]].
[43] R. Foot, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994), 169-180 doi:10.1142/S0217732394000186 [arXiv:hep-ph/9402241 [hep-ph]].
[44] A. Y. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 487 (2000), 294-298 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00836-4 [arXiv:hep-
ph/0005238 [hep-ph]].
[45] A. Y. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 023518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023518 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304260
[hep-ph]].
[46] P. Ciarcelluti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005), 187-222 doi:10.1142/S0218271805006213 [arXiv:astro-ph/0409630 [astro-
ph]].
[47] P. Ciarcelluti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005), 223-256 doi:10.1142/S0218271805006225 [arXiv:astro-ph/0409633 [astro-
ph]].
[48] P. Ciarcelluti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19 (2010), 2151-2230 doi:10.1142/S0218271810018438 [arXiv:1102.5530 [astro-ph.CO]].
[49] G. Dvali, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman, JCAP 08 (2009), 009 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/009 [arXiv:0903.0660 [hep-th]].
[50] R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014), 45-50 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.019 [arXiv:1305.4316 [astro-ph.CO]].
[51] R. Foot, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.2, 023520 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023520 [arXiv:1304.4717 [astro-ph.CO]].
 17

[52] J. W. Cui, H. J. He, L. C. Lu and F. R. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 096003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.096003
[arXiv:1110.6893 [hep-ph]].
[53] R. Foot, JCAP 07 (2016), 011 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/011 [arXiv:1506.01451 [astro-ph.GA]].
[54] R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014), 1430013 doi:10.1142/S0217751X14300130 [arXiv:1401.3965 [astro-ph.CO]].
[55] J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. D. Moore and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.1, 015023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.015023
[arXiv:1312.3325 [hep-ph]].
[56] M. Ibe, A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi, T. Kuwahara and W. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.7, 075022
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.075022 [arXiv:1907.03404 [hep-ph]].
[57] R. Foot, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.10, 103006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103006 [arXiv:1801.09359 [astro-ph.GA]].
[58] A. Howe, J. Setford, D. Curtin and C. D. Matzner, JHEP 07 (2022), 059 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)059 [arXiv:2112.05766
[hep-ph]].
[59] F. Y. Cyr-Racine, F. Ge and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.20, 201301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.201301
[arXiv:2107.13000 [astro-ph.CO]].
[60] I. Armstrong, B. Gurbuz, D. Curtin and C. D. Matzner, Astrophys. J. 965 (2024) no.1, 42 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad283c
[arXiv:2311.18086 [astro-ph.HE]].
[61] A. C. Ritter and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.1, 015032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015032 [arXiv:2404.05999
[hep-ph]].
[62] J. A. R. Cembranos and P. Diez-Valle, [arXiv:1903.03209 [hep-ph]].
[63] F. S. Labini, G. De Marzo, M. Straccamore and S. Comerón, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527 (2023) no.2, 2697-2717
doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3278 [arXiv:2310.15673 [astro-ph.GA]].
[64] A. Bosma, Astron. J. 86 (1981), 1825 doi:10.1086/113063
[65] G. W. Anderson and L. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992), 2685-2698 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2685
[66] M. Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]].
[67] P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 3546 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994), 6662]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3546 [arXiv:hep-ph/9212235 [hep-ph]].
[68] M. E. Carrington, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992), 2933-2944 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2933
[69] D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, New J. Phys. 14 (2012), 125003 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/125003
[arXiv:1206.2942 [hep-ph]].
[70] M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, P. Y. Huet, A. D. Linde and D. A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992), 550-571
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.550 [arXiv:hep-ph/9203203 [hep-ph]].
[71] L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974), 3320-3341 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3320
[72] E. Senaha, Symmetry 12 (2020) no.5, 733 doi:10.3390/sym12050733
[73] E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.5, 055011
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.055011 [arXiv:1911.12342 [hep-ph]].
[74] J. Shelton and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 123512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.123512 [arXiv:1008.1997 [hep-ph]].
[75] B. Dutta and J. Kumar, Phys. Lett. B 699 (2011), 364-367 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.04.036 [arXiv:1012.1341 [hep-ph]].
[76] G. Servant and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) no.15, 151601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.151601 [arXiv:1304.3464
[hep-ph]].
[77] A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5 (1967), 32-35 doi:10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497
[78] M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999), 1463-1500 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1463 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803479 [hep-ph]].
[79] A. Riotto, [arXiv:hep-ph/9807454 [hep-ph]].
[80] A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49 (1999), 35-75 doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.35 [arXiv:hep-
ph/9901362 [hep-ph]].
[81] A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43 (1993), 27-70
doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.43.120193.000331 [arXiv:hep-ph/9302210 [hep-ph]].
[82] M. Kamionkowski and E. D. Kovetz, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54 (2016), 227-269 doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-
023433 [arXiv:1510.06042 [astro-ph.CO]].
[83] M. S. Turner, M. J. White and J. E. Lidsey, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993), 4613-4622 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4613
[arXiv:astro-ph/9306029 [astro-ph]].
[84] L. A. Boyle and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 063504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063504 [arXiv:astro-
ph/0512014 [astro-ph]].
[85] Y. Zhang, Y. Yuan, W. Zhao and Y. T. Chen, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005), 1383-1394 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/7/011
[arXiv:astro-ph/0501329 [astro-ph]].
[86] C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) no.16, 163001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac608
[arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]].
[87] T. J. Clarke, E. J. Copeland and A. Moss, JCAP 10 (2020), 002 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/002 [arXiv:2004.11396
[astro-ph.CO]].
[88] T. L. Smith, M. Kamionkowski and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 023504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023504
[arXiv:astro-ph/0506422 [astro-ph]].
[89] M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009), 045004 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/4/045004 [arXiv:0807.4317 [astro-ph]].
[90] X. J. Liu, W. Zhao, Y. Zhang and Z. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.2, 024031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024031
[arXiv:1509.03524 [astro-ph.CO]].
[91] M. Giovannini, [arXiv:2303.11928 [gr-qc]].
[92] M. Giovannini, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.9, 828 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10800-4 [arXiv:2206.08217 [gr-qc]].
 18

[93] M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.10, 103524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103524 [arXiv:2203.13586 [gr-qc]].
[94] M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B 810 (2020), 135801 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135801 [arXiv:2006.02760 [gr-qc]].
[95] M. Giovannini, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020), 103774 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103774 [arXiv:1912.07065 [astro-
ph.CO]].
[96] M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.8, 083531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083531 [arXiv:1908.09679 [hep-th]].
[97] M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.2, 023521 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023521 [arXiv:1410.5307 [hep-th]].
[98] M. Giovannini, PMC Phys. A 4 (2010), 1 doi:10.1186/1754-0410-4-1 [arXiv:0901.3026 [astro-ph.CO]].
[99] M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 2837-2851 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2837
[arXiv:astro-ph/9310044 [astro-ph]].
[100] W. Giarè and F. Renzi, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.8, 083530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083530 [arXiv:2007.04256
[astro-ph.CO]].
[101] W. Zhao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 043503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043503 [arXiv:astro-ph/0604458
[astro-ph]].
[102] P. D. Lasky, C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. L. Smith, J. T. Giblin, D. J. Reardon, R. Caldwell, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, S. Burke-
Spolaor and W. Coles, et al. Phys. Rev. X 6 (2016) no.1, 011035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.011035 [arXiv:1511.05994
[astro-ph.CO]].
[103] R. G. Cai, C. Fu and W. W. Yu, [arXiv:2112.04794 [astro-ph.CO]].
[104] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Phys. Dark Univ. 35 (2022), 100950 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.100950
[arXiv:2108.11231 [gr-qc]].
[105] J. Lin, S. Gao, Y. Gong, Y. Lu, Z. Wang and F. Zhang, [arXiv:2111.01362 [gr-qc]].
[106] F. Zhang, J. Lin and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.6, 063515 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.12, 129902]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063515 [arXiv:2106.10792 [gr-qc]].
[107] L. Visinelli, N. Bolis and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.6, 064039 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064039
[arXiv:1711.06628 [gr-qc]].
[108] J. R. Pritchard and M. Kamionkowski, Annals Phys. 318 (2005), 2-36 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.03.005 [arXiv:astro-
ph/0412581 [astro-ph]].
[109] V. V. Khoze and D. L. Milne, [arXiv:2212.04784 [hep-ph]].
[110] A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 22 (2018), 108 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.10.001
[arXiv:1803.02620 [gr-qc]].
[111] V. K. Oikonomou, Astropart. Phys. 141 (2022), 102718 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102718 [arXiv:2204.06304 [gr-
qc]].
[112] A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani and S. Vagnozzi, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) no.1, 017001 doi:10.1088/1361-
6382/aaf1fd [arXiv:1811.06830 [gr-qc]].
[113] K. El Bourakadi, B. Asfour, Z. Sakhi, Z. M. Bennai and T. Ouali, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.9, 792
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10762-7 [arXiv:2209.08585 [gr-qc]].
[114] R. Sturani, Symmetry 13 (2021) no.12, 2384 doi:10.3390/sym13122384
[115] S. Vagnozzi and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939 (2022) no.2, L22 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b0e [arXiv:2208.14088
[astro-ph.CO]].
[116] A. S. Arapoğlu and A. E. Yükselci, [arXiv:2210.16699 [gr-qc]].
[117] W. Giarè, M. Forconi, E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri, [arXiv:2210.14159 [astro-ph.CO]].
[118] V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.19, 195025 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac2168 [arXiv:2108.10460 [gr-qc]].
[119] M. Gerbino, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, M. Lattanzi, O. Mena, E. Giusarma and S. Ho, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 043512
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043512 [arXiv:1610.08830 [astro-ph.CO]].
[120] M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch and P. Schwaller, JCAP 07 (2019), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2019/07/007 [arXiv:1811.11175 [hep-ph]].
[121] S. Pi, M. Sasaki and Y. l. Zhang, JCAP 06 (2019), 049 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/049 [arXiv:1904.06304 [gr-qc]].
[122] M. Khlopov and S. R. Chowdhury, Symmetry 15 (2023) no.4, 832 doi:10.3390/sym15040832
[123] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and R. Myrzakulov, Symmetry 14 (2022) no.4, 729 doi:10.3390/sym14040729
[arXiv:2204.00876 [gr-qc]].
[124] M. Benetti, L. L. Graef and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.4, 043520 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043520
[arXiv:2111.04758 [astro-ph.CO]].
[125] S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502 (2021) no.1, L11-L15 doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa203 [arXiv:2009.13432 [astro-
ph.CO]].
[126] R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002), 342-368 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00264-X
[arXiv:gr-qc/0107033 [gr-qc]].
[127] R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 093007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.093007 [arXiv:hep-
ph/0509209 [hep-ph]].
[128] A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), 241301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.241301 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609081 [hep-ph]].
[129] J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994), 3637-3649 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3637 [arXiv:hep-ph/0702143 [hep-ph]].
[130] M. Chala, C. Krause and G. Nardini, JHEP 07 (2018), 062 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)062 [arXiv:1802.02168 [hep-ph]].
[131] H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B 609 (2005), 117-123 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.026
[arXiv:hep-ph/0405097 [hep-ph]].
[132] I. Baldes, T. Konstandin and G. Servant, Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018), 373-377 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.015
[arXiv:1604.04526 [hep-ph]].
 19

[133] A. Noble and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 063518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063518 [arXiv:0711.3018 [hep-ph]].
[134] R. Zhou, J. Yang and L. Bian, JHEP 04 (2020), 071 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)071 [arXiv:2001.04741 [hep-ph]].
[135] D. J. Weir, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376 (2018) no.2114, 20170126 doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0126 [arXiv:1705.01783
[hep-ph]].
[136] M. B. Hindmarsh, M. Lüben, J. Lumma and M. Pauly, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 24 (2021), 1
doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.24 [arXiv:2008.09136 [astro-ph.CO]].
[137] X. F. Han, L. Wang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.3, 035012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.035012
[arXiv:2010.03730 [hep-ph]].
[138] H. L. Child and J. T. Giblin, Jr., JCAP 10 (2012), 001 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/001 [arXiv:1207.6408 [astro-
ph.CO]].
[139] M. Fairbairn and R. Hogan, JHEP 09 (2013), 022 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)022 [arXiv:1305.3452 [hep-ph]].
[140] C. Caprini, M. Hindmarsh, S. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No, A. Petiteau, P. Schwaller and
G. Servant, et al. JCAP 04 (2016), 001 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/001 [arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]].
[141] S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin, G. Nardini and I. Rues, JCAP 03 (2016), 036 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/036
[arXiv:1512.06357 [hep-ph]].
[142] C. Delaunay, C. Grojean and J. D. Wells, JHEP 04 (2008), 029 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/029 [arXiv:0711.2511
[hep-ph]].
[143] D. J. H. Chung, A. J. Long and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.2, 023509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.023509
[arXiv:1209.1819 [hep-ph]].
[144] G. Barenboim and J. Rasero, JHEP 07 (2012), 028 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)028 [arXiv:1202.6070 [hep-ph]].
[145] C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 043507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.043507 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607107
[hep-ph]].
[146] A. Katz and M. Perelstein, JHEP 07 (2014), 108 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)108 [arXiv:1401.1827 [hep-ph]].
[147] A. Alves, T. Ghosh, H. K. Guo, K. Sinha and D. Vagie, JHEP 04 (2019), 052 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)052
[arXiv:1812.09333 [hep-ph]].
[148] P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu, [arXiv:2305.02357 [hep-ph]].
[149] J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No, JCAP 07 (2020), 050 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/050 [arXiv:2003.07360 [hep-ph]].
[150] A. Afzal et al. [NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) no.1, L11 [erratum: Astrophys. J. Lett. 971 (2024) no.1,
L27; erratum: Astrophys. J. 971 (2024) no.1, L27] doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 [arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]].
[151] Y. Xiao, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, Sci. Bull. 68 (2023), 3158-3164 doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.11.025 [arXiv:2307.01072
[hep-ph]].
[152] M. Fitz Axen, S. Banagiri, A. Matas, C. Caprini and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.10, 103508
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103508 [arXiv:1806.02500 [astro-ph.IM]].
[153] A. P. Morais and R. Pasechnik, JCAP 04 (2020), 036 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/036 [arXiv:1910.00717 [hep-ph]].
[154] S. Chatterjee and J. M. Cordes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 600 (2003), L51-L54 doi:10.1086/381498 [arXiv:astro-ph/0311340
[astro-ph]].
[155] Cordes, J., Romani, R. and Lundgren, S. The Guitar nebula: a bow shock from a slow-spin, high-velocity neutron star.
Nature 362, 133-135 (1993).
[156] N. Bucciantini, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478 (2018) no.2, 2074-2085 doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1199 [arXiv:1805.01653
[astro-ph.HE]].
[157] V. V. Gvaramadze, A. Gualandris and S. P. Zwart, IAU Symp. 246 (2008), 365-366 doi:10.1017/S1743921308015962
[arXiv:0712.4230 [astro-ph]].
[158] N. Tetzlaff, R. Neuhaeuser and M. M. Hohle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 400 (2009), 99 doi:10.1111/j.1745-
3933.2009.00774.x [arXiv:0910.4453 [astro-ph.GA]].
[159] E. C. Ostriker, Astrophys. J. 513 (1999), 252 doi:10.1086/306858 [arXiv:astro-ph/9810324 [astro-ph]].
[160] M. S. Fischer and L. Sagunski, [arXiv:2405.19392 [astro-ph.CO]].
[161] Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, James Binney, Scott Tremaine, Princeton University Press, Oct 30, 2011