Science, Faculty of
Non UBC
Physics and Astronomy, Department of
DSpace
Symmetry 17 (1): 79 (2025)
Zhitnitsky, Ariel
Maroudas, Marios
It has been recently argued that numerous enigmatic observations remain challenging to explain within the framework of conventional physics. These anomalies include unexpected correlations between temperature variations in the stratosphere, the total electron content of the Earth’s atmosphere, and earthquake activity on one hand and the positions of planets on the other. Decades of collected data provide statistically significant evidence for these observed correlations. These works suggest that these correlations arise from strongly interacting “streaming invisible matter” which gets gravitationally focused by the solar system bodies including the Earth’s inner mass distribution. Here, we propose that some of these, as well as other anomalies, may be explained by rare yet energetic events involving the so-called axion quark nuggets (AQNs) impacting the Earth. In other words, we identify the “streaming invisible matter” conjectured in that works with AQNs, offering a concrete microscopic mechanism to elucidate the observed correlations. It is important to note that the AQN model was originally developed to address the observed similarity between the dark matter and visible matter densities in the Universe, i.e., ΩDM∼Ωvisible, and not to explain the anomalies discussed here. Nonetheless, we support our proposal by demonstrating that the intensity and spectral characteristics of AQN-induced events are consistent with the aforementioned puzzling observations.
Academic Editors: Maxim Y. Khlopovand Konstantin ZioutasReceived: 28 October 2024Revised: 19 December 2024Accepted: 26 December 2024Published: 6 January 2025Citation: Zhitnitsky, A.; Maroudas,M. Mysterious Anomalies in Earth’sAtmosphere and Strongly InteractingDark Matter. Symmetry 2025, 17, 79.https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17010079Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).symmetryS SArticleMysterious Anomalies in Earth’s Atmosphere and StronglyInteracting Dark MatterAriel Zhitnitsky 1,* and Marios Maroudas 21 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada2 Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Hamburg, 22761 Hamburg, Germany;marios.maroudas@cern.ch* Correspondence: arz@phas.ubc.caAbstract: It has been recently argued that numerous enigmatic observations remain chal-lenging to explain within the framework of conventional physics. These anomalies includeunexpected correlations between temperature variations in the stratosphere, the total elec-tron content of the Earth’s atmosphere, and earthquake activity on one hand and thepositions of planets on the other. Decades of collected data provide statistically significantevidence for these observed correlations. These works suggest that these correlations arisefrom strongly interacting “streaming invisible matter” which gets gravitationally focusedby the solar system bodies including the Earth’s inner mass distribution. Here, we proposethat some of these, as well as other anomalies, may be explained by rare yet energetic eventsinvolving the so-called axion quark nuggets (AQNs) impacting the Earth. In other words,we identify the “streaming invisible matter” conjectured in that works with AQNs, offeringa concrete microscopic mechanism to elucidate the observed correlations. It is importantto note that the AQN model was originally developed to address the observed similaritybetween the dark matter and visible matter densities in the Universe, i.e., ΩDM ∼ Ωvisible,and not to explain the anomalies discussed here. Nonetheless, we support our proposal bydemonstrating that the intensity and spectral characteristics of AQN-induced events areconsistent with the aforementioned puzzling observations.Keywords: axion quark nuggets; streams; invisible matter; Earth’s atmosphere;gravitational focusing1. IntroductionThe title of this work juxtaposes two seemingly contradictory concepts: “stronglyinteracting” and “dark matter” (DM). By definition, DM should decouple from baryons andradiation to play its cosmological role. Therefore, DM was considered as something thatinteracts feebly with normal matter and does not emit, absorb, or reflect light. Separately, ithas been recently argued in [1–3] that numerous enigmatic observations remain challengingto explain within the framework of conventional physics. The goal of this study is toreconcile this apparent contradiction by exploring the axion quark nugget (AQN) DMmodel [4,5], which inherently behaves as a chameleon. AQNs are hypothetical very denseand microscopically large composite objects with a mass on the order of grams and a sub-micrometer size. They consist of a core of quarks/antiquarks in a color-superconducting(CS) state surrounded by an electrosphere of positrons/electrons and enclosed by an axiondomain wall (see Figure 1 and Section 2 for more details). In diffuse environments, AQNsact as conventional DM candidates with negligible interactions. Yet, in dense environments,Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17010079Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 2 of 19such as when they interact with planets or stars, they become strongly interacting objectscapable of producing profound effects.A growing number of puzzling observations present anomalies that defy conventionalphysics interpretations. These anomalies include terrestrial phenomena like the unexpectedseasonal stratospheric temperature variations, ionospheric anomalies, and their correlationswith seismic activity, as well as solar phenomena like the coronal heating problem, theorigin of sunspots, and the trigger mechanism of the solar flares. The additional observationof correlation patterns with the position of the solar system bodies further complicates theirinterpretation [1–3,6,7]. Such phenomena challenge existing models of DM and atmosphericor planetary dynamics, leaving an explanatory gap. The aforementioned works propose theexplanation of these anomalies through gravitational focusing by the solar system bodiesincluding the inner Earth’s mass distribution [8,9] of strongly interacting, invisible matterin the form of streams. This work identifies such “invisible matter” as AQNs, providing aspecific microscopic mechanism that aligns with these observations.The AQN model offers an explanation for these anomalies by unifying them undera single framework. Unlike conventional DM candidates such as weakly interactingmassive particles (WIMPs)—which remain undetected despite extensive searches—theAQN model introduces dense composite objects made of strongly interacting quark matter.These objects satisfy cosmological constraints in diffuse environments while becomingstrongly interacting in dense conditions, potentially explaining the energy depositionand correlations observed in Earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere. Moreover, if future,more precise analyses (see, e.g., proposals [10–14]) confirm the puzzling observationsdiscussed above, it could provide extraordinary evidence revealing the true nature ofDM. This study demonstrates that the AQN framework can quantitatively account forthe observed phenomena while aligning with previously proposed explanations based ongravitational focusing.In summary, the implications of this study extend beyond resolving observational puz-zles. If validated, the AQN model could address a deeper fundamental question in moderncosmology—the nature of DM. By connecting astrophysical observations with terrestrialanomalies, this work aims to provide critical insights into this long-standing mystery.1.1. Observed MysteriesBefore presenting our arguments, we first highlight the mysterious properties of theobservations reported in [1–3,6]. These phenomena are challenging to interpret withinthe framework of conventional astrophysical models. The key puzzles are summarizedas follows:1. Stratospheric temperature puzzle: Seasonal variations in the stratospheric tempera-ture typically follow a smooth pattern, with a minimum in December and a maximumin June, as measured at isobaric levels of 3 hPa, 2 hPa, and 1 hPa (correspondingto altitudes of approximately 38.5 km, 42.5 km, and 47.5 km, respectively) in theNorthern Hemisphere (42.5◦ N, 13.5◦ E). However, an unexpected and striking tem-perature peak consistently appears around December–January, as observed over a33-year period (1986–2018). This anomaly, depicted in Figure 1 of [2], contradictsthe well-known annual modulation pattern of the conventional DM flux, which forthe Northern Hemisphere is expected to peak in June and reach its minimum inDecember [15].2. Solar non-correlation puzzle: Solar UV and EUV emissions are known to dominateatmospheric dynamics and influence temperature variations. To rule out direct solarirradiation as the cause of the temperature anomalies mentioned above, measurementsof the F10.7 radio line (≈2.8 GHz), which is a proxy of solar activity, and solar EUVSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 3 of 19emissions were analyzed. These observations excluded solar activity as the primarysource of the anomalies, as illustrated in Figure 3 of [2].3. Planetary correlation puzzle: Detailed analyses in [2] demonstrated significant corre-lations between the stratospheric temperature fluctuations and planetary positions(see Figures 3–8 of [2]). Additionally, a systematic test was performed, as shown inFigure 9 of [2], revealing that daily stratospheric temperature variations of approx-imately 1.2% could accumulate to as much as 43% when planetary positions wereaccounted for, with 69% representing the theoretical maximum. This finding stronglyindicates that the temperature variations are not random but coherent effects linkedto planetary alignments.4. TEC puzzle: The total electron content (TEC) of the Earth’s atmosphere, whichmeasures ionization levels, also displays unexpected anomalies. Daily TEC measure-ments from 1995 to 2012 reveal a pronounced planetary dependence, with a seasonaldifference between December and June as large as 20%. This deviation, shown inFigure 12 of [1], cannot be explained by the Earth–Sun distance or seasonal effects, asTEC values are averaged globally over the Earth’s surface for both hemispheres.5. TEC–earthquake correlation puzzle: A strong correlation between global TEC anoma-lies and the inner Earth’s seismic activity of magnitude M ≥ 8 has been observed,as shown in Figure 7 of [3,16] during the period 1995–2012. This correlation is par-ticularly puzzling because the primary source of TEC anomalies—UV and EUVphotons—should, in principle, have no direct connection to seismic events originatingdeep within the Earth’s interior.These correlations appear highly anomalous and difficult to reconcile with conven-tional physics. The conjecture proposed in [1–3,6] attributes these mysteries to “streaminginvisible matter” though without specifying its microscopic properties (e.g., mass, size,interaction patterns, or coupling constants).1.2. Normalization FactorsThe analysis in [1–3,6] established two key benchmarks for understanding these phe-nomena. First of all, the energy required to explain the observed stratospheric temperatureanomalies has been estimated as [2][Energy deposition] ≈ (0.1− 1) Wm2. (1)Secondly, the flux enhancement factor A(t) for the “streaming invisible matter”, rel-ative to the canonical DM flux in the Standard Halo Model (SHM) of ∼0.45 GeV/cm3, ischallenging to extract from observations. This difficulty arises from the complex interplayof several unknown factors, such as the velocity distribution of the “streaming invisiblematter” and its dependence on planetary positions including its actual interaction strengthwith normal matter. Additionally, the accumulation history of such matter over billions ofyears within the solar system could have significantly altered the structure and dynamicsof these streams by the present time. Our normalization for the canonical SHM frameworkcorresponds to A = 1. From [11] we quote below A(t) ≈ 104, which corresponds to theflux enhancement by the Moon towards the Earth. However, it could locally and temporar-ily reach much larger values, ideally up to 108 or even much more following combinedgravitational focusing effects [8,9].[DM Flux Enhancement] : A(t) ≈ 104. (2)Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 4 of 191.3. The AQN HypothesisIn this work, we propose a specific microscopic mechanism that fits in as an expla-nation for all the profound and mysterious correlations discussed earlier, in items 1–5,within a unified framework. This framework relies on the AQN model, with the same setof parameters fixed by observations in entirely different contexts. The ability of AQNs toproduce such strong effects arises from their unique construction: these DM candidatesare composed of strongly interacting quarks and gluons—identical to the constituents ofconventional visible matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD).From a cosmological perspective, DM and ordinary matter exhibit a fundamentaldifference aside from their “visibility”. DM played a crucial role in the formation of thelarge-scale structure of the Universe. Without DM, the Universe would have remained toouniform to form galaxies and other cosmic structures. Ordinary matter alone could notproduce sufficient fluctuations, as it remained tightly coupled to radiation until relativelyrecent epochs, preventing clustering. A key parameter governing DM’s behavior in theUniverse is the ratio of the interaction cross-section σ to mass MDM, which must remainsufficiently small to satisfy cosmological constraints, see, e.g., recent review [17]:σMDM≪ 1cm2g(3)WIMPs satisfy this criterion due to their extremely small cross-section σ for typicalmasses MWIMP ∈ (102–103) GeV. However, after dominating theoretical and experimentalDM research for over four decades, the WIMP paradigm has failed. Despite significantimprovements in detector sensitivity, no traces of WIMPs have been found, prompting theexploration of alternative DM models.In this work, we consider a fundamentally different type of DM in the form of dense,macroscopically large composite objects known as AQNs. These objects, first introducedin [4], share similarities with Witten’s quark nuggets [18–20] but exhibit unique properties.AQNs behave as chameleons: in dilute environments, they are effectively non-interacting,satisfying the condition from Equation (3) during the structure formation of the Universe,with σ/MAQN ≲ 10−10cm2g−1 (see Equation (4)). In contrast, when AQNs encounterdense environments such as planets or stars, they interact strongly with ordinary matter,producing observable effects.The AQN model was originally developed [4] to address the observed similaritybetween the DM and visible matter densities in the Universe,ΩDM ∼ Ωvisible. Its motivationcan be summarized as follows: it is commonly assumed that the Universe began with asymmetric state of zero net baryonic charge, which evolved into a baryon-asymmetric statevia a baryogenesis process involving baryon number violation, non-equilibrium dynamics,and CP violation. In contrast, the AQN framework posits that baryogenesis is instead acharge segregation process rather than charge generation, where the global baryon numberof the Universe remains zero at all times.A key distinction between the AQN model and Witten’s quark nuggets [18–20] isthat AQNs can consist of both matter and antimatter, formed during the QCD phasetransition as a result of this charge segregation process (see Section 2.1 for more details).This antimatter component implies the existence of rare but profound annihilation eventswhen antimatter AQNs collide with ordinary matter (see estimates in Section 2). The claimof the present work is that these events could naturally account for the energy depositionfrom Equation (1) that is required to explain, for example, the stratospheric temperatureanomalies observed in [2].The anomalous observations listed in items 1–5 are not the only mysteries that maybe associated with DM streams. Other unusual and poorly understood phenomena, suchSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 5 of 19as cosmic-ray-like events, might also be explained within the AQN framework. Here aresome examples:• The Telescope Array (TA) collaboration [21,22] reported mysterious bursts wheremultiple air showers occurred within 1 ms, defying explanation by conventionalhigh-energy cosmic rays (CRs). These bursts can be interpreted as AQN-inducedevents [23].• Similar “exotic events” recorded by the AUGER collaboration [24–26] are also consis-tent with the AQN hypothesis [27].• The ANITA experiment detected two anomalous upward-propagating events withnon-inverted polarity [28,29], which can also be explained via the AQN frame-work [30].• The list of anomalous atmospheric events also includes the Multi-Modal ClusteringEvents observed by HORIZON 10T [31,32]. These are very hard to understand interms of the conventional CR events but could be interpreted in terms of the AQNannihilation events in the atmosphere as argued in [33].Additionally, AQNs may generate acoustic and seismic signals [34] that could be, inprinciple, recorded if several dedicated instruments are present in the area. For example,a powerful seismic and atmospheric event (a so-called “sky-quake”) was recorded in theinfrasound frequency band by the Elginfield Infrasound Array (ELFO) and attributed toan AQN-induced phenomenon [34]. While exceptionally powerful events like this arerare, they underscore the potential for AQNs to explain a wide range of terrestrial andatmospheric anomalies.This study focuses specifically on the anomalies listed in items 1–5, as these exhibitclear correlations with planetary positions and represent decades of data collected acrossthe Earth’s surface. In contrast, other anomalies, such as cosmic-ray-like events, areless statistically significant due to limited detection areas and event frequencies, makingplanetary correlations more challenging to identify.This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide a brief overview of theAQN framework, emphasizing the key elements that are most relevant to the presentstudy. In Section 3, we outline our hypothesis, identifying the “streaming invisible matter”proposed in [1–3,6] as DM particles in the form of AQNs. Section 4 examines our proposalin the context of the mysterious and puzzling observations summarized in items 1–5above. We demonstrate how these observations can be naturally explained within the AQNframework, presenting an explicit microscopic model capable of accounting for the reportedcorrelations from [1–3,6]. Finally, in Section 5, we summarize our findings and proposespecific tests that could validate or refute our hypothesis. Additionally, we highlight otherintriguing, unexplained phenomena at various scales—from the early Universe to the solarsystem—that may also be connected to DM in the form of AQNs.2. The AQN DM ModelIn this section, we provide an overview of the AQN DM model. Section 2.1 introducesthe fundamental principles underlying the AQN framework, while Section 2.2 highlightsspecific features of AQNs relevant to the present study.2.1. The BasicsAs mentioned earlier, the AQN construction shares similarities with Witten’s quarknugget model [18–20]. Both models propose DM candidates that are “cosmologically dark”due to the small ratio in Equation (3). This small ratio suppresses observable consequencesof an otherwise strongly interacting DM candidate in the form of the AQN nuggets.Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 6 of 19Indeed, for typical AQN parameters, the relevant ratio assumes the following numeri-cal value [5]:σMN∼ πR2MN∼ 10−10cm2g−1, (4)where R is the nugget’s size and MN is its mass. For this estimate, we use the typicalparameters for AQNs provided in Table 1. This value satisfies the cosmological constraintfrom Equation (3) while allowing AQN to behave as a viable DM candidate.A critical feature of AQNs is their flux, which determines the frequency of interactionsand underpins the observable effects discussed earlier (items 1–5). The flux can be estimatedas [35]dΦdA=Φ4πR2⊕= 4 · 10−2(1025⟨B⟩)eventsyr · km2 , (5)where R⊕ = 6371 km is the Earth’s radius, ⟨B⟩ is the average baryon charge of AQNs(discussed below), and Φ is the total hit rate of AQNs on Earth [35]:Φ ≈ 2 · 107yr( ρDM0.3 GeV cm−3)( vAQN220 km s−1)(1025⟨B⟩),where ρDM is the local DM density in the SHM and vAQN is the AQN velocity. In the“invisible stream” hypothesis, the rate (5) has to be multiplied with the factor A(t), asdefined in Equation (2). Similar flux estimates also apply to Witten’s quark nuggets [18–20].Despite these similarities, the AQN model introduces several key elements that addressthe limitations of earlier constructions [18–20]:• Matter and antimatter composition: Unlike the original quark nugget model, AQNscan consist of both matter and antimatter, formed during the QCD phase transition.This property enables rare but significant annihilation events when antimatter AQNsinteract with ordinary matter, producing observable signatures.• Axion domain walls: The AQN model incorporates axion domain walls formed duringthe QCD transition. These domain walls act as stabilizing structures, alleviating theneed for a first-order phase transition as in the original Witten’s model. The axiondomain wall effectively “squeezes” the nugget, providing additional stabilizationabsent in earlier models.• Vacuum energy: In AQNs, the vacuum ground state energies inside the nugget (CSphase) differ significantly from outside the nugget (hadronic phase). This disparityenables the coexistence of these two phases only under external pressure, providedby the axion domain wall. This mechanism prevents nugget evaporation on theHubble time scale, which was a key issue in Witten’s original model [18–20] whichwas assumed to be stable at zero external pressure.• Energy transfer: Another pivotal difference between the AQN framework and Witten’smodel lies in the energy transfer to the surrounding material. For Witten’s nuggets, themaximum energy transfer is constrained by the relatively low DM velocity is ∼10−3c,limiting the energy transfer to mpv2/2 ∼ 10−6mpc2 per baryon charge of the nugget.In the AQN model, the available energy due to matter–antimatter annihilation can beas high as 2mpc2 ≈ 2 GeV per baryon charge. This stark contrast in energy transferdramatically alters the search strategies for such DM candidates, making AQNs farmore observable through their energetic interactions.• Cosmological density problem and baryon asymmetry: The AQN model inherentlyaddresses the cosmological density problem by linking the DM density ΩDM (rep-resented by matter and antimatter nuggets) and the visible matter density Ωvisible.Both densities are proportional to the same fundamental dimensional parameter ofthe theory, ΛQCD. Consequently, the model naturally predicts ΩDM ∼ Ωvisible withoutSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 7 of 19requiring fine-tuning or additional parameters. By construction, the AQN frameworkresolves two fundamental problems in cosmology: the nature of DM and the baryonasymmetry of the Universe. The formation of AQNs, the generation of baryon asym-metry, and the survival pattern of the nuggets through the hostile environment of theearly Universe have been extensively studied in [36–39]. These works provide detailedinsights into how AQNs form during the QCD phase transition, remain stable, andcontribute to the observed cosmological densities.By addressing these limitations and incorporating unique features, the AQN modelnot only provides a robust DM candidate but also aligns naturally with fundamentalcosmological observations.Table 1. Basic properties of the AQNs adopted from [34]. The parameter κ is introduced to accountfor possible deviations from the geometric value πR2 as a result of the ionization of the AQNsdue to interaction with the environment. The ratio ∆B/B ≪ 1 implies that only a small portion∆B of the total (anti)baryon charge B hidden in the form of the AQNs gets annihilated during bigbang nucleosynthesis (BBN), Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), or post-recombination epochs(including the galaxy and star formation), while the dominant portion of the baryon charge survivesuntil the present time.Property Typical Value or FeatureAQN’s mass [MN ] MN ≈ 16 g (B/1025) [5]Baryon charge constraints [B] B ≥ 3 · 1024 [5]Annihilation cross section [σ] σ ≈ κπR2 ≃ 1.5 · 10−9cm2 · κ(R/2.2 · 10−5cm)2Density of AQNs [nAQN] nAQN ∼ 0.3 · 10−25cm−3(1025/B) [5]Survival pattern during BBN ∆B/B≪ 1 [40–43]Survival pattern during CMB ∆B/B≪ 1 [40,42,44]Survival pattern duringpost-recombination ∆B/B≪ 1 [39]The strongest direct detection limit (non-detection of etching tracks in ancient mica pro-vides an additional indirect constraint on the flux of DM nuggets with mass M > 55 g [45];however, this constraint assumes a uniform nugget mass, which does not apply to the AQNmodel) is set by the IceCube observatory, as detailed in Appendix A of [35]:⟨B⟩ > 3 · 1024 [direct (non)detection constraint]. (6)This constraint is based on the non-detection of macroscopic DM nuggets by IceCube,with an effective surface area of ∼km2 during its 10 years of operation. The estimate inEquation (6) assumes a 100% detection efficiency for macroscopically large nuggets, rulingout AQNs with baryon charges ⟨B⟩ < 3 · 1024 at a confidence level of approximately 3.5σ.In [42], a broader set of constraints on antimatter nuggets was considered, withoutincorporating the specific features of the AQN model, such as the CS phase of the quarkmatter in the nugget core (see [46] for an overview of the CS phases). While the constraintsin Equation (6) align with the findings from [42], including those based on CMB andBBN data, they differ regarding the so-called “Human Detectors”. As argued in [47], theestimates for “Human Detectors” in [42] are oversimplified and lack the robustness ofconstraints derived from CMB or BBN data.The internal structure of AQNs, depicted in Figure 1, is critical to understandingtheir interactions and energy release mechanisms. Finally, Table 1 summarizes the basicproperties and parameters of AQNs. It is noted that a key feature of the AQN model isthat only a small fraction, ∆B≪ B, of the total (anti)baryon charge B hidden in the form ofSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 8 of 19AQNs is annihilated over the Universe’s long evolution, while the dominant portion of thebaryon charge survives until the present time.AQN structuree-e+e+e+e+e+Fermi pressure e+e+e+p,nelectro-spherethermalizationbremsstrahlung radiation q¯q ! 2 GeVenergyAxion Domain wall pressureaxion domain wall<latexit sha1_base64="SGj4sl37miwuPJEuprPEju KLGJk=">[binary]</latexit>RDW ⇠ m1a<latexit sha1_base64="5NdW+YsVKtY65uhbTbPUgcTzb10=">AAAB/XicbVDLSgMxFM34rPVVtTs [binary] A8fIBCl2YzA==</latexit>R ⇠ 105cm<latexit sha1_base64="0ocoJYcqWtCnMfoJooGN2cN6WWM=">AAAB9XicbVDJT [binary]</latexit>B ⇠ 1025<latexit sha1_base64="v7ngcuPLfdd0+DkUZ2T7AXvyK78=" >[binary] gdb2J9I</latexit>RQCD ⇠ ⇤1QCDQCD-DW substructureFigure 1. AQN structure (not to scale), adopted from [27]. The dominant portion of the energy∼2 GeV produced as a result of a single annihilation process inside the antinugget is released in theform of bremsstrahlung radiation with frequencies ω ≤ T. See the main text for detailed explanations.2.2. When the AQNs Hit the EarthIn the context of the present work, the most relevant studies concern the effects thatmay occur when AQNs composed of antimatter propagate through environments withsufficiently high visible matter density n(r), such as the Earth’s atmosphere or its deepinterior. In these regions, annihilation processes are triggered, releasing a significant amountof energy into the surrounding material, which can manifest in various observable ways.The interaction of AQNs with visible matter was initially studied in [48] in the contextof a galactic environment with a typical baryon density of ngalaxy ∼ cm−3. Here, weextend these computations to account for the higher-density environments of the Earth’satmosphere and interior, incorporating additional elements relevant to these cases.When an AQN enters a region with baryon density n, annihilation processes begin,causing its internal temperature T to rise. The internal temperature T can be estimatedfrom the condition that the radiative energy output balances the energy flux deposited ontothe nugget:Ftot(T)(4πR2) ≈ κ · (πR2) · (2 GeV) · n · vAQN, (7)where n is the baryon number density of the surrounding material, Ftot(T) is the totalsurface emissivity of the nugget (see Equation (8)), κ is a factor accounting for theoreticaluncertainties in the annihilation processes of the (antimatter) AQN colliding with sur-rounding material, and vAQN is the velocity of the AQN. The left-hand side of Equation (7)represents the total radiative energy emitted per unit time from the nugget’s surface,while the right-hand side accounts for the rate of annihilation events, with each successfulannihilation event of a single baryon charge producing ∼2mpc2 ≈ 2 GeV energy.The total surface emissivity of an AQN due to bremsstrahlung radiation from itselectrosphere at temperature T was calculated in [48] and is given byFtot ≈ 163T4α5/2π4√Tm, (8)Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 9 of 19where α ≈ 1/137 is the fine structure constant, m = 511 keV is the mass of electron, and T isthe internal temperature of the AQN. Notably, the radiation emitted from the electrosphereis non-thermal and differs significantly from blackbody radiation. The bremsstrahlungspectrum has unique characteristics that can help distinguish AQN interactions from othersources of energy release. It is noted that the thermal properties presented above wereoriginally applied to the study of the emission from AQNs from the Galactic Center, wherea nugget’s internal temperature is very low, T ∼ eV.When AQNs propagate through the Earth’s atmosphere, their internal temperaturebegins to rise, reaching approximately ∼40 keV. As the AQNs penetrate the Earth’s surfaceand travel toward its center, the much higher density of the Earth’s interior causes theinternal temperature to increase further, up to ∼400 keV. These temperature estimates canbe derived using Equations (7) and (8):Tatmosphere ≈ 40 keV ·(natmosphere1021 cm−3) 417κ417Tinterior ≈ 400 keV ·( ninterior1025 cm−3) 417κ417 . (9)For the purposes of this study, we adopt T ≈ 400 keV as the benchmark temperaturefor AQNs exiting the Earth’s surface in the upward direction.Another key parameter for this analysis is the specific heat, cV , which determines thetotal energy accumulated by an AQN during its passage through the Earth’s interior. Thisenergy is primarily a function of the exit temperature, T, and cV . The specific heat dependson the CS phase of the quark matter inside the nugget, with different CS phases yieldingdistinct expressions for cV . In the simplest two-flavor superconducting phase (2SC), thespecific heat is given by [46]cV ≃ 13T(µ2d + µ2u), (10)where µu and µd are the chemical potentials for up and down quarks, respectively, in theCS phase. These chemical potentials are approximately µu ≃ µd ≃ 500 MeV, consistentwith earlier studies of the typical value of the AQN’s chemical potential at the moment [39].For our numerical analysis, we use Equation (10) to estimate cV .The AQN framework, using the same set of parameters applied in this study, has thepotential to explain numerous puzzling observations that remain unresolved by conven-tional astrophysical models. Many of these phenomena, observed on Earth, are highlightedat Section 1.1. Additionally, the AQN model could offer possible explanations for enig-matic observations across vastly different scales and cosmological epochs. These includeevents during the BBN epoch, the dark ages, as well as interactions in galactic and solarenvironments. Further details and references can be found in the concluding Section 5.2.3. Energy Deposition in the Earth’s Atmosphere by AQNsOur objective is to propose that the mysterious correlations (items 1–5) introducedearlier can be explained within the AQN framework. Specifically, we argue that thesecorrelations arise from AQNs depositing enormous amounts of energy into the Earth’satmosphere during their propagation.To frame this argument, we distinguish between two categories of (antimatter) AQNscontributing to these effects:1. Downward-moving AQNs: These nuggets propagate from space into the Earth’s atmo-sphere, reaching typical internal temperatures of Tatmosphere ≈ 40 keV as they interactwith the atmospheric material.Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 10 of 192. Upward-moving AQNs: These nuggets traverse the Earth, exiting through the sur-face. Due to the higher density of the Earth’s interior, their temperatures increasesignificantly, reaching Tinterior ≈ 400 keV (as per Equation (9)).Our focus below is on the upward-moving AQNs with the highest possible tempera-tures, as these contribute the most energy.Using the expression for specific heat, cV , from Equation (10), we estimate the totalenergy accumulated by a single AQN during its passage through the Earth’s interior.Assuming T ≈ 400 keV as the characteristic temperature, we find that the most of thisenergy in Equation (11) is released into the surrounding atmospheric material almostimmediately after the nugget exits the Earth’s surface. The rapid cooling rate described byEquation (8), even when some suppression due to ionization of the nugget itself is takeninto account, ensures that the majority of this energy is deposited within the first 0.1–0.2 s.This implies that the dominant portion of the energy from Equation (11) will be depositedat altitudes below z0 ≈ 50 km assuming the typical DM velocity of ∼250 km/s; whileAQNs continue to emit radiation after leaving the atmosphere, the intensity diminishessignificantly compared to their initial upward movement):EAQN(T) =∫cVdT ≈T2(µ2d + µ2u)64πR33(11)≈ 1010 J ·(T400 keV)2·( µu,d500 MeV)2.To estimate the total energy deposited by all AQNs hitting the Earth, we multiply theevent rate from Equation (5) by the energy deposited per single event from Equation (11):dEdtdA≈ 0.1 Wm2·(A(t)104)·(T400 keV)2, (12)where A(t) is the enhancement factor defined in Equation (2), accounting for the “streaminginvisible matter” hypothesis. This factor plays a central role in the proposal, as it reflectsdeviations from the SHM for local DM behavior, as discussed in [1–3,6].Taking Equation (12) at face value while assuming the parameter A(t) having the valuefrom Equation (2), we find that the estimated energy deposition rate, ∼0.1 W/m2, alignswell with the observational constraint in Equation (1), which in turn was derived from themysterious observations (items 1–5). Therefore, this numerical consistency strengthens theplausibility of our conjecture.Encouraged by this numerical result, we propose the following identification:“streaming invisible matter” ≡ [AQNs], (13)This equivalence suggests that the mysterious “streaming invisible matter” conjecturedin [1–3,6] corresponds to AQNs. In other words, we offer a microscopic mechanism capableof explaining the puzzling observations (items 1–5).In Section 4, we present several arguments demonstrating that the proposal inEquation (13) is indeed consistent with the observed anomalies as reported in [1–3,6].4. Proposal (13) Confronts the ObservationsThe main objective of this section is to demonstrate that the mysterious puzzlesintroduced in Section 1.1 are naturally and qualitatively resolved within the framework ofthe proposal (13). We address each puzzle in the same order as presented earlier.Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 11 of 194.1. Puzzle 1: Stratospheric Temperature VariationsThe striking temperature peaks observed annually in December–January at altitudes of38–47 km (see Figure 1 in [2]) present a significant anomaly superimposed on the otherwisesmooth seasonal variations (see item 1). Additionally, these variations, which cannot beproduced by any known phenomenon intrinsic to the atmosphere, become less pronouncedat lower and higher atmospheric regions.Within the AQN framework proposed in (13), this pattern emerges naturally. Upward-moving AQNs lose their accumulated heat as they propagate through the atmosphere.Consequently, their internal temperature and the rate of energy deposition decrease signifi-cantly at higher altitudes, as explained in Section 2.2.At lower altitudes, while the energy deposition is much higher due to the increased airdensity n(z) ≈ (−z/h), the temperature change ∆T(z ≈ 0) is less pronounced because thedenser air distributes the deposited energy more efficiently. Assuming the energy injectionis uniform along the AQN’s path up to a cutoff altitude z ≲ 50 km and that the spectralfeatures of the radiation are approximately the same while the thermalization processes areconsistent across altitudes, this relationship can be qualitatively expressed as∆T(z ≈ 0) ∝ ∆T(z) exp(− zh), h ≈ 8 km, (14)where ∆T(z ≈ 0) represents the temperature change at sea level. This equation indicatesthat, for the same energy deposition, temperature variations ∆T are less pronounced atlower altitudes due to the denser atmosphere.While the above mechanism explains the altitude dependence qualitatively, there areadditional effects that influence the AQNs’ behavior. For instance, AQNs’ temperaturewill increase due to annihilation processes in the atmosphere. This additional heating isstronger at lower altitudes where the density n is higher (see Equation (9)). However, thiscontribution is expected to be much smaller than the energy in Equation (11) accumulatedby AQNs during their passage through the Earth’s interior. Thus, while the expected sharpdependence on altitude z ≲ z0 described by Equation (14) will be considerably reduced,the overall trend should remain valid qualitatively. The reduced temperature effect atlower altitudes and the diminished energy deposition at higher altitudes together naturallyreproduce the observed patterns.4.2. Puzzle 2: Solar Non-CorrelationThe second puzzle (see item 2) concerns the lack of correlation between the observed∆T variations and solar activity. Given the Sun’s dominant role in driving Earth’s atmo-spheric dynamics, it is natural to suspect it as the source of the observed temperatureanomalies. However, as [2,6] shows, this correlation is absent. Within the AQN framework,this non-correlation is naturally resolved. AQNs, as DM particles, are independent of solaractivity and their interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere are unaffected by variations insolar irradiation. Consequently, the lack of a connection between ∆T variations and solaractivity follows directly from the AQN hypothesis.4.3. Puzzle 3: Planetary CorrelationThe third puzzle (see item 3) is a central element of the analysis in [2], which identifiedanomalous correlations between planetary positions and temperature variations. Withinour framework, the conjecture from Equation (13) provides a natural explanation byidentifying the “streaming invisible matter” proposed in [2] with slow-moving AQN DMparticles. The AQNs satisfy the condition from Equation (3) for DM candidates and arecapable of generating substantial energy deposition, as shown in Equation (12). Moreover,Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 12 of 19due to their slow speed, streaming AQNs are subject to gravitational lensing, making themideal candidates for the hypothesized “streaming invisible matter” responsible for theplanetary correlations observed in [2,6].4.4. Puzzle 4: TECThe fourth puzzle (see item 4) involves anomalies in the ionization of the Earth’s entireatmosphere (i.e., mainly its ionosphere) which plays the role of a huge detector measuringthe TEC. The observed correlations between TEC and planetary positions [1] are naturallyexplained within the AQN framework if accepting Equation (13).As AQNs propagate through the stratosphere, they cool down while they emitenergetic photons, predominantly in the EUV and X-ray frequency bands, due tobremsstrahlung radiation from the electrosphere being very flat for ω ≲ T [48]. Thesephotons play two key roles. First, they contribute to local temperature increases along theAQN path as a result of thermalization, addressing Puzzle 1. Secondly, the same AQN-induced EUV and X-ray photons will ionize the neutral atoms and molecules when anAQN propagates in the atmosphere, therefore contributing to TEC. Thus, the observed TECvariations arise from the same AQN-induced flux that drives the temperature anomalies,with both phenomena sharing a common origin in the energy deposition described byEquation (12).Furthermore, the AQN-induced spectrum is dominated by EUV and X-ray radiationwith the intensity from Equation (12) being more than sufficient to explain TEC anomalies.Variations of similar or even lower intensity in these frequency bands are known to driveTEC changes during the conventional 11-year solar cycles. Therefore, within the AQNframework, ∆T and TEC must exhibit correlated planetary dependence, consistent withthe observations in [2].4.5. Puzzle 5: TEC–Earthquake CorrelationThe fifth puzzle (see item 5) is particularly enigmatic as it involves observed cor-relations between TEC variations in the ionosphere and large earthquakes originatingdeep within the Earth’s interior. Establishing a connection between these phenomena ischallenging, as electromagnetic (EM) radiation, which drives TEC, has minimal couplingto acoustic disturbances capable of triggering earthquakes. The energy deposition fromAQNs (Equation (12)), though significant, is four orders of magnitude smaller than the solarconstant (∼1400 W/m2), representing the power we continuously receive on Earth fromthe Sun, which does not generate similar correlations with earthquakes. However, insightscan be gained by examining analogous correlations between solar flares and sunquakes.4.5.1. Lessons from the Observed Correlation of Solar Flares and SunquakesIt has been established that sunquake events are well correlated with hard X-rayemissions during the impulsive phase of solar flares. Conventional explanations suggestthat flare energy, released in the corona, drives acoustic disturbances in the solar interiornear the photosphere. However, this mechanism requires an energy propagation across ninepressure-scale heights, a process that is difficult to reconcile with standard astrophysicalmodels [49,50].The study in [49] hypothesize that “the energy is transported downwards in a fashionthat is somehow invisible to our observations”. This observation aligns naturally with theAQN framework proposed in [51], where AQNs are hypothesized to trigger both solarflares and sunquakes. Specifically, they can first initiate the large solar flares in the solarcorona, and secondly, since they can easily propagate downwards and penetrate to verydeep regions of the solar photosphere, they can play the role of the triggers initiating thesunquakes in the photosphere.Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 13 of 19In the AQN model, nuggets entering the solar atmosphere possess high velocities(vAQN ∼ 700 km/s) and large Mach numbers (M ≡ vAQNcs ≳ 10). This generates strongshock waves, with discontinuities in temperature and pressure scaling as [51]p2p1≃ M2 · 2γ(γ+ 1),T2T1≃ M2 · 2γ(γ− 1)(γ+ 1)2, (15)where γ = 5/3 is the specific heat ratio and the leading M2 ≫ 1 terms are kept. Theserelations imply that strong shock waves, driven by AQNs with M≫ 1, can trigger localizeddisturbances deep within the dense region of the photosphere, igniting sunquakes. This isbecause the shock wave generated due to the large Mach number may produce a single,highly localized increase in the temperature ∆T/T ≫ 1 and pressure ∆p/p ≫ 1 deep inthe atmosphere where the sunquakes originate.This mechanism also explains why sunquakes are localized within flaring regions: thedisturbance is directly tied to the AQN’s entry point in the photosphere, not the overallflare energy. Furthermore, large Mach numbers M≫ 1 do not guarantee that a large flarewill be developed. The AQN must enter the active region with strong magnetic fields, inwhich case a large flare indeed can then be ignited by the AQNs [51]. In regions of quietSun, AQNs deposit energy as EUV and X-ray radiation without triggering large flares, asthe area being hit must satisfy certain conditions to ignite a large solar flare. For example, anecessary, but not sufficient condition is the presence of a large magnetic field in the activeregion such that the magnetic reconnection may become operational.4.5.2. On the Puzzling Correlations Between TEC and EarthquakesWe now can address the observed correlation between TEC variations in the iono-sphere and large earthquakes from a microscopical perspective. The key insight lies in theMach number of AQNs moving beneath the Earth’s surface, which we estimate asM ≡ vAQNcs≈ 250 km/s8 km/s≈ 30 ≫ 1, (16)where we assume the speed of sound in solid rock is approximately 8 km/s. This largeMach number implies that, similar to the Sun’s case mentioned before, shock waves willinevitably form as AQNs propagate through the Earth’s interior (whether through water orsolid rock). These shock waves generate discontinuities in temperature ∆T/T and pressure∆p/p along the AQN’s path that will be numerically enormously large.For example, the overpressure generated by the blast wave in solid rock has beenestimated at ∆p ∼ 107 Pa [34]. If an AQN traverses a seismically active region, it canserve as a trigger for a large earthquake. It is well-known that earthquakes can be inducedby human activities such as nuclear tests. Similarly, an AQN—by generating significantoverpressure along its trajectory—can initiate an earthquake in regions where only a “smallpush” is required to trigger a major event.This mechanism closely parallels the role of AQNs in initiating solar flares and sun-quakes (discussed in Section 4.5.1). In both cases, the AQN acts as a trigger, initiating amuch larger event powered by the internal physics of the medium (the Earth’s crust or theSun) rather than the AQN itself.Therefore, the correlation between TEC variations and earthquake rates, as reportedin [3,16], arises naturally within the AQN framework because both phenomena are linked tothe same AQNs traversing the Earth and its atmosphere. Both phenomena are thus propor-tional to the AQN event rate (Equation (5)) and the energy deposition rate (Equation (12)),with the enhancement factor A(t) (Equation (2)) playing a critical role. As A(t) increasesspatiotemporally due to gravitational focusing by the solar system bodies, reflecting theSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 14 of 19flux of “streaming invisible matter”, the rates of both TEC variations and earthquakes areexpected to rise.It is important to emphasize that, in this framework, AQNs act as triggers for earth-quakes rather than TEC variations directly influencing seismic activity. This mirrors theobserved correlations between sunquakes and flares in the Sun (Section 4.5.1), where bothphenomena are initiated by the same AQN. In the case of the Sun, such correlations areeasier to observe because flares and sunquakes are short-lived (lasting only hours) and welllocalized in space, making their relationship straightforward to establish. On Earth, thecorrelations between TEC and earthquakes are more challenging to study due to the longertimescales and broader spatial extent of seismic events.In conclusion, the puzzles introduced in Section 1.1 appear far less mysterious whenviewed through the lens of the AQN framework. Instead, they emerge as natural conse-quences of the same underlying mechanism. In the next section, we discuss possible testsof this framework and propose experiments to evaluate the specific conjecture (13).5. Conclusions and OutlookThe presence of antimatter nuggets in the AQN framework implies an abundance ofobservable effects across a wide range of scales, from the early Universe to galactic struc-tures, the Sun, and terrestrial phenomena. As discussed in Section 2, the antimatter nuggetsnaturally arise as a resolution to the long-standing puzzle of the near-equal densities ofvisible matter and DM, ΩDM ∼ Ωvisible. This remarkable feature is rooted in the dynamicsof the CP-violating axion field during the QCD formation period.In this work, we focused on the implications of AQN annihilation events for resolvingthe mysterious puzzles 1–5 by proposing specific mechanisms to explain these phenomena,supported by observational data. In the following subsections, we discuss potential tests forour proposal and outline broader implications of the AQN framework for puzzles acrossdifferent scales.5.1. Possible Tests of the ProposalThe AQN framework offers a promising microscopical mechanism to explain theobserved correlations and anomalies discussed in Section 1.1. A key feature of thesestudies is that large-scale regions of the Earth, including the stratosphere, ionosphere, andseismically active zones, effectively act as “natural detectors” for AQN-induced events.However, dedicated instruments are essential for direct detection and validation of thisfundamentally new type of strongly interacting DM.A primary challenge in studying AQN-induced phenomena is distinguishing DMsignals from significant background noise and unrelated events. A promising strategyto overcome this, as suggested in [52,53], is to use networks of synchronized detectors.By correlating time delays between two or more detectors, one can isolate AQN-inducedsignals based on their unique propagation characteristics, since these time delays areunambiguously fixed by the distances between the instruments.When AQNs propagate and annihilate in the Earth’s atmosphere or interior, theyemit relativistic axions and neutrinos with very large mean free paths. The emitted axionsin the AQN framework have velocities va ≈ 0.6c which are detectable via broadbandinstruments such as WISPLC [54], ABRACADABRA [55], LC Circuit [56], DM Radio [57],MADMAX [58] and BRASS [59]. See also the recent reviews [60–64] that mention exist-ing and planned instruments which are capable of working in a broadband mode) andneutrinos with very large mean free paths. They also generate infrasound waves that canpropagate to very large distances which can be detectable by Distributed Acoustic Sensing(DAS) systems [34]. These signals exhibit short-lived spikes, particularly in areas whereSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 15 of 19AQNs enter or exit the Earth’s surface. The typical rate for such correlated events dependson the strength of the spikes as given in Table IV in [65].As an example, the event rate derived in Equation (5) suggests that AQNs impactthe Earth’s surface approximately once per day within a (100 km2) area. Such events areexpected to produce signal spikes with an enhancement factor of A(t) ∼ 102. If two ormore detectors are situated within this area and separated by distances d ≲ 100 km, onecan anticipate well-defined time delays τ between detections, determined by the AQNvelocity vAQN, the speed of sound cs, and the geometry of the network. Furthermore, thesynchronization between different instruments could play a vital role in the discovery ofthe DM in the form of AQNs.Additionally, a network of detectors can allow a study of the directionality of the DMin the form of the AQNs [53] by testing the local features of the DM distribution which areexpected to be drastically different from SHM as expressed by Equation (2). Therefore, thiswill ultimately enable a test of the “streaming invisible matter” hypothesis from [1–3,6].5.2. Other (Indirect) Evidence for DM in the Form of AQNsThere are numerous hints suggesting that annihilation events—an inevitable featureof this framework—may have occurred during the early Universe, the epoch of galaxyformation, and even in the present day. These events, induced by AQN interactionswith visible matter, could provide explanations for a range of unresolved puzzles acrossdifferent scales.We begin with a long-standing mystery from the early Universe: the “PrimordialLithium Puzzle”. This problem has persisted for decades, but it has been argued in [41]that AQNs during the BBN epoch do not affect the production of H and He. However,they might resolve the lithium anomaly due to the large electric charge (Z = 3) of Li,which interacts strongly with the negatively (the AQN will be ionized as a result of hightemperature during this epoch when many weakly bound positrons from the AQN’selectrosphere leave the system such that the AQN becomes a strongly negatively chargedobject during the BBN epoch) charged AQNs.Other well-known puzzles are related to galaxy formation. The most commonlyexpressed ones are the “Core–Cusp Problem”, the “Missing Satellite Problem”, and the“Too-Big-to-Fail Problem”. These and other challenges to the conventional understandingof galactic structure are detailed in [17,66]. It was proposed in [67] that these discrepanciesmay be alleviated if DM exists in the form of composite nuclear-density objects within theAQN framework.Shifting to present-day observations, another significant puzzle concerns the diffuseUV emission in our galaxy. As discussed in [68–70], several observations challenge the con-ventional explanation that the dominant source of diffuse UV background is dust-scatteredradiation from UV-emitting stars. First, the diffuse UV radiation is remarkably uniformacross both hemispheres, in stark contrast to the uneven distribution of UV-emitting stars.Second, it shows almost no dependence on the galactic longitude, which is inconsistentwith the observed confinement of bright UV stars to longitudes between 180◦ and 360◦.These anomalies strongly suggest that the diffuse UV radiation cannot originate fromstarlight. The authors of [68] even describe the source of this radiation as “unknown”. Itwas proposed in [71] that this UV radiation excess could be explained by AQN annihilationevents. This proposal is supported by demonstrating that the intensity and spectral featuresof AQN-induced emissions align closely with the observed characteristics of the UV excessreported in [68–70].At the solar scale, AQNs may also offer an explanation for the renowned “Solar CoronaMystery”, a long-standing problem (the quiet Sun, with a magnetic field B ∼ 1 Gauss, emitsSymmetry 2025, 17, 79 16 of 19EUV radiation at photon energies of ∼100 eV, a phenomenon unexplained by conventionalastrophysics. This occurs within an atmospheric layer only ∼100 km thick, where thetemperature steeply rises to several million kelvins. The variation of EUV with the solarcycle is modest (20–30%), while the magnetic activity varies by a factor of 100 or more.Therefore it seems implausible that magnetic reconnection alone, which is known to beresponsible for large flares, could account for this emission when B ∼ 1 Gauss. There areother puzzling solar features, discussed in [72,73]) involving the anomalous behavior ofthe Sun. Specifically, the “nanoflares" hypothesized by Parker [74] could be identified asannihilation events caused by AQNs [72,73].Finally, we turn our attention to Earth. There are growing indications that our cur-rent understanding of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs)—including their sources,nature, and propagation—remains incomplete or possibly flawed. This perspective issupported by the CREDO (Cosmic-Ray Extremely Distributed Observatory) collaboration,which has compiled a compelling list of arguments highlighting these gaps [75]. It is worthconsidering that some events typically interpreted as UHECR phenomena might insteadbe misidentified or misclassified, as suggested in Section 1.3. These puzzling events couldbe manifestations of AQN-induced effects rather than conventional cosmic-ray behavior.A key proposal arising from this consideration involves combining detection methods:placing an acoustic instrument, as mentioned in Section 1.3, alongside a CR detector inthe same geographical area. This approach would enable to distinguish genuine UHECRevents from AQN-induced phenomena. Such a capability would not only refine the analysisof UHECR but also align with the objectives of the CREDO collaboration, which seeksto challenge and enhance conventional models of cosmic-ray physics. Moreover, thismethodology could enable a search for correlations between earthquakes and CR-likeAQN-induced events. As argued in Section 4, such a correlation would naturally arise ifboth phenomena are driven by the same flux of “streaming invisible matter” proposedin the AQN framework. This dual-detection strategy would offer a powerful tool forexploring and validating the broader implications of the AQN hypothesis.In conclusion, this work advocates a paradigm shift in the understanding of DM:from weakly interacting non-baryonic particles to strongly interacting baryonic compositeobjects made from (anti)quarks and gluons of the Standard Model (see Section 2). TheAQN model is consistent with all current observations across cosmological, astrophysical,and terrestrial scales. Moreover, it offers potential resolutions to long-standing mysteries,from the early Universe to the present day. If validated through the proposed tests andexperiments, this framework could revolutionize our understanding of DM and its role inthe cosmos.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.Z; Methodology, A.Z.; Theoretical Framework, A.Z.;Writing—Original Draft, A.Z.; Original Data Collection and Analysis, M.M.; Writing—Review& Editing, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: For A.Z. This work was partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada.Data Availability Statement: No data were used for the current analysis. However, the data used inpublications 1–3, 6, and 7 can be accessed from the original publications.Acknowledgments: The motivation for this work emerged as a result of long, emotional, and never-ending discussions with Konstantin Zioutas. A.Z. is very thankful to them for these discussions. Thisresearch was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 17 of 19References1. Bertolucci , S.; Zioutas, K.; Hofmann, S.; Maroudas, M. The Sun and its Planets as detectors for invisible matter. Phys. Dark Univ.2017, 17, 13–21. [CrossRef]2. Zioutas, K.; Argiriou, A.; Fischer, H.; Hofmann, S.; Maroudas, M.; Pappa, A.; Semertzidis, Y.K. Stratospheric temperatureanomalies as imprints from the dark Universe. Phys. Dark Univ. 2020, 28, 100497. [CrossRef]3. Zioutas, K.; Anastassopoulos, V.; Argiriou, A.; Cantatore, G.; Cetin, S.; Fischer, H.; Gardikiotis, A.; Haralambous, H.; Hoffmann, D.H.;Hofmann, S.; et al. Atmospheric Temperature anomalies as manifestation of the dark Universe. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2309.10779.4. Zhitnitsky, A.R. ‘Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as baryonic colour superconductor. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2003, 10, 10. [CrossRef]5. Zhitnitsky, A. Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments.Mod. Phys. Lett. A 2021, 36, 2130017.6. Maroudas, M. Signals for Invisible Matter from Solar—Terrestrial Observations. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Patras, Rio,Greece, 2022.7. Zioutas, K.; Maroudas, M.; Kosovichev, A. On the origin of the rhythmic sun’s radius variation. Symmetry 2022, 14, 325.8. Hoffmann, D.H.H.; Jacoby, J.; Zioutas, K. Gravitational lensing by the sun of non-relativistic penetrating particles. Astropart. Phys.2003, 20, 73–78.9. Kryemadhi, A.; Maroudas, M.; Mastronikolis, A.; Zioutas, K. Gravitational focusing effects on streaming dark matter as a newdetection concept. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 108, 123043. [CrossRef]10. Cantatore, G.; Çetin, S.A.; Fischer, H.; Funk, W.; Karuza, M.; Kryemadhi, A.; Maroudas, M.; Özbozduman, K.; Semertzidis, Y.K.;Zioutas, K. Dark Matter Detection in the Stratosphere. Symmetry 2023, 15, 1167. [CrossRef]11. Zioutas, K.; Anastassopoulos, V.; Argiriou, A.; Cantatore, G.; Cetin, S.A.; Gardikiotis, A.; Hoffmann, D.H.; Hofmann, S.; Karuza, M.;Kryemadhi, A.; et al. The Dark Universe is not invisible. Phys. Sci. Forum 2021, 2, 10. [CrossRef]12. Lazanu, I.; Parvu, M. Exploring the detection of AQNs in large liquid detectors. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 5, 14. [CrossRef]13. Zioutas, K.; Zhitnitsky, A.; Zamantzas, C.; Semertzidis, Y.K.; Ruimie, O.M.; Ozbozduman, K.; Maroudas, M.; Kryemadhi, A.;Karuza, M.; Horns, D.; et al. Search for anti-quark nuggets via their interaction with the LHC beam. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2403.05608.14. Adair, C.M.; Altenmüller, K.; Anastassopoulos, V.; Cuendis, S.A.; Baier, J.; Barth, K.; Belov, A.; Bozicevic, D.; Bräuninger, H.;Cantatore, G.; et al. The daily modulations and broadband strategy in axion searches. An application with CAST-CAPP detector.arXiv 2024, arXiv:2405.10972.15. Freese, K.; Lisanti, M.; Savage, C. Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, 85, 1561–1581. [CrossRef]16. Zioutas, K.; Anastassopoulos, V.; Argiriou, A.; Cantatore, G.; Cetin, S.; Gardikiotis, A.; Guo, J.; Haralambous, H.; Hoffmann, D.;Hofmann, S.; et al. Fingerprints of the dark universe in geoscience. In Recent Research on Geotechnical Engineering, RemoteSensing, Geophysics and Earthquake Seismology; Çiner, A., Ergüler, Z.A., Bezzeghoud, M., Ustuner, M., Eshagh, M., El-Askary, H.,Biswas, A., Gasperini, L., Hinzen, K.-G., Karakus, M., et al., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 415–419.ISBN 978-3-031-43218-7.17. Tulin, S.; Yu, H.B. Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure. Phys. Rept. 2018, 730, 1–57. [CrossRef]18. Witten, E. Cosmic separation of phases. Phys. Rev. D 1984, 30, 272–285. [CrossRef]19. Farhi, E.; Jaffe, R.L. Strange matter. Phys. Rev. D 1984, 30, 2379–2390. [CrossRef]20. De Rujula, A.; Glashow, S.L. Nuclearites—A novel form of cosmic radiation. Nature 1984, 312, 734–737. [CrossRef]21. Abbasi, R.U.; Abe, M.; Abu-Zayyad, T.; Allen, M.; Anderson, R.; Azuma, R.; Barcikowski, E.; Belz, J.W.; Bergman, D.R.;Blake, S.A.; et al. The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector. Phys. Lett. A 2017, 381,2565–2572. [CrossRef]22. Okuda, T. Telescope array observatory for the high energy radiation induced by lightning. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1181, 012067.[CrossRef]23. Zhitnitsky, A. The Mysterious Bursts observed by Telescope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets. J. Phys. G 2021, 48, 065201.[CrossRef]24. Colalillo, R.; Abreu, P.; Aglietta, M.; Albury, J.M.; Allekotte, I.; Almela, A.; Alvarez-Muniz, J.; Anastasi, G.A.; Anchordoqui, L.;Andrada, B.; et al. Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory? Pos Proc. Sci. 2021, 395, 1–12.[CrossRef]25. Colalillo, R. The observation of lightning-related events with the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory. EPJ Web Conf.2019, 197, 03003. [CrossRef]26. Colalillo, R.; Albuquerque, I.F.; Catalani, F.; Souza, V.D.; Kemmerich, N.; Lang, R.G.; Prado, R.R.; Carvalho, W.; Santos, E.M.;Peixoto, C.J. Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory. In Proceedingsof the 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference—ICRC 2017, Bexco, Busan, Republic of Korea, 10–20 July 2017; Volume 314.[CrossRef]27. Zhitnitsky, A. The Pierre Auger exotic events and axion quark nuggets. J. Phys. G 2022, 49, 105201. [CrossRef]Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 18 of 1928. Gorham, P.W.; Nam, J.; Romero-Wolf, A.; Hoover, S.; Allison, P.; Banerjee, O.; Beatty, J.J.; Belov, K.; Besson, D.Z.; Binns, W.R.; et al.Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 117, 071101.[CrossRef]29. Gorham, P.W.; Rotter, B.; Allison, P.; Banerjee, O.; Batten, L.; Beatty, J.J.; Bechtol, K.; Belov, K.; Besson, D.Z.; Binns, W.R.; et al.Observation of an Unusual Upward-going Cosmic-ray-like Event in the Third Flight of ANITA. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 161102.[CrossRef] [PubMed]30. Liang, X.; Zhitnitsky, A. ANITA anomalous events and axion quark nuggets. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 063022. [CrossRef]31. Beznosko, D.; Beisembaev, R.; Baigarin, K.; Beisembaeva, E.; Dalkarov, O.; Ryabov, V.; Sadykov, T.; Shaulov, S.; Stepanov, A.;Vildanova, M.; et al. Extensive Air Showers with unusual structure. EPJ Web Conf. 2017, 145, 14001. [CrossRef]32. Beisembaev, R.; Beznosko, D.; Beisembaeva, E.; Dalkarov, O.; Mossunov, V.; Ryabov, V.; Shaulov, S.; Vildanova, M.; Zhukov, V.;Baigarin, K.; et al. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of EAS with Delayed Particles. In Proceedings of the 36th InternationalCosmic Ray Conference—ICRC2019, Madison, WI, USA, 24 July–1 August 2019; Volume 195. [CrossRef]33. Zhitnitsky, A. Multi-Modal Clustering Events Observed by Horizon-10T and Axion Quark Nuggets. Universe 2021, 7, 384.[CrossRef]34. Budker, D.; Flambaum, V.V.; Zhitnitsky, A. Infrasonic, acoustic and seismic waves produced by the Axion Quark Nuggets.Symmetry 2022, 14, 459. [CrossRef]35. Lawson, K.; Liang, X.; Mead, A.; Siddiqui, M.S.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Zhitnitsky, A. Gravitationally trapped axions on the Earth.Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 043531. [CrossRef]36. Liang, X.; Zhitnitsky, A. Axion field and the quark nugget’s formation at the QCD phase transition. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 083502.[CrossRef]37. Ge, S.; Liang, X.; Zhitnitsky, A. Cosmological C P -odd axion field as the coherent Berry’s phase of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D 2017,96, 063514. [CrossRef]38. Ge, S.; Liang, X.; Zhitnitsky, A. Cosmological axion and a quark nugget dark matter model. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 043008.[CrossRef]39. Ge, S.; Lawson, K.; Zhitnitsky, A. Axion quark nugget dark matter model: Size distribution and survival pattern. Phys. Rev. D2019, 99, 116017. [CrossRef]40. Zhitnitsky, A. Cold dark matter as compact composite objects. Phys. Rev. D 2006, 74, 043515. [CrossRef]41. Flambaum, V.V.; Zhitnitsky, A.R. Primordial Lithium Puzzle and the Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter Model. Phys. Rev. D 2019,99, 023517. [CrossRef]42. Sidhu, J.S.; Scherrer, R.J.; Starkman, G. Antimatter as Macroscopic Dark Matter. Phys. Lett. B 2020, 807, 135574. [CrossRef]43. Santillán, O.P.; Morano, A. Neutrino emission and initial evolution of axionic quark nuggets. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 104, 083530.[CrossRef]44. Lawson, K.; Zhitnitsky, A.R. The 21 cm absorption line and the axion quark nugget dark matter model. Phys. Dark Univ. 2019,24, 100295. [CrossRef]45. Jacobs, D.M.; Starkman, G.D.; Lynn, B.W. Macro Dark Matter. Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 2015, 450, 3418–3430. [CrossRef]46. Alford, M.G.; Schmitt, A.; Rajagopal, K.; Schäfer, T. Color superconductivity in dense quark matter. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2008, 80,1455–1515. [CrossRef]47. Ge, S.; Siddiqui, M.S.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Zhitnitsky, A. Impulsive radio events in quiet solar corona and axion quark nugget darkmatter. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 123021. [CrossRef]48. Forbes, M.M.; Zhitnitsky, A.R. WMAP haze: Directly observing dark matter? Phys. Rev. D 2008, 78, 083505. [CrossRef]49. Judge, P.G.; Kleint, L.; Donea, A.; Dalda, A.S.; Fletcher, L. On the origin of a sunquake during the 2014 march 29 x1 flare.Astrophys. J. 2014, 796, 85.50. Matthews, S.A.; Harra, L.K.; Zharkov, S.; Green, L.M. Spectroscopic Signatures Related to a Sunquake. Astrophys. J. 2015, 812, 35.[CrossRef]51. Zhitnitsky, A. Solar Flares and the Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter Model. Phys. Dark Univ. 2018, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef]52. Budker, D.; Flambaum, V.V.; Liang, X.; Zhitnitsky, A. Axion Quark Nuggets and how a Global Network can discover them.Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 043012. [CrossRef]53. Liang, X.; Peshkov, E.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Zhitnitsky, A. Proposed network to detect axion quark nugget dark matter. Phys. Rev. D2021, 103, 096001. [CrossRef]54. Zhang, Z.; Horns, D.; Ghosh, O. Search for dark matter with an LC circuit. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 023003. [CrossRef]55. Kahn, Y.; Safdi, B.R.; Thaler, J. Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016,117, 141801. [CrossRef] [PubMed]56. Sikivie, P.; Sullivan, N.; Tanner, D.B. Proposal for Axion Dark Matter Detection Using an LC Circuit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014,112, 131301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Symmetry 2025, 17, 79 19 of 1957. Chaudhuri, S.; Irwin, K.; Graham, P.W.; Mardon, J. Fundamental Limits of Electromagnetic Axion and Hidden-Photon DarkMatter Searches: Part I—The Quantum Limit. 2018.58. Gardikiotis, A. Advances in Searching for Galactic Axions with a Dielectric Haloscope (MADMAX). Ann. Phys. 2024, 536, 2300046.[CrossRef]59. Bajjali, F.; Dornbusch, S.; Ekmedžic´, M.; Horns, D.; Kasemann, C.; Lobanov, A.; Mkrtchyan, A.; Tluczykont, M.; Tuccari, G.;Ulrichs, J.; et al. First results from BRASS-p broadband searches for hidden photon dark matter. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023,8, 77. [CrossRef]60. Marsh, D.J.E. Axion cosmology. Phys. Rep. 2016, 643, 1–79. [CrossRef]61. Graham, P.W.; Irastorza, I.G.; Lamoreaux, S.K.; Lindner, A.; van Bibber, K.A. Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-LikeParticles. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2015, 65, 485–514. [CrossRef]62. Battesti, R.; Beard, J.; Böser, S.; Bruyant, N.; Budker, D.; Crooker, S.A.; Daw, E.J.; Flambaum, V.V.; Inada, T.; Irastorza, I.G.; et al.High magnetic fields for fundamental physics. Phys. Rept. 2018, 765–766, 1–39. [CrossRef]63. Irastorza, I.G.; Redondo, J. New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2018, 102,89–159. [CrossRef]64. Sikivie, P. Invisible Axion Search Methods. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2021, 93, 015004. [CrossRef]65. Liang, X.; Mead, A.; Siddiqui, M.S.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Zhitnitsky, A. Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: Time Modulations andAmplifications. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 043512. [CrossRef]66. Salucci, P.; Turini, N.; Di Paolo, C. Paradigms and Scenarios for the Dark Matter Phenomenon. Universe 2020, 6, 118. [CrossRef]67. Zhitnitsky, A. Structure formation paradigm and axion quark nugget dark matter model. Phys. Dark Univ. 2023, 40, 101217.[CrossRef]68. Henry, R.C.; Murthy, J.; Overduin, J.; Tyler, J. The mystery of the cosmic diffuse ultraviolet background radiation. Astrophys. J.2014, 798, 14. [CrossRef]69. Akshaya, M.S.; Murthy, J.; Ravichandran, S.; Henry, R.C.; Overduin, J. The diffuse radiation field at high galactic latitudes.Astrophys. J. 2018, 858, 101. [CrossRef]70. Akshaya, M.S.; Murthy, J.; Ravichandran, S.; Henry, R.C.; Overduin, J. Components of the diffuse ultraviolet radiation at highlatitudes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 489, 1120–1126. [CrossRef]71. Zhitnitsky, A. The mysterious diffuse UV radiation and axion quark nugget dark matter model. Phys. Lett. B 2022, 828, 137015.[CrossRef]72. Zhitnitsky, A. Solar Extreme UV radiation and quark nugget dark matter model. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2017, 10, 50. [CrossRef]73. Raza, N.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Zhitnitsky, A. Solar corona heating by axion quark nugget dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 98, 103527.[CrossRef]74. Parker, E.N. Nanoflares and the solar X-ray corona. Astrophys. J. 1988, 330, 474–479. [CrossRef]75. Homola, P.; Beznosko, D.; Bhatta, G.; Bibrzycki, Ł.; Borczyn´ska, M.; Bratek, Ł.; Budnev, N.; Burakowski, D.; Alvarez-Castillo, D.E.;C´wikła, A.; et al. Cosmic-ray extremely distributed observatory. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1835. [CrossRef]Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
axion quark nuggets
streams
invisible matter
Earth’s atmosphere
gravitational focusing
Mysterious Anomalies in Earth’s Atmosphere and Strongly Interacting Dark Matter
Text