The part on Tunguska doesn’t really explain it though, but simply assumes a mirror matter object could do that and then spends more time on how the mirror matter explains the lack of observed fragments and how remaining mirror matter could be detected. The one relevant line seems to be
“If this impact event is due to a (pure) mirror matter body, it should not
have slowed down as rapidly in the atmosphere as an ordinary matter body (for ǫ ∼ 10−8 − 10−9 as suggested by DAMA/NaI results, the air molecules typically pass through the body losing only a relatively small fraction of their momentum^36^).”
It must be explained elsewhere or the implications of ‘ǫ ∼ 10−8 − 10−9’ be obvious to a physicist. How annoying...
Abstract: Mirror matter is predicted to exist if parity (i.e. left-right symmetry) is a symmetry of nature.
Remarkably mirror matter is capable of simply explaining a large number of contemporary
puzzles in astrophysics and particle physics including: Explanation of the MACHO gravitational microlensing events, the existence of close-in extrasolar gas giant planets, apparently
‘isolated’ planets, the solar, atmospheric and LSND neutrino anomalies, the orthopositronium lifetime anomaly and perhaps even gamma ray bursts. One fascinating possibility is
that our solar system contains small mirror matter space bodies (asteroid or comet sized
objects), which are too small to be revealed from their gravitational effects but nevertheless
have explosive implications when they collide with the Earth. We examine the possibility
that the 1908 Tunguska explosion in Siberia was the result of the collision of a mirror matter
space body with the Earth. We point out that if this catastrophic event and many other
similar smaller events are manifestations of the mirror world then these impact sites should
be a good place to start digging for mirror matter. Mirror matter could potentially be
extracted & purified using a centrifuge and have many useful industrial applications.
OK, I think that explains that—Wikipedia is making the first assumption identified below, rather than the other one that he prefers:
“If the only force connecting mirror matter with ordinary matter is gravity, then the consequences would be minimal. The mirror SB would
simply pass through the Earth and nobody would know about it unless it was so heavy as to gravitationally affect the motion of the Earth.
However if there is photon—mirror photon kinetic mixing as suggested by the orthopositronium vacuum cavity experiment, then the mirror nuclei (with Z ′ mirror protons) will effectively have a small ordinary electric charge ǫZ ′ e. This means that the nuclei of the mirror atoms of the SB will undergo Rutherford scattering off the nuclei of the atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen atoms. In addition ionizing
interactions can occur which can ionize both the mirror atoms of the space body and also the atmospheric atoms. The net effect is that the kinetic energy of the SB is transformed into light and heat (both ordinary an mirror varieties) and a component is also converted to the atmosphere in the form of a shockwave, as the forward momentum of the SB is transferred to the air which passes though or near the SB.
What happens to the mirror matter SB as it plummets towards the Earth’s surface depends on a number of factors such as its initial velocity, size, chemical composition and angle of trajectory. Of course all these uncertainties occur for an ordinary matter SB too. Interestingly it turns out that for the value of the kinetic mixing suggested by the Or-
thopositronium experiment, ǫ ≈ 10−6, the air resistence of a mirror SB in the atmosphere is roughly the same as an ordinary SB assuming the same trajectory, velocity mass, size and shape (and that it remains intact). This occurs because the air molecules will lose their relative forward momentum (with respect to the SB) within the SB itself because of the Rutherford scattering of the ordinary and mirror nuclei as we will show in a moment. (Of course the atmospheric atoms still have random thermal motion). This will lead to a drag force of roughly the same size as that on an ordinary matter SB, implying an energy loss rate ….
The above calculation shows that the rate of energy loss of the SB in the atmosphere depends on its size and density. If we assume a density of ρSB ≃ 1 g/cm3 which is approximately valid for a mirror SB made of cometary material (such as mirror ices of water, methane and/or ammonia) then the body will lose most of its kinetic energy in the atmosphere provided that it is less than roughly 5 meters in diameter. Of course things are complicated because the the SB will undergo mass
loss (ablation) and also potentially fragment into smaller pieces and of course potentially melt & vaporize. Thus even a very large body (e.g. R ∼ 100 meters as estimated for the Tunguska explosion) can lose its kinetic energy in the atmosphere if it fragments into small pieces.
...Returning to the most interesting case of large photon—mirror photon kinetic mixing, ǫ ≃ 10−6 which is indicated by the orthopositronium experiment, our earlier calculation suggests that most of the kinetic energy of a mirror matter SB is released in the atmosphere like an ordinary matter SB if it is not too big (∼ 5 meters) or fragments into small objects. It seems to be an interesting candidate to explain the 1908 Tunguska explosion (as well as smaller similar events as we will discuss in a moment).
OK, I think that explains that—Wikipedia is making the first assumption identified below
No, Wikipedia mentions kinetic mixing then says that if it exists it must be weak, Wikipeda doesn’t say it wouldn’t exist (the evidence suggests it would exist). The Wikipedia article is just wrong. (ETA: I mean, it is just wrong to assume that it’s weak.) (Unless I’m misinterpreting what you mean by “the first assumption identified below”?)
What I meant was that both the paper and Wikipedia regard kinetic mixing as weak and relatively unimportant; then they differ about the next effect, the one that would be strong and would matter to Tunguska.
The part on Tunguska doesn’t really explain it though, but simply assumes a mirror matter object could do that and then spends more time on how the mirror matter explains the lack of observed fragments and how remaining mirror matter could be detected. The one relevant line seems to be
It must be explained elsewhere or the implications of ‘ǫ ∼ 10−8 − 10−9’ be obvious to a physicist. How annoying...
Here you go: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107132
OK, I think that explains that—Wikipedia is making the first assumption identified below, rather than the other one that he prefers:
No, Wikipedia mentions kinetic mixing then says that if it exists it must be weak, Wikipeda doesn’t say it wouldn’t exist (the evidence suggests it would exist). The Wikipedia article is just wrong. (ETA: I mean, it is just wrong to assume that it’s weak.) (Unless I’m misinterpreting what you mean by “the first assumption identified below”?)
What I meant was that both the paper and Wikipedia regard kinetic mixing as weak and relatively unimportant; then they differ about the next effect, the one that would be strong and would matter to Tunguska.
There’s a paper dedicated to Tunguska specifically that has tons of details, I’ll try to find it again. I’ll reply to your comment again once I do.