Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userProspects for macroscopic dark matter detection at space-based and suborbital experiments
134
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We compare two different formalisms for modeling the energy deposition of macroscopically sized/massive quark nuggets (a.k.a. macros) in the Earths atmosphere. We show that for a reference mass of 1 g, there is a discrepancy in the macro luminosity of about 14 orders of magnitude between the predictions of the two formalisms. Armed with our finding we estimate the sensitivity for macro detection at space-based (Mini-EUSO and POEMMA) and suborbital (EUSO-SPB2) experiments.
rate research
Read More
The XENON100 and CRESST experiments will directly test the inelastic dark matter explanation for DAMAs 8.9? sigma anomaly. This article discusses how predictions for direct detection experiments depend on uncertainties in quenching factor measurements, the dark matter interaction with the Standard Model and the halo velocity distribution. When these uncertainties are accounted for, an order of magnitude variation is found in the number of expected events at CRESST and XENON100.
We work with a UV conformal U(1) extension of the Standard Model, motivated by the hierarchy problem and recent collider anomalies. This model admits fermionic vector portal WIMP dark matter charged under the U(1) gauge group. The asymptotically safe boundary conditions can be used to fix the coupling parameters, which allows the observed thermal relic abundance to constrain the mass of the dark matter particle. This highly restricts the parameter space, allowing strong predictions to be made. The parameter space of several UV conformal U(1) scenarios will be explored, and both bounds and possible signals from direct and indirect detection observation methods will be discussed.
We study the capabilities of the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR, a neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment currently under construction at the Sanford Underground Laboratory, as a light WIMP detector. For a cross section near the current experimental bound, the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR should collect hundreds or even thousands of recoil events. This opens up the possibility of simultaneously determining the physical properties of the dark matter and its local velocity distribution, directly from the data. We analyze this possibility and find that allowing the dark matter velocity distribution to float considerably worsens the WIMP mass determination. This result is traced to a previously unexplored degeneracy between the WIMP mass and the velocity dispersion. We simulate spectra using both isothermal and Via Lactea II velocity distributions and comment on the possible impact of streams. We conclude that knowledge of the dark matter velocity distribution will greatly facilitate the mass and cross section determination for a light WIMP.
We consider the possibility that dark matter can communicate with the Standard Model fields via flavor interactions. We take the dark matter to belong to a dark sector which contains at least two types, or flavors, of particles and then hypothesize that the Standard Model fields and dark matter share a common interaction which depends on flavor. As, generically, interaction eigenstates and mass eigenstates need not coincide, we consider both flavor-changing and flavor-conserving interactions. These interactions are then constrained by meson decays, kaon mixing, and current collider bounds, and we examine their relevance for direct detection and LHC.
Macroscopic dark matter (or macro) provides a broad class of alternative candidates to particle dark matter. These candidates would transfer energy primarily through elastic scattering, and this linear energy deposition would produce observable signals if a macro were to traverse the atmosphere. We study the fluorescence emission produced by a macro passing through the atmosphere. We estimate the sensitivity of EUSO-SPB2 to constrain the two-dimensional parameter space ($sigma$ vs. $M$), where $M$ is the macro mass and $sigma$ its cross sectional area.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
