Tag Archives: WIMPs

Dark Matter Eludes LUX

The LUX (Large Underground Xenon) experiment has just announced results from their first run, which gathered data for 85 days between April and August of this year. LUX is located a mile underground (to shield from cosmic rays and other interference) in an old mine in South Dakota, and employs a liquid Xenon detector with total mass of 370 kg. LUX is searching for WIMP dark matter particles which recoil directly off the nucleus of Xenon atoms in the detector.

Image

Large Underground Xenon detector, Photo by Carlos Faham, CC Attribution 3.0 license

They have two important findings from this first swath of data. First, to within the sensitivity of their experiment, they detected no weakly interacting massive dark particles (WIMPs). And second, their experiment has much greater sensitivity than other experiments in the low mass range from about 5 GeV to 100 GeV (the proton rest mass is a bit less than 1 GeV). Thus it is placing much tighter constrains on the cross-section for dark matter to interact with a nucleus, and the density of dark matter at the Earth’s orbit. The previous largest Xenon-based experiment was XENON100 (for 100 kg total detector mass). With LUX, the sensitivity has improved over the results of that earlier experiment by around a factor of 20 for a possible 10 GeV WIMP mass, due to the larger target and better rejection of background events.

Image

This chart is the most interesting portion of Fig. 5 from the LUX first results paper (reference below). The blue line shows the upper limit on the cross section dropping from 10^-40 cm² to less than 10-44 cm² as a function of WIMP mass, as the mass increases from about 5 to 12 GeV (X-axis above the chart). Note the Y-axis is logarithmic, so the new limit is orders of magnitude below other limits (various colored curves) and claimed possible detections (shaded areas).

These new LUX results are in direct conflict with possible detections from CoGeNT (small red-shaded area on chart), CRESST (yellow-shaded), CDMS- II (green-shaded area), and DAMA/LIBRA (grey-shaded area), all of which were suggesting detections with a WIMP dark matter mass around 10 GeV. Now certain assumptions are made about the astrophysical parameters such as the density of dark matter at the Earth being the same as the average in our part of the galaxy. But other experimental results are based on similar assumptions, so this does not explain the discrepancy.

Both CoGeNT and CDMS-II sit in the same Soudan Laboratory in Minnesota, one state over from where the LUX experiment resides. However different experiments use different atoms as targets: CoGeNT uses germanium, CDMS uses silicon, CRESST uses calcium tungstate crystals and DAMA/LIBRA uses thallium doped sodium iodide. These latter two experiments are both located in Italy, in a mountain tunnel. All of these experiments are attempting to discern a very faint signal against significant backgrounds. And perhaps earn a Nobel Prize in Physics as well. So it’s natural for the researchers on the associated teams to lean toward optimism It remains quite possible, and now seems more and more probable, that the experiments other than LUX are observing some unexplained non-dark matter background effect, so this is a very significant result.

LUX is not finished, of course. It’s just getting going. So we await their further results, with either a possible WIMP detection in the future, or even tighter limits on the existence of lower mass WIMPs.

References:

http://luxdarkmatter.org – LUX consortium home page

http://t.co/1hyXRSiBsK – D.S. Akerib et. al., 2013,  “First results from the LUX dark matter experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility”

https://theconversation.com/dark-matter-experiment-finds-nothing-makes-news-19707 – LUX results are constraining WIMP parameter space

http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/10/30/breaking-news-two-great-new-measurements/ – on the LUX results


Multi-component Dark Matter: Let there be Heavy and Let there be Light

Around 27% of the universe’s mass-energy is due to dark matter, according to the latest Planck satellite results; this finding is consistent with a number of other experiments as well. This is approximately 6 times more than the total mass due to ordinary matter (dominated by protons and neutrons) that makes up the visible parts of galaxies, stars, planets, and all of our familiar world.
 
The most likely explanation for dark matter is some kind of WIMP – Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. The amount of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) produced in the very early universe rules out ordinary matter as the primary explanation for the various “excess” gravitational effects we see in galaxies, groups and clusters of galaxies and at the largest distance scales in our observable universe.

WIMPs are thought to be a class of new, exotic particles, beyond the Standard Model. A favored candidate for dark matter is the lightest supersymmetric particle, although supersymmetry is as of yet unproven. The lightest such particle would be very stable, having nothing into which it could decay readily. A mass range of 5 to 300 GeV or so is the range in which most of the direct detection experiments looking for dark matter are focused (1 GeV = 1 giga-volt is a little more than the mass of a proton).

But there would certainly be more than one kind of such WIMP formed in the very early universe. These would be heavier particles, and most would quickly decay into lighter products, but there might still be some heavier WIMPs remaining, provided their lifetime was sufficiently long. Particle physicists are actively working on models with more than one component for dark matter, typically two-component models with a heavy particle above 100 GeV mass, and a lighter component with mass of order 10 GeV (more or less).

In fact there are observational hints of the possibility of both a light dark matter particle and a heavier one. The SuperCDMS team has announced a possible detection around 8 or 9 GeV. The COGENT experiment has a possible detection in the neighborhood of 10 GeV, and in general agreement with the SuperCDMS results.

ImageFermi satellite payload, photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett

At the heavier end, the Fermi LAT gamma-ray experiment has made a possible detection of an emission line at 130 GeV which might result from dark matter decay. A pair of such gamma rays could be decay products from annihilation of a heavier dark matter particle with mass around 260 GeV. Or a particle of that mass could decay into some other particle plus a photon with about half of the heavy dark matter mass, e.g. 130 GeV.

Kajiyama, Okada and Toda have built one such model with a light particle around 10 GeV and a heavier one in the 100 to 1000 GeV region. They claim their model is consistent with the observational limits on dark matter placed by the XENON 100 experiment.

Gu has developed a model with 2 dark matter components with magnetic moments. Representative values of the heavy dark matter particle mass at 262 GeV and the lighter particle mass at 20 GeV can reproduce the observed overall dark matter density. He also finds the decay lifetime for the heavier particle state to be very long, in excess of 10^20 years, or 10 billion times the age of the universe, thus in this model the heavy dark matter particle easily persists to the present day. In fact, he finds that the heavy particle dominates with over 99% of the total mass contribution to dark matter. And a heavy dark matter particle with the chosen mass can decay into the lighter dark matter particle plus an energetic 130 GeV gamma ray (photon). This might explain the Fermi LAT results.

Furthermore, the existence of two highly stable dark matter particles of different masses would help explain some astrophysical issues related to the formation of galaxies and their observed density profiles. Mikhail Medvedev has numerically simulated galaxy formation using supercomputers, with a model incorporating two dark matter components. This model results in a better fit to the observed velocities of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group than does a model with a single dark matter component. (The Local Group includes our Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy, the Magellanic Clouds and a number of dwarf galaxies.) His model also helps to explain the more flattened density profiles in galaxies and the smaller numbers of dwarf galaxies actually observed relative to what would be predicted by single dark matter component models.

Occam’s razor says one should adopt the simplest model that can explain observational results, suggesting one should add a second component to dark matter only if needed. It seems like a second dark matter component might be necessary to fully explain all the results, but we will require more observations to know if this is the case.

References:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v88/i1/e015029 Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada and T. Toda 2013, “Multicomponent dark matter particles in a two-loop neutrino model”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212686413000058
P. Gu 2013, “Multi-component dark matter with magnetic moments for Fermi-LAT gamma-ray line”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.1307v1.pdf M. Medvedev 2013, “Cosmological Simulations of Multi-Component Cold Dark Matter”

 

 

 


Dark Matter in the Solar System: Does it Matter?

Dark matter is the dominant form of matter in the universe. Measurements from supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, galaxy clusters, galaxy rotation and other techniques indicate that it is approximately 5 or 6 times as abundant by mass density as ordinary matter. By particle number, it is probably less abundant, as long as the dark matter particle has mass greater than 6 GeV (giga-electron Volts) as seems likely (actually mass is in units of GeV/c², but physicists like to use the shorthand of “GeV”). The ordinary matter mass component is dominated by protons and neutrons with approximately 1 GeV mass. So if the dark matter particle turns out to be 6 GeV, which is near the lower bound of expected mass, then just as many dark matter particles as protons and neutrons combined would explain the nearly 6 times as much dark matter mass density on average, as compared to ordinary matter density. Otherwise, if the dark matter particle mass is larger, fewer would suffice.

Dark matter clumps, under its own gravitational influence, into large scale structures including superclusters of galaxies, clusters and groups of galaxies, and individual galaxies and dwarf galaxies. Within our own Milky Way galaxy, the dark matter is more diffuse, more spread out, than ordinary matter. As one moves away from the center of the galaxy, and above the spiral disk that contains most of the ordinary, luminous matter, the dark matter to ordinary matter ratio increases. Ordinary matter clumps to a much greater degree since it feels electromagnetic forces, and these result in friction and shock waves that heat up the ordinary matter, but also cooling via radiative processes – emission of photons. Cold ordinary matter will clump due to mutual gravitational infall as it cools, and this is how we end up with molecular clouds (stellar nurseries), stars, and planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. In these structures, which are at much smaller distance scales, ordinary matter dominates over dark matter. Dark matter doesn’t feel electromagnetic forces, so it remains more spread out, influenced primarily by gravitational forces.

Image

Nevertheless, one can ask the question, to what extent does dark matter influence our Solar System? For example, are the orbits of the Earth or other planets perturbed due to the gravitational effect of dark matter found in the Solar System? Surely there is some dark matter within the Solar System, assuming the most favored explanation, that it is some sort of new particle, a WIMP – weakly interacting massive particle, or perhaps an axion. This is why direct detection efforts looking for dark matter passing through Earth-bound laboratories are worthwhile.

The amount of dark matter in the galactic plane in the vicinity of the Solar neighborhood is estimated by looking at the dynamics of stars nearby and above and below the Milky Way’s disk. By looking at their velocity distribution we can measure the total mass density and subtract out the ordinary matter component. The favored value in the Solar neighborhood for the galactic background is usually taken to be 0.3 GeV/cc and equates to the equivalent of 1 proton per every 3 cubic centimeters. Thus, with this value, if the dark matter particle has mass 10 GeV, there would need to be 1 of these particles for each 30 cc of space. This is not a significant amount; within Earth’s orbit it would amount to about 8 billion tons. Out to the orbit of Saturn, the total amount would be around 9 trillion tons. This is not much in Solar System terms.

However, there’s more to the story than just this quick estimate. Let’s look at the observational constraints first; one can look for perturbations in the orbits of the major Solar System bodies to place some constraints on the amount of dark matter. Then we will look at the possibility that the  Solar System’s complement of dark matter is significantly higher than the value inferred from stellar dynamics within the Milky Way, due to gravitational capture of some of the dark matter encountered over billions of years as the Sun (and the rest of the Solar System) orbits the center of our galaxy at over 200 kilometers per second. The idea is that the average in the Solar “suburban” neighborhood is close to the estimate above, but in the “urban” neighborhood closer to the Sun the dark matter is more concentrated, due to being gravitationally swept up by the Sun and larger planets.

Russian researchers Pitjev and Pitjeva have studied hundreds of thousands of observations – over a nearly 50 year period – of the planets, a number of their moons, and spacecraft in the Solar System, looking for orbital perturbations. They find no measurable deviations which could be ascribed to dark matter. They have found that the density is less than 1.1 x 10^-20 grams/cc at the orbit of Saturn, 1.4 x 10^-20 g/cc at Mars, and less than 1.4 x 10^-19 g/cc at Earth. We can convert this to GeV/cc by noting that the proton mass is .938 GeV, which is equivalent to 1.67 x 10^-24 grams. So their upper limit on density at Saturn is then equivalent to 6000 GeV/cc. This is a much looser constraint. In other words, even at several thousand GeV/cc for the dark matter density near to the Sun, no apparent orbital perturbations would be expected for the 8 planets and several moons and spacecraft studied.

Thus one can conclude that even if the dark matter density in the Solar neighborhood were 10 or even 100 times larger than expected from stellar dynamics observations, that its gravitational effects on the precisely measured orbits of the major planets and major moons in the Solar system would be of no consequence.

In fact the authors note that the aggregate dark matter within Saturn’s orbit should be less than 1/6th of 1 billionth of the Sun’s mass, which is 2 x 10^27 metric tons. We’re talking at most 3 x 10^17 metric tons, which is a lot, but not in Solar system terms. The mass of the Moon is 7 x 10^19 metric tons, so this is an amount over 200 times smaller than the Moon’s mass spread out over the volume within Saturn’s orbit.

Another research team, at the University of Arizona, used a different technique five years ago. They modeled how much dark matter would be swept up into and gravitationally captured, by the Solar System over its 4.5 billion year history as it moves around the galactic center. Drs. Xu and Siegel calculate that about 10^17 metric tons of dark matter have been captured, out to the outer reaches of the Solar system. This amount is just 0.14% of the Moon’s mass and 0.0018% the mass of the Earth. This is consistent with the less than 1/3 x 10^18 metric tons within Saturn’s orbit from the orbital study above.

One of the important consequences of the Xu and Siegel results is that direct searches for dark matter need to consider in their models for data analysis not only the flux of the high velocity component as the Earth and Solar System move around the galactic center at over 200 km/sec, but also the lower velocity component. This applies to the more abundant dark matter that is bound within the Solar System and through which the Earth moves at a rate of 30 km/sec. At the Earth’s location their model implies a density 2000 times higher, or 600 GeV/cc, for this low velocity, bound component so despite the lower velocity, it could well dominate in dark matter detection experiments.

References:

http://darkmatterdarkenergy.com/2012/08/14/dark-matter-on-mars/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.5534v1.pdf – N. P. Pitjev and E. V. Pitjeva, 2013, “Constraints on Dark Matter in the Solar System”

http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/ – describes Solar System dark matter capture model of Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3767 – E. Siegel and X. Xu, 2008, “Dark Matter in the Solar System”


SuperCDMS Collaboration Possible Detection of Dark Matter

Hard on the heels of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) positron excess and possible dark matter report, we now have a hint of direct dark matter detection from the SuperCDMS Collaboration this month. A recent blog here on darkmatterdarkenergy.com discusses the detection of excess positron flux seen in the AMS-02 experiment on board the Space Shuttle. The two main hypotheses for the source of excess positrons are either a nearby pulsar or dark matter in our Milky Way galaxy and halo.

Image

Photo: CDMS-II silicon detector, Credit: SuperCMDS Collaboration

CDMS-II (CDMS stands for Cryogenic Dark Matter Search) is a direct dark matter detection experiment based in the Soudan mine in Minnesota. The deep underground location shields the experiment from most of the cosmic rays impinging on the Earth’s surface. Previously they had reported a null result based on their germanium detector and ruled out a detection. Now they have more completely analyzed data from their silicon detector, which has higher sensitivity for lower possible dark matter masses, and they have detected 3 events which might be due to dark matter and report as follows.

“Monte Carlo simulations have shown that the probability that a statistical fluctuation of our known backgrounds could produce three or more events anywhere in our signal region is 5.4%. However, they would rarely produce a similar energy distribution. A likelihood analysis that includes the measured recoil energies of the three events gives a 0.19% probability for a model including only known background when tested against a model that also includes a WIMP contribution.”

So essentially they are reporting a possible detection with something ranging from 95% to 99.8% likelihood. This is a hint, but cannot be considered a firm detection as it rises to the level of perhaps 3 standard deviations (3 sigma) of statistical significance. Normally one looks to see a 5 sigma significance for a detection to be well confirmed. If the 3 events are real they suggest a relatively low dark matter particle mass of around 8 or 9 GeV/c² (the proton mass is a little under 1 GeV/c², and the Higgs boson around 126 GeV/c²).

Image

Figure: Error ellipses for CDMS-II and CoGeNT, assuming a dark matter WIMP explanation. Blue ellipses are the 68% (dark blue) and 90% (cyan) confidence levels for the CDMS-II experiment. The purple ellipse is the 90% confidence level for CoGeNT.

The figure shows the plane of dark matter (WIMP, or weakly interacting massive particle) cross-section on the y-axis vs. the WIMP mass on the x-axis. Note this is a log-log plot, so the uncertainties are large. The dark blue region is the 1 sigma error ellipse for the CDMS experiment and the light blue region is the 90% confidence error ellipse. The best fit is marked by an asterisk located at mass of 8.6 GeV/c² and with a cross-section a bit under 2 x 10^-41 cm². But the mass could range from less than 6 to as much as 20 or more GeV/c². And the cross-section uncertainty is over two orders of magnitude.

However, this is quite interesting as the error ellipse for the mass and interaction cross-section from this CDMS-II putative result overlaps well with the (smaller) error ellipse of the CoGeNT results. The CoGeNT experiment is a germanium detector run by a different consortium, but based in the same Soudan Underground Laboratory as the CDMS-II experiment! COGENT sees a possible signal with around 2.8 sigma significance as an annual modulated WIMP wind, with the modulation in the signal due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun and thus relative to the galactic center. The purple colored region in the figure is the CoGeNT 90% confidence error ellipse, and it includes the CDMS-II best fit point and suggests also a mass of roughly 10 GeV/c².

The DAMA/LIBRA experiment in Italy has for years been claiming a highly significant 9 sigma detection of a WIMP (dark matter) wind, but with very large uncertainties in the particle mass and cross-section. However both the COGENT results and this CDMS-II possible result are quite consistent with the centroid of the DAMA/LIBRA error regions.

And both the CoGeNT and DAMA experiments are consistent with an annual modulation peak occurring sometime between late April and the end of May, as is expected based on the Earth’s orbit combined with the Sun’s movement relative to the galactic center.

What we can say at this point is the hottest region to hunt in is around 6 to 10 GeV/c² and with a cross section roughly 10^-41 cm². Physicists may be closing in on the target area for a confirmed weakly interacting dark matter particle detection. We await further results, but the pace of progress seems to be increasing.

References:

http://darkmatterdarkenergy.com/2013/04/07/ams-positron-excess-due-to-dark-matter-or-not/ – Recent first results from AMS for positron excess

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/ – SuperCDMS Collaboration web site

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4279 – “Dark Matter Search Results Using the Silicon Detectors of CDMS II”

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/APS_CDMS_Si_2013_McCarthy.pdf – Kevin McCarthy’s presentation at the American Physical Society, April 15, 2013

http://cogent.pnnl.gov/ – CoGeNT website

http://darkmatterdarkenergy.com/2011/06/16/do-we-have-a-cogent-direct-detection-of-dark-matter/ - Discussion of CoGeNT 2011 results

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6243v1.pdf  – DAMA/LIBRA results summary, 2013


Supersymmetry in Trouble?

Image

There’s a major particle physics symposium going on this week in Kyoto, Japan – Hadron Collider Physics 2012. A paper from the LHCb collaboration, with 619 authors, was presented on the opening day, here is the title and abstract:

First evidence for the decay Bs -> mu+ mu-

A search for the rare decays Bs->mu+mu- and B0->mu+mu- is performed using data collected in 2011 and 2012 with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The data samples comprise 1.1 fb^-1 of proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 8 TeV and 1.0 fb^-1 at sqrt{s}=7 TeV. We observe an excess of Bs -> mu+ mu- candidates with respect to the background expectation. The probability that the background could produce such an excess or larger is 5.3 x 10^-4 corresponding to a signal significance of 3.5 standard deviations. A maximum-likelihood fit gives a branching fraction of BR(Bs -> mu+ mu-) = (3.2^{+1.5}_{-1.2}) x 10^-9, where the statistical uncertainty is 95% of the total uncertainty. This result is in agreement with the Standard Model expectation. The observed number of B0 -> mu+ mu- candidates is consistent with the background expectation, giving an upper limit of BR(B0 -> mu+ mu-) < 9.4 x 10^-10 at 95% confidence level.

In other words, the LHCb consortium claim to have observed the quite rare decay channel from B-mesons to muons (each B-meson decaying to two muons), representing about 3 occurrences out of each 1 billion decays of the Bs type of the B-meson. Their detection has marginal statistical significance of 3.5 standard deviations (one would prefer 5 deviations), so needs further confirmation.

What’s a B-meson? It’s a particle that consists of a quark and an anti-quark. Quarks are the underlying constituents of protons and neutrons, but they are composed of 3 quarks each, whereas B-mesons have just two each. The particle is called B-meson because one of the quarks is a bottom quark (there are 6 types of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, charge, strange plus the corresponding anti-particles). A Bs-meson consists of a strange quark and an anti-bottom quark (the antiparticle of the bottom quark). Its mass is between 5 and 6 times that of a proton.

What’s a muon? It’s a heavy electron, basically, around 200 times heavier.

What’s important about this proposed result is that the decay ratio (branching fraction) that they have measured is fully consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, without adding supersymmetry. Supersymmetry relates known particles with integer multiple spin to as-yet-undetected particles with half-integer spin (and known particles of half-integer spin to as-yet-undetected particles with integer spin). So each of the existing Standard Model particles has a “superpartner”.

Yet the very existence of what appears to be a Higgs Boson at around 125 GeV as announced at the LHC in July of this year is highly suggestive of the existence of supersymmetry of some type. Supersymmetry is one way to get the Higgs to have a “reasonable” mass such as what has been found. And there are many other outstanding issues with the Standard Model that supersymmetric theories could help to resolve.

Now this has implications for the interpretation of dark matter as well. One of the favored explanations for dark matter, if it is composed of some fundamental particle, is that it is one type of supersymmetric particle. Since dark matter persists throughout the history of the universe, nearly 14 billion years, it must be highly stable. Now the least massive particle in supersymmetry theories is stable, i.e. does not decay since there is no lighter supersymmetric particle into which it can decay. And this so called LSP for lightest supersymmetric particle is the favored candidate for dark matter.

So if there is no supersymmetry then there needs to be another explanation for dark matter.


Dark Matter Powered Stars

Gamma Ray Burster 070125

GRB (gamma ray burster) 070125. Credit: B. Cenko, et al. and the W. M. Keck Observatory.

So what is a “dark star”? It is not a Newtonian black hole as suggested by John Michell in the 18th century who used the term while postulating that gravity could prevent light escaping from a very massive, compact star. It is not a “dark energy star”, which is related to a black hole, but rather than having a singularity at the center, quantum effects cause infalling matter to be converted to vacuum state energy, dark energy. It is not a comic book, science fiction comedy film, or Grateful Dead song.

In this blog entry we are writing about dark matter powered stars. These would be the very first stars, formed within the first few hundred million years of the universe’s existence. The working assumption is that dark matter consists of WIMPs – weakly interacting massive particles, in particular the favored candidate is the neutralino. The neutralino is the lightest particle among the postulated supersymmetric companions to the Standard Model suite of particles. As such it would be stable, would not ordinarily decay and is being searched for with XENON, CDMS, DAMA, AMS-02 and many other experiments.

The first stars are thought by astrophysicists to have been formed from clouds of ordinary hydrogen and helium as well as dark matter, with dark matter accounting for 5/6 of the total mass. These clouds, called “dark matter halos” are considered to have contained from about one million to 100 million times the Sun’s mass. The ordinary matter would settle towards the center as it cooled via radiation processes and the dark matter (which does not radiate) would be more diffuse. The stars forming at the center would be overwhelmingly composed of ordinary matter (hydrogen and helium nuclei and electrons).

Without any dark matter at all, ordinary matter stars up to about 120 to 150 solar masses could form; above this limit they would have very hot surfaces and their own radiation would inhibit further growth by infall of matter from the halo. But if as little as one part in a thousand of the protostar’s mass was in the form of dark matter this limitation goes away. The reason is that the neutralino WIMPs will, from time to time, meet one another inside the star and mutually annihilate since the neutralino is its own anti-particle. The major fraction of the energy produced in the annihilation remains inside the star, but some escapes in the form of neutrinos (not neutralinos).

Annihilation of these neutralinos is a very efficient heating mechanism throughout the volume of the star, creating a great amount of heat and pressure support, basically puffing up the star to a very large size. The stellar surface is, as a result, much cooler than in the no dark matter case, radiation pressure is insignificant, and accretion of significantly more material onto the star can occur. Stars could grow to be 1000 solar masses, or 10,000 solar masses, potentially even up to one million solar masses. Their sizes would be enormous while they were in the dark matter powered phase. Even the relatively small 1000 solar mass star, if placed at the Sun’s location, would extend through much of our Solar System, beyond the orbit of Saturn.

We have mentioned the neutralino meets neutralino annihilation mechanism. A second mechanism for heating the interior of the star would be direct impact of neutralinos onto protons and helium nuclei. This second mechanism could help sustain the duration as a dark matter powered star potentially even beyond a billion years.

Eventually the dark matter fuel would be exhausted, and the heat and pressure support from this source lost. The star would then collapse until the core was hot enough for nuclear fusion burning. Stars of 1000 solar masses would burn hydrogen, and later helium, and evolve extremely rapidly because of the high density and temperature in their cores. After their hydrogen and helium fusion cycles completed there would be no source of sufficient pressure support and they would collapse to black holes (or maybe dark energy stars).

It is calculated with detailed simulations that the dark star mechanism allows for much more massive stars than could be formed otherwise, and this provides a potentially natural explanation for the creation of massive black holes. Our own Milky Way has a black hole around 3 million solar masses at its center, and it appears a majority of galaxies have large black holes. The image at the top of this blog is of a gamma ray burst detection that may have come from a large black hole formation event.

References:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(dark_matter)

Freese, K. et al 2008, Dark Stars: the First Stars in the Universe may be powered by Dark Matter Heating, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4844v1

Freese, K. et al 2010, Supermassive Dark Stars, http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2233

http://news.discovery.com/space/did-dark-stars-spawn-supermassive-black-holes.html


Direct Search for Dark Matter: XENON100

The direct detection of putative dark matter particles, as opposed to measuring their collective gravitational effects, remains a significant challenge. A number of experiments are actively searching for WIMPs (= Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) as the currently favored candidates for dark matter. Particle physics models with supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model suggest that the most abundant particle of dark matter would have a mass significantly greater than the proton. The mass is expected to lie somewhere in the range of under 10 times the mass of a proton to possibly as much as 10,000 times the mass of a proton (around 10 to 10,000 GeV/c^2 where GeV is a billion electron volts of energy and we divide by the square of the speed of light to convert to mass). The WIMP name reflects that these particles would only interact with other matter via the weak nuclear force and via gravity. They do not react via either the strong nuclear force or electromagnetism.

It is believed that WIMPs are produced in the Big Bang as a decay mode from the massive release of energy during the inflation phase. The currently most favored candidate WIMP is the proposed least massive supersymmetric particle (LSP), which is expected to be stable. Supersymmetric particles are considered to have large masses and would have the same quantum numbers (properties) as corresponding Standard Model particles, except for their spins, that would differ by 1/2 from their partners. The local density of dark matter is estimated to be about .3 GeV / cc (GeV per cubic centimeter). If the WIMP mass is 100 GeV/ c^2 there would be about 3 particles per liter.

Two major techniques are being employed to search for cosmic WIMPs. One of these is to detect the direct impact of WIMPs with atomic nuclei (via elastic scattering) in underground laboratories here on Earth. These would be very rare events, so large detectors are required and experiments must gather data for a long time. Such an impact leaves products from the interaction and it is these products that are actually detected in an experiment. A second technique is to look for gamma rays, which are produced in the galactic halo of the Milky Way or also the Sun’s interior, when dark matter (WIMP) collisions with ordinary matter occur at those locations. The gamma rays produced in this way can in principle be detected with satellites in Earth orbit.

Beyond these two general techniques to detect WIMPs there is the hope of actually creating these dark matter particles via high energy collisions at the Large Hadron Collider.

One recent set of results is from the XENON collaboration, which is funded by the US government and 6 European nations. The XENON100 experiment is located underground in Italy, in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory. The heart of the detector consists of cooled Xenon of quantity 65 kilograms. The target is in both the liquid and gas phases. When a WIMP strikes a Xenon atom directly, electrons are either knocked out of the Xenon atom or boosted to higher energy orbital levels in the atom. Both scintillation light, due to subsequent decay of the electron orbital, and ionization electrons, are thus generated. The 100 days of exposure of XENON100 analyzed to date have yielded 3 events, but one expects 2 events from background neutrons producing similar signatures, so there is statistically no detection. This result does allow the placement of upper limits on the WIMP cross-section for interaction as a function of mass.

The result appears to be in conflict with another experiment, also located at the same Gran Sasso laboratory, run by the DAMA team. The DAMA/Libra experiment claims a statistically significant detection of an annually modulated “WIMP wind” which reflects the variation in the Earth’s orbital direction with respect to the diffuse background of WIMP particles. The intensity is well above XENON100 limits for certain possible mass ranges of the WIMP major constituent particle.

The race is on to secure the direct detection of dark matter particles, beyond their extensive apparent gravitational effects. Rapid progress in enhancing the sensitivity of detection methods, typically including the use of larger detectors, will increase the probability of better WIMP detection and mass determination in the future.

References:

M. Drees, G. Gerbier and the Particle Data Group, 2010. “Dark Matter” Journal of Physics G37(7A) pp 255-260

J. Feng, 2010. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48: 495, “Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection” (also available at: arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0904)

S. Perrenod, 2011. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity, chapter 4, BookBrewer Publishing

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

XENON Dark Matter Project


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 316 other followers