The interaction cross section as a function of WIMP mass. The original expectation of 10-39cm2 is at top. Gray areas are regions that were experimentally excluded by 2008 (before the blue-green prediction) and by 2022, which is the most recent update as of this writing. The most sensitive limit is 10-47 cm2, eight orders of magnitude below the original prediction.
Via Triton Station.
At masses much below 10 GeV, and certainly at masses below 1 MeV, direct dark matter detection experiments of that kind that are the basis for the chart below lose most of their observational power because the background noise from neutrinos overwhelms any possible signal from dark matter interactions with the detector.
The chart below showing this background and the caption are also via Triton Station.
WIMP experimental limits (via Hamdan 2021) with the expected neutrino background in orange. Once this sensitivity is reached, any WIMP signal becomes obscured by the neutrino background.
To subtract this background to try to improve the signal would require a better understanding of the neutrino background than we have at this time and would even then degrade the precision of the measurement.
Fermionic Dark Matter Can't Be Less Massive Than A Neutrino
Stacy McGaugh also makes a notable observation in a comment which rules out a very different part of the dark matter parameters space:
neutrinos are fermions and subject to a close-packing limit imposed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. A less well-known problem for neutrinos as dark matter is that there are some regions where the dark matter density is too high to be explained by fermions of neutrino mass. They can’t be packed in tightly enough.
Thus, we can pretty much categorically rule out all fermionic dark matter candidates which are less massive than neutrinos (realistically, having less than meV mass). So, light dark matter candidates must be bosons.
Dark Matter Must Be Wave-Like And Thus Light
Another large generic exclusion of dark matter parameter space is that there is observational evidence that dark matter particles, if they exist, must be "wave-like" which suggests that it must have a particle mass of not more than about 10 keV. The same line of research favors a dark matter particle mass of much, much less than the neutrino mass, which we know, from McGaugh's comment, must also be a boson (realistically spin-0, spin-1, or spin-2).
The requirement that dark matter be wave-like also rules out, for example, all hadronic dark matter candidates and primordial black holes, in addition to providing another means to exclude WIMPs down to the MeV mass or so, even if they are sterile (i.e. having no non-gravitational interactions).
The requirement that dark matter be wave-like also generically rules out "thermal freeze out" dark matter candidates, other than warm dark matter with a dark matter particle mass on the order of 1-10 keV, which would have too high of a mean velocity at the necessarily low dark matter particle masses.
7 comments:
WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles predicted by supersymmetry)
any weakly interacting massive particles separate from supersymmetry
@neo I edited the post to clarify that sentence.
lol what i meant by that is if any BSM models that predicts any weakly interacting massive particles separate from supersymmetry
could you have weakly interacting massive particles but no supersymmetry
Sure you could.
any thoughts on
"Two of the most statistically significant and long-standing low energy anomalies are the
excesses in electron-like events at the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) [4] and
MiniBooNE (MB) [5–7], both of which are short-baseline liquid scintillation detectors with
incident νμ and/or ¯νμ beams with average energies below 1 GeV. The significances of the
LSND and MB excesses are 3.8σ and 4.8σ, respectively. Their combined significance stands
at 6.1σ. The results are backed by careful checks and studies of possible SM backgrounds [8–
13] in order to eliminate SM physics explanations."
What is that from? It is missing too much context to figure out.
Is it evaluating possible sterile neutrino anomalies?
Some of the past anomalies at reactors have been assigned most-likely to failing to accurately measure and consider the mix of radioactive fuels in the reactor.
In the case of electron-like events, probably the most likely cause would be electrons from beta decay from some source not considered in their background modeling, like trace contamination from a nuclear isotope in the fuel which wasn't considered. This would be either an uncommon decay product of the fuel or some other radioactive isotope which is found naturally with uranium-235 and uranium-238 at low concentrations that wasn't fully separated out from the uranium-235 or uranium-238. It could be either another uranium isotope or another radioactive element (e.g. carbon-14).
yes evaluating possible sterile neutrino anomalies
what do you think of " The significances of the
LSND and MB excesses are 3.8σ and 4.8σ, respectively. Their combined significance stands
at 6.1σ. The results are backed by careful checks and studies of possible SM backgrounds "
significance stands
at 6.1σ possible sterile neutrino anomalies
Post a Comment