4.6 Article

PAMELA and FERMI limits on the neutralino-chargino mass degeneracy

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/11/028

关键词

dark matter theory; cosmic ray experiments; particle physics - cosmology connection; gamma ray experiments

资金

  1. INFN
  2. French national research agency ANR [ANR 2010 BLANC 041301]
  3. EU ITN network UNILHC
  4. Russian foundation for Basic Research [RFBR-10-02-01443-a, RFBR-12-02-93108-CNRSLa]
  5. LIA-TCAP of CNRS
  6. CMIRA 2011 EXPLO'RA DOC grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Searches for Dark Matter (DM) particles with indirect detection techniques have reached important milestones with the precise measurements of the anti-proton ((p) over bar) and gamma-ray spectra, notably by the PAMELA and FERMI-LAT experiments. While the gamma-ray results have been used to test the thermal Dark Matter hypothesis and constrain the Dark Matter annihilation cross section into Standard Model (SM) particles, the anti-proton flux measured by the PAMELA experiment remains relatively unexploited. Here we show that the latter can be used to set a constraint on the neutralino-chargino mass difference. To illustrate our point we use a Supersymmetric model in which the gauginos are light, the sfermions are heavy and the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) is the neutralino. In this framework the W+W- production is expected to be significant, thus leading to large (p) over bar and gamma-ray fluxes. After determining a generic limit on the Dark Matter pair annihilation cross section into W+W- from the (p) over bar data only, we show that one can constrain scenarios in which the neutralino-chargino mass difference is as large as similar or equal to 20 GeV for a mixed neutralino (and intermediate choices of the (p) over bar propagation scheme). This result is consistent with the limit obtained by using the FERMI-LAT data. As a result, we can safely rule out the pure wino neutralino hypothesis if it is lighter than 450 GeV and constitutes all the Dark Matter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据