4.7 Article

Testing the dark matter annihilation model for the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe haze

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18658.x

关键词

cosmic background radiation; cosmology: theory; dark matter; diffuse radiation

资金

  1. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyses have found a 'haze' of anomalous microwave emission surrounding the Galactic Centre in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) sky maps. A recent study using Fermi data detected a similar haze in the gamma-ray. Several studies have modelled these hazes as radiation from the leptonic byproducts of dark matter annihilations, and arguably no convincing astrophysical alternative has been suggested. We discuss the characteristics of astrophysical cosmic ray sources that could potentially explain this microwave and gamma-ray emission. The most promising astrophysical scenarios involve cosmic ray sources that are clustered such that many fall within similar to 1 kpc of the Galactic Centre. For example, we show that several hundred Galactic Centre supernovae in the last million years plus a diffusion-hardened electron spectrum may be consistent with present constraints on this emission. Alternatively, it could be due to a burst of activity probably associated with Sagittarius A* occurring similar to 1 Myr ago and producing >10(51) erg in cosmic ray electrons. Different models predict contrasting trends for the spectral index of the microwave and gamma-ray spectrum as a function of angle from the Galactic Centre that we show should be robust to cosmic ray propagation uncertainties. In particular, if the haze is from dark matter annihilations, it should have a very hard microwave and gamma-ray spectrum for which the spectral shape does not change significantly with angle, which we argue would be difficult to achieve with any astrophysical mechanism. Observations with the Planck and Fermi satellites can distinguish between viable haze models using these signatures.

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

4.7
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