4.5 Article

Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
卷 89, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.065501

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A model-independent formulation of weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP)-nucleon scattering was recently developed in Galilean-invariant effective field theory. Purpose: Here we complete the embedding of this effective interaction in the nucleus, constructing the most general elastic nuclear cross section as a factorized product of WIMP and nuclear response functions. This form explicitly defines what can and cannot be learned about the low-energy constants of the effective theory-and consequently about candidate ultraviolet theories of dark matter-from elastic scattering experiments. Results: We identify those interactions that cannot be reliably treated in a spin-independent/spin-dependent (SI/SD) formulation: For derivative-or velocity-dependent couplings, the SI/SD formulation generally mischaracterizes the relevant nuclear operator and its multipolarity (e.g., scalar or vector) and greatly underestimates experimental sensitivities. This can lead to apparent conflicts between experiments when, in fact, none may exist. The new nuclear responses appearing in the factorized cross section are related to familiar electroweak nuclear operators such as angular momentum (l) over right arrow (i) and the spin-orbit coupling (sigma) over right arrow (i) . (l) over right arrow l(i). Conclusions: To unambiguously interpret experiments and to extract all of the available information on the particle physics of dark matter, experimentalists will need to (1) do a sufficient number of experiments with nuclear targets having the requisite sensitivities to the various operators and (2) analyze the results in a formalism that does not arbitrarily limit the candidate operators. In an appendix we describe a code that is available to help interested readers implement such an analysis.

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

4.5
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