4.7 Article

New DAMA dark-matter window and energetic-neutrino searches

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 79, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.015010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fermi Research Alliance, LLC [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy
  3. NASA [NNX08AH34G]
  4. DOE [DE-FG03-92-ER40701, DE-FG02-95ER40896]
  5. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the DAMA/LIBRA Collaboration has repeated and reinforced their claim to have detected an annual modulation in their signal rate, and have interpreted this observation as evidence for dark-matter particles at the 8:2 sigma confidence level. Furthermore, it has also been noted that the effects of channeling may enable a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) that scatters elastically via spin-independent interactions from nuclei to produce the signal observed by DAMA/LIBRA without exceeding the limits placed by CDMS, XENON, CRESST, CoGeNT, and other direct-detection experiments. To accommodate this elastic-scattering explanation, however, the mass of the responsible dark-matter particle must be relatively light, mDM less than or similar to 10 GeV. Such dark-matter particles will become captured by and annihilate in the Sun at very high rates, leading to a potentially large flux of GeV-scale neutrinos. We calculate the neutrino spectrum resulting from WIMP annihilations in the Sun and show that existing limits from Super-Kamiokande can be used to close a significant portion of the DAMA region, especially if the dark-matter particles produce tau leptons or neutrinos in a sizable fraction of their annihilations. We also determine the spin-dependent WIMP-nuclei elastic-scattering parameter space consistent with DAMA. The constraints from Super-Kamiokande on the spin-dependent scenario are even more severe-they exclude any self-annihilating WIMP in the DAMA region that annihilates 1% of the time or more to any combination of neutrinos, tau leptons, or charm or bottom quarks.

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