4.7 Article

Effect of black holes in local dwarf spheroidal galaxies on gamma-ray constraints on dark matter annihilation

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 90, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.103508

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of California institute for Mexico
  2. United States postdoctoral fellowship
  3. Brazilian National Counsel for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq)
  4. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0010107-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent discoveries of optical signatures of black holes in dwarf galaxies indicates that low-mass galaxies can indeed host intermediate massive black holes. This motivates the assessment of the resulting effect on the host dark matter density profile, and the consequences for the constraints on the plane of the dark matter annihilation cross section versus mass, stemming from the nonobservation of gamma rays from local dwarf spheroidals with the Fermi Large Area Telescope. We compute the density profile using three different prescriptions for the black hole mass associated with a given spheroidal galaxy, and taking into account the cutoff to the density from dark matter pair-annihilation. We find that the limits on the dark matter annihilation rate from observations of individual dwarfs are enhanced by factors of a few up to 106, depending on the specific galaxy, on the black hole mass prescription, and on the dark matter particle mass. We estimate limits from combined observations of a sample of 15 dwarfs, for a variety of assumptions on the dwarf black hole mass and on the dark matter density profile prior to adiabatic contraction. We find that if black holes are indeed present in local dwarf spheroidals, then, independent of assumptions, (i) the dark matter interpretation of the Galactic center gamma-ray excess would be conclusively ruled out, (ii) wino dark matter would be excluded up to masses of about 3 TeV, and (iii) vanilla thermal relic weakly interacting massive particles must be heavier than 100 GeV.

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