4.6 Article

Self-interacting dark matter from primordial black holes

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/007

关键词

dark matter theory; primordial black holes

资金

  1. Universidad Antonio Narino [2018204, 2019101, 2019248]
  2. Spanish MINECO [FPA2017-84543-P]
  3. Patrimonio Autonomo - Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnologia y la Innovacion Francisco Jose de Caldas (MinCiencias - Colombia) [80740-465-2020]
  4. Sostenibilidad-UdeA
  5. COLCIENCIAS [111577657253]
  6. UdeA/CODI [2017-16286]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is suggested that the evaporation of primordial black holes may have generated the entire observed dark matter density, with thermalization and number-changing processes in the dark sector playing a significant role in boosting the dark matter population. This independent estimation based on conservation principles points to potential implications including reduced initial energy density requirements for primordial black holes and relaxation of constraints on dark matter kinetic energy.
The evaporation of primordial black holes (PBH) with masses ranging from similar to 10(-1) to similar to 10(9) g could have generated the whole observed dark matter (DM) relic density. It is typically assumed that after being produced, its abundance freezes and remains constant. However, thermalization and number-changing processes in the dark sector can have a strong impact, in particular enhancing the DM population by several orders of magnitude. Here we estimate the boost from general arguments such as the conservation of energy and entropy, independently from the underlying particle physics details of the dark sector. Two main consequences can be highlighted: i) As the DM abundance is increased, a smaller initial energy density of PBHs is required. ii) Thermalization in the dark sector decreases the mean DM kinetic energy, relaxing the bound from structure formation and hence, allowing light DM with mass in the keV ballpark.

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