4.7 Article

Observing the thermalization of dark matter in neutron stars

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043019

关键词

-

资金

  1. ULB-ARC grant ProbingDMwith Neutrinos
  2. Excellence of Science grant (EOS) [30820817]
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. National Research Council Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the timescales for thermalization of dark matter in neutron stars under different scenarios, analyzing the effects of various factors such as dark matter and mediator masses, stellar temperature, and interaction structures. The results identify parametric ranges where efficient stellar capture and thermalization within the age of the universe occur, suggesting areas that can be probed by upcoming infrared telescopes observing cold neutron stars.
A promising probe to unmask particle dark matter is to observe its effect on neutron stars, the prospects of which depend critically on whether captured dark matter thermalizes in a timely manner with the stellar core via repeated scattering with the Fermi-degenerate medium. In this work we estimate the timescales for thermalization for multiple scenarios. These include: (a) spin-0 and spin 1/2 dark matter, (b) scattering on nonrelativistic neutron and relativistic electron targets accounting for the respective kinematics, (c) interactions via a range of Lorentz-invariant structures, (d) mediators both heavy and light in comparison to the typical transfer momenta in the problem. We discuss the analytic behavior of the thermalization time as a function of the dark matter and mediator masses, and the stellar temperature. Finally, we identify parametric ranges where both stellar capture is efficient and thermalization occurs within the age of the universe. For dark matter that can annihilate in the core, these regions indicate parametric ranges that can be probed by upcoming infrared telescopes observing cold neutron stars.

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