4.7 Article

Boxes, boosts, and energy duality: Understanding the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess through Dynamical Dark Matter

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.055024

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation under CAREER [PHY-1250573]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-FG0213ER41976]
  3. National Science Foundation through its employee IR/D program
  4. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0010296]
  5. Korean Research Foundation (KRF) through the CERN- Korea Fellowship program
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF2013R1A1A2061561, 2016R1C1B2015225]
  7. Division Of Physics
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1250573] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1C1B2015225] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many models currently exist which attempt to interpret the excess of gamma rays emanating from the Galactic Center in terms of annihilating or decaying dark matter. These models typically exhibit a variety of complicated cascade mechanisms for photon production, leading to a nontrivial kinematics which obscures the physics of the underlying dark sector. In this paper, by contrast, we observe that the spectrum of the gamma-ray excess may actually exhibit an intriguing energy-duality invariance under E-gamma -> E-*(2)/E-gamma. for some E-*. As we shall discuss, such an energy duality points back to a remarkably simple alternative kinematics which in turn is realized naturally within the Dynamical Dark Matter framework. Observation of this energy duality could therefore provide considerable information about the properties of the dark sector from which the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess might arise, and highlights the importance of acquiring more complete data for the Galactic Center excess in the energy range around 1 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