4.7 Article

Exclusion limits on the WIMP-nucleon cross section from the first run of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search in the Soudan Underground Laboratory

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.052009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II) employs low-temperature Ge and Si detectors to seek weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) via their elastic-scattering interactions with nuclei. Simultaneous measurements of both ionization and phonon energy provide discrimination against interactions of background particles. For recoil energies above 10 keV, events due to background photons are rejected with > 99.99% efficiency. Electromagnetic events very near the detector surface can mimic nuclear recoils because of reduced charge collection, but these surface events are rejected with > 96% efficiency by using additional information from the phonon pulse shape. Efficient use of active and passive shielding, combined with the 2090 m.w.e. overburden at the experimental site in the Soudan mine, makes the background from neutrons negligible for this first exposure. All cuts are determined in a blind manner from in situ calibrations with external radioactive sources without any prior knowledge of the event distribution in the signal region. Resulting efficiencies are known to similar to 10%. A single event with a recoil of 64 keV passes all of the cuts and is consistent with the expected misidentification rate of surface electron recoils. Under the assumptions for a standard dark matter halo, these data exclude previously unexplored parameter space for both spin-independent and spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering. The resulting limit on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon elastic-scattering cross section has a minimum of 4x10(-43) cm(2) at a WIMP mass of 60 GeVc(-2). The minimum of the limit for the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron elastic-scattering cross section is 2x10(-37) cm(2) at a WIMP mass of 50 GeVc(-2).

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