4.7 Article

Constraining self-interacting dark matter with the Milky Way's dwarf spheroidals

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053

关键词

methods: numerical; galaxies: haloes; dark matter

资金

  1. University of Waterloo
  2. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
  3. Government of Canada through Industry Canada
  4. Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation
  5. CITA National Fellowship
  6. NASA through Hubble Fellowship [HST-HF-51283.01-A, HST-HF-51317.01]
  7. Space Telescope Science Institute
  8. NASA [NAS5-26555]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-interacting dark matter is an attractive alternative to the cold dark matter paradigm only if it is able to substantially reduce the central densities of dwarf-size haloes while keeping the densities and shapes of cluster-size haloes within current constraints. Given the seemingly stringent nature of the latter, it was thought for nearly a decade that self-interacting dark matter would be viable only if the cross-section for self-scattering was strongly velocity dependent. However, it has recently been suggested that a constant cross-section per unit mass of sigma(T)/m similar to 0.1 cm(2) g(-1) is sufficient to accomplish the desired effect. We explicitly investigate this claim using high-resolution cosmological simulations of a Milky Way-size halo and find that, similarly to the cold dark matter case, such cross-section produces a population of massive subhaloes that is inconsistent with the kinematics of the classical dwarf spheroidals, in particular with the inferred slopes of the mass profiles of Fornax and Sculptor. This problem is resolved if sigma(T)/m similar to 0.1 cm(2) g(-1) at the dwarf spheroidal scales. Since this value is likely inconsistent with the halo shapes of several clusters, our results leave only a small window open for a velocity-independent self-interacting dark matter model to work as a distinct alternative to cold dark matter.

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