1 / 41

Test 1

Test 1. Test 2. Test III. The DARK side. Courtesy of. Rocky Kolb. Dark Matter Lensing-modeled. Bullet Cluster. Ordinary Gas Chandra X-rays. Galaxies, Magellan and HS Telescopes. LHC magnet: Solar Axion Search. Axions. keV neutrinos. WIMPS: Most LHC-related.

camden
Télécharger la présentation

Test 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Test 1 • Test 2 Test III ... ... ...

  2. The DARK side

  3. Courtesy of Rocky Kolb

  4. Dark Matter Lensing-modeled Bullet Cluster Ordinary Gas Chandra X-rays Galaxies, Magellan and HS Telescopes

  5. LHC magnet: Solar Axion Search Axions keV neutrinos WIMPS: Most LHC-related

  6. Motions of 412 nearby stars above galactic disk (Moni Bidin et al.) Reanalysis by Bovi & Tremaine Standard Local Dark Matter Density every direct DM detection experiment is doomed to fail

  7. dark matter species types of standard species of M < T

  8. Steigman, Dasgupta & Beacon, 2012

  9. + ONE SPECIES OF WIMP WRONG

  10. For “Light” WIMPS the results of “DIRECT SEARCHES”: DM Interactions “here” (about to be reviewed) need to be re-analyzed

  11. “Anomalies”. Courtesy of Neil Weiner

  12. PDG Drees & Gerbier 02

  13. PDG Drees & Gerbier 02

  14. ???? Could DAMA diminish its background rejection ?

  15. “Indirect” DM Searches Signatures of distant DM annihilations or decays

  16. At least one experiment has an energy-dependent systematic error Consensus?: It isn’t PAMELA

  17. Systematic error in slope Astropart. Phys. 34,1(2010) Nature, 458, 607 (2009) PDG: PAMELA above 10 GeV Consensus?: Don’t trust Nature

  18. The spectra are NOT power laws The deviation from a power law is a FACTOR OF 2

  19. Moskalenko & Strong AstroPhys. J. 493, 694 (98)

  20. Dozens of theoretical papers (some of them most ingenious) explain the `signal’ positron excess ~ 2 theoretical papers discuss the background

  21. [1] Katz et al., arXiv:0907.1686 “The radiative positron energy loss... is not understood theoretically” “The claims that the positron fraction measured by PAMELA requires new primary positron sources are based on assumptions not supported by observations” [2] Serpico, arXiv:1108.4827 The only “theoretical” argument is to assume that ... there is no mechanism [consistent with cosmic ray astrophysics...] to explain the PAMELA data

  22. If you use a background Monte Carlo [e.g. GALPROP] that you have not undestood [and should not blindly trust] you are doing a disservice to the faithful community of poor innocent theorists + ... HEP ???

  23. A monocromatic line (but for annihilation) is not expected from “astrophysical” sources

  24. with conventional DM abundance Dark-side Z’ only couples to t Example Prediction: “Higgs in Space!” Jackson et al., arXiv:0912.0004 Unsuppressed Branching Ratio Random Example

  25. A -ray line from the Galactic Center? Publically-available data from the Large Area Telescope in Fermi (ex-GLAST) Intensely analysed by Christoph Weniger, arXiv:1204.2797

  26. 20 GeV 200 GeV 100 GeV 200 GeV

  27. “LEE” Depending on Galactic DM profile If I knew beforehand B.R. ~ 4-8 % (1/20 of “H in space”)

  28. 3.86 line at 115 GeV in “Region 1” Boyarski, Malyshev & Ruchayskiy counterattack It is an SLEE “Should Look Everywhere Else Effect” 2.86 line at 80 GeV in “Region 3” - 4.7 dip at 95 GeV in “Region 2” The backgrounds are NOT power laws

  29. Profumo & Linden, arXiv:1204.6047

  30. Based only on publically available data (Systematics?) a few more years of TH’s fun Evidence based on ~ 50 photons. “It will require a few more years of data to settle its [the line’s] existence on statistical grounds” Weniger’s cautions: OTHER OBSERVATIONS ???

  31. The Standard CDM Cosmo-Model is unchallenged Correct ???

  32. The Higgs field and the cosmological constant Jump in vacuum energy at EWPT by }

  33. The discovery of the Higgs Boson would be a significant step {sideways} in our understanding of the Universe

  34. P.L. Kelly et al. Small near Galaxies Large near Galaxies Doubt SNe Standard Candle HUBBLE RESIDUALS OF NEARBY TYPE Ia SNe ARE CORRELATED WITH HOST GALAXY MASSES Heretical Views

  35. “Small” deviations from Standard CosmoModel Heretical Views C.G. Tsagas, PRD 84, 063503 Observers with small peculiar motions (in e.g. Milky Way) can experience accelerated expansion within a globally decelerating universe

  36. “Small” deviations from Standard CosmoModel Heretical Views Homogeneous and IN-Homogeneous Universes with the same average density need NOT have the same expansion rate Buchert & Ellis, Ellis, Barause & Bushert, Célérier, Räsänen, Kolb et al., Schwartz...

  37. A CHANGE IN THE ANSWER IS A SIGN OF EVOLUTION. A CHANGE OF THE QUESTION IS A SIGN OF REVOLUTION We need a RRRRREVOLUTION

  38. . . . . . .

More Related