1 / 16

Self- interacting Dark Matter 2.0:

Self- interacting Dark Matter 2.0:. Back and Better Than Ever!. Annika Peter McCue Fellow u C irvine. M. Rocha, AP+ 1204.XXXX AP+ 1204.XXXX. The Universe as a cupcake. Baryons: ~4%. Dark matter: ~23%.

venus
Télécharger la présentation

Self- interacting Dark Matter 2.0:

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. Self-interacting Dark Matter 2.0: Back and Better Than Ever! Annika Peter McCue Fellow uCirvine M. Rocha, AP+ 1204.XXXX AP+ 1204.XXXX

  2. The Universe as a cupcake Baryons: ~4% Dark matter: ~23% Image credits: NASA/JPL; NASA, Jeff Hester, and Paul Scowen (Arizona State University); NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI), and the HUDF team Dark energy: ~72% ???

  3. The cold dark matter orthodoxy • “Born cold”. • Late-time behavior: collisionless and boring. overdensity r Millennium simulation Image credits: M. Blanton and the SDSS

  4. Small-scale issues (circa 2000) Missing satellites problem (Moore et al., Klypin et al. 1999) Dwarf core problem (Kuzio de Naray et al. 2008)

  5. Self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) Elastic scattering---need cross section ~1 cm2/g (>1012 times stronger than weak force) to be interesting. Original formulation (Spergel & Steinhardt 2000): hard-sphere elastic scattering. In vogue now: on particle side (hidden-sector models, Sommerfeld-enhanced dark matter)---generally velocity-dependent.

  6. Phenomenology Looks exactly like CDM on large scales: 10 Mpc/h slice, CDM 10 Mpc/h slice, σ/m = 1 cm2 /g

  7. Phenomenology • Generic predictions when : • Rounder halo in inner parts. • Cored (less dense) halo density profiles. • Fewer satellites close to the center. SIDM CDM

  8. Version 1.0 nail in the coffin Miralda-Escude (2002) Requires a non-circularly-symmetric surface density at r > 70 kpc. Assume ε=0 if . σ/m < 0.02 cm2/g. MS 2137-23 Sand et al. 2008 Tightest constraint by far (by > 10x)!

  9. The problem with shapes • We see surface density (or gravitational potentials) in projection. • If inner parts have flattened density, outer parts have even greater weight. σ/m=1 cm2/g CDM

  10. SIDM 2.0: It’s back! σ/m=1 cm2/g allowed!

  11. Density profile

  12. Cores Milky Way dwarfs Milky Way 1015 M clusters Dwarf galaxies ~hundred pc ~kpc

  13. Observations Galaxy cluster densities ρ ~ r-β Richard Ellis and co. (Newman et al. 2011) “Too big to fail” Milky Way dwarfs (Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2011) Dwarf core problem (Kuzio de Naray et al. 2008) Need cores in ~100 kpc in 1015 M halos Need less DM in ~100 pc in 109-1010 M halos Need cores in ~1 kpc in 1011 M halos

  14. Cores! Milky Way dwarfs Milky Way 1015 M clusters Dwarf galaxies ~hundred pc ~kpc

  15. Subhalos

  16. Takeaway points • “Vanilla” SIDM is far from dead! • Moreover, clinging to one particular unproven model (cough, cough, CDM) may be dangerous. Try to constrain general phenomenology! With at least a modicum of rigor! • A reanalysis of the old constraints shows σ/m=1 cm2/g OK! (AKA, do not believe everything you read) • Suggestive core sizes! • Cross sections that give interesting-sized cores do NOT substantially reduce subhalo mass function. • Clusters remain an interesting environment for constraints.

More Related