a story of two predictions
play

A story of two predictions Prediction A Uranus Prediction of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

14.07.2016 ECT* Doctoral Training Program Timon Emken (CP 3 -Origins, University of Southern Denmark, Odense) Collaborators: Chris Kouvaris (CP 3 -Origins) A story of two predictions Prediction A Uranus Prediction of additional, Orbital


  1. 14.07.2016 – ECT* Doctoral Training Program Timon Emken (CP 3 -Origins, University of Southern Denmark, Odense) Collaborators: Chris Kouvaris (CP 3 -Origins)

  2. A story of two predictions Prediction A Uranus Prediction of additional, Orbital undiscovered (dark?) Anomalies matter, i.e. a new planet. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 2

  3. ¡ French Mathematician ¡ Tried to understand the anomalies using Newtonian Gravity. ¡ Predicted a new planet and its orbit. ¡ No one in France cared. ¡ On 18.09.1846 he sent his result to Berlin. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 3

  4. ¡ German Astronomer ¡ He and his assistant started looking for the new planet on the day the letter arrived. ¡ It took them roughly 30 minutes to discover the planet. ¡ Its position was within 1º of Le Verrier’s prediction! 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 4

  5. A story of two predictions Prediction A Uranus Prediction of additional, Orbital undiscovered (dark?) Anomalies matter, i.e. a new planet. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 5

  6. A story of two predictions Prediction A Uranus Discovery of Neptune Orbital Anomalies on 23.09.1846 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 6

  7. A story of two predictions Prediction B Mercury Prediction of another new Orbital planet Anomalies 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 7

  8. ¡ He tried to repeat his success. ¡ Predicted a new planet and its orbit. ¡ Being very confident in his calculation he named it “Vulcan”. ¡ Despite great effort it was never found. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 8

  9. A story of two predictions Prediction B Mercury Prediction of another new Orbital planet Anomalies 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 9

  10. A story of two predictions Prediction B Mercury 1915: General Relativity Orbital R µ ν − 1 Anomalies 2 Rg µ ν = 8 π GT µ ν 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 10

  11. Observation of Gravitational Anomalies Situation I Situation II Additional, “dark” matter, New laws of physics, not not yet discovered. yet discovered. § Today we find ourselves in a somewhat similar situation as Urbain Le Verrier over 150 years ago. § We have good reason to assume that the explanation of the observed anomalies is of the first class: Dark Matter (DM). 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 11

  12. 1) Evidence for Dark Matter 2) Basics of Direct Detection Experiments 3) Simulation of DM Trajectories 4) Final Remarks 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 12

  13. On a broad range of scales. Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 13 14/07/16

  14. ¡ Newtonian Dynamics: r GM ( r ) v ( r ) = r ¡ Beyond optical disc we might expect M ( r ) ∝ const ¡ Instead we observe: M ( r ) ∝ r Begeman et al, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 249 (1991) 523 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 14

  15. 2 Fig. 1.— Shown above in the top panel is a color image from the Magellan images of the merging cluster 1E0657 − 558, with the white bar indicating 200 kpc at the distance of the cluster. In the bottom panel is a 500 ks Chandra image of the cluster. Shown in green contours in both panels are the weak lensing κ reconstruction with the outer contour level at κ = 0.16 and increasing in steps of 0.07. The white contours show the errors on the positions of the κ peaks and correspond to 68 . 3%, 95 . 5%, and 99 . 7% confidence levels. The blue +s show the location of the centers used to measure the masses of the plasma clouds in Table 2. Clowe et al, Astrophys. J. 648 (2006) L109-L113 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 15

  16. ¡ From primordial density fluctuations to large scale structures. ¡ N-body simulations show that the additional gravitational force of DM is absolutely essential for LSS. ¡ DM needs to be “cold”. Springel et al, Nature 440 (2006),1137 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 16

  17. l ∞ δ T X X T = a lm Y lm ( θ , φ ) l =2 m = − l Image Source: ESA and the Planck Collaboration 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 17

  18. Constituents 5% Dark Energy 26% Dark Matter 69% Ordinary Matter Image Source: ESA and the Planck Collaboration 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 18

  19. WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS NOT ¡ Heavy ¡ Charged ¡ Stable (or long-lived) ¡ Baryonic ¡ Cold ¡ Strongly self-interacting Dark Matter Candidates: § SUSY particles (neutralinos, gravitinos, sneutrinos,…) § Sterile Neutrinos § Kaluza Klein particles § Axions § ? 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 19

  20. Event Rates and Annual Modulations Recoil energy: E R 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 20

  21. 1. The earth is moving through a halo of DM particles. 2. These particles interact weakly with matter, i.e. they are a kind of WIMP. 3. The DM velocity distribution is approximately known. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 21

  22. (differential event rate) d R A = N T σ N v d n v esc Z v )d 3 v , d n = n χ f halo ( ~ such that d n = n χ 0 Cross Section and velocity distribution: µ 2 σ SI N, 0 = σ SI A A 2 σ N = σ N, 0 F 2 A ( q ) p, 0 µ 2 p v 2 ✓ ◆ v ) = 1 − ~ f halo ( ~ exp 2 � 2 k 0 f ⊕ ( ~ v s ) ≡ f halo ( ~ v s + ~ v ⊕ ) v ⊕ ) 2 1 ✓ − ( ~ v s + ~ ◆ = k ( v esc , v ⊕ ) exp Θ ( v esc − | v ⊕ + ~ v s | ) 2 � 2 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 22

  23. Z d R A d 3 v f ⊕ ( ~ v ) m A = N T n � � N 2 µ 2 d E R v A v min( ER ) ≤ | ~ v | ≤ v max | {z } ≡ ⌘ ( v min ( E R ) ,t ) E cutoff Z d R A X (total event rate) R = f A d E R d E R A E thr 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 23

  24. 10 - 36 10 - 38 10 - 40 σ 0SI [ cm 2 ] 10 - 42 10 - 44 10 - 46 5 10 50 100 500 1000 m χ [ GeV ] 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 24

  25. Image Source: Freese et al, Rev.Mod.Phys. 85 (2013) 1561-1581 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 25

  26. 0 . 05 2–6 keVee Residual Rate [cpd/kg/keVee] 0 . 04 0 . 03 0 . 02 0 . 01 0 − 0 . 01 − 0 . 02 − 0 . 03 − 0 . 04 DAMA/NaI DAMA/LIBRA Best-fit − 0 . 05 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Image Source: Freese et al, Rev.Mod.Phys. 85 (2013) 1561-1581 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 26

  27. Earth’s effect on DM Direct Detection Experiments 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 27

  28. P ( L ) = 1 − e − L/ λ mfp (Probability to scatter after travelling a length L) START Initial Conditions No. Save ( t f , ˛ r f , ˛ v i ) . Enter Earth? ( t i , ˛ v i ) r i , ˛ Yes. Save point of entry ( t entry , ˛ r entry , ˛ v i ) . ˛ r i +1 = ˛ r i + L ˛ e v Yes. Calculate the DM free path L No. Is | ˛ v | ≥ v cuto ff ? Find new position ˛ r . Scattering: Calculate Inside the Earth? ( | ˛ r | < r ⊕ ?) new ˛ v and save ( t, ˛ r, ˛ v ) . Yes. No. Save point of exit ( t exit , ˛ v ) and the r exit , ˛ STOP final position ( t f , ˛ r ≡ v ) . ˛ r f , ˛ 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 28

  29. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 29

  30. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 30

  31. 1. Filter out the trajectories passing a detector or the local neighborhood. 2. Obtain enough DM velocity data. 3. Fit the local velocity distribution function via Kernel Density Estimation (KDE). n f ( v ) = 1 ✓ v − v i ◆ ˆ X K nh h i =1 4. Calculate event rates, signal modulations, data for directional experiments,… 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 31

  32. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 32

  33. There are many approaches we want to follow: 1. Implement a realistic earth model (PREM - preliminary reference earth model). 2. Run the simulations on a Super computer in order to be able to decrease the detector size an gather enough data. 3. Use more general non-relativistic DM-nucleus interaction operators 4. Include gravity (lensing effects, capture rates,…) 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 33

  34. ¡ There is a lot of evidence supporting that we are in a situation similar to Le Verrier’s in the 1840s. ¡ But this time the solution seems to take a little longer than 30 minutes. ¡ Direct Detection experiments are a promising approach to finally observe a DM particle from the galactic halo. ¡ Our simulations will investigate the effect of the earth on these experiments. 14/07/16 Simulating DM Trajectories for Direct Detection Experiments 34

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend