1 / 19

Dark Matter Halo and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays Anisotropy

Explore UHECR anisotropy patterns originating from the decay and annihilation of dark matter particles in the Milky Way and M31 halos. Compare NFW and Moore et al. density profiles to estimate flux and contribution from galaxies. Analyze dipole and quadrupole terms to explain isotropy.

fkillinger
Download Presentation

Dark Matter Halo and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays Anisotropy

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. Dark Matter Halo and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays Anisotropy Beatriz B. Siffert – UFRJ Angela V. Olinto – University of Chicago João R.T. de Mello Neto - UFRJ VI Workshop Nova Física no Espaço – Fev 2007

  2. I. Introduction • Acceleration of UHECR is still an open question. Two classes of models: • Bottom-Up: acceleration through astrophysical objects or environments (compact objects, shock waves, etc). • Top-Down: cosmic ray originate from the decay or annihilation of heavy relics from the early universe. • Dark matter particles in the halo of our galaxy and nearby galaxies could be a source for UHECR observed on the Earth.

  3. In this scenario the strongest contributions would come from our own galaxy and from the Andromeda galaxy (M31). I estimate the anisotropy patterns in the arrival directions map that would be observed by the Pierre Auger experiment (South+North) if UHECR originate from the decay and annihilation of dark matter particles in the halo of the Milky Way and of M31. Only the relative contributions of the 2 galaxies were estimated, not the real flux value.

  4. II. Density Profiles of Dark Matter in the Halos Distribution of dark matter particles throughout the halo as a function of the distance to the center of the galaxy, r. Different profiles are obtained from numerical simulations of structure formation with Cold Dark Matter (CDM). Dark Matter Element r Sun

  5. I used the profiles proposed by Navarro, Frenk and White* (NFW) and by Moore et al.**: 0→dark matter density in the sun's position. a →characteristic length R0 →distance from the Earth to the center of the galaxy. NFW:  = 1,  = 3,  = 1 Moore et al. :  = 1.5,  = 3,  = 1.5 * Astrophysical Journal v.462, p.563 (1996) ** Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 310, 1147-1152 (1999)

  6. III. Flux Estimation Since the Earth is not at the center of the Galaxy, we should expect an anisotropic cosmic ray flux due to our galaxy's halo.

  7. Flux in a direction that forms an angle  with the line that connects the Earth to the GC: K →depends on model adopted for the dark matter's particle. Supposing the same density profile for the Galaxy and for M31, the flux due to M31* is: • ~ 2 is mass of M31's halo/mass MW’s halo, D is distance to M31. ρ→ρ2 annihilation *G.A. Medina Tanco, A.A. Watson, Astropaticle Physics 12 (1999) 25-34

  8. Events measured by Auger are subjected to its exposure. It gives the detection probability as a function of the declination of the arrival direction of the cosmic ray. Auger South All maps shown take into account Auger's exposure.

  9. Theoretical Exposure of Auger South+North: cos(δ) Paul Sommers, Astropart.Phys. 14 (2001) 271-286

  10. Map that would be observed by Auger (south+north) if the cosmic ray flux were isotropic: Galactic coordinates

  11. Decay Relative flux of MW and M31 for NFW density profile. M31 Relative flux of MW and M31 for Moore et al. density profile. Contribution from M31 is insignificant.

  12. Annihilation NFW The contribution of our galaxy is very small. Moore et al. Flux is larger but still much smaller than in the decay case.

  13. IV. Adding an isotropic background Total contribution of DM is a fraction ηof the background. Φ TOTAL = Φ DM + Φ ISOT Φ DM =  Φ ISOT (0<<1) To account for anisotropies we evaluate the dipole and quadrupole terms of the expansion of the flux:

  14. Dipole Term - Decay C 1

  15. Dipole Term - Annihilation C 1 Dipole term for decay scenario ~ 103 times larger. NFW compatible with isotropy.

  16. Quadrupole Term - Decay

  17. Quadrupole Term - Annihilation Same conclusion about Decay X Annihilation. Contribution of M31 didn’t change any of the results.

  18. V. Conclusion The contribution of M31 is insignificant compared to the contribution of our galaxy. The flux predicted from the decay model is much stronger than the one predicted from the annihilation model. Dipole shape dominates. VI. Improvements Evaluate the actual flux value to compare with real data. More realistic density profile?

  19. We can do astronomy with the high energy events. They point back to their sources.

More Related