IceCube search for the 'sterile neutrino' draws a blank

In summary, the recent null results in BSM physics have further constrained the allowable parameter space for different models and hypotheses, such as the sterile neutrino and dark matter candidates. This does not mean that these ideas have no value, but rather that they need to be examined more seriously and new, untested ideas may need to be considered. The ongoing pursuit of understanding BSM physics is similar to the Holmesian approach of eliminating the impossible and focusing on what remains as the truth. Promising candidates for dark matter include warm dark matter and self-interacting dark matter, while modifications of gravity are also being considered. The potential existence of the X-boson, a possible fifth fundamental force of nature, has received renewed attention in recent research.
  • #36
kodama said:
what kind of dark matter is left?

Fuzzy dark matter.

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, “Cold and fuzzy dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158–1161 (2000), https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003365

One of the big conundrums is that the assumption of dark matter works extremely well on large scales for explaining the structure of the cosmos, but seems to fail to work on the scale of galaxies. One interesting idea how to fix this (without giving up on the established theory of gravity as MOND does) is to assume that dark matter consists of massive but extremely light particles, whose de Broglie wavelength is of the order of thousands of parsecs. This has the consequence that at around the scale of that wavelength the behaviour of this dark matter changes.

Now Edward Witten et al. have argued in more detail that this works really well, and consistent with existing null results on direct detection:

Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, Edward Witten, "On the hypothesis that cosmological dark matter is composed of ultra-light bosons" https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08297
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/urs-schreiber/']Urs Schreiber[/URL] said:
Fuzzy dark matter.

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, “Cold and fuzzy dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158–1161 (2000), https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003365

One of the big conundrums is that the assumption of dark matter works extremely well on large scales for explaining the structure of the cosmos, but seems to fail to work on the scale of galaxies. One interesting idea how to fix this (without giving up on the established theory of gravity as MOND does) is to assume that dark matter consists of massive but extremely light particles, whose de Broglie wavelength is of the order of thousands of parsecs. This has the consequence that at around the scale of that wavelength the behaviour of this dark matter changes.

Now Edward Witten et al. have argued in more detail that this works really well, and consistent with existing null results on direct detection:

Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, Edward Witten, "On the hypothesis that cosmological dark matter is composed of ultra-light bosons" https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08297

does this fuzzy dark matter couple to higgs?
 

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top