Could dark matter have gamma-ray absorption lines?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the possibility of dark matter absorbing gamma radiation, specifically through a model involving magnetic monopoles. Initial calculations suggested a Rydberg energy of about 1 MeV for a bound state of monopoles, assuming a mass of 1 TeV, but this was later retracted due to potential errors in the calculations. It is noted that gamma-ray absorption spectroscopy is challenging in astronomy due to low gamma-ray counts, and while dark matter annihilation might produce detectable gamma rays, absorption is unlikely. Concerns are raised about magnetic monopoles being viable dark matter candidates due to their strong interactions with each other and normal matter. The conversation highlights the complexities of studying dark matter through gamma-ray observations.
johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
Are there sky surveys that perform gamma-ray absorption spectroscopy?

I was wondering if dark matter might absorb gamma radiation.

I have done a simple Bohr-atom type calculation assuming a dark matter model of a bound state of a North and South magnetic monopole and found a Rydberg energy of about a MeV. I assume that the mass of the monopoles is 1 Tev; masses less than this limit have apparently been excluded by particle accelerator experiments (to a confidence of 95%). I also assume that the monopoles have the minimum magnetic charge.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
johne1618 said:
I have done a simple Bohr-atom type calculation assuming a dark matter model of a bound state of a North and South magnetic monopole and found a Rydberg energy of about a MeV. I assume that the mass of the monopoles is 1 Tev; masses less than this limit have apparently been excluded by particle accelerator experiments (to a confidence of 95%). I also assume that the monopoles have the minimum magnetic charge.

Actually I retract this calculation - I think I got my fine structure constant upside-down! And also GUT theories think the mass of the monopole is probably bigger than 10^{16} GeV!
 
johne1618 said:
Are there sky surveys that perform gamma-ray absorption spectroscopy?

I was wondering if dark matter might absorb gamma radiation.

I have done a simple Bohr-atom type calculation assuming a dark matter model of a bound state of a North and South magnetic monopole and found a Rydberg energy of about a MeV. I assume that the mass of the monopoles is 1 Tev; masses less than this limit have apparently been excluded by particle accelerator experiments (to a confidence of 95%). I also assume that the monopoles have the minimum magnetic charge.
It's somewhat difficult to do spectroscopy in general with gamma rays, as least where astronomy is concerned. The number counts are just too low. But I think the general expectation is that we'd see gamma rays from dark matter annihilation, but that the dark matter won't do much if any absorption.

That said, I don't think that magnetic monopoles can work as dark matter. They'd interact far too strongly with one another and normal matter.
 
johne1618 said:
Actually I retract this calculation - I think I got my fine structure constant upside-down! And also GUT theories think the mass of the monopole is probably bigger than 10^{16} GeV!
Quite possibly!
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top