A Implications of a new 17 Mev vector boson on Higgs, SUSY

[kodama]

See post #26.
The BaBar publication is here. The actual fit to the electron spectrum starts at 15 MeV. You need some sidebands for the region where your main analysis starts. That means they do not set proper upper limits in the range of 15 to 20 MeV, but a peak there would have been noted.

Oh well, the usual approach. "Our model is excluded!" "Quick, tune the couplings down so experiments need more data to exclude it!"

still it does give quantitative predictions, and specific numbers.

btw any thoughts on this, would barbar or ep colliders produce this?

A light particle solution to the cosmic lithium problem
Andreas Goudelis, Maxim Pospelov, Josef Pradler
(Submitted on 29 Oct 2015 (v1), last revised 24 May 2016 (this version, v2))
We point out that the cosmological abundance of 7Li can be reduced down to observed values if during its formation Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is modified by the presence of light electrically neutral particles X that have substantial interactions with nucleons. We find that the lithium problem can be solved without affecting the precisely measured abundances of deuterium and helium if the following conditions are satisfied: the mass and lifetimes of such particles are bounded by 1.6MeV≤mX≤20MeV and few100s≲τX≲104s, and the abundance times the absorption cross section by either deuterium or 7Be are comparable to the Hubble rate, nXσabsv∼H, at the time of 7Be formation. We include X-initiated reactions into the primordial nucleosynthesis framework, observe that it leads to a substantial reduction of the freeze-out abundances of 7Li+7Be, and find specific model realizations of this scenario. Concentrating on the axion-like-particle case, X=a, we show that all these conditions can be satisifed if the coupling to d-quarks is in the range of f−1d∼TeV−1, which can be probed at intensity frontier experiments.
Comments: 5 pages, 4 figures; v2: minor improvements, matches published version
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Nuclear Theory (nucl-th)
Journal reference: Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 211303 (2016)
DOI: http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10%252E1103%2FPhysRevLett%252E116%252E211303&v=08290ee6
Cite as: arXiv:1510.08858 [hep-ph]
(or arXiv:1510.08858v2 [hep-ph] for this version)

 

[mfb]

The long lifetime is a problem (note that this is incompatible with the proposed particle for the Beryllium decays). Apart from that, it would depend on the couplings.

 

[kodama]

The long lifetime is a problem (note that this is incompatible with the proposed particle for the Beryllium decays). Apart from that, it would depend on the couplings.

the paper studied the case of an axion like scalar but would a vector boson also work to reduce lithium 7

 

[kodama]

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-atomki-anomaly

The next step is to double-check the result using other experiments. The LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider or the upcoming Belle II detector in Japan could be good candidates, as could the Mu3e experiment in Switzerland and the DarkLight experiment in the United States, which are hunting for new particles around the same energy.

The verdict should come within the next few years, Feng says. Despite the odds stacked against a new discovery, he’s hopeful.

“It’s us against the Standard Model,” he says. “We know there’s something more out there, we just haven’t gotten to it yet. This could be it.”

 

[CarlB]

X(16.7) as the Solution of NuTeV Anomaly
Yi Liang, Long-Bin Chen and Cong-Feng Qiao
School of Physics, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics
Abstract: A recent experimental study of excited 8Be decay to its ground state reveals an anomaly in the final states angle distribution. This exceptional result is attributed to a new vector gauge boson X(16.7). We study the significance of this new boson, especially its effect in anomalies observed in long-lasting experimental measurements. By comparing the discrepancies between the standard model predictions and the experimental results, we manage to find out the values and regions of the couplings of X(16.7) to muon and muon neutrino. In this work, we find that the newly observed boson X(16.7) may be the solution of both NuTeV anomaly and the (g−2)μ puzzle.
...
We will show here that there is room for X boson, if the simple SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1) model is adopted.
...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08309

 

[kodama]

X(16.7) as the Solution of NuTeV Anomaly
Yi Liang, Long-Bin Chen and Cong-Feng Qiao
School of Physics, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics
Abstract: A recent experimental study of excited 8Be decay to its ground state reveals an anomaly in the final states angle distribution. This exceptional result is attributed to a new vector gauge boson X(16.7). We study the significance of this new boson, especially its effect in anomalies observed in long-lasting experimental measurements. By comparing the discrepancies between the standard model predictions and the experimental results, we manage to find out the values and regions of the couplings of X(16.7) to muon and muon neutrino. In this work, we find that the newly observed boson X(16.7) may be the solution of both NuTeV anomaly and the (g−2)μ puzzle.
...
We will show here that there is room for X boson, if the simple SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1) model is adopted.
...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08309

ur impression

 

[CarlB]

The authors have a lot of other arXiv papers so I suppose they know what they're doing.

Every now and then the experimentalists say something different from the expected and it attracts the attention of theoreticians. This attention happens whether the experiment is right or wrong. If experimentalists never made mistakes, theoretical physics would be pretty boring.

I really hope they're right because it matches the stuff I'm working on which implies that the full symmetry (before mixing) has to be SU(3)xSU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1).

 

[kodama]

The authors have a lot of other arXiv papers so I suppose they know what they're doing.

Every now and then the experimentalists say something different from the expected and it attracts the attention of theoreticians. This attention happens whether the experiment is right or wrong. If experimentalists never made mistakes, theoretical physics would be pretty boring.

I really hope they're right because it matches the stuff I'm working on which implies that the full symmetry (before mixing) has to be SU(3)xSU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1).

what is the stuff ur working on? why SU(3)xSU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1) ? is this technicolor model?

how would adding susy to the above models change it? i.e how would physics change if there is susy to the 16.7 mev x boson, i know there will be a fermion that will be much heavier.

i.e MSSM, NMSSM, SO(10) GUT and GUT in general if there is a fifth protophobic force 16.7 mev boson

 

[CarlB]

I don't know anything about SUSY, I just go to the talks and read the dumbed-down articles. But I haven't seen anyone talk about the 16.7MeV boson and SUSY. I would think it would be difficult to treat the new boson as a super partner to an already known Standard Model fermion because there would be a bunch of characteristics it would need to meet. And if it were obvious how to do that I'd think someone would have already written it up. Or if they treated it as a regular boson it would mean that there would be another sparticle out there somewhere conveniently too heavy to find.

I shouldn't have mentioned the SU(3)xSU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)xU(1) idea as it's not appropriate in this venue. But I think we can talk about where the symmetry comes from as a matter of the mathematics used in physics. It turns out to be the symmetry of pure density matrices (and therefore state vectors) if their mixed density matrices happen to be members of the complex group algebra C[S_4] (and therefore have the symmetry of that algebra). The cool thing about this complex group algebra is that in addition to specifying the symmetry it also defines the particle content, i.e. which representations are present.

"S_4" is the "symmetric group on 4 objects", i.e. the finite group that consists of the permutations on a set of 4 objects. Since there are 4! = 24 permutations on 4 objects, that's the size of this group. This finite group is equivalent to "octahedral symmetry" which is nicely described in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octahedral_symmetry

A "complex group algebra" is an algebra obtained from a finite group by using the finite group as a complete set of basis vectors for a vector space over the complex numbers. This sounds complicated but it's not. A cheap but very nice physics symmetry book that I bet most elementary particles people either have on their shelf or can borrow from a colleague is "Group Theory and Its Application to Physical Problems" by Morton Hammermesh. People call it "Hammermesh"; look in the index under "group algebra". In my copy (1989) this brings you to page 106. On the web, the complex group algebra is nicely defined on page 42 of Christoph Ludeling's lecture notes "Group Theory (for Physicists)" here: http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/people/luedeling/grouptheory/data/grouptheorynotes.pdf

In Ludeling's notes (p 43) he writes "We will later see that the regular representation actually contains all irreducible representation." If you read further you will find that the irreducible representations are most conveniently obtained by looking up the "character table" for the finite group. For S_4 there are 5 irreducible representations and these irreducible representations are of dimension 1, 1, 2, 3 and 3. When you translate this into mixed density matrix symmetry you obtain U(1), U(1), SU(2), SU(3), and SU(3) symmetries. There are thousands of good explanations on the web for the symmetries of QM state vectors and essentially none on the symmetries of QM mixed density matrices so it's a nicely unexplored subject. Figuring it out on your own is not hard but isn't completely trivial.

The reason one might want to explore the symmetries of mixed density matrices is well presented in Steven Weinberg's recent (2014) paper "Quantum Mechanics Without State Vectors". It's published at PRA, the arXiv version is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3483 He writes: "Giving up the definition of the density matrix in terms of state vectors opens up a much larger variety of ways that the density matrix might respond to various symmetry transformations."

 

[kodama]

ok thanks. my ? was if you ad susy to thisRealistic model for a fifth force explaining anomaly in 8Be∗→8Bee+e− Decay
Pei-Hong Gu, Xiao-Gang He
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2016 (v1), last revised 12 Jul 2016 (this version, v5))
A 6.8σ anomaly has been reported in the opening angle and invariant mass distributions of e+e− pairs produced in 8Be nuclear transitions. It has been shown that a protophobic fifth force mediated by a 17MeV gauge boson X with pure vector current interactions can explain the data through the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8Be∗→8BeX, and then the followed saturating decay X→e+e−. In this work we propose a renormalizable model to realize this fifth force. Although axial-vector current interactions also exist in our model, their contributions cancel out in the iso-scalar interaction for 8Be∗→8BeX. Within the allowed parameter space, this model can alleviate the (g−2)μ anomaly problem and can be probed by the LHCb experiment. Several other implications are discussed.
Comments: RevTex, 9 pages with no figures. New major changes are made to the older version
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)
Cite as: arXiv:1606.05171 [hep-ph]

how does it impact mssm nmssm gut's etc

 

[kodama]

Particle Physics Models for the 17 MeV Anomaly in Beryllium Nuclear Decays
Jonathan L. Feng, Bartosz Fornal, Iftah Galon, Susan Gardner, Jordan Smolinsky, Tim M. P. Tait, Philip Tanedo
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2016)
The 6.8σ anomaly in excited 8Be nuclear decays via internal pair creation is fit well by a new particle interpretation. In a previous analysis, we showed that a 17 MeV protophobic gauge boson provides a particle physics explanation of the anomaly consistent with all existing constraints. Here we begin with a review of the physics of internal pair creation in 8Be decays and the characteristics of the observed anomaly. To develop its particle interpretation, we provide an effective operator analysis for excited 8Be decays to particles with a variety of spins and parities and show that these considerations exclude simple models with scalar or pseudoscalar particles. We discuss the required couplings for a gauge boson to give the observed signal, highlighting the significant dependence on the precise mass of the boson and isospin mixing and breaking effects. We present anomaly-free extensions of the Standard Model that contain protophobic gauge bosons with the desired couplings to explain the 8Be anomaly. In the first model, the new force carrier is a U(1)B gauge boson that kinetically mixes with the photon; in the second model, it is a U(1)(B-L) gauge boson with a similar kinetic mixing. In both cases, the models predict relatively large charged lepton couplings ~ 0.001 that can resolve the discrepancy in the muon anomalous magnetic moment and are amenable to many experimental probes. The models also contain vectorlike leptons at the weak scale that may be accessible to near future LHC searches.
Comments: 34 pages + references, 6 figures
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); Nuclear Experiment (nucl-ex); Nuclear Theory (nucl-th)
Report number: UCI-TR-2016-12
Cite as: arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]
(or arXiv:1608.03591v1 [hep-ph] for this version)
Submission history
From: Philip Tanedo [view email]
[v1] Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:00:01 GMT (1396kb,D)

 

[cube137]

Did Jonathen Feng and company just based it on the Atomki group findings or did they made experiments on their own? Has other group verified it? I found this article:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160607-new-boson-claim-faces-scrutiny/

"The Atomki group has produced three previous papers on their beryllium-8 experiments — conference proceedings in 2008, 2012 and 2015. The first paper claimed evidence of a new boson of mass 12 MeV, and the second described an anomaly corresponding to a 13.45-MeV boson. (The third was a preliminary version of the Physical Review Letters paper.) The first two bumps have disappeared in the latest data, collected with an improved experimental setup. “The new claim now is [a] boson with a mass of 16.7 MeV,” Naviliat-Cuncic said. “But they don’t say anything about what went wrong in their previous claims and why we should not take those claims seriously.” One naturally wonders, he said, “Is this value that they quote now going to change in the next four years?”"

 

[kodama]

There is no discovery.

Is it worth digging in your backyard for oil? If there would be oil just below the surface, you would make a lot of money. Did you start digging already? Why not?

“It would be crazy not to do another experiment to check this result,” Rouven Essig, a theoretical physicist at Stony Brook University told Nature News. “Nature has surprised us before!”

http://qz.com/759045/fifth-force-ne...d-be-a-dark-photon/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

 

[mfb]

Did Jonathen Feng and company just based it on the Atomki group findings or did they made experiments on their own? Has other group verified it? I found this article:

Feng&co didn't make their own experiment, there has been no replication, combine this with the weird history of past particle claims and yeah... there is something not well understood (which makes a follow-up experiment interesting), but I'm highly confident it is some issue with the experiment, not a new particle.

I linked to the article you referenced in post #2 already.

 

[kodama]

Feng&co didn't make their own experiment, there has been no replication, combine this with the weird history of past particle claims and yeah... there is something not well understood (which makes a follow-up experiment interesting), but I'm highly confident it is some issue with the experiment, not a new particle.

I linked to the article you referenced in post #2 already.

have you had a chance to read his latest paper?

Cite as: arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]

Feng lists a half dozen experiments that is being done now to look for dark photons that can also be retasked to find x-boson. years ago funding was approved to find dark photons via ep colliders. Feng argues they can also look for x-boson and its energy is 16.7mev and he provides specific quantitative predictions that can be checked and falsified. what is your opinion of dark photons?

i ask bc many of the experiments were originally approved several years back solely to find dark photons, including the Hungarian experiment, which can also detect x boson.

 

[mfb]

Feng lists a half dozen experiments that is being done now to look for dark photons that can also be retasked to find x-boson.

There is nothing to be re-tasked. The searches have been there all the time, better searches were planned anyway. And no matter how precise their exclusion limits get, I'm sure Feng&co find some way to tune their parameters to explain the upcoming non-observations, even if the model presented now can be excluded.
I would like to be wrong, but this pattern has happened way too often in the past, even with much more plausible excesses than this one.

what is your opinion of dark photons?

Every specific discovery of BSM physics would surprise me.

 

[kodama]

There is nothing to be re-tasked. The searches have been there all the time, better searches were planned anyway. And no matter how precise their exclusion limits get, I'm sure Feng&co find some way to tune their parameters to explain the upcoming non-observations, even if the model presented now can be excluded.
I would like to be wrong, but this pattern has happened way too often in the past, even with much more plausible excesses than this one.
Every specific discovery of BSM physics would surprise me.

the paper lists several dark photon experiments that can also be used to verify his prediction.
those ep colliders weren't specifically looking for the x-boson at the specific energy of 16.7 mev and specific coupling as detailed in the paper but dark photons, and possibly other physics that requires ep colliders, when they were approved several years back.

for x-boson to explain the anatomki anamoly, there actually isn't much fine tuning Feng et al can do. if they fine tune it too low, then the x-boson would not have been observed in the Hungarian Beryllium Nuclear Decays. roughly only 1 out of a million collisions in the Berylium nuclear decay at an angle of 140 results in the x-boson, so that sets strong constraints on how much fine tuning Feng's proposed model does. in his paper he states several experiments like MIT Darklight searching for dark photons and if they don't find it, then his model is falsified.

this is in the popular news.

other researchers have proposed a large number of anomalies like g2 muon anomaly that can be explained as well as dark matter.

btw the 750 gev did go away as rumors said. do you believe in SUSY?

 

[mfb]

those ep colliders weren't specifically looking for the x-boson at the specific energy of 16.7 mev and specific coupling as detailed in the paper

Right, because there is no reason to do so.

for x-boson to explain the anatomki anamoly, there actually isn't much fine tuning Feng et al can do.

Make its couplings to protons stronger and the coupling to electrons weaker. Give it different couplings to muons and electrons, to different quark generations, ...

do you believe in SUSY?

If you think physics works via beliefs, you are on the wrong track. And as I said already: Every specific discovery of BSM physics would surprise me.

 

[kodama]

Right, because there is no reason to do so.Make its couplings to protons stronger and the coupling to electrons weaker. Give it different couplings to muons and electrons, to different quark generations, ...If you think physics works via beliefs, you are on the wrong track. And as I said already: Every specific discovery of BSM physics would surprise me.

there was no reason to look for it prior to Feng's paper, but there is certainly a reason to do so now. esp since looking for dark photons is
itself a highly speculative concept.
making coupling to protons stronger and coupling electrons weaker, and its no longer the protophobic boson Feng originally proposed.

since there's no evidence for SUSY and there are theoretical difficulties with SUSY, yes i do think physics, esp theoretical physics involving energies that cannot be probed, does work on beliefs. string theorists have faith in SUSY. string theorists have beliefs in higher dimensions. they have a belief if you could construct a Planck scale accelerator, it would validate string theory and SUSY

 

[mfb]

but there is certainly a reason to do so now

Apart from Feng et al and you I don't see anyone seeing that reason.

making coupling to protons stronger and coupling electrons weaker, and its no longer the protophobic boson Feng originally proposed.

Sorry, mixed protons and neutrons. Make its coupling to neutrons stronger then.

yes i do think physics, esp theoretical physics involving energies that cannot be probed, does work on beliefs.

It does not. The theorists are exploring "what if". They hope to be right, but that is a different statement.

 

[kodama]

Apart from Feng et al and you I don't see anyone seeing that reason.Sorry, mixed protons and neutrons. Make its coupling to neutrons stronger then.It does not. The theorists are exploring "what if". They hope to be right, but that is a different statement.

“It would be crazy not to do another experiment to check this result,” Rouven Essig, a theoretical physicist at Stony Brook University told Nature News. “Nature has surprised us before!”

http://qz.com/759045/fifth-force-ne...d-be-a-dark-photon/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

Rouven Essiq is at least 1 other physicist other than Feng et al. Other news articles quote other particle physicists who think it is worth researching and experimenting. Lubos Motl is one string theorists who regards string theory as truth. Other string theorists from Michio Kaku to Brian Greene to Ed Witten to Stephen Hawking promote string theory, so its definitely past a what-if for them.

 

[mfb]

"Another experiment to check this result" is not the same as "a different experiment to look for a particle Feng et al think to see. Repeat the experiment, maybe with slightly different experimental setups, to see where the odd result comes from.

Lubos Motl has a strong opinion on everything. Other scientists promote string theory as interesting concept.

 

[kodama]

"Another experiment to check this result" is not the same as "a different experiment to look for a particle Feng et al think to see. Repeat the experiment, maybe with slightly different experimental setups, to see where the odd result comes from.

Lubos Motl has a strong opinion on everything. Other scientists promote string theory as interesting concept.

my original statement about Feng xboson is "Another experiment to check this result". see beginning of thread.

i agree with

“If it’s real, it needs to be studied in gory detail,” said David McKeen, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study.

“It would be crazy not to do another experiment to check this result,” Rouven Essig, a theoretical physicist at Stony Brook University told Nature News. “Nature has surprised us before!”

i never stated that this xboson exists based solely on the Hungarian team results, or that there is any proof for it. Only that it is worth researching, and your statement about finding oil in your back yard seems to suggest otherwise, that it is not even worth doing another experiment.

i think the statements many string theorists have made about their research goes a little more than just a what-if. Witten was asked why he believes so strongly in string theory and he replied it correctly predicts black hole entropy.

 

[mfb]

If it’s real, it needs to be studied in gory detail,

Note the "if". Everything real beyond the standard model needs to be studied in detail.

Only that it is worth researching, and your statement about finding oil in your back yard seems to suggest otherwise, that it is not even worth doing another experiment.

Do another experiment, but the most likely result (if any) is finding the error the previous experiment had.

 

[kodama]

Note the "if". Everything real beyond the standard model needs to be studied in detail.
Do another experiment, but the most likely result (if any) is finding the error the previous experiment had.

i agree -if you read the paper arXiv:1608.03591 on page 31 there are actually about dozen or so experiments that were intended to find dark photons, w' z' bosons, already planned several years back that can find this such as MIT's Lightdark experiment, heavy photon seach, PADME, BES 3, BarBar, LHCb, MU3E, VEPP3, MESA and will be online in the next year or so. Since Feng published the paper in Aug 2016, he is stating these physicists experimental exactly what to look for in addition to dark photons.

 

[kodama]

If the fifth force is a gauge force like the three in the Standard Model, then the symmetry of the Standard Model needs to be extended. That is, the three forces in the Standard Model are mixed from the three symmetries of the Standard Model, SU(3), SU(2) and U(1). To add a 4th force, you need to look for a symmetry that contains SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) but has 4 terms instead of 3. (Or maybe 5 terms if you want to add gravity as the 5th force.) Then you need to assign four quantum numbers to the various Standard Model elementary particles instead of the usual three.

Example: Suppose that we replace SU(3) with SU(3)xSU(3). To keep them straight, call them SU(3)_A x SU(3)_B. The idea is that these are a pair that is similar to how SU(2) x U(1) gives the electroweak force.

So make SU(3)_A the up quark and SU(3)_B the down quark. Then the representations for the up quark are 3 and 1 while the down quark's representations are 1 and 3. The other fermions are all singlets with respect to both SU(3)s.

Both quarks feel the same strong force so the strong force must be a mixture of the two SU(3) gauge forces. This sort of mixture is done with an angle like the Weinberg angle that mixes the SU(2) and U(1) electroweak gauge bosons to give the electric and weak forces. But since the two SU(3) are the same symmetry type, you expect the two mixtures to be something more natural:
SU(3)_A + SU(3)_B and
SU(3)_A - SU(3)_B.
Then the first mixture, SU(3)_A+SU(3)_B is the strong force while the other is the fifth force.

Feng proposes it is a fifth gauge force, an x-boson.

what are the ramifications of extending the symmetry of SM, on GUT, higgs stability and SUSY-extension ?

 

[kodama]

Light gauge boson in rare K decay
Chuan-Hung Chen, Takaaki Nomura
(Submitted on 8 Aug 2016)
The inconsistent conclusions for a light gauge boson X production in the K−→π−X exist in the literature. It is found that the process can be generated by the tree-level W-boson annihilation and loop-induced s→dX. We find that it strongly depends on the SU(3) limit or the unique gauge coupling to the quarks, whether the K−→π−X decay, which is from the W-boson annihilation, is suppressed by m2XϵX⋅pK; however, no such suppression is found via the loop-induced s→dX. The constraints on the relevant couplings are studied.
Comments: 10 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)
Report number: KIAS-P16055
Cite as: arXiv:1608.02311 [hep-ph]

The new interaction suggested by the anomalous 8Be transition sets a rigorous constraint on the mass range of dark matter
Lian-Bao Jia, Xue-Qian Li
(Submitted on 18 Aug 2016)
The WIMPs are considered one of the most favorable dark matter (DM) candidates, but as the upper bound on the interaction between DM and standard model (SM) particles obtained by the upgraded facilities for direct detection of DM gets lower and lower. Researchers turn their attention to search for less massive DM candidates, i.e. light dark matter of MeV scale. The recently measured anomalous transition in 8Be suggests that there exists a vectorial boson which may mediate the interaction between DM and SM particles. Based on this scenario, we combine the relevant cosmological data to constrain the mass range of DM, and have found that there exists a model parameter space where the requirements are satisfied, a range of 10.4≲mϕ≲16.7 MeV for scalar DM, and 13.6≲mV≲16.7 MeV for vectorial DM is demanded. Then a possibility of directly detecting such light DM particles at the Earth detector via the DM-electron scattering is briefly studied in this framework.
Comments: 13 Pages, 7 figures
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
Cite as: arXiv:1608.05443 [hep-ph]

 

[ohwilleke]

Here is a meaty article by one of the authors of the original paper intended for an educated lay audience:

http://www.particlebites.com/?p=3970

 

[kodama]

Here is a meaty article by one of the authors of the original paper intended for an educated lay audience:

http://www.particlebites.com/?p=3970

whats ur evaluation, and what do you think of dark photons? thx

 

[ohwilleke]

I am with the skeptics.