This week’s entry is entirely dedicated to dark matter and ways of searching for or constraining its properties which I would define “off the beaten track”, ranging from using the first stars, to black hole shadows, to quantum gravity-inspired theoretical guiding principles. Enjoy!
#1 2009.11478: Probing below the neutrino floor with the first generation of stars by Cosmin Ilie et al.
Pop III stars, contrary to what their name suggests, are the hypothetical first ever generation of stars to have formed in the late-but-not-so-late Universe. They would have been extremely massive, luminous, and hot, and formed from a pristine environment of H and He arising from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, with no metals. Pop III stars presumably formed at high redshift (up to z~50) at the center of extremely dense dark matter (DM) minihalos and, as any astrophysical object, they can capture and accrete DM. If DM is self-annihilating, the products of DM annihilation may heat the star, contributing a non-negligible fraction to the star’s luminosity. In fact, the quite extreme case where DM annihilation alone and not nuclear fusion powers a star is typically referred to as dark star, peculiar objects which have been first proposed and extensively studied, among the others, by my PhD advisor Katie Freese. In this week’s paper, Ilie and collaborators do simply assume that Pop III stars and dark stars are not mutually exclusive.
The key observation in this week’s paper is Eq.(1). We know that stars cannot shine above the Eddington luminosity. Then, suppose we know the mass of a Pop III star. We can compute the luminosity generated by nuclear fusion, and impose that the luminosity eventually generated by DM annihilation should not exceed the difference between Eddington luminosity and fusion-generated luminosity. Since the luminosity generated by DM annihilation depends on how much DM is captured, it will depend on both stellar parameters and DM parameters, in particular the DM-proton scattering cross-section. This is precisely (or closely related to) the quantity one tries to constrain in direct detection experiments! Therefore Ilie and collaborators show that: the observation of even a single Pop III star can in principle place very strong constraints on the DM-proton scattering cross-section, comparable to or stronger than current constraints from XENON1T (and in the future in principle allowing to beat the neutrino floor); conversely, a detection of DM scattering in complementary experiments (such as XENON1T) can be used to place an upper limit on the mass of Pop III stars. An example of the former is shown using a candidate Pop III star found in the MUSE deep-lensed field by HST in 2001.03619. Overall, I found this to be a really cool paper, following a recent trend of other interesting papers exploiting stellar physics to learn about particle physics and gravity (such as through the black hole mass gap, see e.g. 2007.00650 which I discussed in my Week 27 entry, 2007.07889, 2009.01213, and 2009.10716). It is also worth having a look at a companion paper by the same authors which also appeared today, 2009.11474.
#2 2009.10599: Imprints of Dark Matter on Black Hole Shadows using Spherical Accretions by Saurabh and Kimet Jusufi
While the paper above discussed a possibility for shedding light on the nature of DM using the first stars, this paper instead discusses the possibility of doing so using both the shadows of black holes (BHs) as well as the emission ring-like region surrounding the latter. As a refresher, recall that a BH shadow is the apparent (i.e. gravitationally lensed) image of the photon sphere (the region of space-time where gravity is so strong that photons travel in unstable, not necessarily circular, orbits). In other words, the BH shadow is the closed curve on the sky separating capture from scattering orbits, and is not a direct image of the event horizon. Astrophysical BHs are typically surrounded by a geometrically thick, optically thin emission region which surrounds the dark region (the shadow) whose imaging is the goal of VLBI interferometry (think for instance of the famous “picture” of M87* provided by the Event Horizon Telescope, which we have seen so many times).
The question Saurabh and Jusufi address in this week’s paper is: does DM leave an imprint in both the imaged emission region and shadow? Within a number of toy models they study, they find the answer to be “yes”. This is the last of a series of papers examining the impact of DM on BH shadows, many involving Jusufi (see references [42-51] in this week’s paper). The first two toy models studied involve a Schwarzschild-like BH where however the mass appearing in the g_00 metric element is allowed to vary with the radial coordinate, with this variation reflecting the DM density profile - see Eq.(1) and Eq.(7). The third model they study is not so much a toy model, but rather a perfect fluid DM model. Besides altering the flux profile of the emission region, it is found that DM can affect the size of the BH shadow. This means that a high-fidelity measurement of the BH mass, which in turn would fix its shadow size, can be used to learn more about the DM surrounding it, especially if one finds a discrepancy between the expected (without DM) and observed shadow sizes. Of course, for the study to be more realistic both the BH solution and the description of the accretion disk would have to include rotation (i.e. a Kerr-like solution would have to be considered). I guess the authors are leaving this for future studies as hinted to in the conclusions, and my rough expectation would be in this case that DM would not only alter the shadow size but also, and perhaps most importantly, its oblateness.
#3 2009.11575: Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses by Xavier Calmet and Folkert Kuipers
We are very far from having a compelling theory of quantum gravity (QG), which would presumably unify Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. That notwithstanding, there are a few general statements one can quite robustly make concerning expected QG effects, which might possibly even show up at low energies. The first is that, in general, QG effects (and more specifically QG-generated effective operators) will lead to the decay of new fields which are not protected by Lorentz invariance or gauge symmetries, with the decay being suppressed by powers of the Planck mass. The second is that, since gravity is universal, it will couple any new fields to the Standard Model even if such a coupling is absent at tree level. One of the authors, Calmet, is well known for having written important works trying to derive bounds on QG-inspired phenomena from both theoretical and observational considerations (see e.g. here).
In this week’s paper, the question Calmet and Kuipers ask themselves is whether QG considerations of the type I mentioned previously can provide some theoretical guidance into what are the allowed mass ranges for DM candidates, depending on their spin. Essentially what is being done is to construct a set of effective QG-generated higher-order operators and study the size of the QG effects I mentioned previously, induced by these operators. In particular, the induced DM decay is used to set an upper limit on the DM mass by requiring that the DM lifetime be larger than the age of the Universe. On the other hand, lower limits on the DM mass arise from the fact that very low mass DM coupled to the Standard Model (via the inevitable QG-generated portals) will lead to fifth forces which are very tightly constrained by precision gravity tests. Calmet and Kuipers then derive a series of constraints on the mass of DM candidates depending on their spin, and also depending on a series of considerations on the possible UV completion of the underlying QG model (e.g. whether the latter preserves parity or not, whether the fields in question are gauged, spin-statistics, and so on). In some cases the obtained constraints are very interesting and tight - see Eq.(3) and Eq.(7). Overall, this was a rather short and interesting paper using simple and well-motivated theoretical guiding principles to set equally simple and theoretically motivated constraints on possible low-spin DM candidates (constraints which could, in principle, also inform experimental searches).