Upload
lambert-gallagher
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cosmology beyond the standard modelMulti component dark matter model
A. Doroshkevich,
Astro-Space Center, FIAN, Moscow, Russia
M. Demianski,
University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
History, three K, second plane, yesterday
List of problems
• 1. Relativistic Astrophysics – black holes • 2. Disc accretion – neutron stars • 3. Supernova explosions• 4. Relic radiation - recombination of the Universe• 5. Nonlinear gravitational instability - Zel’dovich
pancakes• 6. HDM model of the Universe• 7. Magnetic field in the Sun
Standard ΛCDM model
Analysis of the CMB fluctuations shows that
the large scale power spectrum of perturbations is the CDM like one
P(k) ~ kn, n ≈ 0.96 ± 0.007
for r >10Mpc, M > 1013M
B – mode of polarisation, 1403.3985
We show that this dependence cannot be
extended to smaller scales
First DM models - HISTORY• Doroshkevich et al. 1980 - HDM
• Bisnovaty-Kogan & Novikov 1980 - HDM• Bond, Efstathiou, Silk 1980 – CDM• Bond, Szalay 1983 CDM & WDM • Blumentale & Primack 1984 – CDM• Doroshkevich, Khlopov 1984 – UDM, MDM• Turner, Steigman, Krauss 1984 – UDM• Doroshkevich, Klypin, Khlopov 1988 – MDM• Mikheeva, Doroshkevich, Lukash 2007• Doroshkevich, Lukash, Mikheeva 2012• CHICAGO-2013
CMB power spectrumHigh precision ΛCDM model
Popular request – sterile neutrino
10-19eV < mdm < 1013eV Six reviews during 2013 year: Feng (2013), Boyarsky et al. (2013), Dreves (2013) Kusenko & Rosenberg (2013), Horiuchi et al. (2013),
Marcovic & Viel (2013).
Three standard problems are discussed: 1. Number of satellites, 2. Core – cusp problem, 3. Ly-α forest. Why they are only qualitative ?
Questions and problems
1. Observed satellites: Ms~ 105 – 107 M, zcr~ 7 –15
Typical mass resolution in simulations M ~ 108 M,
MW-28, A-13
2.Cusp – in simulations of clusters with M > 1013 M, NFW
Core – in LBG – galaxies with M < 109 M
Impact of baryonic component in clusters and galaxies.
3. Ly-α forest: xH~10-5, UV background
Direct and indirect searches DAMA – Bernabei, 2008, 2010
Super CDMS – Agnese 2013
NEGATIVE
Estimates: ms > 13 – 20 keV for WDM
Unstable neutrinos: ms < 3keV
LAC ? X-rays 3.5keV – 73 clusters: (Bulbul et al. 1402.2301)
Decay of DM particles or Ar recombination line
Simulations Maccio 2012 – do not reproduce observations WDM is not a viable solution of the core – cusp
and satellite problems Libeskind 2013 – low mass clouds are not stable
and are expanding Abel (2013) – artefacts appear, filaments
Wang (2013) – unstable DM and Ly-α forest Schultz et al. (1401.3769) – high z Dutton & Maccio (1402.7073) – 17 realizations
Models with one type of DM particles
OUR APPROACHProcess and moment of object formation
Both galaxies and clusters are diversified
steady – state objects.
Global characteristics – mass, angular momentum,.. • Periods of anisotropic compression and/or merging • After virialization the structure of DM halos is frozen. • Therefore we can restore the z of formation
• Zcr – Mvir plane
• Links with the spectrum of perturbations. • Impact of baryonic component
For central regions of the DM halo (Klypin et al. 2011) zcr-Mvir plane
3/76/194/),( fcvir zMrRMzc
kpczMr fc3/106/1
98.0
3102/19
8 /10 kpcMzM fc
]1
)1[log(cc
cMM cvir
)(4)(34 333 CfCRzRM mvirccrvirvir
)()(33
cr
mc
zCf
C
pc=pc(zcrM0.1)
Walker et. al, 2009, ApJ, 704, 1274 - 28 dSph objects•
name r sig_v +/- Mhalf +/- <rho> +/- (1 +zcr)/10 +/- kpc km/s 10^6M_o M_o/pc^3 Carina 0.14 6.60 1.20 3.40 1.40 0.320 0.12 1.2 0.53 Draco 0.22 9.10 1.20 11.00 3.00 0.230 0.06 1.1 0.32Fornax 0.34 11.70 0.90 27.00 0.50 0.160 0.03 1.0 0.04LeoI 0.13 9.20 1.40 6.50 2.10 0.660 0.21 1.2 0.44LeoII 0.12 6.60 0.70 3.10 0.90 0.400 0.12 1.2 0.39Sculptor 0.09 9.20 1.10 4.60 1.70 1.300 0.50 1.3 0.55Sextant 0.29 7.90 1.30 11.00 4.00 0.100 0.03 1.0 0.39UMi 0.15 9.50 1.20 7.80 2.20 0.550 0.150 1.2 0.37CVen I 0.56 7.60 0.40 19.00 2.00 0.025 0.003 0.8 0.10 Coma 0.08 4.60 0.80 0.90 0.35 0.490 0.180 1.3 0.56Hercules 0.33 3.70 0.90 2.60 1.40 0.017 0.009 0.9 0.53 Leo T 0.18 7.50 1.60 5.80 2.80 0.250 0.120 1.1 0.59Segue 1 0.03 4.30 1.20 0.31 0.19 3.010 0.800 1.7 1.06UMa I 0.32 11.90 3.50 26.10 6.00 0.200 0.120 1.0 0.29UMa II 0.14 5.70 1.40 2.60 1.40 0.230 0.120 1.2 0.68AndII 1.23 9.30 2.70 62.00 36.00 0.008 0.005 0.7 0.45Cetus 0.59 17.00 2.00 99.00 23.00 0.110 0.020 0.9 0.22Sgr^c 1.55 11.40 0.70 120.00 60.00 0.008 0.001 0.7 0.35Tucana 0.27 15.80 3.60 40.00 19.00 0.460 0.220 1.1 0.57Bootes 1 0.24 6.50 2.00 5.90 3.70 0.100 0.060 1.0 0.70Cven II 0.07 4.60 1.00 0.90 0.40 0.530 0.250 1.3 0.65Leo IV 0.12 3.30 1.70 0.73 0.73 0.110 0.110 1.1 1.26Leo V 0.04 2.40 1.90 0.14 0.14 0.450 0.450 1.4 1.57Segue 2 0.03 3.40 1.80 0.23 0.23 1.310 0.300 1.6 1.59AndIX 0.53 6.80 2.50 14.00 11.00 0.023 0.017 0.8 0.73AndXV 0.27 11.00 6.00 19.00 2.00 0.230 0.250 1.0 0.22
• -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mns 1.6 0.35 sig 2.3 0.33
• Problems of detection
• and • description
• r corresponds to• L(r)=Ltot/2
28 dSph galaxies (Walker et al. 2009)13 And galaxies (Tollerud et al. 2013)
<1+zcr> = 15/M60.1(1 ± 0.12)=3/M13
0.1(1 ± 0.12) <B-1(zcr )> = 11/M6
0.1(1 ± 0.12) = 2.2/M130.1(1 ± 0.12)
For And XVI zcr~14 For Segue I zcr~17 For Sgrc zcr~7
23 dSph 9 SPT-clusters
CLS – 83 dSph
Summary
For 44 SPT – clusters 1 < M13 < 300
<Pc> ≈ 36(1 ± 0.37)eV/cm3, Sb ≈ 185(1 ± 0.9)keV cm2
For 9 SPT - clusters 10 < M13 < 80
<Pc> ≈ 34(1 ± 0.25)eV/cm3, Sb ≈ 200(1 ± 0.7)keV cm2
<1+zcr> ≈ 3.2(1 ± 0.04)M13-0.1
For 9 REXCESS clusters 10 < M13 < 70
<Pc> ≈ 25(1 ± 0.5)eV/cm3, Sb ≈ 320(1 ± 0.3)keV cm2
<1+zcr> ≈ 2.2(1 ± 0.1)
For 41 dSph galaxies 10-7 < M13 < 10-4, 0.1 < M6 < 100
<P > ≈ 28(1 ± 0.8)eV/cm3,
<1+zcr> ≈ 3.4(1 ± 0.15)M13-0.1
B(zcr) – M12, observations
Power spectrum of MDM model
Mdmp≈107Mo /ms3 (keV)
Two composite MDM models P=0.3Pcdm+0.7Pwdm(50eV), P=0.1Pcdm+0.65Pwdm(50eV)+0.25Pwdm(10keV) Press, Schechter 1974, Bond et al. 1991
RESULTS According to this criterion CDM model is rejected
The WDM model with P=PWDM is consistent with observations when αw ≈ 1, mw ≈ 3keV
For MDM model with P=0.3PCDM+0.7PWDM
fCDM ≈ 0.8, fWDM ≈ 0.2, mw ≈ 50eV
For MDM model with
P=0.1PCDM+0.65PWDM1+0.25PWDM2
with mw1 ~ 50eV, mw2 ~ 10keV
FINAL ANSWER - SIMULATIONS
The endThe end
Small scale perturbations Linear evolution
28 dSph galaxies
CLS-83
Problems of detection
and
description
r corresponds to
L(r)=Ltot/2
name r sig_v +/- Mhalf +/- <rho> +/- (1 +zcr)/10 +/- kpc km/s 10^6M_o M_o/pc^3 Carina 0.14 6.60 1.20 3.40 1.40 0.320 0.120 0.12E01 0.53 Draco 0.22 9.10 1.20 11.00 3.00 0.230 0.06 0.11E01 0.32Fornax 0.34 11.70 0.90 27.00 0.50 0.160 0.03 0.99E00 0.04LeoI 0.13 9.20 1.40 6.50 2.10 0.660 0.210 0.12E01 0.44LeoII 0.12 6.60 0.70 3.10 0.90 0.400 0.120 0.12E01 0.39Sculptor 0.09 9.20 1.10 4.60 1.70 1.300 0.500 0.13E01 0.55Sextant 0.29 7.90 1.30 11.00 4.00 0.100 0.030 0.99E00 0.39UMi 0.15 9.50 1.20 7.80 2.20 0.550 0.150 0.12E01 0.37CVen I 0.56 7.60 0.40 19.00 2.00 0.025 0.003 0.84E00 0.10 Coma 0.08 4.60 0.80 0.90 0.35 0.490 0.180 0.13E01 0.56Hercules 0.33 3.70 0.90 2.60 1.40 0.017 0.009 0.89E00 0.53 Leo T 0.18 7.50 1.60 5.80 2.80 0.250 0.120 0.11E01 0.59Segue 1 0.03 4.30 1.20 0.31 0.19 3.010 0.800 0.17E01 1.06UMa I 0.32 11.90 3.50 26.10 6.00 0.200 0.120 0.10E01 0.29UMa II 0.14 5.70 1.40 2.60 1.40 0.230 0.120 0.12E01 0.68AndII 1.23 9.30 2.70 62.00 36.00 0.008 0.005 0.71E00 0.45Cetus 0.59 17.00 2.00 99.00 23.00 0.110 0.020 0.90E00 0.22Sgr^c 1.55 11.40 0.70 120.00 60.00 0.008 0.001 0.68E00 0.35Tucana 0.27 15.80 3.60 40.00 19.00 0.460 0.220 0.11E01 0.57Bootes 1 0.24 6.50 2.00 5.90 3.70 0.100 0.060 0.10E01 0.70Cven II 0.07 4.60 1.00 0.90 0.40 0.530 0.250 0.13E01 0.65Leo IV 0.12 3.30 1.70 0.73 0.73 0.110 0.110 0.11E01 1.26Leo V 0.04 2.40 1.90 0.14 0.14 0.450 0.450 0.14E01 1.57Segue 2 0.03 3.40 1.80 0.23 0.23 1.310 0.300 0.16E01 1.59AndIX 0.53 6.80 2.50 14.00 11.00 0.023 0.017 0.84E00 0.73AndXV 0.27 11.00 6.00 19.00 2.00 0.230 0.250 0.10E01 0.22-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mns 0.16E01 0.35 sig 0.23E00 0.33
Walker et. al, 2009, ApJ, 704, 1274 - 28 dSph objects