REVIEW 1 cited by
Evidence Of Dark Matter Annihilations In The WMAP Haze
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
The WMAP experiment has revealed an excess of microwave emission from the region around the center of our Galaxy. It has been suggested that this signal, known as the ``WMAP Haze'', could be synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons and positrons generated in dark matter annihilations. In this letter, we revisit this possibility. We find that the angular distribution of the WMAP Haze matches the prediction for dark matter annihilations with a cusped density profile, $\rho(r) \propto r^{-1.2}$ in the inner kiloparsecs. Comparing the intensity in different WMAP frequency bands, we find that a wide range of possible WIMP annihilation modes are consistent with the spectrum of the haze for a WIMP with a mass in the 100 GeV to multi-TeV range. Most interestingly, we find that to generate the observed intensity of the haze, the dark matter annihilation cross section is required to be approximately equal to the value needed for a thermal relic, $\sigma v \sim 3 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s. No boost factors are required. If dark matter annihilations are in fact responsible for the WMAP Haze, and the slope of the halo profile continues into the inner Galaxy, GLAST is expected to detect gamma rays from the dark matter annihilations in the Galactic Center if the WIMP mass is less than several hundred GeV.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Fermi-LAT Galactic Center Excess morphology of dark matter in simulations of the Milky Way galaxy
The manuscript body is a different paper (b → c semileptonic sum rules) and contains none of the claimed dark matter gamma-ray morphology analysis, so the abstract's prediction is unsupported.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.