Almost a year ago we talked about dark photons — the idea that there was a new force, almost exactly like ordinary electromagnetism, except that it coupled only to dark matter and not to ordinary matter. It turns out to be surprisingly hard to rule such a proposal out on the basis of known astrophysical data, although I suspect that it could be tightly constrained if people did high-precision simulations of the evolution of structure in such a model.

In fact our original idea wasn’t merely the idea of dark photons, it was dark atoms — having dark matter bear a close family resemblance to ordinary matter, all the way to having most of its mass be in the form of composite objects consisting of one positively-charged dark particle (a “dark proton”) and one negatively-charged dark particle (a “dark electron”). We thought about it a very tiny bit, but didn’t pursue the idea and only mentioned it in passing at the very end of our paper. There is an informal rule in theoretical physics that you should only invoke the tooth fairy (propose an extremely speculative idea or hope for some possible but unprovable result) once per paper, so we stuck with only a single kind of charged dark particle.

But once someone invokes the tooth fairy in their paper, anyone who writes another paper gets to invoke the tooth fairy for themselves. (That’s just how the rule works.) And the good news is that it’s now been done:

Atomic Dark Matter
Authors: David E. Kaplan, Gordan Z. Krnjaic, Keith R. Rehermann, Christopher M. Wells

Abstract: We propose that dark matter is dominantly comprised of atomic bound states. We build a simple model and map the parameter space that results in the early universe formation of hydrogen-like dark atoms. We find that atomic dark matter has interesting implications for cosmology as well as direct detection: Protohalo formation can be suppressed below $M_{proto} \sim 10^3 – 10^6 M_{\odot}$ for weak scale dark matter due to Ion-Radiation interactions in the dark sector. Moreover, weak-scale dark atoms can accommodate hyperfine splittings of order $100 \kev$, consistent with the inelastic dark matter interpretation of the DAMA data while naturally evading direct detection bounds.

(Note that one of the authors has been a guest-blogger here at CV.) It looks like a great paper, and they seem to have done a careful job at chasing down some of the interesting implications of dark atoms. In fact the idea might be more robust than that of the one in our paper; the fact that dark atoms are neutral lets you slip loose of some of the more inconvenient observational bounds. And the last sentence of the abstract points to an intriguing consequence: by giving the dark matter particles some structure, you might be able to explain the intriguing DAMA results while remaining consistent with other (thus far negative) direct searches for dark matter. Stay tuned; that dark sector may turn out to be a pretty exciting place after all.

Scientists like to argue, contra Walt Whitman, that understanding something increases our appreciation of its beauty, rather than detracting from it. The image below, as Evalyn Gates explains, is a perfect example. Evalyn is an astronomer at the University of Chicago, and the author of a great new book on the science of gravitational lensing, Einstein’s Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell’s). This post is an introduction to how gravitational lensing gives us some of the most visually arresting and scientifically informative images in all of astronomy.

——————————————

I had the pleasure of meeting up with Sean and some other old friends at the World Science Festival in NYC last month, and over champagne at the opening night reception (science has its benefits) Sean graciously invited me to write a guest post on gravitational lensing. It’s a broad topic, mainly because lensing is proving to be such an incredibly useful tool for many areas of cosmology and astronomy, but I have to admit that the visual beauty of the images produced by lensing is part of the appeal for me.
I’m also enamored of the visceral connection between these images and lensing phenomena that all of us encounter in daily life – and the access into a complex theory that this connection affords. The giant arcs, Einstein Rings, and multiple copies of a single distant galaxy or quasar that have now been observed in hundreds of images are concrete visualizations of otherwise abstract concepts of general relativity – they effectively trace out the warps in spacetime created by massive objects, revealing the outline of the cosmos much as the technique of “rubbing” can reveal the writing on an ancient gravestone.

This image, from a recent paper by Adi Zitrin and Tom Broadhurst is both scientifically and visually irresistible:

First, the image itself is really cool. The bright white/yellow galaxies are members of a cluster known as MACS J1149.5+2223, while the blue amoeba-like objects that appear to be invading the cluster are actually five images of a single distant (z ~ 1) spiral galaxy.

This galaxy has been lensed by the warp in spacetime created by the cluster. Light from the galaxy, which lies almost directly behind the center of the cluster but much farther away from us, travels along several curved paths through the cluster lens, producing multiple magnified images of the galaxy. The inset box shows a computer generated model of the unlensed source galaxy, enlarged by a factor of four so that the details, including the spiral arm structure, are visible. Without the lensing power of the cluster, we would see this galaxy as a single small blue smudge.

In general, lensing will both magnify and distort (shear) images of a background source. This lens is fairly unique in that we see large but relatively intact images of the spiral galaxy, which implies that the mass distribution in the central region of the cluster must be nearly uniform. The images in the upper left (#1) and lower right (#2) are especially striking. #1 is magnified but very minimally distorted, while #2, the largest image with a magnification of over 80, seems to be curling its tentacles about one of the galaxies in the cluster.

A close look also reveals the negative parity (mirror symmetry) of the remaining three images – the spiral arms appear to circle in the opposite direction – as expected from lensing. The total magnification of the distant galaxy (the sum of all five images) is about 200, the largest known to date – supporting the authors’s claim that this is “the more powerful lens yet discovered.”

(more…)

Here’s an extremely clever and fun idea (via arxiv blog). A while back the PAMELA experiment claimed to see an excess of high-energy positrons in cosmic rays — a signal that could come from imperfectly-understood astrophysical objects such as pulsars, or might be produced by something more exotic like dark matter annihilations. Some damper on enthusiasm for this idea was introduced by new results from the Fermi observatory, but it wasn’t completely conclusive, since Fermi’s detectors can’t actually distinguish between positrons and electrons.

So now Pierre Colin and collaborators have hit upon a cute way to distinguish between electrons and positrons: treat the magnetosphere of the Earth like the interior of a giant particle detector. Ever since cloud chambers, physicists have put magnetic fields in their detectors to help distinguish between positively charged particles and negatively charged particles, which get pushed in opposite directions. Well, the Earth has a magnetic field, so maybe we can use that. The problem is that the positrons and electrons would still all hit a telescope such as MAGIC, so the fact that they were deflected by the magnetic field wouldn’t be very relevant.

But Colin et al. suggest a trick: using the Moon’s shadow. Let’s imagine that the excess positrons really are coming from dark matter annihilating in the galactic center. When the moon is near the position of the galactic center in the sky, it will block out some of those particles, casting a shadow on ground-based telescopes. That’s already interesting, but the fun part is that positrons and electrons will be deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field, so the positron shadow will be in a slightly different position than the electron shadow! Using that effect, it may be possible to distinguish between the signals.

I am completely unable to judge how feasible this actually is. But the idea is sufficiently imaginative, I’m sure rooting for it.

One of the big hopes of particle- and astro-physicists over the next few years is to experimentally pin down the nature of dark matter. In a perfect world, we’ll make the dark matter particle at the LHC, observe gamma rays produced when dark matter annihilates in the galaxy, and detect it directly in experiments here on Earth. The world isn’t always perfect, but sometimes it’s even better, so everyone is sitting on the edges of their seats waiting to hear what the experiments tell us.

For the direct-detection strategy here on Earth, we build giant detectors and wait for ambient dark-matter particles to interact with something in the detector. If the dark matter is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), that’s not so hard; the difficult part is distinguishing a purported signal from various backgrounds. To know what the signal should be, of course, we need to know how many dark matter particles are zipping through the laboratory. It should be a good number: roughly speaking, there would be about one weak-scale-sized dark matter particle per coffee-cup-volume in the universe, and in our galaxy these particles will typically be trucking along at around 300 kilometers per second.

Still, you’d like an accurate estimate of how much dark matter there is supposed to be in your detector. That’s what Riccardo Catena and Piero Ullio claim to have provided:

A novel determination of the local dark matter density
Authors: Riccardo Catena, Piero Ullio

Abstract: We present a novel study on the problem of constructing mass models for the Milky Way, concentrating on features regarding the dark matter halo component. We have considered a variegated sample of dynamical observables for the Galaxy, including several results which have appeared recently, and studied a 7- or 8-dimensional parameter space – defining the Galaxy model – by implementing a Bayesian approach to the parameter estimation based on a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. The main result of this analysis is a novel determination of the local dark matter halo density which, assuming spherical symmetry and either an Einasto or an NFW density profile is found to be around 0.39 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with a 1-$\sigma$ error bar of about 7%; more precisely we find a $\rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.385 \pm 0.027 \rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the Einasto profile and $\rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.389 \pm 0.025 \rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the NFW. This is in contrast to the standard assumption that $\rho_{DM}(R_0)$ is about 0.3 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 to 3. A very precise determination of the local halo density is very important for interpreting direct dark matter detection experiments. Indeed the results we produced, together with the recent accurate determination of the local circular velocity, should be very useful to considerably narrow astrophysical uncertainties on direct dark matter detection.

So they’re claiming the density is about .39 GeV per cubic centimeter (where one GeV is about the mass of the proton), whereas the standard figure is something closer to .30 GeV per cubic centimeter. More importantly, they claim to trust their estimate to a precision of about 7%, while the usual number is supposed to be uncertain by a factor of 2 or 3.

I’m not expert enough to judge whether they are right, but it would certainly be very impressive to pin down the density to such high precision. They do assume spherical symmetry, however, which I suspect is not a very good assumption. There are ongoing arguments about how lumpy the distribution of galactic dark matter really is, and I can easily imagine that lumpiness can distort the local density by much more than 7%. But work like this is going to be very important in interpreting the results, if (when?) we do directly detect the dark matter.

Black holes are black because you can’t go faster than the speed of light. So what about the speed of sound?

Of course there is no problem in having something go faster than sound, but sound waves themselves are stuck with that speed limit. That fairly elementary fact inspired Bill Unruh years back to propose a clever idea: a black hole that you could make in the laboratory, but using sound rather than light. He called them dumb holes, although I’m not sure people get the right idea when they hear that name.

I used to think that this was an amusing thought experiment, but was believed to be unrealistic to actually attempt. But now Lahav et al. have apparently done it! (Via Swans on Tea and arXiv blog.)

A sonic black hole in a density-inverted Bose-Einstein condensate
Authors: O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, J. Steinhauer

Abstract: We have created the analogue of a black hole in a Bose-Einstein condensate. In this sonic black hole, sound waves, rather than light waves, cannot escape the event horizon. The black hole is realized via a counterintuitive density inversion, in which an attractive potential repels the atoms. This allows for measured flow speeds which cross and exceed the speed of sound by an order of magnitude. The Landau critical velocity is therefore surpassed. The point where the flow speed equals the speed of sound is the event horizon. The effective gravity is determined from the profiles of the velocity and speed of sound.

The idea is simply that you get a fluid flowing faster than its speed of sound in some region, so that the sound waves cannot escape the “horizon” bounding that region. (The flow speed has to change within the material; taking a balloon full of air and putting it on a supersonic jet doesn’t count.)

But the reason this could some day be very exciting is when quantum mechanics gets into the game. Just like black holes, dumb holes should have “Hawking radiation” — but instead of particles, the holes should emit quantized sound waves (conventionally known as “phonons”). That would be very interesting to observe, although the experimental state of the art isn’t there yet.

To be clear, we wouldn’t be learning much about quantum gravity if we observed Hawking phonons from dumb holes. The underlying physics is still that of atoms (and, in this case, a Bose-Einstein condensate), not that of general relativity. Indeed, one of Unruh’s original motivations was to show that the physics on small scales didn’t affect the prediction of Hawking radiation. So the prediction of Hawking phonons should be rock-solid, no matter how little we know about quantum gravity. Still, it would be very cool.

What is the Secretary of Energy doing submitting papers to the arxiv when he’s supposed to be solving the world’s energy problems? I have enough trouble getting papers written when it’s my actual job.

Atom interferometry tests of local Lorentz invariance in gravity and electrodynamics
Authors: Keng-Yeow Chung, Sheng-wey Chiow, Sven Herrmann, Steven Chu, Holger Mueller

Abstract: We present atom-interferometer tests of the local Lorentz invariance of post-Newtonian gravity. An experiment probing for anomalous vertical gravity on Earth, which has already been performed by us, uses the highest-resolution atomic gravimeter so far. The influence of Lorentz violation in electrodynamics is also taken into account, resulting in combined bounds on Lorentz violation in gravity and electrodynamics. Expressed within the standard model extension or Nordtvedt’s anisotropic universe model, we limit twelve linear combinations of seven coefficients for Lorentz violation at the part per billion level, from which we derive limits on six coefficients (and seven when taking into account additional data from lunar laser ranging). We also discuss the use of horizontal interferometers, including atom-chip or guided-atom devices, which potentially allow the use of longer coherence times in order to achieve higher sensitivity.

We kid the Energy Secretary, but this is a very cool experiment. (I presume this is the interferometer?) Basically, you throw an atom up in the air, and catch it as it comes down. But you actually split the wave function of the atom into two different beams, depending on when it absorbs and emits a pulse of laser light. The beams leave the same place and are collected at the same place, but travel on slightly different paths; you can use interferometry to see whether these different paths have evolved differently.

Which lets you test all kinds of things, from measuring the fine structure constant to looking for new forces to testing Lorentz invariance, as is happening here. But if it helps free us from dependence on foreign oil sources, I’d be surprised.

One of the big questions for people who believe in extra dimensions is: Why don’t we see them? Sure, we have methods for hiding them, usually by making them really tiny, but then we need to ask: Why are they tiny?

Matt Johnson, Lisa Randall and I just came out with a paper that takes a partial stab at this question: Dynamical Compactification from de Sitter Space. (And a similar-sounding paper came out the same day from Jose Blanco-Pillado, Delia Schwartz-Perlov, and Alex Vilenkin.) It’s an intriguing idea, if I do say so myself: starting with nothing more complicated than a higher-dimensional spacetime with a positive vacuum energy and an electromagnetic field (or a higher-dimensional generalization thereof), you will automatically get quantum fluctuations into lower-dimensional spacetimes! If we really believe in extra dimensions, we need to understand how regions with different effective dimensionalities are cosmologically related, and this is a step in that direction.

Normally I’d blog all about it, but on this occasion we’re outsourcing to a guest blogger. My collaborator Matt Johnson is a postdoc at Caltech, and before that was a grad student at UC Santa Cruz, where he worked with Anthony Aguirre — a previous guest-blogger of ours! We like to keep things in the family.

—————————————————

Extra dimensions. Sounds preposterous at first. Well, perhaps more accurately, it sounds preposterous to most people who don’t do high-energy theory. But, really I assure you, there are many well-motivated reasons why us wacky theorists like to ponder the existence of extra dimensions.

For one, as shown long ago by Kaluza and Klein, it is possible to get Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism in four dimensions by taking 5 dimensional General Relativity and wrapping one of the spatial dimensions up in a circle too small to see. The smaller the circle is, the harder it is to move in this “other direction,” and so there is no danger in getting lost on the way home. In this way, Maxwell’s equations have an elegant geometrical origin and gravity and electricity & magnatism are combined into one force (5 dimensional gravity).

Another strong motivation comes from string theory, which is only a consistent quantum theory of gravity if there are 10 or 11 dimensions in total. Again, since we don’t see them, it is necessary to hide the existence of the extra dimensions. Inspired by the fact that it was possible to hide one extra dimension by wrapping it up in a circle, generally the extra 6 or 7 dimensions are thought to be “compactified” into a very small compact geometry like a sphere or a torus.

At this point, the five-year-old in the audience is insistently asking, “If you have all these extra dimensions, and you are telling me that they are wrapped up into this tiny ball, how did they get wrapped up in the first place? Why are the four dimensions we see so large, and the others so small?”

After nearly a century of thinking about the existence of extra dimensions, there are surprisingly few plausible answers to this very simple question. One of the few answers was proposed by Brandenberger and Vafa. They studied the thermodynamics of strings in a torus-shaped hot early-universe, and found that miraculously it is favorable for only four of the dimensions to become large. Pretty nice, if the universe is a torus and all the dimensions started out small and compact. But, it would be nice to have some alternatives in case this turns out not to be viable.

Sean Carroll, Lisa Randall, and I recently wrote a paper that revisits the five-year-old’s question. We wanted to start with the very simplest model that has extra dimensions and solutions in which some of them can be compactified. A minimal set of ingredients needed to accomplish this includes 1) D-dimensional gravity, 2) a positive D-dimensional cosmological constant, and 3) a (D-4)-form gauge field (think E&M, but with more indices). This theory has long been known to have solutions where 4 of the dimensions are non-compact and (D-4) of them correspond to directions on a sphere, whose size is stabilized by the energetics of curvature and a background Electric or Magnetic field.

More interestingly, we showed that some of the spacetimes that are solutions to this theory contain a four-dimensional universe that lives behind the event horizon of an extended object, a “p-brane” or “black brane,” that is embedded in a background D-dimensional spacetime. Moreover, there are mechanisms that dynamically give rise to such objects, thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, and this leads to an explanation for why some number of extra dimensions became compact!

Sounds complicated, but you can actually go a long way towards understanding what we did by considering plain-old four dimensional black holes. (more…)

An arxiv find, via David Hogg (via Facebook, via the internet).

The gravitational force law in the Solar System
Authors: Jo Bovy (NYU), Iain Murray (Toronto), David W. Hogg (NYU, MPIA)

Abstract: If the Solar System is long-lived and non-resonant (that is, if the planets are bound and have evolved independently through many orbital times), and if the system is observed at any non-special time, it is possible to infer the dynamical properties of the Solar System (such as the gravitational force or acceleration law) from a snapshot of the planet positions and velocities at a single moment in time. We consider purely radial acceleration laws of the form a_r= -A [r/r₀]^-α, where r is the distance from the Sun. Using only an instantaneous kinematic snapshot (valid at 2009 April 1.0) for the eight major planets and a Bayesian probabilistic inference technique, we infer 1.989<α<2.052 (95-percent confidence). Our results confirm those of Newton (1687) and contemporaries, who inferred α=2 (with no stated uncertainty) via the comparison of computed and observationally inferred orbit shapes (closed ellipses with the Sun at one focus; Kepler 1609). Generalizations of the methods used here will permit, among other things, inference of Milky-Way dynamics from Gaia-like observations.

So: instead of noting that an inverse-square behavior for the force of gravity fits the data, assume that gravity obeys an inverse power law and fit for the power. (It’s two, to within the errors.) Of course there have been many higher-precision tests of gravity in the Solar System than this one; the new thing here is that the data are simply the positions and velocities of all the planets at one particular moment in time, no direct dynamical measurements. A little bit of Bayesian voodoo magic, and there you go.

What I want to know is, what makes the authors so convinced that their instantaneous kinematic snapshot is valid tomorrow?

I have a new paper out with Sonny Mantry and Michael Ramsey-Musolf, following up on our earlier paper with Chris Stubbs. The original idea was to imagine a new long-range force that couples directly to dark matter, but not to ordinary visible matter. (A simple scalar force, which is universally attractive between any two objects, as opposed to all the messy complications of a dark electromagnetic force.) Due to the magic of quantum mechanics, such a force will couple indirectly to ordinary matter via virtual particles. So in the first paper we studied how you could use fifth-force searches in ordinary matter to look for such dark forces.

In this paper we are a little more systematic, and we follow Jo Bovy and Glennys Farrar in also considering consequences for direct dark matter detection experiments, as well as dark matter searches at colliders. Here is the (somewhat lengthy) abstract:

Implications of a Scalar Dark Force for Terrestrial Experiments
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Sonny Mantry, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf

Abstract: A long range Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) violating force between Dark Matter (DM) particles, mediated by an ultralight scalar, is tightly constrained by galactic dynamics and large scale structure formation. We examine the implications of such a “dark force” for several terrestrial experiments, including Eotvos tests of the WEP, direct-detection DM searches, and collider studies. The presence of a dark force implies a non-vanishing effect in Eotvos tests that could be probed by current and future experiments depending on the DM model. For scalar singlet DM scenarios, a dark force of astrophysically relevant magnitude is ruled out in large regions of parameter space by the DM relic density and WEP constraints. WEP tests also imply constraints on the Higgs-exchange contributions to the spin-independent (SI) DM-nucleus direct detection cross-section. For WIMP scenarios, these considerations constrain Higgs-exchange contributions to the SI cross-section to be subleading compared to gauge-boson mediated contributions. In multicomponent DM scenarios, a dark force would preclude large shifts in the rate for Higgs decay to two photons associated with DM-multiplet loops that might otherwise lead to measurable deviations at the LHC or a future linear collider. The combination of observations from galactic dynamics, large scale structure formation, Eotvos experiments, DM-direct-detection experiments, and colliders can further constrain the size of new long range forces in the dark sector.

The looming problem with this whole game is that a long-range scalar force is unnatural. A scalar field should, by all rights, have a large mass, and that kind of mass drastically limits the range of the corresponding force. (That’s why the weak interactions are negligible compared to electromagnetism for everyday purposes; the W and Z bosons have a large mass, while the photon is massless.) You can keep scalar fields light by imposing symmetries, but that also tends to squelch any interesting interactions. But okay, it’s also unnatural for the Higgs boson to have a mass less than the Planck scale, or for the cosmological constant to be much less than the Planck scale. Unnatural things happen in the real world, so it’s not crazy to try to understand how they would manifest themselves.

The question is, once you’ve allowed yourself some unnaturalness, where do you stop? In this paper we’ve tried hard to minimize the number of parameters we unnaturally tuned to small values. We’ve tuned things to keep the scalar field light while not messing up the mass of the ordinary Higgs field, but tried not to tune anything else. In that case there should be mixing of the new scalar with the Higgs, and that mixing plays an important role in the phenomenology. In particular, there are implications for ground-based experiments; thus the title! It’s a long paper, but if you read one paper on the implications of a scalar dark force for terrestrial experiments this week, it should definitely be this one.

David Harris at symmetry breaking points to a paper and accompanying commentary on the search for high-energy cosmic antiprotons by the PAMELA satellite experiment. (What one defines as “high-energy” depends on one’s upbringing; we’re talking about energies of up to 100 times the mass of the proton.) The impression is given that this is a brand-new result casting doubt on the earlier claims that PAMELA might have detected evidence for dark matter; that’s not really a correct impression, so it’s worth getting it all straight.

The PAMELA satellite, an Italian/Russian/German/Swedish collaboration, looks at high-energy cosmic rays from orbit, and pays particular attention to the presence of antimatter — basically, positrons (anti-electrons) and anti-protons. Part of the idea is that a high-energy matter particle can simply be a particle that had been lying around for a while and was accelerated to large velocities by magnetic fields or other astrophysical processes, whereas you need some pretty high energies to produce antiparticles in the first place. Say, for example, from the annihilation of dark matter particles with each other. There are certainly some high-energy collisions in the ordinary non-dark-matter world, so you expect to see a certain fraction of antimatter, but that fraction should noticeably diminish as you get to higher and higher energies.

So in October the experiment released two papers back to back:

A new measurement of the antiproton-to-proton flux ratio up to 100 GeV in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4994

Observation of an anomalous positron abundance in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4995

If you look closely, you’ll notice the second paper has 10 trackbacks to its abstract on arxiv, while the first doesn’t have any (until now!). The reason is clear: the second paper has the word “anomalous” in the title. The PAMELA measurements of positrons deviate significantly from the theoretical expectation, while the measurements of anti-protons reported in the first paper are exactly what you might have predicted. Who wants to write about observations that fit theories we already have?

You might remember the PAMELA positron result as the one that created a stir when they gave a talk before submitting their paper, and theorists in the audience snapped pictures of the data with their cell phone cameras and proceeded to write papers about it. Those wacky theorists.

Here is the relevant positron plot, from paper 2 above:

The vertical axis is the fraction of positrons in the total sample of electrons+positrons, plotted against energy. The red dots are the data, and the black curve is the theoretical prediction from ordinary astrophysical processes. Not the best fit, eh? At low energies that is not a surprise, as “weather” effects such as solar activity can get in the way of observing low-energy positrons. But at high energies the prediction should be more robust, and that’s where it’s the worst. Indeed, it’s pretty clear that the fraction of positrons is increasing with energy, which is pretty baffling, but could conceivably come from dark matter annihilations. See Resonaances for more discussion.

And here is the version for antiprotons, from paper 1 above:

Now that’s what we call a fit to the data; again, fraction of antiprotons plotted versus energy, and the data go up and down just as predicted.

What happened is that the PAMELA collaboration submitted their second paper (anomalous positrons) to Nature, and their first paper (well-behaved antiprotons) to Physical Review Letters. The latter paper has just now appeared in print, which is why Simon Swordy’s commentary in Physics appeared, etc. Although the idea behind Physics (expert-level commentary on recently published articles) is a good one, it’s sponsored by the American Physical Society, and therefore pretends that the only interesting articles are those that appear in journals published by the American Physical Society. Which Nature is most surely not.

So one might get the impression that the antiproton result is a blow against the idea that we are seeing dark-matter annihilations. Which it is; if you didn’t know any better, you would certainly expect to see an excess of antiprotons in dark-matter annihilations just as surely as you would expect to see an excess of positrons. But it’s not a new blow; the papers appeared on arxiv (which is what really matters) at the same time!

And it’s not a blow that can’t be recovered from. All you have to do is declare that your dark matter candidate is “hadrophobic,” and likes to annihilate into electrons and positrons rather than protons and antiprotons. Not an easy task, but that’s why theorists get paid the exorbitant salaries we do. (Without ready access to champagne and caviar, we can hardly be expected to justify unusual branching ratios in WIMP annihilations.) The favorite model out there right now belongs to Arkani-Hamed, Finkbeiner, Slatyer, and Weiner, featuring a new gauge force that is broken at relatively low energies. But there are various models on the market, and the number is only going to grow.

Most likely the PAMELA positron excess is coming from something that can be fit quite nicely into the Standard Model of particle physics, like pulsars. That’s my guess, anyway. Happily, there’s all sorts of data coming down the pike that will help us sort it out.