Follow @syymmetries
Showing posts with label Pluto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pluto. Show all posts

Friday, 25 September 2015

Friday wrap-up: Nima, weakly coupled high-scale physics...

Wherein I list some (mostly) recent happenings, ramble a bit, and provide links, in an order roughly determined by importance and relevance to particle physics. Views are my own. Content very definitely skewed by my own leanings and by papers getting coverage, and it may not even be correct. It is a blog after all...

  • There is an article at Quanta Magazine constructed around a profile of Nima Arkani-Hamed that is well worth a read. It includes his (and others') visions of and predictions for the future of high-energy physics, and the important role the Chinese might play in constructing a 100 TeV collider.
  • A few things wrapped up for me this week...

    (1) Uploaded to the arXiv v2 of a paper on displaced Higgs decays (see blog from back in June). In particular, the new version has the plots updated and include some recent results. Besides the scientific content, at the very least they are pleasing to the eye (well at least to mine)! I find this kind of phenomenology very interesting, and there is certainly more to be said in conversation between phenomenologists and experimentalists on where to search and how to present results for displaced physics.


    (2) Uploaded to the arXiv a conference proceedings (PLANCK) summarising two recent papers: "How to avoid unnatural hierarchical thermal leptogenesis." If you'd like to know why explaining baryogenesis and neutrino masses with the minimal three-flavour Type I seesaw and hierarchical leptogenesis is necessarily unnatural, and the various ways around it, this document should serve as a good summary. Or see the blog post from May for an even shorter summary. The second part of the proceedings describes a two-Higgs-doublet model with right-handed neutrinos (ν2HDM) which can achieve hierarchical leptogenesis and realise the neutrino masses without introducing a naturalness problem. This model serves as the basis for the following...

    (3) Uploaded an arXiv preprint titled: "νDFSZ: a technically natural non-supersymmetric model of neutrino masses, baryogenesis, the strong CP problem, and dark matter." It is a rather short paper which contains an existence proof that weakly coupled high-scale physics can explain phenomenological shortcomings of the SM without introducing a naturalness problem. The model adds only three right-handed neutrinos, a scalar doublet, and a scalar singlet to the SM. It contains a hierarchy of scales up to $\sim 10^{11}\text{ GeV}$. Nevertheless, corrections to the Higgs mass (and other mass scales) can be calculated, and it is shown that a technically natural decoupling limit of the model can protect all scales from large quantum corrections. If this is surprising in any way for you, since it is (or at least appears to be) a widely held misconception that high-scale physics implies a naturalness problem, then I suggest you read our preprint, or this earlier blog post! Let's be clear here: the model does not solve the big hierarchy problem; we don't explain where the hierarchy of scales comes from, we just show that the hierarchy we introduce is not fine-tuned (that is the real worry), i.e. it is a radiatively stable hierarchy, or, it is "technically natural".

    I find it extremely interesting that the major shortcomings of the standard model can be answered naturally in such a modest extension of the SM. Models like this with weakly coupled high-scale physics, in my opinion, deserve more attention.
    • The Taller de Altas Energías 2015 School is currently ongoing (programme here).
      • Links without (too many) thinks:
        • Life and Physics from Jon Butterworth: "How the Higgs boson is born and how it dies: the most precise picture so far."
        • ATLAS Blogs: Part 2 of James Howarth's TOP2015 review.
        • The Conversation: "How we plan to bring dark matter to light," with a little on SUPL and SABRE.
        • Cosmos: "Ghost traps: the hunt for dark matter," interesting to read if only to observe how the field's "dark matter = WIMP" prejudice leads to misleading (even incorrect) statements in lay articles...
      • In video/audio media:
        • In Particular Ep 3: Particle Zoo... what is your favourite particle? [35:15]
        • CERN: Timelapse video of the CERN Axion Solar Telescope (CAST) following the Sun [1:22], and a bit of noise rock in situ; Deerhoof vs. the Large Hadron Collider [9:05].
        • Waking Up with Sam Harris: The Multiverse & You (& You & You & You…), A Conversation with Max Tegmark. [1:26:42]
        • MinutePhysics: Why do we put telescopes in space? [2:20]
        • It's Okay to be Smart: Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law... Explained! [7:11]
        • Numberphile: Philosophy of Numbers. [9:40]

      Friday, 18 September 2015

      Friday wrap-up: diboson update, XMASS...

      Wherein I list some (mostly) recent happenings, ramble a bit, and provide links, in an order roughly determined by importance and relevance to particle physics. Views are my own. Content very definitely skewed by my own leanings and by papers getting coverage, and it may not even be correct. It is a blog after all...

      • It's the season for conferences! This week we have...
        • 8th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP2015: indicotwitter). One of the interesting new results includes evidence for (>3σ) single top quark production in the s-channel with the 8 TeV dataset. There's an entertaining review of the first two days here from James Howarth.
        • Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology Including Fundamental InteraCtions (PACIFIC 2015: agenda).
        • Corfu Summer Institute: 15th Hellenic School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity (programme).
      • The second is an ATLAS diboson resonance search which combines the results from the large-R dijet channel with the leptonic channels. The results are well summed up by the first Figure in the Appendix:


        In short, when interpreted as a $W'$ resonance decaying to $WZ$, they see a 3.4σ local excess in the boosted jet topology and absolutely nothing in the leptonic channels. As well, these leptonic channels were sensitive to the $W'$ interpretation of the dijet excess, so that the local significance when combined falls to 2.5σ. Taken at face value then, if the dijet excess is really new physics, it is unlikely to be as simple as $W'\to WZ$. [As an aside: I do wonder how the community's reaction would have differed if this were that paper that was published first?]. To mimic such a signal without the leptons you would need a heavy resonance decaying to two exotic particles with mass $\sim m_Z$, which then decay mostly to quarks... would be difficult to hide these low mass exotics. Or else it is something more complex that happens to pass the selection criteria for the fat jet analysis but produces very few isolated leptons. Anyway, there have been >30 extra citations to the original ATLAS paper since I made a quick literature survey seven weeks ago, and more every week. For me it seems sensible to just wait and see what the new data says (probably some time next year), happy to watch the ambulance in the distance, starting to speed up...
      • The TAUP2015 parallel session slides are now up. Indeed, as speculated last week, XMASS has a best fit modulation that is opposite in phase to that seen by DAMA/LIBRA (see Slide 10 [pdf]). It is enough evidence to exclude much of the region where the DAMA signal can be interpreted as a standard WIMP with spin-independent nucleon scattering cross-section (though this is nothing new). Interesting to see what their results will be in the fiducial volume (analysis ongoing).


      • 32 Australian institutions have signed up to the Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) pilot: "Commencing in September 2015, the pilot requires participants to collect, analyse and present data on gender equity policies and practices in STEM departments, as well as identify gaps and opportunities for improvement."
      • Links without thinks:
        • Institute for Advanced Study: "Beyond the Higgs: From the LHC to China."
        • Richard Dawid wrote a guest blog on the reference frame: "What confirms a physical theory?" This should be taken in the context of that Ellis/Silk nature comment article and the ensuing debate on post-empirical science.
        • New Scientist: "Black holes may be brick walls that bounce information back out." On 't Hooft's new contribution to the black hole information paradox...
        • ... and Sabine Hossenfelder's reaction at Starts With a Bang: "Black holes and academic walls."
        • Also at Starts With a Bang: "Will The LHC Be The End Of Experimental Particle Physics?"
      • Lastly, in images from space, it is hard to top these new images of Pluto!


      Saturday, 12 September 2015

      Friday wrap-up: XMASS, multi-component dark matter...

      Wherein I list some (mostly) recent happenings, ramble a bit, and provide links, in an order roughly determined by importance and relevance to particle physics. Views are my own. Content very definitely skewed by my own leanings and by papers getting coverage, and it may not even be correct. It is a blog after all...

      • The XIV International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP 2015) conference has been happening this week (hashtag here). The plenary talks are available but unfortunately a very many interesting parallel sessions are inaccessible...
      • One of those parallel sessions included a preliminary new result of the search for an annual modulation signal at XMASS. A summary and some plots can be found in this document [pdf]. They see "a weak modulation effect" which they say can be explained by a modest fluctuation background fluctuation, i.e., not significant results. Such are the difficulties in searching for annual modulation in only ~1.5yrs of data. No quote of the phase, but the fit for the modulation in their Figure 1 (below) has a negative amplitude, which might suggest that the best fit phase is ~6 months displaced from the standard halo model maximum in June... anyone have more information?


      • Robert Foot here in Melbourne maintains that it is still possible that dark matter could be the explanation for annual modulation signals seen by DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT, and recently by XENON100 (and now perhaps XMASS?). He posted to the arXiv last week outlining a scenario...

        The possible explanation is predicated on a dark matter halo made up of a pressure supported multi-component self-interacting plasma. Considering the mirror dark matter model for definiteness, the halo is mostly made up of dark electrons and dark He ions. There is a (massless) dark photon which mixes with the SM photon, imbuing the dark matter with dark charge and SM nanocharge. Far from the Earth the plasma is in thermal equilibrium; turns out this naively implies a ~100 times larger flux of dark electrons incident on the Earth than dark He. However, dark matter will be captured within the Earth, and by contradiction one can argue that dark electromagnetic fields must arise to equilibrate the (charge weighted) flux of dark electrons and dark He. The flux of the dark electrons on the Earth's surface, which can be possibly detected in direct detection experiments via single electron scattering, then depends on the details of these dark fields, which are assumed to arise from bulk movement of the charged dark matter on/near the surface of the captured dark matter sphere. Since the flux annually modulates due to the motion of the Earth relative to the halo, then so will these dark fields, and so will the electron flux incident on the Earth's surface. Needless to say, determining the flux is a very thorny dynamical problem... the preprint presents a "somewhat primitive" analysis to show in principal that such physics can give a large annual modulation fraction (which is a function of latitude). The "smoking gun" (and the make-or-break) for this scenario is a large diurnal (daily) modulation.

        This just goes to highlight the obvious fact that direct detection results are not as simple as comparing exclusion curves in spin-independent nucleon scattering cross section versus mass.
      • Further on the direct detection front, Lateral Mag have a story on the dark matter direct detection project getting underway here in Australia, in the Stawell Underground Physics Laboratory (SUPL). Funding for the lab has been obtained, and construction should start early next year!
      • On this blog:
        • I have updated my thoughts on the hierarchy/naturalness problem from a month ago. I wanted to distinguish between a hierarchy problem and a naturalness problem; it is my opinion that these terms are used too loosely in modern hep parlance (and perhaps people have different definitions anyway), and this causes confusion (especially from the point of view of an impressionable PhD student). So...

          At least to me, the following definitions make sense: a hierarchy problem is an unexplained hierarchy of scales within a model, and; a naturalness problem (for a mass parameter) arises when a scale receives very large and physically meaningful quantum corrections. The SM+gravity suffers a hierarchy problem by definition, but it is not clear to me that this implies a naturalness problem for the electroweak scale. That is what I blogged about a month ago. Actually, taken this way, minimal supersymmetry alone doesn't solve the hierarchy problem (i.e. it has a mu problem). Nevertheless (and if it arises at the TeV scale) supersymmetry ensures that the electroweak scale does not have a naturalness problem whatever the theory of gravity, and whatever scales are introduced in between (such as a GUT scale), which is in my opinion a very nice property and an admirable achievement for such models.
        • Playing with google charts recently I added a geomap and new/returning pageview charts using google analytics tracking, the google analytics superproxy, and a little javascript withquerying. They're a little messy right now but the information is there; the blog is getting >500 views a week now, so thanks for reading!
      • News from space...
        • A detailed image of the bright spot on Ceres...


        • ... and incredible new images of Pluto and Charon!


      Friday, 31 July 2015

      Friday wrap-up: diboson excess, EPS-HEP, XENON100...

      Wherein I list some (mostly) recent happenings, ramble a bit, and provide links, in an order roughly determined by importance and relevance to particle physics. Views are my own. Content very definitely skewed by my own leanings and by papers getting coverage, and it may not even be correct. It is a blog after all...

      I am back from a six week tour of Europe (Greece for Planck conference, UK for seminar talks, Italy for ICTP Summer School and talk in Rome) followed by a proper two week holiday (Hawai'i for lava and turtles)... hence the inactivity here. In my absence, the diboson excess has been hot, the first 13 TeV results have been already trickling out, and in other good news it is 92% probable we are even doing something "worthwhile" -- hey, that's almost 2σ!

      Let me attempt an incomplete summary of the last month...

      • It's been almost two months now since the ATLAS diboson excess hit the arXiv (see Resonaances for a description), and many theorists/phenomenologists have now had the time to digest and interpret the result. The paper has been cited 37 times, and I count 31 dedicated studies. Let's take a stroll through them in the hopes of learning (in some Bayesian sense -- of course you will have to unweight for selection bias) what is a likely explanation if the signal persists... [This is only a quick survey and probably not completely accurate; send me a message or leave a comment if you believe I've done any of these papers a grave injustice...]

        Paper Authors Candidate Comment
        1507.07406 Faraggi, Guzzi $Z', W'$ String inspired GUTs
        1507.07102 Lane, Prichett $\rho, a_1$ Vector or axial triplet in composite Higgs
        1507.06499 Fritzsch $Z^*, W^*$ Excited states of composite weak bosons
        1507.06312 Kim et al. - EFT study
        1507.06018 Bian et al. $\rho$ Vector triplet in composite Higgs
        1507.05299 Anchordoqui et al. $Z'$ Leptophobic, string inspired
        1507.05310 Chao $H$ 2HDM
        1507.05028 Omura et al. $H$ 2HDM
        1507.04431 Chen, Nomura $H, H^\pm$ 2HDM
        1507.03553 Sanz Exotic glueballs Perhaps within composite Higgs framework
        1507.03428 Fukano et al. Dilaton e.g. scale-invariant generic heavy vector triplet model
        1507.03098 Cacciapaglia et al. Pseudoscalar Weak singlet with Wess-Zumino-Witten (effective) couplings
        1507.02483 Chiang et al. Composite Spin-0 Hidden confining gauge theory coupled to SM via D5 operators
        1507.01923 Dobrescu, Liu $W'$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ model
        1507.01638 Allanach et al. $Z', W'$ (motivated by EFT) within $SU(2)_L$ or $SU(2)_R$ vector triplet
        1507.01914 Carmona et al. Vector resonances Composite Higgs (non-custodial)
        1507.01681 Abe et al. Vector resonances Partially composite [G221 model with one dynamical SU(2)]
        1507.01584 Heeck, Patra $W_R$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$
        1507.01185 Abe et al. $Z', W'$ G(221) 'three site moose model' e.g. KK excitations of weak bosons
        1507.00900 Cacciapaglia, Frandsen - Unitarity study
        1507.00268 Cao et al. $Z', W'$ In G221 and G331 models
        1507.00013 Brehmer et al. $W_R$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)'$
        1506.08688 Thamm et al. Composite $Z', W'$ Within vector triplet
        1506.07511 Gao et al. $W_R$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$
        1506.06767 Alves et al. $Z'$ $U(1)_{d-u}$
        1506.06739 Aguilar-Saavedra $(VVX)$ Triboson final state mimicking a VV resonance
        1506.06736 Dobrescu, Liu $W'$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ model
        1506.06064 Cheung et al. $W'$ $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)'$
        1506.04392 Franzosi et al. Composite $Z', W'$ Within vector triplet
        1506.03931 Hisano et al. $Z'$ Leptophobic
        1506.03751 Fukano et al. Technirho Vector triplet within walking technicolour (composite) model

        Looks like the most popular explanation is a $W'$ within an extra vector triplet, either arising from an extended gauge sector (minimally a G221 model) or as a low-lying composite state. Less popular, but still well represented, are explanations via a leptophobic $Z'$ or a heavy Higgs in a 2HDM with the second Higgs doublet coupling strongly to the first generation quarks. A notable absence is any (minimal) SUSY explanation.

        Many (but certainly not all) of these models tend to predict observable $WZ$ and $WW$ resonances ($ZZ$ is difficult for a spin-1 due to Landau-Yang), usually in conjunction with $Wh$ (just by naive equivalence theorem). These are channels to keep an eye on during Run II.
      • The first 13 TeV results are already being released! E.g. check out all-these ATLAS notes which have appeared in the last couple of weeks (just in time for EPS-HEP). For the record, CMS had the first as far as I know (charged hadron pseudorapidity distributions).

        In particular, ATLAS released a plot (below) which beautifully agrees with the standard model as per usual: top quark pairs at 13 TeV just where they're supposed to be!


      • The EPS-HEP conference ran this week from 22-29 July. The slides are available on Indico here. I was impressed by the live webcast of plenary sessions, the daily newsletters, and the well-used hashtag which almost made it possible to attend the whole conference online. Some highlights for me...
        • LHCb presented preliminary results in their search for long-lived light scalars (see this talk [pdf] from Andrea Mauri) in $B\to K^* s \to K^*(\mu^+\mu^-)_{displaced}$ decays; they see no significant signal above background. Last year I gave a talk to the LHCb rare decays group motivating such a search, so it is very exciting to now see results! Below are the limits they set on the $B$ meson branching fraction for different lifetimes.


          The simplest model which can give this phenomenology is the standard model plus a real singlet scalar (Higgs portal), as described in an earlier post here. The pertinent free parameters of that model are the light scalar mass and a mixing parameter, and this new result will constrain that parameter space. To get a feel for how much, I picked off the limit lines (sans the statistical fluctuations which can be scraped from the vector plot once the preprint is out) and translated them. [Here I am taking data from an unpublished plot presented at a conference... have I learned nothing from BICEP?] Anyway, the exclusion result is shown in orange in the following figure (the grey shaded regions indicate lifetimes of 0.1mm, 1mm, 1cm,... for more details on the plot see here):


          Interestingly, LHCb competes with the BaBar exclusion curve (grey) even for very low masses. It was not obvious at all that LHCb would be able to do this, since for these low masses the long-lived light scalars are very boosted and many will escape their detector. Looking forward to reading the preprint when it is out!
        • Two months ago we mentioned the new LHCb result on $R(D^*)=Br(B\to D^*\tau\nu)/Br(B\to D^*\mu\nu)$. The heavy flavour averaging group (HFAG) have now released their combination average; it's 3.9σ from the SM. (See talk from Marta Calvi [pdf]).
      • LHCb published in Nature Physics their exclusive measurement of $|V_{ub}|$ in $\Lambda_b$ decays, an important result in resolving the $V_{ub}$ puzzle. You can read the LHCb release here. It has been on the arXiv since April, so it's not a "hot off the press" result, nevertheless it is now for some reason being picked up by various news sources as a blow for supersymmetry (see-these-four-examples). Good to know that if we see nothing in LHC Run II there is at least one way to sell the null result to the media... even though as a scientist such a result would be extremely interesting!
      • LHCb have claimed the discovery of pentaquarks (paper here and EPS-HEP slides from Sheldon Stone here [pdf]), a $J/\psi p$ resonance in $\Lambda_b\to J/\psi p K$ decays.


        This comes 12 years after SPring-8 first announced (the later ruled out) evidence for such states. One cool thing about the LHCb result is that you can even see it by eye in the Dalitz plot (below as line in $m^2_{J/\psi p}$); the LHCb team cannot account for it with any known $\Lambda^*$ resonance or interference. The best fit is in fact found by including two new $uudc\bar{c}$ pentaquark states.


        There's a good Quantum Diaries post from Adam Davis about it here (see also nature newssymmetryJon Butterworth, and Tommaso Dorigo + comments).
      • This week the XENON Collaboration released an arXiv paper, "Search for Event Rate Modulation in XENON100 Electronic Recoil Data". They see a 2.8σ annual modulation signal in low energy single scatterings with a phase consistent with DAMA/LIBRA (!) ... and then pour a serious amount of cold water on the measurement. In order of decreasing temperature, here are the buckets they use: (1) There is no globally significant modulation in the data. (2) The phase of the annual modulation signal deviates from that expected for a standard dark matter halo by 2.5σ. (3) The amplitude is much lower than that expected if DAMA/LIBRA was correct. (4) A 2.5σ annual modulation signal is seen in low energy multiple scatterings as well.

        Some comments now... Bucket (1) is lukewarm; we should only be interested in annual modulation for a dark matter hypothesis and there is no look-elsewhere effect. For buckets (2) and (3) let's look first at their Figure 4.


        Bucket (2) is room temperature. The phase of an annual modulation hypothesis is found to be inconsistent from the standard stationary halo expectation by 2.5σ. However, it is plain to see that it is consistent with the DAMA/LIBRA phase. If there is some bulk rotation/movement in the halo, perhaps this can be explained? Bucket (3) is certainly chilly, but there are two things to keep in mind. The amplitude is calculated for a particular model (WIMP-electron scattering with axial vector coupling), and the two experiments have very different targets (NaI crystal versus Xenon). Unfortunately we cannot compare apples with apples here and a conversion must take place, for which there is more information in a second XENON paper. For the last bucket let's look at their Figure 3.


        Bucket (4) is potentially large and freezing; a dark matter explanation should not induce an annual modulation in low energy multiple scatterings, and it appears to at 2.5σ. However, I can find nowhere in the paper where they quote the phase of this modulation! If indeed the phase is consistent with the single scattering phase, then this would be evidence for a background origin. Note that XENON100 is in Gran Sasso, as is DAMA/LIBRA, thus such a measurement would have implications for the DAMA/LIBRA result. So, XENON, what is the phase of the annual modulation in low energy multiple scatterings?
      • Those following this blog will know we have been documenting somewhat the status of the galactic central excess of gamma rays seen in the Fermi data. The excess (over standard astrophysical backgrounds) is undeniably there, but the question of course to be answered is its origin: dark matter, or some (not yet fully understood) baryonic astrophysics? The most popular explanation in the latter set is by some population of millisecond pulsars (i.e. point sources) [see Sabine Hossenfelder's post here]. Recently, some-studies have analysed the Fermi data to see if the excess prefers a diffuse (e.g. dark matter) or point source origin. Both of the studies find a preference for a point source origin...

        This morning I stumbled upon a (days old) CERN Seminar from Tracy Slatyer, who may be in a unique position to comment on the issue, being an author of one of those new studies, as well as an author on one of the well cited papers arguing a dark matter interpretationBelow is the conclusion slide from the Slatyer talk, where it is interesting to see that the game has changed, with preference now for a point source origin over dark matter.


        This is science in action; it sounds like some very interesting new astrophysics will be revealed by the time the book is closed on this excess, and this should be celebrated.
      • The PASCOS conference happened at ICTP at the end of last month; a very many interesting plenary talks (~30 mins each) are available as videos and worth a peruse.
      • Frank Wilczek's new book on beauty in nature is out. See Peter Woit's blog for a good summary and further links.
      • Over the coming weeks, Stephen Hawking will be answering (some) submitted questions on artificial intelligence in a reddit AMA.
      • The Kepler mission has discovered the first ~Earth-sized planet within the habitable zone of a Sun-like star [see xkcd]. There has been significant hype; for a no-nonsense take see Bad Astronomy. You can read the actual paper [pdf] here; they state, "The likelihood that this planet has a rocky composition lies between 49% and 62%."
      • And while I was away, New Horizons flew by Pluto! In the tradition of ending each post with stunning shots of space, this probably takes the cake: the money shot in natural colour, a surface shot, and the farewell. Truly magnificent. (For more information, Nat Geo has a good story).

      Saturday, 18 April 2015

      Friday wrap-up: 6.5 TeV, AMS, young pulsars, dark matter...

      Wherein I list some (mostly) recent happenings, ramble a bit, and provide links, in an order roughly determined by importance and relevance to particle physics. Views are my own. Content very definitely skewed by my own leanings and by papers getting coverage, and it may not even be correct. It is a blog after all...

      • On this day last week we had the first 6.5 TeV beam fly around the LHC, and a day later we had both beams at once. You can read a little more at symmetry magazine.


      • AMS have presented their results on the cosmic ray proton/helium/lithium flux and the antiproton-proton ratio at a CERN mini-conference. Recordings of the talks are here and slides here. The press release is here. The plot they are pushing is the following one:

        Figure 1. Antiproton to proton ratio measured by AMS. As seen, the measured ratio cannot be explained by existing models of secondary production.

        The claim in the press release is, "This behavior cannot be explained by secondary production of antiprotons from ordinary cosmic ray collisions," with the suggestion that a new primary source(s) may be needed. But Sam Ting made sure during his talk to emphasise that it cannot be explained by existing secondary production models, and when presenting this figure he noted that there are many secondary production models, but "this is the one we choose" -- I wonder why... (an aside: he also in the same talk referred to his $J/\psi$ particle first as $J$ and then as $\psi$ on the same slide!). The point is that these models are very uncertain and the claim in the press release is unfounded. Indeed, there was a preprint on hep-ph yesterday which had the following to say: "Our first and main result is that there is no unambiguous antiproton excess that can be identified in the first place, and thus, at this stage, no real need for primary sources of antiprotons. Within errors, secondary astrophysical production alone can account for the data." Their Figure 2:


        So, don't believe the hype.
      • There was an arXiv preprint on Wednesday suggesting that young pulsars can explain the galactic centre excess. Their money plot is the following comparison of the expected dark matter spectrum with that from a prototypical young pulsar (Geminga).


      • Spectroscopic measurements of Reticulum II (here, here, and here) confirm it is an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy. Recall from the Hooper paper on the observed gamma ray excess, "In order for this excess to be compatible with the lack of significant gamma-ray detections from other dwarf galaxies... Reticulum II must contain a high density of dark matter, corresponding to $J \gtrsim 10^{19.6}\text{ GeV}^2/\text{cm}^{-5}$." One the new preprints has the J-factor measured at $10^{18.8\pm0.6}\text{ GeV}^2/\text{cm}^{-5}$ within 0.2 degs, and $10^{18.9\pm0.6}\text{ GeV}^2/\text{cm}^{-5}$ within 0.5 degs, and another has it at $10^{19.5^{+1.0(+1.6)}_{−0.6(−1.3)}}\text{ GeV}^2/\text{cm}^{-5}$ within 0.5 degs. So measurements seem to be disfavouring a dark matter interpretation. Also, it is of note that there is a radio source (likely a blazar) located 0.1 degs from the Ret II location which could be responsible for excess gamma rays...
      • An arXiv preprint (press release here) has observed that, in a system of four colliding elliptical galaxies, "each of the central galaxies retains a dark matter halo, but that (at least) one of these is spatially offset from its stars." The abstract adds, "With such a small physical separation, it is difficult to definitively rule out astrophysical effects operating exclusively in dense cluster core environments – but if interpreted solely as evidence for self-interacting dark matter, this offset implies a cross-section $\sigma_{DM}/m \sim (1.7\pm0.7)\times10^{−4} \text{ cm}^2/\text{g}\times(t_{infall}/10^9\text{yrs})^{−2}$, where $t_{infall}$ is the infall duration."

        We should keep in mind that these limits are based on the assumption that the interaction is velocity-independent, which is not true of a low-mass mediator. I don't have anything illuminating to add, but I do find it interesting that the previous study of colliding galaxy clusters set an upper limit of $\sigma_{DM}/m < 0.47 \text{ cm}^2/\text{g}$, and this measurement is almost four orders of magnitude smaller! Are measurements of these kinds of systems that much more sensitive? Why doesn't this system set an even stronger upper limit?
      • The "Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way" saga appears to have reached an end. Both the comment and the reply to comment were updated this week, with the former reproducing a plot from a 1988 paper which is "in essence, identical to that of Iocco et al," and the latter writing, "In our letter we made a claim based on a specific technical point: that current data are constraining enough to make the claim robust against statistical and systematic errors. We believe we have made this point clear with our letter and two replies, and we shall not continue the discussion on the arXiv."
      • The Dark Energy Survey has produced a dark matter map (arXiv here, nature article here) of part of our sky using graviational lensing. Below is a heat map showing the mass density along with locations of galaxy clusters superimposed as grey dots. The map supports the standard picture that dark matter drives large-scale structure formation.

        photo
      • The EPS HEPP prizes were given out this week; the main prize went to James D. Bjorken “for his prediction of scaling behaviour in the structure of the proton that led to a new understanding of the strong interaction”, and to Guido Altarelli, Yuri L. Dokshitzer, Lev Lipatov, and Giorgio Parisi “for developing a probabilistic field theory framework for the dynamics of quarks and gluons, enabling a quantitative understanding of high-energy collisions involving hadrons”.
      • Strassler has been tackling the issue of dark matter searches at the LHC this week. He has a blog post and a new article for the layman.
      • Paul Jackson has written a blog post for the ATLAS blog on CoEPP and our conference in February.
      • Our understanding of the particle zoo as a function of time at Scientific American.
      • Frank Wilczek has a new book coming out in July, "A Beautiful Question: Finding Nature’s Deep Design."
      • Lastly, space images...
        • The first colour image of Pluto (and Charon) from New Horizons:

        • And here is our first view of Ceres from Dawn's new address:

          Ceres' North Pole