Mohamad-Ziad Charif - Antares

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2.4: CMB anisotropy observed with WMAP spacecraft.• R µν is the Ricci tensor.• g µν is the metric tensor.• T µν is the energy-momentum tensor.• R is the Ricci scalar.• Λ is the cosmological constant.The theoretical foundation of the model comes from the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric which is an exact solution to equation 2.1 with the assumption thatthe universe is isotropic and homogeneous at the large scales which is heavilysupported by observation of the Universe at the cosmological scale (∼ 100Mpc).This metric can be written as following in equation 2.2.−c 2 dτ 2 = −c 2 dt 2 + a(t) 2 dΣ 2 (2.2)dΣ 2 =dr 21 − kr 2 + r2 dΩ 2 (2.3)dΩ 2 = dθ 2 + sin 2 (θ)dφ 2 (2.4)With g νµ = diag(1, −a21−kr 2 ,−a 2 r 2 ,−a 2 r 2 sin 2 (θ)) and T µν = diag(ρ tot , p tot g 11 , p tot g 22 , p tot g 33 ). In addition the definition of the parameters are:• k is the spatial curvature of space. It can take 3 values, +1 which correspondsto a closed universe -1 an open universe and 0 for a flat one.• a(t) is the scale factor of the expansion of the universe as a function of time.• ρ tot is the total energy density of the Universe.• p tot is the pression of the Universe.10
From these equations we can derive the Friedmann equation (eq 2.5 & 2.6) withH(t) = ȧ(t)a(t) and ˙ρ tot being the time derivative of ρ tot .H 2 (t) = 8π 3 ρ tot − k a 2 + Λ 3(2.5)˙ρ tot = −3H(ρ tot + p tot ) (2.6)The Friedman equation can sometimes be written in the following form in equation2.7 as function of the normalized densities of all ingredients of the universe,where Ω R is the density of radiation in the universe, Ω M is the density of all typesof matter, Ω K is the curvature of space. At our time now (a=1) the equation isreduced to 2.8.Ω M can also be written as the sum of Ω c + Ω b , where Ω c is the density of darkmatter and Ω b as the density of baryonic matter.H 2H02= Ω R a −4 + Ω M a −3 + Ω k a −2 + Ω Λ (2.7)1 = Ω R + Ω M + Ω k + Ω Λ (2.8)The best measured value for these parameters above come from the combinationof WMAP survey[21], baryon acoustic oscillations[18].Ω b = 0.0456 ± 0.00015(fig 2.5) the density of baryonic matter which is in agreement with predictionsfrom primordial nucleosynthesis[22], Ω c = 0.227±0.014 the density of dark matter,Ω Λ = 0.728 +0.015−0.016 the cosmological constant (fig 2.5) , Ω R = 4.97 · 10 −5 thedensity of radiation. The results indicate that we have about 50 times more darkmatter in the Universe than baryonic matter (consistent with observations).2.1.6.1 Dark matter in ΛCDMDark matter can either be explained as actual matter (baryonic or not) or as lawsof gravity being different at the large scales[12] such as the MOND (MOdifiedNewtonian Dynamcics) model. With major models for modified laws of gravitybeing disfavored in face of matter models [10, 11], the remaining part is to seewhether this matter is baryonic or not. The major candidate for baryonic darkmatter is MACHOs or Massive Compact Halo Objects. MACHOs mainly consistsof large and condensed objected such black holes, neutron stars, and otherthat have from barely to non-existing electromagnetic signatures. The contributionof these objects has already been constrained and ruled out as a dark mattercandidate[23, 24, 25].What remains are the non-baryonic candidates, which can be divided into threecategories:11
Page 2 and 3: "The most exciting phrase to hear i
Page 4 and 5: 3.2.1.4 Performance and characteris
Page 6 and 7: Chapter 1IntroductionThe early hist
Page 8 and 9: Chapter 2Dark MatterIn this chapter
Page 10 and 11: Figure 2.2: Comparison of the measu
Page 14 and 15: Figure 2.5: Combination of the WMAP
Page 17: Figure 2.6: Temporal evolution of t
Page 20 and 21: Figure 2.9: Parameter space of m 1/
Page 22 and 23: Figure 2.10: Limits on spin-indepen
Page 26 and 27: Figure 2.14: Detected gamma ray flu
Page 28 and 29: 600km/s. If we assume the worst cas
Page 30 and 31: Figure 2.17: Conversion factor from
Page 32 and 33: The eigenstate mixing can be writte
Page 34 and 35: Figure 2.19: Flux of ν µ / ¯ν
Page 36 and 37: Figure 3.1: The neutral current (NC
Page 38 and 39: Muon Energy (GeV )1p| dEdx | (GeV.c
Page 40 and 41: Figure 3.4: Energy loss of per dist
Page 42 and 43: Figure 3.6: Effective muon range as
Page 44 and 45: Figure 3.8: Differential flux of at
Page 46 and 47: 3.2.1.1 Detector layoutOptical Modu
Page 48 and 49: • The LED (light emitting diode)
Page 50 and 51: Anchor & BuoyEach line is anchored
Page 52 and 53: Figure 3.17: Distribution of azimut
Page 54 and 55: Figure 3.20: Height and radial disp
Page 56 and 57: Figure 3.22: Distribution of sea cu
Page 58 and 59: Figure 3.24: Time offset among OMs
Page 60 and 61: Figure 3.26: Distribution of time d
Page 62 and 63:
Line number Connection Date Mainten
Page 64 and 65:
Figure 3.29: Comparison between sky
Page 66 and 67:
Figure 3.31: The effective area for
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 4.1: Median counting rate of
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 4.4: Average neutrino events
Page 72 and 73:
2. All hits on the same floor are m
Page 74 and 75:
4.2.1 Neutrino simulationFigure 4.6
Page 76 and 77:
• Multiplicity range of the muon
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 5Dark Matter search in the
Page 80 and 81:
Figure 5.2: Annihilation spectrum f
Page 82 and 83:
Livetime(days) 5 Lines 9 Lines 10 L
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 5.4: Monte Carlo Truth distr
Page 86 and 87:
Figure 5.7: Tchi2 distribution for
Page 88 and 89:
Figure 5.9: Tchi2 distribution for
Page 90 and 91:
Figure 5.11: Sun’s position taken
Page 92 and 93:
Figure 5.13: Comparison between the
Page 94 and 95:
Figure 5.15: Estimation of the back
Page 96 and 97:
Figure 5.16: Mean angle between the
Page 98 and 99:
Figure 5.18: A comparison of the di
Page 100 and 101:
a look at figure 5.22 we find a cle
Page 102 and 103:
The resulting optimized sensitiviti
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 5.26: A comparison plot of t
Page 106 and 107:
dΦ µdE ν= dΦ νdE νP earth ρN
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 5.31: Limits on the muon flu
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 6Dark Matter search in the
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 6.1: . True Position of the
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 6.3: Comparison of the three
Page 116 and 117:
For BBFit all variables mentioned i
Page 118 and 119:
Figure 6.6: The distribution of χ
Page 120 and 121:
annihilation channel W + W − the
Page 122 and 123:
lowering the total contribution of
Page 124 and 125:
6.4.2 BBFit Single-line analysisThe
Page 126 and 127:
Figure 6.15: Comparison between the
Page 128 and 129:
Figure 6.17: Comparison of Nhit dis
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 6.19: The estimation of the
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 6.21: Comparison of the opti
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 6.23: Comparison of sensitiv
Page 136 and 137:
Figure 6.25: Estimation of our back
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 6.28: Comparison of the mult
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 6.29: Comparison of the Λ d
Page 142 and 143:
Figure 6.31: Comparison of the cos(
Page 144 and 145:
Figure 6.34: Comparison of the esti
Page 146 and 147:
The optimal Λ cut for all dark mat
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 6.40: Sensitivity to neutrin
Page 150 and 151:
6.7 Comparison with 2007-2008 analy
Page 152 and 153:
mass of 200 GeV and a cross-section
Page 154 and 155:
Chapter 7ConclusionsThe limits pres
Page 156 and 157:
Bibliography[1] Volders, L. M. J. S
Page 158 and 159:
[22] S. Burles et al., “Big bang
Page 160 and 161:
[46] G. Debrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W.
Page 162 and 163:
[74] C. Hettlage, K. Mannheim, and
Page 164:
[102] D. Heck and J. Knapp, “Fors
show all

Mohamad-Ziad Charif - Antares

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?