Mohamad-Ziad Charif - Antares

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bibliography[1] Volders, L. M. J. S., “Neutral hydrogen in M 33 and M 101,” Bulletin of theAstronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, Vol. 14, p.323, 09/1959.[2] W. K. J. Rubin, Vera C.; Ford, “Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula froma Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,” Astrophysical Journal, vol.159, p.379, 02/1970.[3] A. Bosma, “The distribution and kinematics of neutral hydrogen in spiralgalaxies of various morphological types,” PhD Thesis, Groningen Univ,1978.[4] W. K. J. T. N. Rubin, V. C.; Ford, “Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxieswith a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ toUGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/,” Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 238, June 1,1980, p. 471-487.[5] Van Albada, T. S.; Bahcall, J. N.; Begeman, K.; Sancisi, R., “Distributionof dark matter in the spiral galaxy NGC 3198,” Astrophysical Journal, Part1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 295, Aug. 15, 1985, p. 305-313.[6] A. Vikhlinin, A. Kravtsov, W. Forman, C. Jones, M. Markevitch, et al.,“Chandra sample of nearby relaxed galaxy clusters: Mass, gas fraction,and mass-temperature relation,” Astrophys.J., vol. 640, pp. 691–709, 2006.[7] D. Walsh, R. F. Carswell & R. J, Weymann, “0957 + 561 A, B: twin quasistellarobjects or gravitational lens,” Nature 279, 381-384 (31 May 1979).[8] A. Taylor, S. Dye, T. J. Broadhurst, N. Benitez, and E. van Kampen, “Gravitationallens magnification and the mass of abell 1689,” astro-ph/9801158,1998.[9] A. Refregier, “Weak gravitational lensing by large scale structure,”Ann.Rev.Astron.Astrophys., vol. 41, pp. 645–668, 2003.154
[10] D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, et al.,“A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,” Astrophys.J.,vol. 648, pp. L109–L113, 2006.[11] D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, and M. Markevitch, “Weak lensing mass reconstructionof the interacting cluster 1E0657-558: Direct evidence for theexistence of dark matter,” Astrophys.J., vol. 604, pp. 596–603, 2004.[12] M. Milgrom, “A modification of the newtonian dynamics as a possiblealternative to the hidden mass hypothesis,” Astrophysical Journal, Part 1(ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 15, 1983, p. 365-370.[13] R. E. Faber, S. M.; Jackson, “Velocity dispersions and mass-to-light ratiosfor elliptical galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 204, pp. 668–683,03/1976.[14] A. Faber, S. M. & Dressler, “Radial velocities for galaxies in 11 clusters,”Astronomical Journal, Vol. 82, p. 187 - 192, 241 - 247 = Lick Obs. Bull.,No. 753.[15] “Cosmic background explorer,” http: // lambda. gsfc. nasa. gov/product/ cobe/ .[16] C. Bennett et al., “The Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) mission,” Astrophys.J.,vol. 583, pp. 1–23, 2003.[17] “The Scientific programme of planck,” 2006.[18] W. J. Percival, S. Cole, D. J. Eisenstein, R. C. Nichol, J. A. Peacock, et al.,“Measuring the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation scale using the SDSS and 2dF-GRS,” Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., vol. 381, pp. 1053–1066, 2007.[19] M. Kowalski et al., “Improved Cosmological Constraints from New, Oldand Combined Supernova Datasets,” Astrophys.J., vol. 686, pp. 749–778,2008.[20] M. Viel, J. Bolton, and M. Haehnelt, “Cosmological and astrophysical constraintsfrom the Lyman-alpha forest flux probability distribution function,”arXiv:0907.2927v1, 2009.[21] N. Jarosik, C. Bennett, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, M. Greason, et al., “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: SkyMaps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results,” Astrophys.J.Suppl., vol. 192,p. 14, 2011.155
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 12 and 13:
Figure 2.4: CMB anisotropy observed
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 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?