SciPost Submission Page
Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Ultraheavy particle dark matter
by Daniel Carney, Nirmal Raj, Yang Bai, Joshua Berger, Carlos Blanco, Joseph Bramante, Christopher Cappiello, Maíra Dutra, Reza Ebadi, Kristi Engel, Edward Kolb, J. Patrick Harding, Jason Kumar, Gordan Krnjaic, Rafael F. Lang, Rebecca K. Leane, Benjamin V. Lehmann, Shengchao Li, Andrew J. Long, Gopolang Mohlabeng, Ibles Olcina, Elisa Pueschel, Nicholas L. Rodd, Carsten Rott, Dipan Sengupta, Bibhushan Shakya, Ronald L. Walsworth, Shawn Westerdale
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Nirmal Raj |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202301_00029v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2023-01-19 12:27 |
| Submitted by: | Raj, Nirmal |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Core |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Experimental, Computational, Phenomenological, Observational |
Abstract
We outline the unique opportunities and challenges in the search for "ultraheavy" dark matter candidates with masses between roughly 10 TeV and the Planck scale mpl≈10^16 TeV. This mass range presents a wide and relatively unexplored dark matter parameter space, with a rich space of possible models and cosmic histories. We emphasize that both current detectors and new, targeted search techniques, via both direct and indirect detection, are poised to contribute to searches for ultraheavy particle dark matter in the coming decade. We highlight the need for new developments in this space, including new analyses of current and imminent direct and indirect experiments targeting ultraheavy dark matter and development of new, ultra-sensitive detector technologies like next-generation liquid noble detectors, neutrino experiments, and specialized quantum sensing techniques.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2023-4-27 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202301_00029v1, delivered 2023-04-27, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.7108
Report
The white paper reviews ultra-heavy dark matter with a mass below the Planck scale and is a good summary paper on the active research direction. It outlines several production mechanisms for ultraheavy dark matter: novel cosmological histories, gravitational production, primordial black holes, etc. Furthermore, heavy dark matter detection bounds from direct and indirect detection are presented. The article is a well-written review on this subject, and I would recommend it for publication.
Here I have some suggestions:
1) The detection sections focus on model-independent bounds on heavy dark matter, which looks decoupled from the production mechanism. Some discussion is given in the direct detection section but less in the indirection part. The paper could benefit greatly from more discussions on detecting ultra-heavy dark matter for several mechanisms presented in Sec 2.
2) The signatures of heavy dark matter models could also be detected by cosmological observations. The authors may consider adding some discussions on this.
3) For gravitational particle production through inflation, the authors wrote that the production is efficient when dark matter mass is comparable to the inflationary Hubble scale. But I think the production is efficient when the mass is much smaller than the Hubble scale.
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2023-3-7 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202301_00029v1, delivered 2023-03-07, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6863
Report
The acceptance criterion for SciPost Physics Core states that to be published, an article must "Detail one or more new research results significantly advancing current knowledge and understanding of the field." This submission seems to be a brief review article summarizing the current status of ultra heavy dark matter candidates. While useful, it is not clear if it contains any original results that have not appeared elsewhere. I am currently recommending rejection, but will be ready to reconsider if the authors can explain how this acceptance criterion is met.