7 1 0 2 The Sun as a probe of n a Fundamental Physics and Cosmology J 4 1 I P Lopes1 ] 1Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrof´ısica, InstitutoSuperior T´ecnico, UniversidadeTecnica de O Lisboa , Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal C E-mail: [email protected] . h p Abstract. The high quality data provided by helioseismology, solar neutrino flux - o measurements, spectral determination of solar abundances, nuclear reactions rates coefficients r amongotherexperimentaldata,leadstothehighlyaccuratepredictionoftheinternalstructure t s of the present Sun - the standard solar model. In this talk, I have discussed how the standard a solarmodel,thebestrepresentationoftherealSun,canbeusedtostudythepropertiesofdark [ matter, for which two complementary approaches have been developed: - to limit the number 1 of theoretical candidates proposed as the dark matter particles, this analysis complements the v experimental search of dark matter, and - as a template for the study of the impact of dark 6 matterintheevolution ofstars,which possibly occursforstellar populationsformed inregions 2 of high density of dark matter, such as stars formed in the centre of galaxies and the first 9 generations of stars. 3 0 . 1 0 7 1. Introduction 1 Inthistalk, IdiscussedhowtheSunisbeingusedasaprobeoffundamentalphysicsandmodern : v cosmology. As a nuclear physics community, if you remember the 30’s and 40’s, the Sun has i X played a key role in the progress and development of nuclear physics, namely, by contributing to r the understanding of the basic nuclear processes that lead to the discovery of the nuclear chain a reactions (PP chains, CNO cycle and 3α reactions) by H. Bethe, C. F. von Weizsa¨cker and F. Hoyle among others. Therefore, it is no surprise, that in particular the Sun, and in general the other stars, can play an important role to explore the validity of new fundamental laws of physics,such as testingnew theories of gravity proposedas alternative toGeneral Gravity [1], to discuss the precision of new measurements of fundamental constants [2], to study the properties of neutrino flavour oscillations [3,4], and, as discussed in this talk, as a tool to determine the properties of dark matter (DM)) [5–7]. Undoubtedly, the origin of all matter, and which fundamental particles matter is made off, is one of the leading problems of modern physics. Although, our visible Universe is made off baryons, including our own Sun and ourselves, it is by now well-established that most matter (and energy) of the universe is non-baryonic. Its fundamental nature is still a mystery to us. Presently, the unknown non-baryonic matter content of the universe is presented in its two components, dark matter and dark energy – a split based on their two distinct gravitational effects, dark matter accounts for the extra gravity needed to hold baryonic matter together (example: clusters of galaxies, stars in galaxies), and the dark energy must exist to explain the expansion rate of the present universe. Dark matter and dark energy correspond to 24% and log(Ω h2) DM −9 2 1.5 eter −9.52 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1.5 m 1 %) 1 y Para −10 −0.5 0.5 c (obs 0.5 mmetr −10.52 1.5 1 0.5 0 −0.5−1 −1 −00.5 )/mod − Asy −11 −1.5 −1 −c 0 η) −1.5 (cobs−0.5 log( −1−11.52 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 −0.5−1−1.5−2 −2.5 −−22.5 −27 −26 −25 −24 −23 −22 <σ v >: log(a) [ cm3 s−1] th −1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Radius (solar radius) Figure 2. The figure shows iso-curves of the relic dark matter density Ω h2 as a function of DM Figure 1. Relative differences between the the ηDM and hσvi (s-wave annihilation channel). sound speed inverted using the helioseismic The model corresponds to a primitive universe data[8,9], andthe soundspeeddeducedfromthe made of DM particles with a mass of 10 GeV SSM (continuous red curve with error bars). The (gχ =2andg⋆ =90). Thebluelinesdefinetheset error bars are multiplied by a factor of 10. This of DM models that are compatible with ΩDMh2 figure also shows a set of solar models with mass- observations. The current measurements ΩDMh2 loss, with an anomalous chemical composition. and ηB are 0.1109±0.0056 and (0.88±0.021)× See Ref. [10] for the details. 10−10 [11–13]. ThefigureshowsthatηDM andηB are of the same order of magnitude. See Ref. [14] for the details. 72% of all the matter of the Universe, respectively. It is a quite challenging task to us, trying to understand this new type of matter and energy based on fundamental theories of physics that have been developed to explain the 4% of baryonic matter. In this short review, I will focus on the study of the impact of dark matter in the evolution of the Sun and stars. The presentation is organized as follows: In the next section, I make a brief summary of the quality of the standard solar model (SSM). In the third section, I make a synopsis of the current knowledge on the origin of dark matter. Finally, in the fourth and fifth sections, I will discuss the impact of dark matter in the Sun and stars and highlight a few DM predictions that are possible to be made using stars. 2. The standard solar model The Sun is by far the best known star of the Universe. Given the advantage of being our nearest star, we have an exceptional amount of photometric and spectroscopic observational data from the Sun. Moreover, we can probe its interior with very high accuracy, by means of helioseismology and solar neutrino fluxes [10,15,16]. Actually, we now know better the core of the Sun than the centre of the Earth. Helioseismology has obtained a large amount of data – more than 7 thousand acoustic modes were measured with a very high precision, better than one part in hundred thousand [17]. During the last three decades, such high quality data has lead to a significant improvement of the description of plasma physics of the Sun’s interior, in particular its microscopic physics, such as the nuclear reaction network, the equation of state andthecoefficients ofradiative transfer(stellar opacities). Inparticular, Helioseismology played aleading role in theresolution of thesolar neutrinoproblem(see talk of SylvaineTurck-Chi´eze). The quality of the present solar model is illustrated in Fig. 1 that shows the comparison betweentheradialsoundspeedprofileobtainedfromhelioseismology dataandtheonecomputed from SSM. The difference is smaller than 2%. This difference although small is important. The cause responsible for such difference is not known yet, but very likely it is related with uncertainties on the coefficients of radiative transfer, or an anomalous internal chemical composition related with the formation of the solar system [17,18]. Presently, the quality of the SSM is simultaneously consistent with helioseismology and solar neutrino flux data. Although solar neutrino predictions show small differences relatively to observations, these are mainly related with the parameters of neutrino flavour oscillations and possibly small changes of the physics of the Sun’s core. I also have highlighted that other fields of observational stellar astrophysics have contributed tothis subject. Duringtherecent decades, astronomershave producedhigh-precisioncatalogues (including high-precision spectroscopic measurements), that can be used to test the theory of stellar Evolution (and its new variants). An example is the Hipparcos Catalogue [36] with more than 100,000 stars, particularly useful to study stellar populations. Astereoseismology, like the COROT [33] and Kepler [34] missions which have observed more than one hundred pulsating’s stars. These new sets of stellar data will significantly improve our knowledge about the physics of stars, butwill also open the way to use stars as a tool for fundamental physics and cosmology studies. Insummary,althoughourunderstandingofthepropertiesofthesolarandstellarplasmasstill requires some improvements [17], it is clear that the Sun and sun-like stars can be used as tools to put constraints in fundamental physics, like dark matter particles properties [19–25,31,32], as presently is done for other stars, such as neutron stars [26–30]. 3. The dark matter in the Universe Let us remind in a nutshell, what is the current status of the dark matter problem. Significant progress has been achieved in this subject, as a results of the strong interaction between Astrophysics, Cosmology and Particle Physics. The evidence of the contribution of DM for the formation of the Universe and its structure is very robust. These results come from astrophysical and cosmological observations, as well as from numerical simulations of structure formation [11]. In many observational studies it was found that dark matter is responsible for the existence of external gravitational field sources in different locations of the Universe, leading to quite distinct gravitational effects, such as the velocity of galaxies in clusters, therotation curves of galaxies, thecosmic microwave background anisotropies, the velocity dispersions of dwarf spheroidal galaxies and the inference of the dark matterbygravitationallensing. Alltheobservationalandtheoreticalresultssuggestthatmostof theformationofstructureinourUniversecanonlybeexplainedbythepresenceofagravitational field caused by the presence of a new type of particles that must be non-baryonic and non- relativistic [42,43]. That means that DM particles interact with baryons through gravity and possibly through another unknown mechanism identical to the weak interaction. DM particles form the gravitational web where the first stars and galaxies are created. In summary, these results strongly favour the hypothesis that the dark matter particle is a WIMP, that is a Weak interacting massive particle. The experimental search of DM by several experimental physics collaborations can be organized into two groups of methods: direct detection of DM particles – infers the properties of the dark matter particles by the type of interaction that the DM particles have with a target- baryon; or an indirect detection of DM particles – by detecting one of its by-products resulting from the annihilation of DM particles, such as high-energy neutrinos. A few of the experiments dedicated to dark matter searches show evidence of positive particle detection, although these results are still very controversial and not universally accepted: Group experiments such as DAMA/LiBRA[44], COGENT[45],CRESST[46]andCDMSII[47]suggestthattheDMparticle could have been discovered. These experiments show hints of a DM particle with a mass of 10 a) σ ≫σ 1025 χ,SD χ,SI 2.5 ) 1 −s 1024 ( 2 χ C 1023 1.5 ) 1022 b) σχ,SD ∼σχ,SI L⊙ / 1 ) L⋆ 1− 1021 ( s g ( o 25 Myr Cχ 3 M⊙ l 0.5 100Myr 1020 1 M⊙ 250Myr 0.7 M⊙ 500Myr 0 1000Myr ⊙ 10−1 1 10 102 103 104 2500Myr Age⋆ ( Myr ) 5000Myr -0.5 10000Myr Figure 3. Rate at which DM particles are captured during the life of stars with different 4 3.8 3.6 masses. The capture rate increases during the log ( T / K ) eff pre-MS, is constant through the MS, and varies rapidly in the RGB. We assumed a halo with Figure 4. Isochrones for a cluster of stars with a density of 0.3 GeV cm−3, constituted by DM masses between 0.7 M⊙ and 3.5 M⊙ that evolved particles with a mass of 100 GeV for which the in a halo of DM with a density 1010 GeV cm−3 DM-baryon scattering dominated (a) by the SD (continuous lines) and for the same cluster in the component σχ,SD =10−38 cm2 and (b) by the SI classicalscenario without DM (dashed lines). See one σχ,SI =σχ,SD =10−44 cm2. See Ref. [35] for Ref. [56] for the details. the details. GeV and a cross section of 10−41cm2. But other experiments such as XENON 10-100 [48,49] exclude the existence of such particles. Nevertheless, several theoretical explanations based on the existence of asymmetric dark matter have been proposed to explain and accommodate all these positive and negative detections [50–55,58]. Theses hints of DM detection suggest that at best DM-baryon interaction is of the order of the weak interaction. By now, it is well-established that DM particles, like baryons, are produced in the primitive universe. Currently several theoretical DM models suggested that DM is produced by an identical processtoBaryogenesis [37–39] –aphysicalprocessduringwhichan asymmetryoccurs between baryons and antibaryons, resulting in substantial amounts of residual baryonic matter, i.e. the ordinary matter of the present universe. In a similar manner to Baryogenesis for which the degree of baryonic asymmetry (unbalance between particles and antiparticles) is measured by η , the asymmetry between DM particles and antiparticles is measured by η . Fig. 2 B DM shows Ω h2 for a primitive Universe composed by DM particles with a mass 10 GeV [20]. DM As shown in this figure, only a small set of DM models [37,40] have a Ω h2 compatible DM with Ω h2 measured by WMAP and Planck experiments [11–13]. Furthermore, the η of DM DM these DM models are of the same order of magnitude of the observed η . Actually, there is B no special reason for such coincidence. This suggests that DM and baryonic matter are more closely connected than expected. In the same figure, it is worth noticing that symmetric DM corresponds to low values of η and asymmetric DM corresponds to large values of hσvi. DM 4. The dark matter inside the Sun and stars The numerical computation of the impact of dark matter in the evolution of the Sun and stars has progressed considerably in the last two decades [20,24,25], however, there are still a few caveats that must be addressed [17]. When a DM particle crosses a star like the Sun, it very occasionally scatters off a proton, or an heavier nucleus including helium, carbon, oxygen and iron. The scattering interaction with hydrogen is predominately spin-dependent (SD) and for the other elements spin-independent (SI), accordingly to the scattering cross-sections σ and σ , respectively. The interaction χ,SD χ,SI of DM with baryons depends strongly of the mass and velocity of the DM particle. In certain cases, after collision the DM particle will lose enough energy to become gravitationally bound to the star, and by a sequence of orbital paths around the centre of the star, the DM particle sinks to its core [21,35,57]. The total amount of particles (and antiparticles) of DM inside of the star at a given time is regulated by three fundamental processes: capture of DM particles from the DM halo, the evaporation of DM particles from the star (in the Sun only relevant for DM particles with a mass smaller than 5 GeV) and the annihilation of DM particles. It is the balance between these three processes that determines the total amount of DM inside the star and consequently the influence that DM has on the evolution of the host star. Fig. 3 show the variation of the dark matter capture rate for different stars in different phases of their evolution. The capture rate of dark matter depends largely of the radius of the star at each time step evolution. The chemical composition of the star also plays a major role in the capture of DM by the star, for which its content in metals (chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium) determines which is the dominant type of scattering [35]. Oncecaptured,DMparticlescanchangetheevolutionofthestarthroughtwomechanisms: (i) by supplyingthe star with a new source of energy due to DM annihilation – which complements thePPchain, CNOcycleand3αnuclearreactions inbalancingtheself-gravitational contraction of the star, or (ii) by providing a new mechanism for the transport of energy – this complements the radiative and convective energy transport. The two processes can work simultaneously, however, in most of the cases whenthe evolution of the stars is affected by the presence of a DM energy source, the DM energy transport can be neglected. The first mechanism is important in locations of the Universe with high DM density, such as the regions where the first stars and galaxies are formed, and the center of galaxies like our Milky Way and the spheroidal galaxies. The second mechanism becomes relevant in much less denser DM regions like in the Sun’s neighbourhood. ThedensityoftheDMhalowherethestarisformedisoneofthemajorsourcesofuncertainty. UsuallytheDMdensityisassumedtobe0.38 GeVcm−3 [59]. Nevertheless, recently estimations found a DM density of the order of 0.3 GeVcm−3 [60] or 0.85 GeVcm−3 [61]. This discrepancy has an important impact on our study, nevertheless, researchers in the field use the lower DM density value to make more conservative predictions of DM parameters. However, there are other sources of uncertainty in these computations, which we must resolve to obtain more reliable predictions. Among others, here is a list of a few that I believe must be investigated: (i) Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics: properties of the DM particles, like the mass of DM particle, the scattering cross-section of the DM with baryons, annihilation rate of DM particles and antiparticles, annihilation channel and nuclear factors. (ii) Cosmology: The dynamics and evolution of the dark matter halo, in particular the density of the DM halo where the star is formed, the dynamical properties of the DM particles like their thermal velocity. (iii) Astrophysics and Stellar Physics: The velocity of the star, the detailed internal structure of the star, like its chemical composition. Although, some of these properties are well known in the case of the Sun, it is not yet the case for other stars. Although, we found in preliminary tests [35] that such caveats have a relative small effect in the accretion of DM by stars, as this research field progresses, a better account of such mechanisms must be included in the models. −34 6.5 5 −35 −1 1155 −36 −2.8 15 6.5 5 0.5 2) −375−11115515 0.5 5 −00..0551 −0.051 m −0.051 c −38 (SI σ −39 −40 −41 −42 6 8 10 12 14 16 DMP Mass (GeV) Figure 6. Exclusion Plot of DM searches: (1) CoGeNT (blue curve), DAMA/LIBRA a 3σ CL (solid green curve) and 5σ CL (dashed green curve); XENON 10 (dashed magenta curve), XENON100 (solid magenta Figure 5. Percentage decrease changes of the curve); CDMS II limit (solid black curve) and SIMPLE solar8BneutrinofluxΦ (8B)fortheSunevolving limit (dashed black curve). (2) Solar neutrino flux within different DM haνlos relatively to the SSM: variations dueto DM:Φν(8B)(solidredcurve), Φν(7Be) (solidbluecurve)andΦν(pep)(solidcyancurve). Thegrey ThepropertiesoftheDMparticlesandthestellar regioncorrespondstovaluesofΦν(8B)neutrinofluxlarger physics can be found in the Ref. [20]. than15%(redcurve). SeeRef.[20]forthedetails. 5. Dark matter constraints from Sun and stars In the following, I provide a few examples for which DM has quite distinct and important effects in the evolution of stars. The case of a star evolving in a DM of high density: the gravitational contraction of a star during the pre-main sequence phase evolving within DM halo is identical, but not equal to a normal star. In the case of a star forming in a normal molecular cloud the self-gravity of the star leads to a rapid contraction with an increase of its internal temperature, the star follows a well defined path in the H-R diagram 1. The evolution of this star within a dense DM halo is almost the same, nevertheless due to the extra source of energy provided by DM annihilation, the star gravitational contraction progresses at a much lower time step. This DM effect has a major implication for stellar clusters, namely by changing the location of main-sequence of stars, and the turnoff point 2 at which stars leave the main-sequence. This effect is shown in the isochrones3 of astellar population formedin a highdensity DM halo. Inparticular, I notice that the main sequence of low mass stars has shifted to a high value of Luminosity when compared with a normal stellar cluster (cf. Fig. 4). If such type of isochrones are discovered in a stellar cluster on first generation of stars or at the core of galaxies including in the Milky-Way, then this is a powerful indication that dark matter is contributing for their evolution [62–65]. The case of a star evolving in a DM of low density: Another type of impact of dark matter in stars, like the Sun, occurs for stars formed in the disk of galaxies, where the DM density is much smaller than in the case previously discussed. For a star like the Sun, the capture of 1 Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) Diagram: Luminosity vs. effective temperature of stars - each star of a fix mass describes a uniquepath in this diagram. 2 The turnoff point for a star refers to the point on the H-R diagram, where the star leaves the main-sequence after theexhaustion of its main fuel. 3 Luminosity-temperature plot of a cluster of stars with different masses at a fixed age. DM depends strongly of the scattering cross section with baryons: If the DM particle has a relatively large scattering cross section with Hydrogen (spin dependent cross section) or with heavy elements (like Oxygen, Iron among others, spin independent), the number of collisions between DM particles and Baryons is high, consequently in the extreme cases this leads to the formation of an isothermal core [19], otherwise this effect only reduces the central temperature of the star. By usingthe current probes of the solar interior, such as solar neutrinos, we are able to put constraints on DM parameters. At present, only 3 sources of solar neutrinos (like 8B, 7Be ad PeP) areobserved by thecurrentsolar neutrinodetectors (Borexino, SNOand Kamiokande), for which all are sensitive to the temperature of the Sun’s core. Fig. 5 shows the DM impact on 8B neutrino flux for DM solar models, for which the 8B neutrino flux is compared with the 8B flux of the SSM. This example shows DM particles for which the 8B neutrino flux variation is larger than 15% which is larger than the current uncertainty of the SSM, therefore such DM particles can be excluded [22]. These DM constraints are based on the hypothesis that the 8B neutrino flux difference between the observed and predicted SSM is smaller than 15%. Fig. 6 shows a second interesting example, which uses data of solar neutrino flux measurements: Feng et al. [67] have shown the previous experimental data of DM search (including the exclusion limits considering the usual interaction between DM and the target baryons), could be reconciled if one considers that interaction of the DM particle with the target baryon occurs assuming iso-spin violation. As a consequence the spin-independent scattering cross-section of the DM-target Baryon increases from 10−40cm2 to 10−37cm2. Lopes and Silk [20] have shown that 8B neutrino fluxes can reject the lower masses and higher values of scattering cross section. Further future 8B neutrino flux measurements could lead to much better constraints (cf. Fig. 6). I would like to notice that this type of analysis could be strongly improved if we could use other sun-like stars of different masses from the Sun for which the impact of dark matter could be more visible. In a recent article Casanellas and Lopes [32] use oscillation spectra of the stars HD 52266 (1.1 M⊙) and alpha Centari B (0.9 M⊙) to put constraints in DM (see poster Casanellas and Lopes). In particular, they found that particles with a mass of 5GeV and a spin-dependent scattering cross-section smaller than 3×10−36cm2 can be excluded with a 5-σ level. Finally,IhopethatinthistalkIhaveconvincedyouthatthesolarandstellarphysicsandtheir related fields of nuclear physics can provide fundamental tools to test the different experimental andtheoretical DMparticlecandidates. TheauthorthankstheAstrophysicsPortugueseSociety (SPA) and the organisation for the invitation to participate in the conference. References [1] Casanellas J, Pani P, Lopes I and Cardoso V 2012 The Astrophysical Journal 745 15 [2] Lopes I P and Silk J 2003 Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society 341 721–728 [3] Lopes I and Turck-Chieze S 2013 The Astrophysical Journal 765 14 [4] Lopes I 2013 Physical Review D 88 45006 [5] KumarJ 2013 arXiv.org 4513 (Preprint 1308.4513) [6] ZurekK M 2013 arXiv.org 338 (Preprint 1308.0338) [7] Petraki K and Volkas R R 2013 arXiv.org 4939 (Preprint 1305.4939) [8] Turck-ChiezeS, et. al. 1997 Solar Physics 175 247–265 [9] BasuS,ChaplinWJ,ElsworthY,NewRandSerenelliAM2009TheAstrophysical Journal 6991403–1417 [10] Lopes I and Silk J 2013 MNRAS 1–8 [11] Komatsu E, et. al. 2011 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 192 18 [12] HinshawG, et. al. 2012 arXiv.org 5226 (Preprint 1212.5226) [13] AdePA R,et. al. 2013 arXiv.org 5062 (Preprint 1303.5062v1) [14] Lopes I and Silk J 2012 The Astrophysical Journal 757 130 [15] Turck-ChiezeS and Lopes I 1993 Astrophysical Journal 408 347–367 [16] Serenelli A M, Haxton W C and Pena-Garay C 2011 The Astrophysical Journal 743 24 [17] Turck-ChiezeS and Lopes I 2012 Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 12 1107–1138 [18] Turck-ChiezeS and Couvidat S 2011 Reports on Progress in Physics 74 6901 [19] Lopes I P and Silk J 2002 Physical Review Letters 88 151303 [20] Lopes I and Silk J 2012 The Astrophysical Journal 752 129 [21] Lopes I P, Silk J and Hansen S H 2002 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 331 361–368 [22] Lopes I and Silk J 2010 Science 330 462– [23] Lopes I and Silk J 2010 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 722 L95–L99 [24] Taoso M, Iocco F, Meynet G, Bertone G and Eggenberger P 2010 Physical Review D 82 83509 [25] Cumberbatch D T, Guzik J A,Silk J, Watson L S and West S M 2010 Physical Review D 82 103503 [26] KouvarisC 2012 Physical Review Letters 108 191301 [27] KouvarisC and Tinyakov P2011 arXiv 83 83512 [28] KouvarisC and Tinyakov P2011 Physical Review Letters 107 91301 [29] KouvarisC and Tinyakov P2010 Physical Review D 82 63531 [30] KouvarisC and Tinyakov P2012 arXiv.org 4075 (Preprint 1212.4075) [31] Casanellas J and Lopes I 2011 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 410 535–540 [32] Casanellas J and Lopes I 2013 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 765 L21 [33] Baglin A,et. al. 2007 Fifty years of romanian astrophysics. AIP Conference Proceedings pp 201–209 [34] Koch D G, et. al. 2010 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 713 L79–L86 [35] Lopes I,Casanellas J and Eug´enio D 2011 Physical Review D 83 63521 [36] Perryman M A C, et. al. 1997 Astronomy and Astrophysics 323 323 L49–L52 [37] DreesM, IminniyazH and Kakizaki M 2006 Physical Review D 73 123502 [38] IminniyazH,Drees M and Chen X 2011 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 07 003 [39] Davoudiasl H,Morrissey D E, Sigurdson K and Tulin S 2011 Physical Review D 84 96008 [40] DentJ B, DuttaS and Scherrer R J 2010 Physics Letters B 687 275–279 [41] Bertone G, Hooper D and Silk J 2005 Physics Reports 405 279–390 [42] Mo H,van den Bosch FC and WhiteS 2010 Galaxy Formation and Evolution [43] GuoQ, et. al. 2013 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 428 1351–1365 [44] Belli P,et. al. 2011 Physical Review D 84 55014 [45] Aalseth C E, et. al. 2011 Physical Review Letters 106 131301 [46] Brown A,Henry S, KrausH and McCabe C 2012 Physical Review D 85 21301 [47] AgneseR,et. al. 2013 arXiv.org 4279 (Preprint 1304.4279) [48] AprileE,et. al.2011 Physical Review Letters 107 131302 [49] AngleJ,et. al. 2011 Physical Review Letters 107 51301 [50] Chang S et. al. 2010 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08 018 [51] Farina M et. al. 2011 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 11 010 [52] Hooper D and Kelso C 2011 arXiv.org 83001 (Preprint 1106.1066v1) [53] DelNobile E, KouvarisC and SanninoF 2011 arXiv.org 27301 (Preprint 1105.5431v1) [54] Fornengo N,Panci P and Regis M 2011 Physical Review D 84 115002 [55] Bell N F, Melatos A and Petraki K 2013 Physical Review D 87 123507 [56] Casanellas J and Lopes I 2011 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 733 L51 [57] Lopes I P, Bertone G and Silk J 2002 Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society 337 1179–1184 [58] Khlopov M Y and Kouvaris C 2008 Physical Review D 78 65040 [59] Catena R and Ullio P 2010 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08 004 [60] Bovy J and Tremaine S 2012 The Astrophysical Journal 756 89 [61] Garbari S, Liu C, Read J I and LakeG 2012 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 3493 [62] Casanellas J and Lopes I 2009 The Astrophysical Journal 705 135–143 [63] Scott P et. al. 2011 The Astrophysical Journal 742 129 [64] Sivertsson S and Gondolo P2011 The Astrophysical Journal 729 51 [65] Ilie C et. al. 2012 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 422 2164–2186 [66] Turck-ChiezeS et. al. 2012 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 746 L12 [67] FengJ L, KumarJ, Marfatia D and Sanford D 2011 Physics Letters B 703 124–127