Response to a comment on Dessert et al. “The dark matter interpretation of the 3.5 keV line is inconsistent with blank-sky observations”. (arXiv:2006.03974v2 [astro-ph.CO] UPDATED)
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Dessert_C/0/1/0/all/0/1">Christopher Dessert</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Rodd_N/0/1/0/all/0/1">Nicholas L. Rodd</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Safdi_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">Benjamin R. Safdi</a>
The dark matter explanation of the 3.5 keV line is strongly disfavored by our
work in Dessert et al. 2020. Boyarsky et al. 2020 questions that conclusion:
modeling additional background lines is claimed to weaken the limit
sufficiently to re-allow a dark matter interpretation. We respond as follows.
1) A more conservative limit is obtained by modeling additional lines; this
point appeared in its entirety in our work in Dessert et al., though we also
showed that the inclusion of such lines is not necessary. 2) Despite
suggestions in Boyarsky et al., even the more conservative limits strongly
disfavor a decaying dark matter origin of the 3.5 keV line.
The dark matter explanation of the 3.5 keV line is strongly disfavored by our
work in Dessert et al. 2020. Boyarsky et al. 2020 questions that conclusion:
modeling additional background lines is claimed to weaken the limit
sufficiently to re-allow a dark matter interpretation. We respond as follows.
1) A more conservative limit is obtained by modeling additional lines; this
point appeared in its entirety in our work in Dessert et al., though we also
showed that the inclusion of such lines is not necessary. 2) Despite
suggestions in Boyarsky et al., even the more conservative limits strongly
disfavor a decaying dark matter origin of the 3.5 keV line.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
