The theory is that dark matter can decay or annihilate and when that happens there is an emission. A dark, or perhaps, nocturnal, emission if you will, which can be detected.
IIUC the idea is that when the dark matter particles decay, they produce a pair of bottom and anti-bottom quarks, and when these new particles colide they produce a pair of gamma rays. (Also, there is similar processes with W- and W+.)
It's super weird that he paper has only one author. Now most papers have like 5 authors. Is he analyzing the data from another team? For an experimental paper I expect even more authors.
9/10 on the bullshit meter. okay.... Okay! I've done my share of algorithmic fitting of far simpler lab spectral data to be convinced that "trying to hard to find something" can result in convenient delusions. Still, it's worth studying. It's still not 10/10 and enough discoveries are purely accidental, so why not increase the odds of an accident. Or, in a Zen-like approach, "doing not-knowing"
I'm not a fan of Sabine, but I think her video is very interesting because it shows a lot of what "we" already know about the Milky Way and that I ignored completely.
There are a lot of discoveries that are important but never reach the front page of the newspapers. Accidental discoveries are overrated, they are nice stories but most discoveries are just boring advances here and there.
