1 / 36

Lars Bergström Department of Physics Stockholm University lbe@physto.se

Supersymmetric Dark Matter. Lars Bergström Department of Physics Stockholm University lbe@physto.se. SUSY 2005, Durham, England July 21, 2005. WMAP. SN Ia. J. Tonry et al. L CDM. D.N. Spergel et al., Astrophys.J.Suppl.148:213,2003 . W M h 2 =0.12. SDSS (and 2dFGRS), 2005.

harriet
Download Presentation

Lars Bergström Department of Physics Stockholm University lbe@physto.se

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supersymmetric Dark Matter Lars Bergström Department of Physics Stockholm University lbe@physto.se SUSY 2005, Durham, England July 21, 2005

  2. WMAP SN Ia J. Tonry et al LCDM D.N. Spergel et al., Astrophys.J.Suppl.148:213,2003 WMh2=0.12 SDSS (and 2dFGRS), 2005 U. Seljak & al astro-ph/0407372

  3. Helium maybe underabundant? Basic facts: Observations give 0.6 < h < 0.8 Big Bang nucleosynthesis (deuterium abundance) and cosmic microwave background (WMAP) determine baryon contribution WBh2 0.023, so WB 0.04 Wlum (4 ± 2) . 10-3 (stars, gas, dust) => baryonic dark matter has to exist (maybe as warm intergalactic gas?) But, now we know that WM> 0.2, so there has to exist non-baryonic dark matter! Fields & Sarkar, 2004 Lithium underabundant?

  4. Cold Dark Matter • Part of the “Concordance Model”, WCDM  0.3, WL  0.7 • Gives excellent description of CMB, large scale structure, Ly-aforest, gravitational lensing, supernova distances … • If consisting of particles, may be related to electroweak mass scale: weak cross section, non-dissipative Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Potentially detectable, directly or indirectly. • May or may not describe small-scale structure in galaxies: Controversial issue, but alternatives (self-interacting DM, warm DM, self-annihilating DM) seem worse. Probably non-linear astrophysical feedback processes are acting (bar formation, tidal effects, mergers, supernova winds, …). This is a crucial problem of great importance for dark matter detection rates.

  5. Good particle physics candidates for Cold Dark Matter: Independent motivation from particle physics • Axions (introduced to solve strong CP problem) • Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs, 3 GeV < mX < 50 TeV), thermal relics from Big Bang: Supersymmetric neutralino Axino, gravitino Kaluza-Klein states Heavy neutrino-like particles Mirror particles ”Little Higgs” plus hundreds more in literature… • Non-thermal (maybe superheavy) relics: wimpzillas, cryptons, … ”The WIMP miracle”: for typical gauge couplings and masses of order the electroweak scale, Wwimph2 0.1 (within factor of 10 or so)

  6. mSUGRA or CMSSM: simplest (and most constrained) model for supersymmetric dark matter • R-parity conservation, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking • Free parameters (set at GUT scale): m0, m1/2, tan b, A0, sign(m) • 4 main regions where neutralino fulfills WMAP relic density: • bulk region (low m0 and m1/2) • stau coannihilation region m  mstau • hyperbolic branch/focus point (m0 >> m1/2) • funnel region (mA,H 2m) • (5th region? h pole region, large mt ?) H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas, J. O’Farrill, JCAP 0408:005,2004 However, general MSSM model versions give more freedom. At least 3 additional parameters: m, At, Ab (and perhaps several more…) In particular: special models like split supersymmetry, models with CP violation, etc.

  7. No time to cover: • Models with additional singlet superfield (NMSSM) (Example: Cerdeño & al.) • Models with large |A0| (Example: Häfliger, Stark & al., Parallel Session; PS) • Models based on supergravity with general relation beteween gaugino masses (Example: Baek, Cerdeño & al PS; Belanger et al.) • Models with gravitino as LSP (many contributions in PS) • Models based on supergravity with non-universal Higgs masses (Example: Baer & al; Huitu et al) • Models with supersymmetric version of axion (”axino”) (Example: Steffen) • Models with cosmological SUSY breaking (Example: Banks, talk) • Orbifold and KKLT scenarios (Example: Bertone & al.; Schmidt, PS; Falkowski et al) • Models with CP violating phases (Example: Balázs & al; Sato PS; Nihei PS; Allahverdi & Drees) • etc, etc, …. A. Belyaev, hep-ph/0410385

  8. P. Gondolo, J. Edsjö, L.B., P. Ullio, Mia Schelke and E. A. Baltz, JCAP 0407:008, 2004 [astro-ph/0406204 ] ”Neutralino dark matter made easy” - Can be freely dowloaded from http://www.physto.se/~edsjo/ds Release 4.1: includes coannihilations & interface to Isasugra Other package: MicrOMEGAs, G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, http://lappweb.in2p3.fr/lapth/micromegas/

  9. To match WMAP precision on WCDMh2, high-precision relic density calculations are needed. Example: coannihilations in mSUGRA Wh2 = 1.43 Wh2 = 0.135 Edsjö, Schelke, Ullio & Gondolo 2003  DarkSUSY generally accurate to 1 %. In most cases, DarkSUSY and MicrOMEGAs now agree to better than a fraction of a percent. (Exception: the highest-mass models; cross-checking is currently going on)

  10. c c _ g p c c e+ n • Methods of WIMP Dark Matter detection: • Discovery at accelerators (Fermilab, LHC,..) • Direct detection of halo particles in terrestrial detectors • Indirect detection of neutrinos, gamma rays, radio waves, antiprotons, positrons in earth- or space-based experiments Direct detection The basic process for indirect detection is annihilation, e.g, neutralinos: Neutralinos are Majorana particles Enhanced for clumpy halo; near galactic centre and in Sun & Earth Indirect detection

  11. Direct ”detection” by DAMA – controversial issue since 1997… NAIAD 2005 DAMA still allowed 2005 CDMS 2004 R. Bernabei et al, astro-ph/0307403; 107 800 kg days, > 6 s effect! DAMA favoured region DAMA 129Xe DAMA EDELWEISS Zeplin CDMS excluded CDMS Soudan data Phys. Rev. Lett. 93:211301, 2004, DAMA excluded for spin independent scattering Whatever it is, it is not MSSM - Kurylov & Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D69:063503, 2004: sSD < 4 · 10-3 pb for MSSM (ns from the Sun) Gondolo & Gelmini, hep-ph/0504010: Different detection thresholds for different experiments can give agreement for very low mass WIMPs, 5 - 9 GeV

  12. spin-dependent Rates computed with Preferred parameter space if muon g-2 anomaly is explained by SUSY DAMA region Baltz & Gondolo, hep-ph/0407039 NAIAD, UK Dark Matter Collaboration, G.J. Alner et al., hep-ex/0504031

  13. J. Gascon, astro-ph/0504241 New proposal: Super-CDMS (P. L. Brink et al., astro-ph/0503583)

  14. Model for Neutralino Galactic Halo: rlocal 0.3 GeV/cm3, v/c  10-3, mc 100 GeV  flux 103 cm-2 s-1 sr-1 !

  15. Diemand, Moore & Stadel, 2005: The first structures to form are mini-halos of 10-6 solar masses. There would be zillions of them surviving and making up a sizeable fraction of the dark matter halo. Maybe the dark matter detection schemes will have to be quite different! (For instance, when the Earth enters such a solar system-sized object, counting rates would be very high, and then drop drastically…) Much more work, both analytically, numerically and observationally will be needed to settle this interesting issue.

  16. Neutrinos from the Earth (& Sun – but Sun more difficult for AMANDA  IceCUBE)

  17. Rates computed with Neutralino signal: Neutrinos from the Earth & Sun, MSSM • Present case: 25 GeV threshold, WMAP relic density, CDMS-II limit on cross section • Future: 25 GeV threshold, WMAP relic density, sSI < 10-8 pb See PS talk by Lundberg

  18. Indirect detection through g-rays. Two types of signal: Continuous (large rate but at lower energies, difficult signature) and Monoenergetic line (often too small rate but is at highest energy Eg = mc; ”smoking gun”) continuous g g line, ccggmc = 50 GeV mc = 300 GeV Advantage of gamma rays: point back to the source. Enhanced flux possible thanks to halo density profile and substructure (as predicted by CDM) L.B., P.Ullio & J. Buckley 1998 Gamma-rays

  19. Example: 1.4 TeV higgsino with WMAP-compatible relic density (L.B., T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson and M. Gustafsson, hep-ph/0507229) Intrinsic line width DE/E ~ 10-3 New contribution (internal bremsstrahlung) Gamma-ray spectrum seen by an ideal detector Same spectrum seen with 15% energy resolution

  20. ”Miracles” in gamma-rays for heavy (> 1 TeV) neutralinos: • Heavy MSSM neutralinos are almost pure higgsinos (in standard scenario) or pure winos (in AMSB & split SUSY models) • Just for these cases, the gamma line signal is particularly large (L.B. & Ullio, 1998) • In contrast to all other detection scenarios (accelerator, direct detection, positrons, antiprotons, neutrinos,..) the expected signal/background increases with mass  unique possibility, even if LHC finds nothing. • Rates are further enhanced by non-perturbative binding effects in initial state (Hisano, Matsumoto & Nojiri, 2003) • There are many large Air Cherenkov Telescopes (ACT) either being built or already operational (CANGAROO, HESS, MAGIC, VERITAS) that cover all the interesting energy range, E  20 TeV

  21. Interesting development for high-mass WIMPs: Hisano, Matsumoto and Nojiri, PRL 2003; Hisano, Matsumoto, Nojiri and Saito, hep-ph/0412403 Neutralino and chargino nearly degenerate; attractive Yukawa force from W and Z exchange  bound states near zero energy  enhancement of annihilation rate for small (Galactic) velocities. Little effect on relic density (higher v). ”Explosive annihilation”!

  22. wino higgsino In MSSM without standard GUT condition (AMSB; split SUSY) mwino 2 – 3 TeV; m ~ 0.2 GeV Factor of 100 – 1000 enhancement of annihilation rate possible. B.R. to  and Z is of order 0.2 – 0.8! Non-perturbative resummation explains large lowest-order rates to  and Z. It also restores unitarity at largest masses F. Boudjema, A. Semenov, D. Temes, hep-ph/0507127

  23. Rates computed with Wino case P. Ullio, 2001, AMSB scenario (cf Arvanitaki & Graham hep-ph/0411376; Masiero, Profumo, Ullio, hep-ph/0412058; Cheung and Chiang hep-ph/0501265 – split SUSY) Z line is exceptionally strong for wino DM

  24. July 2004: H.E.S.S. 2003 data towards galactic centre (June 2005: preliminary 2004 data released) Fit to CANGAROO data HESS D. Horns, astro-ph/0408192; Parallel Session SUSY2005 m = 1.1 TeV (probably obsolete data) m = 18 TeV, too high for neutralino? Spectrum probably looks quite different (L.B., T.Bringmann, M.Eriksson, M. Gustafsson, 2005)

  25. Dark matter annihilation? Spectra will actually be very similar – the SUSY spectrum gets contribution from gamma-line and radiation from W pairs for winos or higgsinos. However, no one has found a viable MSSM model yet… HESS Preliminary 20 TeV Neutralinos 20 TeV KK particle P. Vincent, Cividale del Friuli Workshop, June, 2005

  26. L.B., T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson, M. Gustafsson, hep-ph/0507229 Dark matter annihilation? Spectra will actually be very similar – the SUSY spectrum gets contribution from gamma-line and radiation from W pairs for winos or higgsinos. However, no one has found a viable MSSM model yet… HESS Preliminary 20 TeV Higgsinos 20 TeV Neutralinos 20 TeV KK particle P. Vincent, Cividale del Friuli Workshop, June, 2005

  27. Dark matter annihilation? Spectra will actually be very similar – the SUSY spectrum gets contribution from gamma-line and radiation from W pairs for winos or higgsinos. However, no one has found a viable MSSM model yet… HESS Preliminary 4 TeV Higgsinos 20 TeV Neutralinos 20 TeV KK particle L.B., T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson, M. Gustafsson, hep-ph/0507229 P. Vincent, Cividale del Friuli Workshop, June, 2005

  28. USA-France-Italy-Sweden-Japan (-Germany) collaboration, launch 2007 GLAST can search for dark matter signals up to 300 GeV. (It is also likely to detect a few thousand new GeV blazars …)

  29. Excess of gamma-rays Filled by 65 GeV neutralino annihilation Galactic rotation curve Data explained by 65-100 GeV neutralino? cf. also A. Cesarini et al., 2003: large ”boost factor” needed. Is that compatible with the measured antiproton flux? Also, how reliable is GALPROP for the background? Wait for GLAST data: does the endpoint signal spectrum end in a line? W. de Boer, astro-ph/0412620 (see talk at parallel session) Finkbeiner, astro-ph/0409027: WMAP synchrotron foreground, ”haze”, can be explained by neutralino DM annihilation?

  30. Diffuse cosmic gamma-rays EGRET points have been moved down by reconsidering galactic foreground, GLAST will also resolve more AGNs Idea: Redshifted gamma-ray line gives peculiar energy feature – may be observable for CDM-type (Moore profile) cuspy halos and substructure Ullio, Bergström & Edsjö, 2002

  31. Rates computed with Could the diffuse extragalactic gamma-ray background be generated by neutralino annihilations? GeV ”bump”? (Moskalenko, Strong, Reimer, 2004) Steep (Moore) profile needed for DM substructure; some fine-tuning to get high annihilation rate Elsässer & Mannheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94:171302, 2005 GLAST will tell!

  32. Problem (Ando, PRL 2005): It is difficult to reproduce extragalactic result of Elsässer & Mannheim, without overproducing gammas from g.c. Resolution (Oda, Totani & Nagashima, astro-ph/0504096): clumpy halos; tidal effects remove substructure near centres of haloes Effects of a clumpy halo on diffuse galactic plus extragalactic gamma-ray signal. Satisfies bound from gal. centre: Oda, Totani and Nagashima, astro-ph/0504096; cf. also Pieri, Branchini and Hofmann, astro-ph/0505356

  33. INTEGRAL all-sky picture of positronium gamma line (511 keV) emission – unknown origin (J. Knödlseder et al., astro-ph/0506026) Is it dark matter annihilation (very low mass needed: 10 - 20 MeV)? Could also be explained by type Ia supernovae, or low mass X-ray binaries?

  34. 2005 data: more cuspy profile? Boehm, Hooper, Silk, Casse, Paul (2003): Galactic positrons (511 keV line) from low mass (10 – 100 MeV) dark matter particle decay or annihilation? Beacom, Bell, Bertone (2004): mass has to be less than 20 MeV due to radiative processes Y. Ascasibar & al., astro-ph/0507142:  = 1.03 ± 0.04, NFW-like Problem: How does one find a reasonable particle physics candidate with low mass and strong couplings to electrons?? (Boehm & Fayet, 2003 have some models, also Kawasaki & Yanagida, hep-ph/0505157) INTEGRAL satellite measurements

  35. SMM COMPTEL AGN SN Ia P. Serpico and G. Raffelt, astro-ph/0403417 Light (5 – 15 MeV) dark matter actually improves agreement with BBN! D. Hooper et al (astro-ph/031115): If signal is due to light dark matter annihilation, a flux should also be detectable,  ~ (1-7)·10-4 cm-2s-1 , from Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy. New INTEGRAL upper limit (June, 2005):  < 1.7 ·10-4cm-2s-1 almost entire range excluded. However, depends on density shape of subhalo vs halo. Ahn and Komatsu, astro-ph/0506520: What gives the diffuse extragalactic gamma-ray background above 3 - 4 MeV? 20 MeV Dark Matter (Höflich, 2005)

  36. The existence of Nonbaryonic Dark Datter has been definitely established • CDM is favoured • Supersymmetric particles (in particular, neutralinos) are still among the best-motivated candidates • New direct and indirect detection experiments will reach deep into theory parameter space, some even deeper than LHC • Indications of gamma-ray excess from Galactic center (at MeV, GeV, and TeV energies!) However, need more definitive spectral signature – the gamma line would be a ”smoking gun” • The various indirect and direct detection methods are complementary to each other and to LHC • The hunt is going on – many new experiments coming! • The dark matter problem may be near its (s)solution…

More Related