1 / 33

J. Pradler and M.Pospelov , to appear ~ next weak

GeV scale metastable particles and BBN or Unintended benefit of metastable GeV particles: reduction of Li overabundance Maxim Pospelov University of Victoria and Perimeter Institute. J. Pradler and M.Pospelov , to appear ~ next weak. Outline of the talk.

wanda
Download Presentation

J. Pradler and M.Pospelov , to appear ~ next weak

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. GeV scale metastable particles and BBNorUnintended benefit of metastableGeV particles: reduction of Li overabundanceMaxim PospelovUniversity of Victoria and Perimeter Institute J. Pradler and M.Pospelov, to appear ~ next weak

  2. Outline of the talk • Introduction and Motivation. New look at GeV scale phenomenology. • Current status of BBN. 7Li is “over-predicted”. A multitude of solutions. • Decay of GeV scale particles: injection of pions, kaons, muons etc. Easy to fix Li with lifetimes 200-10000 seconds • WIMP model realisations: Secluded U(1) with metastableHiggses. • Super-WIMP realisations. • Conclusions.

  3. “Revival” of new physics at (sub)-GeV scale • May help to solve some puzzles in low energy data (discrepancy in g-2 of muon, HyperCP events, possibly anomalous events in “neutrino factories” ) • May lead to novel phenomena if used as mediators between WIMP dark matter and Standard Model. (In particular can explain PAMELA and FGST excess of lepton cosmic rays, Arkani-Hamed et al. 2008, MP and Ritz 2008) • Could be searched for at the “luminosity frontier” : e.g. colliders, fixed targets etc (~20% of workshop participants worked on it: Itay, Natalia, many others ... ) • Have some natural field theory realizations: kineticly mixed U(1) – (Holdom 1986); GeV-scale RH neutrinos, singlet scalars... In this talk, I will investigate influence of metastableGeV scale particles on the outcome of primordial nucleosynthesis. I will be loosely provocative (suggestion of D. Kaplan) and speculate on 7Li

  4. BBN abundances at ´WMAP

  5. Status of standard BBN with CMB input “Lithium problem”!! Coc et al, ApJ2005

  6. 9Be vsmetallicityThere is no evidence for primordial plateau SBBN models predicts 9Be ~ 10-18

  7. 6Li is detected in a handful of starsA lot of speculations about primordial 6Li! 6Li/H ~ 10-11 Unexpected plateau (?) of 6Li with metallicity (Asplund et al., 2005); Claim is challenged in Cayrel et al, 2007.

  8. More on 7Li generation during the BBN In fact, it is 7Li+7Be that we are interested in (much later, 7Be captures an electron and becomes 7Li). Things are simple: there is one reaction in, and one reaction out 3He+!7Be +  - IN. 7Be +n ! p +7Li – OUT, (followed by 7Li+p ! 2) At T>25 keV, 7Li is unstable being efficiently burned by protons. 4He, 3He, D, p, and n can be all considered as an input for lithium calculation. • 3He and n abundances ? All reactions are too well-known. 3He is indirectly measured by the solar neutrino flux. • 3He(, )7Be reaction is now known with better than 10% accuracy. New ways of destroying 7Be ?

  9. Ways the 7Li problem can be resolved • Astrophysical: Extra depletion of lithium along Spite plateau • Nuclear: SBBN prediction is somehow not correct (MP, Cyburt: suggestion of a resonant enhancement of 7Be(D,p)8Be reaction. Unlikely last hope…) • Cosmological: 7Li is measured locally, while D and baryon-to-photon ratio globally. If baryon density fluctuates on sub-horison to CMB scales, one could “place” Milky Way in the baryon-underdense region. Slight variation in D binding can deplete 7Li (scalar-tensor theories) • Particle physics: Decays/annihilations of heavy relics can reduce 7Li. 7Li can also be destroyed in catalyzed reactions.

  10. BBN with energy injectionEffect of the “baryonic” energy injection (Dimopoulos et al.; Reno and Seckel, 1980s. ) Neutron-reach energy injection at t~500 sec is capable of reducing 7Li by ~2 (Reno and Seckel K. Jedamzik). D/H is higher About 10-5 extra neutrons need to be injected to get an appreciable reduction of lithium. Secondary production of 6Li

  11. Non-equilibrium BBN: synthesis of A=6,9,10 elements in secondary and tertiary collisions • Secondary processes: Hadronic energy injection leads to spallation on 4He, creating energetic A=3 nuclei. A=6 will form: Dimopoulos, Starkmanet al., 80s Below 5 keV, efficiency ~10-3 • Tertiary processes: Emerging 6He and 6Li are energetic and will further collide with 4He in the plasma forming 9Be with similar efficiency, MP Pradler2010. The early time energy injection (T~20 keV) would result in the enhancement of 9Be/6Li.

  12. What was known: • WIMP DM annihilation cannot solve 7Li problem. Not enough neutrons; too much of 6Li is generated as colateral damage. • One could “get rid” of 7Li excess using decays of EW scale relics with ~ some baryons/antibaryons in the final states. • None of the secluded models with light mediators (e.g. tuned to fit PAMELA) is suitable for that because (anti)-nucleons in the final states are either absent or suppressed. What we found: • If some particles from GeV sector are metastable (100-1000s), and decay producing pions/kaons or muons - 7Li can be suppressed while other BBN predictions are not worsened. • There are different classes of models that easily fit this requirement. Including the most popular “light U(1)” of Holdom-type.

  13. General picture We assume some (sub)-GeV scale neutral relics X with appropriate lifetime (that cannot decay to nucleons) and consider X!p+p- X! K+, K- and KL, KS X !Muons! electron antineutrinos Main calculation : meson-induced p ! n conversion with ensuing change to the BBN network. (Requires proper treatment of EM stopping of particles, meson-nucleon and meson-helium reactions at-rest and in-flight (delta resonance!), spectrum of energetic A=3 nuclei etc. Overall, not an easy problem.) How many pions, kaons etc and with what injection rates (determined by lifetime of X) are required in order to ensure 7Li in the interval (1--2.5) £10-10 ?

  14. Estimates of p! n efficiency How many pions do we need ? = what is the probability of producing a neutron within pion lifetime? Proton capture rate by p- Probability is small But not too small, given that we need 10-5extra neutrons per proton. Therefore about ~10 pions per proton injected around T=40 keV will do the job. Kaon case is similar. O(1) K- per proton is enough.

  15. 7Li reduction from pion injection at threshold Wide range of lifetimes is suitable (much wider than for EW relics)

  16. Time evolution of abundances in pBBN

  17. mBBN or nBBN How many muons (source of antineutrinos) do we need? Rate for proton-induced conversion of neutrino to neutron is smaller than Hubble rate by about nine orders of magnitude O(104) muons per proton is required. “Easy to arrange”

  18. mBBN or nBBN Extra region at lifetime ~3hr. Energy injection corrects D/H back to SBBN

  19. Model Connections Two types: “WIMPs” – initially very abundant (e.g. as photons) – then deplete themselves at T~m, and in our case decay after 100-104 sec. “super-WIMPs” – initially not present at all – get generated by thermal leakage of SM, then decay. Vector portal model: Ãwill be considered in this talk Higgs portal model: WIMP or Super-WIMP depends on strength of couplings

  20. Vector portal model in WIMP regime Long-lived particle – Higgs’ boson, if mh’ < mV (SUSY mass pattern) Decay rate ~ (mixing angle)^4. In contrast, Vector particle decays in a picosecond. Perfect candidate – provided that one can somehow reduce its abundance to an acceptable level. (For a long time I thought that lifetimes > second should be excluded by over-closure of the Universe at the time of the BBN. Not so. I acknowledge a conversation with N. Weiner.)

  21. Cosmological abundance of secluded Higgses • Initial abundance of h’ is thermal. They live ~ 1000 seconds, and cannot annihilate very efficiently. Naively, they should overclose the Universe at ~ 1 second, and such models are ruled out. • However, “co-decay” processes save the day: where . The last process is the most efficient. • kappa » 3 £10-5 is required for the right lifetime range. 2 m¹ < mh < 2 m¼ and mV = 1.7 mh solves lithium problem via injection of muons. mh > 2 m¼ and mV = 1.3 mh solves lithium problem via injection of pions (kaons).

  22. Super-WIMP regime Take coupling effective coupling constant (k)2® = 10-26 Then vector lives 1000 sec. Model has almost no free parameters. – And it works! Vectors do not exist initially, then get thermally produced at the level O(1) per baryon, and then decay after 1000 sec or so. Straight calculation of abundance (well... assuming massless quarks): MV ~ 700 MeV reduces lithium rather efficiently because of the large branching to pions and Ep ~ delta resonance. I see no other probes of this model except BBN. 

  23. Conclusions • Lithium is discrepant by a factor 3-5. Nobody really knows why. • Particle physics looks as an attractive yet speculative possibility of curing Li problem. Injection of not-so-energetic mesons can easily solve the problem, provided that there are at least O(1) exotic GeV scale particles sourcing these mesons. • Minimalistic models of different kinds can provide such particles. In particular, GeV-scale U(1) is a natural candidate because of the accidental longevity of the Higgs’. And it “works” – correct cosmological abundances can be easily obtained with moderate splitting between h and V. Lots of other experimental signatures that I have no time to talk about.

  24. BBN with energy injectionannihilating dark matter Thermal WIMP benchmark Relatively easy to create 6Li, difficult to get rid of 7Li

  25. Burning of 7Be using deuterium It has been suggested (Coc et al., 2004) that if the reaction rate of 7Be(d,p)®® is arbitrarily increased by a factor of ~ 100, the lithium problem can be “solved” right during the BBN. Subsequent experimental search (Angulo et al., 2005) have shown no enhancement in this reaction. It is important, however, that the search was made at E~400 keV, and the extrapolation to BBN regime was done assuming smoothness of astrophysical S-factor (cross section). Such assumptions can be spectacularly violated by the presence of near threshold resonances ( e.g. F. Hoyle, 1950s).

  26. 9B energy levels from TUNL nuclear data project

  27. Zooming in: 16.7 MeV resonance near 7Be +d Nothing much is known about 5/2+, 16.7 MeV +/- 100 keV resonance in 9B. Information about mirror nucleus, 9Be, shows that this resonance is extremely narrow. We (R. Cyburt and MP) try to determine parameters of this resonance phenomenologically, and then see if it can be consistent with nuclear physics/quantum mechanics.

  28. Parameters of the resonance Above the black line, 7Li/H < 0.5 [7Li/H]SBBN, and the Lithium problem is “solved”. One needs a resonance in 160-200 keV range, and Gamma > 10 keV.

  29. Uncertainty in 7Li due to 9B resonance ¡ ~10 keV is a problem because of the Coulomb screening. Such a large deuterium separation width at a resonance energy of 200 keV implies extremely large radius for the 7Be+d interaction channel, as large as 10 fm. This is border-line of what is allowed by QM. If indeed lithium problem is solved that way, it implies “new nuclear physics”, i.e. 16.7 MeV resonance in 9B is a 10 fm-size bound state of 7Li and Deuteron. Outrageously large size! Being completely agnostic about properties of this resonance within QM, we arrive at the the following prediction for primordial lithium

  30. Results of injecting extra neutrons Lithium can be reduced while D kept within bounds if extra neutrons are injected early on (T~40 keV). Secondary and tertiary processes will result in 6Li and 9Be in such scenario. Non-equilibrium synthesis of 9Be is an important question to be addressed!

  31. Possible astrophysical resolution of 7Li discrepancy There is a growing suspicion that pop II stars can themselves deplete lithium by admixing it from the atmospheres into a hot interrior where it gets destroyed (Korn et al., 2006, employs diffusion and extra mixing). Can it provide a factor of 2-3 suppression? Can the suppression work uniformly along the Spite plateau, without introducing extra scatter? Would the measured abundances of other elements be OK?

  32. Nonstandard BBN scenarios Late injection of electromagnetic/hadronic energy distorts primordial abundances, especially for those elements where the SBBN processes are extremely inefficient (4He(d,°)6Li is the radiative E2 reaction, suppressed by 8 orders of magnitude relative to “normal” reactions) Energy injection with baryons in the final stay allows to circumvent this by a chain of endo-thermic but photonlessreactions (Dimopoulos et al, 1980s) 4He + p 3H + p + p, Q=-16 MeV There is a possibility of suppressing 7Be if O(10-5) neutrons per proton are injected (Jedamzik, 2004). This also increases D/H. Typical lifetime ~ 1000 sec is required.

  33. BBN with energy injectionannihilating dark matter Thermal WIMP benchmark

More Related