1. Introduction After the Higgs discovery in 2012, The Standard - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
1 introduction
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

1. Introduction After the Higgs discovery in 2012, The Standard - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 16, 2023 141 likes •1.26k views

Koji Ishiwata Kanazawa University Based on JCAP 1505 (2015) 05, 024 (with S. Ando) JCAP 1606 (2016) 06, 045 (with S. Ando) Kyoto, August 6, 2018 1. Introduction After the Higgs

slide-1
SLIDE 1

銀河外ガンマ線による宇宙暗黒物質探索

Kanazawa University Kyoto, August 6, 2018 Koji Ishiwata Based on

  • JCAP 1505 (2015) 05, 024 (with S. Ando)
  • JCAP 1606 (2016) 06, 045 (with S. Ando)
slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • 1. Introduction
slide-3
SLIDE 3

After the Higgs discovery in 2012,

  • The Standard model (SM) has been found to be a very good

theory below a TeV scale

  • But there’re some inconsistencies, especially cosmological

side + something

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Cosmological issues:

  • Isotropic, homogenous, flat universe
  • Baryon asymmetry
  • Dark matter
  • Dark energy
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Cosmological issues:

  • Isotropic, homogenous, flat universe
  • Baryon asymmetry
  • Dark matter
  • Dark energy
  • Dark matter (DM) is beyond the SM physics
  • Many DM searches are ongoing

+ something (DM, …)

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • Direct detection
  • Indirect detection (via cosmic rays)

XENON1T Fermi-LAT

DM searches

  • Collider
  • Axion like particle searches

LHC CAST

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Direct detection
  • Indirect detection (via cosmic rays)

XENON1T Fermi-LAT

DM searches

  • Collider
  • Axion like particle searches

LHC CAST

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • Direct detection
  • Indirect detection (via cosmic rays)

XENON1T Fermi-LAT

DM searches

  • Collider
  • Axion like particle searches

LHC CAST

  • Hisano, KI, Nagata ’15

NLO calculation@QCD

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • Direct detection
  • Indirect detection (via cosmic rays)

XENON1T Fermi-LAT

DM searches

  • Collider
  • Axion like particle searches

LHC CAST

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Motivations for indirect DM search (theoretical side)

  • There’s a possibility to detect DM that interact with SM

particles very weakly, i.e., to open the discussion of its stability

  • It consists of about 27% of the total energy of the universe
slide-11
SLIDE 11 1 10 2 10 AMS-02
  • 1
10 PAMELA Fermi

AMS-02 ’13

|Rigidity| [GV] 100 200 300 400 500
  • 5
10
  • 1
10
  • 2
10 4 10 3 10
  • 4
10 AMS-02 PAMELA (a) (b) + p Φ /Φ ratio e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ ratio e Φ /Φ ratio p p

AMS-02 ’16

  • Positron
  • Antiproton

Excesses over 100 GeV Motivations for indirect DM search (experimental side)

slide-12
SLIDE 12 1 10 2 10 AMS-02
  • 1
10 PAMELA Fermi

AMS-02 ’13

|Rigidity| [GV] 100 200 300 400 500
  • 5
10
  • 1
10
  • 2
10 4 10 3 10
  • 4
10 AMS-02 PAMELA (a) (b) + p Φ /Φ ratio e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ ratio e Φ /Φ ratio p p

AMS-02 ’16 Ibe, Matsumoto, Shirai, Yagagida ’14

e.g.,

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 10 100 1000 Positron Fraction E [GeV]

Hamaguchi, Moroi, Nakayama ’15

  • Positron
  • Antiproton

Decaying DM Decaying/Annihilating DM Motivations for indirect DM search (experimental side)

slide-13
SLIDE 13 |Rigidity| [GV] 100 200 300 400 500
  • 5
10
  • 1
10
  • 2
10 4 10 3 10
  • 4
10 AMS-02 PAMELA (a) (b) + p Φ /Φ ratio e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ ratio e Φ /Φ ratio p p

AMS-02 ’16

  • Antiproton

indication of a DM signal for DM masses near 80 GeV

Cuoco, Krämer, Korsmeier ’17 Cui, Yuan, Tsai, Fan ’17

4.5σ Motivations for indirect DM search (experimental side)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Are those really DM signals?

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Are those really DM signals? We may check with other observables Today’s topic DM search using extragalactic gamma rays (including local galaxy distributions)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

KI, Matsumoto, Moroi ’09 Profumo, Jeltema ’09

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

Ando, KI ’15

Part I

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the

γ

Cuoco, Xia, Regis, Branchini, Fornengo, Viel ’15

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

Part II

Ando, KI ’16

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Outline

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Part I: DM and the extragalactic gamma rays
  • 3. Part II: DM and local galaxy distributions
  • 4. Ultra high energy cosmic rays and DM
  • 5. Conclusion
slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • 2. Part I:

DM and the extragalactic gamma rays

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • 1. About 27% of the total energy of the universe is DM
  • 2. Assume that high energy are produced by decay or annihilation of DM

e±

  • 3. They hit the CMB photons and produce high energy -rays

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

γ

slide-26
SLIDE 26
  • 1. About 27% of the total energy of the universe is DM
  • 2. Assume that high energy are produced by decay or annihilation of DM

e± e±

  • 3. They hit the CMB photons and produce high energy -rays

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

γ

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • 1. About 27% of the total energy of the universe is DM
  • 3. They hit the CMB photons and produce high energy -rays
  • 2. Assume that high energy are produced by decay or annihilation of DM

e± γ e±

γ

IC scattering

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • The story is very simple
  • If we specify DM model, the QED tells us the IC spectrum

exactly especially for decaying DM

  • A good tool to test DM scenarios which accommodate the

anomalous positron or antiproton excess

KI, Matsumoto, Moroi ’09 Profumo, Jeltema ’09

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

e±

γ

slide-29
SLIDE 29

DM model

  • Mass
  • Lifetime/annihilation cross

section

  • Decay modes

IC scattering

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

flux

mass c- n

M

/

lifetime

.

Decay

nodes €zy

'

*

→

e±

→

n¥§yn

CMB

photons

decay / annihilation modes

#

$

rytiafnetwintiiefionoossseotion

a

tasse

iain

→ e±→n¥§yn CMB

photons

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Gamma-ray spectrum in various DM models

Ando, KI ’15

a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the

γ

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • Blazars
  • Star-forming galaxies (SFG)
  • Misaligned active galactic nuclei (mAGN)
  • M. Ajello et al. ’12, ’13 & ’15

Fermi-LAT ’12

  • C. Gruppioni et al. ’13

Tomborra, Ando, Murase ’14 Inoue ’11 Mauro, Calore, Donato, Ajello, Latronico ’14

They are determined due to recent updates in multi- frequency measurements of gamma rays

b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Blazars

  • M. Ajello et al. ’12, ’13 & ’15
  • correlation between gamma and X ray
  • ~ 50% of the total EGBR
  • uncertainty: ~ 30%

SFG

Fermi-LAT ’12

  • C. Gruppioni et al. ’13

Tomborra, Ando, Murase ’14

  • e.g., Milky Way galaxy
  • active galaxies whose jets are directed toward us
  • correlation between gamma and infrared
  • ~ 10-30% of the total EGBR
  • uncertainty: ~ 60%

b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region

slide-34
SLIDE 34

mAGN

  • correlation between gamma and radio
  • uncertainty: ~ 200%
  • active galaxies whose jets are NOT directed toward us

Inoue ’11 Mauro, Calore, Donato, Ajello, Latronico ’14

b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Ando, KI ’15

Blazars and SFGs well explain the observed gamma rays

b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Ando, KI ’15

Constraints on DM scenarios

b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region

Blazars and SFGs well explain the observed gamma rays

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the extragalactic region a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the extragalactic region

γ

Ando, KI ’15

slide-38
SLIDE 38

For the anomalous positron For the TeV anomalous antiproton

Ando, KI ’15

Decaying DM scenarios to explain the anomalous positron or antiproton are partly excluded Decaying DM

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Ando, KI ’15

Without astrophysical components

For the anomalous positron For the TeV anomalous antiproton

slide-40
SLIDE 40

In the study, we considered that the gamma rays from the extragalactic region is

  • Statistically isotropic
  • Integrated over the cosmological distances
slide-41
SLIDE 41

In the study, we considered that the gamma rays from the extragalactic region is

  • Anisotropies

But due to the recent observational developments,

  • Statistically isotropic
  • Integrated over the cosmological distances
  • Cosmological distances
  • f the gamma rays can be used for the study
slide-42
SLIDE 42

Important ingredients for our study: c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution b). Astrophysical sources in the a). Inverse-Compton (IC) -rays in the

γ

slide-43
SLIDE 43
  • 3. Part II:

DM and local galaxy distributions

slide-44
SLIDE 44
  • Anisotropies

Ingredients for further analysis:

  • Cosmological distances
slide-45
SLIDE 45

Gamma rays are almost isotropic, but ..

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-46
SLIDE 46

There’re anisotropies

Fermi-LAT ’12

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-47
SLIDE 47
  • Anisotropies

Ingredients for further analysis:

  • Cosmological distances

Fermi-LAT ’12

slide-48
SLIDE 48
  • Anisotropies

Ingredients for further analysis:

  • Cosmological distances
slide-49
SLIDE 49

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

2MRS ’11

Galaxy distribution

slide-50
SLIDE 50

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-51
SLIDE 51

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

8000<v<9000km/s 7000<v<8000km/s 6000<v<7000km/s

We know the distance from each galaxy by its redshift

slide-52
SLIDE 52
  • Anisotropies

Ingredients for further analysis:

  • Cosmological distances

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-53
SLIDE 53
  • Anisotropies

Ingredients for further analysis:

  • Cosmological distances

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-54
SLIDE 54

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Gamma rays are expected to trace galaxy distribution

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

Cross correlation

slide-56
SLIDE 56

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

slide-57
SLIDE 57

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

2MRS,QSO, 2MASS,NVSS,MG,LRG

galaxy catalog:

slide-58
SLIDE 58

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

Redshift distribution

slide-59
SLIDE 59

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

Redshift distribution

Selecting a galaxy catalog You can get cross-correlation for corresponding redshift region

slide-60
SLIDE 60

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

Catalog A

slide-61
SLIDE 61

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

redshift Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C

Tomographic cross-correlation

slide-62
SLIDE 62

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i ˆ n ˆ n + θ

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

slide-63
SLIDE 63

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

Cross-correlation signal for < 1

slide-64
SLIDE 64
  • bs.

✖

  • bs.

th.

  • bs.

✖

Compare both, then exclude the theory which deviates from

  • bs.✖obs.

Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C
slide-65
SLIDE 65

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

slide-66
SLIDE 66

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution Σg = Z dχWg(z)ng(χˆ n, z) hngi

Wg(z) = d log Ng dz dz dχ

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

hΣgi = 1

window function [dimensionless]

slide-67
SLIDE 67

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation = DM + astro. sources

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

Decaying DM

dΦdm

γ

dχ (Eγ, z) = 1 4π Ωdmρc mdmτdm 1 1 + z Qdm

γ (E0 γ, z) eτ(E0 γ,z)

Idm

γ

= Z dχW dm

γ

(z) ρdm(χˆ n, z) hρdmi

  • W dm
γ

(z) = Z dEγ dΦdm

γ

dχ (Eγ, z)

[ ] [ ]

cm−2s−1str−1

[ ]

cm−3s−1str−1 GeV−1cm−3s−1str−1

slide-68
SLIDE 68

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation = DM + astro. sources

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

Annihilating DM

dΦdm

γ

dχ (Eγ, z) = hσvi 8π ✓Ωdmρc mdm ◆2 (1 + z)3Qdm

γ (E0 γ, z) eτ(E0 γ,z)

Idm

γ

= Z dχW dm

γ

(z) ρdm(χˆ n, z) hρdmi 2

W dm

γ

(z) = Z dEγ dΦdm

γ

dχ (Eγ, z)

[ ]

cm−2s−1str−1

[ ]

cm−3s−1str−1

[ ]

GeV−1cm−3s−1str−1

slide-69
SLIDE 69

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation = DM + astro. sources

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

Decaying/Annihilating DM (source term)

Qdm

γ (E0 γ, z) = Qdm γpr(E0 γ, z) + Qdm γfsr(E0 γ, z) + Qdm γic (E0 γ, z)

Qdm

γpr(E0 γ, z) + Qdm γfsr(E0 γ, z) = (1 + z)dNγ

dE (E0

γ)

Qdm

γic(E0 γ, z) = c

Z dEe dEγBG(1 + z)dσIC dE0

γ

(E0

γ, Ee, EγBG)f BG γ

(EγBG, z) Ye(Ee) bIC(Ee, z)

f BG

γ

(EγBG, z) = f CMB

γ

(EγBG, z) + f EBL

γ

(EγBG, z) Ye(Ee) = X

I=e±

Z ∞

Ee

dE dNI dE (E)

GeV−1

[ ]

bIC(Ee, z) = Z dE0

γdEγBG(E0 γ − EγBG)dσIC

dE0

γ

(E0

γ, Ee, EγBG)f BG γ

(EγBG, z)

[ ]

GeV−1cm−3

[ ]

GeV s−1

slide-70
SLIDE 70

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation = DM + astro. sources

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

  • Astro. sources

IX

γ =

Z dχW X

γ (z)

nX(χˆ n, z) hnXi

  • X = blazar, SFG

[ ]

cm−3s−1str−1 W X

γ (z) = χ2

Z dLγ dnX

γ (Lγ, z)

dLγ Fγ(Lγ, z) Gruppioni et al. ’13 Tamborra, Ando, Murase ’14 Ajello et al. ’15 Ackermann et al. ’12 Acero et al. ’15

slide-71
SLIDE 71

: number flux of photons from a source with luminosity and redshift

[ ] [ ] [ ] c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation = DM + astro. sources

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

  • Astro. sources (window function)

: luminosity function : luminosity

erg s−1 erg−1s cm−3

[ ]

cm−3s−1str−1 W X

γ (z) = χ2

Z dLγ dnX

γ (Lγ, z)

dLγ Fγ(Lγ, z)

dnX

γ (Lγ, z)

dLγ

Fγ(Lγ, z) Lγ Lγ z cm−2s−1str−1

slide-72
SLIDE 72

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

Energy [MeV] 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 ]
  • 1
sr
  • 1
s
  • 2
[MeV cm Ω /dEd Φ d 2 E
  • 7
10
  • 6
10
  • 5
10
  • 4
10
  • 3
10
  • 2
10 DGRB energy spectrum (Ackermann et al. 2014) Foreground system. error (Ackermann et al. (2014) Blazars (Ajello et al. (2015) Misaligned AGNs (Di Mauro et al. 2014) Star-forming galaxies (Tamborra et al. 2014) Millisecond pulsars (Calore et al. 2014)
  • 7
10
  • 6
10
  • 5
10
  • 4
10
  • 3
10
  • 2
10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10

Fornasa, Sánchez-Conde ’15

slide-73
SLIDE 73

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Advantages of tomography

クロス相関

暗黒物質は、 の領域からの寄与が相対 的に大きい の銀河とクロス相関をとることで、 の領域を選択的に取り出すことができる！

2MRS

ガンマ線も銀河も宇宙の大規模構造を トレースしている つのマップはある程度似ているはず

Ando ’14 Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

slide-74
SLIDE 74

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Advantages of tomography

クロス相関

暗黒物質は、 の領域からの寄与が相対 的に大きい の銀河とクロス相関をとることで、 の領域を選択的に取り出すことができる！

2MRS

ガンマ線も銀河も宇宙の大規模構造を トレースしている つのマップはある程度似ているはず

Ando ’14 Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

Blazars and SFGs are dominant in z > 0.1

slide-75
SLIDE 75

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Advantages of tomography

クロス相関

暗黒物質は、 の領域からの寄与が相対 的に大きい の銀河とクロス相関をとることで、 の領域を選択的に取り出すことができる！

2MRS

ガンマ線も銀河も宇宙の大規模構造を トレースしている つのマップはある程度似ているはず

Ando ’14 Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

  • Astro. BG can be reduced in z < 0.1
slide-76
SLIDE 76

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Theoretical calculation

Cγg(θ) = hδIγ(ˆ n) δΣg(ˆ n + θ)i

γ-ray flux galaxy distribution

δIγ = Iγ hIγi δΣg = Σg hΣgi

= X

`

2` + 1 4⇡ Cg

` P`(cos ✓)

Cg

`

= Z d 2 W(z)Wg(z)Pg ✓ k = ` , z ◆ cross-power spectrum between

  • ray sources and galaxies

γ

slide-77
SLIDE 77

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Cg

`

= Z d 2 W(z)Wg(z)Pg ✓ k = ` , z ◆

✖

Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C
slide-78
SLIDE 78

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Cg

`

= Z d 2 W(z)Wg(z)Pg ✓ k = ` , z ◆

✖

Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C

cross-correlation

slide-79
SLIDE 79

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution Cg

`

= Z d 2 W(z)Wg(z)Pg ✓ k = ` , z ◆

✖

Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C

tomography

slide-80
SLIDE 80
  • bs.

✖

  • bs.

th.

  • bs.

✖

Compare both, then exclude the theory which deviates from

  • bs.✖obs.

Xia, Cuoco, Branchini, Viel ’15

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

✖

Catalog A Catalog B Catalog C
slide-81
SLIDE 81

トモグラフィー

使用可能な情報 より多くの赤方偏移の情報を使う → トモグラフィー

Catalog Redshift boundaries Ng per bin 2MRS (0.003, 0.1) 43500 2MRS-N2 (0.003, 0.027, 0.1) 21750 2MRS-N3 (0.003, 0.021, 0.035, 0.1) 14500 2MXSC (0.003, 0.3) 770000 2MXSC-N2 (0.003, 0.083, 0.3) 385000 2MXSC-N3 (0.003, 0.066, 0.10, 0.3) 257000 2MXSC-N4 (0.003, 0.058, 0.083, 0.11, 0.3) 193000 2MXSC-N5 (0.003, 0.052, 0.073, 0.093, 0.12, 0.3) 154000 2MXSC-N10 (0.003, 0.039, 0.052, 0.063, 0.073, 77000 0.083, 0.093, 0.10, 0.12, 0.14, 0.3)

Galaxy catalogs

c). Tomographic cross-correlation using local galaxy distribution

Ando ’14

slide-82
SLIDE 82

The reported anomalous cosmic rays:

  • Positron
  • Antiproton (over 100 GeV)
  • Antiproton (~ 80 GeV DM mass)
1 10 2 10 AMS-02
  • 1
10 PAMELA Fermi |Rigidity| [GV] 100 200 300 400 500
  • 5
10
  • 1
10
  • 2
10 4 10 3 10
  • 4
10 AMS-02 PAMELA (a) (b) + p Φ /Φ ratio e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ ratio e Φ /Φ ratio p p
slide-83
SLIDE 83
  • Positron
  • Antiproton (over 100 GeV)
1 10 2 10 AMS-02
  • 1
10 PAMELA Fermi |Rigidity| [GV] 100 200 300 400 500
  • 5
10
  • 1
10
  • 2
10 4 10 3 10
  • 4
10 AMS-02 PAMELA (a) (b) + p Φ /Φ ratio e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ e + p Φ /Φ ratio e Φ /Φ ratio p p

Decaying DM Annihilating DM The reported anomalous cosmic rays:

  • Antiproton (~ 80 GeV DM mass)

Decaying DM Annihilating DM

slide-84
SLIDE 84

e+ Decaying DM (for the anomalous ) DM → νl±l⌥ (a). νµ±e⌥&νe±e⌥ (b). νµ±µ⌥&νe±µ⌥ Here we focus on three-body leptonic decay: (mainly ) e± (mainly ) µ±

slide-85
SLIDE 85

e+

Ando, KI ’16

Decaying DM (for the anomalous )

(a). (b).

slide-86
SLIDE 86

e+ Including astrophysical sources give ~10 times stronger constraints

Ando, KI ’16

Decaying DM (for the anomalous )

(a). (b).

slide-87
SLIDE 87

The preferred regions are excluded e+

Best fit regions taken from Ibe et al.’14 Ando, KI ’16

Decaying DM (for the anomalous )

(a). (b).

slide-88
SLIDE 88

Impacts of IC gamma rays

Ando, KI ’16

(Results without astro. comp.)

Results without IC (consistent with Regis et al. ’15)

(a). (b).

slide-89
SLIDE 89

Ando, KI ’16

(a). (b).

IC gamma gives 1-2 orders of magnitude stronger constraints over TeV region Impacts of IC gamma rays

(Results without astro. comp.)

slide-90
SLIDE 90

Ando, KI ’16

(a). (b).

IC gamma rays are crucial to constrain over TeV DM Impacts of IC gamma rays

(Results without astro. comp.)

IC gamma gives 1-2 orders of magnitude stronger constraints over TeV region

slide-91
SLIDE 91

Ando, KI ’16

Decaying DM (for the anomalous ) The preferred regions are excluded (only by DM component) preferred region DM → W ±µ⌥ O(100) GeV ¯ p

slide-92
SLIDE 92

Ando, KI ’16

Annihilating DM (for the anomalous ) The preferred regions are excluded (by including astro components) preferred region O(100) GeV ¯ p DM DM → W +W −

slide-93
SLIDE 93

Annihilating DM (for the anomalous )

Ando, KI ’16

DM DM → b¯ b (consistent with

Cuoco et al. ’15)

Obtained constraints are similar to those given by dwarf galaxy O(1) GeV ¯ p

slide-94
SLIDE 94

Best fit regions given by Cuoco et al. ’17 Ando, KI ’16

The motivated region is partly excluded DM DM → b¯ b Annihilating DM (for the anomalous ) O(1) GeV ¯ p

slide-95
SLIDE 95
  • 4. Ultra high energy cosmic rays and DM
slide-96
SLIDE 96

Although we’ve shown the constraints on DM models, Our goal is to find the DM! For the goal, a naive step to take next would be to consider

  • Lower DM mass
  • Higher DM mass
slide-97
SLIDE 97

Although we’ve shown the constraints on DM models, Our goal is to find the DM! For the goal, a naive step to take next would be to consider

  • Lower DM mass
  • Higher DM mass

DM signal might be in PeV neutrino data

IceCube ’15

slide-98
SLIDE 98

Although we’ve shown the constraints on DM models, Our goal is to find the DM! For the goal, a naive step to take next would be to consider

  • Lower DM mass
  • Higher DM mass

Cohen, Murase, Rodd, Safdi, Soreq ’17 Kalashev, Kuznetsov ’16 Kachelriess, Kalashev, Kuznetsov ’18 Dudas, Gherghetta, Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive ’18

People are getting interested in heavier DM

slide-99
SLIDE 99

Beyond High Energy Cosmic Rays

High Energy Cosmic Rays (HECRs) Very High Energy Cosmic Rays (VHECRs) Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) Extremely High Energy Cosmic Rays (EHECRs)

TeV PeV EeV ZeV

Fonseca ’03

slide-100
SLIDE 100

Beyond High Energy Cosmic Rays

High Energy Cosmic Rays (HECRs) Very High Energy Cosmic Rays (VHECRs) Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) Extremely High Energy Cosmic Rays (EHECRs)

TeV PeV EeV ZeV

Fonseca ’03 IceCube ’15

slide-101
SLIDE 101

Beyond High Energy Cosmic Rays

High Energy Cosmic Rays (HECRs) Very High Energy Cosmic Rays (VHECRs) Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) Extremely High Energy Cosmic Rays (EHECRs)

TeV PeV EeV ZeV

Fonseca ’03 AGASA ’03

6 10 3 2 3 10 10 10 19 20 10 10 10 23 24 25 26 J(E) E [m sec sr eV ] 3 −2 −1 −1 2 Energy [eV] Uniform sources C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

More will be by Pierre Auger Observatory

slide-102
SLIDE 102

Propagation of UHECR

Initial state Target field Process Secondaries Nuclei CBR Pair production (Bethe-Heitler) e± Nuclei CBR Photo-pion production p, n, ⌫, e±, Nuclei CBR Photodisintegration p, n, d, t, 3He, ↵, * Nuclei CBR Elastic scattering*

  • Nuclei

– Nuclear decay p, n, ⌫, e±, * Photons CBR Pair production* (Breit-Wheeler) e± Photons CBR Double pair production* e± Electrons CBR Triplet pair production* e± Electrons CBR Inverse Compton scattering*

  • Electrons

B-field Synchrotron radiation*

  • Heiter, Kuempel, Walz, Erdmann ’17
slide-103
SLIDE 103

Propagation of UHECR

Initial state Target field Process Secondaries Nuclei CBR Pair production (Bethe-Heitler) e± Nuclei CBR Photo-pion production p, n, ⌫, e±, Nuclei CBR Photodisintegration p, n, d, t, 3He, ↵, * Nuclei CBR Elastic scattering*

  • Nuclei

– Nuclear decay p, n, ⌫, e±, * Photons CBR Pair production* (Breit-Wheeler) e± Photons CBR Double pair production* e± Electrons CBR Triplet pair production* e± Electrons CBR Inverse Compton scattering*

  • Electrons

B-field Synchrotron radiation*

  • Heiter, Kuempel, Walz, Erdmann ’17
slide-104
SLIDE 104

Propagation of UHECR nuclei

  • Photo-pion production
  • Pair production (Bethe-Heitler)

N + γBG → N + π

A ZX + γBG → A ZX + e+ + e−

Pair production Photo-pion production

xloss(E) = E dE/dx

Stanev, Engel, Mücke, Protheroe, Rachen ’00

Proton

slide-105
SLIDE 105

Propagation of UHECR

Initial state Target field Process Secondaries Nuclei CBR Pair production (Bethe-Heitler) e± Nuclei CBR Photo-pion production p, n, ⌫, e±, Nuclei CBR Photodisintegration p, n, d, t, 3He, ↵, * Nuclei CBR Elastic scattering*

  • Nuclei

– Nuclear decay p, n, ⌫, e±, * Photons CBR Pair production* (Breit-Wheeler) e± Photons CBR Double pair production* e± Electrons CBR Triplet pair production* e± Electrons CBR Inverse Compton scattering*

  • Electrons

B-field Synchrotron radiation*

  • Heiter, Kuempel, Walz, Erdmann ’17

EW cascade

slide-106
SLIDE 106

Propagation of UHECR EM particles

  • Pair production (PP)
  • Double pair production (DPP)
  • Triple pair production (TPP)
  • Inverse Compton scattering (ICS)

e + γBG → e + e+ + e− γ + γBG → e+ + e− γ + γBG → e+ + e− + e+ + e− e + γBG → e + γ

Heiter, Kuempel, Walz, Erdmann ’17

slide-107
SLIDE 107

CRpropa 3

A public astrophysical simulation framework for propagating extraterrestrial ultra-high energy particles

Batista, Dundovic, Erdmann, Kampert, Kuempel, Müller, Sigl, Vliet, Walz, Winchen ’16

Energy [eV]

13 10 14 10 15 10 16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10

[a.u.]

2

dN/dE E

16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10 23 10 24 10 25 10 DINT only CRPropa 3 + DINT Electron Pair Production Photo Pion Production Nuclear Decay

Proton injection

dN/dE ∝ E−1

  • 1-1000 EeV with
  • uniformly distributed

at 3-1000 Mpc

slide-108
SLIDE 108

CRpropa 3

A public astrophysical simulation framework for propagating extraterrestrial ultra-high energy particles

Batista, Dundovic, Erdmann, Kampert, Kuempel, Müller, Sigl, Vliet, Walz, Winchen ’16

Energy [eV]

13 10 14 10 15 10 16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10

[a.u.]

2

dN/dE E

16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10 23 10 24 10 25 10 DINT only CRPropa 3 + DINT Electron Pair Production Photo Pion Production Nuclear Decay

Proton injection

dN/dE ∝ E−1

  • 1-1000 EeV with
  • uniformly distributed

at 3-1000 Mpc CRs from DM can be simulated similarly

in preparation with

  • S. Ando and M. Arimoto
slide-109
SLIDE 109

CRpropa 3

A public astrophysical simulation framework for propagating extraterrestrial ultra-high energy particles

Batista, Dundovic, Erdmann, Kampert, Kuempel, Müller, Sigl, Vliet, Walz, Winchen ’16

Energy [eV]

13 10 14 10 15 10 16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10

[a.u.]

2

dN/dE E

16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10 23 10 24 10 25 10 DINT only CRPropa 3 + DINT Electron Pair Production Photo Pion Production Nuclear Decay

Proton injection

dN/dE ∝ E−1

  • 1-1000 EeV with
  • uniformly distributed

at 3-1000 Mpc CRs from DM can be simulated similarly

slide-110
SLIDE 110
  • 5. Conclusions
slide-111
SLIDE 111

We have studied DM using extragalactic gamma rays and local galaxy distribution

  • The preferred regions for the anomalous flux are excluded
  • IC-induced gamma rays are crucial for the exclusion
  • The preferred regions for the anomalous are

excluded

  • The 80 GeV annihilating DM motivated by the anomalous

____ _ is partly excluded e+ O(100 GeV) ¯ p O(1 GeV) ¯ p

  • More to work on