DARK MATTER Which models for which experiments? Michel H.G. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

DARK MATTER

Which models for which experiments?

Michel H.G. Tytgat

Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium Moriond Electroweak - March 17-23 2019

DARK MATTER

Which experiments for which models?

Michel H.G. Tytgat

Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium Moriond Electroweak - March 17-23 2019

DARK MATTER CANDIDATE DEDUCTIVE APPROACH PRINCIPLE NATURALNESS NEUTRALINO

DARK MATTER CANDIDATE DEDUCTIVE APPROACH PRINCIPLE NATURALNESS NEUTRALINO DARK MATTER CANDIDATES OBSERVATIONS EMPIRICAL APPROACH SIMPLICITY, MINIMALITY,…

DEDUCTIVE APPROACH EMPIRICAL APPROACH

Y• Yeq x*

5 10 50 100 10-11 10-9 10-7 10-5 0.001 0.1 x=mêT Y@xD

WIMP or ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-OUT

Y = nDM s

mDM/T

weaker stronger DM + DM − → SM + SM weak!

DM SM freezes when annihilation rate ~ expansion rate

WIMP or ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-OUT

Y• Yeq x*

Y∞ = x∗ σv H s

• x=1

x = m T

Y = nX s

⇥σv⇤ 3 · 10−26cm3 · s−1

relic abundance from thermal freeze-out weak scale physics?

THE NEUTRALINO

TOY (SIMPLE, MINIMAL,…) DARK MATTER

L ⊃ λhsS2H†H

with

S

Z2

− → −S

Zee & Silveira (1985) “Phantom matter” Veltman & Yindurain (1989) Mc Donald (1994) Burgess, Pospelov & ter Veldhuis (2001) ...

SINGLET SCALAR

ABUNDANCE (PLANCK) INVISIBLE HIGGS DECAY (LHC) DIRECT DETECTION (LUX 2015)

Feng, Profumo & Ubaldi

LZ

For a review, see Arcadi, Djouadi & Raidal, arXiv:1903.03616 (260 pages!)

IS THE WIMP MIRACLE
 A RED HERRING?

Bertone and Tait, arXiv:1810.01668

THE WANING OF THE WIMP?

Arcadi et al arXiv:1703.07364

DM PARTNER

SM SM

PLAYING WITH PARTNERS (I)

DM PARTNER

SM SM

PLAYING WITH PARTNERS (I)

mass gap .

10-20%

DM COLORED PARTNERS

L ⊃ yS ¯ ΨqR + h.c.

scalar DM (odd) vector-like quark (odd) SM quark (even)

Ψ

S

S

Giacchino, Ibarra, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Wild; See also De Simone, Giudice & Strumia; intro of Pedro Schwaller’s talk on Monday and Julia Harz this afternoon.

DM COLORED PARTNERS

Ψ

¯ Ψ

Ψ

S

S

Giacchino, Ibarra, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Wild; See also De Simone, Giudice & Strumia; intro of Pedro Schwaller’s talk on Monday and Julia Harz this afternoon.

L ⊃ yS ¯ ΨqR + h.c.

scalar DM (odd) vector-like quark (odd) SM quark (even)

DM COLORED PARTNERS - DIRECT DETECTION

r = MΨ MS > 1

compression factor

Giacchino, Ibarra, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Wild ‘16

signal = jets + MET (~ squark searches) DM COLORED PARTNERS - LHC

See Julia Harz this Wednesday for displaced vertices in a similar setup

10 102 103 104 0.01 0.1 1 10 5 mS [GeV] r − 1 Coupling to uR

no thermal relic ythermal > 6 LUX X E N O N

• 1

T ATLAS Fermi L E P I & I I

compression factor

r = MΨ MS > 1

Giacchino, Ibarra, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Wild ‘16

DM COLORED PARTNERS - CONSTRAINTS

Colucci, Fuks, Giacchino, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Vandencasteele ‘18

compression factor

r = MΨ MS > 1

DM COLORED PARTNERS - CONSTRAINTS

Colucci, Fuks, Giacchino, Lopez Honorez, M.T. & Vandencasteele ‘18

compression factor

r = MΨ MS > 1

DM COLORED PARTNERS - CONSTRAINTS

COMPRESSION WITH SYMMETRY

DIGRESSION - MINIMAL DARK MATTER

Degenerate at tree level, mass splitting at one-loop!

Cirelli, Fornengo & Strumia (2005)

χ5 =       χ++ χ+ χ0 χ− χ−−      

γ, Z, W ±

L ⊃ 1 2 ¯ χ5 (i / D − M5) χ5

DM & COLORED MULTIPLETS ?

Pati & Salam, ‘74

4 ⊗ ¯ 4 = 15 + 1

15 = (1, 1, 1, 0) + (3, 1, 1, 0) + (¯ 3, 1, 1) + (8, 1, 1, 0)

singlet

χ1

χ3

color triplet

(and conjugate)

color octet

χ8

SU(4) ⊃ SU(3)c ⊗ U(1)B−L

SO(10) ⊃ SU(4) ⊗ SU(2)L ⊗ SU(2)R

DM STABILITY FROM MATTER PARITY

SO(10) → PS → LR → SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × Z3(B−L)

2

Kadasik, Kannike & Raidal; Mambrini, Nagata, Olive, Quevillon & Zheng; Heeck & Patra; … Ferrari, Hambye, Heeck & MT

possible (non-susy) DM candidates

Krauss & Wilczek, ‘89

DM FROM SO(10)

Ferrari, Hambye, Heecks & M.T. ‘18

CONSTRAINT ON PATI-SALAM SCALE

KL

µ+

e−

¯ s

d

leptoquark

X

Valencia & Willenbrock; Smirnov; …

MX & 2000 TeV ⇠ TeV

typical scale required for thermal freeze-out

TROUBLE WITH CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM

leptoquark

X

χ1

χ3

u

ν

becomes inefficient if X too heavy

PLAYING WITH PARTNERS (II)

chemical equilibrium through heavy leptoquark exchange

χ1

χ3

X

g

TROUBLE WITH CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM

Ferrari, Hambye, Heecks & M.T. ‘18

SUMMARY OF CONSTRAINTS

decay of the colored triplet before BBN

Ferrari, Hambye, Heecks & M.T. ‘18

MASS SPLITTING FROM LOOP CORRECTIONS

GUT scale PS scale ∼ 1016 GeV

∼ PeV

∼ 100 GeV

DM mass scale ∼ TeV

freeze-out

1st tuning to keep the DM to TeV scale 2nd tuning to keep the partners Degenerate

TO RECAP (LEST YOU THINK THIS IS NICE)

15

1, 3 (8)

1

45 (210)

WIMP DM

CONCLUSIONS

DEDUCTIVE APPROACH EMPIRICAL APPROACH FREEZE-OUT DM MODELS & OBSERVATIONS NATURAL DARK MATTER WIMPS EXPERIMENTS OBSERVATIONS & EXPERIMENTS PRINCIPLES

D M

The WIMP miracle

D M

The WIMP miracle

BACKUP STORY

core

• r

cusp? missing satellites ? to-big-to-fail ?

HINTS FROM SMALL SCALE STRUCTURES?

Oman et al, arXiv:1504.01437

Rotation curves are different for dwarf galaxies of same mass Unexplained by N-body + hydro (CDM + Baryons) simulations

THE DIVERSITY PROBLEM

SELF-INTERACTING DM ?

diversity problem solved/alleviated with

σ/m ∼ cm2 g

Hamada, Kaplinghat, Pace & Yu, arXiv:1611.02716

RUTHERFORD SCATTERING IN HIDDEN SECTOR

χ

γ0

χ

dσ dΩ = 4α0 2m2

χ

(4m2

χv2 sin2(θ/2) + m2 γ0)2 ∼ α0 2 m2 χ

m4

γ0

¯ χ ¯ χ « As big as a barn » for in MeV range

mγ0

√ α0 √ α0

dark photon

HS SM

DARK MATTER THROUGH KINETIC MIXING

Feldman, Kors, Nath ’06 Pospelov, Ritz, Voloshin ’08 Chu, Hambye, M.T. ’12

HS

✏

Bµν Xµν

χ

can be tiny ! Feebly Interacting Massive Particle (FIMP)

 = ✏ p ↵0/↵

See Martin Bauer’s talk on Monday

DM

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

SM very tiny coupling

PRODUCTION THROUGH S-CHANNEL

χ ¯ χ f ¯ f

γ0

determines relic abundance very small cross section

s-channel

κ ∼ 10−11

RUTHERFORD SCATTERING - DIRECT DETECTION

χ

γ0

t-channel

χ

dσ dER ∝ mNκ2α2Z2 (2mNER + m2

γ0)2

N N ER

recoil energy

∼ 1 E2

R

Huge enhancement if

in keV range v ~ 200 km/s (halo DM)

mγ0 . 40 MeV

DIRECT DETECTION IS TESTING FREEZE IN

First direct detection test of a FI scenario…

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

n.b.: not the same spectrum as a WIMP, must recast the direct detection constraints

101 102 103

mχ (GeV)

10−11 10−10

κ

Freeze-in

XENON1T 2018

Planck abundance

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

DIRECT DETECTION IS TESTING FREEZE IN

n.b.: Not the same spectrum as a WIMP, Must recasti the direct detection constraints

First direct detection test of a FI scenario…

DIRECT DETECTION TESTS OF SELF-INTERACTING DM

α0 = 102α Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

FREEZE-IN CANDIDATES TESTED BY XENON1T

BACKUP SLIDES CONCLUSIONS

WAXING OF THE FIMP?

BACKUP SLIDES

FREEZE-IN vs FREEZE-OUT

κ

(~0.25)

10-11

O(1)

Ωdm

freeze-in regime

freeze-out regime

higher rate

Y ∝ κ2 Y ∝ 1/κ2

Planck

Self-interaction may alleviate the small-scale problems of collisionless dark matter

Spergel & Steinhardt (2000),… Vogelsberger, Zavala & Loeb (2012),…

collisions ⟶ thermalized DM ⟶ core instead of cusp

i.e. seemingly hadronic

σ m ∼ cm2 g ≡ barn GeV

SELF-INTERACTING DM ?

core/cusp too-big-to-fail diversity

Hamada, Kaplinghat, Pace & Yu (2016),…

but more generally light mediator

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

χ ¯ χ f ¯ f γ0

Γχ ∼ κ2T

Yχ ∼ κ2 Mpl T∗

INFRARED FREEZE-IN

T∗ ∼ mχ

Yχ ∼ nχ nγ ∼ Γχ × t∗

t∗ ∼ Mpl T 2

∗

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

Figure from Elahi, Kolda & Unwin ‘14

WHEN I SAY FEEBLE, I REALLY MEAN FEEBLE

Chu, Hambye, M.T. ‘12

mγ0 ⌧ mχ

Y ∝ κ2Mpl/me Y ∝ κ2Mpl/mχ Y ∝ κ2Mpl/mχ

Y ∝ κ2Mpl/mZ

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN FROM DECAY

Yχ ∼ nχ nγ ∼ Γχ × t

t ∼ Mpl T 2

χ ¯ χ

Yχ ∼ κ2 Mpl T∗

INFRARED FREEZE-IN

Z

Γχ ∼ κ2mZ

T∗ ∼ mZ

mχ < mZ/2

HOW TO TEST FREEZE-IN ? DIRE

γ0

INDIRECT SIGNATURES/CONSTRAINTS

e, . . . ¯ e, . . .

✴ dark photons ~ extra invisible radiation on top of neutrinos

BBN/CMB constraints on Neff ~ 3

✴ if heavy, dark photons ~ DM and should decay

Decay after/during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) may affect abundance of light elements

BBN CONSTRAINTS ON DARK PHOTON DECAY

κ

mγ0 (GeV)

Berger, Jedamzik & Walker ‘16

2 × me

4He

D D D FREEZE IN

α0 = 102α

DIRECT DETECTION TESTING SELF-INTERACTING FIMP

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

DIRECT DETECTION TESTS SELF-INTERACTING DM

RECASTING DIRECT DETECTION LIMITS

(mdm, σdm,n)

heavy mediator

101 102 103

mχ (GeV)

10−11 10−10

κ

light mediator

(mχ, κ)

We minimized the differential rate « quadratic distance »

XENON1T efficiency

CONSTRAINTS ON MILLICHARGED PARTICLES

log κ log(mχ/eV)

HS SM

has gauge interaction in HS is stable ~ SM electron suppressed coupling to SM 4 parameters if dark photon massive

HS

 = ✏ p ↵0/↵ mχ α0 mγ0

χ χ χ

γ0

dark photon dark matter

COUPLING TO SM THROUGH KINETIC MIXING

χ

See Martin Bauer’s talk on Monday

SO(10) PATHS WITH MATTER PARITY

INVISIBLE BRANCHING DAMA COGENT W M A P

COLORED PARTNERS FROM EXTRA DIM’S

Cheng, Matchev & Schmaltz, ‘02

Universal Extra Dimension γ0