Direct detection of dark matter An overview, not a review Paolo - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
direct detection of dark matter
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Direct detection of dark matter An overview, not a review Paolo - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 06, 2024 525 likes •1.35k views

Direct detection of dark matter An overview, not a review Paolo Gondolo University of Utah (On sabbatical at Seoul National University) Friday, June 8, 12 Even if a new neutral particle is discovered at accelerators, one must still prove

slide-1
SLIDE 1

An overview, not a review

Paolo Gondolo

University of Utah

(On sabbatical at Seoul National University)

Direct detection of dark matter

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Even if a new neutral particle is discovered at accelerators, one

must still prove that it is the cold dark matter. Example: active neutrinos are neutral but are hot dark matter.

  • Indirect detection of dark matter is subject to poorly known

astrophysical backgrounds, so it is hard to claim an unconditional discovery (exception may be gamma-ray line).

  • Direct detection seems the best way to prove the existence of

particle dark matter.

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 kpc

8.3 kpc

Rotation curve (Clemens 1985)

The principle

Image by R. Powell using DSS data

Sun

Our galaxy is inside a halo of dark matter particles

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Dark matter particle crystal

(or gas

  • r liquid)

Low-background underground detector

CRESST

Dark matter particles that arrive on Earth scatter off nuclei in a detector

CDMS EDELWEISS DAMA CRESST KIMS DRIFT XENON COUPP CoGeNT TARP DMTPC TEXONO .....

The principle

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Background discrimination

From Sanglard 2005 Directional discrimination

Finding the dark matter particles is a fight against background

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Gaitskell 2009

Dark Matter, Sept 2007 Rick Gaitskell, Brown University, DOE

DM Direct Search Progress Over Time (2009)

~1 event kg-1 day-1 ~1 event 1 tonne-1 yr-1

13

(Gross Masses kg)

ZEPLIN III.1

ZEPLIN III.2 LUX-ZEP 3000kg

LZ 20t

CDMS Soudan 2008

LUX 350kg

XENON 100kg

SuperCDMS 25 kg

XMASS 800kg WARP 140kg

SuperCDMS 125 kg

XENON 1000kg

σ=10-48

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Coming up......

  • XMASS (800 kg LXe, Kamioka, 2011-)
  • SuperCDMS (25kg Ge, Soudan, 2012-)
  • LUX (350 kg LXe, Homestake, 2012-)
  • DarkSide (50 kg LAr, Gran Sasso, 2012-)
  • COUPP (60 kg CF3I, SNOLab, 2012-)
  • XENON-1T (1 ton LXe, Gran Sasso, 2014-)
  • DM-ICE, EURECA, DARWIN, and many many others

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-8
SLIDE 8

The annual modulation

Drukier, Freese, Spergel 1986

S = S0 + Sm cos[ω(t − t0)]

The WIMP bulk velocity w.r.t. Earth modulates from ~232+15 km/s to ~232-15 km/s with a period of one year Annual modulation in WIMP flux and detection rate

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-9
SLIDE 9

S = S0 + Sm cos[ω(t − t0)] = S0 + Sm cos[ω(t − t0)]

The DAMA modulation

Bernabei et al 1997-2012

8.2σ detection

2-6 keV Time (day) Residuals (cpd/kg/keV)

DAMA/LIBRA 250 kg (0.87 ton×yr)

DAMA finds a yearly modulation as expected for dark matter particles

Energy (keV) Sm (cpd/kg/keV)

  • 0.05
  • 0.025

0.025 0.05 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-10
SLIDE 10

The CoGeNT modulation

Aalseth et al 1106.0650

The CoGeNT “irreducible excess’’ (*) modulates with a period of one year and a phase compatible with DAMA’s annual modulation.

(*) Partly due to extra surface events

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-11
SLIDE 11

The CRESST unexplained excess

Adapted from Anglehor et al 2011

67 observed events cannot all be explained by background at 4σ

f

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Energy [keV] 2 4 6 8 accepted events / keV total WIMP signal γ bck Pb recoil bck α bck neutron bck

Unexplained

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-12
SLIDE 12

10 100 1000 WIMP mass [GeV] 10

  • 9

10

  • 8

10

  • 7

10

  • 6

10

  • 5

10

  • 4

10

  • 3

WIMP-nucleon cross section [pb]

CRESST 1σ CRESST 2σ CRESST 2009 EDELWEISS-II CDMS-II XENON100 DAMA chan. DAMA CoGeNT

M2 M1

DAMA DAMA CRESST CoGeNT XENON100 CDMS EDELWEISS-II

The CRESST unexplained excess

Adapted from Anglehor et al 2011

67 observed events cannot all be explained by background at 4σ model-dependent

L i g h t W I M P s !

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Limits from XENON-100, KIMS, CDMS, .....

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

3 events observed 1.8±0.6 expected background

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Upper limit on WIMP-nucleon cross section from XENON-100 (model dependent)

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Without using detectors with large surface α background

Kim at TAUP 2011

  • Excludes inelastic dark matter
  • Excludes 60 GeV/c2 DAMA region

Limits from XENON-100, KIMS, CDMS, .....

KIMS: CsI scintillation detector

(similar to DAMA)

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-15
SLIDE 15

200 400 600 −0.5 0.5 Days Since Jan. 1st Rate [kg day keVnr]−1

−1

  • −0.2

−1

−0.5 0.5 Days Since Jan. 1st Rate [kg day keVnr]−1

−1

  • 2.27

5 7.3 9.6 11.9 −0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 Recoil Energy [keVnr] Modulated Rate [kg day keVnr]−1 0.50 1.21 1.85 2.51 3.20 Recoil Energy [CoGeNT keVee]

−0.5 0.5 Days Since Jan. 1st Rate [kg day keVnr]−1 . 1 7 5 . 3 5 [ k e V n r k g d a y ]−1 /2 (~Apr.1) 3/2 (~Oct.1)

  • (~Jul.1)

(Jan.1) −0.2

−1

CDMS does not observe an annual modulation and constrains its amplitude

Ahmed et al 1203.1309

CoGeNT CDMS

model-independent

Limits from XENON-100, KIMS, CDMS, .....

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-16
SLIDE 16

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

Akerib et al (CDMS) PRD82, 122004, 2010

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-18
SLIDE 18

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-19
SLIDE 19

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Kopp, Schwetz, Zupan 2011

10 6 8 20 1042 1041 1040 1039 WIMP mass m Χ GeV WIMPnucleon cross section ΣSI cm 2

  • Lim its:

90 Countours: 90, 3Σ v0 220 km s vesc 550 km s

C D M S l

  • w
  • t

h r XENON100 DAMA q 10 CoGeNT no contam. CoGeNT small contam. CoGeNT large contam.

Not compatible

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-20
SLIDE 20

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Kopp, Schwetz, Zupan 2011

10 6 8 20 1042 1041 1040 1039 WIMP mass m Χ GeV WIMPnucleon cross section ΣSI cm 2

  • Lim its:

90 Countours: 90, 3Σ v0 220 km s vesc 550 km s

C D M S l

  • w
  • t

h r XENON100 DAMA q 10 CoGeNT no contam. CoGeNT small contam. CoGeNT large contam.

Not compatible

Hooper, Collar, Hall, McKinsey 2010

Quite compatible

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-21
SLIDE 21

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Kopp, Schwetz, Zupan 2011

10 6 8 20 1042 1041 1040 1039 WIMP mass m Χ GeV WIMPnucleon cross section ΣSI cm 2

  • Lim its:

90 Countours: 90, 3Σ v0 220 km s vesc 550 km s

C D M S l

  • w
  • t

h r XENON100 DAMA q 10 CoGeNT no contam. CoGeNT small contam. CoGeNT large contam.

Not compatible

Hooper, Collar, Hall, McKinsey 2010

Quite compatible Collar 1106.0653

¡It’s a scandal!

Juan Collar

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-22
SLIDE 22

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Kopp, Schwetz, Zupan 2011

10 6 8 20 1042 1041 1040 1039 WIMP mass m Χ GeV WIMPnucleon cross section ΣSI cm 2

  • Lim its:

90 Countours: 90, 3Σ v0 220 km s vesc 550 km s

C D M S l

  • w
  • t

h r XENON100 DAMA q 10 CoGeNT no contam. CoGeNT small contam. CoGeNT large contam.

Not compatible

Hooper, Collar, Hall, McKinsey 2010

Quite compatible Collar 1106.0653

¡It’s a scandal!

Juan Collar

Collar Fields 1204.3559

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-23
SLIDE 23

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Not compatible

]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10 ]

2

WIMP Mass [GeV/c 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 ]

2

WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm

  • 45

10

  • 44

10

  • 43

10

  • 42

10

  • 41

10

  • 40

10

  • 39

10

DAMA/I DAMA/Na CoGeNT CDMS EDELWEISS XENON100 (2010) XENON100 (2011) Buchmueller et al.

Aprile et al (XENON-100) 1104.2549

Not compatible

CoGeNT & DAMA vs. XENON, CDMS, et al

100 101 102 108 107 106 105 104 103 102

MWIMP GeV ΣΧp pb spinindependent eff constant below 3.9 keVnr

CDMS CoGeNT 712 GeV XENON100 XENON10 DAMA total events DAMA modulation 5Σ3Σ90

Savage, Gelmini, Gondolo, Freese 2010

Barely compatible

Kopp, Schwetz, Zupan 2011

10 6 8 20 1042 1041 1040 1039 WIMP mass m Χ GeV WIMPnucleon cross section ΣSI cm 2

  • Lim its:

90 Countours: 90, 3Σ v0 220 km s vesc 550 km s

C D M S l

  • w
  • t

h r XENON100 DAMA q 10 CoGeNT no contam. CoGeNT small contam. CoGeNT large contam.

Not compatible

Hooper, Collar, Hall, McKinsey 2010

Quite compatible Collar 1106.0653

¡It’s a scandal!

Juan Collar

Collar Fields 1204.3559

The comparison depends on the model!

  • astrophysics model

local density, velocity distribution

  • particle physics model

mass, cross section (dependence on spin, velocity, energy, couplings)

  • detector response model

energy resolution, quenching factors, channeling fraction

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Basic ideas

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-25
SLIDE 25

M m v

The expected number of events

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-26
SLIDE 26

M v0 V

E = 1

2MV 2

Recoil energy

m0 = m + δ

The expected number of events

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-27
SLIDE 27

The recoil spectrum (scattering rate per unit target mass)

The expected number of events

Measured energy Counting acceptance/efficiency Energy response function Recoil spectrum Exposure Recoil energy Differential scattering cross section WIMP density WIMP velocity distribution

dR dE = 1 mA Z dσ dE ρχ mχ v f(v, t) d3v

Emax = 2µ2v2 mA

= ρχ 2µ2mχ Z Emax dσ dE f(v, t) v d3v N = X

A

MA Z dt Z Eee,2

Eee,1

dEee ε(Eee) g(Eee, E) dR dE

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-28
SLIDE 28

The expected number of events

. ✓recoil rate ◆ = ✓particle physics ◆ × (astrophysics) . ✓detector response ◆ = ✓ energy response function ◆ × ✓ counting acceptance ◆ . . ✓number of events ◆ = (exposure) × ✓detector response ◆ ⊗ ✓recoil rate ◆ .

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-29
SLIDE 29

The expected number of events

. ✓recoil rate ◆ = ✓particle physics ◆ × (astrophysics) . ✓detector response ◆ = ✓ energy response function ◆ × ✓ counting acceptance ◆ . . ✓number of events ◆ = (exposure) × ✓detector response ◆ ⊗ ✓recoil rate ◆ .

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-30
SLIDE 30

The expected number of events

. ✓recoil rate ◆ = ✓particle physics ◆ × (astrophysics) . ✓detector response ◆ = ✓ energy response function ◆ × ✓ counting acceptance ◆ . . ✓number of events ◆ = (exposure) × ✓detector response ◆ ⊗ ✓recoil rate ◆ .

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Detector response model

. ✓ energy response function ◆ = g(Eee, E)

Energy observed in detector, typically expressed in keV electron equivalent (keVee) Recoil energy (keV)

Typically written as a single Gaussian with mean value Eee = Q E and standard deviation , but may be different. σE

Quenching factor

From measured energy to recoil energy

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Altman et al 1973 (Phys.Rev. B7, 1743)

Scintillation output

Channeled Not channeled

Monochromatic 16O beam through NaI(Tl) scintillator

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-33
SLIDE 33

From Gemmel 1974, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 129

  • Channeling. If an ion incident onto the crystal moves in the

direction of a symmetry axis or plane of the crystal, it has a series of small-angle scatterings which maintains it in the open

  • channel. The ion penetrates much further into the crystal than

in other directions.

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-34
SLIDE 34

From Gemmel 1974, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 129

  • Blocking. If an ion originating at a crystal lattice site moves in

the direction of a symmetry axis or plane of the crystal, there is a reduction in the flux of the ion when it exit the crystal, creating a “blocking dip”.

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Channeling in DAMA’s NaI(Tl) is much less than previously published

Bozorgnia, Gelmini, Gondolo 2010

Na, c = 1 I, c = 1 Na, c = 2 I, c = 2

1 10 100 1000 104 105 104 0.001 0.01 E keV Fraction

T293 K

Bernabei et al. 2008 Bozorgnia, Gelmini, Gondolo 2010

40% at 2 keV 0.4% at 2 keV

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Lin et al (TEXONO) 2007

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 10

  • 1

1 10 10

2

Compilation of measurements of the quenching factor Q in germanium

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Chagani et al 0806.1916

Compilation of measurements of the quenching factor Q in NaI(Tl)

Nuclear Recoil Energy [keVnr]

20 40 60 80 100

Quenching Factor [%]

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

This is where one can tweak to make DAMA and CoGeNT compatible.

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Compilation of measurements

  • f the light efficiency factor Leff

in liquid xenon

Aprile et al (XENON100), 1104.2549

Energy [keVnr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 Leff 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Energy [keVnr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 Leff 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Arneodo 2000 Bernabei 2001 Akimov 2002 Aprile 2005 Chepel 2006 Aprile 2009 Manzur 2010 Plante 2011

This is where most of the CoGeNT/XENON debate is.

Eee = S1/Ly(122keVee) Q = Leff(Snr/See)

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Quenching factor

Eee = Q E

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 10

  • 1

1 10 10

2

Lin et al (TEXONO) 2007

Energy [keVnr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 Leff 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Energy [keVnr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 Leff 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Arneodo 2000 Bernabei 2001 Akimov 2002 Aprile 2005 Chepel 2006 Aprile 2009 Manzur 2010 Plante 2011

Aprile et al (XENON100), 1104.2549

Bozorgnia et al 2010

This is where one can tweak to make experiments compatible.

Na, c = 1 I, c = 1 Na, c = 2 I, c = 2

1 10 100 1000 104 105 104 0.001 0.01 E keV Fraction

T293 K

0.4% at 2 keV

Channeling

Detector response model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-40
SLIDE 40

The expected number of events

. ✓recoil rate ◆ = ✓particle physics ◆ × (astrophysics) . ✓detector response ◆ = ✓ energy response function ◆ × ✓ counting acceptance ◆ . . ✓number of events ◆ = (exposure) × ✓detector response ◆ ⊗ ✓recoil rate ◆ .

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Astrophysics model

. (astrophysics) = ⇢ Z

v>vmin(E)

f(~ v, t) v d3v

Local halo density Velocity distribution Minimum speed to impart energy E, vmin(E) = (ME/µ + δ)/

√ 2ME

How much dark matter comes to Earth?

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Galactic density profile from Aquarius simulations W A R N I N G : N O B A R Y O N S ! ! ! !

Astrophysics model: local density

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Astrophysics model: local density

ρ = ✓ 0.430 ± 0.113(α) ± 0.096(rD) ◆GeV cm3 .

Salucci et al 2010

v0=230 km ês, R0=8.0 kpc NFW, rs=20 kpc model 5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

r0 @GeVêcm 3D a v0=230 km ês, R0=8.0 kpc Einasto, rs=20 kpc model 5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

r0 @GeVêcm 3D a

Iocco, Pato, Bertone, Jetzer 2010

ρ0 = 0.20 0.55 GeV/cm3

Ullio, Catena 2009

a ρDM(R0) = 0.385±0.027 GeV cm−3

Local density from galactic modeling

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-44
SLIDE 44

The velocity factor .⌘(E, t) = Z

v>vmin(E)

f(~ v, t) v d3v

  • If is non-truncated Maxwellian in detector frame,

is exponential in

η(E, t)

f(E, t) E

  • depends on time (unless WIMPs move with detector)

η(E, t)

Drukier, Freese, Spergel 1986

η(E, t) =η0(E)+ ηm(E) cos ω(t − t0)

Example: annual modulation

Astrophysics model: velocity distribution

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-45
SLIDE 45

! !

6'#$7*))*&'$8+,4*2)#59$&'#$/*))*&'$281("&1,5

!"#$%#&'(#$))

:;;$<82

=;$<82

>#'5*4? @"+5#$38+2#$>#'5*4?

A9;B=9A;C9CDC$8+,4*2)#5

>*#/+'I9$N1")#'9$O+I+19$P#/89$O&&,#9$@&44#,9$Q$34+I#) R%+41,#9$=D=9$CSD9$T1.M$C4"$J;;:U

Astrophysics model: velocity distribution

W A R N I N G : N O B A R Y O N S ! ! ! !

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Inclusion of baryonic disk may lead to a dark disk

Astrophysics model: velocity distribution

Read, Lake, Agertz, De Battista 2008

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Ling 2009

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

w @kmêsD f HwL H¥ 10-3L

Standard Maxwellian Slowly-rotating Tsallis dark halo+disk (1:1 Maxwellian) dark halo+disk (1:1 Tsallis) dark halo +disk (3:1 Tsallis)

Astrophysics model: velocity distribution

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Ling 2009

Astrophysics model: velocity distribution

rH = 0.3 GeVêcm3 v0 H = 220 kmês vesc = 600 kmês 101 102 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39

MDM @GeVD sn

0 @cm2D

XENON10 CDMS-Si CDMS-Ge

qH = 0.7 rH = 0.4 GeVêcm3 v0 H = 290 kmês vH = 35 kmês 101 102 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39

MDM @GeVD sn

0 @cm2D

XENON10 CDMS-Si CDMS-Ge

Standard Co-rotating Tsallis

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Astrophysics model

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

w @kmêsD f HwL H¥ 10-3L

Standard Maxwellian dark halo+disk (1:1 Maxwellian) dark halo+disk (1:1 Tsallis) dark halo +disk (3:1 Tsallis)

Ling 2009

! !

6'#$7*))*&'$8+,4*2)#59$&'#$/*))*&'$281("&1,5

!"#$%#&'(#$))

:;;$<82 =;$<82 >#'5*4? @"+5#$38+2#$>#'5*4?

A9;B=9A;C9CDC$8+,4*2)#5

>*#/+'I9$N1")#'9$O+I+19$P#/89$O&&,#9$@&44#,9$Q$34+I#) R%+41,#9$=D=9$CSD9$T1.M$C4"$J;;:U

WARNING: NO BARYONS!!!!

N-body simulations

Read et al 2008

Slowly-rotating Tsallis

Analytic models

Kuhlen et al

Dark disk

The local density may be “known” within a factor of 2, but the velocity distribution is still an open question

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Astrophysics-independent approach

Á Á Á Á Ï Ï Ï Ï 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

  • 0.01

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 E @keVeeD countsêdayêkgêkeVee

CoGeNT to DAMA with Q= 0.3, mc= 7 GeV

Fox, Kopp, Lisanti, Weiner 2011

10−28 10−27 10−26 10−25 10−24 200 400 600 800 ∆˜ g(vmin) ⇥ day−1⇤ vmin ⇥ km s−1⇤ mχ = 9 GeV

XENON100 XENON10-S2 XENON10 CDMS Ge CDMS Si SUF CDMS Ge low SIMPLE CRESST-II CoGeNT DAMA

⇥ ⇤

Frandsen et al 2011

200 400 600 800 1000 10-28 10-27 10-26 10-25 10-24 10-23 10-22 v @kmêsD r sp mc gHvL @day-1D mc = 10 GeV

Fox, Liu, Weiner 2011

Astrophysics factor

ρχσχpc2 mχ Z 1

v

f(v0) v0 dv0

CoGeNT CDMS-Si CDMS-Ge XENON10 XENON10-MED

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Astrophysics-independent approach

Gondolo Gelmini 1202.6359

Still depends on particle model

Analysis extends Fox, Liu, Weiner method to include energy response function

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-52
SLIDE 52

The expected number of events

. ✓recoil rate ◆ = ✓particle physics ◆ × (astrophysics) . ✓detector response ◆ = ✓ energy response function ◆ × ✓ counting acceptance ◆ . . ✓number of events ◆ = (exposure) × ✓detector response ◆ ⊗ ✓recoil rate ◆ .

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Particle physics model

. ✓particle physics ◆ = σSI(E) + σSD(E) 2mµ2

Spin-independent and spin-dependent cross sections Reduced mass µ = mM/(m + M)

What force couples dark matter to nuclei?

σ(E) = Emax dσ dE = 2µ2v2 m dσ dE

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Particle physics model

  • Supersymmetry
  • Extra U(1) bosons
  • Extended Higgs sector
  • Effective operator approach

Exchange scalar, vector, pseudovector, ..... ?

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-55
SLIDE 55

χ χ

p p 2fp

χ χ

2fn n n

Effective four- particle vertices

Scalar and vector currents give spin-independent terms

2fp ≃ 2fn ≃

  • q

¯ qq  −

  • h

ghχχghqq m2

h

+

  • ˜

q

gL˜

qχqgR˜ qχq

m2

˜ q

 

Example: neutralino

Main uncertainty is ms¯ ss (strange content of nucleon)

σSI(E) = 4µ2 π

  • Zfp + (A − Z)fn
  • 2
  • F(E)
  • 2

Nuclear density form factor

Particle physics model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Effective four- particle vertices

Axial and tensor currents give spin-dependent terms

Nuclear spin structure functions

σSD(E) = 32µ2G2

F

2J + 1 ⇥ a2

pSpp(q) + apanSpn(q) + a2 nSnn(q)

⇤ .

χ χ p p

2 √ 2GF ap σp· σχ

χ χ n n

2 √ 2GF an σn· σχ

Example: neutralino

2 √ 2GF ap =

  • q

∆q  gZχχgZqq m2

Z

+

  • ˜

q

g2

L˜ qχq + g2 R˜ qχq

m2

˜ q

 

Main uncertainty is nuclear spin structure functions S(q)

Particle physics model

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-57
SLIDE 57

What particle model for light WIMPs?

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-58
SLIDE 58

What particle model for light WIMPs?

  • It should have the cosmic cold dark matter density
  • It should be stable or very long-lived (≳1024 yr)
  • It should account for the CoGeNT and DAMA modulations
  • It should be compatible with collider, astrophysics, etc. bounds
  • Ideally, it would justify apparent incompatibilities between

direct detection experiments

  • Ideally, it would explain some excessive emissions possibly
  • bserved in Galactic gamma-ray and radio maps

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-59
SLIDE 59

A few particle models for light WIMPs*

Mo Models References

S U MSSM neutralino

Goldberg 1983; Griest 1988; Gelmini, Gondolo, Roulet 1989; Griest, Roszkowski 1991; Bottino et al 2002-11; Kuflik, Pierce, Zurek 2010; Feldman et al 2010; Cumberbatch et al 2011; Belli et al 2011; .....

U S Y beyond-MSSM neutralino Flores, Olive,

Thomas 1990; Gunion, Hooper, McElrath 2005; Belikov, Gunion, Hooper, Tait 2011; Belanger, Kraml, Lessa 1105.4878; ......

Y sneutrino

.....; An, Dev, Cai, Mohapatra 1110.1366; Cerdeno, Huh, Peiro, Seto 1108.0978; .....

mini (rea minimalist dark matter (real singlet scalar with Z2)

Silveira, Zee 1985; Veltman, Ydnurain 1989; McDonald 1994; Burgess, Pospelov, ter Veldhuis 2000; Davoudiasl, Kitano, Li, Murayama 2004; Andreas et al 2008-10; He, Tandean 1109.1267; .....

techni technicolor and alike

....; Lewis, Pica, Sannino 1109.3513; .....

kineti (Hig kinetically-mixed U(1)’ (Higgs portal)

.....; Foot 2003-10; Kaplan et al 1105.2073; An, Gao 1108.3943; Fornengo, Panci, Regis 1108.4661; Andreas, Goodsell, Ringwald 1109.2869; Andreas 1110.2636; Feldman, Perez, Nath 1109.2901; ......

bary baryonic U(1)’

Gondolo, Ko, Omura ; Cline, Frey 1109.4639; ......

........................ ........................

.............................

* 1-10 GeV WIMP; very incomplete references.

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Phenomenological approach

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-61
SLIDE 61

For example, for a ~4 GeV/c2 dark matter neutrino, the scattering cross section is

σνn ' 0.01hσvi c ' 10−38 cm2

Break the annihilation/scattering relation

Crossing Annihilation ν¯

ν → q¯ q

Scattering νq → νq

Z

ν ¯ ν ¯ q q

Z

ν ν q q

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-62
SLIDE 62

2 4 6 8 10 100 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 WIMP mass (GeV/c2) WIMP−nucleon cross section (cm2)

DAMA

CDMS shallow-site

X

DAMA

CoGeNT /DAMA

Akerib et al (CDMS) 2010

4-GeV neutrino

Crossing Annihilation ν¯

ν → q¯ q

Scattering νq → νq

Z

ν ¯ ν ¯ q q

Z

ν ν q q

Break the annihilation/scattering relation

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-63
SLIDE 63

Crossing Annihilation ν¯

ν → q¯ q

Scattering νq → νq

Z

ν ¯ ν ¯ q q

Z

ν ν q q

Resonant when mν ≈ mZ/2

σνn ' 0.02 1 + mn/mν ✓ 1 4m2

ν

m2

Z

◆2 hσvi c

σνn would perhaps match DAMA/CoGeNT if mZ were ≈ 2mν Try a new particle χ and a new vector boson Z’

Break the annihilation/scattering relation

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Gondolo, Ko, Omura 2011

CoGeNT DAMA mZ'=12GeVêc2 20GeVêc2 1 5 G e V ê c

2

XENON10 C R E S S T XENON10 U decay width

HaL CDM fermion 4 6 8 10 12

  • 42
  • 40
  • 38
  • 36
  • 34

mX @GeVêc2D log10sXp @cm2D

CoGeNT DAMA mZ'=12GeVêc2 20GeVêc2 150GeVêc2 XENON10 C R E S S T XENON10 U decay width

HbL CDM scalar 4 6 8 10 12

  • 42
  • 40
  • 38
  • 36
  • 34

mX @GeVêc2D log10sXp @cm2D

DAMAêCoGeNT

CDM fermion CDM scalar

5 10 15 20 25 30 1 2 3 4 5 mZ' @GeVêc2D a' @10-5D

  • An extra U(1) gauge boson Z’

coupled to quarks but no leptons, with no significant kinetic mixing

  • Works for mZ’~10-20 GeV and

α’~10-5

Break the annihilation/scattering relation

Example: Leptophobic Z’

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Emax = 2µ2v2 mA

dR dE = 1 mA ρχ mχ Z dσ dE v f(v) d3v

dR dE = ρχ 2µ2mχ Z Emax dσ dE f(v) v d3v The recoil spectrum (scattering rate per unit target mass)

Recoil energy

Modify the scattering cross section

Traditionally, Emax dσ/dE = const × (nuclear form factor), with the same coupling to protons and neutrons (spin-independent case)

WIMP velocity distribution Differential scattering cross section WIMP density

Put additional velocity or energy dependence in Emax dσ/dE Set different couplings to neutrons and protons (“isospin-violating”)

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Modify the scattering cross section

nucleus DM

Emax dσ

max dσ/dE

nucleus DM

light mediator heavy mediator

“charge” “charge” 1/E2 1/M4 “charge” dipole 1/E E/M4 dipole dipole const + E/v2 E2/M4

See e.g. Barger, Keung, Marfatia 2010; Fornengo, Panci, Regis 2011; An et al 2011

All terms may be multiplied by nuclear or DM form factors F(E)

Energy and/or velocity dependent scattering cross sections

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Modify the scattering cross section

10 102 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39 10-38 Dark Matter mass mc @GeVD Total Cross Section sfg

p @cm2D

Triaxial Halo Point-like Hmf = 1 GeVL CoG Mod H1sL CRESST H4s,5sL DAMA ChF H7s,8sL

Fornengo, Panci, Regis 2011

Example: a 1 GeV mediator can bring CoGeNT, DAMA, and CRESST together

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-68
SLIDE 68

Kurylov, Kamionkowksi 2003; Giuliani 2005; Cotta et al 2009; Chang et al 2010; Kang et al 2010; Feng et al 2011; Del Nobile et al 2011; ..... Kurylov, Kamionkowski 2003

10−2 10−1 100 101 102 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100

σχ p

SI (pb)

σχ n

SD (pb)

fn/fp = −0.76 mχ = 50GeV

DAMA mod. ZEPLIN-1 DAMA/Xe

(GeV)

X

m

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

(pb)

p

σ

  • 5

10

  • 4

10

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10

Feng, Kumar, Marfatia, Sanford 2011

Spin-independent couplings to protons stronger than to neutrons allow modulation signals compatible with other null searches

fn/fp=-0.71

Isospin-violating dark matter

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-69
SLIDE 69

Chart of the Nuclides Z N Z/N=1 Z / N = . 7

Ge Na Cs Xe I Ca Si O W

Nfn + Zfp ≈ 0 fn/fp ≈ −Z/N coupling for Why fn/fp =-0.7 suppresses the coupling to Xe

Spin-independent couplings to protons stronger than to neutrons allow modulation signals compatible with other null searches

Kurylov, Kamionkowksi 2003; Giuliani 2005; Cotta et al 2009; Chang et al 2010; Kang et al 2010; Feng et al 2011; Del Nobile et al 2011; .....

Isospin-violating dark matter

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-70
SLIDE 70

Spin-independent couplings to protons stronger than to neutrons allow modulation signals compatible with other null searches

Isospin-violating dark matter

Gondolo Gelmini 1202.6359

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-71
SLIDE 71

Isospin-violating dark matter

Models with fn/fp =-0.7 are possible through e.g. interference of two Higgs boson mediators, but require a new physics scale of 1-20 GeV............ Compositeness? Mirror baryons?

Spin-independent couplings to protons stronger than to neutrons allow modulation signals compatible with other null searches

Kurylov, Kamionkowksi 2003; Giuliani 2005; Cotta et al 2009; Chang et al 2010; Kang et al 2010; Feng et al 2011; Del Nobile et al 2011; ..... Del Nobile et al 2011

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-72
SLIDE 72

Light neutralinos

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-73
SLIDE 73

Light neutralinos

Bottino, Donato, Fornengo, Scopel 2003-2011

~10 GeV neutralinos may account for DAMA, CoGeNT, and CRESST

Non-GUT MSSM

Fornengo at TAUP 2011

DAMA CoGeNT

CMS CMS: Baglio, Djouadi arVix:1103.6247 LEP Higgs

mχ<10GeV

Belli et al 1106.4667

CoGeNT DAMA

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-74
SLIDE 74

Light neutralinos

Bottino, Donato, Fornengo, Scopel 2003-2011

Non-GUT MSSM

compatible with CMS

DAMA, Q=const DAMA, Q(E) CRESST

DAMA CoGeNT

CMS CMS: Baglio, Djouadi arVix:1103.6247 LEP Higgs

mχ<10GeV

CMS (h→τ+τ-)

Bottino et al 1112.5666

~10 GeV neutralinos may account for DAMA, CoGeNT, and CRESST

X

Fornengo at TAUP 2011

negative LHC Higgs searches impose mχ >18 GeV

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-75
SLIDE 75

Light neutralinos

Arbey, Battaglia, Mahmoudi 1205.2557

pMSSM Light neutralinos seem possible in the pMSSM with 19 free parameters

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-76
SLIDE 76

Minimalist dark matter

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-77
SLIDE 77

Minimalist dark matter

Gauge singlet scalar field S, stabilized by Z2 symmetry

Silveira, Zee 1985

LS = 1 2∂µS∂µS − 1 2µ2

SS2 − λS

4 S4 − λLH†HS2

do not confuse with minimal dark matter

Andreas et al 2010

5 10 15 20 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39 mS HGeVL s0

n Hcm2L

CoGeNT DAMA (no chann.) DAMA (chann.) CDMS-Si X E N O N 1

CDMS 2 events

X E N O N 1 Minimalist dark matter

5 10 50 100 1.00 0.50 5.00 0.10 0.05 5 10 50 100 1048 1046 1044 1042 1040 1038

mD GeV

Σel cm2

XENON10 XENON100 CDMS CoGeNT

CRESST CRESST

115 GeV 150 GeV 200 GeV 450 GeV

b

He, Tandean 2011

Higgs mass

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-78
SLIDE 78

Minimalist dark matter

do not confuse with minimal dark matter

5 10 50 100 1.00 0.50 5.00 0.10 0.05 5 10 50 100 1048 1046 1044 1042 1040 1038

mD GeV

Σel cm2

XENON10 XENON100 CDMS CoGeNT

CRESST CRESST

115 GeV 150 GeV 200 GeV 450 GeV

b

For DM, let Higgs mass > 115 GeV

Constraints from the LHC: none

He, Tandean 2011

5 10 20 50 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

mD GeV

hDD

115 GeV 150 GeV 200 GeV 450 GeV

a SM3D

For Higgs mass < 150 GeV, Higgs is 99.2% invisible

A Higgs mass of 125 GeV works!

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Minimalist dark matter

Arina, Tytgat 2010

Constraints from diffuse Galactic gamma-rays

5 10 15 20 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39 mS HGeVL s0

n Hcm2L

CoGeNT

NFW rs(M)

Mmin=10-8M⦿ Mmin=10-6M⦿ M

m i n

= 1

  • 4

M

⦿

10-2 10-1 1 10 102 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 E HGeVL E2 dfgêdEDW HGeV cm-2s-1sr-1L

Fermi-LAT EGRET

do not confuse with minimal dark matter

Very sensitive to unknown properties of small dark subhalos

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-80
SLIDE 80

A few models of light dark matter*

Mo Models References

S U MSSM neutralino

.....; Griest 1988; Gelmini, Gondolo, Roulet 1989; Griest, Roszkowski 1991; Bottino et al 2002-11; Kuflik, Pierce, Zurek 2010; Feldman, Liu, Nath 2010; Cumberbatch et al 2011; Belli et al 2011; .....

U S Y beyond-MSSM neutralino Flores, Olive,

Thomas 1990; Gunion, Hooper, McElrath 2005; Belikov, Gunion, Hooper, Tait 2011; Belanger, Kraml, Lessa 1105.4878; ......

Y sneutrino

.....; An, Dev, Cai, Mohapatra 1110.1366; Cerdeno, Huh, Peiro, Seto 1108.0978; .....

mini (SM minimalist dark matter (SM + real singlet scalar)

Veltman, Ydnurain 1989; Silveira, Zee 1985; McDonald 1994; Burgess, Pospelov, ter Veldhuis 2000; Davoudiasl, Kitano, Li, Murayama 2004; Andreas et al 2008-10; He, Tandean 1109.1267; .....

techni technicolor and alike

....; Lewis, Pica, Sannino 1109.3513; .....

kineti kinetically-mixed U(1)’

.....; Foot 2003-10; Kaplan et al 1105.2073; An, Gao 1108.3943; Fornengo, Panci, Regis 1108.4661; Andreas, Goodsell, Ringwald 1109.2869; Andreas 1110.2636; Feldman, Perez, Nath 1109.2901; ......

bary baryonic U(1)’

Gondolo, Ko, Omura; Cline, Frey 1109.4639; ......

dyna dynamical DM

Dienes, Thomas 1106.4546, 1107.0721

* 1-10 GeV WIMP; very incomplete references.

Friday, June 8, 12

slide-81
SLIDE 81

A few models of light dark matter*

Mo Models References

S U MSSM neutralino

.....; Griest 1988; Gelmini, Gondolo, Roulet 1989; Griest, Roszkowski 1991; Bottino et al 2002-11; Kuflik, Pierce, Zurek 2010; Feldman, Liu, Nath 2010; Cumberbatch et al 2011; Belli et al 2011; .....

U S Y beyond-MSSM neutralino Flores, Olive,

Thomas 1990; Gunion, Hooper, McElrath 2005; Belikov, Gunion, Hooper, Tait 2011; Belanger, Kraml, Lessa 1105.4878; ......

Y sneutrino

.....; An, Dev, Cai, Mohapatra 1110.1366; Cerdeno, Huh, Peiro, Seto 1108.0978; .....

mini (SM minimalist dark matter (SM + real singlet scalar)

Veltman, Ydnurain 1989; Silveira, Zee 1985; McDonald 1994; Burgess, Pospelov, ter Veldhuis 2000; Davoudiasl, Kitano, Li, Murayama 2004; Andreas et al 2008-10; He, Tandean 1109.1267; .....

techni technicolor and alike

....; Lewis, Pica, Sannino 1109.3513; .....

kineti kinetically-mixed U(1)’

.....; Foot 2003-10; Kaplan et al 1105.2073; An, Gao 1108.3943; Fornengo, Panci, Regis 1108.4661; Andreas, Goodsell, Ringwald 1109.2869; Andreas 1110.2636; Feldman, Perez, Nath 1109.2901; ......

bary baryonic U(1)’

Gondolo, Ko, Omura; Cline, Frey 1109.4639; ......

dyna dynamical DM

Dienes, Thomas 1106.4546, 1107.0721

* 1-10 GeV WIMP; very incomplete references.

So many theoretical models!

M y s u g g e s t i

  • n

: p a y t h e

  • r

i s t s m

  • r

e , s

  • t

h e y d

  • n
  • t

n e e d t

  • w
  • r

k s

  • m

u c h .

Friday, June 8, 12