Overview of dark matter candidates Chang Sub Shin (APCTP) 2 nd - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Overview of dark matter candidates

Chang Sub Shin (APCTP)

2nd KR-LHC TH-EXP Cross Seminar At SNU, May. 26, 2017

Dark matter paradigm

Dark matter paradigm

Existence of dark matter

kpc

Mpc

Gpc

scales Evidences

Galaxy rotation curves Weak lensing, Bullet clusters Large scale structure, CMB

New Physics beyond the Standard Model Gravitational interacting, Stable, Charge neutral, Non-baryonic, 23-25% of total energy, Non dissipative, Cold

pDM = wρDM, w ' 0 (

Existence of cold dark matter ?

kpc

Mpc

Gpc

scales Evidences

Galaxy rotation curves Weak lensing, Bullet clusters Large scale structure, CMB

missing satellite, too big to fail, cusp-core problems

10−3 10−2 10−1 100

k [Mpc−1]

101 102 103 104 105

P(k,z=0) [Mpc3]

SDSS DR7 (Reid et al. 2010) LyA (McDonald et al. 2006) ACT CMB Lensing (Das et al. 2011) ACT Clusters (Sehgal et al. 2011) CCCP II (Vikhlinin et al. 2009) BCG Weak lensing (Tinker et al. 2011) ACT+WMAP spectrum (this work)

= 2π/λ

Cold DM Warm DM

Gravitational interacting, Stable, Charge neutral, Non-baryonic, 23-25% of total energy, Non dissipative, Cold (depending on tie tjme of Horizon entsy)

pDM = wρDM, w ' 0 ( λ = 1/H(tentry) (

Missing satellite, too big to fail problems

0.9"

100 kpc/h

A rich galaxy cluster halo Springel et al 2001 A 'Milky Way' halo Power et al 2002

Moore et al 1999

Klypin et al. 1999

Observed simulated

A quantitative comparison of # satellites at r < 400 kpc. Number `MW’ 108 109 1010 1011 1012

Satellite Luminosity function

• bserved

simulated

Reflected, and select most massive satellites of MW Resolution: baryonic feedback processes (which suppress the star formation) is most efficient in low mass (luminosity) satellites.

Missing satellite, too big to fail problems

Satellite Luminosity function

• bserved

simulated

Most massive satellites of MW

Predicted most luminous satellite galaxies are too massive (not

• bserved) to fail star formations

[Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, Kaplinghat 1111.2048]

Cusp-core problem

ρNFW(r) = ρ0

r rs(1 + r rs)2

[1011.2777]

Cusp-core problem (diversity of rotation curves)

ρNFW(r) = ρ0

r rs(1 + r rs)2

Oman et al. (2015)

Al the

[1504.01437]

Existence of WIMP dark matter ?

kpc

Mpc

Gpc

scales Evidences

Galaxy rotation curves Weak lensing, Bullet clusters Large scale structure, CMB

No clear evidence yet

DM DM SM SM Annihilation Elastic scattering

Nature of the dark matter ?

Is DM a particle? spin, mass, compositions ? Why is it stable? gauge/global, continuous/discrete symmetries ? What are the interactions between DM and the SM particles besides gravity (like strong/weak interactions) ? What is the production mechanism of DMs at the early Universe ? Why 25% of total mass of the present Universe ? How can we detect it at sub kpc scales (at the earth) ? What are the additional predictions ? solving several small scale problems

kpc

Mpc

Gpc

scales

Galaxy rotation curves Weak lensing, Bullet clusters Large scale structure, CMB

Evidences

Nature of the dark matter ?

kpc

Mpc

Gpc

scales

Galaxy rotation curves Weak lensing, Bullet clusters Large scale structure, CMB

10-5 eV 100 GeV 1057 GeV = Msun = 1033 g DM mass

Candidates

QCD Axion Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) Primordial Black Hole (PBH)

10-22 eV

Fuzzy DM (FDM)

(observation)

¯ ρDM = mDM¯ nDM ' 0.25¯ ρtot = 1.2 ⇥ 10−6 GeV/cm3

Warm Dark Matters (WDM)

keV

Strongly Interacting Massive Particle (SIMP) Asymmetric Dark Matter (ADM) Evolutions of each DMs are different, and give (possibly) different predictions for small scales

Evidences

Coincidence ?

• WIMP
• QCD Axion
• SIMP
• Asymmetric DM
• Relativistic freeze-out DM
• Fuzzy DM

ΩDM = 0.25αa ✓ fa 1010 GeV ◆7/6

fa ⇠ p mweakMPl αa = 0.01 1

ΩDM = (4 5)Ωbaryon F ⇠ MGUT MPl

ΩDM = 0.25 ✓3 ⇥ 10−26cm3/ sec hσannvifr ◆

hσannvifr ' 1 8π g4 m2

weak

(g ⇠ 0.1)

p hσ3→2v2ifr ' 1 m5

DM

mDM ⇠ mπ

ΩDM = 230 g∗(Tdec) ⇣ mDM 2 keV ⌘

p ΩDM = 0.25 ✓ F 1017 GeV ◆2 ⇣ mDM 10−22 eV ⌘1/2 mWDM ⇠ O(keV)

ΩDM = 0.25 ✓50 MeV mDM ◆ ✓3 ⇥ 10−52 cm6/ sec hσ3→2v2ifr ◆1/2

ΩDM ' 0.25

⇠

• ΩDM = O(Ωbaryon)

WIMP

WIMP direct detection

[1705.06655]

WIMP direct detection

CMSSM PMSSM

O 10−10pb = 10−46cm2

[Mahmoudi, Arbey 1411.2128]

WIMP indirect detection

101 102 103 104 mχ [GeV] 1027 1026 1025 1024 1023 1022 hσvi [cm3 s1] b¯ b

Daylan+ (2014) Gordon & Macias (2013) Calore+ (2014) Abazajian+ (2014) MW Halo: Ackermann+ (2013) MW Center: Gomez-Vargas+ (2013) dSphs: Ackermann+ (2015)

• Unid. Sat.: Bertoni+ (2015)

Virgo: Ackermann+ (2015) Isotropic: Ajello+ (2015) X-Correl.: Cuoco+ (2015) APS: Gomez-Vargas+ (2013)

Thermal Relic Cross Section (Steigman+ 2012)

[Fermi-LAT 1605.02016]

WIMP paradigm

W(Z) portal, Higgs portal, Z’ portal Letpo-philic, flavor-isospin dependent, s-(p-,d-) wave annihilation, spin (in)dependent (in)elastic scattering, General effective

• perators

SM wimp wimp SM

Stjlm WIMP paradigm

SM wimp wimp SM

W(Z) portal, Higgs portal, Z’ portal Letpo-philic, flavor-isospin dependent, s-(p-,d-) wave annihilation, spin (in)dependent (in)elastic scattering, General effective

• perators

DR DR

Ex) RH sneutrinos (WIMP) with RH neutrinos (DR) in U(1)B-L conserving SUSY Dirac leptogenesis model [Choi, Chun, CSS 1211.5409]

Stjlm WIMP paradigm

wimp wimp DR SM DR DR

New constraints/predictions from cosmology New signatures for the indirect detection of DM

DR contributes to Neff

DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR

Free streaming Fluid

Neff = N SM

eff

+ Nfluid = 3 Nfluid = 0

[Bell, Pierpaoli, Sigurdson astro-ph/0511410]

Finite DR mass (~eV) : Hot DM

DR DR

DRs : relativistic during RD ( T > eV), non-relativistic after matter- radiation equality (T < eV), and they contribute to the total dark matter density at present. For scales that enter the horizon before matter- radiation eq, HDM perturbations are suppressed à suppression of matter power spectrum

δρDM ρDM ' δρwimp ρwimp + ρHDM < δρwimp ρwimp

wimp DR DR

Growing perturbation by self gravity

DR-WIMP interactions

Sizable interactions between DR and DM give dark acoustic oscillation (DAO) ( ) or the drag effect ( ) for the evolution of matter perturbations

Growing perturbation by self gravity

wimp DR DR DR

10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101

k [h/Mpc]

−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1

P(k) / P(k) [ΛCDM] − 1

DR DR

tuning Γ(T) ' H(T) for T & Teq

dragging

Γ H ! Γ < H Γ ⇠ H

Unbroken hidden SU(N) [Lesgourgues, Marques-Tavares, Schmaltz 1507.04351] Unbroken hidden U(1) [Ko, Tang 1608.01083] ….

Metastable DR (m > MeV): messenger

WIMP DM Annihilation at the galaxy center can generate (partial) directional cosmic ray signals.

“Transporting” (effectively) DM at the GC to the vicinity of the Earth via a “proxy” ψ

2𝜓ℎ → 2𝜔 & 𝜔 → 𝑓+𝑓−𝜓𝑚 + …

𝜓ℎ: heavier DM, dominant relic, no direct coupling to SM 𝜔 : heavy “meta”-stable dark sector state 𝜓𝑚: lighter DM, subdominant relic, direct coupling to SM

• D. Kim, JCP & S. Shin [1702.02944]

8.5 kpc 𝑓+ Transporting via 𝜔 𝜔

Retarded decay Transporting

DM density DM clump @ GC

[JC Park’s slide at Pheno 17]

Axion-like DM (QCD axion, Fuzzy DM)

(ultra) light pseudo scalar fields

• Very light compared to the background temperature
• Still can be cold dark matter by “coherent oscillation”
• Cosmologically stable

ma ⌧ eV ma = Λ2 F pDM = wρDM, w ' cos 2mat t hwit = 0 for ma H(t) ⇣ ⌘ L = 1 2F 2(∂µθ)2 Λ4 (1 cos θ) ( θini τa ' (m3

a/F 2)−1 = (F/1010 GeV)2(10−4 eV/ma)3 1027 years

(∂µθ)Jµ

5 , θF ˜

F, · · · θ(t, x) ' θini cos(mat)R(t)−3/2 for ma & H(t) ( a(x) ⌘ Fθ(x)

QCD axion

• Solution to the strong CP problem (it is also the origin of the axion mass)
• The axion DMs (around the earth) can be converted to photons in

strong magnetic fields

g2

s

32π2 θGa ˜ Ga with hθi = 0 ) Λ ⇠ ΛQCD ⇠ 100 MeV ma ' 10−5 eV ✓1011 GeV F ◆ ' (2cm)−1 ✓1011 GeV F ◆ Cγe2 16π2 a F E · B ΩDM ' 0.25

• hθ2
• iniiosc. + αdec.

✓ F 1012 GeV ◆7/6

|θobs| < 10−10

microwave

QCD axion

ma ' 10−5 eV ✓1011 GeV F ◆ ' (2cm)−1 ✓1011 GeV F ◆ Cγe2 16π2 a F E · B ΩDM ' 0.25

• hθ2
• iniiosc. + αdec.

✓ F 1012 GeV ◆7/6

10-10 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10 100 1000 1 10 100 Axion Coupling |gaγγ | (GeV-1) Axion Mass (µeV) ADMX Achieved and Projected Sensitivity Cavity Frequency (GHz)

" H a d r

• n

i c " C

• u

p l i n g M i n i m u m C

• u

p l i n g

Axion Cold Dark Matter

ADMX Published Limits ADMX Upgrade in Progress Target Sensitivity ADMX HF R&D A D M X N e x t G e n e r a t i

• n

T a r g e t

Non RF-cavity Techniques

Too Much Dark Matter White Dwarf and Supernova Bounds

QCD axion

• For the axion DM, the energy density is related with a oscillating
• The amplitude at present time is independent of F :
• For a larger F (a lower mass) the oscillation period becomes longer :
• scillating CP violating effects (oscillating EDM of nucleus):

θ(t) ( F = MPl (ma = 10−12 eV = (10−3 sec)−1) t) = θ0 cos mat

ρDM|0 = mana|0 = 1 2m2

aF 2θ2 0 ⇠ Λ4 QCDθ2

) = θ0 θ0|Earth ⇠ 10−38 g2

s

32π2 θGa ˜ Ga with hθi = 10−38 cos mat θini

QCD axion

• For the axion DM, the energy density is related with a oscillating
• The present amplitude is independent of F :
• For a large F (low mass) the oscillation period is long :
• scillating CP violating effects (oscillating EDM of nucleus):

θ(t) ( F = MPl (ma = 10−12 eV = (10−3 sec)−1) t) = θ0 cos mat

ρDM|0 = mana|0 = 1 2m2

aF 2θ2 0 ⇠ Λ4 QCDθ2

) = θ0 θ0|Earth ⇠ 10−38 g2

s

32π2 θGa ˜ Ga with hθi = 10−38 cos mat

SQUID pickup loop

• Bext
• E∗
• d
• µ

Larmor frequency = axion mass ➔ resonant enhancement SQUID measures resulting transverse magnetization

• Bext
• E∗
• d
• µ

Larmor frequency = axion mass ➔ resonant enhancement

Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr)

NMR techniques + high precision magnetometry

[P. Graham’s slide at Pheno 17]

QCD axion

• For the axion DM, the energy density is related with a oscillating
• The present amplitude is independent of F :
• For a large F (low mass) the oscillation period is long :
• scillating CP violating effects (oscillating EDM of nucleus):

θ(t) ( F = MPl (ma = 10−12 eV = (10−3 sec)−1) t) = θ0 cos mat

ρDM|0 = mana|0 = 1 2m2

aF 2θ2 0 ⇠ Λ4 QCDθ2

) = θ0 θ0|Earth ⇠ 10−38 g2

s

32π2 θGa ˜ Ga with hθi = 10−38 cos mat

[P. Graham’s slide at Pheno 17]

ADMX QCD Axion SN 1987A Static EDM ALP DM 1014 1012 1010 108 106 104 102 100 1020 1015 1010 105 102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 mass eV gd GeV2 frequency Hz

dN = − i 2gd a ¯ Nσµνγ5NF µν

CASPEr Sensitivity

phase 2 phase 1 magnetization noise

Fuzzy DM (ultra-light pseudoscalar DM)

• No contribution from the SM sector
• Non-perturbative corrections, can give various

ranges of mass (e.g. )

• For the ultra-light coherent oscillating DM with
• For lower masses, DM is more wave-like :

⇣ ⌘ L = 1 2F 2(∂µθ)2 Λ4 (1 cos θ) ( Λ4 = M 2

Plm2e−Sinst.

Λ ⌧ ΛQCD or Λ ΛQCD

ρ, v

˙ ρ + 3Hρ + 1 Rr · (ρv) = 0 ˙ v + Hv + 1 R(v · r)v = 1 RrΦ + ~2 2R3m2

a

r ⇣r2pρ pρ ⌘

Quantum pressure

λde Broglie = h mav0 ⇠ ✓10−22 eV ma ◆ ✓10−3c v0 ◆ = 0.4kpc

[Hu, Barkana, Cruzinov astro-ph/0003365] [Hui, Ostriker, Tremaine, Witten 1610.0829]

Fuzzy DM (ultra-light pseudoscalar DM)

• The qauntum pressure prevents to make a cusp in the DM halo below

the de Broglie length scale of the FDM, à Resolve the cusp-core, (too big to fail) problem

• This also address the “missing satellite problem”

Quantum pressure

λde Broglie

gravitational force gravitational force

DM mass density

(λde Broglie)obs. . kpc

λde Broglie

Suppress the growth of sub Mpc scales density perturbation like WDM

˙ ρ + 3Hρ + 1 Rr · (ρv) = 0 ˙ v + Hv + 1 R(v · r)v = 1 RrΦ + ~2 2R3m2

a

r ⇣r2pρ pρ ⌘ λde Broglie = h mav0 ⇠ ✓10−22 eV ma ◆ ✓10−3c v0 ◆ = 0.4kpc

kcut = 4.5Mpc−1(ma/10−22 eV)4/9

Self Interacting DM (SIDM)

Self interactions ( )

Dark matter self interactions could be in thermal equilibrium around the center of the galaxies : Solving Cusp-core, too big to fail problem σ/mX ~ 1 cm2/g NFW SIDM

MW-sized halo σ/mX =2 cm2/g

NFW SIDM

DM Heat

Isothermal distribution

Γ = σnDMv = (0.1τUniv.)−1 ✓ σ/mDM 1cm2/gram ◆ ✓ ρDM 0.3GeV/cm3 ◆ ⇣ v 10−3c ⌘

' (50 MeV)−3 ◆ ✓ 0.3GeV/cm3

thermalized

Γ & H0

SIMP DM with m=50 MeV WIMP DM with MeV mediator

' (0.5MeV)−2(TeV)−1

age of the Universe [Spergel, Steinhardt astro-ph/9909386]

Velocity dependence

Hints and constraints on the self interactions

Positive observations σ/m vrel Observation Refs. Cores in spiral galaxies & 1 cm2/g 30 − 200 km/s Rotation curves [64, 80] (dwarf/LSB galaxies) Too-big-to-fail problem Milky Way & 0.6 cm2/g 50 km/s Stellar dispersion [74] Local Group & 0.5 cm2/g 50 km/s Stellar dispersion [75] Cores in clusters ∼ 0.1 cm2/g 1500 km/s Stellar dispersion, lensing [80, 90] Abell 3827 subhalo merger ∼ 1.5 cm2/g 1500 km/s DM-galaxy offset [91] Abell 520 cluster merger ∼ 1 cm2/g 2000 − 3000 km/s DM-galaxy offset [92, 93, 94] Constraints Halo shapes/ellipticity . 1 cm2/g 1300 km/s Cluster lensing surveys [73] Substructure mergers . 2 cm2/g ∼ 500 − 4000 km/s DM-galaxy offset [79, 95] Merging clusters . few cm2/g 2000 − 4000 km/s Post-merger halo survival Table II (Scattering depth τ < 1) Bullet Cluster . 0.7 cm2/g 4000 km/s Mass-to-light ratio [68]

[Tulin, Yu 1705.02358]

Diversity of rotation curves

Since the dark matter only density profile has a smooth core, its shape is more sensitive to the additional baryonic gravitational potential compared to the CDM case in which its own gravitational potential is more important.

UGC 5721, c200:+2σ, M200:5×1010M⊙

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Stars Gas Halo

2 4 6 8 20 40 60 80 100 Radius (kpc) Vcir (km/s)

IC 2574, c200:-2σ, M200:1.4⨯1011M⊙ Halo Gas Stars

***********************************

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 20 40 60 80 100 Radius (kpc) Vcir (km/s)

CDM

• Scatter in halo concentration

Isothermal profile without the baryonic influence True SIDM profile with the baryonic influence

30 galaxies Vmax~25-300 km/s

[Kamada, Kaplinghat, Pace, Yu 1611.02716]

Primordial Black Hole (PBH)

Formation of PBH

• The black holes could be generated at the early Universe, (not from

stellar evolutions at the late time Universe), if the initial density fluctuations are large enough, even if there is no DM particles.

• Formation time determines the mass of the PBH.
• Life-time (due to Hawking radiation)

ρdensity(x) (

(x) ( (x) (

BH BH BH BH

Initial large density fluctuations collapse due to gravitational force

RS = 2GMPBH

ρPBH = MPBH

4π 3 R3 S

= 3 32πG3M 2

PBH

= ρuniv.(tform) ( MPBH =5 ⇥ 10−19Msun at tform = 10−23 sec =Msun at tform = 10−5 sec .

τPBH = 1064year ✓MPBH Msun ◆3

PBH constraints

• Various constraints on the fraction of PBH DM for different PBH masses

ρPBH ρDM = ( , MPBH/Msun MPBH/g (

BH

PBH accretion à X-rays à CMB distortion (FIRAS, WMAP)

BH Star Star BH

Destroy Wide Binary (WB) star systems Micro-Lensing (ML)

[Carr, Kuhnel, Sandstad 1607.06077]

PBH constraints

• Various constraints on the fraction of PBH DM for different PBH masses

ρPBH ρDM = ( , MPBH/Msun MPBH/g (

BH

PBH accretion à X-rays à CMB distortion (FIRAS, WMAP)

BH

Micro-Lensing (ML)

Star Star BH

Destroy Wide Binary (WB) star systems

[Carr, Kuhnel, Sandstad 1607.06077]

PBH constraints

• Various constraints on the fraction of PBH DM for different PBH masses

ρPBH ρDM = ( , MPBH/Msun MPBH/g (

BH

PBH accretion à X-rays à CMB distortion (FIRAS, WMAP)

BH Star BH

Destroy Wide Binary (WB) star systems Micro-Lensing (ML)

[Carr, Kuhnel, Sandstad 1607.06077]

PBH constraints

• Various constraints on the fraction of PBH DM for different PBH masses

ρPBH ρDM = ( , MPBH/Msun

Star cluster in dwarf galaxy could be destroyed : depending on the DM density, velocity dispersion, expected age of the cluster

MPBH/g (

[Carr, Kuhnel, Sandstad 1607.06077]

PBH constraints

• Various constraints on the fraction of PBH DM for different PBH masses

ρPBH ρDM = ( , MPBH/Msun

BH BH

Binary PBHs (and merging) can be the source of strong gravitational waves

[Carr, Kuhnel, Sandstad 1607.06077]

MPBH/g (

Forming binary black holes and coalescing à Gravitational waves

Strong gravitational waves are produced

Strong gravitational waves are produced

Black Hole Black Hole First direct detection of gravitational waves, GW150914 (2015)

36Msun(BH) + 29Msun(BH) ! 62Msun(BH) + 3Msun(GW)

Merger of a PBH binary

• Based on GW150914, GW151226, LVT151012,

event rate is estimated as 2 – 50 Gpc-3 year-1

• Estimating the PBH binary merger rate

halos:

∼ 6 Gpc−3yr−1 ∼ 2Gpc−3yr−1

∼ 4 × 10−3Gpc−3yr−1 within the LIGO observed rate!

[Bird et. al. 1603.00464]

Formation inside the dark matter halo in the late Universe with NFW profiles assuming that PBHs are most of dark matter

BH BH

Merger of a PBH binary

• Based on GW150914, GW151226, LVT151012,

event rate is estimated as 2 – 50 Gpc-3 year-1

• Estimating the PBH binary merger rate

[Sasaki et. al. 1603.08338]

Formation in the early Universe after matter- radiation equality (before virialization) assuming a certain probability distribution for the distances among

• PBHs. Only fractional DM

PBHs are enough.

BH BH BH BH

Outlook

• We have sketched “a few types” of dark matter candidates. I didn’t

discuss the detailed constraints on the class of warm dark matter, asymmetric dark matter, and mixed (multi-component) dark matter, Lightest fermion dark matter, etc.

• Also different thermal histories for the same dark matter

candidate are possible to give also interesting signatures that give the hint for the early Universe.

• The future astro-cosmological experiments will reveal the

detailed structure of dark sectors.