Particle Dark Matter III Kathryn M Zurek LBL Berkeley Thursday, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Kathryn M Zurek LBL Berkeley

Particle Dark Matter III

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 2

Astrophysical and Cosmological Constraints

• n the Dark Matter

(The DM sector is not as unconstrained as you thought)

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 3

Check Cosmology

What are good things to look for? We have a lot of information about the DM sector from the time of BBN (t = 1 sec)

BBN (baryons) CMB (curvature) LSS (matter) Supernovae (DE) Galaxy curves (matter)

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 4

• 1. BBN

Late-decaying or annihilating DM can ionize nuclei and change the predictions

• f BBN

BBN occurs at T ~ 1 MeV or t ~ 1 sec Particularly relevant for decay to gravitinos

• r for MeV mass (or

lighter) DM

Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi, hep-ph/0408426

3He/H p 4He 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.005

CMB BBN Baryon-to-photon ratio η × 1010 Baryon density Ωbh2 D ___ H

0.24 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 10−4 10−3 10−5 10−9 10−10 2 5 7Li/H p

Yp D/H p

Figure 20.1: The abundances of 4He, D, 3He, and 7Li as predicted by the standard

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 5

• 2. CMB epoch

CMB multipoles + LSS are consistent with baryon-photon fluid plus non-interacting matter

Baryon density sound speed = baryon to photon ratio matter- radiation equality --> measurement

• f matter

density

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 6

• 2. CMB epoch

DM interactions with baryo-photon fluid would damage agreement with observations of CMB This constrains DM milli-charge

McDermott, Yu, KZ 1011.2907

dσXb dΩ∗ = α2

em2

4µ2

bv4 rel sin4(θ∗/2),

Rutherford scattering:

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 7

• 3. DM Annihilations and

CMB epoch

A high rate of DM annihilations would inject ionizing photons into the CMB Epoch of *re*combination, not de-combination

500 1000 1500 2000 L 2000 4000 6000 L(L+1) CL / 2π [µK2]

no DM annihilation 1 GeV e+e- 1000 GeV W+W- 2500 GeV XDM µ+µ-

Final State Radiation Direct photons

DM DM

γ γ

Finkbeiner, Padmanabhan, Slatyer 0906.1197

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 8

• 3. DM Annihilations and

CMB epoch

Powerful constraint on ionizing radiation injection rate = annihilation rate

Ruled out by WMAP5 Planck forecast CVL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 XDM µ+µ- 2500 GeV, BF = 2300 2 µ+µ- 1500 GeV, BF = 1100 3 XDM µ+µ- 2500 GeV, BF = 1000 4 XDM e+e- 1000 GeV, BF = 300 5 XDM 4:4:1 1000 GeV, BF = 420 6 e+e- 700 GeV, BF = 220 7 µ+µ- 1500 GeV, BF = 560 8 XDM 1:1:2 1500 GeV, BF = 400 9 XDM µ+µ- 400 GeV, BF = 110 10 µ+µ- 250 GeV, BF = 81 11 W+W- 200 GeV, BF = 66 12 XDM e+e- 150 GeV, BF = 16 13 e+e- 100 GeV, BF = 10

Finkbeiner, Padmanabhan, Slatyer 0906.1197

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 9

• 4. Large Scale Structure

Dark matter halos are not exactly spherical! If DM had strong self-interactions, the resulting halo would be approx spherical

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 10

Places constraint on DM self-interactions Require one scattering

• r fewer per DM

particle over the age

• f the halo
• 4. Large Scale Structure

dσXX dΩ∗ = α2

em4

m2

Xv4 rel sin4(θ∗/2),

nXσXXv . τ −1 halo

Feng et al, 0905.3039

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 11

• 4. Astrophysical objects

If DM interacts with nucleons in

• bject, it can scatter, lose

energy and become trapped DM slowly thermalizes with

• bject and sinks to center

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 12

Annihilation Inside

Equilibrium achieved when capture and annihilation balance As long as capture and annihilation rate is large enough, this is achieved Capture rate prop to scattering rate ˙ N = C − AN 2 = 0 AN 2 = C tanh2(t/τE) τE = √ CA

C ≃ 1.3 × 1025 s−1

• ρDM

0.3 GeV/cm3 270 km/s ¯ v 1 GeV mDM

• ×
• σH

10−40 cm2

• S(mDM/mH) + 1.1
• σHe

16 × 10−40 cm2

• S(mDM/mHe)
• Gould, ApJ 388, 338 (1991)

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 13

Collection Inside

What if annihilation does not occur? (ADM) Then only collection occurs Not very much mass, but if x-sect large enough, may have impact Scalar DM may form black hole; fermion DM may alter stellar evolution N = Ct

≃ NX ≃ 2.3 × 1044 100 GeV mX ρX 103 GeV/cm3 σXB 2.1 × 10−45 cm2 t 1010 years

• .

∼ 1057 GeV/M

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 14

Black Hole Formation

When collected DM a) self-gravitates AND b) exceeds Chrandrasekhar number, then form a black hole

Nboson

Cha

≃ Mpl m 2 ≃ 1.5 × 1034 100 GeV m 2

E ∼ −GNm2 R + 1 R.

≃ NX ≃ 2.3 × 1044 100 GeV mX ρX 103 GeV/cm3 σXB 2.1 × 10−45 cm2 t 1010 years

• .

Black hole would eat neutron star

10

• 3

10

• 2

10

• 1

10 10

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

• 52

10

• 51

10

• 50

10

• 49

10

• 48

10

• 47

10

• 46

10

• 45

10

• 44

10

• 43

10

• 42

10

• 41

10

• 40

Excluded with a BEC

σn (cm

2)

mX (GeV)

CDMS

J0437-4715

ρX=0.3 GeV/cm

3

t=6.69×10

9 Years

T=2.1×10

6 K

McDermott, Yu, KZ 1103.5472

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 15

Stellar Constraints

Disrupt main sequence evolution

Taoso et al, 1005.5711 Zenter and Hearin, 1110.5919

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 16

Dark Matter Model Dynamics

(Looking beyond the vanilla WIMP paradigm)

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 17

DM Paradigm: recap

Usual picture of dark matter is that it is: single stable (sub-?) weakly interacting neutral

Supersymmetry and axions fit the bill.

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 18

Hidden Dark Worlds

Standard Model

Mp ∼ 1 GeV

Our thinking has shifted From a single, stable weakly interacting particle ..... (WIMP, axion) ...to a hidden world with multiple states, new interactions

Models: Supersymmetric light DM sectors, Secluded WIMPs, WIMPless DM, Asymmetric DM ..... Production: freeze-in, freeze-out and decay, asymmetric abundance, non-thermal mechanisms .....

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 19

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Perhaps overly influenced by only a couple

• f paradigms? Overly single minded focus?

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 20

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Anomalies have forced us in this direction Two examples: PAMELA, (DAMA, CoGeNT)

PAMELA: large rate, no hadronic activity DAMA/CoGeNT: large scattering cross-section

4 6 8 10 12 10-40 10-39 mDM HGeVL spHcm2L

Fitzpatrick, KZ 1007 .5325

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 21

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Two examples: PAMELA, (DAMA, CoGeNT), neither explainable with minimal SUSY

SUSY: annihilation to W’ s results in hadronic activity (anti-protons, not

• bserved)

DAMA/CoGeNT: Z-pole and collider constraints on Higgs sector

n ⇡ 8.3 ⇥ 10−42 cm2 ✓ Zd 0.4 ◆2 ✓tan 30 ◆2 ✓100 GeV mH ◆4

1 10 102 103 104 1 10 0.3 3 30 GeV fraction background? 08 10 102 103 104 10 3 10 2 10 1 GeV sec ATIC BETS08 EC background? Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê ÊÊÊ Ê 1 10 102 103 104 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 p kinetic energy in GeV pêp background? PAMELA 08

Cirelli et al 0809.2409

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 22

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Two examples: PAMELA, (DAMA, CoGeNT), neither explainable with minimal SUSY

Solution: light forces Solution: light forces

mA0 < 2mπ

χ1 χ1 χ2 γ, Z γ, Z

χ χ χ

A’ A’

χ2 χ1 γ, Z

χ χ

A’

e, n e, n

σSI ' g2

ng2 χm2 r

πm4

A0

⇠ 10−40 cm2 ⇣gngχ 10−4 ⌘2 ✓8 GeV mA0 ◆4

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 23

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Simple, attractive, phenomenologically viable models exist Example: ADM. Start with a single DM particle X, and one discovers you need more particles nX ∼ 10−10T 3

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 24

Our Thinking Has Shifted: Why?

Simple, attractive, phenomenologically viable models exist Example: ADM. Start with a single DM particle X, and one discovers you need more particles nX ∼ 10−10T 3

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 25

Experimental Implications of Dark Sectors and Forces

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 26

• Exp. Implications of

Dark Sectors ....

.... with dark forces Direct Detection Intensity experiments DM self-scattering and halo shapes

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 27

Direct Detection

Mediates _large_ scattering cross-sections Simplified model gives rise to many effects

σSI ' g2

ng2 χm2 r

πm4

A0

⇠ 10−40 cm2 ⇣gngχ 10−4 ⌘2 ✓8 GeV mA0 ◆4

χ2 χ1 γ, Z

χ χ

A’

e, n e, n

χ1 χ1 χ2 γ, Z γ, Z χ2 χ1 γ, Z f ¯ fχ

χ χ χ χ χ χ

A’ A’ A’

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 28

Connection to Intensity Experiments

Dark sectors may be more efficiently produced in low energy intensity experiments Once above mass scale of mediator, production x-sect scales as Low energy, very intense beams generated increased sensitivity Prefer beam energy sitting on mass of mediator

σ ∼ g4 E2

E ∼ mM

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 29

Connection to Intensity Experiments

Dark sectors may be more efficiently produced in low energy intensity experiments

e e Z A0 γ

A B C D E

0.01 0.1 1 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.01 0.01 0.1 1 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.01 mA'êGeV e

Bjorken, Essig, Schuster, Toro Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 30

Translate to Direct Detection Bounds

e e Z A0 γ

A B C D E

0.01 0.1 1 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.01 0.01 0.1 1 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.01 mA'êGeV e

✏

χ χ

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 31

Translate to Direct Detection Bounds

e e Z A0 γ

✏

χ χ

Ingredients:

Constrained by intensity experiments

mχ, mA0, ge, gχ

How are the other parameters constrained?

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 32

Translate to Direct Detection Bounds

e e Z A0 γ

✏

χ χ

mχ, mA0, ge, gχ

χ1 χ1 χ2 γ, Z γ, Z χ2 χ1 γ, Z f ¯ fχ

χ χ χ χ χ χ

A’ A’ A’ DM relic abundance DM self-scattering

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 33

DM Interactions and DM Halos

Dark matter self- interactions randomize momenta and isotropize halos Lead to lower density dark matter halo cores Dark matter halos (including baryon poor dwarf galaxies) seem to have cores rather than cusps (still controversy as to cause)

Dave, Spergel, Steinhardt, Wandelt Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 34

Implies Dark Forces!

Very big scattering cross-sections Fits well with new models of DM! Range of dynamics much bigger than previously thought (σweak ∼ 10−39 cm2)

σ/mX ⇠ 0.1 cm2/g ' 0.2 ⇥ 10−24 cm2/ GeV

σT ≈ 5 × 10−23 cm2 ⇣ αX 0.01 ⌘2 ⇣ mX 10 GeV ⌘2 ✓10 MeV mφ ◆4

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 35

Connection to Direct Detection

Can now take constraints from heavy photon searches + halo shapes to map to direct detection experiments

χ

N χ()

χ2 χ1 γ, Z

χ χ

e−, n e+, ¯ n

A’

Constrained by halo shapes Constrained by intensity experiments

σn ≈ g2

χg2 nµ2 n

πm4

A0

σe ≈ g2

χg2 eµ2 e

πm4

A0

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 36

Map into Direct Detection Plane

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 mX [GeV] 10-55 10-50 10-45 10-40 10-35 σe [cm2] mφ >> mX Ge Large width Decay before BBN 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10-55 10-50 10-45 10-40 10-35

Lin, Yu, KZ 1111.0293

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 mφ [GeV] 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 ge 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2

Projected maximum sensitivity of direct detection experiment Cut-out gives combined constraints of beam dump + supernova + g- 2

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 37

Searches for Light Dark Matter

Use electron and not nucleon as target When nucleon is target, elastic scattering says recoil energy is For electron scattering, binding energy in ionization or excitation comes into play, and total energy available is kinetic energy: ER = q2/2mN ∼ 1 eV × (mX/100 MeV)2 (10 GeV/mN) E kin ⇠ mDMv2/2 ' 50 eV ⇥ (mDM/100 MeV)

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 38

Electron scattering

Use atomic ionization or excitation energies to get signal and extend searches down to 1 MeV?

• 10

36

• 10

10

1

10

2

10 10

46

• 10-2

10-3 10-1

??

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 39

Search for DM-electron scattering

• Noble liquids (xenon, argon, helium)!
• Semiconductor targets (germanium, silicon)!

threshold ~ 10 eV threshold ~ 1 eV (band gap)

valence conduction band ! gap

From R. Essig

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 40

Sub-GeV DM scattering off electrons

DM

e−

S2: proportional to # of e-'s

t

Signal

S1 S2

(nothing)

(estimate w/ semi-empirical model)

e− e−

1e- 2e- 3e-

…

RE, Manalaysay, Mardon, Sorensen, Volansky

an energetic outgoing e- can ionize other e-'s

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 41

Proof-of-principle for direct detection ! down to DM masses of a few MeV

1 10 100 103 10-39 10-38 10-37 10-36 10-35 10-34

Dark Matter Mass @MeVD se @cm2D Excluded by XENON10 data

1 e l e c t r

• n

2 e l e c t r

• n

s 3 e l e c t r

• n

s Hidden- Photon models

RE, Manalaysay, Mardon, Sorensen, Volansky

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 42

Collider Searches for Dark Matter

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 43

How to Search for DM?

If DM is connected to weak scale physics, expect production at LHC DM production in conjunction with radiation Production of mediating particles which cascade decay to DM particle

p p ˜ g ˜ g j j j j

1 1

`/⌫ j j ˜ x `/⌫ j j ˜ x

DM DM SM SM

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 44

Constraints on operators

Language makes sense in the context of an effective field theory Various UV completions “Model-independent” constraint OV (A−V ) = ¯ χγµ(γ5)χ¯ qγµ(γ5)q Λ2 OS = ¯ χχ¯ qq Λ2 OGG = m2

q ¯

χχGG Λ3 DM DM SM SM DM DM SM SM DM DM SM SM DM DM SM SM

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 45

Regime of Validity of Effective Field Theory

Must be able to “integrate out” mediating particle e.g. Fermi theory. Works fine for nuclear energies (MeV scale) Breaks down at LEP mM > ECM p n

e+ ν

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 46

“Model-independent” constraint on operator

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 47

“Model-independent” collider constraints

Initial state radiation plus missing energy Z, photon, jet, Higgs Conveniently allows

• ne to put collider

and direct detection constraints on same plane DM DM SM SM

1 10

2

10

3

10

• 46

10

• 45

10

• 44

10

• 43

10

• 42

10

• 41

10

• 40

10

• 39

10

• 38

10

CRESST CoGeNT CoGeNT favored CDMS Xenon 10 Xenon 100 Xenon 100 reach SCDMS reach C1 LHC C3 LHC reach C5 Tevatron Exclusion C5 LHC reach

)

2

(cm

SI N

σ

reach

(GeV)

χ

m Goodman et al 1008.1783

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 48

However,

it’ s important to know the limitations of a theory. These constraints assume particle mediating interaction is heavier than collider energy, Results change dramatically when this is not true mM > ECM

10 50 100 5001000 5000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Mediator Mass @GeVD L @GeVD

g contours G=Mê8p GeV G=Mê3 GeV 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 mc = 50 GeV mc = 500 GeV

Fox et al 1203.1662

C D F 6 . 7 f b

• 1

Atlas LowPT CDF monojet Atlas HighPT Atlas VeryHighPT LHC reach

100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10-44 10-43 10-42 10-41 10-40 10-39 10-38 10-37 10-36 MZ' HGeVL sSI Hcm2L

An et al 1202.2894

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 49

Is the EFT for mono-X ever valid at collider?

Need to be careful .... When the mediating particle is heavy enough that EFT is valid, constraint on coupling is so large that theory is non-perturbative EFT is not valid

10 50 100 5001000 5000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Mediator Mass @GeVD L @GeVD

g contours G=Mê8p GeV G=Mê3 GeV 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 mc = 50 GeV mc = 500 GeV

• Dreiner et al 1303.3348

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 50

Mono-W

[GeV]

χ

m 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 [GeV]

*

M 1 10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10 D9:obs D5(u=-d):obs D5(u=d):obs D1:obs C1:obs ATLAS = 8 TeV s

• 1

20.3 fb 90% CL

(Artificially) high scale, better than monojets

Two possibilities:

• DM is not an SU(2)xU(1) singlet → it’s a neutralino (and charginos are also

present → better to use electroweakino simplif. model language)

• or extra powers of v/Λ (mq/Λ) present in the normalization (scale

constrained is lower):

1 M 2 (¯ qσµνq)(¯ χσµνχ) → v Λ3 (¯ qLσµνqR)(¯ χσµνχ) 1 M 2 (¯ uγµu − ¯ dγµd)(¯ χσµνχ) → H†τ aH Λ4 (¯ qLτ aγµqL)(¯ χσµνχ)

D5(u=-d) D9

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 51

q ¯ q χ

e

q ¯ χ

DM searches are model- dependent

The mediating particle is produced on shell, which means there are other channels to search for it e.g. in SUSY with squarks as the mediating particle

q q χ χ g g

e

q

e

q

e

q q χ q ¯ χ g

e

q

e

q g

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 52

DM searches are model- dependent

The mediating particle is produced on shell, which means there are other channels to search for it e.g. in SUSY with squarks as the mediating particle

100 200 300 400 500 700 1000 1500 2000 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 mM GeV mMgM GeV

mDM 10 GeV

jetsMET monojet monojet EFT

min 500 100 8Π 3 min 500 100 8Π 3

Papucci et al 1402.2285

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 53

Extensive variety of searches at LHC

Thursday, June 25, 15

SLIDE 54

Summary

We have some good ideas about the DM

• sector. A couple of directions have become

very well developed: SUSY and axions New ideas and corresponding search strategies have developed. Important to keep searches and ideas as broad and inclusive as possible

Thursday, June 25, 15