Direct detection and astrophysics. Céline Boehm

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Direct detection and astrophysics. Céline Boehm"

Willis Perry
5 years ago
Views:

1 Direct detection and astrophysics Céline Boehm IPPP, Durham LAPTH, Annecy Caastro, Jan 2017

2 The need for non-baryonic matter b = k 2 H b + c 2 s k 2 b R 1 ( b ) = k 2 + k ( b ), DM = k 2 H DM, The CMB cannot be explained with baryonic DM only A consequence of Silk damping (Nature, 1966)

3 Mond/Bekenstein The DM particle hypothesis Bekenstein astro-ph/ C. Skordis, D. Mota, P. Ferreira, C.Boehm : astro-ph/ Impossible to explain Planck 2015! This is called the Silk damping (1967) A DM-like fluid is needed!

4 The need for a collisionless fluid v1 Primordial Black Holes??? arxiv: arxiv: arxiv: LIGO Ways to evade CMB limits arxiv: > 100 Msol ruled out as main DM component But we still need some sort of dark matter (at least ~ a collisionless fluid) WIMPs are still the simplest explanation

5 How do we test the particle hypothesis?

6 The DM halo 2 G M(r) 2 3 v c M(r) = 4 (r) dr r 2 1 dm(r) M(r) = M_dm v + M_baryons DM is a subcomponent Its density is the highest great for Indirect Detection DM is dominant. Its density is low great for direct Detection

7 dge of the one-sigma region in Fig. 1. The exclusion of this ne curve might, however, well be due to its behavior at large ecoil energies and is likely not to be related to the extrapolaion at lowest energies since the top one-sigma curve in Fig. 2 s not excluded although it is a more extreme extrapolation. ote also that the behavior Indirect at recoil Detection energies below 3 kevnr s not constrained by this analysis. Z When narrowing the prior for the error bar correction facors to more and more extreme / shapes, dl (r) more 1,2 curves are sucessively excluded. It can thus be determined that the central t in Fig. 1 is the most consistent one with the data. The mulitude of L eff -curves that is consistent with the present data, owever, clearly underlines the importance of studying their nfluence on the resulting exclusion curve. In fact, yet anther fit can be obtained by using a constant curve as prior ean for the extended critical filter and narrowing the prior or the error bar correction factors until deviations from this onstant become significant. The resulting curve is shown in Potential issues 3.1: Illustration of the variety of possible DM profiles on sub-kpc scales in the Courtesy: T. Lacroix fl NFWgen (r) =fl 0 3 r r r r0 4 6, A. dr Counting rate de = (q) 2mµ 2 (E,t), The recoil where rate is the (per WIMP-nucleus nucleus) iscross-section, parameterised q = in dard form of [35], Direct Detection is the nuclear recoil momentum (with m N being the n mass), m is the WIMP mass, µ is the WIMP-nucleus r mass, is the local WIMP density and (E,t) is the mean speed, given by the expression dr de = (q) 2mµ 2 (E,t), where is the WIMP-nucleus (E,t)= cross-section, d 3 v. q = v min (E) v is the nuclear recoil momentum (with m N being th mass), min the is the above WIMP integral, mass, u e (t) is µ the is the relative WIMP-nucleu velocity betwe mass, Earth-based is the local detector WIMP and density the WIMPs, and with (E,t) time-depe is t arising from the motion of the Earth around the Su mean speed, given by the expression (E,t)= Z Z v min (E) f (v,u e (t)) v min (E) is the minimum velocity for a WIMP produ nuclear-recoil of energy E. Any astrophysical uncerta f (v,u e (t)) v d 3 v. In the above integral, u e (t) is the relative velocity be Earth-based detector and the WIMPs, with time-de arising from the motion of the Earth around the v min (E) is the minimum velocity for a WIMP pro nuclear-recoil of energy E. Any astrophysical unc see A. Peter s talk

8 DM accretion near Black Holes of spike profiles in the inner region of the MW, gro of an o -centered BH seed of mass Condition of formation of spikes: * BHs at the center of galaxies can grow adiabatically * Adiabatic growth inside a population of stars enhances the density of stars S BH which spirals in Why not enhancement of DM density? Ipser & Sikivie (1987): isothermal ->r^-3/2, Gondolo & Silk (1999) : NFW -> 7/3

9 Electromagnetic emission from cosmic rays from DM Cluster of galaxies Milky Way Dwarf galaxies AGNs (Cen A, ESO) cosmic rays gamma rays radio/submm decay annihilations DM -> SM SM (SM) DM DM > SM SM

Indirect detection signatures Injection of cosmic rays at

) If mdm >> MeV Prompt emission (gamma-ray) d de = 1 8 v m 2

(l) ) prompt / v m DM 2 Z dl 2 (l) Inverse Compton

2) Energy losses propagation of cosmic rays gives rise to

10 Indirect detection signatures Injection of cosmic rays at high energy (> kev!) If mdm >> MeV Prompt emission (gamma-ray) d de = 1 8 v m 2 2 X i BR i dn i de 2 Only depends on the DM profile Z dl 2 (l) ) prompt / v m DM 2 Z dl 2 (l) Inverse Compton (gamma-ray) Synchrotron (radio/submm) 1) Spatial diffusion 2) Energy losses propagation of cosmic rays gives rise to typical energy spectra Courtesy P. Salati 2L R gal = 20 kpc age of the edge-on NGC 891 galaxy taken with the Canada-

Submm constraints our Milky Way arxiv:1105.4689 Astrophysical sources DM Sum Astrophysical sources DM Sum Low frequency Low frequency High frequency High frequency 40 GeV DM 800 GeV DM igure 2.

11 Submm constraints our Milky Way arxiv: Astrophysical sources DM Sum Astrophysical sources DM Sum Low frequency Low frequency High frequency High frequency 40 GeV DM 800 GeV DM igure 2. Synchrotron maps for 40 GeV dark matter particles, Figure 7. Synchrotron maps for 800 GeV dark matter particles =3µG. We use the MED parameter set and assume annihilatng particles. ing B =3µG. We use the MAX parameter set and assume annihilat particles. Expected signature in LFI Expected signature in HFI No signal!

12 Radio constraints our Milky Way 330 MHz arxiv: Excludes up to 10 GeV particles for normal B field values

13 Gamma-rays in dsphs h vi (cm 3 s 1 ) DES J DES J DES J DES J DES J DES J DES J DES J Combined DES Candidate dsphs Combined Known dsphs Thermal DM already partially excluded! Thermal Relic Cross Section (Steigman et al. 2012) DM Mass (GeV/c 2 ) ~ 3 order of magnitude to catch up DD limits though the process aren t the same! I ll comment again on this!

$Antiprotons Minimal Dark Matter fermion 5 plet Positron fraction 30 10 3 1 PAMELA 08$

14 Antiprotons Minimal Dark Matter fermion 5 plet Positron fraction PAMELA 08 preliminary background? p p PAMELA 08 preliminary background? Positron energy in GeV p kinetic energy in GeV Figure 1: The PAMELA preliminary data [3] compared with the fermion 5-plet MDM prediction, at the best-fit point for the astrophysical parameters. should continue to grow, and that an anomaly should appear in the p spectrum, unless p have an unfavorable boost factor or propagation in our galaxy. Collateral constraints must be considered. The e ± from DM annihilations lead to a synchrotron radiation [5] at the level of WMAP haze anomaly [12]. Ref. [10] claims that very strong bounds on the DM annihilation cross section can be inferred from infrared and X-ray observations of the galactic center region, modeled assuming a certain magnetic field and DM density, that gets extremely high close to the central black hole leading to a high rate of DM annihilations. In this region DM becomes relativistic, and in the MDM case this means that the Sommerfeld enhancement disappears, leaving a small annihilation cross section, 2 2/M cm 3 /sec that would not contradict the strong bounds of [10]. A dedicated computation of the MDM prediction together with a precise description of the galactic center is necessary to quantitatively clarify this issue.

Constraints on neutralino annihilating into

5009 We can exclude certain cross section and

annihilation cross section, one can exclude

exclude certain neutralino composition on the

15 Constraints on neutralino annihilating into W+W- arxiv: We can exclude certain cross section and masses One can exclude values of the annihilation cross section versus the neutralino mass From the value of the annihilation cross section, one can exclude the neutralino composition One can therefore exclude certain neutralino composition on the sole basis of the anti-proton flux predicted in these DM scenarios. Also recently arxiv:

16 Gamma-rays dsphs + MW + CMB μμ bb γ-rays p CMB ν All ID constraints Courtesy M. Cirelli Annihilation cross section σv [cm 3 /s] WW status circa 34 th ICRC (summer 2015) CMB AMS p ANTARES DM mass [GeV] FERMI dwarfs 6yr FERMI IGRB HESS GC ICECUBE thermal cross section In reality one can constrain light DM (< 10 GeV) too! v<10 31 m DM MeV 2 cm 3 /s for < O(GeV)

17 C.B., J. Schewtschenko et al arxiv: same with neutrinos

$Jubb (s-wave) INTEGRAL COMPTEL DM DM Æ e e 10-20 10-21 Planck collaboration (s-wave) 10-22 EGRET 10-22 10-23 Fermi - LAT 10-23 X sv \ @ cm 3 s$ $- 1 D 10-24 10-25 10-26 X sv\ @ cm 3 s - 1 D 10-24 10-25 10-27 10-26 10-28 10-29 Prompt dsph CMB 10-27 10-30 10-3 10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3$

18 Indirect detection limits have strong impact on mdm < 10 GeV DM can be lighter than a few GeV! But Courtesy T. Jubb (s-wave) INTEGRAL COMPTEL DM DM Æ e e Planck collaboration (s-wave) EGRET Fermi - LAT X sv cm 3 s - 1 D X cm 3 s - 1 D Prompt dsph CMB m GeVD m GeVD INTEGRAL DM DM Æ COMPTEL For light DM, the annihilation cross section into electrons needs to be very suppressed! EGRET b b

19 Indirect detection limits have strong impact on mdm < 10 GeV The cross section can be independent of the DM mass! v / 1 m 4 F non chiral couplings C 2 l + C 2 r m f +2C l C r m F 2 CB, P. Fayet, hep-ph/ Feng& Kumar ( ) The mediator can be very light! v / v 2 m2 DM m 4 Z 0 g 2 DM g 2 e CB, P. Fayet, hep-ph/ In the early Universe (c=1), light DM means light Z for thermal RD and adjust couplings In late Universe, light DM is ~ fine because the cross section is velocity dependent

Signature of light DM (t-channel mediators) at LHC 0912.

20 Signature of light DM (t-channel mediators) at LHC first example of simplified models at LHC The mediator can be produced through the exchange of DM Strong constraints!

But Light DM particles are being ruled out Visibly Decaying A' 10-4 10-6 Hg-2L m > 5s Hg-2L m + 2s e 2

SHiP, QCD 10-14 E137, LSND 10-16 10-18 SN SHiP, mesons 10-20 1 10 10 2 10 3 m A' HMeVL 1504.

21 But Light DM particles are being ruled out Visibly Decaying A' Hg-2L m > 5s Hg-2L m + 2s e Hg-2L e E774 E141 Orsay, U70 BaBar, NA48ê2, PHENIX Charm, Nu-Cal SHiP, bremsstrahlung SHiP, QCD E137, LSND SN SHiP, mesons m A' HMeVL A 0 e + e BDX arxiv: , Dafne/Kloe, arxiv: &: arxiv: arxiv: arxiv:

The GeV excess (still room for relatively light DM) FERMI-LAT data 10-30 GeV DM annihilating mostly into b-quarks or muons

22 The GeV excess (still room for relatively light DM) FERMI-LAT data GeV DM annihilating mostly into b-quarks or muons Hooper&Goodenough 2009 FERMI-LAT 2009 arxiv: Leptons work too T. Lacroix, CB, J. Silk, 2014 Probably astrophysical sources but

23 Direct detection experiments can be compared to ID and LHc searches! (E,t)= Z v min (E) f (v,u e (t)) v d 3 v.

24 Simplified models hep-ph/ Notice the ~!!! arxiv:

25 New types of DM-nuclei interactions new models, new operators, new couplings to nuclei! SI SD SD SD SI SD SD SI SD SD O1 NR O4 NR O6 NR O7 NR O8 NR O9 NR O10 NR O11 NR O13 NR O14 NR 1/2-S g f,s g,s g f,p g,p g f,p g,s g f,s g,p g f,s g,p 1/2*-V g f,v g,v g f,a g,a g f,a g,v g f,v g,a g f,a g,v 1/2-V g f,a g,a g f,v g,a 1/2-S ± gs 2 gp 2 gs 2 + gp 2 1/2*-S ± gs ± g 2 p 2 gs 2 + gp 2 1/2-V ± gv 2 ga 2 gv 2 + ga 2 1/2*-V ± gv ± g 2 a 2 gv 2 + ga 2 0-S g g f,s g g f,p 0-V g g f,v g g f,a g g f,a 0-F ± g s 2 ± g p 2 g p g s g s g p 0-F ± g s 2 ± g p 2 g p g s ± g s g p 1-S g g f,s g g f,p 1-V (V 1 ) Im(g )g v Im(g )g v Im(g )g a Re(g )g a Re(g )g v 1-V (V 2 ) Im(g )g v Im(g )g a Re(g )g a 1-V (V 3 ) Re(g )g a Re(g )g a Re(g )g v Re(g )g v Im(g )g v Im(g )g a 1-F ± g s 2 ± g p 2 g v g a + g a g v g v g a + g a g v g v g a g a g v 1*-F ± g s 2 ± g p 2 g v g a + g a g v g v g a g a g v g v g a + g a g v main operators new operators most of them suppressed by spin and/or velocity but..

26 2 D 0 s SD Spin dependent HAxialL 90% CL limits LHC8: g q =g DM =1.45 LHC8: g q =g DM =1.0 LHC8: g q =g DM =0.5 LHC8: g q =g DM =0.25 LHC8: EFT LUX D 0 s SI Spin independent HVectorL 90% CL limits LHC8: g q =g DM =1.45 LHC8: g q =g DM =1.0 LHC8: g q =g DM =0.5 LHC8: g q =g DM =0.25 LHC8: EFT LUX 2013 SuperCDMS m Competition between DD and LHC (monojets) EFT not valid at low mass so simplified models! no resonance

27 Vector: 90% CL projected limits g q =g DM =1.45 LHC fb -1 LHC13 30 fb -1 LHC fb -1 LHC fb -1 LUX 2013 LZ 10 ton yr n background Vector: 90% CL projected limits g q =g DM =1 LHC fb -1 LHC13 30 fb -1 LHC fb -1 LHC fb -1 LUX 2013 LZ 10 ton yr n background m 10 3 m Excluded 10 2 Excluded M M Vector: 90% CL projected limits g q =g DM =0.5 LHC fb -1 LHC13 30 fb -1 LHC fb -1 LHC fb -1 LUX 2013 LZ 10 ton yr n background Vector: 90% CL projected limits g q =g DM =0.25 LHC fb -1 LHC13 30 fb -1 LHC fb -1 LHC fb -1 LUX 2013 LZ 10 ton yr n background m 10 3 m Excluded M M

28 Conclusion Stringent limits from Direct and Indirect detection Still room for new physics but constrained! We need to pay attention to the cosmology as this can affect all our estimates!

Probing the nature of Dark matter with radio astronomy. Céline Boehm

Probing the nature of Dark matter with radio astronomy Céline Boehm IPPP, Durham LAPTH, Annecy SKA, Flic en Flac, May 2017 The DM Physics scale strong or weak / stable or decaying strong and stable Electromagnetic