LHC and the Cosmos Dark Matter Searches and Dark Matter Reconstruction Fawzi BOUDJEMA LAPTH, CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 1/5
LHC Dark Matter Connection F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 2/5
LHC Dark Matter Connection: The new paradigm no mention of a connection, despite a SUSY WG mention of LSP to be stable/neutral because of cosmo reason LHC: Symmetry breaking and Higgs F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 3/5
The new paradigm why? Cosmology in the era of precision observed temperature anisotropies (related to the density fluctuations at the time of emission) is 5 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 4/5
Cosmology in the era of precision measurement 1. Pre-WMAP and WMAP vs Pre-LEP and LEP F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 5/5
Cosmology in the era of precision measurement 2..242 sin 2 θ w.238.234.230 VBM (m Z ) ν - q e - q ν - e (Ellis-Fogli).226 1999.222.218.214 m W / m Z.2 0 50 0 150 200 250 m t (GeV) M H [GeV] 300 200 sin 2 θ eff M W GigaZ (1σ errors) SM@GigaZ 0 now 50 angular power spectrum of the CMB, pre-wmap 165 170 175 180 m t [GeV] and WMAP Planck+SNAP will do even better (per-cent precision) like from LEP to LHC+LC F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 6/5
The need for Dark Matter Newton s law v 2 rot. /r = G NM(r)/r 2 (tracer star at a distance r from centre of mass distribution ) We are not in the centre of the universe Dark Matter= New Physics we are not made up of the same stuff as most of our universe F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 7/5
Cosmology in the era of precision measurement: from various constraints 3 No Big Bang 2 vacuum energy density (cosmological constant) 1 0 Maxima Supernovae SNAP Target Statistical Uncertainty CMB Boomerang expands forever recollapses eventually observed luminosity and redshift exploits the different z dependence of matter/energy density bullet experiment: disfavours alternative explanations closed through modification of -1 Clusters open flat gravity 0 1 2 3 mass density F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 8/5
F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 9/5
Matter Budget and Precision 2. Dark Matter 73% 23% ν(ω Stars ν < 0.01) 4% Baryons Dark Energy t 0 = 13.7 ± 0.2 Gyr (1.5%) α 1 = t 0 ( 7 %) Ω tot = 1.02 ± 0.02(2%) ρ = Ω tot ( 0.1%) Ω DM = 0.23 ± 0.04(17%) sin 2 θ eff = Ω DM (0.08%) We should then be able to match the present WMAP precision!... once we discover susy dark matter F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. /5
Matter Budget and Precision 3. Testing the cosmology Present measurement at 2σ 0.0975 < ω = Ω DM h 2 < 0.1223 (6%) future (SNAP+Planck) < 1% Particle Physics Cosmology through ω is wholly New Physics But will LHC, ILC see the same New Physics? New paradigm and new precision: change in perception about this connection ω used to: constrain new physics (choice of LHC susy points, benchmarks) Now: if New Physics is found, what precision do we require on colliders and theory to constrain cosmology? (Allanach, Belanger, FB, Pukhov JHEP 2004) strategy/requirements on theory and collider measurements to match the present/future precision on ω F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 11/5
Indirect Detection F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 12/5
direct and indirect Direct and Indirect Searches p, e +, γ, ν,... χ 0 1 χ χχ ν ν ν CDMS, Edelweiss, DAMA, Genuis,.. Amanda, Antares, I cecube,.. F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 13/5
Underground direct detection (pb) σ S.I. -5 Edelweiss II -6 Zeplin II Zeplin IV Xenon Genius within WMAP (pb) σ S.I. -5 Edelweiss II -6 Zeplin II Zeplin IV Xenon Genius -7-7 -8-8 -9-9 - -11 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 m χ - tan β = tan β = 50-11 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 m χ F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 14/5
Annihilation into photons dφ γ dωde γ = i dn i γ 1 σ i v de γ 4πm 2 χ }{{} Physique des Particules ρ 2 dl }{{} Astro γ s: Point to the source, independent of propagation model(s) continuum spectrum from χ 0 1 χ0 1 f f,..., hadronisation/fragmentation ( π 0 γ ) done through isajet/herwig Loop induced mono energetic photons,γγ,zγ final states ACT: HESS, Magic, VERITAS, Cangoroo,... Space-based: AMS, Egret,... GLAST, F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 15/5
Symmetry breaking and DM: The new view The SM Higgs naturalness problem has been behind the construction of many models of New Physics: at LHC not enough to see the Higgs need to address electroweak symmetry breaking DM is New Physics, most probable that the New Physics of EWSB provides DM candidate, especially that All models of NP can be made to have quite easily and naturally a conserved quantum number, Z 2 parity such that all the NP particles have Z 2 = 1 (odd) and the SM part. have it even Then the lightest New Physics particle is stable. If it is electrically neutral then can be a candidate for DM This conserved quantum number is not imposed just to have a DM candidate it has been imposed for the model to survive F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 16/5
Symmetry breaking and DM Survival evade proton decay indirect precision measurements (LEP legacy) Examples: R-parity and LSP in SUSY (majorana fermion) KK parity and the and LKP in UED (gauge boson) T-parity in Little Higgs with the LTP (gauge boson) LZP (warped GUTs) (actually it s a Z 3 here) (Dirac fermion) even modern technicolour has a DM candidate so New Physics even if not cosmological DM has an invisible signature at the colliders F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 17/5
New Physics or DM Physics and E T miss Is it necessarily DM candidate? stable at the scale of LHC detectors, 1ms, not age of the Universe... F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 18/5
in 1998 we were told to expect an early SUSY discovery F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 19/5
Discovery of miss Et 1400 1200 L dt = 0 fb -1 A 0 = 0, tanβ = 2, µ < 0 g ~ (3000) m1/2 (GeV) ISAJET 7.32 + CMSJET 4.5 q ~ (2500) miss E T g ~ (2500) h(95) 1l 00 no leptons q ~ (2000) TH g ~ (2000) 800 2l OS 2l SS g ~ (1500) 600 3l q ~ (1500) Ωh 2 = 1 g ~ (00) g ~ (500) q ~ (00) Ωh 2 = 0.4 h(80) 400 200 q ~ (500) 0 EX 0 500 00 1500 2000 m 0 ( GeV) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 20/5
But fake miss Et: Not even SM physics! Miss Et pointing along jets All machine garbage ends up in Et miss trigger F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 21/5
ATLAS TDR (same with CMS) ATLAS TDR 98 (msugra point, PreWMAP) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 22/5
ATLAS TDR (same with CMS) ATLAS TDR 98 (msugra point, PreWMAP) ATLAS 2006 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 22/5
ATLAS TDR (same with CMS) ATLAS TDR 98 (msugra point, PreWMAP) ATLAS 2006 What happened? Real Et miss from neutrinos Complex multi-body final states: can not rely on MC alone. Need data and MC. Improve NLO multilegs, matching,... F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 22/5
F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 23/5
Next step: Properties of DM, example SPIN?? Couplings F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 24/5
Synergy Collider-Cosmology-Astrophysics What does it take to prove it is a DM candidate the right relic density has to confirm the rate of Dark Matter Direct Detection has to confirm Indirect Detection rates: annihilations into anti-matter, photons, neutrinos But all three items carry substantial assumptions or drastic differences in the modelling of astrophysics one is assuming detection is assured in DD and Ind. Detection Important to extract as precise as possible the microscopic properties of DM, interaction constrain the cosmological models constrain the astrophysics models: DM distribution, clumping, perhaps propagation may even use some hints from astrophysics to input at colliders F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 25/5
Collider Inputs SUSY Parameters Annihilation N Interaction Relic Density Indirect Detection Direct Detection Astrophysical and Cosmological Inputs F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 26/5
Example 1: Relic Density F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 27/5
Constraining relic density parameter space:susy unconstrained Orders of magnitude, DM cross sections orders of magnitude also (same for direct and indirect detection) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 28/5
formation of DM: Very basics of decoupling At first all particles in thermal equilibrium, frequent collisions and particles are trapped in the cosmic soup universe cools and expands: interaction rate too small or not efficient to maintain Equil. (stable) particles can not find each other: freeze out and get free and leave the soup, their number density is locked giving the observed relic density from then on total number (n a 3 ) = cste Condition for equilibrium: mean free path smaller than distance traveled: l m.f.p < vt l m.f.p = 1/nσ t 1/H or Equilbrium: Γ = nσv > H freeze ou/decoupling occurs at T = T D = T F : Γ = H and Ω χ 0 1 h 2 1/σ χ 0 1 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 29/5
Relic Density: Boltzman transport equation 0.01 0.001 0.0001 based on L[f] = C[f] dilution due to expansion Boltzmann Suppression Exp(-m/T) Freeze-out dn/dt = 3Hn < σv > (n 2 n 2 eq ) χ 0 1 χ0 1 X X χ 0 1 χ0 1 at early times Γ H n n eq T m X not enough energy to give T f 20GeV t 8 s X χ 0 1 χ0 1 T f m/25 n drops and so does Γ 1 0 00 Ω χ 0 1 h 2 1/σ χ 0 1 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 30/5
All in all... Ω χ 0 1 h 2 9 M P x f g 1 <σ χ 0 1 v> Ω χ 0 1 h 2 0.1 < σ χ 0 1 v > 1pb order of magnitude of LHC cross sections < σ χ 0 1 v >= πα 2 /m 2 Ω χ 0 1 h 2 (m/tev ) 2 m G 1/2 F 300GeV but with the precision on the relic that we have now (6%) and the many possibilities from the particle physics perspectives, need more than orders of magnitudes calculations. F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 31/5
Relic Density: Loopholes and Assumptions At early times Universe is radiation dominated: H(T) T 2 Expansion rate can be enhanced by some scalar field (kination), extra dimension H 2 = 8πG/3 ρ(1 + ρ/ρ 5 ), anisotropic cosmology,... Entropy conservation (entropy increase will reduce the relic abundance Wimps (super Wimps) can be produced non thermally, or in addition produced in decays of some field (inflaton,...) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 32/5
Almost Wimps: Swimps, Fen et al; Assuming that each WIMP decay produces one one swimp, the inherited density is simply WIMP superwimp Ω swimp = m swimp Wimp Ω Wimp beware though: If couplings very weak, decays may be very late and would directly impact on BBN, CMB, diffuse γ flux (energy released in visible decay products serious stopper!) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 33/5
History of the Universe, WIMP density depends on the history of the Universe before BBN (0.8MeV) (abundance of light elements), large time scale between freeze-out and BBN for BBN to hold it is enough that the earliest and highest temperature during the radiation era T RH > 4MeV T RH > is to be understood as the temp. which after a period of rapid inflationary expansion the Universe reheats (defrosts) and the expanding plasma reaches full thermal equilibrium F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 34/5
History of the Universe, T RH > Density may decreased by reducing rate of thermal production, possibility to have tiny T RH < T f.o or by production of radiation after freeze-out increased by injecting Wimps from decays or/and increasing the expansion rate Open up more possibilities, constrain Physics at the Planck scale?? F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 35/5
Non Standard Cosmo Prototype: A scalar field decaying not long before BBN Giudice, Kolb; Gelmini and Gondolo,... dρ φ dt dn dt ds dt = 3Hρ φ Γ φ ρ φ = 3Hn σv (n 2 n 2 eq ) + b m φ Γ φ ρ φ = 3Hs + Γ φρ φ T where m φ, Γ φ, and ρ φ are respectively the mass, the decay width and the energy density of the scalar field, and b is the average number of neutralinos produced per φ decay. Notice that b and m φ enter into these equations only through the ratio b/m φ (eta = b(0tev/m φ ) and not separately. Finally, the Hubble parameter, H, receives contributions from the scalar field, Standard Model particles, and supersymmetric particles, H 2 = 8π 3M 2 P (ρ φ + ρ SM + ρ χ ). T RH = MeV (m φ /0TeV ) 3/2 (M P /Λ) Γ φ m 3 φ /Λ2 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 36/5
Non Standard Cosmo, Figs Gelmini and Gondolo 1e-02 1e-04 1e-06 1e-08 1e- Standard Equlibrium T RH = MeV T RH =0 MeV T RH =1 GeV T RH = GeV Y=n χ /s 1e-12 1e-14 1e-16 1e-18 1e-20 1e-22 1e-24 0 1 0.1 Temperature (GeV) 0.01 0.001 M 1/2 = m 0 = 600GeV, A 0 = 0, tan β =, and µ > 0, m χ = 246 GeV T f.o = GeV. Ω std h 2 3.6 η = 0 msugra parameters F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 37/5
Non Standard Cosmo 1e-02 1e-04 1e-06 T RH Standard Equlibrium η = 0 η=1e-8 η =1e-6 η =1e-4 η =1e-2 Y=n χ /s 1e-08 1e- 1e-12 1e-14 1e-16 0 1 0.1 Temperature (GeV) 0.01 0.001 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 38/5
Non Standard Cosmo 000 0 1 Ωh 2 0.01 0.0001 1e-06 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 Reheating Temperature (GeV) η = 0 η = - η = -8 η = -6 η = -4 η = -2 Note that different cosmological models may look standard! F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 39/5
Important Message The bulk region can be correct, good news for parameter extraction at LHC Large Wino cross sections that are good for Indirect Detection not ruled out F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 40/5
reconstruct Properties of DM measure masses and all important relevant couplings (bino/wino/ components,..., mixing) that enter the relic calculation Most often this is also what enters the indirect detection strive to measure the coupling of the Higgs to the DM F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 41/5
The msugra inspired regions m 0 (GeV) 800 700 600 500 400 m h = 114 GeV 300 τ 1 / χ 0 co-annihilation strip 1 200 0 m τ1 < m χ 0 1 0 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 00 WMAP b sγ (exc.) Pre-WMAP (bulk) m 1/2 (GeV) tan β =, µ < 0 Bulk region: bino LSP, l R exchange, (small m 0, M 1/2 ) τ 1 co-annihilation: NLSP thermally accessible, ratio of the two populations exp( M/T f ) small m 0, M 1/2 : 350 900GeV Higgs Funnel: Large tan β, χ 0 1 χ0 1 A b b,(τ τ), M 1/2 : 250 10GeV, m 0 : 450 00GeV Focus region: small µ M 1, important higgsino component, requires very large TeV m 0 F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 42/5
LHC+ILC No. MC Experiments 1200 00 (a) 88.83 / 34 Constant 745.9 9.335 Mean 0.1921 0.3741E-04 Sigma 0.5305E-02 0.3928E-04 ISASUGRA v. 7.69 800 600 400 200 0 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 0.215 0.22 Ω χ h 2 Polesello+Tovey, LHC, bulk Baltz,Battaglia, Peskin and Wisansky F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 43/5
τ 1 co-annihilation region: Model Independent M must be measured to less than 1GeV cos2θ τ - required, a(m) 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 cos2θ τ - required δm required a(m χ ) 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.05 0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0.6 m~ τ (GeV) 1 δm required (GeV) mixing angle accuracy should be feasible at ILC accuracy on LSP mass not demanding but this is because we have constrained M. other slepton masses need also be measured in terms of physical parameters residual µ tan β accuracies not demanding Preliminary studies indicate these accuracies will be met for the lowest m χ 0 1 0.05 7 6 δ - ( M) Ωh 2 /Ωh 2 0-0.05 tanβ= -0.1 µ=µ 0 200 300 400 500 m~ τ (GeV) GeV 5 4 3 2 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 m~ (GeV) e F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 44/5
direct and indirect Direct and Indirect Searches p, e +, γ, ν,... χ 0 1 χ χχ ν ν ν CDMS, Edelweiss, DAMA, Genuis,.. Amanda, Antares, I cecube,.. F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 45/5
Annihilation into photons dφ γ dωde γ = i dn i γ 1 σ i v de γ 4πm 2 χ }{{} Particulephysics (ρ + δρ) 2 dl } {{ } Astro γ s: Point to the source, independent of propagation model(s) continuum spectrum from χ 0 1 χ0 1 f f,..., hadronisation/fragmentation ( π 0 γ ) done through isajet/herwig Loop induced mono energetic photons,γγ,zγ final states ACT: HESS, Magic, VERITAS, Cangoroo,... Space-based: AMS, Egret,... GLAST, F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 46/5
Halo Profile Modelling F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 47/5
Propagation SloopS, micromegas,ams/hess SloopS GUT Scale Suspect micromegas PYTHIA Halo model Cosmic Ray Fluxes charged γ m χ =151 GeV.s -1 ] -2-6.s -1 ] -2 [ GeV.cm γ.φ 2 E -7 bb [ GeV.cm γ E 2.φ -7 γγ -8 τ + τ - 0 γz -8 1 E γ with AMS energy resolution [ GeV ] 2 1 with a typical ACT energy resolution [ GeV ] E γ 2 SIMULATION: Parameterising the halo profile: (α, β, γ) = (1,3,1), a = 25kpc. (core radius), r 0 = 8kpc (distance to galactic centre), ρ 0 = 0.3 GeV/cm 3 (DM density), opening angle cone 1 o SUSY parameterisation m 0 = 113GeV, m 1/2 = 375 GeV, A = 0, tan β = 20, µ > 0 γ lines could be distinguished from diffuse background F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 48/5
Annihilation into e +, p, D dφ f dωde f = i dn ī f 1 σ i v de f 4πm 2 (ρ + δρ) 2 P prop χ }{{}}{{} Particlephysics Astro γ s: Model of propagation and background Halo Profile modeling, clumps, cusps,..boost factors,.. If particle Physics fixed, constrain astrophysics ACT: HESS, Magic, VERITAS, Cangoroo,... Space-based: AMS, GLAST, Egret,... F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 49/5
Otherwise tempted to fit with large uncertainties E 2 * flux [GeV cm -2 s -1 sr -1 ] -4 Boostfaktor: 5 χ 2 : 7.2/6 χ 2 (bg only): 25.1/7 bg scaling: 1.11 EGRET background signal bg + sig p - flux [cm -2 GeV -1 s -1 sr -1 ] -5-6 Boostfaktor: 7.2 χ 2 : 6.5/12 χ 2 (bg only): 17.4/13 bg scaling: 0.97 BESS 95/97 background signal bg + sig -5-7 bb - m χ = 207 GeV m 0 = 500 GeV m 1/2 = 500 GeV tan β = 51 bb - m χ = 207 GeV -1 1 E [GeV] -8 m 0 = 500 GeV m 1/2 = 500 GeV tan β = 51-1 1 2 E [GeV] e + /(e + +e - ) 1 Boostfaktor: 7 χ 2 : 15.7/17 χ 2 (bg only): 71.2/18 bg scaling: 0.96 HEAT 94 / 95 / 00 AMS01 background signal bg + sig -1 m 0 = 500 GeV m 1/2 = 500 GeV tan β = 51-2 bb - m χ = 207 GeV -3-1 1 2 E [GeV] Wim de Boer and Co F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 50/5
0.2 e + /(e - +e + ) 0.15 0.1 background HEAT[94,95] HEAT[2000] Higgsino LSP (m=91gev, Bs=7.7, Bp=0.77, χ 2 =.6) Wino LSP (m=131gev, Bs=0.9, Bp=0.7, χ 2 =11.6) 0.05 0 1 0 G. Kane and Co e + energy (GeV) F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 51/5
from a few days back in Moriond.. F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 52/5
direct detection Uncertainties coming from nuclear form factors (still large, strange component), velocity distribution,... (pb) σ S.I. -5 Edelweiss II -6 Zeplin II Zeplin IV Xenon Genius within WMAP (pb) σ S.I. -5 Edelweiss II -6 Zeplin II Zeplin IV Xenon Genius -7-7 -8-8 -9-9 - -11 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 m χ - tan β = tan β = 50-11 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 m χ F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 53/5
Summary Cosmology has entered the era of precision measurements. Particle Physics component of DM must be extracted unambiguously. If large clean and understood signals of Etmiss at LHC there is most probably a link with DM Strive for as much as possible for a model independent reconstruction of the important relevant parameters of DM One may be lucky to be a good region of the New physics parameter space Other hints and constraint can come from observables not necessarily with Etmiss, the rest of the NP spectrum even Higgs In a first stage one can fit to constrained models strategy would also depend on how the astrophysics scene evolves in the most lucky situation an extraordinary synergy between collider physics, astrophysics and cosmology, a glimpse on the history of the Universe, remnants of the Planck scale??? F. BOUDJEMA, Dark Matter and the LHC, LHC2FC, CERN, Feb 2009 p. 54/5