Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The wimp miracle cern integral satilite

16 views

Published on

The task of INTEGRAL, ESA's International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory, is to gather some of the most energetic radiation that comes from space. The spacecraft was launched on 17 October 2002 and it's helping to solve some of the biggest mysteries in astronomy.
The mission is dedicated to the fine spectroscopy (E/∆E = 500) and fine imaging (angular resolution: 12 arcmin FWHM) of celestial gamma-ray sources in the energy range 15 keV to 10 MeV with concurrent source monitoring in the X-ray (4-35 keV) and optical (V-band, 550 nm) energy ranges.
Gamma-rays are even more powerful than the X-rays used in medical examinations. Fortunately, the Earth's atmosphere acts as a shield to protect us from this dangerous cosmic radiation. However, this means that gamma-rays from astronomical sources can only be detected by satellites. INTEGRAL is the most sensitive gamma-ray observatory ever launched.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The wimp miracle cern integral satilite

  1. 1. The WIMP “Miracle” WhenT<< MWIMP, number density falls as e-M/T assume thermal equilibrium 51
  2. 2. 52
  3. 3. 53
  4. 4. The WIMP not-miracle⇒ V ≈ m2 πf2 π(1 − cos(θ + a fa )) ma ∼ 6 × 10−6 eV × 1012 GeV fa Ωh2 ≈ 0.1 × 3 × 10−26 cm3 s−1 σv ≈ 0.1 × α2 /(200GeV)2 σv • Any weak- scale particle naturally freezes out within a few orders of magnitude of the correct cross section! 54
  5. 5. The WIMP miracle • So what good is this? 55
  6. 6. OUTLINE • The “neutralino” (whatever that is) • The canonical WIMP: (2 ±1/2) Dirac fermion • (aka the “Higgsino” or 4th gen neutrino) • Signals of thermal dark matter • direct detection • indirect detection • colliders 56
  7. 7. YOUR CANONICAL WIMP • 4th generation Dirac neutrino is completely ruled out as a WIMP candidate* • This makes it a very handy study * unless you tweak some things 57
  8. 8. the Dirac neutrino n˜τ n ˜B ∼ exp(−∆M/T) (2, ±1/2) SU(2) U(1) has same charges as Higgs left-handed lepton; “Higgsino” note: in reality weak scale particles are under- abundant.WantTeV or some suppression in cross section 58
  9. 9. Direct detection DM DM (A,Z) (A,Z) n˜τ n ˜B ∼ exp(−∆M/T) (2, ±1/2) σ = G2 f 2π µχN ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 σn = G2 f 2π µχn ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 A2 1 n˜τ n ˜B ∼ exp(−∆M/T) (2, ±1/2) σ = G2 f 2π µχN ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 σn = G2 f 2π µχn ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 A2 σn ≈ 10−39 cm2 1 ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 XENON100 profiled limit Trotta et al. CMSSM 95% CL CoGeNT DAMA CDMS XENON100 Trotta et al. CMSSM 68% CL ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 to re-analyze the first data release fr direct Dark Matter search experim avoids the need to a priori define region, but instead takes all measure The background was estimated usi as control measurements. Uncertai scintillation efficiency Leff and the locity vesc were taken into account of the likelihood model. Using the p statistic allows to calculate the sens iment with its uncertainty bands, defined single limit, taking all syst into account. Applying the metho published XENON100 data results in the limit over a wide WIMP mass59
  10. 10. the neutralino B-W3 -H1-H2 basis, this matrix is given by Mχ0 = (15)     M1 0 −mZ cos β sin θW mZ sin β sin θW 0 M2 mZ cos β cos θW −mZ sin β cos θW −mZ cos β sin θW mZ cos β cos θW 0 −µ mZ sin β sin θW −mZ sin β cos θW −µ 0     , where M1 and M2 are the bino and wino masses, µ is the higgsino mass parameter, θW is the Weinberg angle, and tan β ≡ υ2/υ1 is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs doublets. This matrix can be diagonalized into mass eigenstates by the unitary matrix N, Mdiag χ0 = N∗ Mχ0 N−1 . (16) In terms of the elements of the matrix, N, the lightest neutralino is given by the following mixture of gaugino and higgsino components: L = (θ + a/f)Gµν ˜Gµν ⇒ V ≈ m2 πf2 π(1 − cos(θ + a fa )) ma ∼ 6 × 10−6 eV × 1012 GeV fa Ωh2 ≈ 0.1 × 3 × 10−26 cm3 s−1 σv ≈ 0.1 × α2 /(200GeV)2 σv χ0,1,2,3 = i= ˜B, ˜W3, ˜Hu, ˜Hd Uijfi big M1,2= Higgsino-like big mu= gaugino-like B W Hu Hd 60
  11. 11. mSUGRA A funnel coannihilation tail focus point NB: Over much of parameter space, the neutralino defies “WIMP” intuition L = (θ + a/f)GµνG ⇒ V ≈ m2 πf2 π(1 − cos(θ + a fa )) ma ∼ 6 × 10−6 eV × 1012 GeV fa 2 ≈ 0.1 × 3 × 10−26 cm3 s−1 σv ≈ 0.1 × α2 /(200GeV)2 σv χ0,1,2,3 = i= ˜B, ˜W3, ˜Hu, ˜Hd Uijfi n˜τ n ˜B ∼ exp(−∆M/T) need near- degenerarcy 61
  12. 12. Be wary of correlations in CMSSM • Common logical path in mSUGRA* LEP Higgs mass limit mh114.4 GeV SUSY predicts mhmZ Need large radiative corrections to quartic to keep v=246 GeV Large radiative corrections give contribution to Higgs mass Cancel those corrections with large μ term μ term is Higgsino mass LSP is mostly Bino Small elastic scattering cross sections * No, not every point in mSUGRA, this is just an example, NU models (non-unified) have different Higgs soft masses 62
  13. 13. the Dirac neutrino vs Higgsino ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 XENON100 profiled limit Trotta et al. CMSSM 95% CL CoGeNT DAMA CDMS XENON100 Trotta et al. CMSSM 68% CL ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 FIG. 6: Parameter space of spin-independent elastic WIMP- nucleon cross-section σ as function of WIMP mass mχ. The sensitivity for the data set analyzed here is shown as light to re-analyze direct Dark avoids the n region, but i The backgro as control m scintillation locity vesc w of the likelih statistic allo iment with defined singl into account published XE the limit ov imum σup mχ = 50 Ge be applied fo Wait! I thought the Dirac neutrino was like a Higgsino? Is it just that the neutralino is only a little bit Higgsino? No! (I mean, it often is, but that’s not what explains this) why is cross section so small? 63
  14. 14. Consider vector interaction χ1 χ1 Aµ χ1 χ2 Aµ Vector interactions for massive Majorana fermions (or real scalars) always require multiple states interaction is off-diagonal (inter-neutralino scattering) 2π σn = G2 f 2π µχn ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 A2 σn ≈ 10−39 cm2 χ1σµχ1Aµ 1 σn = G2 f 2π µχn ((1 − 4s2 W )Z − (A − Z))2 A2 σn ≈ 10−39 cm2 χ1σµχ2Aµ 1 64
  15. 15. A “MINIMAL MODEL” OF DARK MATTER by the single parameter λ. We now identify what constraints are implied for these couplings by general con iderations like vacuum stability or from the requirement that the vacuum produce a acceptable symmetry-breaking pattern. These are most simply identified in unitar gauge, √ 2 H† = (h, 0) with real h, where the scalar potential takes the form: V = m2 0 2 S2 + λ 2 S2 h2 + λS 4 S4 + λh 4 h2 − v2 EW 2 . (2.2 λh and vEW = 246 GeV are the usual parameters of the Standard Model Higgs potentia 1. The Existence of a Vacuum: This potential is bounded from below provide hat the quartic couplings satisfy the following three conditions: λS, λh ≥ 0 and (2.3 λS λh ≥ λ2 for negative λ. We shall assume that these relations are satisified and study the minima of the scala potential. 2. Desirable Symmetry Breaking Pattern: We demand the minimum of V to hav he following two properties: It must spontaneously break the electroweak gauge group h = 0; and it must not break the symmetry S → −S, so S = 0. The first of thes Burgess, Pospelov, terVeldhuis, ’01 FEM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ FEM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ h EM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ EM ν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ FEM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ h h 65
  16. 16. A “MINIMAL MODEL” OF DARK MATTER by the single parameter λ. We now identify what constraints are implied for these couplings by general con iderations like vacuum stability or from the requirement that the vacuum produce a acceptable symmetry-breaking pattern. These are most simply identified in unitar gauge, √ 2 H† = (h, 0) with real h, where the scalar potential takes the form: V = m2 0 2 S2 + λ 2 S2 h2 + λS 4 S4 + λh 4 h2 − v2 EW 2 . (2.2 λh and vEW = 246 GeV are the usual parameters of the Standard Model Higgs potentia 1. The Existence of a Vacuum: This potential is bounded from below provide hat the quartic couplings satisfy the following three conditions: λS, λh ≥ 0 and (2.3 λS λh ≥ λ2 for negative λ. We shall assume that these relations are satisified and study the minima of the scala potential. 2. Desirable Symmetry Breaking Pattern: We demand the minimum of V to hav he following two properties: It must spontaneously break the electroweak gauge group h = 0; and it must not break the symmetry S → −S, so S = 0. The first of thes Burgess, Pospelov, terVeldhuis, ’01 FEM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ FEM µν Fµν d ⇒ FEM µν ˜Fµν d σ0 ≈ G2 f µ2 2π χ h 66
  17. 17. A “MINIMAL MODEL” OF DARK MATTER 150 140 130 mh 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 k(mZ) 00GeV 1000 300 150 75 h(mZ)=0instability k 5.5 120 FIG. 1: The region of the NMSM parameter space (k(mZ), mh) that satisfies the stability and triviality bounds, for h(mZ) = 0, 1.0, and 1.2. Also the preferred values from the cosmic abundance ΩSh2 = 0.11 are shown for various mS. We used y(mZ) = 1.0. p(cm2) 10#40 10#42 10#44 10#46 10#48 mS (GeV) 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 DAMA (3) CDMS-II (90%CL) mh = 150GeV $S h2 =0.11 CRESST II ZEPLIN 4/MAX CDMS-II Edelweiss 2 FIG. 2: The elastic scattering cross section of Dark Matter from nu--42 -40 20 40 60 80 100 -48 -46 -44 -42 -40 mS [GeV] mh = 120 GeV )cm2logσel(nucleon)cm2 by the single parameter λ. We now identify what constraints are implied for these couplings by general con iderations like vacuum stability or from the requirement that the vacuum produce a acceptable symmetry-breaking pattern. These are most simply identified in unitar gauge, √ 2 H† = (h, 0) with real h, where the scalar potential takes the form: V = m2 0 2 S2 + λ 2 S2 h2 + λS 4 S4 + λh 4 h2 − v2 EW 2 . (2.2 λh and vEW = 246 GeV are the usual parameters of the Standard Model Higgs potentia 1. The Existence of a Vacuum: This potential is bounded from below provide hat the quartic couplings satisfy the following three conditions: λS, λh ≥ 0 and (2.3 λS λh ≥ λ2 for negative λ. We shall assume that these relations are satisified and study the minima of the scala potential. 2. Desirable Symmetry Breaking Pattern: We demand the minimum of V to hav he following two properties: It must spontaneously break the electroweak gauge group h = 0; and it must not break the symmetry S → −S, so S = 0. The first of thes Burgess, Pospelov, terVeldhuis, ’01; Davoudiasl, Kitano, Li, Murayama ’04 Davoudiasl, Kitano, Li, Murayama ’04 67
  18. 18. ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 XENON100 profiled limit Trotta et al. CMSSM 95% CL CoGeNT DAMA CDMS XENON100 Trotta et al. CMSSM 68% CL ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 FIG. 6: Parameter space of spin-independent elastic WIMP- nucleon cross-section σ as function of WIMP mass mχ. The sensitivity for the data set analyzed here is shown as light and dark (blue) shaded areas at 1σ and 2σ CL, respectively. The actual limit at 90% CL, taking into account all relevant systematic uncertainties as derived with the Profile Likelihood method, is shown as the thick (black) line. Two limits from to re-analyze direct Dark M avoids the ne region, but in The backgrou as control me scintillation e locity vesc we of the likeliho statistic allow iment with it defined single into account. published XE the limit over imum σup mχ = 50 GeV be applied for VII much of this scattering is mediated by Higgs not by Z boson 68
  19. 19. THE LHC BEGINSTO PROBE... ATLAS cuts in the mSUGRA case is repopulated. Thus obser- LAS depleted region could point to supergravity models with with N, CDMS, CMS, ATLAS, SUGRA AS have re- searches us- and put new = 1 super- ersal bound- fication scale s see [7–9]). fined by the where m0 is ersal gaugino g (all at the Higgs VEVs model, and µ sequent work TLAS results ) in the con- Tevatron [12], , from FCNC [14, 15] and In this work Neutralino Mass (GeV) ProtonSICross-section(cm2 ) mSUGRA Models Passing B-physics gµ - 2, LEP and 0.09 ≤ Ωh2 ≤ 0.13, with ATLAS Constraints CDMS CoGeNT DAMA Xenon-100 Xenon-1T SuperCDMS 1000 LHC 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 −48 10 −46 10 −44 10 −42 10 −40 10 −38 ATLAS Unconstrained ATLAS Constrained (95% CL) FIG. 1: (color online) A plot of spin independent neutralino- 69
  20. 20. direct detection se are the principal effects that reduce the sensitivity of CDMS versus DAMA, and all istency between the experiments. RATES, BENCHMARK POINTS AND SPECTRA o calculate the rates, we employ the standard techniques for nuclear recoils [14, 1 event rate at a given experiment is given by dR dER = NT MN ρχσn 2mχµ2 ne (fpZ + fn(A − Z))2 f2 n F2 [ER] ∞ βmin f(v) v dv. ere MN is the nucleus mass, NT is the number of target nuclei in the detector, ρχ GeV/cm3 is the WIMP density, µne is the reduced mass of the WIMP-nucleon syste ER] is the nuclear form factor, and f(v) is the halo velocity distribution function. se to normalize our results for fn = fp = 1. egin with the differential rate at a direct detection experiment, which g DM is given by, dR dER = NT MT ρ 2mχµ2 σ(ER) g(vmin) , is the DM-nucleus reduced mass, and NT = κNAmp/MT is the num g sites per kg with NA Avogadro’s number and κ the mass fraction of cattering DM. The function g(vmin) is related to the integral of th 3 astrophysics nuclear physics particle physics PP:Type of interaction, mediator NP: Form factor - when de Broglie wavelength of interaction is comparable to nuclear size - resolve that it is not a point particle 70
  21. 21. spin independent “nuclear charge” scattering RATES, BENCHMARK POINTS AND SPECTRA To calculate the rates, we employ the standard techniques for nuclear recoils [14, event rate at a given experiment is given by dR dER = NT MN ρχσn 2mχµ2 ne (fpZ + fn(A − Z))2 f2 n F2 [ER] ∞ βmin f(v) v dv. Here MN is the nucleus mass, NT is the number of target nuclei in the detector, ρχ GeV/cm3 is the WIMP density, µne is the reduced mass of the WIMP-nucleon syst ER] is the nuclear form factor, and f(v) is the halo velocity distribution function. ose to normalize our results for fn = fp = 1. astrophysics nuclear physics particle physics PP:Type of interaction, mediator NP: Form factor - when de Broglie wavelength of interaction is comparable to nuclear size - resolve that it is not a point particle (q2~ 2 MNER = ER~ 100 keV) (Duda, Gondolo+Kemper 0608035) AP: How many particles are there at a given velocity in the Earth frame 71
  22. 22. Figure 2: Velocity distribution functions: the left panels are in the host halo’s restframe, the right panels in the restframe of the Earth on June 2nd , the peak of the Earth’s velocity relative to Galactic DM halo. The solid red line is the distribution for all particles in a 1 kpc wide shell centered at 8.5 kpc, the light and dark green shaded regions denote the 68% scatter around the median and the minimum and maximum values over the 100 sample spheres, and the dotted line represents the best-fitting Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. f(v) is the speed distribution of WIMPs vent rate at a given experiment is given by dR dER = NT MN ρχσn 2mχµ2 ne (fpZ + fn(A − Z))2 f2 n F2 [ER] ∞ βmin f(v) v dv. (6 e MN is the nucleus mass, NT is the number of target nuclei in the detector, ρχ = V/cm3 is the WIMP density, µne is the reduced mass of the WIMP-nucleon system ] is the nuclear form factor, and f(v) is the halo velocity distribution function. W to normalize our results for fn = fp = 1. pseudo-Maxwellian, characterized by v0 (velocity dispersion) vesc (escape velocity) Many errors in the literature! Good reference: Freese, Gondolo, Savage 0607121 72
  23. 23. direct detection 73
  24. 24. XENON • Distinguish events by ratio of scintillation light compared with ionization (bowling ball vs ping pong ball) 74
  25. 25. XENON10 Angle et al, Phys.Rev.Lett.100:021303,2008 • Distinguish events by ratio of scintillation light compared with ionization (bowling ball vs ping pong ball) 75
  26. 26. XENON100 . [5] and ogarith- contour trend in physical cteristics WIMP- uts were fically on cattered In par- n a 20 ns ain more s allows m events or acci- hreshold nization only one nts with addition, onsistent ime due that de- with the regions ulses are required to be free of extraneous PMT signals or noise. Finally, events outside the pre-defined fiducial volume are rejected. ]nr Nuclear Recoil Equivalent Energy [keV 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 (S2/S1)10 log 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Acceptance 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 S1 [PE] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 FIG. 3: Cut acceptance (top, not including 50% acceptance from S2/S1 discrimination) and log10(S2/S1) (bottom) as functions of nuclear recoil energy for events observed in the 40 kg fiducial volume during 11.17 live days. Lines as in fig- ure 2. fit, shown in Fig. 1. The lower bound is motivated by the fact that the acceptance of the S1 two-fold coincidence requirement is 90% above 4 PE. The log10(S2/S1) up- per and lower bounds of the signal region are respectively chosen as the median of the nuclear recoil band and the 300 PE S2 software threshold. ]2 [cm2 Radius 0 50 100 150 200 250 z[cm] -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Radius [cm] 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 FIG. 4: Distribution of all events (dots) and events below the nuclear recoil median (red circles) in the TPC (grey line) observed in the 8.7−32.6 keVnr energy range during 11.17 live days. No events below the nuclear recoil median are observed within the 40 kg fiducial volume (dashed). A first dark matter analysis has been carried out, using 11.17 live days of background data, taken from October 20th to November 12th 2009, prior to the neutron calibra- tion. Although this was not formally a blind analysis, all the event selection criteria were optimized based on cal- ibration data only. The cumulative software cut accep- F W w c 2 a ( n o v l n g T c W c t T c 1 t b Major improvement in sensitivity - factor of 10 in exposure expected within ~ month (where month year) Upgrades: LUX, XENON1T, LZ;Also CDMS, Eureca, XMASS (for SI interactions) 76
  27. 27. where we are right now ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 XENON100 profiled limit Trotta et al. CMSSM 95% CL CoGeNT DAMA CDMS XENON100 Trotta et al. CMSSM 68% CL ]2 Mass [GeV/c 10 100 1000 ]2 CrossSection[cm -45 10 -44 10 -43 10 -42 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 10 FIG. 6: Parameter space of spin-independent elastic WIMP- nucleon cross-section σ as function of WIMP mass mχ. The sensitivity for the data set analyzed here is shown as light to re-analyze direct Dark avoids the n region, but in The backgro as control m scintillation locity vesc w of the likelih statistic allow iment with defined singl into account published XE the limit ove imum σup mχ = 50 Ge be applied fo 77
  28. 28. indirect detection • dark matter in the halo right now could be producing cosmic rays gamma rays (Fermi) UH cosmics (ACTs like Hess/Veritas) charged cosmic rays (PAMELA,ATIC) indirect indirect WMAP (microwave signals from HE electrons or corrections to the CMB) INTEGRAL produce LE positrons that then produce X-rays (511 keV) neutrinos (ICECUBE, ANTARES) 78
  29. 29. indirect detection flux is high in galactic center, so are backgrounds flux may be high in dwarfs 79
  30. 30. indirect detection: charged 80
  31. 31. indirect detection: charged “diffusion zone” 81
  32. 32. indirect detection: charged diffusion constant (not a constant) unknown energy loss mechanisms: pretty well known source: what we want to know steady state =0 82
  33. 33. indirect detection: charged Hooper + Simet ‘09 83
  34. 34. collider signals Unbalanced visible energy leads to MET (missing transverse energy) 84
  35. 35. collider signals Can you directly compare to direct detection? Almost 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0 10 44 10 42 10 40 10 38 10 36 mΧ GeV ΣSIpcm2 uΓ Μ u ΧΓΜΧdΓ Μ d ΧΓΜΧuuΧΧ ddΧΧ CDMS CoGeNT DAMA DAMA w. channeling 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0 10 44 10 42 10 40 10 38 10 36 mΧ GeV ΣSIncm2 uΓ Μ u ΧΓΜΧ dΓ Μ d ΧΓΜΧ uuΧΧ ddΧΧ CDMS CoGeNT DAMA DAMA w. channeling Figure 2: Left panel: the constraints on the spin-indepedent DM-proton scattering cross section. The projected Tevatron constraints for the up-type and vector coupling operator are shown in the dot- dashed line. Relevant experimental bounds are shown as labeled. Right panel: the same as the left panel but for the constraints on the spin-indepedent DM-neutron scattering cross section. At low DM speed the leading contributions to the scattering cross section in each case are Goodman, Ibe, Rajaraman, Shepherd,Tait,Yu, ’10; Bai, Fox, Harnik ’10; Bai, Fox, Harnik, Kopp,Tsai ’11 monojet (originally studied for large extra dimensions) 85
  36. 36. OUTLINE • Anomalies in direct detection • DAMA • CoGeNT • CRESST • Scenarios: light WIMPs, spin-dependent, inelastic WIMPs, other exotica 86
  37. 37. HINTS?Time (day) Residuals(cpd/ 2-6 keV Time (day) Residuals(cpd/kg/keV) DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 tonyr) Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillation events, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6) keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January 1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. The experimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time bin width as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functions behaviors A cos ω(t − t0) with a period T = 2π ω = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day (June 2nd ) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtained by best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected by the former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton × yr (see also ref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximum expected for the DM signal (June 2nd ), while the dotted vertical lines correspond to the minimum. See text. 5 DAMA !#$%$'()*+,$-,#,.#%/$0%-1+, !#$!%!'( )*+,-'%.-/)0%!'( 12',31-'%!'( 30,'!%.-,0)' CoGeNT CRESST 87
  38. 38. • The same beast? ! 3 10 m! [GeV] 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 p SI [cm 2 ] 10 DAMA + CoGeNT CoGeNT DAMA CRESST CDMS Si (2005) CDMS Ge XENON100 (mean Leff ) XENON10 S2 analysis P. Sorensen, talk @ IDM2010 solid: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.03 dashed: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.1 T. Schwetz, IDM, 29 July 2010 – p 10 GeV] 10 DAMA + CoGeNT CoGeNT DAMA CRESST CDMS Si (2005) CDMS Ge XENON100 (mean Leff ) XENON10 S2 analysis P. Sorensen, talk @ IDM2010 T. Schwetz, IDM, 29 July 2010 – p. 31 don’t really line up, but within spitting distance NB: Not MSSM (Kuflick, Pierce, Zurek ’10) 88
  39. 39. DAMA Time (day) Residuals(c 2-6 keV Time (day) Residuals(cpd/kg/keV) DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 tonyr) ure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillatio nts, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is Janua of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Th erimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time b th as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal function89
  40. 40. DAMA • What is it: annual modulation in scintillation events in 100/250 kg NaI(Tl) crystal - DM? • What’s to like: single hit, stable phase, low energy, no candidate “conventional” explanations • What’s not to like: null results from other exps, data are still unavailable, no event discrimination Time (day) 2-6 keV Time (day) Residuals(cpd/kg/keV) DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 tonyr) Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillation events, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6) keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January 1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. The experimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time bin width as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functions behaviors A cos ω(t − t0) with a period T = 2π ω = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day (June 2nd ) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtained by best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected by the former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton × yr (see also ref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximum expected for the DM signal (June 2nd ), while the dotted vertical lines correspond to the minimum. See text. 5 90
  41. 41. COGENT 91
  42. 42. • What is it: events in an ionization experiment, x10 larger than expected background - DM? • What’s to like: excellent energy resolution/calibration, good statistics • What’s not to like: no discrimination, hasn’t been mercilessly beaten for a decade, no corroborating features [yet] (e.g. modulation), null results from other exps COGENT 92
  43. 43. 30,'!%.-,0)' CRESST 93
  44. 44. ! ! !#$!%!'( )*+,-'%.-/)0 12',31-'%!' 2+,/$'(*)+'$()$%34*,)$/,.%(+$5)-$()$'(*)+$,),/*4 30,'!%.-,0)' CRESST • What is it: an excess of events in a CaWO4 detector, consistent with Oxygen scattering (~10-40 keV) • What’s to like: good discrimination vs electron recoil, not muon induced neutrons • What’s not to like: lots of events at high (15 keV+ energy, should have been seen elsewhere), signal lies left, right, above and below clear background sources, still have only seen 2 of 9 detectors, naively low energy looks too clean to be WIMP 94
  45. 45. The controversy 95
  46. 46. The controversy Summary elastic SI scattering ! 3 10 m! [GeV] 10 -41 10 -40 10 -39 p SI [cm 2 ] 10 DAMA + CoGeNT CoGeNT DAMA CRESST CDMS Si (2005) CDMS Ge XENON100 (mean Leff ) XENON10 S2 analysis P. Sorensen, talk @ IDM2010 solid: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.03 dashed: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.1 T. Schwetz, IDM, 29 July 2010 – p. 31 ! 10 m! [GeV] 10 DAMA + CoGeNT CoGeNT DAMA CRESST CDMS Si (2005) CDMS Ge XENON100 (mean Leff ) XENON10 S2 analysis P. Sorensen, talk @ IDM2010 solid: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.03 dashed: qNa = 0.3 +/- 0.1 T. Schwetz, IDM, 29 July 2010 – p. 31 DAMA/CoGeNT agreement requires generous assumptions about QNa Limits from XENON invoke unmeasured properties of LXe at low energies 96
  47. 47. A resolution? 3 10 100 !0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 2 Ionizationyield Recoil energy (keV) FIG. 2. (color online). Events in the ionization-yield versus recoil-energy plane for T1Z5. Events within the (+1.25, −0.5)σ nuclear-recoil band (solid) are WIMP candi- dates (large dots). Events outside these bands (small, dark dots) pass all selection criteria except the ionization-energy requirement. The widths of the band edges denote variations between data runs. Events from the 252 Cf calibration data are also shown (small, light dots). The recoil-energy scale as- sumes the ionization signal is consistent with a nuclear recoil, causing electron recoils to be shifted to higher recoil energies and lower yields. WIMP mass (GeV/c2 ) WIMP!nucleon! SI (cm2 ) 10 !40 10 !39 4 6 8 10 12 10 !37 10 !36 10 !35 10 !34 10 !33 WIMP mass (GeV/c2 ) WIMP!neutron!SD (cm2 ) FIG. 3. (color online). Top: comparison of the spin- independent (SI) exclusion limits from these data (solid) to previous results in the same mass range (all at 90% C.L.). Limits from a low-threshold analysis of the CDMS shallow- site data [16] (dashed), CDMS II Ge results with a 10 keV threshold [12] (dash-dotted), recalculated for lower WIMP masses, and XENON100 with constant (+) or decreasing ( ) scintillation-efficiency extrapolations at low energy [17] are for the wer dat the T1Z use wit eve are T tion Neg erg ion wea F per nuc stro WI ete and tion rec stro low scin CDMS: Same target, same energy, should be comparable 97
  48. 48. inelastic dark matter • DM-nucleus scattering must be inelastic • If dark matter can only scatter off of a nucleus by transitioning to an excited state (100 keV), the kinematics are changed dramatically D.Tucker-Smith, NW, Phys.Rev.D64:043502,2001;Phys.Rev.D72:063509,2005 χ N N χ∗ nRel ∼ T nNR ∼ (mT)3/2 exp(−m/ TeV 5 M4 GUT ∼ (1026 sec)−1 range ∼ fm ∼ (200 MeV) µ2 χN v2 2 δ 98
  49. 49. Favors heavier targets visible to DAMA visible to DAMA and CDMS Disfavors CDMS n(v): velocity distribution of WIMPs WIMP velocity in km/s 99
  50. 50. Enhanced modulation Favors modulation experiments 100
  51. 51. inelastic dark matter • Favors heavy targets (Iodine) over light ones (Germanium) • Enhances modulation (typically 50%, but up to 100% - sensitive to the non-Maxwellian features of the halo) • Depletes low energy events • Together these effects can allow a positive DAMA signal consistent with other results (CDMS, XENON10, ZEPLIN, CRESST, KIMS) - although increasingly tense 101
  52. 52. OUTLINE • Anomalies in indirect detection • INTEGRAL • PAMELA/Fermi (electrons) • WMAP/Fermi (photons) • Scenarios: MeV DM, “eXciting” DM, decaying DM • Dark forces and signals 102
  53. 53. The step-child of dark matter anomalies: INTEGRAL INTEGRAL/ SPI: (spectrometer) Energy range: 20 keV - 8 MeV Field of view: 16 deg Angular resolution: 2.5 deg FWHM Launched: 2002 Oct 17 Still operating... 103
  54. 54. the step child of dark matter anomalies 1018 G. Weidenspointner et al.: The sky distribution of positronium conti Energy [keV] 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 Diff.Flux[1/cm2 /s/keV] 400 500 600 Fig. 2. A fit of the SPI result for the diffuse emission from the GC re- gion (|l|, |b| ≤ 16◦ ) obtained with a spatial model consisting of an 8◦ FWHM Gaussian bulge and a CO disk. In the fit a diagonal response was assumed. The spectral components are: 511 keV line (dotted), Ps continuum (dashes), and power-law continuum (dash-dots). The summed models are indicated by the solid line. Details of the fitting procedure are given in the text. has been applied to spectroscopy of an extended sky source ob- served with the SPI instrument. As an aside note, we wish to in Sect. 3.3.1, i.e. the tial model G8CO. The SPI instrument respon with a normalized, rel Gaussian and the CO which scales as: (num tectors) × (number of multiplied by (numbe tion models) to give th applied to the spectral This leads to ∼750 × 1 calculations per iterat dure. Specifically, we the best fit parameters integrate over the cove The parameter spa troid and width of th at 511 keV and 2.5 k analysis (see Sect. 3.3 dex α to a value of 1.7 about a factor of 4 rela described above. Oth cally the Ps continuum – were allowed to va104
  55. 55. distribution of the INTEGRAL 511 keV line 105
  56. 56. Light (MeV) DM • Want an MeV WIMP to annihilate to e+e- • How does such a stable particle interact with us? • Need MeV mass boson (precision g-2? tough, but OK) Boehm Fayet ’03; Boehm, Hooper, Silk, Casse, Paul ‘03 106
  57. 57. eXciting DM (XDM) • Suppose TeV mass dark matter has an excited state ~ MeV above the ground state and can scatter off itself into the excited state, then decay back by emitting e+e- D.Finkbeiner, NW, Phys.Rev.D76:083519,2007 χ1 χ1 χ2 χ2 χ2 χ1 e ¯e 107
  58. 58. Need cross section near the geometric cross section, i.e. Only possible if new force with mass less than q^2~ GeV^2 is in the theory sigma ~ 1/q^2 108
  59. 59. PAMELA 109
  60. 60. PAMELA/Fermi DM? 110
  61. 61. PAMELA/Fermi PAMELA sees no excess in antiprotons - excludes hadronic modes by order of magnitude (Cirelli et al, ’08, Donato et al, ’08) The spectrum at PAMELA is very hard - not what you would expect from e.g.,W’s The cross sections needed are 10-1000x the thermal cross section 3 10 100 Energy (GeV) odel A = 100 GeV Background e+ e- , BF = 3.8 µ+ µ- , BF = 6.1 #+ #- , BF = 12 W+ W- , BF = 24 Z0 Z0 , BF = 34 b– b, BF = 33 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Energy (GeV) Model A m= 300 GeV Background e+ e- , BF = 32 µ+ µ- , BF = 44 #+ #- , BF = 57 W+ W- , BF = 66 Z0 Z0 , BF = 74 b– b, BF = 57 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Energy (GeV) Model A m= 1 TeV Background e+ e- , BF = 310 µ+ µ- , BF = 450 #+ #- , BF = 430 W+ W- , BF = 210 Z0 Z0 , BF = 210 b– b, BF = 160 Background e+ e- , BF = 23 µ+ µ- , BF = 25 #+ #- , BF = 45 W+ W- , BF = 91 Z0 Z0 , BF = 100 b– b, BF = 100 1 Background e+ e- , BF = 430 µ+ µ- , BF = 250 #+ #- , BF = 240 W+ W- , BF = 240 Z0 Z0 , BF = 250 b– b, BF = 180 1 Background e+ e- , BF = 6300 µ+ µ- , BF = 4200 #+ #- , BF = 2400 W+ W- , BF = 820 Z0 Z0 , BF = 770 b– b, BF = 570 111
  62. 62. Explaining PAMELA/Fermi • Issues to address • (1) Size of signal • (2) Hard positrons • (3) No antiprotons • Dark matter could be produced non-thermally (gets 1, model build for 2/3) • Dark matter could decay (gets 1, model build 2/3) • Dark matter could interact through new, GeV scale force (gets 1,2,3, model build GeV scale) 112
  63. 63. Non-thermal Winos (Grajek, Kane, Phalen, Pierce, Watson, ʼ08; Kane, Lu, Watson ʻ09 ) Requires new source of electrons; constrained by recent Fermi measurements 113
  64. 64. Decaying DM Eichler ʼ89; Chen, Takahashi, Yanagida ʼ08; Yin, Yuan, Liu, Zhang, Bi, Zhu ʼ08; Ibarra, Tran ʼ09; Arvanitaki, Dimopoulos, Dubovsky, Graham, Harnik, Rajendran ʼ09... Arvanitaki, et al ʻ09 Why is lifetime 10^27 s? Why is dominantly going to leptons? Some SUSY ideas, or decaying into light bosons nRel ∼ T3 nNR ∼ (mT)3/2 exp(−m/T) TeV 5 M4 GUT ∼ (1026 sec)−1 114
  65. 65. New Dark Forces • Revisit XDM setup: theory has light mediator Φ • Mass must be below ~ GeV, what are consequences? 115
  66. 66. freezeout into a dark photon χ χ f ¯f ←− time −→ “Classic”WIMP 8 φ φ b) χ χ φ φ and without (b) the Sommerfeld enhancements. χ χ A’ A’ f f γ A Finkbeiner, NW astro-ph 0702587v2; Pospelov,Ritz,Voloshin arxiv 0711.4866 FµνFµν d ⇒ d2 θ WαWα d V ⊃ DY Dd = gY v2 4 cos(2β) × (φ2 d − ˜φ2 d) Ωχh2 ≈ 0.1 × 3 × 10−26 cm3 s−1 σv ⇒ σv ≈ α2 M2 W 116
  67. 67. cosmic rays: PAMELA/Fermi 8 b) χ χ φ φ out (b) the Sommerfeld enhancements. φ can, and naturally will, be significant. In ht new states in this sector, with a mass ∼ 10 ure is therefore that all the light states in the is no reason for any of these particles to be ndard model states, indeed many SM states χ χ A’ A’ A’ f- f+ mA’GeV (no antiprotons, hard leptons) (Finkbeiner, NW, arxiv 0702587v2; Cholis, Goodenough, NW arxiv 0802.2922) 117
  68. 68. Sommerfeld Enhancement High velocity Low velocity If particles interact via a “long range” force, cross sections can be much larger than the perturbative cross section If these signals arise from thermal dark matter, dark matter must have a long range force Hisano, Nojiri, Matsumoto, ’04; Cirelli, Strumia,Tamburini, ’07;Arkani- Hamed, Finkbeiner, Slatyer, NW, ’08; Pospelov, Ritz, ’08 nRel ∼ T3 nNR ∼ (mT)3/2 exp(−m/T) TeV 5 M4 GUT ∼ (1026 sec)−1 range ∼ fm ∼ (200 MeV)−1 118
  69. 69. which, while only a tenth the age of Geminga, would appear tens of degrees wide if placed at rG ∼ 200 pc. We first examine whether the gamma rays can be ex- plained through inverse-Compton (IC) up-scattering of 0.1 1 10 100 E [GeV] 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 e + /(e - +e + ) PAMELA 2008 HEAT Combined Clem 2006 AMS-01 1998* AMS-01 1998 CAPRICE 1994 Golden 1993 10 3 FIG. 1: The cosmic-ray positron fraction. Shown are data compiled from Refs. [7, 8, 31, 34], and scenarios based on the secondary model of Ref. [9] (shaded) and a plausible Geminga contribution (solid, dashed, and dotted lines) dependent upon distance and energetics (see text for details). e.g. Yüksel, Kistler, Stanev ’09 10 100 1000 E [GeV] 10 1 10 2 10 3 E 3 J(E)[GeV 2 m -2 s -1 sr -1 ] Fermi 2009 HESS 2009 HESS 2008 ATIC-1,2 2008 PPB BETS 2008 AMS-01 10 4 Galactic e- Geminga e+ + e- Total pulsars 119
  70. 70. no anisotropy (yet) 500 y δ versus the s; •, 90 % CL; tures. Indeed, nearby (up to may give rise n of Galactic performed a ], assuming a pret the CRE 11]. In this as assumed to Energy (GeV) 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 J(E)(G3 E 10 Minimum Energy (GeV) 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 DipoleAnisotropy −3 10 −2 10 −1 10 FIG. 9: Top panel: e+ e− spectrum evaluated with GALPROP and for single sources by means of Eq. 18. Solid line: GALPROP spectrum; long dashed line: Monogem Monogem Vela GALPROP 120
  71. 71. A resolution in 2013? 9 0 500 1000 1500 2000 L 0 2000 4000 6000 L(L+1)CL/2![µK2 ] no DM annihilation 1 GeV e+ e- 1000 GeV W+ W- 2500 GeV XDM µ+ µ- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 L -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 L(L+1)CL/2![µK2 ] no DM annihilation 1 GeV e+ e- 1000 GeV W+ W- 2500 GeV XDM µ+ µ- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 L 0 20 40 60 L(L+1)CL/2![µK2 ] no DM annihilation 1 GeV e+ e- 1000 GeV W+ W- 2500 GeV XDM µ+ µ- FIG. 5: CMB power spectra for three different DM annihilation models, with power injection normalized to that of a 1 GeV WIMP with thermal relic cross section and f = 1, compared to a baseline model with no DM annihilation. The models give similar results for the TT (left), TE (middle), and EE (right) power spectra. This suggests that the CMB is sensitive to only one parameter, the average power injected around recombination. All curves employ the WMAP5 fiducial cosmology: the effects of DM annihilation can be compensated to a large degree by adjusting ns and σ8 [4]. known to within a factor of ∼ 2 (which is then squared to determine the annihilation rate), and density enhance- ments from local substructure could also contribute an O(1) boost to the cosmic-ray flux. The excess measured by Fermi requires generically smaller boost factors than ATIC, by a factor of ∼ 2 − 3: such models are not ruled and multiple light force carriers (e.g. [23]), but in this work we will consider only the simplest case. If the dark matter particle couples to a scalar media- tor φ with coupling strength λ, then the enhancement is solely determined by the dimensionless parameters, (v/c) m Null results: clear Positive results? Finkbeiner, Padmanabhan ’05; Galli, Iocco, Bertone, Melchiorri ’09; Slatyer, Padmanabhan, Finkbeiner, ’09 121
  72. 72. A resolution in 2013? Null results: clear Positive results? Finkbeiner, Padmanabhan ’05; Galli, Iocco, Bertone, Melchiorri ’09; Slatyer, Padmanabhan, Finkbeiner, ’09 122
  73. 73. New Collider Pheno: Lepton Jets • Production of Gdark states, yield boosted, highly collimated leptons (“lepton jets”) Arkani-Hamed, NW, ’08; Baumgart, Cheung, Ruderman,Wang,Yavin,‘ 09; Bai, Han ‘09 ˜q ˜q ˜χ ˜χ q q hdark hdark ˜hdark ˜hdark cf “HiddenValley” models, Strassler and Zurek ‘06 123
  74. 74. • ] Baumgart, Cheung, Ruderman,Wang,Yavin,‘ 09 124
  75. 75. D0 Collaboration, [arXiv:0905.1478]  Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 081802 125
  76. 76. D0 Collaboration, [arXiv: 0905.1478]  Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 081802 126
  77. 77. SEARCHES AT LOW ENERGY • Very weakly coupled, ~ GeV mass state • LHC/Tevatron not the best place to make it 127
  78. 78. 128
  79. 79. HRS!right HRS!left Electron, P = E0/2 Positron, P = E0/2 . . Septum W target Beam FIG. 5: The layout of the experimental setup — see text for details. positron and one of the electrons, gives a spectrometer efficiency of ∼ 0.14%. IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP In this section, we describe the experimental setup of the APEX experiment in JLab Hall A. Many of these features are also readily adaptable to other experimental facilities. The APEX experiment will measure the invariant mass spectrum of e+ e− pairs produced by an incident beam Beam zig−zag tilted target 0 . 0.01 mm diameter W wires Electrons Positrons FIG. 6: The top view of the tilted target. The rastered over an area 0.5×5 mm2 (the latter is in tical direction). The beam intersects the target in fo spread over almost 500 mm. Pair components wil tected by two HRS spectrometers at a central angle Each zig-zag of the target plane is tilted with respec beam by 0.5◦ and consists of a plane of parallel wires dicular to the beam. This reduces the multiple scat the outgoing e+ e− pair (produced in a prompt A d described in the text. and a coincidence of the signal in the S0 counte a signal from the Gas Cherenkov counter of the (positive polarity arm). A timing window of 20 n used for the first coincidence and 40 ns for the sec incidence. The resulting signal will be used as a trigger of data acquisition (DAQ). An addition will be arranged with a 100 ns wide coincidence between signals from the S0 counters. This seco of trigger will be prescaled by a factor 20 for DA is used to evaluate the performance of the prima Beam's eye: A B C . !cm tracking stations ecal/trigger A B C 10 cm 2 cm 0.1 X0 W Ε FIG. 5: Left: Experimental scenario for a small two-arm spectrom MeV). An electron beam is incident upon a thin 0.1 radiation lengt silicon-strip trackers and a fast calorimeter or scintillator trigger is dow requiring a displaced vertex ∼ 1 cm behind the target. More details ar or more events within acceptance in 106 sec for three different geomet (0.1 C delivered), with angular acceptance from 20 to 55 mrad and a (5 × 10−3 C delivered), with angular acceptance from 10 to 27 mrad in 2 GeV beam at 0.5 nA (5 × 10−4 C delivered) with the same geometry we require that the A carry at least 83% of the beam energy, the tr the reconstructed vertex displacement exceed 1 cm. We assume 50% φ from past experiments (E137 and E141) and the region that explain more details. within ∼ 5 − 10 cm. Another basic requirement is that the occupancy in the tracking system be acceptably low. High-resolution sili- con strip detectors are beneficial in this regard. Within a cone of opening angle of 10 mrad at a distance of 50 cm downstream of the target, we estimate that the den- sity of electrons and photons produced in the target with energy above 1 MeV is of order 109 /cm2 /s [58]. In this scenario, the silicon is placed further from the beam, but this rate serves as a rough upper bound, which would give one percent occupancy for a 1 cm × 25 µm strip. While these numbers are encouraging, a serious simulation is certainly required. Tr a str A m mra close nula (for inne a 0. tribu The calo is hi W (as mentioned previously, similar considerations apply to pseudo-vectors, scalars, and pseudo-scalars with sub- GeV mass that couple to electrons). It is useful to param- eterize the coupling g of the A to electrons by a dimen- sionless ≡ g /e, where e is the electron charge. Cross- sections for A production then scale as α /α = 2 , where α = g2 /(4π) and α = e2 /(4π) are the fine-structure con- stants for the dark photon and ordinary electromagnetic interactions, respectively. This experiment will search for A bosons with mass mA ∼ 65 MeV – 550 MeV and α /α 6 × 10−8 , which can be produced by a reaction analogous to photon bremsstrahlung (see §III) and de- cays promptly to e+ e− or other charged particle pairs. We refer the reader to Figure 1 for a summary of the reach of this experiment. 102 101 1 1010 109 108 107 106 105 102 101 1 1010 109 108 107 106 105 mA' GeV Α'Α E137 E141 E774 aΜae 3S FIG. 1: Anticipated 2σ sensitivity in α /α = 2 for the A experiment (APEX) at Hall A in JLab (thick blue line), with existing constraints on an A from electron and muon anoma- lous magnetic moment measurements, ae and aµ (see [27]), the BaBar search for Υ(3S) → γµ+ µ− [28], and three beam dump experiments, E137, E141, and E774 [29–31] (see [3]). A. Mo New sociated Standar the Sta matter consiste Lorentz mass sc the cou to a ne strained between are also (anoma try to b the A c posite c coupling of each A co ter stru interact posed b where F A gaug field str A inter naturall scale. T tions to cles of e and θW to neutr compar As no couple can still For exa the A a Bjorken, Essig, Schuster, Toro APEX, HPS, Darklight... - searches for new physics at the GeV scale 129
  80. 80. 0.01 0.1 1 1010 109 108 107 106 105 104 0.01 0.1 1 1010 109 108 107 106 105 104 mA' GeV Α'Α E137 E141 E774 aΜ ae BaBar DarkLight APEX HPS HPS APEX Test KTeV KLOE BELLE 4 100 200 300 400 500 10 −7 10−6 10−5 10 −4 !’/! m ’ [MeV/c 2 ] aµ MAMI/A1 BaBar e+ e− # µ+ µ− FIG. 7. Exclusion limits with 90% confidence level in terms of relative coupling α /α = 2 (color online). Also shown are the previous results by BaBar [10] and for aµ of the muon [1]. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION In order to interpret the result in terms of the effective coupling of a possible dark photon candidate, a model for the production process has to be used. Unfortunately, vertex is common to both the signal and the QED back- ground channels, to further reduce the model dependence we use only the ratio of signal to QED background of the simulation in addition to the accidental background. The ratio can be translated to the effective coupling for a given mass resolution δm by using Eqn. (19) of Ref. [7] dσ(X → γ Y → e+ e− Y) dσ(X → γ∗Y → e+e−Y) = 3π 2Nf 2 α mγ δm and the measured event rate as estimate for the back- ground channel. The number of final states Nf includes the ratio of phase space for the corresponding decays above the µ+ µ− threshold. Figure 7 shows the result of this experiment in terms of the ratio of the effective coupling to the fine structure constant α /α = 2 . For clarity of the figure, the ex- clusion limit was averaged. Also shown are the existing limits published by BaBar [10] and the Standard Model prediction [1] of the muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ = gµ/2 − 1. The existing exclusion limit has been extended by an order of magnitude. In this experiment, the discovery potential of the ex- isting high luminosity electron accelerators has been demonstrated. The background conditions are well under control due to excellent timing and missing mass resolu- tion. An extensive program to cover further mass regions with similar experiments is planned at MAMI and Jef- ferson Lab [11]. The authors would like to thank the MAMI accelera- tor group for providing the excellent beam quality and intensity necessary for this experiment, and T. Beranek First results from MAMI JLAB reach 130
  81. 81. Prof. Dark Matter 131
  82. 82. DM 2011-2012 • Lots of new data • Lots of new ideas • Changes every month 132
  83. 83. Fermi haze/bubbles 6 Fermi 1 E 5 GeV 50 0 -50 -50 0 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 keVcm-2 s-1 sr-1 minus dust 50 0 -50 -50 0 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 keVcm-2 s-1 sr-1 SFD dust 50 0 -50 -50 0 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 no dust -50 0 50 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 keVcm-2 s-1 sr-1 minus disk -50 0 50 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 keVcm-2 s-1 sr-1 disk model -50 0 50 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Su, Finkbeiner, Slatyer 0 1 intensity[arbunits] Isotropic Spherical (E = 3 GeV) 180 90 0 -90 -180 -90 -45 0 45 90 0 1 intensity[arbunits] Isotropic Prolate (E = 3 GeV) 180 90 0 -90 -180 -90 -45 0 45 90 1 ] Anisotropic Spherical (E = 3 GeV) 90 1 in Anisotropic Prolate (E = 3 GeV) 90 Dobler, Cholis, NW sharp edges difficult to explain (for anyone) 133
  84. 84. WMAP 134
  85. 85. 135
  86. 86. Interstellar Dust from IRAS, DIRBE (Finkbeiner et al. 1999) Map extrapolated from 3THz (100 micron) with FIRAS. 136
  87. 87. Ionized Gas from WHAM, SHASSA,VTSS (Finkbeiner 2003) H-alpha emission measure goes as thermal bremsstrahlung. 137
  88. 88. Synchrotron at 408 MHz (Haslam et al. 1982) 138
  89. 89. +90 -90 b K (23GHz) Ka (33GHz) Q (41GHz) V (61 GHz) W (94 GHz) Template CMB +90 -90 b Halpha +90 -90 b SoftSynch +90 -90 b FDSdust +90 -90 b FDS*T^2 +90 -90 b Haze +90 -90 b Mask 90 -90l 90 -90l 90 -90l 90 -90l 90 -90l 90 -90l Fig. 1.— The WMAP foreground grid; see detailed discussion in §2.7. 139
  90. 90. Dobler and Finkbeiner ’08 140
  91. 91. Dobler and Finkbeiner ’08 electrons spiraling in magnetic field create microwaves A “Haze” 141

×