Evidence for WIMP Dark Matter Wim de Boer, Marc Herold, Christian Sander, Valery Zhukov Univ. Karlsruhe Alex Gladyshev, Dmitri Kazakov Dubna Outline (see astro-ph/0408272, hep-ph/0408166)

•

EGRET Data on diffuse Gamma Rays shows excess in all sky directions with the SAME spectrum

• Halo

parameters from sky map

• WIMP mass

from spectrum

• Data consistent with Supersymmetry Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 1

Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays above 1 GeV as measured by EGRET satellite (9 yrs of data)

A B C

Prel.



0

D E F

A: inner Galaxy (l= ± 30 0 , |b|<5 0 ) B: Galactic plane avoiding A C: Outer Galaxy

Sept, 2. 2004

D: low latitude (10-20 0) E: intermediate lat. (20-60 F: Galactic poles (60-90 0 ) 0 )

Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 2

Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays has same spectrum in all directions compatible with WIMP mass of 50-100 GeV Important: if experiment measures gamma rays down to 0.1 GeV, then normalizations of DM annihihilation and background can both be left free, so one is not sensitive to abso lute background estimates, BUT ONLY TO THE SHAPE, which is much better known.

Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 3

A Diffuse Gamma Rays for different sky regions B C D E F DMA



Boostfactor <



2 > If boost factor, i.e. clustering, similar in all directions, then signal strength determines DM density

 Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 4

EGRET excess interpreted as DM consistent with WMAP, Supergravity and electroweak constraints

0 Stau coannihilation

MSUGRA can fulfill all constraints from WMAP, LEP, b->s O(1 TeV)



, g-2 and EGRET simultaneously, if DM is neutralino with mass in range 50-100 GeV and squarks and sleptons are

Sept, 2. 2004 WMAP EGRET Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 5

SUSY Mass spectra in mSUGRA LSP largely Bino



DM may be supersymmetric partner of CMB

Sept, 2. 2004

Charginos, neutralinos and gluinos light

Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 6

xy Expected Profile Executive Summary Observed Profile xy

z

Rotation Curve xz xz

x DM 2003, Ibata et al, Yanny et al.

bulge y disk halo Inner Ring F R F G Outer Ring Sept, 2. 2004

Halo profile

Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 7

Positron fraction and antiprotons from DM annihilation

SAME Halo and WIMP parameters as for GAMMA RAYS but fluxes strong function of propagation models!

Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 8

Supersymmetry at linear collider pb x-section!

Karl Ecklund, Cornell Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 9

Impact of collider data on uncertainties in relic density

B. Allanach, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov

• Introduction • Coannihilation scenarios in mSUGRA and MSSM • Focus point and funnel region • Some remarks beyond mSUGRA

LC-Cosmology

• Cosmology (relic density of dark matter) strongly constrains SUSY models, in particular, in mSUGRA, points to specific scenarios for SUSY searches at colliders • With WMAP : .094 < W h 2 < .128 (2 sigma) • PLANCK expects precision of 2% • LHC will test SUSY Dark Matter hypothesis (can also have some LSP signal from direct detection experiments), with precision measurements of SUSY parameters at LHC/LC can one match the precision of the relic density measurement by WMAP/PLANCK hence consistency check on cosmological model

pmSUGRA: coannihilation

• Mass difference (NLSP-LSP) is crucial parameter – For relic density prediction at 10% need to know to 1 GeV – For PLANCK ~.2GeV

• LC can make precise measurements of sleptons with small ΔM

(

Zhang et al, LCWS), Martyn(LCWS) • To have accurate prediction of relic density in this scenario need also to know precisely the cross-section – Precision required on absolute mass scale (keeping ΔM constant) 10-20% – Precision required on mixing angle: 5-10%

pmSUGRA: coannihilation …

• Cross-sections also depend on MSSM parameters of neutralino/gaugino sector.

• In region relevant for LC500, WMAP level of accuracy requires –  ~ 5-10% level – tanβ ~ 10-20% level • In MSSM, SFitter/Fittino forSPS1A find –  ~2% (LHC) 1%(LC) – tanβ ~ 40% (LHC) 15%(LHC+LC) Error on determination of

tan β

might limit the accuracy to which the relic density can be predicted

Issue specially for PLANCK

pmSUGRA: focus point

• • Situation is much better in pmSUGRA by assuming the spectrum to be measured – Dependence on top yukawa for calculating spectrum drops out – Mt dependence only in the cross section, sensitive only near threshold (0.5GeV required for WMAP) Most important parameters are the ones that determine the Higgsino content of LSP –also determines couplings to Higgs/Z –  ,M1~% level – LSP mass ~5-10% level – Mb is known well enough for PLANCK accuracy Need ILC Means per-mil level for PLANCK can this be done at ILC??

Heavy Higgs annihilation

• • • • Heavy Higgs resonance (funnel) – Heavy Higgs enhanced coupling to b quarks – Large width – Acceptable relic density if • M(LSP)-M A /2 ~ Γ A Main annihilation channel into bb pairs Most of Heavy Higgs annihilation region at large tan β is not accessible to LC500 (or LHC). Even at low M 1/2 , important contribution of diagram with heavy Higgs exchange (as well as slepton exchange) possible far from resonance even if M(LSP)<200GeV – Constraint from b->sγ important – What are relevant parameters and how precisely should they be measured to get precise estimate of relic density (MA≈300 400GeV) Mt=175

Alternate SUSY approaches to DM

Purpose of this presentation

Help to define new SUSY working points - not necessarily mSUGRA - experimentally challenging (if needed) to launch new experimental studies on DM for future colliders LC and LHC

Introduction • mSUGRA

has been/is the favourite framework used for collider phenomenology • There are other possible schemes e.g. : - without gaugino unification (e.g. AMSB) - without scalar universality (3d generation, Higgs parameters free) - string inspired models ….

• mSUGRA

has various problems, in particular: - FNCC, CPV t p (EDM limits for n and e)

Colliders and Cosmology MicrOMEGAs Pt B ‘WMAP’ LHC ‘Planck’ CL 7 % ~15 % ~2 % ~3 % LHC pt B: Battaglia et al

hep-ph/0306219

LC: precision similar for most other co-annihilation points A C D G I L consistent with WMAP

H. Baer et al hep-ph/0405210

Focus

For Co-annihilation: P. Bambade et al. hep-ph/0406010

Co-annih What about Focus type ?

What about non universal gauginos with heavy sfermions ?

Conclusions

• There are certainly SUSY DM solutions very distinct from co-annihilation to be studied • Focus and SpS investigations type solutions deserve • These solutions could be less precisely measured at LC than needed for cosmology if tan b is large (to be confirmed) • The mass degenerate chargino/neutralino solutions do not seem relevant to explain a large fraction of the DM result from WMAP (to be confirmed) • Let’s agree on some study points for LC/LHC after fixing discrepancies between codes