positron fraction from dark matter annihilation in the cmssmekpdeboer/html/talks/talk_adam.pdf ·...

19
Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSM Wim de Boer, Markus Horn, Christian Sander IEKP, University Karlsruhe [email protected] http://home.cern.ch/˜deboerw ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002 Outline CMSSM Constraints Positron fraction in the CMSSM Parameter Space Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002 1

Upload: others

Post on 02-Sep-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Positr on Fraction from Dark MatterAnnihilation in the CMSSM

Wim de Boer, Markus Horn, Christian Sander

IEKP, Univer sity Karlsruhe

Wim.de [email protected] h http://home .cern.c h/˜deboerw

ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002

OutlineCMSSM Constraints

Positr on fraction in the CMSSM Parameter Space

Comparison with HEAT and AMS data

Summar y

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 1

Page 2: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Typical Fits to AMS+HEAT Data vs

10-3

10-2

10-1

1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]

e+ /(e+ +

e- ) fr

acti

on

b b–

τ+ τ-

W+ W-

bg+22200• signal χ2=24.2

bg (ep-scaling=0.91)

bg only fit χ2=48.0

HEAT 94/95/2000

AMS 01

tanβ= 1.6; m0= 200; m1/2= 300

10-3

10-2

10-1

1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]e+ /(

e+ + e- )

frac

tion

t t–

b b–

τ+ τ-

bg+650•signal χ2=26.2

bg (ep-scaling=0.92)

bg only fit χ2=48.0

HEAT 94/95/2000

AMS 01

tanβ= 35; m0= 250; m1/2= 550

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 2

Page 3: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

CMSSM Fitpr ocedure

Choose the 10 GUT super gravityinspired parameter s: ! "$# %& ' # %&( )+*, - ./ 0 132 . / 0 154 . / 0 176 . / 0

Minimiz e the Higgs potential in or-der to determine

'98

Calculate masses and couplings atlow energies by integrating about30 coupled RGE’s and decouplingspar tic les at thresholds

calculate

:<; .= >? @ 0 , A BC BDE

Determine the best parameter s byminimizing F G .

H I JKML J KNPO QSR L J KN B BN Q Q TU TJ V WPXY L X

Z []\^ _ ` ab c de d^Z []\f _ gh i c de dfZ []\kj _ ` h a a a ` c de dj

V lnmV lpoV lrq

Z KN O R stvu tw Q TU TO V EH

Z Kxy Kz V| QSR u G ~ t _ Q TU TkZ KM R t ~ t _ Q TU TZ K N R NP J Q TU T$ y N NP J

Z T KM z y ¡ ¢ ¢£ ¤ ¥ y ¦ N B BN Q

and t G str ongl y correlated. Repeat fits for all pair s of t G

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 3

Page 4: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

10log Q

1/α i

1/α1

1/α2

1/α3

MSSM

10log Q1/

α i

Unification of the Coupling Constants in the SM and the minimal MSSM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 150

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15

U. Amaldi, W. de Boer, H. Furstenau, PL B260(1991)" "! "¨§ coupling constants of electr omagnetic –, weak–, and str ong interactions© ª "$« ¬ ­¯® ° ± !due to radiative corrections (LO)

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 4

Page 5: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

CMSSM Spar tic le Spectrum

From RGE equations:

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

m1/2

m0

√(µ02+m0

2)

Wino

Bino

GluinoqL~

tL~

tR~

lL~

lR~

m1

m2

tan β = 1.65Yb = Yτ

log10 Q

mas

s [G

eV]

Characteristic MSSM Features:Squarks and gluinos heavy thr oughstr ong rad. corr .Gaugino from U(1) (=Bino) LightestNeutral SUSY Partic le (LSP)(if t G not too large w.r.t. )Mass G in Higgs potential driven negati-ve by

² ¥ >EWSB (determines ( G )

Higgs mixing parameter ( usuall y largecompared with ³t G

Consequentl y:Pseudoscalar Higgs and hig gsinos heavy>light Higgs SM-hig gs-likeLSP bino-like , since no mixing with heavyhig gsinos

>

very good dark mattercandidate

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 5

Page 6: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Allo wed Parameter Regions for

´ µ¶

500

1000 500

1000

012345678

500

1000

500 1000

excl

. LS

P

excl. Higgs

excl. bsγm0 · [GeV]

m1/2 [GeV]

χ2 tota

l

m1/

2 [G

eV]

m0 [GeV]

Constraints: Gauge Unification and EWSB¸ free! Fit pref ers¸ ¹

from

= >? @ and ( ¹

from A E >

str ong constraint from

º¼» ¹ ½

(much less for

¸ ¾

!!)

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 6

Page 7: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Main Diagrams for Neutralino Annihilation

Gauge Bosons Fermions

¿ À9Á¿ À9Á Â Ã ÄÃÅ

¿ À9Á¿ À9Á ÆÈÇ É Ã ÄÃ Å¿ ÀÊÁ ÃÅ¿ ÄÁ¿ ÀËÁ Ã Ä

¿ ÀÊÁ Ã Å¿ ÄÍÌ¿ ÀËÁ Ã Å

Only heavy final states relevantneutralinos are Majorana par tic les and fermions

>Pauli-Principle at zero momentum>

p-wave

> ¬ fermion mass !)All x-sections str ong function of

Interf erences (Z-,t-channel) NEGATIVEInterf erences (Higgs-,t-c hannel) POSITIVE

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 7

Page 8: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

p-wave suppression at low momentum for light final states

Î ¬ G at low neutralino momenta

Ï Ð Ï ÐÑ Ò Ó ÒkÔÊÕ Ö Ó ÖÔ

×Ø ÙØ ÚØÛÝÜÞ ß

à Ø Ô áà Ø Ô ×

Øãâ Ø àØâ à

àà Ø

ä åæçè

éêÕ ëÖ

ì í ì í¯î ï ðï

ñò óò ôòõ÷öø ù

ú òû üú òû ñòþý ò úò ý úú

ú òÿ

t G = ( ½ ¸ ¥ ¸z

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 8

Page 9: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

s,t-c hannel Interf erences

Higgs large, Z small for

= =

final state Higgs small, Z large for

final state

! " #! " %$ !$ !!!

& '() * +-, ++/. 0 1324 45 67 . 0 1324 45 6 8 1:9 ; <

7 . 0 1324 45 6 8= <

> ? > ?@ A BACD E D F DGHI J

K DL MK DL CD%N D KDN KKK D

O PQR S A/T U V3WX XY ZA-[ A]\T U V3WX XY Z ^_ `\T U V3WX XY Z ^ V:a b `

(t-ch, Higgs) Interf . POS , (t-ch, Z) Interf . NEG

>

(

= =

) final states suppressed (enhanced) due to interf erences!

= =

final state dominates at large

t G = ( ½ ¸ ¥ ¸z

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 9

Page 10: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Pseudoscalar Higgs exchang e vs

F F > ¸ > = = F F > ¸ >

c dfe c d g h g i j i

kl ml npoq r

s l ts l uv wx

y z |] | ~ ~

p

Fp Fp > ¸ > = =dominates at large

.

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 10

Page 11: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Comparison of X-sections in CalcHEP and darkSUSY

¡ ¢

cm

£

s

¤

¦¥ §¨ª© «­¬ ¥ ® ¯

GeV© °²± ¥ ³ ³ ®¯ © °µ´ ¥ ³¶ ³¯GeV

«p ¥ ¨ ¯ ¯

GeV© «¸· ¹º ¥ ¨ ¯ ¯

GeV

CalcHEP darkSUSY» ¼ » ®ª½ ³¿¾ ³¯ À ºÁ ®ª½ ¾ ³¯ À º Áà ¼Ã ¯ ½ ®¾ ³¯ À ºÁ ³ ½ ¶ ¾ ³¯ À º ÁÄ Å Ä À §ª½ ®¾ ³¯ À ºÆ ǽ ®¾ ³¯ À º ÆÈ Å È À  ½ ³¿¾ ³¯ À É Â ½ ³¾ ³¯ À É

Feynar ts agrees with CalcHEP concerning

à Ã

!

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 11

Page 12: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Neutralino Annihilation X-sections

¥ ³ ½ ¶ ¦¥ § ¨

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

1000

10-30

10-29

10-28

sigma vTOT

m1/2

Ê [GeV]m 0

Ë [GeV]

<σv>

[cm

3 s-1

GeV

-1]

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

1000

10-28

10-27

10-26

10-25

sigma vTOT

m1/2

Ê [GeV]m 0

Ë [GeV]

<σv>

[cm

3 s-1

GeV

-1]

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 12

Page 13: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Boost factor for AMS and HEAT Data

¥ ³ ½ ¶ ¦¥ § ¨

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

1000

10 2

10 3

boost-factor (best fit)

m1/2

Ì [GeV]m 0

Í [GeV]

boos

t fa

ctor

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

1000

10 2

10 3

boost-factor (best fit)

m1/2

Ì [GeV]m 0

Í [GeV]

boos

t fa

ctor

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 13

Page 14: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Dark Matter

Î Â Ï ÐÑ Ò Ð Ñ Ó

(from DarkSusy)

¥ ³ ½ ¶ ¦¥ § ¨

200

400

600

800

1000

200 400 600 800 1000

Ωh2-region

excl. Ωh 2 > 0.5

excl

. LSP

m0 [GeV]

m1/

2 [G

eV]

200

400

600

800

1000

200 400 600 800 1000

Ωh2-region

excl. Ωh 2 > 0.5excl. Ωh 2

< 0.1

excl

. LSP

m0 [GeV]

m1/

2 [G

eV]

Green regions pref erred by Boomerang and SN Ia

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 14

Page 15: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Typical Fits to AMS+HEAT Data vs

ÔÖÕ ×

10-3

10-2

10-1

1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]

e+ /(e+ +

e- ) fr

acti

on

b b–

τ+ τ-

W+ W-

bg+22200• signal χ2=24.2

bg (ep-scaling=0.91)

bg only fit χ2=48.0

HEAT 94/95/2000

AMS 01

tanβ= 1.6; m0= 200; m1/2= 300

10-3

10-2

10-1

1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]e+ /(

e+ + e- )

frac

tion

t t–

b b–

τ+ τ-

bg+650•signal χ2=26.2

bg (ep-scaling=0.92)

bg only fit χØ2=48.0

HEAT 94/95/2000

AMS 01

tanβ= 35; m0= 250; m1/2= 550

¥ ³ ½ ¶ «Ù ¥ ³ ¯ ÚÜÛ Ý ¦¥ §¨ «Ù ¥  §¯ Ú Û Ý

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 15

Page 16: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Þ Â

contr . for AMS+HEAT Data vs

ÔÖÕ ×

ßàá ¦¥ ³ ½ ¶ ßà á ¦¥ §¨

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

10000

20

40

χ2 - term

m1/2

Ì [GeV]m 0

Í [GeV]

χ2 - t

erm

200400

600800

1000

200400

600800

10000

20

40

χ2 - term

m1/2

Ì [GeV]m 0

Í [GeV]

χ2 - t

erm

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 16

Page 17: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Possib le AMS-02 Data in 2006

one year AMS

10-2

10-1

10-1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]

e+ /(e+ +

e- ) fr

acti

on exp. data by DarkSUSY

bgMosk-Strong (e+-scale=0.92)

generated dummy data

tanβ= 35; m0= 300; m1/2= 400

one year AMS

10-2

10-1

10-1

1 10 102

positron energy [GeV]

e+ /(e+ +

e- ) fr

acti

on exp. data by DarkSUSY

bgMosk-Strong (e+-scale=0.92)

generated dummy data

tanβ= 35; m0= 300; m1/2= 800

ßàá ⥠§ ¨ « ãÙ ¥ ³¶ ¯ Ú Û Ý « ãÙ ¥ § ¯ Ú Û Ý

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 17

Page 18: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Possib le Þ Â

after one year AMS-02

200400

600800

1000

20040060080010000

20

40

60

80

100

χ2 - term

m1/2 [GeV]

m0

ä [GeV]

χ2 - t

erm

200400

600800

1000

20040060080010000

20

40

60

80

100

χ2 - term

m1/2 [GeV]

m0

ä [GeV]

χ2 - t

erm

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 18

Page 19: Positron Fraction from Dark Matter Annihilation in the CMSSMekpdeboer/html/Talks/talk_adam.pdf · Comparison with HEAT and AMS data Summary Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amsterdam, July, 2002

Summar y

Low values of (

åçæ è éçê ëì í

) excluded by LEP Higgs Limit of 114 GeV

At larger values of

åçæ è éî î

DOMINANT FINAL STATE

î î

FINAL STATE has orders of magnitude larger x-section thanï ð

final states and also larger thanñ ñ

final states for

åçæ è éçò ó

î î

FINAL STATE fits the AMS+HEAT data as well as the

ï ð

final states

Super symmetr y is an excellent candidate to explain the cold Dark Matterin the univer se. Its signal could be the positr ons and antipr otons fromneutralino annihilation into

î îfinal states

Wim de Boer ICHEP, Amster dam, July, 2002 19