Evidence for WIMP Dark Matter Wim de Boer

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

B A Inv . C omp ton C Prel. lun rah sst 0 em Br g Strong, Moskalenko, Reimer, to be published Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays above 1 Ge. V as measured by EGRET satellite (9 yrs of data) D E A: inner Galaxy (l=± 300, |b|<50) B: Galactic plane avoiding A C: Outer Galaxy Sept, 2. 2004 F D: low latitude (10 -200) E: intermediate lat. (20 -600) F: Galactic poles (60 -900) 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 Ge. V Important: if experiment measures gamma rays down to 0. 1 Ge. V, then normalizations of DM annihihilation and background can both be left free, so one is not sensitive to absolute background estimates, BUT ONLY TO THE SHAPE, which is much better known. Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 3

Diffuse Gamma Rays for different sky regions A D B C 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 MSUGRA can fulfill Stau coannihilation all constraints from WMAP, LEP, b->s , g-2 and EGRET simultaneously, if DM is ce n a n eso neutralino with mass r m. A in range 50 -100 Ge. V and squarks and sleptons are O(1 Te. V) WMAP EGRET Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 5

SUSY Mass spectra in m. SUGRA 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

Executive Summary Expected Profile xy Observed Profile z xy Rotation Curve x xz y DM halo 2003, Ibata et al, Yanny et al. disk bulge xz Inner Ring FR FG Outer Ring Halo profile Sept, 2. 2004 Durham, ILC Workshop, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe 7

Positron fraction and antiprotons from DM annihilation Positrons Antiprotons 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 m. SUGRA and MSSM • Focus point and funnel region • Some remarks beyond m. SUGRA

LC-Cosmology • Cosmology (relic density of dark matter) strongly constrains SUSY models, in particular, in m. SUGRA, 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

pm. SUGRA: coannihilation • Mass difference (NLSP-LSP) is crucial parameter – For relic density prediction at 10% need to know to 1 Ge. V – For PLANCK ~. 2 Ge. V • 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%

pm. SUGRA: coannihilation … • Cross-sections also depend on MSSM parameters of neutralino/gaugino sector. • In region relevant for LC 500, WMAP level of accuracy requires – ~ 5 -10% level – tanβ ~ 10 -20% level • In MSSM, SFitter/Fittino for. SPS 1 A find – ~2% (LHC) 1%(LC) – tanβ ~ 40% (LHC) 15%(LHC+LC) Error on determination of tanβ might limit the accuracy to which the relic density can be predicted Issue specially for PLANCK

pm. SUGRA: focus point • Situation is much better in pm. SUGRA by assuming the spectrum to be measured – Dependence on top yukawa for calculating spectrum drops out – Mt dependence only in the crosssection, sensitive only near threshold (0. 5 Ge. V required for WMAP) • Most important parameters are the ones that determine the Higgsino content of LSP –also determines couplings to Higgs/Z – , M 1~% 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)-MA/2 ~ΓA • • • Main annihilation channel into bb pairs Most of Heavy Higgs annihilation region at large tanβ is not accessible to LC 500 (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)<200 Ge. V – 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 - Mt=175

Alternate SUSY approaches to DM

Purpose of this presentation Help to define new SUSY working points - not necessarily m. SUGRA - experimentally challenging (if needed) to launch new experimental studies on DM for future colliders LC and LHC

Introduction • m. SUGRA 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 (3 d generation, Higgs parameters free) - string inspired models - …. • m. SUGRA has various problems, in particular: - FNCC, CPV (EDM limits for n and e) - tp

Colliders and Cosmology Micr. OMEGAs Pt B ‘WMAP’ 7% LHC ~15 % ‘Planck’ ~2 % CL ~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 For Co-annihilation: P. Bambade et al. hep-ph/0406010 Focus 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 Sp. S type solutions deserve investigations • These solutions could be less precisely measured at LC than needed for cosmology if tanb 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