Supersymmetric Dark Matter:
Direct, Indirect and Collider Searches
Howard Baer
University of Oklahoma
OUTLINE
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
The Standard Model
Inconsistencies
Supersymmetry
Dark matter (DM)
• neutralino, axion/axino, gravitino
The Hunt for DM at LHC
direct DM searches
indirect DM searches
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
1
The Standard Model of Particle Physics
⋆
⋆
gauge symmetry: SU (3)C × SU (2)L × U (1)Y ⇒ g, W ± , Z 0 , γ
matter content: 3 generations quarks and leptons

⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆

u
d


L

uR , dR ; 
ν
e

 , eR
(1)
L
Higgs sector ⇒ spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking:


φ+

φ=
φ0
(2)
⇒ massive W ± , Z 0 , quarks and leptons
L = Lgauge + Lmatter + LY uk. + LHiggs : 19 parameters
good-to-excellent description of (almost) all accelerator data!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
2
Shortcomings of SM
Data
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
neutrino masses and mixing
baryogenesis (matter anti-matter asymmetry)
cold dark matter
dark energy
Theory
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
quadratic divergences in scalar sector ⇒ fine-tuning
origin of generations
explanation of masses/ mixing angles
origin of gauge symmetry/ quantum numbers
unification with gravity
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
3
The supersymmetry alternative
Supersymmetry: bosons⇔ fermions
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
SUSY is a space-time symmetry!
space-time xµ ⇒ (xµ , θi ) i = 1, · · · , 4 superspace
fields ψ ⇒ φ̂ ∋ (φ, ψ) superfields
gauge fields Aµ ⇒ Ŵ ∋ (λ, Aµ ) gauge superfields
superfield formalism ⇒ general form for Lagrangian of (globally)
supersymmetric gauge theory: quadratic divergences cancel!
SUSY can be broken by soft SUSY breaking terms: maintain cancellation of
quadratic divergences
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
4
Weak Scale Supersymmetry
HB and X. Tata
Spring, 2006; Cambridge University Press
⋆
Part 1: superfields/Lagrangians
– 4-component spinor notation for exp’ts
– master Lagrangian for SUSY gauge theories
⋆
Part 2: models/implications
– MSSM, SUGRA, GMSB, AMSB, · · ·
– dark matter density/detection
⋆
Part 3: SUSY at colliders
– production/decay/event generation
– collider signatures
– R-parity violation
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
5
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)
⋆
⋆
Adopt gauge symmetry of Standard Model
• spin
1
2
gaugino for each SM gauge boson
SM fermions ∈ chiral scalar superfields: ⇒ scalar partner for each SM
fermion helicity state
• electron ⇔ ẽL and ẽR
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
two Higgs doublets to cancel triangle anomalies
⋆
predictive model!
add all admissible soft SUSY breaking terms
resultant Lagrangian has 124 parameters!
Lagrangian yields mass eigenstates, mixings, Feynman rules for scattering and
decay processes
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
6
Supergravity (SUGRA)
⋆
eiᾱQ with α(x): local SUSY transformation
• forces introduction of spin 2 graviton and spin
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
3
2
gravitino
• resultant theory ⇒ General Relativity in classical limit!
rules for Lagrangian in supergravity gauge theory: Cremmer et al. (1983)
fertile ground: supergravity ∪ grand unification: LE limit of superstring?
minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA)
m0 , m1/2 , A0 , tan β, sign(µ)
• m0 = mass of all scalars at Q = MGU T
• m1/2 = mass of all gauginos at Q = MGU T
• A0 = trilinear soft breaking parameter at Q = MGU T
• tan β = ratio of Higgs vevs
• µ = SUSY Higgs mass term; magnitude determined by REWSB!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
7
Some successes of SUSY GUT theories
⋆
SUSY divergence cancellation maintains hierarchy between GUT scale
Q = 1016 GeV and weak scale Q = 100 GeV
⋆
gauge coupling unification!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
8
Gauge coupling evolution
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
9
Some successes of SUSY GUT theories
⋆
SUSY divergence cancellation maintains hierarchy between GUT scale
Q = 1016 GeV and weak scale Q = 100 GeV
⋆
⋆
gauge coupling unification!
<
Lightest Higgs mass mh ∼ 135 GeV as indicated by radiative corrections!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
10
Precision electroweak data and the Higgs mass:
80.70
experimental errors 68% CL:
LEP2/Tevatron (today)
Tevatron/LHC
80.60
SY
MW [GeV]
light SU
MSSM
80.50
80.40
80.30
SY
y SU
heav
114
MH =
SM
MH
GeV
SM
MSSM
both models
eV
G
= 400
80.20
Heinemeyer, Hollik, Stockinger, Weber, Weiglein ’08
160
165
170
175
180
185
mt [GeV]
S. Heinemeyer et al.
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
11
Some successes of SUSY GUT theories
⋆
SUSY divergence cancellation maintains hierarchy between GUT scale
Q = 1016 GeV and weak scale Q = 100 GeV
⋆
⋆
⋆
gauge coupling unification!
<
Lightest Higgs mass mh ∼ 130 GeV as indicated by radiative corrections!
radiative breaking of EW symmetry if mt ∼ 100 − 200 GeV!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
12
Soft term evolution and radiative EWSB
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
13
Some successes of SUSY GUT theories
⋆
SUSY divergence cancellation maintains hierarchy between GUT scale
Q = 1016 GeV and weak scale Q = 100 GeV
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
gauge coupling unification!
<
Lightest Higgs mass mh ∼ 130 GeV as indicated by radiative corrections!
radiative breaking of EW symmetry if mt ∼ 100 − 200 GeV!
dark matter candidate: lightest neutralino Z̃1
stablize neutrino see-saw scale vs. weak scale
SO(10) SUSY GUT: baryogenesis via leptogenesis
can give dark energy via CC Λ (but need huge fine-tuning...)
• SUGRA = low energy limit of superstring?
• stringy multiverse: anthropic selection of small CC?
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
14
Evidence for dark matter in the universe
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
binding of galactic clusters (Zwicky, 1930s)
galactic rotation curves
large scale structure formation
inflation ⇒ Ω = ρ/ρc = 1
gravitational lensing
anisotropies in cosmic MB (WMAP)
surveys of distant galaxies via SN (DE)
Big Bang nucleosynthesis
• ΩΛ ≃ 0.7
• ΩCDM ≃ 0.25
• Ωbaryons ≃ 0.045 (dark baryons ∼ 0.040)
• Ων ≃ 0.005
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
15
Dark matter versus dark energy
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
16
SUSY dark matter
⋆
⋆
⋆
R-parity conservation⇒ conserved B and L ⇒ proton stability
• R(particle) = 1; R(sparticle) = −1
Naturally occurs in SO(10) SUSY GUT theories
Some consequences:
• Sparticles are produced in pairs
• Sparticles decay to other sparticles
• Lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is absolutely stable (good candidate for dark
matter)
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
LSP must be charge, color neutral (bound on cosmological relics)
Sneutrino would have been detected in direct detection experiments
lightest neutralino Z̃1 is LSP in wide range of models
Z̃1 is weakly interacting, massive particle (WIMP)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
17
Calculating the relic density of neutralinos
⋆
⋆
⋆
At very high T , neutralinos in thermal equilibrium with cosmic soup
As universe expands and cools, expansion rate exceeds interaction rate
(freeze-out)
number density is governed by Boltzmann eq. for FRW universe
• dn/dt = −3Hn − hσvrel i(n2 − n20 )
1/2
xf
1
45
0
• ΩZe1 h2 = ρcs/h
2
πg∗
mP l hσvi
• ΩCDM h2 ∼ 0.1 ⇒ hσvi ∼ 0.9 pb!
• hσvi = πα2 /8m2 ⇒ m ∼ 100 GeV
⋆
⋆
• “The WIMP miracle!”: cosmic motivation for new physics at weak scale
SUSY: 1722 annihilation/co-annihilation reactions; 7618 Feynman diagrams
IsaReD program (HB, A. Belyaev , C. Balazs)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
18
Results of χ2 fit using τ data for aµ :
8
1750
4
1000
2
750
~
0
500
m1/2 (GeV)
m1/2 (GeV)
1250
12
1500
ln(χ/DOF)
~
6
1500
14
10
1250
8
1000
6
750
ln(χ2/DOF)
Ζ1 not LSP
1750
mSugra with tanβ = 54, A0 = 0, µ > 0
2000
Ζ1 not LSP
mSugra with tanβ = 10, A0 = 0, µ > 0
2000
4
500
2
250
0
-2
No REWSB
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
250
0
No REWSB
0
1000
m0 (GeV)
mh=114.1GeV
LEP2 excluded
SuperCDMS
CDMSII
2000
3000
4000
5000
0
6000
m0 (GeV)
CDMS
mh=114.1GeV
LEP2 excluded
SuperCDMS
CDMSII
CDMS
HB, C. Balazs: JCAP 0305, 006 (2003)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
19
Axions
pseudo-Goldstone boson from
PQ breaking at scale fa ∼ 109 − 1012 GeV
non-thermally produced
via vacuum mis-alignment as cold DM
• ma ∼
Λ2QCD /fa
−6
−1
∼ 10 − 10
i7/6
h
−6
eV
h2
• Ωa h2 ∼ 21 6×10
ma
eV
fa / N (GeV)
10
10
12
10
11
10
10
9
10
0
2
10
10
WMAP 5: ΩCDM h = 0.110 ± 0.006
-1
-2
10
-3
2
⋆
PQ solution to strong CP problem in QCD
Ωa h (vacuum mis-alignment)
⋆
⋆
10
-4
10
-5
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
ma (eV)
• astro bound: stellar cooling ⇒ ma < 10−1 eV
• a couples to EM field: a − γ − γ coupling (Sikivie)
• axion microwave cavity searches
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
20
Axion microwave cavity searches
⋆
ongoing searches: ADMX experiment
• Livermore⇒ U Wash.
• Phase I: probe KSVZ
for ma ∼ 10−6 − 10−5 eV
• Phase II: probe DFSZ
for ma ∼ 10−6 − 10−5 eV
• beyond Phase II:
probe higher values ma
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
21
Axions + SUSY ⇒ Axino ã dark matter
• axino is spin- 12 element of axion supermultiplet (R-odd; can be LSP)
• mã model dependent: keV→ GeV
e1 → ãγ
• Z
10
• axinos inherit neutralino number density
•
GeV
0
=
mã
mZe
1
2
ΩZe1 h :
10
10
τ (s)
• non-thermal ã production via Ze1 decay:
TP 2
ΩN
h
ã
fa / N = 10 12
1
10
GeV
-2
10
10
fa / N = 10 11
-1
fa / N = 10 10
-3
GeV
-4
10
fa / N = 10 9 G
eV
-5
50
60
70
80
90
m~χ0 (GeV)
1
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
22
Thermally produced axinos
If TR < fa , then axinos never in thermal equilibrium in early universe
Can still produce ã thermally via radiation off particles in thermal equilibrium
Brandenberg-Steffen calculation:
2 11
TR
1.108
10 GeV
mã
TP 2
6
Ωã h ≃ 5.5gs ln
gs
fa /N
0.1 GeV
104 GeV
(3)
10
10
9
10
f
/N
a
8
10
TR (GeV)
⋆
⋆
⋆
f
a
7
10
f
a
6
10
/N
/N
=
10
12
Ge
V
=
10
11
Ge
=
NT leptogenesis
V
10
10
Ge
V
5
10
hot
warm
cold
4
10 -7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
ma~ (GeV)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
23
Gravitinos: spin- 23 partner of graviton
• gravitino problem in generic SUGRA models: overproduction of G̃ followed by
late G̃ decay can destroy successful BBN predictons: upper bound on TR
(see Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi, Yotsuyanagi; Cybert, Ellis, Fields, Olive)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
24
Gravitinos as dark matter: again the gravitino problem
• neutralino production in generic SUGRA models: followed by late time
e1 → G̃ + Xdecays can destroy successful BBN predictons:
Z
(see Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi, Yotsuyanagi)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
25
Gravitino dark matter: if one can avoid gravitino problem
⋆
√
mG̃ = F/ 3M∗ ∼ TeV in Supergravity models
• if G̃ is LSP, then calculate NLSP abundance as a thermal relic: ΩN LSP h2
• Ze1 → hG̃, Z G̃, γ G̃ or τ̃1 → τ G̃ possible
∗
∗
∗
∗
lifetime τN LSP ∼ 104 − 108 sec
also produce G̃ thermally (depends on re-heat temp. TR )
mG̃
DM relic density is then ΩG̃ = mN LSP
ΩN LSP + ΩTG̃P
Feng et al.; Ellis et al.; Brandenberg+Steffen; Buchmuller et al.
• G̃ undetectable via direct/indirect DM searches
• unique collider signatures are possible:
∗ τ̃1 =NLSP: stable charged tracks
∗ can collect NLSPs in e.g. water (slepton trapping)
∗ monitor for N LSP → G̃ decays
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
26
Production of sparticles at CERN LHC
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
27
Mass scale (GeV)
Sparticle cascade decays
~
●
g (2060)
●
qL (≈1857)
●
qR (≈1770)
2000
~
1800
~
~
●
■
1600
●
b~ 2 (1690)
t2 (1689)
~
b1 (1619)
~
●
t1 (1449)
1400
1200
W±2 (1067)
~
Z 4 (1066)
~
●
■
1000
~
▲
800
Z3 (1056)
W±1 (754)
~
Z2 (754)
~
τ2 (726)
~
ντ (712)
~
●
■
▲
600
▼
~
●
400
●
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
10
τ1 (442)
~
Z1 (395)
2
Br (%)
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
qq
(27.0 %)
τνWbb
(12.1 %)
ττWWbb (8.4 %)
WWbb
(7.4 %)
τνqq
(5.9 %)
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
~
Z1
τνWWWbb (4.1 %)
ττbb
(2.9 %)
ττqq
(2.9 %)
τνZWbb
(2.8 %)
τνhWbb
(2.6 %)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
28
Event generation for sparticles
p
2
3
~
g
~
Z1
Hadrons
1
~
q
~
4
Z1
p
Remnants
5
Event generation in LL - QCD
1) Hard scattering / convolution with PDFs
2) Intial / final state showers
3) Cascade decays
4) Hadronization
5) Beam remnants
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
29
Isajet v7.79 for sparticle event generation
⋆
⋆
Isajet (1979), by F. Paige and S. Protopopescu
Isajet 7.0 (1993) -7.75: FP, SP, HB and X. Tata
• Isasugra subprogram: SUGRA models (and others)⇒ sparticle masses,
mixings, decay rates
⋆
⋆
SUSY and SM event generation for hadron colliders
e+ e− colliders
• polarized beams
⋆
⋆
• bremsstrahlung/ beamstrahlung
IsaTools: ΩZe1 h2 , (g − 2)µ , BF (b → sγ), BF (Bs → µ+ µ− ), σ(Ze1 p)
Les Houches event output: 7.78
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
30
Simulated sparticle production event at LHC
GEANT figure
mSUGRA :
~
g
m 0 = 1000 GeV, m 1/2 = 500 GeV, A 0 = 0,
~ t1 t
tan β = 35, µ > 0
~
uL
~
Z 2 + u ( jet6, E T = 1196 GeV)
~
- Z1 + h
W + b ( jet4, E T = 113 GeV)
b ( jet1, E = 206 GeV)
s ( jet5, E T = 79 GeV) + c
- ( jet2, E T = 320 GeV)
~+
b
T
(
jet3,
E
=
536
GeV)
+
b
W2
~+
-T
W1 + Z
νν
~
+
+
miss
Z1 + W
τ ν
E T = 380 GeV
+
e ν
~
Z1
b-jet 2
b-jet 1
m ~g = 1266 GeV
m ~u = 1450 GeV
b-jet 3
L
m ~t
= 1026 GeV
1
m ~Z = 410 GeV
2
m Z~ = 214 GeV
1
jet 6
m h = 119 GeV
S. Abdullin, A. Nikitenko
b-jet 4
jet 5
~
Z1
S. Abdullin
Oct.2000
5
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
31
f1− → (q q̄ ′ Ze1 ) + (eν̄e Ze1 ) at linear collider
f1+ W
e+ e− → W
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
32
Sparticle reach of all colliders with relic density
mSugra with tanβ = 10, A0 = 0, µ > 0
1600
1200
1200
m1/2 (GeV)
1400
m1/2 (GeV)
1400
LHC
1000
mSugra with tanβ = 45, A0 = 0, µ < 0
1600
● Ωh2< 0.129
● LEP2 excluded
800
● Ωh2< 0.129
● LEP2 excluded
LHC
1000
800
LC 1000
LC 1000
600
600
400
400
LC 500
LC 500
Tevatron
Tevatron
200
200
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0
1000
2000
m0 (GeV)
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
m0 (GeV)
HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Tata: JHEP 0402, 007 (2004)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
33
Early SUSY discovery at LHC with just 0.1 fb−1 ?
• To make E
6 T cut, complete knowledge of detector needed
– dead regions
– “hot” cells
– cosmic rays
– calorimeter mis-measurement
– beam-gas events
• Can we make early discovery of SUSY at LHC without E
6 T?
• Expect SUSY events to be rich in jets, b-jets, isolated ℓs, τ -jets,....
• These are detectable, rather than inferred objects
• Answer: YES! See HB, Prosper, Summy, arXiv:0801.3799
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
34
D0 saga with missing ET
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
35
Simple cuts: ≥ 4 jets plus isolated leptons
• E
6 T not really necessary
No. of Isolated Leptons
Cuts C1a
SO10ptA(9202.87,62.498,-19964.500,49.1,171)
QCD Jets
tt
W+jets
Z+jets
WW, WZ, ZZ
Sum of Backgrounds
1e+07
1e+06
σ (fb)
1e+05
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0
5
# of Isolated Leptons
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
36
Cuts C1′ plus ≥ 2 OS/SF ℓ
Cuts C1a
SO10ptA + BG
QCD Jets
tt
W+jets
Z+jets
WW, WZ, ZZ
Sum of Backgrounds
dσ/dmll (fb/GeV)
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
mll (GeV)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
37
Precision measurements at LHC: Atlas and CMS
• Mef f =6ET + ET (j1) + · · · + ET (j4) sets overall mg̃ , mq̃ scale
• m(ℓℓ̄) < mZe2 − mZe1 mass edge
• m(ℓℓ̄) distribution shape
• combine m(ℓℓ̄) with jets to gain m(ℓℓ̄j) mass edge: info on mq̃
• further mass edges possible e.g. m(ℓℓ̄jj)
• Higgs mass bump h → bb̄ likely visible in E
6 T + jets events
• in favorable cases, may overconstrain system for a given model
⋆
⋆
methodology very p-space dependent
some regions are very difficult e.g. HB/FP
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
38
International linear e+ e− collider (ILC)
⋆
√
A linear e e collider with s = 0.5 − 1 TeV is highest priority project for
HEP beyond LHC! Why?
+ −
• All beam energy ⇒ collision (aside from brem/beamstrahlung losses)
• beam energy known
• clean collision environment
• low (electroweak) background levels
• adjustable beam energy (threshold scans)
• e− and possibly e+ beam polarization
⋆
ILC will be ideal machine to perform precision spectroscopy of any new (EW
interacting) matter states (provided they are kinematically accessible)!
⋆
timeline: decision-2012; ready-2025?
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
39
Precision sparticle measurements at a e+ e− linear collider
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
40
Direct detection of SUSY DM
⋆
Direct search via neutralino-nucleon scattering
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
41
Cross-section [pb] (normalised to nucleon)
Direct detection of neutralino DM: the race is on!
10
10
10
10
10
10
-5
http://dmtools.brown.edu/
Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
080418114601
10
1
2
10
WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]
10
3
DATA listed top to bottom on plot
Edelweiss I final limit, 62 kg-days Ge 2000+2002+2003 limit
DAMA 2000 58k kg-days NaI Ann. Mod. 3sigma w/DAMA 1996
WARP 2.3L, 96.5 kg-days 55 keV threshold
CDMS 2008 Ge
CDMS: 2004+2005 (reanalysis) +2008 Ge
XENON10 2007 (Net 136 kg-d)
CDMS Soudan 2007 projected
SuperCDMS (Projected) 2-ST@Soudan
WARP 140kg (proj)
SuperCDMS (Projected) 25kg (7-ST@Snolab)
XENON100 (150 kg) projected sensitivity
LUX 300 kg LXe Projection (Jul 2007)
XENON1T (proj)
Baer et. al 2003
080418114601
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
42
Indirect detection (ID) of SUSY DM: ν-telescopes
⋆
Z̃1 Z̃1 → bb̄, etc. in core of sun (or earth): ⇒ νµ → µ in ν telescopes
• Amanda, Icecube, Antares
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
43
ID of SUSY DM: γ and anti-matter searches
• Z̃1 Z̃1 → q q̄, etc. → γ in galactic core or halo
• Z̃1 Z̃1 → q q̄, etc. → e+ in galactic halo
• Z̃1 Z̃1 → q q̄, etc. → p̄ in galactic halo
• Z̃1 Z̃1 → q q̄, etc. → D̄ in galactic halo
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
44
Direct and indirect detection of neutralino DM
mSUGRA, A0=0 tanβ=10, µ>0
1600
1400
DD
~
1200
m1/2 (GeV)
~
m1/2(GeV)
Z1 not LSP
C
µ
LH
Z1 not LSP
DD
1400
1200
mSUGRA, A0=0, tanβ=50, µ<0
1600
LH
C
1000
1000
800
LC1000
600
800
LC1000
600
µ
400
400
LC500
200
no REWSB
TEV
LC500
no REWSB
200
LEP
LEP
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
m0(GeV)
Φ(p-)=3x10-7 GeV-1 cm-2 s-1 sr-1
Φ
sun
-2
-1
(µ)=40 km yr
● 0<Ωh2<0.129
(S/B)e+=0.01
Φ(γ)=10-10 cm-2 s-1
mh=114.4 GeV
~
σ(Z1p)=10-9 pb
0
1000
2000
3000
m0 (GeV)
Φ(p-) 3e-7 GeV-1 cm-2 s-1 sr-1
Φ(γ)=10
-10
-2
-1
cm s
Φ
sun
-2
-1
(µ)=40 km yr
Φearth(µ)=40 km-2 yr-1
4000
5000
(S/B)e+=0.01
mh=114.4 GeV
~
σ(Z1p)=10-9 pb
● 0< Ωh2< 0.129
HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, O’Farrill: JCAP 0408, 005 (2004)
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
45
Impact of DM direct/indirect detection on LHC program
• Extend reach in σSI ∼ 10−9 − 10−10 pb
– explore thoroughly region of MHDM, possibly MWDM
• after discovery, extract mwimp ?
– mZe1 sets absolute mass scale for SUSY particles– combine with LHC mass edges to gain LHC absolute sparticle masses
e1 is absolutely stable: R-conservation
– learn if Z
• IceCube turn-on can discover/verify especially MHDM
• knowledge of LHC spectra, σSI , σSD combined with possible gamma ray
signals may allow map of dark matter distribution in the galaxy
• role of p̄, e+ , D̄ signals
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
46
Models beyond mSUGRA
⋆
Normal scalar mass hierarchy
– split scalar generations m0 (1) ≃ m0 (2) ≪ m0 (3)
⋆
– resolves BF (b → sγ) and (g − 2)µ
Non-universal Higgs scalars
– motivated by SO(10) and SU (5) SUSY GUTs
– allow A-funnel at low tan β; higgsino DM at low m0
– enhanced DD/ ID rates
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
DM in models with t − b − τ Yukawa unification (SO(10))
Mixed wino DM
Bino-wino co-annihilation (BWCA) DM
Low M3 mixed higgsino DM
KKLT mixed moduli/AMSB DM
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
47
Conclusions
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
Supersymmetry is very compelling BSM theory
Irrefragable case for CDM has emerged
Some reach for SUSY at Tevatron
Huge reach for SUSY at CERN LHC
Possible early SUSY discovery at LHC: leptons instead of E
6 T
e+ e− LC necessary for precision sparticle spectroscopy
Direct search for WIMP/axion DM is underway
Indirect search for WIMP DM via Icecube ν telescope
Indirect search via γ, p̄, e+ , D̄ detection from galactic core/halo WIMP
annihilations
Solution of mystery of CDM is near if CDM =lightest SUSY particle!
Howie Baer, Oklahoma State University colloquium, April 16, 2009
48