Dark Matter Candidates

Astroparticlephysics, UZH, Spring 2012

Marc Schumann
marc.schumann@physik.uzh.ch

What will we learn today?

What kind of Dark Matter do we need?

Baryonic Dark Matter?

- Why not?
- Primordial Nucleosynthesis

Particle Dark Matter:

- Axions
- WIMPs: thermal production the WIMP miracle
SUSY and the neutralino
(Extra Dimensions: Kaluza-Klein particles)
- sterile neutrinos

This lecture is to learn about the models

that predict Dark Matter candidates
lots of theoretic ideas

CDM Model
The Standard Model
of Cosmology
(Concordance Model)
Describes the Universe
since the Big Bang with a
few parameters only (6)
Uses Friedmann equation to
describe evolution of Universe
since Inflation
Agrees with the most
important cosmological
observations:
CMB Fluctuation
Large Scale Structures
Accelerated Expansion
(SN observations)
Distribution of H, D, He, Li

Ingredients:

Cosmological Constant
CDM Cold Dark Matter

Cold vs. Hot

Hot: particle moving with relativistic speed

at the time when galaxies could just start to form

Cold: moving non-relativistically at that time

Important implication for structure formation

Hot Dark Matter cannot cluster on galaxy scales until

it has cooled down to non-relativistic speeds and so
gives rise to a considerably different primordial
fluctuation spectrum

We are looking for Cold Dark Matter:

Invisible
Cold (v < 10-8 c)
Collisionless
Stable

Do we have to invent something new?

Baryonic Matter in the Universe

Centaurus A

Remember: Baryonic Matter might also be dark in the optical...

BUT we are looking for something without e/m interaction

Why not Baryonic Matter?

too little: b < 0.05

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
fixes b quite precisely (+CMB)

(1940s: Gamov, Alpher, Herman)

- abundances of light elements

depend on number of baryons
- D production is most sensitive

not collisionless
not found in microlensing searches
Black Holes? No

b < 0.05

Baryonic Candidates
main class:
MACHOs massive compact halo objects

Brown Dwarfs: H/He spheres with m < 0.08 M

(too light, H-burning will never start)
Jupiters: similar but with m < 0.001 M
Black Holes with m ~ 100 M
could be remnants of an early generation of stars which
were massive enough so that not many heavy elements
were dispersed when they exploded as supernovae

Less popular:
fractal or specially placed clouds of molecular hydrogen

EROS, MACHO, OGLE

Microlensing with OGLE

Polish project started 1992

telescope located in Chile
main targets: GMC and galactic bulge
some MACHOs and 14 extrasolar
planets found so far

Primordial Black Holes

Fraction of the Universe's mass

which could be in form of a
primordial black hole

Carr et al, PRD 81, 104019 (2010)

BUT

some of the dark matter must be baryonic!

We expect b~0.05 (nucleosynthesis, CMB)
but what we see (stars, gas, dust) only
accounting for lum~0.01
It seems that there are way too many MACHOs to
explain the discrepancy

Why not Neutrinos?

Neutrinos are a part of the SM

collisionless

massive ( -oscillations)

produced in the early Universe:

decouple at kT ~ 3 MeV
n ~ 115 cm-3

compare with critical density

crit = 5.1 GeV/m3
= 5100 eV/cm3
neutrinos can make up the
entire energy content of the
Universe if

much too large!

Large Scale Structures

BUT: neutrinos move too far and too fast
(decoupling at kT=3 MeV)

From direct e
0.63 eV mass limit;
oscillations;
WMAP data

hot Dark Matter

The smallest scale with clumpy structure

sets a lower limit on the particle mass:
low mass
high speed (if created thermally)
travels large distances
scale on which density perturbations
are washed out
Probing small scale structures at z~3: mDM2 keV

Back to Particle Physics?

the Standard Model provides

an excellent description of all
experimental observations...
BUT it is incomplete...

The Standard Model

> 18 free parameters
No grand unification
No gravity
Why P and CP violation?
Why three particle generations?
Strong CP problem
Hierarchy Problem (mH mPl )
Not the fundamental theory

Popular extensions:
Supersymmetry (SUSY)
Extra Dimensions
Peccei-Quinn Theory
... and many, many more

WIMP
LKP
Axion

Non baryonic DM:

new particles or old particles with non-standard properties

stolen from Gianfranco Bertone

(Some) Dark Matter Candidates

Axion
WIMPs
- Neutralino
- (LKP)
sterile neutrinos

cross section

mass

DM Production
Two production mechanisms:
Thermal Production

Non thermal production

In thermal equilibrium with

the Universe (freeze out)

Production in a
Phase Transition

WIMPs

Axions

Candidates for non-baryonic DM must be

stable on cosmological time scales

(otherwise they would have been decayed by now)

must interact very weakly

(otherwise would not be considered as Dark Matter)

must have the right relic density (=amount of DM)

Note: There is a 3rd production mechanism at very large T, soon after or soon before
inflation. These particles are usually superheavy, e.g. Wimpzillas

The Axion in a Nutshell

The strong CP-Problem:
CP violating term

BUT: no neutron EDM found (< 3x10-26 e cm)

no CP violation in QCD ( < 10-10 )
Question: Why is so small? Naturalness Problem

Peccei, Quinn (1977):

Add new global symmetry
spont. broken U(1)

make a dynamical variable

Weinberg, Wilzcek (1978): Theory contains a new particle: Axion
DM candidate: cosmological E density
cold Dark Matter
non-thermal production

--17
~
10
c
a

Effective Axion Potential

very high E

spontaneous symmetry
breaking; the axion field
relaxes somewhere in
the potential

QCD epoch: vacuum

(instanton) effects tilt
the potential, explicitly
breaking the symmetry
axion gets mass
CP symmetry restored

A Pooltable Analogy

<10 9

We live on a pool-table which

is perfectly flat (such that we
can play pool properly...)

CP seems to be a perfect
symmetry in strong interactions

stolen from P. Sikivie, arXiv:hep-ph/9506229

A Pooltable Analogy

<10 9

At some point we jump off the

table an realize that it is standing
on a non-flat room floor

It is strange that CP is conserved

in strong interactions while it is
violated in weak interactions

why is the table so remarkably flat?

Why is so small (or zero)?

stolen from P. Sikivie, arXiv:hep-ph/9506229

A Pooltable Analogy

<10 9

The easiest way to make

every pool table perfectly
flat is to build it on a post
than can pivot on an axle,
countered by a weight.
then gravity does the
adjustment

The Peccei-Quinn mechanism

makes a dynamic field.
Non-perturbative QDC effects
then pull to zero.

stolen from P. Sikivie, arXiv:hep-ph/9506229

A Pooltable Analogy

<10 9

One can try to test this

hypothesis by inducing
oscillations in the pool table.
The oscillation frequency
depends on the lever arm L

The axion is the quantum of

oscillation of the parameter
in QCD.
Its properties depend in the axion
decay constant f ma1
stolen from P. Sikivie, arXiv:hep-ph/9506229

A Pooltable Analogy

Assume the pool table was

brought from outer space
(no gravity) and the initial angle
was *

Depending on how gravity started

to act (when the spaceship landed)
there might be relic oscillations which
depend on the initial misalignment angle *

Depending on how the QCD

effects appear at kT~1 GeV there
are initial coherent axion field
oscillations. If f is large, these
might constitute an axion relic
energy density.
dark matter candidate
vacuum misalingnment mechanism
non thermal DM production

Axion Searches / Limits

Current Axion Limits (... from 2010)

Generalized Formalism
for Dark Matter Candidates

most new physics models need to have a

mechanism to make the lightest new particle stable
Dark Matter Candidate
this is usually achieved by introducing a
multiplikative discrete D-symmetry (D=Dark) with
D=+1
standard model sector
D=1
new particle sector
D is a multiplikative quantum number
particles in the D=1 sector can only be
pair-annihilated or -produced
the lightest particle with D=1 is stable
if the particle is electrically neutral
Dark Matter Candidate

WIMPs

Weakly Interacting Massive Particles

Some of the best motivated candiates
from new physics
WIMPs interact only
via gravity and weak interactions
WIMPs are somewhat similar to neutrinos,
but far more massive (>GeV) and slower

sub-GeV WIMPs could be Light Dark Matter

Why weak scale masses/interactions?

The Planck Scale

Mpl2 = c/G 1019 GeV Planck mass

At this scale, the strength of
gravity becomes similar to the other forces
natural scale for gravity interactions

Expansion and the Temperature

of the early Universe
(radiation dominated):

Compton wavelength is about the size of a

Schwarzschild radius of a black hole QFT breaks down
Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a
Planck-sized object could actually create a particle
of that dimension, but it would be massive
enough to immediately become a black hole
Quantum gravity is needed
(here string theory comes into play)
Early universe (right after the Big Bang)
is governed by Planck scale dynamics

Thermal WIMP Production

The WIMP Miracle

suppose WIMP candidates can be created/annihilated in pairs

assume that the 's are in thermal eq. with all light particles

number density n follows the Boltzmann equation:

when T < m, pair creation needs from tail of v-distribution

in equilibrium, number density falls exponentially

Thermal WIMP Production II

When the annihilation rate nannv < expansion rate H, the
probability for to find a partner for annihilation becomes small
expanding Universe: freeze out
WIMPs fall out of
equilibrium, cannot
annihilate anymore
non relativistic when decoupling
from thermal plasma
constant DM relic density
relic density depends on A

WIMP relic density:

O(1) when A~10--36 cm weak scale

Thermal
Equilibrium

Freeze Out

Supersymmetry

Solving the hierarchy problem:

top

stop

Minimal Supersymmetric SM

Incorporating SUSY in the Standard Model requires doubling the

particle content
(no SM particle can be the SUSY partner of another one)

New particle new possible interactions

MSSM (1981: Georgi/Dimopulos)
simplest possible SUSY model consistent with the SM
minimal field content: the only new fields (arranged in supermultiplets
with the SM particles) are the ones required by SUSY
minimal choice of interactions: only SUSY generalization of SM
Underlying dynamics of theory is supersymmetric, but the ground
state does not respect the symmetry (no light SUSY particles)
SUSY is broken spontaneously

R-Parity

Appears in most versions of low E SUSY

Removes unwanted superpotential terms from the theory

Avoids excessive Baryon/Lepton number violating processes

(e.g. proton decay via
)
R-parity, a multiplikative new
quantum number
R=+1 for ordinary particles
R=1 for SUSY particles
SUSY particles can only be
created/annihilated in pairs
with ordinary particles
The lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is stable since there is no
kinematically allowed state with R=1

What could be the LSP in MSSM?

LSP electrically charged or strongly interacting

would bind to conventional matter
detectable as anomalous heavy nucleus
(Bohr radius of LSP atom would be less than nuclear radius)

BUT: excluded by experiments down to levels much below the

expected abundance of the LSP

Therefore: LSP is neutral and has only weak interactions

(= missing energy signature in HE physics)

3 Dark Matter Candidates in the MSSM

1. sneutrino (spin 0)

would have relatively large coherent i/a with nuclei

direct DM expts exclude sneutrinos between a few GeV and several TeV

2. neutralino (spin ) the favourite

3. gravitino (spin 3/2)

The Neutralino

LSP that is considered most often

4 neutralinos, each of them a linear superposition of the R=1
neutral fermions: wino, bino, two Higgsinos (SUSY partners of the
neutral gauge bosons/Higgs bosons):

the Dark Matter particle is the lightest neutralino

In different regions of SUSY parameter space, the LSP can be
more wino-, bino-, or Higgsino-like
in much of the parameter space of interest
(correct relic density etc.) the is bino
it is a Majorana fermion
it's own anti-particle
don't forget: multitude of SUSY models
properties vary from model to model

A Plethora of Parameters
A disadvantage of a full supersymmetric model
(even making the particle content minimal, MSSM)
is that the number of free parameters is excessively
large - of the order of 100 (128 to be exact).
Therefore, most treatments have focused on
constrained models, where one has the opportunity
to explain electroweak symmetry breaking by
radiative corrections caused by running from a
unication scale down to the electroweak scale.

Let's have a look at this...

WIMP cross section

MSSM expectation for

WIMP mass

Vast range! No predictive power!

SI

Add grand Unification...

Renorm. group evolution

Unification of forces

use this to get relations between parameters

in order to reduce them dramatically
most MSSM parameters are associated with SUSY breaking
(the E scale at which we get non-SUSY physics from the SUSY model)

now: assume that these parameters are universal at some

input scale (here: the GUT scale MGUT = 2 x 1016 GeV)
Constrained MSSM (CMSSM)

The CMSSM
the benchmark
model for the LHC
CMSSM global scan

CMSSM: typical Plots

A0=0

A0=0

Cosmologically preferred region

g-2 favoured
not the LSP

for given values of tan, A0, sgn(), the parameter space yielding an
acceptable relic density and satisfies other constrains can be
displayed in the (m1/2, m0) plane
Occasionally CMSSM is also called mSUGRA (minimal supergravity)
However, models based on mSUGRA should have 2 more
constraints, further reducing the number of parameters

SUSY Overview

Sterile Neutrinos
Motivation:

We know that neutrinos exits, and that they have a mass

the only solid lab evidence for beyond SM physics
Maybe this is a sign for existence of a new E scale (GUT?)
Assume
- masses come from existence of new unseen particles
- complete theory is a renomalizable extension of the SM
Introduce sterile neutrinos or heavy neutral leptons NI
(=singlet [w. respect to the SM gauge group] Majorana fermions no weak i/a)

Number of singlet fermions unknown choose 3 in SM analogy

Kinematics

Couplings (F) to leptons L

And the Higgs field

MSM: neutrino minimal SM

Majorana mass term:

NI is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) inv.
consistent with the
SM symmetry

The Seesaw Mechanism

mechanism to explain why the known neutrino

masses are so extremely small m(e)

Heavy neutrino
(Dark Matter candidate)

seesaw: one mass goes up, the other down

Very light neutrino

(as observed)

The MSM

No new scale introduces since MI ~ EW scale

Alternative to SUSY approach to hierarchy problem

Can explain Baryogenesis, baryonic/dark matter production

Natural DM Candidate: sterile neutrino with mass O(10 keV)

Sterile neutrinos
- interact gravitationally
- do not interact through standard weak interactions
but communicate with the rest of the sector through fermion mixing

Sterile neutrino would be warm Dark Matter

some beneficial effects on some aspects of the CDM scenario such as
- absence of predicted cusp in the central regions of some galaxies
- lack of substructure in Dwarf Galaxies bound to the Milky Way
( last issue seems to be not there anymore after new SDDS + Keck data)

Drawbacks:
- some fine tuning is necessary to achieve all this
- some/many other problems are not addressed

Neutrino Summary
It seems that it is very plausible that
neutrinos (standard and sterile) make
up some of the Dark Matter in the
universe (given the experimental results on
neutrino oscillations), but most of the dark
matter is probably of some other form.
Particle physics oers several other
promising candidates for this.

Another Approach: Unification

Planck Scale

GUT Scale

EW Scale

Kaluza Klein Theory: Extra Dimensions

Originally, Kaluza and Klein invented this theory to

unite gravity and electromagnetism
1921: Kaluza proposed to add a 5th dimension to GR;
the equations could be separated in the Einstein equation
and Maxwell's equations
+ an extra field (the radion) new particle
this approach was forgotten until the 1970-1980s (strings)
1998: it was proposed to lower the scale of quantum gravity M*
to the TeV scale by localizing the SM on a 3+1 dim surface in
a higher dimensional spacetime (extra dimensions) ADD model
the n extra dimensions are compactified into a large volume Rn
that effectively dilutes the strength of gravity from the
fundamental scale (TeV solves Hierarchy problem) to the
Planck scale:
Gravity is not weak but some of is flux is lost in the extra-dimensions

Extra Dimensions: Visualization

The law of gravity
changes with n extra
dimensions of size d:
F1/r2+n for rd
F1/r2 for rd

Extra Dimensions are compactified

In the original 1998 theory (ADD), only
gravity propagates in the extra dimensions
very weak constraint R < 1mm ~ meV 1
In other models, also SM particles can
propagate in the extra dimensions
KK partners of ordinary particles not seen
energy scale E~1/R > few hundred GeV
R < 10 17 cm (microscopic extra dim)

The Kaluza Klein Tower

Basic Idea: Every multidimensional field corresponds to a

Kaluza-Klein tower of 4dim particles with increasing masses
Assume one circular spatial extra dimension of radius R
QM: expect standing waves in the compactified extra dim

The invariant mass of the standing waves is

expect a comb-like particle spectrum

If SM particles live in extra dimensions

KK excitations for all particles DM candidates if stable

Universal Extra Dimensions

All SM fields propagate universally in flat toroidal

extra dimensions

ADD: only gravity in extra dimension and SM on 3+1 membrane

Discrete symmetry: KK parity (1)n

n=0 SM particles
n=1 KK state
symmetry ensures that interactions with
one KK state and 2 SM particles are forbidden

(KK-parity corresponds to the symmetry of reection about the

midpoint in the extra dimension)

As a result, the lightest KK particle (LKP) cannot decay

and is stable
In UED, the LKP is likely to be associated with the first
KK excitation of the hypercharge gauge boson B0(1)

Lightest Kaluza-Klein Particle (LKP)

KK parity makes the LKP stable

Assume - TeV-1 sized extra dimensions

(the original suggestion)

- an electrically neutral LKP

- with weak scale interactions
The LKP is a WIMP!

WMAP: CDM h2 = 0.1131 0.0034

mass of DM candidate
B0(1) : ~0.5 1 TeV
unknown KK parameter space is
rather small (compared to SUSY) and will
be entirely scanned by the LHC
good direct detection prospects

The 10 Points Test for new Particles

stolen from Gianfranco Bertone, arXiv:0711.4996

Test Results

arXiv:0711.4996

Backup

The strong CP problem

more formal:
there are CP violating terms in the QCD Lagrangian that
arise from the (non-trivial) QCD vacuum structure

Gluon Dynamics

from QDC vacuum; kinetic Quark terms

CP violating

Quark Masses

since no strong CP violation is observed, must be very small or zero

however, it could take any value [expect O(1)]

Strong CP Problem (Naturalness Problem):

Why is so small?

Reminder: Spontanous Symmetry Breaking

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking: The equations of the system

exhibit a symmetry that is not present in the ground state.

Example: Consider a scalar field

the Lagrangian has a kinetic and a potential term

When the potential has the form

the symmetry of the system is spont. broken

The theory is symmetric around = 0,

but has many degenerate states of
minimal E:
Goldstone Theorem: Theories with spontaneously broken symmetry
have a massless Nambu-Goldstone boson
[Nb: If the theory has gauge symmetry, the gauge bosons eat the Goldstone bosons,
become massive, and the Goldstone boson provides the longitudinal polarization.]

Peccei-Quinn Mechanism and Axion

introduce the global Peccei-Quinn Symmetry U(1)PQ

this symmetry is spontaneously broken at some large E scale

this leads to a dynamical interpretation of the angle :

a is the axion field, fa the decay constant

now, the QCD Lagrangian reads:

non-perturbative effects induce a potential for a with the minimum

This cancels the terms and restores CP symmetry

Weinberg and Wilczek realized, that this theory has a pseudo-scalar

boson (the axion) which is the Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson
of the spontaneously broken PQ symmetry.

Primakoff Process

Properties of axion are closely related to those of neutral pions

(= pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons of the QCD)

one of the most important axion processes

describes the axion's two-photon interaction

F is the electromagnetic field strength tensor

The Primakoff Effect plays the key role in

most axion searches

it predicts the interaction of axions with magnetic fields

the axion also couples to gluons, fermions, ...

any new boson that couple to charge can couple

to 2 photons via triangle diagrams.
Hence searches are not limited to standard PQ axions

Gravitino

The LSP in SuperGravity models (combining GR and SUSY)

Supersymmetric partner of the (still hypothetic) graviton

Spin 3/2 fermion

the gravitino is the fermion mediating supergravity interactions,

just as the photon is mediating electromagnetism
the gravitino aquires mass when the SUSY is spontaneously
broken in SuperGravity theories;
the mass is the SUSY breaking scale
naturally, this scale would be the Planck scale
SUSY breaking scale is pushed down to O(TeV) to solve the
- hierarchy problem (smallness of Higgs mass)
- allow unification of the forces
Gravitino gets a ~TeV mass
hierarchy Problem: why is SUSY breaking scale << Planck scale?

Gravitino Dark Matter

Only gravitational strength interactions no thermal production

Could be produced in HE collisions or via decay of heavier
SUSY particles in the early universe
Next-to-lightest SUSY particle (NLSP, stau? stop? neutralino?) would
be important source of gravitinos and metastable
(gravitational strength decay rate)
important cosmological constraints on m, of NLSP
(from agreement of BB nucleosynthesis with abservations)

NLSP has a higher detection chance

at the LHC
Limits as Gravitino being the DM particle
come from abundance of light elements
the NLSP can form bound states, e.g. with 4He;
then the NLSP catalyzes reaction such
as 4He(D,)6Li

Favoured by observation

Cosmological Gravitino Problems

when the Gravitino has a TeV mass:
Assume conserved R-parity:

Gravitino could be LSP Dark Matter Candidate

BUT: the calculation shows that the gravitino density would
exceed the Dark Matter density

Assume Gravitino is instable:

It would decay away no Dark Matter candidate

Gravitino lifetime = mPl2/m3 (nat. units)
with m~TeV, this gives ~ 105 seconds (longer than
nucleosynthesis era after Big Band)
Daugthers (, e, ) from decay would be so energetic that they
would distroy nuclei strong impact on nucleosynthesis; no
star formation (which is not observed)

Possible ways out...

Split SUSY:
Gravitino mass scale is much higher than TeV,
but other fermionic SUSY partners of SM
particles appear there
Slightly violated R-parity:
gravitino is the LSP almost all SUSY particles in the early
Universe decay into SM particles via R-parity violating
interactions well before the synthesis of primordial nuclei
a small fraction however decay into gravitinos, whose half-life is
orders of magnitude greater than the age of the Universe due to
the suppression of the decay rate by the Planck scale and the
small R-parity violating couplings
BUT: The Gravitino only interacts gravitationally
seems impossible to detect it in experiments
(maybe via decays a line in the HE spectrum)