Top-Down Models and UHECRs - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/topdown.pdf · Bottom-up versus top-down...

Top-Down Models and UHECRs

Michael Kachelrieß

NTNU, Trondheim

Bottom-up versus top-down models

Bottom-up models

acceleration in electromagnetic fields

⇒ charged particles: protons, nuclei, electrons

photons and neutrinos as secondaries

Rencontres de Blois 2008 Michael Kachelrieß Top-Down Models

Bottom-up versus top-down models

Bottom-up models

acceleration in electromagnetic fields

⇒ charged particles: protons, nuclei, electrons

photons and neutrinos as secondaries

Top-down models

relics from early universe ↔ DM

non-thermal or thermalpoint particle or non-perturbative solutionsstable or decaying

fragmentation products: mainly photons, neutrinos

Dark matter candidates

SM neutrinos

gravitino

−18−15−12−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

log(m/GeV)

The standard candidate: WIMP

inflation suggested Ω = 1, CMB shows that Ω ≈ 1BBN constrains baryon content, Ωbh

2 = 0.019±0.001LSS requires that DM is dissipation-less and “cold”thermal production of CDM,

ΩXh2 ∼3×10−27cm3/s

〈σv〉

suggests weakly interacting DM particle with mass m ∼ mZ

The standard candidate: WIMP

inflation suggested Ω = 1, CMB shows that Ω ≈ 1BBN constrains baryon content, Ωbh

2 = 0.019±0.001LSS requires that DM is dissipation-less and “cold”thermal production of CDM,

ΩXh2 ∼3×10−27cm3/s

〈σv〉

suggests weakly interacting DM particle with mass m ∼ mZ

unitarity limit: m <∼ 100 TeV

Status of neutralino DM after LEPII:

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

mh = 114 GeV

m1/2 (GeV)

tan β = 10 , µ > 0

mχ± = 103.5 GeV

Status of neutralino DM after LEPII:

100 1000 15000

mh = 114 GeVm0

m1/2 (GeV)

mt = 171 GeV , tan β = 10 , µ > 0

Indirect detection claims:

Signal fromχχ annihilations in the diffuse extragalactic photon background:

Indirect detection claims: [Elsasser, Mannheim ’04 ]

Signal from χχ annihilations in the diffuse extragalacticphoton background:

0,1 1 10 100 100010-7

Observed Gamma Ray Energy / GeV

mχ = 520 GeV

<σv>χ = 3.1 x 10-25 cm3s-1

Dark Matter Scenario (Total)χ2/ν =0.74

α = -2.33

Straw Person's Blazar Model:

χ2/ν =1.05

Salamon & Stecker Blazar Model

µ = 978GeVm2 = -1035GeV

mA = 1036GeV

tan β = 6.6mS = 1814GeV

At = 0.88

Ab = -2.10

Ωh2 = 0.1

Indirect detection claims:

Signal from χχ annihilations in the diffuse extragalacticphoton background:

0,1 1 10 100 100010-7

Observed Gamma Ray Energy / GeV

mχ = 520 GeV

<σv>χ = 3.1 x 10-25 cm3s-1

Dark Matter Scenario (Total)χ2/ν =0.74

α = -2.33

Straw Person's Blazar Model:

χ2/ν =1.05

Salamon & Stecker Blazar Model

µ = 978GeVm2 = -1035GeV

mA = 1036GeV

tan β = 6.6mS = 1814GeV

At = 0.88

Ab = -2.10

Ωh2 = 0.1

problem:

search for small excess on top of “astrophysical background”

Reminder: GZK puzzle as motivation for top-down models

no obvious counter-parts for 1020eV events

acceleration beyond 1020eV difficult

AGASA excess

misinterpretation of GZK suppression as GZK cutoff

Modification factor: [Berezinsky, Gazizov, Grigorieva ’03 ]

1017 1018 1019 1020 1021

ηtotal

1: γg=2.7

2: γg=2.0

E, eVRencontres de Blois 2008 Michael Kachelrieß Top-Down Models

Modification factor: AGASA excess

1017 1018 1019 1020 1021

Akeno-AGASA

ηtotal

γg=2.7

Modification factor: Nuclei

1017 1018 1019 1020 102110-2

ηtotal

red shift

γg=2.7

GZK suppression – dependence on ns

1018 1019 1020 1021

E [eV]

50 Mpc

z=0.03

[MK, Semikoz and Tortola ’03 ]

GZK suppression – dependence on ns

1017 1018 1019 1020 1021

E [eV]

50 Mpc

z=0.03

[MK, Semikoz and Tortola ’03 ]

Top-Down Models

UHECR primaries are produced by decays of supermassive particleX with MX >∼ 1012 GeV.

topological defects: monopoles, strings, . . .[Hill ’83; Ostriker, Thompson, Witten ’86 ]

superheavy metastable particles[Berezinsky, MK, Vilenkin ’97; Kuzmin, Rubakov ’97 ]

Advantages:

no acceleration problem

no visible sources

if X ∈ CDM, no GZK-cutoff

theoretically motivated; testable predictions

Gravitational creation of superheavy matter

Small fluctuations of field Φ obey

φk +[

k2 +m2eff(τ)

φk = 0

φk +[

k2 +m2eff(τ)

φk = 0

If meff is time dependent, vacuum fluctuations will betransformed into real particles.

φk +[

k2 +m2eff(τ)

φk = 0

⇒ expansion of Universe,

m2eff = M2a2 +(6ξ−1)

a′′

leads to particle production

φk +[

k2 +m2eff(τ)

φk = 0

⇒ expansion of Universe,

m2eff = M2a2 +(6ξ−1)

a′′

leads to particle production

In inflationary cosmology

ΩXh2 ∼

1012GeV

109GeV

dependent only on cosmology, for MX <∼ HI

[Kuzmin, Tkachev ’98; Chung, Kolb, Riotto ’98 ]

Gravitational creation of superheavy matter:

Properties of superheavy matter:

was never in thermal equlibrium:

⇒ unitarity limit M <∼ 30 TeV does not apply

can be strongly interacting and dissipation-less:

small relative energy transfer dE/(Edt) per time requires:either small σ or

small energy transfer y

⇒ any DM particle with mX >∼ 10 TeV is dissipation-less

can be strongly interacting and dissipation-less:

small relative energy transfer dE/(Edt) per time requires:either small σ or

small energy transfer y

⇒ any DM particle with mX >∼ 10 TeV is dissipation-less

lifetime:

metastable or stable due to some (gauged) R symmetry

Detection of superheavy matter:

direct detection: density 1/MX , recoil energy is constant⇒ large σXN required

4 6 8 10 12 14 16log Mχ (GeV)

indirect detection via neutrinos from the Sun:signal should compete with usual fluxes⇒ 〈σv〉 ∼ 10−26 cm2 needed

UHECR above the GZK cutoff via nucleon, photon secondaries

−2s−

1e+18 1e+19 1e+20 1e+21

Lifetime:

stable: annihilation gives too small flux

decay: too fast?For MX >∼ 1010 GeV even gravitational interactions result incosmological short lifetimes, τX ≪ t0.

global symmetry broken by wormhole effects, τX ∝ exp(S)

symmetry broken by instanton effects,τX ∝ exp(−4π2/g2)

discrete symmetries forbid operators with d < 9

crypton or fractionally charged and confined particle ofsuperstring theories

Fragmentation of heavy particles

consider Bremsstrahlung, X → f fV :

soft and collinear singularities generate terms ln2(m2V /m2

X ) form2

X ≫ m2V ⇒ compensate the small couplings g2,

g2 ln2(m2X/m2

V ) ≈ 1

X ) form2

g2 ln2(m2X/m2

V ) ≈ 1

MX >∼ 106 GeV, ⇒ naive perturbation theory breaks down:electroweak and SUSY sector have a QCD-like behavior(“jets”)

[Berezinsky, MK ’98, Berezinsky, MK, Ostapchenko ’02 ]

X ) form2

g2 ln2(m2X/m2

V ) ≈ 1

MX >∼ 106 GeV, ⇒ naive perturbation theory breaks down:electroweak and SUSY sector have a QCD-like behavior(“jets”)

[Berezinsky, MK ’98, Berezinsky, MK, Ostapchenko ’02 ]

(modified) DGLAP description possible

XqL qL

1 TeV(SUSY

+ SU(2) ⊗ U(1)

breaking)

1 GeV(hadronization)

µ−νµ

π0 γ

γντ

Signatures of SHDM decays

flat spectra dE/E 1.9 up to mX/2

−2s−

1e+18 1e+19 1e+20 1e+21

[Aloisio, Berezinsky, MK, ’03 ]

⇒ SHDM dominates UHECR flux only above ∼ 8×1019 eV

composition:γ/p ≫ 1, large neutrino fluxes, no nucleiLSPs, if R parity conserved

1016GeV

1014GeV

0.0001

1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Fig. 2.—The vs. relation for observed events (circles andr (1000) Em 0

squares). The solid line is a fit to data between 1019 and 1020 eV. The expected1 j bound for simulatedg-ray showers is indicated by the shaded region, and

at a 95% CL by arrows. The different curves correspond to the predictionsfrom the following origin models: (Z-burst model ((dotted curve

UHECR spectrum above 10accelerated from lower energies is included by assuming anexpected spectrum consistent with the GZK prediction for the

flat spectra dE/E 1.9 up to mX/2composition:

1019 1020 10210.0

E (eV)

composition:

galactic anisotropy: [Dubovsky, Tinyakov ’98 ]

0 20 401

1020 eV 6x1019 eV 3x1019 eV 1019 ev

Topological defect models

+ “generic” in SUSY-GUTs+ produced during reheating

- typical density: one per horizon/correlation length- main energy loss low-energy radiation?

Topological defect models [Allen, Shellard ’06 ]

box 2ct

matterepoch

scalingregime

+ “generic” in SUSY-GUTs

+ produced during reheating

- typical density: one per horizon/correlation length

- main energy loss low-energy radiation?

favourable models for UHECRs:

monopole-antimonopole pairs

hybrid defects: cosmic necklaces

+ “generic” in SUSY-GUTs

+ produced during reheating

- typical density: one per horizon/correlation length

- main energy loss low-energy radiation?

favourable models for UHECRs:

monopole-antimonopole pairs

hybrid defects: cosmic necklaces

G → H ⊗U(1) → H ⊗Z2

monopoles M ∼ ηm/e connected by strings µs ∼ η2s

parameter r = M/(µd):r ≪ 1 normal string dynamicsr ≫ 1 non-rel. string network

Status of topological defect models – necklaces:

−2s−

1e+18 1e+19 1e+20 1e+21 1e+22

[Aloisio, Berezinsky, MK, ’03 ]

Status of topological defect models – necklaces:

−2s−

1e+18 1e+19 1e+20 1e+21 1e+22

⇒ shape of spectrum allows only sub-dominant contribution• UHE photon fraction reduced

Cosmic necklaces: [Blanco-Pillado, Olum ’07 ]

Idea of EGRET limit

all energy in γ and e± cascades down to GeV–TeV range, boundedby observations:

ωcas = femmX

0dt (1+ z)−4 nX (t)

<∼ 2 ·10−6 eV/cm3

Elmag. cascades and EGRET limit:

108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020 1022

E [eV]

γ νi

[Semikoz, Sigl ’03 ]

Summary

AGASA excess as main motivation for top-down models isgone

no positive evidence for superheavy dark matter from its twokey signatures:

photonsgalactic anisotropy

SHDM remains an interesting DM candidate

topological defects are generic prediction of (SUSY-) GUTs

should be searched for as subdominant sources of UHECR

Sensitivity of neutrino detectors

1012 1014 1016 1018 1020 1022

E [eV]

γ-ray bound

MPR bound

WB bound

atm ν

ICECUBE

ANITA 30 days

AMANDA-II, ANTARES

BAIKAL

Sensitivity of neutrino detectors

1012 1014 1016 1018 1020 1022

E [eV]

γ-ray bound

MPR bound

WB bound

atm ν

ICECUBE

ANITA 30 days

AMANDA-II, ANTARES

BAIKAL

Top-Down Models and UHECRs - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/topdown.pdf · Bottom-up versus top-down...

Documents

Export Pricing Bottom up and Top Down Models (Cost Plus and Target Pricing) by Günter Schranz

Python Scientic lecture notes - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~ingves/Teaching/TFY4240/Assignments/...CHAPTER 2 Building blocks of scientic computing with Python author Emmanuelle Gouillart

lyn og torden - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/FY1303NY/prosjekt/lynogtorden.pdf · Lyn og Torden 2 Abstrakt Tordenskyer dannes vanligvis ved at sola varmer opp lufta over bakken

Development of Bottom-up Long-Run Incremental Cost · PDF fileDevelopment of Bottom-up Long-Run Incremental Cost (BU-LRIC) Models ... Presentation of the dimensioning algorithm for

Solution to Exercise 2 - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/TFY4340_2010/solution2.pdf · Department of physics, NTNU TFY4340 Mesoscopic Physics Spring 2010 Solution to Exercise 2 Question

Bottom Of The Pyramid B24b Business Models

Bottom-up approach to torus bifurcation in neuron …Bottom-up approach to torus bifurcation in neuron models Huiwen Ju,1 Alexander B. Neiman,2 and Andrey L. Shilnikov1,3 1Neuroscience

Bottom mounted refrigerator glass door reach …...Item # MODELS: AEX 500 T/F Bottom mounted refrigerator glass door reach AEX 1000 T/F AEX 1600 T/F -in. 500/1000L National series

TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP MACROECONOMICS · TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP MACROECONOMICS. Paul De Grauwe . University of Leuven . Abstract: I distinguish two types of macroeconomic models

Comparison of Models and Tests on Bottom Rails in Shear Walls Experiencing Uplift

Development of Bottom-up Long Run Incremental Cost (BU ......- CONFIDENTIAL - Development of Bottom-up Long Run Incremental Cost (BU-LRIC) models This document was prepared by Axon

Pasquale D. Serpico - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/serpico.pdf · 2009. 6. 17. · UHECR autocorrelation function after Auger SOCoR - Trondheim, 17 June 2009 Pasquale D. Serpico based

BOTTOM SUCTION PUMPS - 50Hz BS SERIES - CRI Groups · PPO PPO S.S. 420 Discharge outlet chamber Single phase models are available with and without float switch. For three phase models

1. Introduction to quantum mechanics - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/TFY4215_2016/lecturenotes/lecturenotes1… · TFY4215/FY1006 | Lecturenotes 1 3 temperature; it did in fact t

A Comparison Top-downand Bottom-upCommunity … · The existence oftwo practice models, top-downand bottom-up,used by ... to the approach to community development used in them. Results

2 billion-pilot package to support bottom-up ideas · • Substantial funding for the last stages of development • Bottom-up: all sectors, products, services, new business models

Midtsemestereksamen Midterm Examination - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~ingves/Teaching/PET110/Exam/Exam_pet...1 PART A: Short-answer questions (50%; each worth 2%) Your answers should be

HADRONIC INTERACTIONS - NTNUweb.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/lipari.pdf · in the modeling of hadronic interactions ... the astrophysical hints of a proton dominated composition ... > 200 pb-1

The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches …people.bu.edu/isw/papers/top-down_bottom-up_static.pdf · 1The major differences between top-down and bottom-up models lie in

Methodology for incorporating modal choice behaviour in bottom-up energy system models