Howard Baer- ET signatures and dark matter connection

8/3/2019 Howard Baer- ET signatures and dark matter connection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/howard-baer-et-signatures-and-dark-matter-connection 1/49

E T signatures and dark matter connection

Howard Baer

Florida State/ Oklahoma

⋆ Evidence for CDM⋆ Candidates for CDM

⋆ Neutralino CDM

• Relic density

• Direct and indirect detection of DM

⋆ NUSUGRA models

⋆ The gravitino problem

⋆ Gravitino CDM

⋆ Axino CDM

H. Baer, TASI 2008: ET at LHC and dark matter connection, June 20, 2008 1



Pillars of Big Bang cosmology: Hubble expansion

⋆ Theory: FRW universe

⋆ Hubble expansion

• HST key project

• type Ia supernovae probe

⋆ H 0dL = z + 12

(1− q0)z2 + · · ·⋆ H 0 = 72 km/sec/Mpc±10%

⋆ evidence for Λ > 0!

⋆ age of universe: ∼ 13.7 Gyrs




Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)

⋆ Thermal history

of universe:

⋆ Can compute light element

abundances: 4He, D, 3He, 7Li

• match to data:• ηB ≡ nB

nγ≃ 6× 10−10

• ηB from BBN

consistent with CMB results

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ?

@ @ @ @

@ @ @ @

3He/H p

4

He

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101

0.01 0.02 0.030.005

C M

B

B B N

Baryon-to-photon ratio η × 10−10

Baryon density ΩBh2

D___H

0.24

0.23

0.25

0.26

0.27

10−4

10−3

10−5

10−9

10−10

2

5

7Li/H p

Yp

D/H p




Cosmic microwave background (CMB)

⋆ COBE/WMAP/WMAP3, · · ·

⋆ anisotropies ∼ 10−5

⋆ can extract numerous

cosm. param’s from power spectrum

• flat (k = 0) universe: ρ = ρcas in inflation models

• contents of universe

∗ΩΛ

∼0.7

∗ Ωbaryons ∼ 0.04

∗ ΩCDM ∼ 0.25

∗ Ων ∼ tiny




Baryogenesis: explaining ηB

⋆ SM electroweak baryogenesis: only if mH SM<∼ 50 GeV

⋆ MSSM: many more possibilities

•EW baryogenesis: need mt1 < mt; mh

<

∼120 GeV (Carena et al.)

• Affleck-Dine: decay of flat directions: baryo- or leptogenesis

• thermal leptogenesis: (Fukugita, Yanagida; Buchmueller, Plumacher, ...)

∗natural link to physics of massive neutrinos

∗ due to decay of heavy N states: N → Hℓ = N → H †ℓ∗ lepton asymmetry converted to baryon asymmetry via sphaleron effects

∗ get ηB ∼ 6× 10−10 if M N ∼ 1010 GeV

∗need reheat temp T R

∼1010 GeV

∗ overproduction of gravitinos if .1 <∼ mG<∼ 10 TeV

• leptogenesis via inflaton decay

⋆ can be constrained by ν /sparticle measurements




Dark Matter in the universe

⋆ Binding of clusters

⋆ Galactic rotation curves

⋆ Gravitational lensing

⋆ Hot gas in clusters

⋆ CMB fluctuations

⋆ Large scale structure

⋆ flatness/BBN




Best fit cosmology: concordance (ΛCDM ) model

•ΩBh2 = 0.022

±0.001

• Ωνh2 < 0.007 95% CL

• ΩΛh2 ∼ 0.38± 0.03

• ΩCDM h2 = 0.105± 0.01




Candidates for Dark Matter

⋆ unseen baryons, e.g. BHs, brown dwarves, stellar remnants

– inconsistent with BBN element abundance calc’n

– limits from MACHO, EROS, OGLE

⋆ light neutrinos (= HDM )

⋆ axions/axinos

⋆ WIMPS

⋆ superWIMPS

⋆Q-balls

⋆ primordial BHs10

-3310

-3010

-2710

-2410

-2110

-1810

-1510

-1210

-910

-610

-310

010

310

610

910

1210

1510

18

mass (GeV)

10-39

10-36

10-33

10-30

10-27

10-24

10-21

10-18

10-15

10-12

10-9

10-6

10-3

100

103

106

109

1012

1015

1018

1021

1024

σ i n t

( p b )

Some Dark Matter Candidate Particles

neutrinosneutralinoKK photonbranonLTP

axion axino

gravitinoKK graviton

SuperWIMPs :

w i m p z

i l l aWIMPs :

B l a c k H o l e R e m

n a n t

Q-ball

fuzzy CDM




Axions

⋆ PQ solution to strong CP problem in QCD⋆ pseudo-Goldstone boson from

PQ breaking at scale f a

⋆ non-thermally producedvia vacuum mis-alignment

• ma ∼ Λ2QCD/f a ∼ 10−6 − 10−1eV

• Ωah2 ∼ 1

2 6×10−6eV ma 7/6 h2

• astro bound: stellar cooling ⇒ ma < 10−1eV

• a couples to EM field: a− γ − γ coupling (Sikivie)

• axion microwave cavity searches

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

ma

( eV )

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Ω a

h 2

measured : Ωh 2

= 0.105 + _ 0.01

axion relic density :

vacuum mis-alignment




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 DFSZfor ma ∼ 10−6 − 10−5 eV

• beyond Phase II:

probe higher values ma




WIMPs: the WIMP miracle!

• Weakly Interacting Massive Particles• assume in thermal equil’n in early universe

• Boltzman eq’n:

– dn/dt = −3Hn− σvrel(n2 − n20)

• Ωh2 = s0ρc/h2

45πg∗

1/2xfM Pl

1σv

• ∼0.1 pbσv ∼ 0.1 mwimp100 GeV 2

• thermal relic ⇒ new physics at M weak!




Some WIMP candidates

⋆ 4th gen. Dirac ν (excluded)

⋆ SUSY neutralino (χ or Z 1)

⋆ UED excited photon B1µ

⋆ little Higgs photon BH

⋆ little Higgs (theory space) N 1 (scalar)

⋆ warped GUTS: LZP KK fermion

⋆ branons

⋆ · · ·




Neutralino dark matter

⋆ Why R-parity? natural in SO(10) SUSYGUTS if properly broken, or broken

via compactification (Mohapatra, Martin, Kawamura, · · ·)⋆ In thermal equilibrium in early universe

⋆ As universe expands and cools, freeze out

⋆ Number density obtained from Boltzmann eq’n

• dn/dt = −3Hn− σvrel(n2

− n2

0)• depends critically on thermally averaged annihilation cross section times

velocity

⋆ many thousands of annihilation/co-annihilation diagrams⋆ several computer codes available

• DarkSUSY, Micromegas, IsaReD (part of Isajet)




Some neutralino (co)annihilation processes




Relic density in minimal SUGRA model

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ωh2 0.094

0.094 Ωh2 0.1290.129 Ωh

2 0.5

G

G

G

NO REWSBLEP2

s t a u L

S P

m0

(GeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )

mSUGRA,tanβ=10,A0=0,µ0,m

top=175GeV

δapos

x1010

:30,10,5,1 BF(b→sγ )x104:2,3

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ωh2 0.094

0.094 Ωh2 0.1290.129 Ωh

2 0.5

G

G

G

NO REWSBLEP2

s t a u L

S P

m0

(GeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )

mSUGRA,tanβ=55,A0=0,µ0,m

top=175GeV

δapos

x1010

:30,10,5,1 BF(b→sγ )x104:2,3

HB, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and A. Mustafayev




Main mSUGRA regions consistent with WMAP

⋆ bulk region (low m0, low m1/2)⋆ stau co-annihilation region (mτ 1 ≃ meZ1

)

⋆ HB/FP region (large m0 where |µ| → small )

⋆ A-funnel (2meZ1≃ mA, mH )

⋆ h corridor (2meZ1≃ mh)

⋆ stop co-annihilation region (particular A0 values mt1 ≃me

Z1)




Constraints on SUSY models

⋆ LEP2:

– mh > 114.4 GeV for SM-like h

– mfW 1> 103.5 GeV

– meL,R > 99 GeV for mℓ −meZ1 > 10 GeV

⋆ BF (b → sγ ) = (3.55± 0.26)× 10−4 (BELLE, CLEO, ALEPH)

– SM theory: BF (b → sγ ) ≃ (3.0− 3.7)× 10−4

⋆ aµ = (g − 2)µ/2 (Muon g − 2 collaboration)– ∆aµ = (22± 10)× 10−10 (PDG value e+e−)

– ∆aSUSY µ ∝ m2

µµM i tanβ

M 4SUSY

⋆ BF (Bs → µ+µ−) < 1.5× 10−7 (CDF)

– constrains at very large tan β >∼ 50

⋆ ΩCDM h2 = 0.11± 0.01 (WMAP)




Constraints as χ2 on mSUGRA model

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

mSUGRA, tgβ=10, µ0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV

e+e

-input for δa

µ G LEP2 excluded

NO REWSB

s t a u

L S P

s q r t ( χ

2 )

m0 (TeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

mSUGRA, tgβ=55, µ0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV

e+e

-input for δa

µ G LEP2 excluded

NO REWSB

s t a u

L S P

s q r t ( χ

2 )

m0 (TeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )




Direct detection of SUSY DM

⋆ Calculate neutralino-nucleus scattering

• calculate Z 1 − q or Z 1 − g scattering: take v → 0 limit

∗spin-dependent cross section couples to spin of nucleus: cancel

∗ spin-independent cross section ∝ A2: add∗ results usually quoted in terms of σSI ( Z 1 p) so results from different

target nuclei can be compared




Current best limit: Xenon-10/CDMS results!

WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]

C

r o s s - s e c

t i o n

[ p b ] ( n

o r m a

l i s e d t o n u c

l e o

n )

080418114601

http://dmtools.brown.edu/

Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini

101

102

103

10-10

10-9

10-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

080418114601

Baer et. al 2003XENON1T (proj)LUX 300 kg LXe Projection (Jul 2007)XENON100 (150 kg) projected sensitivitySuperCDMS (Projected) 25kg (7-ST@Snolab)WARP 140kg (proj)

SuperCDMS (Projected) 2-ST@SoudanCDMS Soudan 2007 projectedXENON10 2007 (Net 136 kg-d)CDMS: 2004+2005 (reanalysis) +2008 GeCDMS 2008 GeWARP 2.3L, 96.5 kg-days 55 keV thresholdDAMA 2000 58k kg-days NaI Ann. Mod. 3sigma w/DAMA 1996Edelweiss I final limit, 62 kg-days Ge 2000+2002+2003 limitDATA listed top to bottom on plot




Indirect detection (ID) of SUSY DM: ν -telescopes

⋆ Z 1Z 1 → bb, etc. in core of sun (or earth): ⇒ ν µ → µ in ν telescopes

⋆ flux is largest when σ( Z 1 p) is largest– e.g. low mq or HB/FP region for mSUGRA

• experiments: Amanda, Icecube, Antares




ID of SUSY DM: γ and anti-matter searches

• Z 1Z 1 → qq, etc. → γ in galactic core or halo

•Z 1Z 1

→qq, etc.

→e+ in galactic halo

• Z 1Z 1 → qq, etc. → ¯ p in galactic halo

• Z 1Z 1 → qq, etc. → D in galactic halo




Rates for γ s, e+s, ¯ ps vs. m0 for fixed m1/2 = 550 GeV, tan β = 50

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

m0(GeV)

10−5

10−4

10−3

10−2

10−1

100

S / B ( e + )

0 5 10 15

r(kpc)

0

5

10

ρ ( G

e V c m −

3 )

default

NFW

Moore et al

Kravtsov et al

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

m0(GeV)

10−9

10−8

10−7

10−6

10−5

10−4

d

Φ p − / d E d Ω ( G

e V −

1 c

m −

2 s

− 1

s r −

1 )

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

m0(GeV)

10−12

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

Φ γ

( c

m −

2 s

− 1 )

a) b)

c) d)

• rates enhanced in A-funnel and HB/FP region (MHDM)




Direct and indirect detection of neutralino DM

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

mSUGRA, A0=0 tanβ=10, µ0

m0(GeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )

LEP

no REWSB

Z ~ 1 n o

t L S P

Φ(p-)=3x10

-7GeV

-1cm

-2s

-1sr

-1

(S/B)e+=0.01

Φ(γ )=10-10

cm-2

s-1

Φsun

(µ)=40 km-2

yr-1

G 0Ωh20.129

mh=114.4 GeVσ(Z

~

1p)=10-9

pb

L H C

LC1000

LC500

TEV

µ

D D

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

mSUGRA, A0=0, tanβ=50, µ0

m0

(GeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )

LEP

no REWSB

Z ~ 1 n o t L S P

Φ(p-) 3e-7 GeV

-1cm

-2s

-1sr

-1(S/B)

e+=0.01

Φ(γ )=10-10

cm-2

s-1

Φsun

(µ)=40 km-2

yr-1

G 0 Ωh2 0.129

mh=114.4 GeV

Φearth

(µ)=40 km-2

yr-1

σ(Z~

1p)=10-9

pb

L H C

LC1000

LC500

µ

D D

HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, O’Farrill




SUGRA models with non-universal scalars

• Normal scalar mass hierarchy NMH: HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Mustafayev

• m0(1) ≃ m0(2) ≪ m0(3) (preserve FCNC bounds)

•motivation: reconcile BF (b

→sγ ) with (g

−2)µ anomaly

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

mSUGRA, tgβ=30, µ0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV,m01,2=100 GeV

e+e

-input for δaµ G LEP2 excluded

NO REWSB

s t a

u L S P

s q r t ( χ

2 )

m03 (TeV)

m 1 / 2

( G e

V )




SUGRA models with non-universal Higgs mass (NUHM1)

• m2H u

= m2H d≡ m2

φ = m0: HB, Belyaev, Mustafayev, Profumo, Tata

• motivation: SO(10) SUSYGUTs where H u,d ∈ φ(10) while matter ∈ ψ(16)

• m2

φ ≫ m0 ⇒higgsino DM for any m0, m1/2

• m2φ < 0 ⇒ can have A-funnel for any tan β

10 -3

10 -2

10 -1

1

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 m φ / m

0

Ω h 2

0

0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 m φ / m

0

m ( T e V )

m0=300GeV, m

1/2=300GeV, tanβ=10, A

0=0, µ0, m

t=178GeV

WMAPm

A

mχ

µ




NUHM2 (2-parameter case)

• m2H u = m2

H d = m0: HB, Belyaev, Mustafayev, Profumo, Tata

• motivation: SU (5) SUSYGUTs where H u ∈ φ(5), H d ∈ φ(5)

•can re-parametrize m2

H u, m2

H d

↔µ, mA (Ellis, Olive, Santoso)

• large S term in RGEs ⇒ light uR, cR squarks, meL < meR

NUHM2: m 0 =300GeV, m

1/2 =300GeV, tan β=10, A

0 =0, m

t =178GeV

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

m A

(GeV)

µ ( G e V )

LEP2

s q r t ( χ 2 )

τ~

1

Ah

NUHM1

HS

mSUGRA

GS




Gaugino mass non-universality

• M 1 = M 2 = M 3: HB, TK, AM, EP, SP, XT

• motivation: SUSYGUTs where gauge kinetic function transforms non-trivially

•M 2

∼M 1 at M GUT : mixed wino dark matter (MWDM)

• M 2 ≃ −M 1 at M GUT : bino-wino co-annihilation (BWCA)

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

M1

(GeV)

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

Ω h

2

m0=300 GeV, m

1/2=300 GeV, tanβ=10, A

0=0, µ>0, m

t=178 GeV

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

M1

(GeV)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

R B ~

, W ~

w~

B

~

a) b)

WMAP

mSUGRA MWDMBWCA BWCA mSUGRA MWDM




Gaugino mass non-universality: low M 3 case

• M 3 < M 1 ∼ M 2: HB, TK, AM, EP, SP, XT

• motivation: mixed-moduli AMSB models

• lower M 3 → low mq → low µ → mixed higgsino DM

-400 -200 0 200 400

M3

(GeV)

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

Ω h

2

m0=300 GeV, m

1/2=300 GeV, tanβ=10, A

0=0, µ>0, m

t=175 GeV

-400 -200 0 200 400

M3

(GeV)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

R H ~

a) b)

WMAP

mSUGRA mSUGRAMHDM1 MHDM1

LEP2

Excluded

LEP2

Excluded

MHDM2 MHDM2




Mixed higgsino DM from a high M 2 (HM2DM)

m 0

=300GeV, m 1/2

=300GeV, tan β=10, A0

=0, µ 0, m t =171.4GeV

10 -2

10 -1

1

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

2007/07/07 11.40

WMAP

Ω h 2

0 0.10.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8 0.9

1

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

r 2

= M 2

/ m 1/2

R H

• high M 2 ⇒ low |µ| so get mixed higgsino DM but high mqL

• HB, Mustafayev, Summy, Tata




Direct DM detection: well-tempered

Z 1 models

Spin-independent Direct Detection

10 -14

10 -13

10 -12

10 -11

10 -10

10 -9

10 -8

10 -7

10 -6

10 -5

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

----⋅-⋅-⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅

mSUGRA : µ > 0

mSUGRA : µ < 0

NUHM1µ

NUHM1A

MWDM1

MWDM2

BWCA2

LM3DM

HM2DM : M2 > 0

HM2DM : M2 < 0

Xenon-10

SuperCDMS 25 kg Xenon-100/LUX

Xenon-1 ton

m z1∼ (GeV)

σ S I

( p b )

• well-tempered

Z 1 models asymptote at σ(

Z 1 p) ∼ 10−8 pb!




Compressed SUSY (Steve Martin)

• in models with low M 3 and A0 ∼ −M 1, the t1 becomes quite light

• Martin finds that if

– mt < meZ1

<

∼ mt + 100 GeV and

– meZ1+ 25 GeV

<∼ mt1<∼ meZ1

+ 100 GeV, then

• Z 1 Z 1

→tt is dominant dark matter annihilation mechanism in early Universe!

• implications for LHC, DD, IDD: (HB, Box, Park, Tata)

– light mg with t1 = NLSP

– collider signatures depend on whether t1→

c Z 1 or bW Z 1

– if t1 → c Z 1, then large E T + jets, but very low isolated lepton rates

– IDD halo annihilation signals enhanced since Z 1 Z 1 → tt → γ s, anti-matter




Mixed modulus-AMSB models

⋆ KKLT model: type IIB superstring compactification with fluxes

• stabilize moduli/dilaton via fluxes and e.g. gaugino condensation on D7

brane

• introduce anti-D3 brane (uplifting potential; de Sitter universe with Λ > 0

• small SUSY breaking due to D3 brane

•mass hierarchy: mmoduli

≫m3/2

≫mSUSY

⋆ MSSM soft terms calculated by Choi, Falkowski, Nilles, Olechowski, Pokorski

⋆ phenomenology: Choi, Jeong, Okumura; Falkowski, Lebedev, Mambrini;

Kitano, Nomura

⋆ see also: HB, E. Park, X. Tata, T. Wang, JHEP0608, 041 (2006); PLB641,

447 (2006); JHEP0706, 033 (2007);




α=6, m3/2

=12 TeV, tanβ=10, µ 0, mt=175 GeV

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

103

105

107

109

1011

1013

1015

1017

M1

M2

M3

a)

Q (GeV)

M a s s ( G e V

)

α=6, m3/2

=12 TeV, tanβ=10, µ 0, mt=175 GeV

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

103

105

107

109

1011

1013

1015

1017

Hd

Hu

τR

τL

bR

tR

tL

eR

,e

L,

dR,

uR

uL b)

Q (GeV)

s i g n ( m i 2

) ⋅ √ | m i 2

| ( G e

V )

• GUT scale AMSB splitting of soft terms cancelled by RGE running:soft terms unify at “mirage” unification scale

• MM-AMSB contains BWCA, MWDM, LM3DM scenarios!




SO(10) SUSYGUTs: motivation

⋆ In all the excitement of new models, it is easy to neglect the really good ideasfrom the past:

⋆ SUSYGUTs with SO(10) → SU (5) → SU (3)C × SU (2)L × U (1)Y :

• unification of forces• SO(10) naturally anomaly free

• explain ad-hoc SM hypercharge assignments (charge relations: e.g. why

m( proton) =−

me

• unification of matter in SO(10): matter ∈ ψ(16), higgs ∈ φ(10)

(simplest models)

•The 16-dim’l spinor rep of SO(10) contains all the matter in a single

generation of the SM, plus a right-handed neutrino state.

• break SO(10): get see-saw ν s!

• simplest models: t− b− τ Yukawa unification




YU requires precision calculation of SUSY spectrum:

Hall, Rattazzi, Sarid; Pierce et al. (PBMZ)

• need full 2-loop RGE running

• RG-improved 1-loop effective potential evaluated at optimized scale

• t, b, τ threshold effects

• full set of 1-loop sparticle/Higgs mass corrections

• use Isajet/Isasugra 7.75 spectrum generator




Running of Yukawa couplings: m16 = 10 TeV

1e+00 1e+02 1e+04 1e+06 1e+08 1e+10 1e+12 1e+14 1e+16

Q (GeV)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

f i

f τ

f b

f t

• note shifts at Q = M SUSY !


Y fi S !



t − b− τ Yukawa unification in HS model!

• need m16 ∼ 5− 20 TeV

• need m10 ≃√

2m16

•A0

≃ −2m16

• tan β ≃ 50

• m1/2 ≪ m16

•inverted scalar mass hierarchy: Bagger et al.

• split Higgs needed for EWSB: m2H u

< m2H d

• Auto, HB, Balazs, Belyaev, Ferrandis, Tata

• HB, Kraml, Sekmen, Summy

• related work: Blazek, Dermisek, Raby (BDR); DRRR uses 1-loop SSB RGEs

and scalar pot’l minimization at Q = M Z


S f R 1 i HS d l i h 0



Scan for R ≃ 1 in HS model with µ > 0

• R = max(f t, f b, f τ )/min(f tf b, f τ )




Special SUSY spectrum from Yukawa unified models

• first/second gen. squarks/sleptons ∼ 5− 20 TeV

• third gen. scalars, µ, mA ∼ 1− 2 TeV

• gluinos ∼ 350− 500 GeV

• charginos ∼ 100− 160 GeV

• Z 1 or χ1

∼50−

80 GeV




Problem: Ω eZ 1h2 ∼ 103 − 105× WMAP

•for R

≃1, then ΩeZ1h2

>

∼102!

• higher than measured value by 103 − 105

• Does this rule out Yukawa-unified SUSY?




Solution: axino a dark matter

• invoke axion solution to strong CP problem

•axino is spin 1

2

element of saxion/axion/axino supermultiplet

• 10−6 eV < ma < 10−2 eV

• 100 keV < ma <∼ 10 GeV

• for our case, Z 1 → aγ with τ eZ1 ∼ 0.03 sec

• can shed large factors of relic density:

•Ωah2

∼mam eZ1

ΩeZ1h2:

⇒warm DM for ma < 1

−10 GeV (JLM)

• also generate thermal component for axino DM depending on T R: ⇒ CDM




Consistent cosmology for SUSY SO(10): gravitino problem

• gravitino problem in generic SUGRA models: overproduction of G followed by

late G decay can destroy successful BBN predictons: upper bound on T R

(see Kohri, Moroi, Yotsuyanagi; Cybert, Ellis, Fields, Olive)




Leptogenesis via inflaton decay

• Upper bound on T R from BBN is below that for successful thermal

leptogenesis: need T R>

∼ 1010

GeV (Buchmuller, Plumacher)

• Alternatively, one may have non-thermal leptogenesis where inflaton

φ → N iN i decay (Lazarides,Shafi; Kumekawa, Moroi, Yanagida)

• additional source of N i in early universe allows lower T R:

nBs≃ 8.2× 10−11 ×

T R

106 GeV

2mN 1

mφ

mν30.05 eV

δeff (1)

• WMAP observation: nb/s ∼ 0.9× 10−10 ⇒ T R>

∼ 106 GeV




Cold and warm axino DM in the universe

• Non-thermal axino production via

Z 1 → aγ decay:

⇒ warm DM for ma<

∼ 1 GeV (Jedamzik, Lemoine, Moultaka)

• thermal production of a: cold DM for ma > .1 MeV

(Brandenberg, Steffen)

ΩTP a h2 ≃ 5.5g6s ln1.108

gs

1011 GeVf a/N

2 ma0.1 GeV

T R104 GeV

(2)

• with 0.1 ≃ Ωah2 = ΩTP a h2 + mam eZ1

ΩeZh2, can calculate value of T R needed

given a PQ breaking scale f a/N ∼ 1011 GeV


Consistent cosmology for SO(10) SUSY GUTs with a DM



Consistent cosmology for SO(10) SUSY GUTs with a DM

• Happily, T R falls into the right range to give cold axino DM with a smalladmixture of warm axino DM, preserve BBN predictions (solving the gravitino

problem) and have non-thermal leptogenesis!

•See HB and H. Summy, arXiv:0803.0510 (2008)

1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01

ma~

(GeV)

1e+06

1e+07

1e+08

1e+09

T R

( G e

V ) BBN/gravitino

NT leptogenesis

warm a~DM


SuperWIMPs (e g G in SUGRA or G in UED)



SuperWIMPs (e.g. G in SUGRA or G in UED)

⋆ mG = F/√3M ∗ ∼ TeV in Supergravity models

• usually G decouples (but see Moroi et al. for BBN constraints)

• if G is LSP, then calculate NLSP abundance as a thermal relic: ΩNLSP h2

• Z 1 → hG, Z G, γ G or τ 1 → τ G possible

∗ lifetime τ NLSP ∼ 104 − 108 sec

∗ constraints from BBN, CMB not too severe

∗DM relic density is then Ω ˜

G=

mG

mNLSP ΩNLSP

+ ΩTP G

(T R

)

∗ Feng, Rajaraman, Su, Takayama; Ellis et al; Buchmuller et al.

• G undetectable via direct/indirect DM searches

•unique collider signatures:

∗ τ 1=NLSP: stable charged tracks

∗ can collect NLSPs in e.g. water (slepton trapping)

∗ monitor for NLSP → G decays


SUGRA d l b d MSSM NMSSM



SUGRA models beyond MSSM: NMSSM

⋆ Add extra singlet SF S

• motivation: introduce µ parameter via SUSY breaking

•3 neutral scalar higgs, 2 pseudoscalars and 5 neutralinos

0 200 400 600 800

µ [GeV]

0

200

400

600

800

M 2

[ G e V

]

W M

A P

Ωh2= 1

Ωh2= 0.02

Belanger, Boudjema, Hugonie, Pukhov, Semenov


Conclusions



Conclusions

⋆ Overwhelming evidence for CDM in the universe

⋆ Numerous candidate CDM particles

• Axions: searches ongoing (ADMX group)

⋆ SUSY LSP: thermal relic from Big Bang

⋆ Various regions ⇒ distinct collider/DM signatures

⋆ Direct/ indirect DM detection prospects

⋆ Detection at colliders: Tevatron, LHC, ILC

⋆ Beyond mSUGRA:

•NMH, NUHM1, NUHM2, MWDM, BWCA, low M 3, high M 2, comp.

SUSY, SO(10)

• axino a or gravitino G as dark matter

• NMSSM


Documents

Howard Baer- ET signatures and dark matter connection