Date post: | 22-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Indirect detection of Dark Matter …. from an experimental point of view ….
Jan Conrad
conrad.at.fysik.su.se
A Decade of New Experiments XXXVII SLAC Summer Institute,August 3-14, 2009.
09-02-02 /
Me
The reason why I am not at SLAC
Ellen, 14 month
Thanks for suggesting this solution to Greg Madejski and JoAnne Hewett (we’ll see if it works).
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
3
• Questions can be adressed to me by mail: [email protected] (there are no stupid questions!)
• During lectures I usually try to read the audience, which will not be possible positive and negative feedback would be very useful (via mail).
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
4
Goal for the lectures.
• You should understand the experimental approaches to indirect detection of dark matter and what we can expect in the next decade.
• You should understand that DM indirect detection is challenging and what the challenges are
• I hope I can give you some additional insight in what to make of the presented results.
• I hope I will be able to convey the message that revolutions are on the horizon.
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
5
Contents and non-contents
• Not in this lecture(s):– Why DM ? Tegmark,Weiner– DM candidates Weiner– Results will be presented mainly if they illustrate a special point for newest results: see talks by Moskalenko, Pearce, Burnett, Egberts
• Lecture I– Preliminaries (minimal theoretical background)– The set up– Charged cosmic rays,
• Signatures• Astrophysics and backgrounds
– A detour cosmic ray diffusion in the Galaxy– Instrumental background
• Experimental approaches• PAMELA, ATIC, FERMI results on charged cosmic rays. • GAPS
Also important for gamma-rays --- lecture II
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
6
• Lecture II– Gamma-rays
• Signatures• Astrophysics and backgrounds• Experimental approach and experiments• Source confusion• Selected Results
– Neutrinos• Signature• backgrounds• Experimental approach and experiments• Selected results• Impact of Astrophysics
– Interplay between different indirect experiments– Indirect indirect detection (multi-wavelength)
Some additional slides contain more detailed information …
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
7
The set-up
• Prime DM candidate: Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP), denoted by
• Mass: ~ 10 GeV - ~ 10 TeV
• ”Weakly” interacting
• Experimental signatures (roughly) applicable to a variety of candidates:– Supersymmetric neutralino– Kaluza Klein– Axino, Gravitino, SuperWIMPs– ….etc. etc.
• Other CDM candidates: – axions ( discussed if time)
For motivation and theory: see Neil Weiners talk
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
8
The set-up: WIMP annihilation or decay
W-/Z/q
W+/Z /q
0
e
e±
Indirect detection rate = (particle physics part) × (astrophysical part)
PPP APP
Anti-p, anti-d
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
9
Signal: general considerations
• Particle physics part– DM particle’s spin mass, annihilation cross section, branching fraction
into final states and yield for a given final state (given by underlying theory (KK,MSSM, IDM etc).
For experimentalist: Analysis optimized for given signature
• Astrophysical part – (Density of DM particles)2, diffusion, absorption (where applicable)
For experimentalists: Where to look for the signal?
orders of magnitude parameter space (x-sections)
> Order of magnitude uncertainties
More details in respective section. Note there is virtually no experiment dedicated solely (or even mainly) to IDMD !!! (one exception: GAPS …. will be discussed.)
)(EYvPPP 1326103: scmvbenchmark
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
10
Cosmic rays
W+/Z /q_
W-/Z/q
e±
Anti-p, anti- d
e+
e-
Dark Matter on Galactic scalesDark Matter on Galactic scales
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
11
Cosmic rays: signatures
Positron fraction and spectrum
Antiproton fraction and spectrum Anti-deuteron
spectrum
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
12
APP: cosmic ray propagation in the Galaxy: why we need to talk about it:
• Cosmic rays produced in secondary processes provide a formidable background to DM searches with anti-particles.
• Photon-production by Galactic cosmic rays provide a formidable background to DM searches with gamma-rays
• Any potential signal in CR will need to be interpreted with effects of the propagation in mind
Strong et al, ApJ 537, 736, 2000 Strong et al, ApJ 613, 962, 2004
Diffuse gamma-ray prediction 1 Diffuse gamma-ray
prediction 2
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
13
B-field
APP: cosmic ray propagatioin in the galaxy
Radiation field
Gas
e
p
Gas
π0 γγ π± e±
B-field
p-bar,
brem
s
π± e±
sync
h IC
Li, B
Diffusion
reacceleration
convection
energy loss
spallation
decay
CNO
π0 γγDM
To some: To us:
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
14
Many other experiments will be important for indirect detection:
• By standard, quantitatively described by diffusion equation (see additional slides) with a number of assumptions (e.g. GALPROP code)
• Constrained through CR and gamma-ray observations
• Diffusion coefficient Primary/secondary nuclei ratio (HEAO-3, ACE,PAMELA,CREAM,TRACER)
• Interstellar radiation field: optical,FIR,CMB (DIRBE, FIRAS)
• Interstellar gas (H1,HII) 21cm, CO surveys (Bonn,Parkes)
• B-field radio surveys (Jodrell Bank, Parkes ,WMAP, Planck)
• Spallation, pion production cross-sections accelerators
For a more detailed account: Moskalenko, SSI 2008
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
15
Cosmic ray anti-matter: detection principle
Calorimeter
Scintillator (TOF)
Scintillator (TOF)
PID (TRD,Cherenkov)
PID (TRD,Cherenkov)
magnet
Anti-coincidence (scintillator)
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
16
Examples: PAMELA and AMS-02, spectrometer
1.2
m,
450
kg
1.5
m,
~60
00
kg
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
17
Examples for ”calorimeters”: ATIC/FERMI/HESS
1500 kg, h=1.2m
e+
e–
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
18
Example: PAMELA and ATIC
• Launched: June 15, 2006 from Baikonur,
• Quasi-polar orbit
• Expected livetime: > 3 years
• Three flights (2001,2003 and 2008)
• Total livetime: 50 days
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
19
Instrumental backgrounds for e+,e-,γ
Hadronic background is dominant.
Fermi γ ~ 105-6
PAMELA, AMS ~ 104-5
ATIC, Fermi electrons ~ 103-4
Necessary rejection factors:
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
20
Hadron/electron discrimination
• Main idea:– Veto detectors (Anti-
coincidence)
– difference in shower shape for em/hadronic showers in calorimeter
– Background rejection gets harder with rising energy
– Full analyses apply combined information of several detectors in multivariate classification (Neural networks …)
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
21
Example: Fermi electron analysis.
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
22
Anti-proton/proton ratio
500 days of data, 109 triggers, ca. 1000 anti-protons, ca. 107 protons, background < 3 %
Compatible with secondary production
O. Adriani et al. Phys.Rev. Lett. 102:051101,2009
6 anti-protons
ca 600 > 5 GeV
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
23
Positron fraction: the PAMELA anomaly
Conventional production: GALPROP
Strong & Moskalenko Astrophys.J.509:212-228,1998
Conventional production:
Delahaye et. al
arXiv:0809.5268
500 days of data, 150 k electrons, 10k positrons
Very soft electron spectrum (index: -3.54) at odds with
Fermi (see later)
Errors include background removal uncertainty
O. Adriani et al. Nature 458:607-609,2009
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
24
Possible sources
• No extra source:– Experimental– Non standard diffusion
• Extra source– Dark matter – Conventional sources
• Pulsars
• Supernovae
P. Biermann et al., arXiv:0903.4048 D. Malyshev et al. 0903.1310
L. Bergström et al., Phys.Rev.D78:103520,2008
B. Katz et al., arXiv:0907.1686
M. Schubnell, arXiv:0905.044
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
25
Pulsars invoked already 20 years ago ….
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
26
e++e- spectrum: the ATIC anomaly
Statistical errors only, background subtracted
HEAT
BETS
PPB-BETS
xEmulsion chambers
background GALPROP
Sol. Mod.
ATIC collab. Nature 456, 362-365(2008)Based on ATIC 1 + ATIC2
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
27
Fermi-LAT as an electron detector
Fermi-LAT effective
geometric Factor
Residual hadron contamination
< 20 %
Cf: ATIC effective geometric factor
(less for PAMELA)
Energy resolution: ~ 20 %@ 1 TeV
(cf. ATIC ~ 2 % @ 150 GeV
cf. PAMELA ~ 6 % @ 200 GeV )
ATIC background
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
28reject KK model that fits ATIC at 99% (including E resolution).
e++e- spectrum
6 month of data
• ATIC is gone??
• Data is compatible with power-law (- 3.04).
• Is there a deviation from power-law?
± 15 %
ATIC:
1724 events > 100 GeV
Fermi:
171431 events> 100 GeV
3.8 σ 5.1 σ , Isbert (ATIC, TANGO in Paris 2009)
One slide on possible explanations in appendix
Also see Eun-Suk Seo’s topical talk
A. Abdo (Fermi-LAT) Phys.Rev.Lett.102:181101,2009
F. Aharonian (HESS), arXiv:0905.0105
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
29
…and explanations ….
D. Grasso et al., arXiv:0907.0373
Bergström et al. 0905.0333
P. Biermann et al., arXiv:0903.4048
• No extra source:– Experimental (for ATIC)
– Non standard diffusion
• Extra source– Dark matter
– Conventional sources• Pulsars
• Supernovae
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
30
A remark on boost-factors
• The annihilation cross-section is set by DM abundance in Big bang freeze out not sufficient to explain observed alleged signal.
• ”Boost” of rate has been invoked:
L. Bergström, arXiv 0903.4849
e.g. Sommerfeld factor
~ 0-1000? (requires modifications to model)
DM substructure
~ 10??
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
31
If it is DM, what would it mean?
• Data prefers models with mostly leptonic annihilation channels (in fact, muons)
• Most models predict rather large masses (> 1 TeV).
• This is hard to accomodate within MSSM considering the anti-proton (gamma) constraint.
• Most models need an additional enhancement of annihilation cross-section (”boost”).
• Most models make predictions which are testable with soon existing data (gamma-rays).
One can ask how much sense it makes to do this considerations at this point of time ….. some groups even publish theoretical analysis on preliminary data …. which I think is not very useful (unless you go with
Carlo Rubbia (alleged): ”Better wrong than late” )
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
32
AMS
PAMELA
Fermi
ATIC
HESSspectrometers
”calorimeters”
PEBS
GAPSPPB-Bets CALET
future exp.
Cosmic ray detectors of relevance to DM
BESS-polar CREAM
TRACER
auxiliary
VERITAS
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
33
Cosmic ray experiments: comparison
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
34
GAPS detection principle_D
LadderDeexcitationsn=1, l=1
NuclearAnnihilation
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5
n=6
n=nK~15
no,lo
Atomic Transitions
*
*
*
Auger e-
Refilling e-
The antiparticle slows down & stops in a target material, forming an excited
exotic atom with near unity probability
A time of flight (TOF) system tags candidate events and records velocity
Deexcitation X-rays provide signature Pions from annihilation provide added background suppression
*
Plastic Scintillator TOFSi(Li) Target/Detector
44 keV
30 keV
Slide stolen from Jason Koglin,Columbia U.
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
35
GAPS sensitivity
GAPS white paper
2011 prototype
2014 flight
09-08-07 Jan Conrad, Stockholm Universitet
36
Summary (cosmic rays):
• General:– CR probe DM on Galactic scales– Cosmic ray propagation in the Galaxy is important for gamma-rays
and cosmic rays needs imput from a variety of experiments.– Instrumental and astrophysical backgrounds are challenging.– Anti-deuterons provide a potential smoking gun signal
• Status:– PAMELA let the genie out of the bottle– Signatures detected which could be the first sign of DM.– The experimental situation is confusing with different (apparently) not
consistent results (ATIC vs. Fermi !, PAMELA vs. Fermi ?).
• Outlook:– Future experiments (AMS-02,PEBS) and additional data will be
crucial: • For constraining backgrounds for e.g. gamma-rays and cosmic
rays.• For distinguishing signal hypothesis.