Doomsday Dark Matter Doomsday Dark Matter or Some stones are - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Doomsday Dark Matter

Doomsday Dark Matter

• r

Some stones are better left unturned

Doomsday Dark Matter

Weak scale susy?

Doomsday Dark Matter

Weak scale susy? High scale susy?

Doomsday Dark Matter

Weak scale susy? High scale susy? Gravitino Dark Matter in High Scale susy

Doomsday Dark Matter

Constrained Models (CMSSM)

MSSM with R-Parity (still more than 100 parameters)

Constrained Models (CMSSM)

Gaugino mass Unification MSSM with R-Parity (still more than 100 parameters)

W = huH2Quc + hdH1Qdc + heH1Lec + µH2H1 Lsoft = −1 2Mαλαλα − m2

ijφi∗φj

−AuhuH2Quc − AdhdH1Qdc − AeheH1Lec − BµH2H1 + h.c.

Constrained Models (CMSSM)

Gaugino mass Unification A-term Unification MSSM with R-Parity (still more than 100 parameters)

W = huH2Quc + hdH1Qdc + heH1Lec + µH2H1 Lsoft = −1 2Mαλαλα − m2

ijφi∗φj

−AuhuH2Quc − AdhdH1Qdc − AeheH1Lec − BµH2H1 + h.c.

Constrained Models (CMSSM)

Gaugino mass Unification A-term Unification Scalar mass unification MSSM with R-Parity (still more than 100 parameters)

W = huH2Quc + hdH1Qdc + heH1Lec + µH2H1 Lsoft = −1 2Mαλαλα − m2

ijφi∗φj

−AuhuH2Quc − AdhdH1Qdc − AeheH1Lec − BµH2H1 + h.c.

CMSSM Spectra

Unification to rich spectrum + EWSB

Falk

What happened to weak scale SUSY

CMSSM

2

χ ∆

5 10 15 20 25

]

2

[GeV/c m

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

]

2

[GeV/c

1/2

m

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, De Roeck, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Ronga, Weiglein

Mastercode 2009

Elastic scaterring cross-section

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, De Roeck, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Ronga, Weiglein

Mastercode 2009

CMSSM

1-CL

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

]

2

[GeV/c

1

χ

m

2

10

3

10

]

2

[cm

SI p

σ

• 48

10

• 47

10

• 46

10

• 45

10

• 44

10

• 43

10

• 42

10

• 41

10

• 40

10

~

LHC Happened

CMSSM

Bagnaschi, Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Citron, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Malik, Martinez Santos, Olive, Sakurai, de Vries, Weiglein

Mastercode 2015

Low mass spectrum still observable at LHC

14 TeV 3000 fb-1 8 TeV 20 fb-1

CMSSM

Bagnaschi, Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Citron, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Malik, Martinez Santos, Olive, Sakurai, de Vries, Weiglein

Mastercode 2015

Elastic scaterring cross-section

New LUX bound + PandaX + XENON1t

Weak (?) scale supersymmetric dark matter

Weak (?) scale supersymmetric dark matter

Viable regions of parameter space with dark matter is found along strips:

Weak (?) scale supersymmetric dark matter

Viable regions of parameter space with dark matter is found along strips:

Stau-coannhilation Strip extends only out to ~1 TeV Stop-coannihilation Strip Higgs Funnel Focus Point

Stop strip

Ellis, Evans, Luo, Olive, Zheng Bagnaschi et al.

x

131 1 2 9 127 1 3 3 125 123 121

. 6 6 0.066 121 121 122 1 2 2 122 1 2 3 123 125 125 127 127 127 128 128 128 128 129 1 2 9 129 131 1 3 1 131 131 131 131 133 133 133 1 3 3 133 121 123 1 2 5 127

0.5 10 10 15 5 5

m0 (TeV) m1/2 (TeV)

20 15

β = 5, μ > 0 A0/m0 = -4.2, tan

X

Ellis, Evans, Luo, Nagata, Olive, Sandick

Stop strip

Ellis, Evans, Luo, Olive, Zheng Bagnaschi et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135

m1/2 (TeV) mh (GeV)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 60

δm (GeV)

m˜

t − mχ

FH2100 FH2141 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

A0 = −4.2m0, tan β = 5, µ > 0

Focus Point

Ellis, Evans, Mustafayev, Nagata, Olive

0.5 10 10 15 5 5

m0 (TeV) m1/2 (TeV)

1 2 1 1 2 3 125 127 1 2 9 1 3 1

A=0, tan β = 10, μ < 0

Bagnaschi et al. Ellis, Evans, Luo, Nagata, Olive, Sandick

Other Possibilities

NUHM1,2: m12 = m22 ≠ m02, m12 ≠ m22 ≠ m02 μ and/or mA free NUGM gluino coannihilation subGUT models: Min < MGUT new parameter Min SuperGUT models: Min > MGUT requires SU(5) input couplings

Less Constrained (more parameters)

SubGUT Stop strip

Ellis, Evans, Luo, Olive, Zheng Bagnaschi et al.

5.0×102 1.0×104 0.0×100 1.0×104 1.5×104

1 2 1 121 1 2 3 1 2 3 123 125 125 127 127 127 129 129 1 2 9 121 123 1 2 3 123 125 125 125 127 127 129 129 129 131 131 131 133

m1/2 (GeV) m0 (GeV)

A0/m0 = 2.75, tan β = 20, μ < 0 Min = 109 GeV

121 123 125 127 129

Ellis, Evans, Luo, Nagata, Olive, Sandick

Other Possibilities

(with PeV scales)

Pure Gravity Mediation 2 parameter model with very large scalar masses m0 = m3/2, tan β mAMSB similar to PGM, but allows m0 ≠ m3/2

More Constrained (fewer parameters)

DM density/Higgs mass saturate for mSUSY ~ O(10) TeV

10 20 30 40 50 3.0×101 1.0×103 1.2×103

121 123 125 127 129

m0 (TeV) m3/2 (TeV)

tan β = 3.5, μ > 0

Mastercode 2016

Wino DM Higgsino DM

mAMSB

Bagnaschi et al.

Scalar masses: m0 ≠ m3/2

mAMSB

Mastercode 2017

Bagnaschi, Borsato, Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Chobanova, Citron, Costa, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Lucio, Luo, Martinez Santos, Olive, Riochards,Sakurai, Weiglein

Mastercode 2017

mAMSB

Bagnaschi, Borsato, Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Chobanova, Citron, Costa, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Lucio, Luo, Martinez Santos, Olive, Riochards,Sakurai, Weiglein

Even Larger Mass Scales

What if the entire SUSY matter spectrum were very large with only the gravitino remaining “light”

Supersplit Supersymmetry

1 parameter model: m3/2

Benakli, Chen, Dudas, Mambrini Dudas, Mambrini, Olive

Gravitino Mass Limits

For m3/2 ~ 10-1000 GeV Gravitino decays to the LSP/NLSP decays to the gravitino: Lifetimes 100-108 s ⇒ BBN limits

Γdecay ' C2 16π m5

χ

m2

3/2M 2 P

NLSP → gravitino + γ τχ ≾ 100 s ⇒ mχ > 300 GeV (m3/2/GeV)2/5

Gravitino Mass Limits

3.2 x 10-5 3 x 10-4 10-4 0.3 3.0 0.240 0.230 0.05 0.1 2.75 x 10-10 1.0 x 10-9 1.0 3.0 x 10-9

Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi Cyburt, Ellis, Fields, Luo, Olive, Spanos

τχ ≾ 100 s ⇒ mχ > 300 GeV (m3/2/GeV)2/5

Gravitino Mass Limits

Relic Density:

Ω3/2h2 = m3/2 mχ Ωχh2

Ωχh2 . 0.12 mχ m3/2

• r

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 50 100 150 200

mΧGeV mg

mΧGeV

mq

mg 10

Gluino coannihilation Ellis, Luo, Olive

mχ < 8 TeV ⇒ m3/2 < 4 TeV

heavier gravitino → heavier neutralino → Ωχh2 too large → Ω3/2h2 too large τχ ≾ 100 s ⇒ mχ > 300 GeV (m3/2/GeV)2/5

Gravitino Mass Limits m3/2 < 4 TeV unless(!) the susy spectrum lies above the inflationary scale. For Msusy ~ F1/2 > minfl ~ 3 × 1013 GeV

m3/2 = F p 3MP

2 >

m2

φ

p 3MP ' 0.2 EeV

Gravitino Production

Standard Picture: gluon + gluon → gluino + gravitino

hσvi ⇠ 1 M 2

P

1 + m2

˜ g

3m2

3/2

!

Γ ∼ T 3 m2

˜ g

M 2

P m2 3/2

n3/2 nγ ∼ Γ H ∼ T m2

˜ g

MP m2

3/2

m˜

g > m3/2

Gravitino Production

Standard Picture: gluon + gluon → gluino + gravitino

hσvi ⇠ 1 M 2

P

1 + m2

˜ g

3m2

3/2

!

Γ ∼ T 3 m2

˜ g

M 2

P m2 3/2

n3/2 nγ ∼ Γ H ∼ T m2

˜ g

MP m2

3/2

Not possible if m˜

g > mφ

m˜

g > m3/2

Gravitino Production

gluon + gluon → gravitino + gravitino

m˜

g > mφ

hσvi ⇠ T 6 M 4

P m4 3/2

Γ ∼ T 9 M 4

P m4 3/2

n3/2 nγ ∼ Γ H ∼ T 7 M 3

P m4 3/2

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆3 ✓ TRH 2.0 ⇥ 1010 GeV ◆7

m3/2 = F p 3MP

2 >

m2

φ

p 3MP ' 0.2 EeV

Toy Model

No Scale Model: Inflaton Matter Polonyi

W = p 3mφ(T 1/2),

Starobinsky Inflation + Polonyi Model Dudas, Gherghetta, Mambrini, Olive K = 3 ln T + ¯ T 1 3 X

i

|φi|2 ! + |z|2 |z|4 Λ2

z

,

˜ m2(z + b)

5 10 15 20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

V/m2 t

Toy Model

for small Λz → for small m2/mMP

m3/2 = m2 p 3MP ⇡ 0.2 EeV.

For m = m ~ ~

˜ m2/ √ 3MP

m2

z =

12m2

3/2M 2 P

Λ2

z

.

m1/2 ∼ m3/2 MP Λz

Λz MP Λz > m3/2 > m MP Λz

m2

0 ∼ m2 1/2

g2 16π2

m3/2 = MP 4 ˜ m6 + 2 ˜ m2m3MP 2 √ 3(m2M 2

P + ˜

m4)3/2

Toy Model

• 7
• 6
• 5
• 4
• 3
• 2
• 1
• 7
• 6
• 5
• 4
• 3
• 2
• 1

Log m3/2/m Log Λz/MP

B3/2 too large

Λ < F

mz < m

Reheating

Parametrize inflaton decays:

Γφ = y2

φ

8π mφ

TRH = ✓10 gs ◆1/4 ✓2Γφ MP π c ◆1/2 = 0.55 yφ 2π ✓mφ MP c ◆1/2

gs = 427/4

c ' 1.2 Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆3 ✓ mφ 3 ⇥ 1013GeV ◆7/2 ✓ yφ 2.9 ⇥ 10−5 ◆7

2.7 × 1010 GeV . TRH . 1.1 × 1012 GeV

m3/2 > .2EeV

m3/2 < TR

Reheating

10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 m3/2 [EeV] yΦ

/= /=- /=- /=-

• />

Limit on inflaton decay coupling

Γφ = y2

φ

8π mφ

Reheating

10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 m3/2 [EeV] yΦ

/= /=- /=- /=-

• />

Limit on inflaton decay coupling

B3/2 = Γ3/2/Γφ = |y3/2|2 9y2

φ

.

. We can paramet as Γ3/2 = mφ

y2

3/2

72π .

inflaton decays to gravitinos

Ωdecay

3/2

h2 = 0.11 ✓ B3/2 1.3 × 10−13 ◆ ✓ yφ 2.9 × 10−5 ◆ ( × ⇣ m3/2 0.1 EeV ⌘ ✓3 × 1013 GeV mφ ◆1/2 B3/2yφ = |y3/2|2 9|yφ| . 1.9 × 10−18 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆

Γφ = y2

φ

8π mφ

Toy Model

Inflaton Decay

Γ(T → Hu,d ¯ Hu,d) = (2nH − 3)2 |µH|4 24πmM2

P

Coupling through bi-linears TR ∼ 10−1 eV. But now, μ is large! Dudas, Gherghetta, Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive

Γ2h = µ4 48πMT M 2

P

⌘ y2 8π MT

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆3 ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆7/2 ⇥ ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆14

TR ' 0.03 µ2 pMT MP ' 1.9 ⇥ 1010GeV ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013GeV ◆2

Ellis, Garcia, Nanopoulos, Olive

Toy Model

Direct Inflaton Decay to gravitinos

Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive Γtree

t

= ✓ Λz MP ◆4 81m2

3/2MT

128πM 2

P

.

Btree

R

= 243 4 ✓ Λz MP ◆4 m2

3/2M 2 T

µ4 ' 5.5 ⇥ 10−12 ✓ Λz MP ◆4 ⇣ m3/2 0.1 EeV ⌘2 ⇥ ✓ MT 3 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆2 ✓1014 GeV µ ◆4 , ✓ ◆

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓ B3/2 1.3 ⇥ 10−13 ◆ ⇣ m3/2 0.1 EeV ⌘ ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆3/2 ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆2

Toy Model

Also, loop induced decays to gravitinos

Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive

|

t ψν ψµ

t ψν ψµ

t ψν ¯ ψµ

t ψν ¯ ψµ

✓ ⇥ ◆ ✓ ◆ Bloop

R

' 1 144π4 ✓1 4 ln µ2 M 2

T

◆2 M 6

T

m2

3/2M 4 P

' 9.8 ⇥ 10−15 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆2 ✓ MT 3 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆6 ⇥  1 8 ln ✓ µ MT ◆2 , (37)

2

Γloop ' 2 3345π5 ✓1 4 ln µ2 µ2

ren

◆2 µ4M 5

T

m2

3/2M 6 P

,

Reheating (model dependent)

Thermal production gravitinos from inflaton decay

✓ B3/2 ◆ ✓ y ◆

5 4 3 2 1

log10(m3/2/MT)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

log10(µ/MT)

log10(Λz/MP) = 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 annihilation only loop decay only total (Λz ⌧ MP, numerical) total (Λz ⌧ MP, approximation) total (tree+loop decays)

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆3 ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆7/2 ⇥ ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆14

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓ B3/2 1.3 ⇥ 10−13 ◆ ⇣ m3/2 0.1 EeV ⌘ ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆3/2 ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆2

Reheating (model dependent)

Thermal production gravitinos from inflaton decay

✓ B3/2 ◆ ✓ y ◆

5 4 3 2 1

log10(m3/2/MT)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

log10(µ/MT)

log10(Λz/MP) = 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 annihilation only loop decay only total (Λz ⌧ MP, numerical) total (Λz ⌧ MP, approximation) total (tree+loop decays)

10

5 4 3 2 1

log10(m3/2/MT)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

log10(µ/MT)

log10(Λ

z

/M

P

) = 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 annihilation only loop decay only total (Λz ⌧ MP, numerical) total (Λz ⌧ MP, approximation) total (tree+loop decays)

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓0.1 EeV m3/2 ◆3 ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆7/2 ⇥ ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆14

Ω3/2h2 ' 0.11 r3/2 ✓ B3/2 1.3 ⇥ 10−13 ◆ ⇣ m3/2 0.1 EeV ⌘ ✓3 ⇥ 1013 GeV m ◆3/2 ✓ µ 7.2 ⇥ 1013 GeV ◆2

Avoiding Doomsday?

“ ` WRPV “ µ1LHu. Signatures of decay with R-parity violation Dudas, Gherghetta, Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive Normally, µ1 † 2 ˆ 10´5GeV . from L-violating interactions High Scale Susy: µ1 † 2 ˆ 10´7 ˆ µ r m1{2 GeV3{2 ˙ GeV

x

Ψ H H ~ L ε

Γtot » ✏2c2

βm3 3{2

16⇡M 2

P

, ⌧3{2 » 1028 ˆ0.44 ˆ 10´20 ✏cβ ˙2 ˆ1 EeV m3{2 ˙3 s.

✏ = µ0/µ

Detection?

Dudas, Gherghetta, Kaneta, Mambrini, Olive τ3{2 » 1028 ˆ r m 1014 GeV ˙2 ˆ0.44 keV µ1cβ ˙2 ˆ1 EeV m3{2 ˙3 s . µ „ r m " µ1

µ1cβ “ 14 keV ˆΩ3{2h2 0.11 ˙1{2 ˆ1028 s τ3{2 ˙1{2 ˆ r m 1014 GeV ˙ ˆ2.0 ˆ 1010 GeV TRH ˙7{2

Expect about 1 event at ANITA every ~100 years. ANITA has seen 2 O(EeV) events in 3 years

Can motivations for Supersymmetry still be addressed

Gauge Hierarchy Problem -No Gauge Coupling Unification Stabilization of the Electroweak Vacuum Radiative Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Dark Matter -Yes

UV Completion -SO(10)

Ellis, Gherghetta, Kaneta, Olive

W Å µΦ 4! Φ2 ` µΣ 5! ΣΣ ` λ 4!Φ3 ` η 4!ΦΣΣ ` µHH2 ` 1 4!ΦHpαΣ ` αΣq

Φ(210); Σ(126); Σ(126); H(10)

Vanishing F- and D- terms fixes the vevs

v1,1,1 “ ´µΦ λ xp1 ´ 5x2q p1 ´ xq2 ; v1,1,15 “ ´µΦ λ p1 ´ 2x ´ x2q p1 ´ xq ; v1,3,15 “ ´µΦ λ x; σ1,3,10σ1,3,10 “ 2µ2

Φ

ηλ xp1 ´ 3xqp1 ` x2q p1 ´ xq2 ; ´ 8x3 ` 15x2 ´ 14x ` 3 “ px ´ 1q2 λµΣ ηµΦ . he parameters µ , µ , λ, and η, the final equation in (14) determines x which in turn then

choice of x ~ 0.63 leaves one state (in addition to the Higgs) light

S = (1, 3, 0) ⊂ (1, 3, 15) ⊂ 210

gauge coupling unification

103 105 107 109 1011 1013 1015 1017

µ/GeV

2 4 6 8

1/g2

i

mS = 173.5 GeV e m = 3.16 × 1013 GeV, µΦ = 1.3 × 1015 GeV

g−2

1

g−2

2

g−2

3

g−2

U

Even Larger Mass Scales

Planck Scale SUSY ≡ no susy at low energy

Even Larger Mass Scales

Planck Scale SUSY ≡ no susy at low energy

SO(10) GUT?

Even Larger Mass Scales

Planck Scale SUSY ≡ no susy at low energy

SO(10) GUT?

Hierarchy Problem - No Gauge Coupling Unification Stabilization of the Electroweak Vacuum Radiative Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Dark Matter -Yes Neutrino masses…

Summary

LHC susy and Higgs searches have pushed CMSSM-like models to “corners” or strips However, still viable and more so beyond the CMSSM But maybe the susy spectrum is very heavy Is Susy at the multi-TeV or PeV or EeV scale? Perhaps sparticles were never part of the thermal background, yet the gravitino may still be the dark matter! Is this Doomsday Dark Matter Can we learn more from a UV completion? Signatures at the EeV scale?

Summary

LHC susy and Higgs searches have pushed CMSSM-like models to “corners” or strips However, still viable and more so beyond the CMSSM But maybe the susy spectrum is very heavy Is Susy at the multi-TeV or PeV or EeV scale? Perhaps sparticles were never part of the thermal background, yet the gravitino may still be the dark matter! Is this Doomsday Dark Matter Can we learn more from a UV completion? Signatures at the EeV scale?