Post on 24-May-2015
description
Composite Inelastic Dark Matter
Jay WackerSLAC
CaltechApril 13, 2010
with P. Schuster, D. Alves, S. Behbahbani, M. Lisanti, A. Hook, E. IzaguirrearXiv: 0903.3945, 0911.1997, 0911.4483, 1003.4729....
Dark Matter
80% of the Universe’s mass is unknownDiscovering its nature is a great open question
Most DM model building linksweak scale/hierarchy problem
WIMP Miracle drives a lot of the thinkingDM is a thermal relic for 1000 GeV weakly interacting particle
Cold/MassiveWhat we know:
Suppressed EM & Strong interactionsIsn’t strongly self-interacting
Status of Dark Matter
DAMAPAMELA
ATICFERMI Electrons
WMAP HazeINTEGRAL
Not your grandfather’s DM Candidate
Hints at non-trivial mass scales & interactions
CoGeNT
Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”
Standard Model
Secluded Sector
L = φsecluded Oportal
Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ
B−L etc, , , , λY ,
Weak Connection
High Energy/Intensity
Slow decays back to SM
Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”
Standard Model
Secluded Sector
L = φsecluded Oportal
Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ
B−L etc, , , , λY ,
Weak Connection
High Energy/Intensity
Slow decays back to SM
Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”
Standard Model
Secluded Sector
Ubiquitous in Top-Down Models
Dark Matter might be a secluded sectorHard part is getting rid of additional gauge groups & matter
L = φsecluded Oportal
Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ
B−L etc, , , , λY ,
Weak Connection
Dark Matter Model BuildingOccam’s Razor vs. Principle of Plentitude
“No possibilities which remain eternally possible will go unrealized”
“Plurality should not be positedwithout necessity”
When searching in the dark, Occam’s Razor can lead to blind spots!
Dark Matter Model Building
Models illustrate new mechanisms and new experiments
Gauge theories appear in SM & many BSM constructions
Minimality may not be best guide to Dark Matter’s existence
Why should 20% of the mass, have all the fun?
Occam’s Razor vs. Principle of Plentitude“No possibilities which remain eternally
possible will go unrealized”“Plurality should not be posited
without necessity”
When searching in the dark, Occam’s Razor can lead to blind spots!
Plan of Talk
DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter
Composite dark matter models
Experimental Prospects
Discussion
Direct Detection
Dark matter scatters off nuclei in detectors
Measure nuclear recoil spectrum
χ
χ
N
N
average over initial DM velocities
dR
dER=
ρDM
mDM mN
�dσ
dERv
�[Counts/kg day/keV]
Multiply by exposure [kg day]
Spectrum of Recoils
dR
dER∝
� vesc
vmin
d3vdσ
dERv e−v2/v2
0 ∼ e−ER/E0
E0 =2µ2v2
0
mNFalling spectrum ∼ 25 keV
Push to lower energy thresholds
vmin =
�mNER
2µ2
Minimum DM velocity to scatter cause ER recoil
Average over initial DM velocities in the galactic halo
Boltzmann Distribution
DAMA
Annual modulation in WIMP signal
summ
erwin
ter
Modulation amplitude ~2.5% for elastic scattering
�v⊙
�vE �vE
v ≤ vesc + | �vE − �v⊙| v ≤ vesc + | �vE + �v⊙|
NaI Experiment running for 13 years
Amod = RSum −RWin
2-4 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-5 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-6 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!
" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.
5
2-4 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-5 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-6 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!
" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.
5
2-4 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-5 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
2-6 keV
Time (day)
Resid
ua
ls (
cp
d/k
g/k
eV
)
DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)
Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!
" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.
5
DAMA/LIBRA = 250kg (0.87 ton yr)
Φdm = ndm v
Galactic Dark Matter
WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]
Cro
ss-s
ectio
n [p
b] (n
orm
alis
ed to
nuc
leon
)
090913122401
http://dmtools.brown.edu/ Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini
101 102 10310-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
Current Limits
WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]
Cro
ss-s
ectio
n [p
b] (n
orm
alis
ed to
nuc
leon
)
090913122401
http://dmtools.brown.edu/ Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini
101 102 10310-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
DAMA
CRESSTZEPLIN2
ZEPLIN3XENON CDMS
spin-independent
Excludedby a factor
of 30
Inelastic Dark Matter
Tucker-Smith and Weiner, hep-ph/0101138.
Dark matter has two nearly degenerate states
δm ∼ (100 keV)
q
q
χ1
χ2
vmin =1√
2mNER
�mNER
µ+ δm
�
Higher threshold velocity necessary to scatter,Higher typical recoil energies
Lighter nuclei, higher threshold
Scattering off SM transitions between states
Inelastic Dark Matter
3 Consequences
(1) Scatters off of heavier nuclei -- CDMS ineffective
(2) Large recoil energy -- ZEP3 & Xe10 didn’t initialy look
(3) Large modulation fraction -- absolute signal is smaller
Rat
eRecoil Energy (keV)
3 CoincidencesXENON10, CRESST II, ZEPLIN2 all had events
Threshold behavior
Larger Modulation FractionSmaller rate
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
elastic
inelastic
June 2 Dec 2 June 2
# of
Eve
nts
100% modulation
2.5% modulation
Factor of 40 difference in translating modulated to unmodulated rate!
One reason for apparent tension
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
v2f(v
)/10−
4
v0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600velocity
Winter scatteringSummer scattering
vesc
Boost f(v) into Earth’s frame
Recent ExperimentsInelastic DM has a lot in common with Mark Twain
“The report of my death wasan exaggeration”
XENON100 reported 0 events... but ran in late Oct through early Nov.
CRESST reported exclusion
... and won’t release their raw results... but had 40 keV upper threshold
CoGeNT reported anomalous low energy events... points to low mass dark matter (not iDM)
Inelastic Dark Matter
δm
m∼ 10−6
A new number to explain:
Sign of dark sector dynamics?
First of many splittings
New interactions to discover
Changes which questions are interesting
Will be confirmed/refuted in 2010!XENON100
Magnetic moment splittingHyperfine Splittings
Can give very small energy differences
HHF ∼ �µ1 · �µ2 δ3(r)
�µ � g
m�S
Occurs in all bound state systemsFermions + Gauge interactions
Hyperfine Splittings
Hydrogen
∆E ∼ α4 m2e
mp
Heavy Flavor Mesons (B, B*)
∆E ∼Λ2
QCD
mb
Weakly Coupled:
Strongly Coupled:
1 µeV1s s = 0
s = 1
1s s = 0
s = 145 MeV
Open Questions
Inelastic transitions dominate over elastic?
Coupling to Standard Model?
Cosmology constraints?
How will we know?
Can engineer systems with 100 keV mass splittings
Plan of Talk
DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter
Composite dark matter models
Experimental Prospects
Discussion
SU(N) U(1)d SM
Anatomy of Composite Inelastic Dark MatterSimple Setup, Rich Dynamics
dark quarks kinetic mixing
� FdµνFY µν
Start with left and move right
qH
qL
Composite Inelastic Dark Matter
New SU(Nc) gauge sector confines at scale Λd
qLqHTwo dark quarks
Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW, 0903.3945.
Ldark = −12Tr G2
µν + q̄ iD� q + mq̄q
Λdark ∼ exp�− 2π
b0αdark
�
mH � Λdark,mL
No flavor changing effects: stabilizes DM
Cosmology of CiDM
A primordial cosmological dark quark asymmetry(nH − n
H̄) = −(nL − n
L̄) �= 0
Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW: 0903.3945 + 1003.4729
Given up Wimp Miracle for asymmetric DMDriven off of SM’s baryon asymmetry?
More heavy quarks than antiquarks More light antiquarks than quarks
nDM
nbaryon� 5 GeV
mDM
Cosmology of CiDM
A primordial cosmological dark quark asymmetry(nH − n
H̄) = −(nL − n
L̄) �= 0
Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW: 0903.3945 + 1003.4729
Given up Wimp Miracle for asymmetric DM
bound stateqH q̄LWhen , dark matter is inT � Λd
q̄L
qH
Driven off of SM’s baryon asymmetry?
More heavy quarks than antiquarks More light antiquarks than quarks
nDM
nbaryon� 5 GeV
mDM
States of CiDMAlves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW, 1003.4729.
EBind ∼ α2darkmH
Heavy quarks can bind together
Mesons
Baryons
0 1 2 3 4Heavy Quarks
More deeply bound
Dark Matter Synthesis occurs
Region I: Complete Synthesis is efficient and the CiDM composition is dominated
by heavy baryons BH . DAMA’s signal may arise from inelastic scattering of
the highly suppressed dark meson components, particularly of π(3)d if κnL
is a
decreasing function of nL. The viability of this region requires that the heavy
and light baryons are not visible in direct detection experiments. That will be
further discussed in Sec. 5.
Region II: Nearly Complete Heavy baryons are the dominant component, with a
few percent of the dark matter density in the form of dark pions π(1)d , π(2)
d and π(3)d .
This region is not as extreme as Region I for CiDM. As with Region I, DAMA’s
signal may arise from scattering of the sub-dominant dark meson component.
Region III: Incomplete Synthesis results in a democratic abundance with compa-
rable mass densities for all for states π(1)d , π(2)
d , π(3)d and BH . Here the dominant
number density of dark matter is the π(1)d state and there are other components
of the dark matter to discover.
Region IV: Arrested The complete synthesized and unsynthesized components, BH
and πd, share comparable mass densities, with a few percent in the form of exotic
pions, π(2)d and π(3)
d . The first step of the synthesis chain, π(1)d π(1)
d → π(2)d π(0)
d is the
bottleneck much like deuterium formation slows BBN in the Standard Model. It
only occurs for a brief period, but once the π(2)d has formed, it processes quickly
into BH .
Region V: Inhibited The first step of the synthesis chain is strongly supressed and
the CiDM composition is dominated by π(1)d . Region V is the cosmology taken
in [7]. The heavy baryon component mostly arises through the primordial B(1)
formation described in Sec. 3.2.
A quantitative description of the abundances in each one of these regions is summarized
in Table 3.
Region ρπ(1)d
/ρDM ρπ(2)d
/ρDM ρπ(3)d
/ρDM ρBH/ρDM
I 10−4 − 0.1% 10
−4 − 0.2% 10−3 − 0.9% > 99%
II 0.1%− 4% 0.2%− 5% 0.9%− 11% 80%− 99%
III 4%− 57% 5%− 24% 11%− 17% 9%− 80%
IV 57%− 99% < 5% < 5% 1%− 30%
V > 99% < 10−5 < 10
−5 < 1%
Table 3: The relations on the fractional mass densities that define the regions of darkmatter synthesis in Fig. 1.
– 17 –
IV
I
II
III
V
mlight �d/
�d(MeV)
mH(GeV)
!m=95keV
1 + 1→ 2 + 02 + 1→ 3 + 02 + 2→ 4 + 02 + 2→ 3 + 13 + 1→ 4 + 0
Dark Matter SynthesisA chain reaction, increasingly exothermic
First reaction is potential bottleneckDepends on mass of lightest dark hadron
Q = 2EB −mlight
Q = 10EB −mlight
Q = 32EB
Q = 8EB
Q = 24EB
Splitting of Ground StateMass difference in meson states arises from hyperfine splitting
Coulombic limit
δm ∼ α4dm2
L
mH
Atomic Dark MatterD. E. Kaplan, et al (2009)
For U(1):
ρdπd
spin 0 spin 1
dark pion dark rho
mL
Ener
gy Λd
mH
(Susy version in progress )
q̄L
qH
Splitting of Ground StateMass difference in meson states arises from hyperfine splitting
Coulombic limit
δm ∼ α4dm2
L
mH
Atomic Dark MatterD. E. Kaplan, et al (2009)
For U(1):
ρdπd
spin 0 spin 1
dark pion dark rho
mL
Ener
gy Λd
mH
(Susy version in progress )
q̄L
qH
Confined
δm ∼ Λ2d
mH
mL
q̄L
qH
nρd
nπd
= exp(−δm/Tspin)
Still Satisfy Self-Interaction Limits
Solves de-excitation problem
Spin TemperatureNeed to explain why iDM is in ground state
Self interaction keeps DM in equilibriumρdρd → πdπd
Tspin<∼ 10 keV
Kinetically decouple late, smaller spin temperature
σ
m<∼ 10−2 cm2
g∼ 1 bn
100 GeV
Dark Matter Couplings
Axial-Vector Coupling
Forbids quark masses until U(1)d Higgsed
Jµ
d = q̄Hγµγ5qH − q̄Lγµγ5qL
Couples to a secluded U(1)
How does the U(1) couple to mesons?
πd → −πd ρdµ → (−1)µρdµ
spin 0 meson spin 1 meson
qH q̄L
πd
ρµd
mas
s
Dark Matter Scattering
elasticπd→πd
inelasticπd→ρd
Axial Coupling to Mesons
Elastic
πd→πd
1Λ2
d
π†d∂µπd∂ν F̃µν
d
1Λ2
d
π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν
d
π†d∂µπd Aµ
d
Parit
y Fo
rbid
den
Vani
shes
Axial Coupling to Mesons
Elastic
πd→πd
1Λ2
d
π†d∂µπd∂ν F̃µν
d
1Λ2
d
π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν
d
π†d∂µπd Aµ
d
Parit
y Fo
rbid
den
Vani
shes
Inelastic
πd→ρd
1Λd
π†d∂µρν
dFdµν
Near purely Inelastic
mπd π†dρµ d Aµ
d
Velo
city
Supp
ress
edD
omin
ant
Coupling to Standard Model
DM SMU(1)YU(1)d
ψgut
Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y
LU(1) = −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −
�
2Fµν
d Bµν → −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14B�µνB�
µν
Coupling to Standard Model
DM SMU(1)YU(1)d
ψgut
Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y
LHiggs = |Dµφd|2 − V (φd)→ m2
dA2
d
Higgs U(1)d near the electroweak scale
md = 2gdvφ
LU(1) = −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −
�
2Fµν
d Bµν → −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14B�µνB�
µν
Coupling to Standard Model
DM SMU(1)YU(1)d
ψgut
Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y
LHiggs = |Dµφd|2 − V (φd)→ m2
dA2
d
Higgs U(1)d near the electroweak scale
md = 2gdvφ
Gives mass to fermions
mf = yfvφ
LYuk = yLqLqc
Lφ + yHqHqc
Hφ†
LU(1) = −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −
�
2Fµν
d Bµν → −14Fµν
d Fdµν −14B�µνB�
µν
Coupling to Standard ModelKinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y
DM SMU(1)YU(1)d
ψgut
redefine SM photon AEM → AEM − �Ad
L = −F 2d − F 2
EM − �FdFEM + m2AA2
d + JEMAEM + JdAd
kinetic mixing
Holdom 1985
After EWSB:
Coupling to Standard ModelKinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y
DM SMU(1)YU(1)d
ψgut
redefine SM photon AEM → AEM − �Ad
L = −F 2d − F 2
EM − �FdFEM + m2AA2
d + JEMAEM + JdAd
kinetic mixing
Holdom 1985
After EWSB:
Lint ∝ �JµemAdµ
L = −F 2d − F 2
EM + m2AA2
d + JEM(AEM − �Ad) + JdAd
SM is milli-charged under dark U(1), DM is neutral under EM
E137
E141
E774
10 MeV 100 MeV 1 GeV 10 GeV 100 GeV
�
mAd
Current Limits on ε
(w/ A. Hook & E. Izaguirre)
CiDM
Υ decays(g − 2)µ
Model independent limits not known for 1 GeV to 200 GeV
Precision EW + High energy Bounds
α(q2) =e2
4π
�1 +
�2q2
q2 + mAd
�
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-1
CP-Violation
Leads to mixing between states of different paritye.g. πd ↔ a0d
Lcpv = ΘdTrGdG̃dΘ term in dark QCD sector Not necessarily small
chiral rotation removes Θ termmL → 0In limit
sin θpParity violating mixing
Leads to sin θp
Λ2d
π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν
d
Scalar states neutral under U(1)d
20 40 60 80 1000.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
ER!KeVee
CountRate"arbitratyunits#
MDM!200 GeV, MA!1 GeV
Charged Radius Elastic Scattering
Charged Elastic Scattering
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
"0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
ER!KeVee
"cpd!kg!keV#
MDM!200 GeV, #!125 keV, MA!1 GeV
Figure 4: Nuclear recoil spectra characteristic of composite dark matter. In addition to
scattering inelastically, composite dark matter may also scatter elastically through charged
radius scattering, but with a suppressed rate. Left: For a dark matter mass of MDM =
200 GeV and mediator mass MA = 1 GeV, the charged radius recoil spectrum (blue) is
shown alongside the charged scattering spectrum (red). The finite size of the dark matter
suppresses low recoil energy events, thereby pushing the entire recoil spectrum to higher
energies. Consequently, direct detection experiments need to include large nuclear recoil
energies to maximize sensitivity to this kind of elastic scattering. Right: Charged inelastic
scattering (orange) and electric-dipole inelastic scattering (red) are shown alongside the
DAMA recoil spectrum (blue data points), again for MDM = 200 GeV and mediator mass
MA = 1 GeV. The finite dark matter size suppresses low energy events, thereby pushing the
spectrum to slightly higher energies.
11
Erecoil
Suppressed at low
Erecoil
Vector Couplings
Lint =gd
Λ2dark
∂µFµνdark π†
d ∂ν πd
Lint =gd
Λdark�µνσρFdark µν ρ†d σ ∂ρ πd
parity!
Different low energy interactions
velocity suppressed
Elastic transition
Inelastic transition
Dim 6 elastic Charge Radius scattering
10−6 smaller
ER
elastic
charge-radius
Rat
e
Charge-radius scattering difficult to distinguish from inelastic scattering
Charge Radius Scattering
Neutral composite states with charged constituents
Lcr = Fdm(ER)q̄ieA� dq
Fdm(0) = 0 + r2cER
Form-factor suppression from interaction with background field
q
qFdm(ER)πd
πd
γd
sin θp
Λ2d
π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν
d
Plan of Talk
DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter
Composite dark matter models
Experimental Prospects
Discussion
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
v2f(v
)/10−
4
vesc
v0
velocity
Standard Halo Model
isothermal, isotropic, & Gaussian
f(v) ∝�e−(v/v0)
2− e−(vesc/v0)2
�Θ(vesc − v)
N-body simulations indicate that density falls off more steeply at larger radii
Modified SHM
600
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
velocity
v0
α=1.1
α=0.8)
)
f(v) ∝�e−(v/v0)
2α
− e−(vesc/v0)2α�Θ(vesc − v)
α parameterizes variation in the tail of the distribution
captures qualitative behavior of N-body simulations
vesc
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
v2f(v
)/10−
4
Will use modified ansatz
Marginalizing over UncertaintiesHow do current experiments constrain parameters?
0.8 ≤ α ≤ 1.25
200 ≤ v0 ≤ 300
500 ≤ vesc ≤ 600
astrophysicsparticle physics
v0, vesc, αmπd , δm,σ
Usually astrophysical parameters are benchmarked
Minimize χ2 over 6 parameters using results from direct detection experiments
Fit to DAMA recoil spectrum
No experiment rules out point at 95% CL
χ2(m, δ, σ, v0, ve,α) =�
�Xpred
i −Xobsi
σi
�2
Parameter Space
mπd ∼ 70 GeVδm ∼ 95 keV
Slow halos
θp = 0, 4%, 6%, 8%
Best fit
v0 ∼ 200 km/sα >∼ 1.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 1001�10�5
5�10�51�10�4
5�10�40.001
0.0050.010
Dark Photon Mass �GeV�
ΕGlobal Fit
DAMA Regions
θp = 0, 6%, 8%
g2d
q4→ g2
d
m4Ad
mAd � gdvφ �gdmπd
yH
DAMABest fits
Difficult to distinguish from DAMA mixed elastic-inelastic scattering
Modulation Amplitude
0 2 4 6 8
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
Recoil Energy �keVee�
counts�kg�
day�keV
ee
cel/cin=0
cel/cin=0.15
θp = 0%, 8%
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
� Events Observed
Frequency
Xenon100Will see a large number of events
(1000 kg-day exposure ~ 1 month!)
100 kg Liquid Xe detectors (upgrade for Xenon10)
Tail down to small < 5 events
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
� Events Observed
Frequency
DAMA rate: 0.02/kg d/keV
Nevents > 0.5 Nevents > 40
Xenon100
0 20 40 60 80
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
5.00
Recoil Energy �keV�
counts�keVRecoil Spectrum
: summer
: winter
1000 kg· day
Elastic subcomponent apparent but distorts spectrum, inelastic kinematics get washed out
Directional detection experiments key
Plan of Talk
DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter
Composite dark matter models
Experimental Prospects
Discussion
Future WorkSusy: New Hierarchy Problem
Discovering other componentsLight Baryons
Heavy Baryons & Multicore Mesons
Generating AsymmetryDecays & Annihilations
Cosmic Ray Signals
SM might be mediator of DM SSB
Collider SignaturesLepton Jets
Nearly Susy bound statesPossible DM forming MACHOS
e+e
!
!+ !
!
qD
!D
!D !!
D
!"#$%&'()*#&+*,'#-.+"!#*/01")0*/
!D
!D
q̄D
!+
!!
!D
!+
!!
!+
!!
!s " !D
23-4/"5-&)")'&0/-(*5506")'!-7')&
!s ! !D
#*89+5:-&;+'#0("5-'<'/)
mA! ! !D
=**&)'!-;#*!8()&-#'(*05-*>>-;+*)*/
!
!!
D !D
!+
!!
Figure 3: Left: Cartoon of an event in which quarks in a simple confined dark sector areproduced through an o!-shell A!. The quarks shower and hadronize into mesons, whichdecay into Standard Model particles. Final states frequently contain many leptons, but canalso include hadrons and long-lived dark states that escape the detector unobserved. Right:Phase space structure of di!erent kinds of events. An o!-shell A! produces jet-like structureif "D !
"s (top), and approximately spherical final states if "D !
"s (middle). In A!/!
radiative return production, the dark-sector final state recoils against a hard photon.
states that can only decay to Standard Model final states. Gauge boson decays are suppressedby two powers of the mixing parameter ", and can be prompt or displaced. Higgs decays canbe suppressed by "4, depending on kinematics, in which case they leave the detectors beforedecaying to visible matter. Typical events in a Higgsed dark sector can produce between4 and 12 Standard Model particles, with leptons being a significant fraction and easiest toobserve. Caricatures of these events, with and without a recoiling photon, are shown inFigure 2. The decay phenomenology is similar in hadron colliders [22], and the pure HiggsedAbelian case for B-factories has been discussed in [16], though the dominant productionmodes and kinematics considered here are quite di!erent.
If the non-Abelian factor of GD is confined, then the physical picture is very similar tothe hidden valley models discussed in [18, 19, 20]. U(1)D mixing mediates production of alight quark-antiquark pair in the dark sector. These states shower and hadronize, producingfew dark-sector mesons with a roughly spherical distribution if the ratio
"s/"D is O(1),
and collimated jets if this ratio is large. Unlike the Higgsed scenario, the multiplicity ofmesons in a typical final state is determined by the ratio of the production energy to "D,not by spectroscopy. Di!erent scenarios are caricatured in Figure 3. These sectors containlight mesons that can only decay to Standard Model final states. A single event can containa combination of prompt and displaced decays, and states that escape the detector. In
8
p p
Collider Signatures
Light mesons
Lepton Jets
Signal Simulation
Sherpa & HerwigDark Showering
Dark HadronizationSherpa & Herwig
Cascading to SM
Need HadronSpectrum + Decays
(w/ A. Haas & Y. Gershtein)
DarkSpecGenAn interface to produce semi-realistichadronic final spectra and decay tables
and interface to Sherpa & Herwig
GaugeSU(N), Sp(2N), SO(N) Partons
Reps (Fund, Adj)Nf, Masses, Spins
Strong DecaysFlavor/CPWeak Decays
SM Neutral Portals
(w/ S. Behbehani)
Conclusions
Inelastic DM is an elegant explanation forDAMA vs the Rest of the World
New scale to explain: New Dynamics
Discovery or Refutation ImminentWithin the year
iDM sensitive to halo: Need to go beyond SHM
New measurements are importantDirectional Detection
Finding DM subcomponentsMeasuring Halo properties