TWO ASPECTS OF SIDM Michel H.G. Tytgat Universit Libre de Bruxelles - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TWO ASPECTS OF SIDM

Michel H.G. Tytgat

Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium GGI, Florence, September 11th 2018

SIDM MOTIVATION DIRECT DETECTION IS TESTING FI SIDM + NS → BH

Direct detection is testing Freeze-in

• Th. Hambye, M.T., J. Vandecasteele & L. Vanderheyden (2018)

(The Four Basic Ways of Creating Dark Matter Through a Portal)

• X. Chu, Th. Hambye & M.T (2012)

Non-primordial solar mass black holes

• C. Kouvaris, P. Tinyakov, M.T. (2018)

WHY SIDM ? core

• r

cusp? missing satellites ? to-big-to-fail ? CDM only simulation

SIDM may alleviate the small-scale problems

Spergel & Steinhardt (2000),… Vogelsberger, Zavala & Loeb (2012),…

collisions ⟶ thermalized DM ⟶ core instead of cusp

i.e. seemingly hadronic

σ m ∼ cm2 g ≡ barn GeV core/cusp too-big-to-fail diversity*

Hamada, Kaplinghat, Pace & Yu (2016),…

but more generally light mediator

Oman et al, arXiv:1504.01437

There is a diversity problem unexplained by CDM + BARYONS simulations (mostly dwarf galaxies)

DIVERSITY PROBLEM

all same vmax

Diversity problem solved/alleviated with

σ/m ∼ cm2 g

Hamada, Kaplinghat, Pace & Yu, arXiv:1611.02716

DIVERSITY PROBLEM

HS SM

Patt & Wilczek (2006)

HS

HIDDEN SECTOR

¯ L ˜ H H†H Bµν

Sterile neutrino

Patt & Wilczek (2006)

Kinetic mixing Higgs portal

This one is also Lorentz invariant

Dodelson & Widrow (1994) … Holdom (1986) …

THE SM PORTALS

Silveira & Zee (1985) Veltman & Ynderain (1989) …

SM singlet

• perators

renormalizable interactions

Linked to EWSB?

∆L ⊃ y ¯ L ˜ HN ∆L ⊃ λ S2H†H ∆L ⊃ ✏ BµνXµν

(i.e. dimensionless couplings)

DIRECT DETECTION IS TESTING FREEZE-IN

PART I

Direct detection is testing Freeze-in

• Th. Hambye, M.T., J. Vandecasteele & L. Vanderheyden (2018)

HS SM

gauge interaction in HS stable ~ SM electron suppressed coupling to SM

• nly 4 parameters

HS

 = ✏ p ↵0/↵ mχ α0 mγ0

χ χ χ

KINETIC MIXING

χ

hidden charged

γ0

dark photon

Z (also )

HS SM

is naturally tiny !

some heavy particles

DM feebly coupled to SM Feebly Interacting Massive Particle

• r

FIMP Bµ Xν HS

κ

FIMP THROUGH KINETIC MIXING

Holdom (1986)

Chu, Hambye, M.T. ‘12

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

HS feebly coupled ~ no thermal equilibrium abundance could built up from slow processes

Z χ ¯ χ χ ¯ χ f ¯ f γ0

* Mc Donald ’02; Hall, Jedamzik & March-Russell ’10; Chu, Hambye, M.T. ‘12

∝  = ✏ p ↵0/↵

FREEZE-IN

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1013 1011 109 107 105

x = m/T Y = n/s Y∞ ⇡ hσvinSM H

• TFI

TFI ≈ max(mDM, mSM)

Y ∼ Γ × τU

Freeze-in at

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

Z decay

Chu, Hambye, M.T. ‘12

Y ∝ κ2/me

Y ∝ κ2/mDM Y ∝ κ2/mDM

Y ∝ κ2

mγ0 = 0

ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-OUT ABUNDANCE FROM FREEZE-IN

DM + DM − → SM + SM

Γ = σ v nDM Γ = σ v nSM

SM + SM − → DM + DM

FREEZE-IN vs FREEZE-OUT

κ

0.23

10-11

O(1)

Ωdm

HS thermalizes freeze-in regime freeze-out regime

I : freeze-in IV : usual freeze-out III : freeze-out in hidden sector (secluded DM) II : reannihilation

4 BASIC WAYS TO CREATE DM THROUGH A PORTAL

Chu, Hambye, M.T. ‘12

HOW TO TEST FREEZE-IN ?

 = ✏ p ↵0/↵ = (1011)

DIRE

SM SM DM DM

direct detection

DIRECT DETECTION TEST OF FREEZE-IN

cosmic abundance

PRODUCTION THROUGH S-CHANNEL

χ ¯ χ f ¯ f

γ0

determines relic abundance very small cross section

s-channel

Rutherford (1911)

RUTHERFORD SCATTERING - DIRECT DETECTION

χ

γ0

t-channel

χ

dσ dER ∝ mNκ2α2Z2 (2mNER + m2

γ0)2

N N ER

recoil energy

∼ 1 E2

R

large enhancement if

in keV range v ~ 200 km/s (halo DM)

mγ0 . 40 MeV

DIRECT DETECTiON IS TESTING FREEZE IN

first direct detection test of a FI scenario

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

n.b.: Not the same spectrum as a WIMP, Must recasti the direct detection constraints

101 102 103

mχ (GeV)

10−11 10−10

κ

Freeze-in

XENON1T 2018

RECASTING DIRECT DETECTION LIMITS

(mdm, σdm,n)

heavy mediator

101 102 103

mχ (GeV)

10−11 10−10

κ

Freeze-in

light mediator

(mχ, κ)

We minimized the differential rate « quadratic distance »

XENON1T efficiency

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

DIRECT DETECTiON IS TESTING FREEZE IN

SIDM : RUTHERFORD SCATTERING AGAIN

χ

γ0

t-channel

χ

dσ dΩ = 4α0 2m2

χ

(4m2

χv2 sin2(θ/2) + m2 γ0)2 ∼ α0 2 m2 χ

m4

γ0

¯ χ ¯ χ

vdwarf ∼ 10 km/s

« As big as a barn » for in MeV range

mγ0

DIRECT DETECTION & SIDM PARAMETER SPACE

α0 = 102α Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

α0 = 102α

DIRECT DETECTION TESTING SELF-INTERACTING FIMP

Hambye, M.T., Vandecasteele, Vanderheyden ‘18

DIRECT DETECTION & SIDM PARAMETER SPACE

SOLAR MASS BH FROM SIDM

PART II

DM (not to the scale) . Neutron Star (not to the scale)

vDM ∼ 200 km/s mNS ∼ m NB ∼ 1057

DM + NS → BH

DM capture thermalization self-gravitation mini-black hole black hole

assumes DM does not annihilate (asymmetric DM)

annihilation

Crooked Forest (West Pomerania, Poland)

10 50 100 500 1000 5000 1 ¥ 104 10-20 10-16 10-12 10-8 10-4 1 Mdm T Abundancies

Baryons avoiding Baryon asymmetry WIMP freezing-out

ΩDM ΩB = mDM mN YDM YB ≈ 5 = O(1)

ASYMMETRIC DM

dNacc dt = √ 6π ρdm mdmvdm R?RSch 1 − RSch/R? Min ✓ σ σcr , 1 ◆

Capture rate Critical cross section (neutron star)

σcr = 0.45 mn R?/M? ≈ 1.3 × 10−45 cm2

Macc ∼ 1015M

Maximal mass captured

Goldman & Nussinov (1989) - Kouvaris (2008)

CAPTURE OF DM IN NS

Nacc ≈ 1039(TeV/mdm)

DM + NS → BH

DM capture thermalization self-gravitation mini-black hole

Goldman & Nussinov (1989) Kouvaris & Tinyakov (2010)

rth ≈ ✓ Tc Gρcmdm ◆1/2 ∼ 10 cm ✓ TeV mdm ◆1/2 ✓ Tc 105K ◆1/2

tth ∼ 102 yr ⇣mdm TeV ⌘2 ✓10−45cm2 σ ◆

black hole

Naccmdm r3

th

& ρc ∼ 1039 GeV cm3

→

dM dt = 4πG2M 2ρc c2

s

− π3 15R2T 4

Bondi accretion Hawking radiation

→ Mbh & 1020M

Kouvaris & Tinyakov (2013)

NCh & ✓MPl m ◆3 ∼ 5 · 1048 ✓ TeV mdm ◆3

Ncr & 1038 ✓ TeV mdm ◆5/2

Nacc ∼ 1039(TeV/mdm)

WIMPS THAT WOULD DEVOUR STARS SIDM + NS → BH

Kouvaris, Tinyakov & MT (2018)

fraction

• f NS

transformed into BH

• 51
• 50
• 49
• 48
• 47
• 46

10-5 10-4 0.001 0.010 0.100 1 Log[σχn/cm2] fraction of collapsed NS (f)

candidates that alleviate CDM issues

J2124-3358

(270 pc;7.2 Gyr)

SOLAR MASS BINARY MERGERS

BACKUP

INTERMEDIATE REGIME : RECOMBINATION

CONSTRAINTS ON MILLICHARGED PARTICLES

log κ log(mχ/eV)

✏

CONSTRAINTS ON DARK PHOTON

(old) compilation from Redondo & Ringwald, 2010

WIMPS THAT WOULD DEVOUR STARS

DM capture thermalization self-gravitation mini-black hole

Goldman & Nussinov (1989) Kouvaris & Tinyakov (2010)

rth ≈ ✓ Tc Gρcmdm ◆1/2 ∼ 10 cm ✓ TeV mdm ◆1/2 ✓ Tc 105K ◆1/2

tth ∼ 102 yr ⇣mdm TeV ⌘2 ✓10−45cm2 σ ◆

black hole

Macc ∼ 1039 TeV ρdm GeV/cm3 ! ✓ t Gyr ◆ Min ✓ σ σcr , 1 ◆

Overcoming Fermi pressure requires mdm & 1000 TeV

Goldman & Nussinov (1989) Kouvaris & Tinyakov (2010)

GNm2

dm

R & kF ∼ N 1/3 R

Naccmdm r3

th

& ρc ∼ 1039 GeV cm3

Ncr & 1038 ✓TeV mdm ◆3/2

→ →

higher density, higher T, further cooling, further collapse

NCh & ✓MPl m ◆3 ∼ 5 · 1048 ✓ TeV mdm ◆3

Bramante, Linden & Tsai (2017);Kouvaris, Tinyakov & MT (2018)

PRIMORDIAL BLACK HOLES ?

Figure from Garcia-Bellido & Clesse (2018)