An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? · An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? based on...

An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02?based on arXiv:1903.07638, S. Profumo, F. Queiroz, C. Siqueira

and, in preparation with J. Silk, F. Queiroz, C. Siqueira

Clarissa Siqueira DARK MATTER AND WEAK INTERACTIONS, September 03, 2019

Motivation - Results AMS-02

Aguilar et al., 2019

Clarissa Siqueira An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? DARKWIN-2019

Several works trying to explain the data

Pulsars: B1055-52 (Fang et al., 2019), Milisecond (Bykov etal., 2019)

Annihilating or decaying DM (Geng et al.,2019)


DM Particle - Detection Methods


DM Indirect Searches


Propagation trough the Galaxy


Two-component DM Interpretation


The positron flux

The total expected flux:

Φpred(E) = Φe+

χ (E) + Φe+

back(E) (1)

with,

Φe+

χ (E) = Φe+

χ1(E) + Φe+

χ2(E) (2)


The positron flux

Background flux:

Φe+

back(E) = cdE2

E2

(E

E1

)γd(3)

We adopt cd = 6.9× 10−2(m2 sr s GeV)−1, γd = −3.98, and

E(E) = E + ϕe+ with ϕe+ = 1.10 GeV.

Include interaction between cosmic rays and the gas in theintergalactic medium;takes into account effects of solar modulation.


The positron flux

DM flux:

Φe+

χ (E) =1

4π b(E)

ρ

mχ

Γ ×

×∫ mχ/2

EdEs

∑f

BRfdNe+

f

dE (Es) I(E,Es)(4)


The positron flux

Syncroton; ICSDM mass;decay rate

DM flux:

Φe+

χ (E) =1

4π b(E)

ρ

mχ

Γ ×

×∫ mχ/2

EdEs

∑f

BRfdN e+

f

dE(Es) I(E,Es)(5)

Spectrum atproduction

Halo function(NFW profile)


The positron flux

Syncroton; ICSDM mass;decay rate

DM flux:

Φe+

χ (E) =1

4π b(E)

ρ

mχ

Γ ×

×∫ mχ/2

EdEs

∑f

BRfdN e+

f

dE(Es) I(E,Es)(5)

Spectrum atproduction

Halo function(NFW profile)

Page 11Clarissa Siqueira An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? DARKWIN-2019

Energy spectrum

Cirelli, 2010.


Compatibility with γ−ray data

Strong limits from γ−rays: Dwarf Spheroidal galaxies(Fermi-LAT) and the Galactic Center (H.E.S.S.).


Results

MED propagation

10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3

Energy (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Energy3×Flux

(GeV

2m

−2s−1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . =0.613 (Mode l 1 ) - χ2/d. o. f . =0.571 (Mode l 2 )

Total Flux (Mode l 1 )

χ1 → ττ

χ2 → µµ

Total Flux (Mode l 2 )

χ1 → VV→ ττ

χ2 → µµ

Background

Flux with e rrors

MAX propagation

100 101 102 103

Energy (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Energy3

×Flux

(GeV

2m

−2s−1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . =2.3 (Model 1) - χ2/d. o. f . =1.7 (Model 2)

Total Flux (Model 1)χ1 → ττ

χ2 → µµ

Total Flux (Model 2)

χ1 → VV→ 4τ

χ2 → µµ

Background

Flux with errors


Results

MED propagation

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Mass (GeV)

1 .0

1 .5

2 .0

2 .5

τ χ(s

)

1 e 26

χ1 → ττwith τχ1 = 1.43× 1026 sχ2 → µµ with τχ2 = 1.83× 1026 s

χ1 → VV→ ττwith τχ1 = 1.49× 1026 sχ2 → µµ with τχ2 = 1.73× 1026 s

MAX propagation

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Mass (GeV)

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

τ χ(s)

1e26

χ1 → ττ with τχ1=4 .13 × 1026 s

χ2 → µµ with τχ2=2 .60 × 1026 s

χ1 → VV→ ττ with τχ1= 5.00× 1026 s

χ2 → µµ with τχ2= 2.63 × 1026 s


Cheking other possibilities


Branching ratio

`+W → qq′

50%

`+W → ¯ν`

20%

ν + Z → νν

20%

others

10%


Results - RHN

MN = 10 GeV

MED propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 3.57

MED prop.

Total Flux (MN = 10GeV)

MDM12000 GeV

MDM2= 300GeV

Background

Flux with errors

=

MAX propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 2.3

MAX prop.


MDM1= 2150GeV

MDM2= 300GeV

Background

Flux with errors


Results - RHN

MN = 50 GeV

MED propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 5

MED prop.


MDM1= 2000GeV

MDM2= 300GeV

Background

Flux with errors

MAX propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 5.1

MAX prop.


MDM1= 2370GeV

MDM2= 485GeV

Background

Flux with errors


Results - RHN

MN = 80 GeV

MED propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 6.7

MED prop.

Total Flux (MN = 80GeV))

MDM5= 2500GeV

MDM6= 320GeV

Background

Flux with errors

MAX propagation

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

E3

×Φ

e+

(GeV

2m

−2s−

1sr

−1)

χ2/d. o. f . = 8.8

MAX prop.


MDM5= 2500GeV

MDM6= 370GeV

Background

Flux with errors


Results - RHN

MED propagation

1500 2000 2500 3000Mass (GeV)

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

τ χ(s)

1e26

MN =10GeV with τχ1 = 4.00× 1026 sMN =50GeV with τχ2 = 3.35× 1026 sMN =80GeV with τχ1 = 3.34× 1026 s

200 300 400 500Mass (GeV)

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

τ χ (s

)

1e27

MN = 10GeV with τχ1= 1.67× 1027 s

MN = 50GeV with τχ2= 2.00× 1027 s

MN = 80GeV with τχ1= 1.80× 1027 s


Results - RHN

MAX propagation

1500 2000 2500 3000

Mass (GeV)

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

τ χ(s)

1e26

MN =10GeV with τχ1 = 3.78× 1026 sMN =50GeV with τχ2 = 4.07× 1026 sMN =80GeV with τχ1 = 3.60× 1026 s

200 300 400 500 600Mass (GeV)

1.21.62.02.42.83.23.64.04.44.85.25.66.0

τ χ (s

)

1e27

MN = 10GeV with τχ1= 5.00× 1027 s

MN = 50GeV with τχ2= 2.20× 1027 s

MN = 80GeV with τχ1= 3.00× 1027 s


Gamma-ray data

Gamma-ray Flux

Φγ

dΩdE=r4π

ρMDM

J∑f

dNfγ

dE, J =

∫l.o.s.

ds

r

ρ(r(s, θ))

ρ

Cohen et al., 2016.


Gamma-ray data - Fermi-LAT

Cohen et al., 2016.


Comparing the dN/dE

Φγ

dΩdE∝ dNf

γ

dE

05

101520

dN/dE

(GeV

−1)

MDM2= 300GeV

MN = 10GeV 2×NRNR

W`

MDM1= 2000GeV

MN = 10GeV 6×NRNR

W`

05

101520

dN/dE

(GeV

−1)

MN = 50GeV 2×NRNR

WW

MN = 50GeV 3×NRNR

W`

100 101 102

E (GeV)

05

101520

dN/dE

(GeV

−1)

MN = 80GeV NRNR

WW

100 101 102 103

E (GeV)

MN = 80GeV 2×NRNR

W`


Comparing the Limits

MN (GeV) MDM (GeV) Γpred (s) Γlim (s) (rescaled)

10 300 5.0× 1027 1.2× 1027

10 2000 3.6× 1026 3.0× 1027

50 300 2.2× 1027 1.2× 1027

50 2000 4.1× 1026 6.0× 1027

80 300 3.0× 1027 4.8× 1027

80 2000 3.6× 1026 9.0× 1027

Table: Comparison between the stronger limits rescaled and ourpredictions.


Uncertainties in γ−ray Limits


Conclusions

The positron excess observed by AMS-02 remains unexplained;

In this talk we showed different scenarios where two-componentDM can provide a good fit to the data;

We include several different approaches, including direct decayinto SM particles and secluded scenarios;

The comparison with γ−ray data provides a really trick scenario,however we have several systematic uncertainties which canalleviate the limits.

Thank You!


An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? · An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? based on...

Documents

Transcript of An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? · An evidence of dark matter decay at AMS-02? based on...