1: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,showpacs,groupaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{color}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{tabularx}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8:
9:
10: \title{The Dark Matter Constraints on the Left-Right Symmetric Model with $Z
11: _2$ Symmetry}
12:
13: \author{\footnotesize Wan-lei Guo\footnote{guowl@itp.ac.cn}, Li-ming Wang\footnote{wanglm@itp.ac.cn},
14: Yue-liang Wu\footnote{ylwu@itp.ac.cn}, Ci Zhuang\footnote{zhuangc@itp.ac.cn} }
15:
16: \address{Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China,
17: Institute of Theoretical Physics, \\ Chinese Academy of Science,
18: Beijing 100080, P.R.China}
19:
20:
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23:
24: In the framework of Left-Right symmetric model, we investigate an
25: interesting scenario, in which the so-called VEV seesaw problem can
26: be naturally solved with $\cal{Z}$$_2$ symmetry. In such a scenario,
27: we find a pair of stable weakly interacting massive particles
28: (WIMPs), which may be the cold dark matter candidates. However, the
29: WIMP-nucleon cross section is 3-5 orders of magnitude above the
30: present upper bounds from the direct dark matter detection
31: experiments for $m \sim 10^2-10^4 $ GeV. As a result, the relic
32: number density of two stable particles has to be strongly suppressed
33: to a very small level. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that this
34: scenario can't provide very large annihilation cross sections so as
35: to give the desired relic abundance except for the resonance case.
36: Only for the case if the rotation curves of disk galaxies are
37: explained by the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), the stable
38: WIMPs could be as the candidates of cold dark matter.
39:
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \pacs{95.35.+d, 12.60.-i}
44:
45:
46:
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: The Left-Right (LR) symmetric model \cite{LR}, based on the gauge
54: group $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$, is an attractive
55: extension of the standard model (SM). The symmetry requires the
56: introduction of right-handed partners for the observed gauge bosons
57: and neutrinos, and a Higgs sector containing one bi-doublet $\phi$
58: (2,2,0), one left-handed triplet $\Delta_L$ (3,1,2) and one
59: right-handed triplet $\Delta_R$ (1,3,2). In such a minimal LR
60: symmetric model, parity is an exact symmetry of the theory at high
61: energy scale, and is broken spontaneously at low energy scale due to
62: the asymmetric vacuum. Also CP asymmetry can be realized as a
63: consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking, namely the spontaneous
64: CP violation (SCPV) \cite{SCPV}. However, such a scenario suffers
65: from nontrivial constraints from the vacuum minimization conditions.
66: It is explicitly demonstrated that the SCPV is not so easily
67: realized if all the parameters in the Higgs potential are real and
68: endowed with natural values \cite{Mohapatra,VEV,Barenboim}. The
69: difficulty results from the facts that one of the neutral Higgs
70: bosons carries dangerous tree level flavor changing neutral currents
71: (FCNC) effect, and that quark flavor mixing angles and CP violating
72: phase are all calculable quantities due to the LR symmetry.
73: Therefore, many generalized CP violation scenarios beyond the SCPV
74: case have been analyzed extensively \cite{Langacker,Bernabeu,Pos,
75: Frere, Kie,Ji}. In these literatures, the masses of right-handed
76: gauge boson $W_2$ and the FCNC Higgs boson are strongly constrained
77: from low energy phenomenology. Although the CKM matrix are more
78: general not to be fully fixed than the SCPV case, it is proved that
79: there is only one physical complex phase in the Yukawa couplings
80: \cite{Ken}. Hence the FCNC Higgs boson's couplings can't be
81: absolutely free. The FCNC Higgs boson's mass still accepts strict
82: bound. In terms of these observations, a generalized two Higgs
83: bi-doublets model is proposed \cite{Wu}. In this model, quark mass
84: matrices become far more flexible and the FCNC Higgs boson's Yukawa
85: couplings are now free parameters. Thereby low energy bound on the
86: right-handed scale is largely alleviated. As other generalized
87: models, the two Higgs bi-doublets version of LR model also has the
88: advantage to realize the SCPV without the fine-tuning problem.
89:
90: The LR symmetric model is also motivated to explain the very tiny
91: neutrino masses. When the vacuum expectation value (VEV) $v_R$ of
92: the neutral component of $\Delta_R$ is very huge, typically of order
93: $10^{12}$ GeV, the well-known seesaw mechanism provides a very
94: natural explanation of the smallness of neutrino masses
95: \cite{SEESAW}. However, the right-handed gauge bosons $Z_2$ and
96: $W_2$ are too heavy to be detected at the Large Hadron Collider
97: (LHC) and the future colliders. To allow for the possibility of an
98: observable right-handed scale, many authors focus on the $v_R \sim
99: 10 $ TeV case. Although the seesaw mechanism can work well, we have
100: to face the so-called VEV-seesaw puzzle. Namely, $\beta/\rho$ is of
101: order $10^{-10}$ rather than the anticipant ${\cal O} (1)$, where
102: $\rho$ and $\beta$ are located in the Higgs potential. One may
103: introduce a discrete ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry $\Delta_L \rightarrow -
104: \Delta_L$ and $\Delta_R \rightarrow \Delta_R$ to resolve this
105: VEV-seesaw problem \cite{VEV}. It is worthwhile to stress that
106: neutrinos are the Dirac particles in this scenario. If we preserve
107: the Majorana Yukawa couplings, the corresponding model must lie
108: beyond the LR symmetric model.
109:
110:
111: The ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry leads to the absence of both $\beta$-type
112: terms and the Majorana Yukawa couplings, hence $v_L = 0$ due to the
113: minimization conditions. Furthermore, we find that the neutral Higgs
114: bosons $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ are a pair of stable weakly
115: interacting massive particles (WIMPs). This is an important feature
116: of our scenario which hasn't been indicated before. It is a natural
117: idea that $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ may be the cold dark
118: matter candidates \cite{DM}. We firstly calculate the WIMP-nucleon
119: elastic scattering cross section which has been strongly constrained
120: by the direct dark matter detection experiments, such as the
121: CDMS\cite{CDMS} and XENON\cite{XENON}. However, our result is 3-5
122: orders of magnitude above the present bounds for $m \sim 10^2-10^4
123: $ GeV \cite{CDMS, XENON}. To avoid this puzzle, $\delta_L^0$ and
124: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ can't dominate all the dark matter. We find that
125: our scenario is consistent with the direct dark matter detection
126: experiments only when $n_{\delta_L^0} \leq 4.8 \times 10^{-14}$,
127: where $n_{\delta_L^0}$ is the total relic number density of
128: $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$. This bound requires the dark
129: matter annihilation cross sections must be very large. In this work,
130: we examine whether our scenario can provide very large annihilation
131: cross sections so as to derive the desired relic abundance.
132:
133:
134: In this paper we try to give a comprehensive analysis on these LR
135: models with general parameter setting. Firstly, we perform a
136: detailed investigation on the simplest LR model with one Higgs
137: bi-doublet, in which there are no any CP violation phases. Then we
138: generalize the simplest LR model to some other more complicated
139: situations. It turns out that there's no significant differences
140: among these one Higgs bi-doublet versions of LR model because the
141: gauge and Higgs sectors are basically the same. Whereas in the two
142: Higgs bi-doublet case, there would be more Higgs bosons and the
143: Yukawa couplings might be quite different. Hence more delicate
144: analysis is needed. The remaining part of this paper is organized as
145: follows. In Section II, we briefly describe the main features of the
146: LR symmetric model and discuss the VEV-seesaw problem. In Section
147: III and IV, the direct dark matter detection experiments put very
148: strong constraints on the relic number density and the annihilation
149: cross sections. In Section V, we analyze whether the simplest LR
150: model can be consistent with the above constraints or not. Then we
151: generalize the simplest LR model to the two Higgs bi-doublets case
152: in Sec VI. The summary and comments are given in Section VII.
153:
154:
155:
156: \section{The LR symmetric model with ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry}
157:
158: The minimal LR symmetric model consists of one Higgs bi-doublet
159: $\phi$ (2,2,0), one left-handed Higgs triplet $\Delta_L$ (3,1,2) and
160: one right-handed Higgs triplet $\Delta_R$ (1,3,2), which can be
161: written as
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: \phi = \left ( \matrix{ \phi_1^0 & \phi_1^+ \cr \phi_2^- & \phi_2^0
164: \cr } \right ) ; \; \Delta_{L,R} = \left ( \matrix{
165: \delta_{L,R}^+/\sqrt{2} & \delta_{L,R}^{++} \cr \delta_{L,R}^{0} &
166: -\delta_{L,R}^{+}/\sqrt{2} \cr } \right ) \;.
167: % (1)
168: \end{eqnarray}
169: After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs multiplets can
170: have the following vacuum expectation values
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: \langle \phi \rangle = \left ( \matrix{ \kappa_1/\sqrt{2} & 0 \cr 0
173: & \kappa_2/\sqrt{2} \cr } \right ) ; \; \langle \Delta_{L,R} \rangle
174: = \left ( \matrix{0 & 0 \cr v_{L,R}/\sqrt{2} & 0 \cr } \right ) \;,
175: % (2)
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, $v_L$ and $v_R$ are in general
178: complex. Without loss of generality, one can choose $\kappa_1$ and
179: $v_R$ to be real, while assign complex phases $\theta_2$ and
180: $\theta_L$ for $k_2$ and $v_L$, respectively. Following the
181: requirements of the LR symmetry, we can write down the most general
182: form of the Higgs potential \cite{VEV}
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: V= &-&\mu_1^2\left({\rm Tr}\left[\phi^{\dagger}\phi \right] \right)
185: -
186: \mu_2^2\left({\rm Tr} \left[\tilde{\phi}\phi^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm Tr}\left[\tilde{\phi%
187: }^{\dagger} \phi \right] \right) -\mu_3^2 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[
188: \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm Tr} \left[
189: \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
190: &+&\lambda_1 \left( \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \phi^{\dagger}
191: \right] \right)^2 \right)+ \lambda_2 \left( \left( {\rm Tr} \left[
192: \tilde{\phi} \phi^{\dagger} \right] \right)^2 + \left( {\rm Tr}
193: \left[ \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger} \phi \right] \right)^2 \right) +
194: \lambda_3 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \tilde{\phi} \phi^{\dagger} \right]
195: {\rm Tr} \left[
196: \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger} \phi \right] \right) \nonumber \\
197: &+& \lambda_4 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \phi^{\dagger} \right]
198: \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \tilde{\phi} \phi^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm
199: Tr} \left[ \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger} \phi \right] \right) \right) +
200: \rho_1 \left( \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger}
201: \right] \right)^2+\left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger}
202: \right] \right)^2
203: \right) \nonumber \\
204: &+&\rho_2 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_L \Delta_L \right] {\rm Tr}
205: \left[ \Delta_L^{\dagger} \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm Tr}
206: \left[ \Delta_R \Delta_R \right]{\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_R^{\dagger}
207: \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) + \rho_3 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[
208: \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] {\rm Tr} \left[
209: \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
210: &+&\rho_4 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_L \Delta_L \right] {\rm Tr}
211: \left[ \Delta_R^{\dagger} \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm Tr}
212: \left[ \Delta_L^{\dagger} \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] {\rm Tr} \left[
213: \Delta_R \Delta_R \right] \right)
214: \nonumber \\
215: &+& \alpha_1 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \phi^{\dagger} \right]
216: \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm
217: Tr} \left[ \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) \right)
218: \nonumber \\
219: &+& \alpha_2 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger}
220: \right] {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right]+ {\rm
221: Tr} \left[ \phi^{\dagger} \tilde{\phi}
222: \right] {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
223: &+&\alpha^\ast_2 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi^{\dagger} \tilde{\phi}
224: \right] {\rm Tr} \left[ \Delta_R \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right]+ {\rm
225: Tr} \left[ \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger} \phi \right] {\rm Tr} \left[
226: \Delta_L \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
227: &+& \alpha_3 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \phi^{\dagger} \Delta_L
228: \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] +{\rm Tr} \left[ \phi^{\dagger} \phi
229: \Delta_R
230: \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
231: &+& \beta_1 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \Delta_R \phi^{\dagger}
232: \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] +{\rm Tr} \left[ \phi^{\dagger} \Delta_L
233: \phi \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) + \beta_2 \left( {\rm Tr}
234: \left[ \tilde{\phi} \Delta_R \phi^{\dagger} \Delta_L^{\dagger}
235: \right] +{\rm Tr} \left[ {\tilde{\phi}}^{\dagger} \Delta_L \phi
236: \Delta_R^{\dagger} \right] \right) \nonumber \\
237: &+& \beta_3 \left( {\rm Tr} \left[ \phi \Delta_R
238: {\tilde{\phi}}^{\dagger} \Delta_L^{\dagger} \right] + {\rm Tr}
239: \left[ \phi^{\dagger} \Delta_L \tilde{\phi} \Delta_R^{\dagger}
240: \right] \right)\; ,
241: % (3)
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: where $\tilde{\phi} = \tau_2 \phi^* \tau_2$ and all parameters
244: $\mu_i$, $\lambda_i$, $\rho_i$, $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are real.
245: Only $\alpha_2$ can be complex. The phases of $\kappa_2$ and $v_L$
246: may lead to the SCPV \cite{SCPV}. It has been shown that the combing
247: constraints from $K$ and $B$ system actually exclude the minimal LR
248: symmetric Model with the SCPV in the decoupling limit \cite{Frere}.
249: For our present purpose, we investigate here the simplest LR model,
250: in which $\alpha_2$, $\kappa_2$, $v_L$ and the Yukawa couplings are
251: real. It is worthwhile to stress that our remaining analysis can be
252: generalized to the other CP violation scenarios
253: \cite{Langacker,Bernabeu,Pos, Frere, Kie,Ji}.
254:
255:
256: In the minimal LR symmetric model, the Lagrangian relevant for the
257: neutrino masses reads \cite{VEV}:
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: -{\cal L} = Y_\nu \overline{\psi_{L}}\; \phi \; \psi_{R} +
260: \tilde{Y}_\nu \overline{\psi_{L}}\; \tilde{\phi}\; \psi_{R} + Y_M
261: (\overline{\psi_{L}^c}\; i \tau_2 \Delta_{L} \psi_L+
262: \overline{\psi_{R}^c}\; i \tau_2 \Delta_{R} \psi_R) + h.c. \; ,
263: % (4)
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: where $\psi_{L,R} = (\nu_{L,R}, l_{L,R})^T$. After the spontaneous
266: symmetry breaking, one may obtain the effective (light and
267: left-handed) neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ via the type II seesaw
268: mechanism:
269: \begin{equation}
270: m_\nu \; = \sqrt{2} (Y_M v_L - \frac{Y_D^2 \kappa^2}{2 Y_M v_R} )
271: \;, \label{seesaw 1}
272: % (5)
273: \end{equation}
274: where $\kappa = \sqrt{|\kappa_1|^2 + |\kappa_2|^2} \approx 246$ GeV
275: represents the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) scale and $Y_D
276: =(Y_\nu \kappa_1 + \tilde{Y}_\nu \kappa_2)/(\sqrt{2} \kappa)$. The
277: charged lepton mass matrix is given by $m_l =(Y_\nu \kappa_2 +
278: \tilde{Y}_\nu \kappa_1)/\sqrt{2}$. The electroweak precision test
279: requires $v_L \ll \kappa$. Barring extreme fine-tuning, the neutrino
280: masses $m_\nu \sim 0.1$ eV \cite{PDG} forces $v_L$ to be of order a
281: few eV or less, thereby requiring $v_R \sim 10^{12}$ GeV for $Y_D
282: \sim Y_M \sim m_l/\kappa$. In this case, the right-handed gauge
283: bosons $Z_2$ and $W_2$ are too heavy to be detected at the LHC and
284: the future colliders. To allow for the possibility of an observable
285: right-handed scale, many authors focus on the $v_R \sim 10 $ TeV
286: case. Although the seesaw mechanism can work well, we need to
287: resolve the so-called VEV-seesaw puzzle \cite{VEV}, which is
288: indicated by a simple vacuum minimization equation:
289: \begin{equation}
290: (2\rho_1-\rho_3)v_L v_R=\beta_1 \kappa_1 \kappa_2+\beta_2
291: \kappa_1^2+\beta_3 \kappa_2^2 \;. \label{vev see-saw}
292: % (6)
293: \end{equation}
294: Without loss of generality, one can write Eq.(\ref{vev see-saw}) in
295: a compact form:
296: \begin{equation}
297: \gamma \equiv \frac{\beta}{\rho} = \frac{v_L v_R}{\kappa^2} \;.
298: % (7)
299: \end{equation}
300: In view of the naturalness, one expects $\gamma \sim {\cal O }(1)$.
301: However, we find that $\gamma \sim 10^{-10}$ as long as $v_R \sim 10
302: $ TeV. This is the infamous VEV-seesaw problem in the literatures
303: \cite{VEV}. The neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu $ in Eq. (\ref{seesaw
304: 1}) can also be written as
305: \begin{equation}
306: m_\nu \; = \sqrt{2} \left(Y_M \gamma - \frac{Y_D^2 }{2 Y_M } \right
307: ) \frac{\kappa^2}{v_R} \;. \label{seesaw 2}
308: % (8)
309: \end{equation}
310:
311: It is shown that the VEV-seesaw relationship implies the
312: unnaturalness for the auxiliary parameter $\gamma$ if one wants to
313: search for new physics at TeV scale. To avoid the VEV-seesaw puzzle,
314: a smart way is to introduce some new symmetries to eliminate all
315: $\beta$-type terms of the Higgs potential. However this is not a
316: easy task in the current model. One may guess there exists some
317: additional global symmetries like $U(1)$ acting on the Higgs fields
318: which can eliminate all $\beta$-type terms \cite{VEV}. However, such
319: alternative always affects the fermion sector and fails to give
320: correct fermion masses and mixing. If there is an approximate $U(1)$
321: horizontal symmetry to suppress $\beta_i$ without eliminating them
322: completely, then one may solve the VEV-seesaw problem \cite{Perez,
323: Kie}. Unfortunately, this model yields a small mixing angle within
324: the first two lepton generations. In Ref.\cite{VEV}, the authors
325: suggest a ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \Delta_L\rightarrow -\Delta_L,\hspace{1cm}\Delta_R\rightarrow
328: \Delta_R \;,
329: % (9)
330: \end{eqnarray}
331: which can eliminate all $\beta$-type terms of the Higgs potential.
332: However, this discrete symmetry also eliminates the Majorana Yukawa
333: couplings, which implies that neutrinos are Dirac particles. At this
334: moment, Eq.(\ref{vev see-saw}) becomes
335: \begin{equation}
336: (2\rho_1-\rho_3) v_L = 0 \;.
337: % (10)
338: \end{equation}
339: One may immediately dismiss the possibility $2\rho_1-\rho_3=0$,
340: which implies two massless left-handed Higgs triplet bosons. Thus
341: the only left choice is $v_L = 0$. The ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry leads
342: to $v_L = 0$ and the absence of both $\beta$-type terms and Majorana
343: Yukawa couplings. Furthermore, we find that the lightest particles
344: among the members of left-handed Higgs triplet $\Delta_L$, namely
345: $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$, are two degenerate and stable
346: particles. A natural idea is that $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$
347: may be the cold dark matter candidates. In the following sections we
348: shall discuss the possibility of $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$
349: being the cold dark matter candidates by evaluating all relevant
350: annihilation processes. The main features of the LR symmetric model
351: with ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry have been shown in Ref.\cite{DUKA}. Here,
352: we show the mass spectrum for the Higgs bosons and gauged bosons at
353: leading order in Table. I, with approximations $\kappa^2/v_R^2\simeq
354: 0$ and $\kappa_2/\kappa_1\simeq 0$ mentioned in Appendix A. Gauge
355: bosons $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are defined by $Z_1=c_W W_{3L}-s_W t_W
356: W_{3R}-\sqrt{c_{2W}}t_W B$ and $Z_2=\sqrt{c_{2W}} \sec_W W_{3R}-t_W
357: B$, where the subscript $W$ denotes the Weinberg angle $\theta_W$.
358: In addition, all the trilinear and quartic scalar interactions and
359: scalar-gauge interactions are listed in Appendix A for convenience.
360:
361: \begin{table}
362: \begin{center}
363: \begin{tabular}{|l|l||l|l|}
364: \hline Particles & Mass$^2$ & Particles & Mass$^2$\\\hline
365: $h^0 = \phi_1^{0 r}$ & $m_{h^0}^2 = 2 \lambda_1 \kappa^2$ & $H_1^{\pm} = \phi_1^{\pm}$ & $m_{H_1^\pm}^2 = \frac{1}{2} \alpha_3 (v_R^2 +\frac{1}{2} \kappa^2 )$ \\
366: $H_1^0 = \phi_2^{0 r}$ & $m_{H_1^0}^2 = \frac{1}{2} \alpha_3 v_R^2 + 2 \kappa^2 (2 \lambda_2 +\lambda_3)$ & $\delta_R^{\pm \pm}$ & $m_{\delta_R^{\pm \pm}}^2 = 2 \rho_2 v_R^2 + \frac{1}{2} \alpha_3 \kappa^2 $ \\
367: $A_1^0 = - \phi_2^{0 i}$ & $m_{A_1^0}^2 = \frac{1}{2} \alpha_3 v_R^2 - 2 \kappa^2 (2 \lambda_2 -\lambda_3)$ & $\delta_L^{\pm}$ & $m_{\delta_L^{\pm}}^2 = \frac{1}{2} (\rho_3 - 2 \rho_1) v_R^2 + \frac{1}{4} \alpha_3 \kappa^2 $ \\
368: $H_2^0 = \delta_R^{0 r}$ & $m_{H_2^0}^2 = 2 \rho_1 v_R^2 $ & $\delta_L^{\pm \pm}$ & $m_{\delta_L^{\pm \pm}}^2 = \frac{1}{2} (\rho_3 - 2 \rho_1) v_R^2 + \alpha_3 \kappa^2 $ \\
369: $\delta_L^{0}$, ${\delta_L^{0}}^*$ & $m^2 = \frac{1}{2} (\rho_3 -
370: 2 \rho_1) v_R^2 $ & & \\ \hline \hline $Z_1$ & $m_{Z_1}^2 =
371: \frac{g^2 \kappa^2}{4 \cos^2 \theta_W}$
372: &$W_1^\pm = W_L^\pm$ & $m_{W_1}^2 = \frac{g^2 \kappa^2}{4}$ \\
373: $Z_2$ & $m_{Z_2}^2 = \frac{g^2 v_R^2 \cos^2 \theta_W}{\cos 2
374: \theta_W}$ &$W_2^\pm = W_R^\pm$ & $m_{W_2}^2 = \frac{g^2 v_R^2}{2}$
375: \\\hline
376: \end{tabular}
377: \end{center} \caption{The mass spectrum for the Higgs bosons and the gauged
378: bosons in the LR symmetric model with ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetry. Here,
379: we have neglected the terms in order of $\kappa_2/\kappa_1$ and
380: $\kappa^2/v_R^2$. }\label{Phy.def.}
381: \end{table}
382:
383:
384:
385: \section{The direct dark matter detection}
386:
387:
388:
389: The current direct dark matter detection experiments, such as the
390: CDMS\cite{CDMS} and XENON\cite{XENON}, have provided very strong
391: constraints on the WIMP-nucleus elastic cross section. The rate for
392: direct detection of dark matter candidates is given by \cite{DM}
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: R \approx \sum_i N_i \; \frac{\rho_{local}}{m} \; \langle \sigma_{i
395: \cal N} \rangle\; , \label{Direct}
396: % (11)
397: \end{eqnarray}
398: where $N_i$ is the number of nuclei with species $i$ in the
399: detector, $\rho_{local}$ is the local energy density of dark matter,
400: $m$ is the mass of cold dark matter. $\sigma_{i \cal N}$ is the
401: WIMP-nucleus elastic cross section, and the angular brackets denote
402: an average over the relative WIMP velocity with respect to the
403: detector. Using the standard assumptions of $\rho_{local}$ and
404: distribution of the relative WIMP velocity \cite{Halo}, one can
405: derive the constrains on WIMP-nucleon cross-section
406: $\sigma_{n}^{exp} \leq 4.6 \times 10^{-44} \, {\rm cm^2}$ for $m =
407: 60 \, {\rm GeV}$ from the CDMS \cite{CDMS}; $\sigma_{n}^{exp} \leq
408: 8.8 \times 10^{-44} \, {\rm cm^2}$ for $m = 100 \, {\rm GeV}$ from
409: the XENON \cite{XENON}. Since the WIMP flux decreases $\propto 1/m$,
410: $\sigma_{n}^{exp} \propto m$ is a very good assumption for $m > 100
411: \, {\rm GeV}$.
412:
413:
414: In our scenario, the dark matter candidates $\delta_L^0$ and
415: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ interact with nucleus ${\cal N}$ through their
416: couplings with quarks by exchanging the neutral gauge bosons $Z_1$,
417: $Z_2$ and Higgs bosons. We find that the main contribution comes
418: from the $Z_1$ exchanging process, which produces a spin-independent
419: elastic cross section on a nucleus ${\cal N}$ \cite{MDM}
420: \begin{eqnarray}
421: \sigma_{\cal N} = \frac{2 G_F^2 M^2({\cal N})}{\pi} [(A-Z) - (1- 4
422: \sin^2 \theta_W)Z]^2 \; ,
423: % (12)
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: where $Z$ and $A-Z$ are the numbers of protons and neutrons in the
426: nucleus, respectively. $G_F$ is Fermi coupling constant and $M({\cal
427: N}) = m M_{\cal N}/(m + M_{\cal N})$ is the reduced WIMP mass.
428: Traditionally, the results of WIMP-nucleus elastic experiments are
429: presented in the form of a normalized the WIMP-nucleon cross section
430: $\sigma_{n}$ in spin-independent case, which is straight forward
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: \sigma_{n} =\frac{1}{A^2} \frac{M^2(n)}{ M^2({\cal N})} \sigma_{\cal
433: N} \; ,
434: % (13)
435: \end{eqnarray}
436: where $M(n) = m M_{n}/(m + M_{n})$ and $M_n$ denotes the nucleon
437: mass. When $m \gg M_{n}$, one may arrive at $\sigma_{n} = 8.2 \times
438: 10^{-39} {\rm cm^2}$ for the CDMS experiment, which is $3-5$ orders
439: of magnitude above the present bounds for $m \sim 10^2-10^4 $ GeV
440: \cite{XENON}. Therefore, such dark matter candidates are excluded by
441: the current direct detection experiments.
442:
443: If $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ have a nonzero splitting, one
444: can avoid the above bounds since the $Z_1$ exchanging process is
445: forbidden kinematically \cite{KIN}. However, such degeneracy can not
446: be satisfied in our model. If the energy density of $\delta_L^0$ and
447: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ in the solar system is far less than
448: $\rho_{local}$, we can avoid the above experimental limits as shown
449: in Eq.(\ref{Direct}). This means that $\delta_L^0$ and
450: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ are only a very small part of the total dark
451: matter. We find that our model is consistent with the direct
452: detection experiments only when
453: \begin{eqnarray}
454: n_{\delta_L^0} \leq 4.8 \times 10^{-14} \; , \label{n}
455: % (14)
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: where $n_{\delta_L^0}$ is the total relic number density of
458: $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$. Here we have taken the
459: approximation $\sigma_n^{exp} \propto m$ (when $m \geq 100$ GeV) and
460: used $\sigma_n^{exp} = 3.4 \times 10^{-43} {\rm cm^2}$ ( $m = 1 \,
461: {\rm TeV}$) as the input parameter \cite{CDMS}. It is worthwhile to
462: stress that the bound in Eq.(\ref{n}) is not valid for $m < 100$
463: GeV.
464:
465: The present experimental bounds are based on the standard
466: assumptions for the galatic halo \cite{Halo}. It needs to be
467: mentioned that the rotation curves of disk galaxies may also be
468: explained by the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) \cite{MOND}. On
469: one hand, we use the MOND to account for the rotation curve of the
470: Milk Way; On the other hand, we still believe that the cold dark
471: matter exists in the universe. In this case, the local energy
472: density of cold dark matter may be far less than the standard
473: assumption. Therefore, we may give up the above constraints from the
474: direct dark matter detection experiments. Subsequently, the stable
475: particles $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ may be the cold dark
476: matter.
477:
478:
479:
480: \section{Constraints on the annihilation cross section}
481:
482: The thermal average of annihilation cross section times the
483: ``relative velocity" $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ is a key quantity
484: in the determination of the cosmic relic abundances of $\delta_L^0$
485: and ${\delta_L^0}^*$. The constraint in Eq.(\ref{n}) implies
486: $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ must be very large in our scenario. In
487: this section, we analyze whether the present model can satisfy
488: Eq.(\ref{n}).
489:
490: In our scenario, $\delta_L^i$ ($i=1,... ,6$ for $\delta_L^0$,
491: ${\delta_L^0}^*$, $\delta_L^\pm$ and $\delta_L^{\pm \pm}$) are a set
492: of similar particles whose masses may be nearly degenerate. The
493: total relic density of the lightest particles $\delta_L^0$ and
494: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ is determined not only by their annihilation cross
495: sections, but also by the annihilation of the heavier particles,
496: which will later decay into $\delta_L^0$ or ${\delta_L^0}^*$.
497: Therefore, we need to consider the coannihilation processes
498: \cite{CO}. Since $\delta_L^\pm$ and $\delta_L^{\pm \pm}$ which
499: survive annihilation eventually decay into $\delta_L^0$ or
500: ${\delta_L^0}^*$, the relevant quantity is the total number density
501: of $\delta_L^i$, $n = \sum_{i =1}^6 n_i$. The evolution of $n$ is
502: given by the following Boltzmann equation \cite{CO}:
503: \begin{eqnarray}
504: \frac{d n}{d t} = - 3 H n - \langle \sigma_{eff} v \rangle (n^2
505: -n_{eq}^2) \; , \label{BOL}
506: % (15)
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: where $H$ is the Hubble parameter, $n_{eq}$ is the total equilibrium
509: number density, $v$ is the relative velocity of two annihilation
510: particles. The effective annihilation cross section $\sigma_{eff}$
511: is
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: \sigma_{eff} = \sum_{i j}^6 \sigma_{i j} \frac{g_i g_j}{g_{eff}^2}(1
514: + \Delta_i)^{3/2} (1 + \Delta_j)^{3/2} e^{- x (\Delta_i+ \Delta_j)}
515: \; ,
516: % (16)
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: where $\Delta_i = (m_i - m)/m$, $x \equiv m/T$ is the scaled inverse
519: temperature. $g_i =1$ is the internal degrees of freedom of
520: $\delta_L^i$ and $g_{eff} = \sum_{i=1}^6 g_i (1 + \Delta_i)^{3/2}
521: e^{- x \Delta_i}$. For the total equilibrium number density, we may
522: use the nonrelativistic approximation $n_{eq} \approx g_{eff} (m T/
523: 2 \pi)^{3/2} {\rm exp}(-m/T)$.
524:
525: For particles which potentially play the role of cold dark matter,
526: the relevant freeze-out temperature is $x_f = m/T \sim 25$. In our
527: scenario, one can derive $x_f \gtrsim 35$ which can be seen in
528: Eq.(\ref{xf}). When $\Delta_i > 0.1$ for $\delta_L^\pm$ and
529: $\delta_L^{\pm \pm}$, we can arrive at $\sigma_{eff} =
530: \sigma_{12}/2$ in our model. In addition, we find that it is also a
531: rational approximation $\sigma_{eff} \approx \sigma_{12}/2$ even if
532: all masses of $\delta_L^i$ are nearly degenerate. For simplicity, we
533: take $\langle \sigma_{eff} v \rangle = \langle \sigma_{12} v \rangle
534: /2$ in the remaining analysis of our paper.
535:
536: For nonrelativistic gases, the thermally averaged annihilation cross
537: section $\langle \sigma_{12} v \rangle$ may be expanded in powers of
538: $x^{-1}$, $\langle \sigma_{12} v \rangle = \sigma_0 x^{-k}$, $k=0$
539: for the $s$-wave annihilation and $k=1$ for the $p$-wave
540: annihilation \cite{KOLB}. The general formula for $\langle
541: \sigma_{12} v \rangle$ is given by \cite{APP}
542: \begin{eqnarray}
543: \langle \sigma_{12} v \rangle = \sigma_0 x^{-k} = \frac{1}{m^2}
544: \left [ \omega - \frac{3}{2} (2 \omega - \omega ')x^{-1} + \ldots
545: \right]_{s/4m^2=1} \; , \label{Expand}
546: % (17)
547: \end{eqnarray}
548: where $\omega \equiv E_1 E_2 \sigma_{12} v$, prime denotes
549: derivative with respect to $s/4m^2$, and $s$ is the center-of-mass
550: squared energy. $\omega$ and its derivative are all to be evaluated
551: at $s/4m^2=1$. The final number density $n_{\delta_L^0}$ is given by
552: \cite{KOLB}
553: \begin{eqnarray}
554: n_{\delta_L^0} = 2970 \, \frac{3.79 (k+1) x_f^{k+1}}{g_*^{1/2}
555: M_{Pl} \, m \, \sigma_0/2} \, {\rm cm}^{-3} \label{nin}
556: % (18)
557: \end{eqnarray}
558: with
559: \begin{eqnarray}
560: x_f & = & {\rm ln}[0.038(k+1)(g_{eff}/g_*^{1/2}) M_{Pl} \, m \,
561: \sigma_0/2] \nonumber \\ & - & (k+ 1/2)\, {\rm ln} \{ {\rm ln}
562: [0.038(k+1)(g_{eff}/g_*^{1/2}) M_{Pl} \, m \, \sigma_0/2] \} \; ,
563: \label{xf}
564: % (19)
565: \end{eqnarray}
566: where $M_{Pl} = 1.22 \times 10^{19}$ GeV and $g_*$ is the total
567: number of effectively relativistic degrees of freedom at the time of
568: freeze-out. Here we take $g_* \approx 100$ for illustration. With
569: the help of Eqs. (\ref{n}), (\ref{nin}) and (\ref{xf}), we can
570: derive
571: \begin{eqnarray}
572: m \, \sigma_0 & \geq & 0.13 \; {\rm GeV}^{-1} \;\;\; (s{\rm -wave}) \; ; \nonumber \\
573: m \, \sigma_0 & \geq & 9.8 \; {\rm GeV}^{-1} \;\;\; (p{\rm
574: -wave}) \;. \label{msigma}
575: % (20)
576: \end{eqnarray}
577:
578:
579:
580:
581: \section{One Higgs bi-doublet model}
582:
583: In this section, we shall investigate whether the above bounds can
584: be satisfied in one Higgs bi-doublet model or not. Since there are
585: many unknown parameters, some rational assumptions have to be made
586: for our model so that one can calculate all relevant annihilation
587: processes. In our scenario, the thermally averaged annihilation
588: cross section $\langle \sigma_{12} v \rangle$ is usually inverse
589: proportional to $m^2$ as shown in Eq. (\ref{Expand}). Therefore, one
590: can obtain $m \sigma_0 \propto 1/v_R$. Namely, the smaller $v_R$ is,
591: the easier Eq.(\ref{msigma}) can be satisfied. Considering the
592: constraints on the masses of $W_2$ and the FCNC Higgs boson from low
593: energy phenomenology \cite{Ji}, we choose $v_R = 10$ TeV and
594: $\alpha_3 = 2$ as an instructive example to illustrate the main
595: features of our scenario. One can immediately get $m_{Z_2} = 7.5$
596: TeV and $m_{W_2} = 4.5$ TeV. Now let's introduce an auxiliary
597: parameter $\varepsilon \equiv (\rho_3 - 2 \rho_1)/(2 \rho_1)$ to
598: reexpress the mass of $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$
599: \begin{eqnarray}
600: m = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} (\rho_3 -2 \rho_1)} \, v_R = \sqrt{\varepsilon
601: \rho_1} v_R \; .
602: % (21)
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: From the $Z_1$ invisible width one may obtain $m > m_{Z_1}/2$, which
605: requires $\varepsilon \rho_1 > 2.0 \times 10^{-5}$. On the other
606: hand, we may require $\rho_3 \leq 4$ in view of the
607: perturbativity, and then derive $\rho_1 + \varepsilon \rho_1 \leq
608: 2$. In addition, we wish all $\rho_i$ have the same order which
609: means $ \varepsilon \leq 4$. Due to the suppression of phase space,
610: one may ignore some annihilation processes in terms of the values of
611: $\varepsilon$ and $\rho_1$. When $m < m_{W_1}$, $\delta_L^0$ and
612: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ mainly annihilate into the fermion pairs (except
613: for top quark). The corresponding $m \sigma_0$ is far less than the
614: lower bound of Eq.(\ref{msigma}). For the convenience of the
615: remaining analysis, we require $m \geq 500$ GeV (Namely,
616: $\varepsilon \rho_1 \geq 2.0 \times 10^{-3}$) which does not affect
617: our conclusions. Finally, we assume that all $\alpha_i$ of the Higgs
618: potential have the same order.
619:
620: It is worthwhile to stress that Eq.(\ref{Expand}) is not valid when
621: the annihilation takes place near a pole in the cross section
622: \cite{CO}. This happens, for example, in $Z$-exchange annihilation
623: when the mass of relic particle is near $m_{Z}/2$. For the cases
624: $2m/m_{Z} \leq 0.8$ and $2m/m_{Z} \geq 1.2$, we use the above
625: analytic way to calculate $m \sigma_0$. On the contrary, we should
626: numerically solve the Boltzmann equation in Eq.(\ref{BOL}), in which
627: the resonant cross sections of the Breit-Wigner form must be
628: considered. Then one can derive the relic number density
629: $n_{\delta_L^0}$ which has to be less than the upper bound in
630: Eq.(\ref{n}).
631:
632:
633: In general, all relevant annihilation processes may be divided into
634: four categories in terms of the different final states: $\delta_L^0
635: {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow f \bar{f}$, $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^*
636: \rightarrow V V$, $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow H H$ and
637: $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V H$, where $V$ and $H$
638: denote the gauge boson and the Higgs boson, respectively. Next, we
639: shall analyze in detail the four classes of annihilation processes
640: and the resonance case.
641:
642: \subsection{$\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow f \bar{f}$}
643:
644: Let's start with the first case: $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$
645: annihilate into fermion pairs. There are two kinds of Feynman
646: diagrams at the tree level contributing to this case: S channel
647: gauge bosons exchanging and Higgs bosons exchanging diagrams.
648: Because of the absence of Majorana-type Yukawa couplings, there are
649: no the T channel diagrams' contribution. The first amplitude is
650: proportional to $e^2$, while the second is proportional to $\alpha
651: m_f/\sqrt{s}$. It is plausible that both diagrams have the same
652: contribution for $m\sim 500$ GeV. However, the squared amplitude of
653: the first diagram always includes a suppression factor of $1 - 4
654: m^2/s$, which leads to the $p$-wave annihilation.
655:
656: For the gauge bosons exchanging diagram, we can obtain
657: \begin{eqnarray}
658: \omega_{f\bar{f}} \approx E_1 E_2 \sigma_{f\bar{f}} v \approx
659: \frac{e^4}{4 \pi} \left ( 1- \frac{4 m^2}{s}\right ) \frac{9 s^2 -
660: 19 m_{Z_2}^2 s + 11 m_{Z_2}^4}{(s - m_{Z_2}^2)^2}\;.
661: % (22)
662: \end{eqnarray}
663: It is obvious that this is a $p$-wave annihilation process. With
664: the help of Eq.(\ref{Expand}), we have $(m \sigma_0)_{f\bar{f}} \leq
665: 2.2 \times 10^{-5} \; {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $m \geq 500$ GeV. It is 6
666: orders less than the lower bound $m \sigma_0 \geq 9.8 \; {\rm
667: GeV}^{-1}$. Although one may increase $m \sigma_0$ through lowering
668: $m$, $(m \sigma_0)_{f\bar{f}}$ is still far less than the lower
669: bound in Eq.(\ref{msigma}) even if $m = 100$ GeV. Therefore, this
670: process can not suppress the relic number density of $\delta_L^0 $
671: and ${\delta_L^0}^*$.
672:
673: For the Higgs bosons exchanging diagram, the exchanged particles
674: should be $h^0$ and $H_1^0$. As shown in Table I, the mass of
675: $H_1^0$ is far more than the light SM Higgs mass $m_{h^0}$. Due to
676: the suppression of propagator, we neglect the contribution from
677: $H_1^0$. For the $h^0$ case, the amplitude of Higgs bosons
678: exchanging process is proportional to $m_f$. Furthermore, we only
679: consider the top quark pair final states. The relevant cross section
680: is
681: \begin{eqnarray}
682: \omega_{top} \approx \frac{3}{16 \pi} \frac{(\alpha_1 m_t)^2 s}{(s -
683: m_{h^0}^2)^2} \;,
684: % (23)
685: \end{eqnarray}
686: which leads to a $s$-wave annihilation process. One may immediately
687: derive $(m \sigma_0)_{top} \leq 1.5 \times 10^{-5} \; {\rm
688: GeV}^{-1}$ for $m \geq 500$ GeV and $\alpha_1 =2$, which is far less
689: than the lower bound $m \sigma_0 \geq 0.13 \; {\rm GeV}^{-1}$.
690:
691:
692: \subsection{ $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V V$}
693:
694: \begin{figure}[h]\begin{center}
695: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{VV1.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
696: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{VV2.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
697: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{VV3.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
698: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{VV4.eps}
699: \end{center}
700: \caption{All possible Feynman diagrams for the annihilation
701: processes $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V V$, where
702: $\Delta_L$ may be $\delta_L^{0/0*}$ or $\delta_L^{\pm}$, and $H^0$
703: denotes $h^0$, $H_1^0$ and $H_2^0$. } \label{FDVV}\end{figure}
704:
705: In Fig. \ref{FDVV}, we show all possible Feynman diagrams for the
706: process $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V V$. There are
707: three kinds of Feynman diagrams Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c for the final
708: states $Z_1 Z_1$. Obviously, the amplitude of Fig. 1b is suppressed
709: by a factor of $\kappa/\sqrt{s}$ compared with the first one. Thus
710: we only consider the contribution from Fig. 1a and 1c. The total
711: annihilation cross section is found to be
712: \begin{eqnarray}
713: \omega_{Z_1 Z_1} \approx \frac{2 e^4 \csc^4 2 \theta_W}{\pi} \left[1
714: + \frac{4 m^2}{s} - \frac{8 m^2 (s - 2 m^2)}{s^2} y(x_1) \right]
715: % (24)
716: \end{eqnarray}
717: where the function $y(x_1)$ is defined by $y(x_1) \equiv {\rm
718: arctanh}(x_1)/ x_1$ and $x_1 = \sqrt{1-4 m^2/s}$. Then, we can
719: derive $(m \sigma_0)_{Z_1 Z_1} \leq 2.1 \times 10^{-5} \; {\rm
720: GeV}^{-1}$ for $m \geq 500$ GeV. It is obvious that this result is
721: not so large as to satisfy the requirement of Eq.(\ref{msigma}).
722:
723: According to the $Z_1 Z_1$ experience, we also calculate the other
724: processes. The corresponding cross sections are given by
725: \begin{eqnarray}
726: \omega_{W_1 W_1} & \approx & \frac{e^4}{32 \pi \sin^4 \theta_W }
727: \left[3 + \frac{28 m^2}{s}-
728: 32 \frac{m^2}{s} y(x_1) \right]\; ; \\
729: \omega_{W_2 W_2} & \approx & \frac{e^4}{128 \pi \sin^4 \theta_W
730: }\left(1-\frac{4m^2_{W_2}}{s}\right)^{1/2}
731: \bigg[\frac{4}{3}\frac{\sin^4\theta_W}{\cos^22\theta_W}\frac{(s-4m^2)(s-4m^2_{W_2})}{(s-m^2_{Z_2})^2}
732: \nonumber\\
733: &\times &\left(1+\frac{20m^2_{W_2}}{s}+12\frac{m^4_{W_2}}{s^2}\right) +\left(\frac{\rho_3 v_R^2}{m^2_{W_2}}\right)^2\frac{s^2-4m^2_{W_2}s+12m^4_{W_2}}{(s-m^2_{H_2^0})^2}\bigg];\\
734: \omega_{Z_1 Z_2} & \approx & \frac{e^4 \sec^4 \theta_W
735: }{4 \pi \cos 2 \theta_W} \left(1 - \frac{ m^2_{Z_2} }{s}\right) \nonumber\\
736: & \times & \frac{s^2 -3 m^2_{Z_2}s+ m^4_{Z_2}+
737: 4m^2s-2(s-2m^2)(4m^2-m^2_{Z_2})y(x_1)}{(s-m^2_{Z_2})^2}\;; \\
738: \omega_{Z_2 Z_2}& \approx & \frac{e^4 \tan^4\theta_W}{32 \pi \cos^2
739: 2\theta_W}\left(1 - \frac{4 m^2_{Z_2}}{s}\right)^{1/2} \nonumber\\
740: &\times & \bigg[ 4 + \frac{(4m^2-m^2_{Z_2})^2}{m^2s-4m^2
741: m^2_{Z_2}+m^4_{Z_2}}-4x_{\rho}[2+\frac{8m^2-s-2m^2_{Z_2}}{s-2m^2_{Z_2}}y(x_2)]
742: \nonumber\\
743: &-&\frac{16(2m^2-m^2_{Z_2})s-4m^2(16m^2-7m^2_{Z_2})}{(s-2m^2_{Z_2})^2}
744: y(x_2)
745: +(6-\frac{2s}{m^2_{Z_2}}+\frac{s^2}{2m^4_{Z_2}})x^2_{\rho}\bigg],
746: % (25)
747: \end{eqnarray}
748: where $x_{\rho}=(\cot^4\theta_w\rho_3v_R^2)/(s-m^2_{H_2^0})$ and
749: $x_2 \equiv \sqrt{(s-4m^2)(s-4m_{Z_2}^2)}/(s-2m_{Z_2}^2)$. These
750: cross sections have the same order as the $Z_1 Z_1$ case. However,
751: the thermally averaged annihilation cross sections of these
752: processes (except for $W_1 W_1$) are far less than the $Z_1 Z_1$
753: case with $m = 500$ GeV. Therefore, we don't analyze these processes
754: in detail.
755:
756:
757:
758: \subsection{$\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow H H / V H$}
759:
760: \begin{figure}[h]\begin{center}
761: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{HH1.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
762: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{HH2.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
763: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{HH3.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
764: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{HH4.eps}
765: \end{center}
766: \caption{All possible Feynman diagrams for the annihilation
767: processes $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow H H$.}
768: \label{FDHH}\end{figure}
769:
770: \begin{figure}[h]\begin{center}
771: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{HV1.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
772: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{HV2.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
773: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{HV3.eps}\hspace{0.8cm}
774: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{HV4.eps}
775: \end{center}
776: \caption{All possible Feynman diagrams are shown for the
777: annihilation processes $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V H$.
778: The first diagram only appears in the process
779: $\delta_L^0\delta_L^{0*}\rightarrow V A_1^0$}
780: \label{FDHV}\end{figure}
781:
782:
783: Let's now focus on the processes $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^*
784: \rightarrow H H / V H$. The relevant Feynman diagrams for $HH$ and
785: $HV$ are shown in Fig. \ref{FDHH} and Fig. \ref{FDHV}, respectively.
786: Since the dimensional scalar trilinear couplings enter extensively
787: into the above two annihilation processes, the electroweak scale
788: coupling $\alpha_1 \kappa$ in $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* h^0$ and
789: the right-handed scale coupling $\rho_3 v_R$ in $\delta_L^0
790: {\delta_L^0}^* H_2^0$ would make big difference in the $\delta_L^0
791: {\delta_L^0}^*\rightarrow H V$ processes according to our current
792: parameter setting. Considering the complexity of this model, we only
793: calculate the annihilation cross sections up to leading order (LO)
794: by omitting the next to leading order (NLO) contributions in terms
795: of the following three suppressing factors: (1) small VEV ratio
796: $\kappa/v_R$ and $\kappa/\sqrt{s}$ due to the big hierarchy in
797: symmetry breaking scale of the LR model. Since we have made the
798: approximation $\kappa^2/v_R^2\simeq 0$ thus here it is of course a
799: reasonable power counting rule to pick out the LO processes against
800: the NLO ones; (2) gauge coupling suppression $e^2$; (3) $p$-wave
801: factor $1-4m^2/s$ due to large suppression in the integration of
802: initial energy of dark matter pair.
803:
804: \begin{table}
805: \begin{center}
806: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|c||c|l|c|}
807: \hline Process & Amplitude & Order & Process & Amplitude & Order\\ \hline
808: $h^0h^0$ & $i\alpha_1\left(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right)$ & 1 &$h^0Z_1$ &$4ie\alpha_1\csc2\theta_W\kappa P_{TU}$ &$\frac{e^2}{x_f}\frac{\kappa^2}{s}$\\
809: $h^0H_1^0$ & $2i\alpha_2\left(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right)$ & 1 &$h^0Z_2^0$ & $2ie\alpha_1\frac{t_W}{\sqrt{c_{2W}}}\kappa P_{TU}$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}\frac{\kappa^2}{s}$ \\
810: $H_1^0H_1^0$ & $i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)\left(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right)$ & 1 & $H_1^0Z_1$ & $8ie\alpha_2\csc _{2W}\kappa P_{TU}$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}\frac{\kappa^2}{s}$\\
811: $A_1^0A_1^0$ & $i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)\left(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right)$ & 1 & $H_1^0Z_2$ & $4ie\alpha_2\frac{t_W}{\sqrt{c_{2W}}}\kappa P_{TU}$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}\frac{\kappa^2}{s}$\\
812: $A_1^0H_1^0$ & $et_W\left[c_{2W}P_{Z_1}-t_WP_{Z_2}/2\right]$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}$ &$A_1^0Z_1$ & $4ie\alpha_2\csc _{2W}\kappa P^H_{43}$ & $1$\\
813: $H_2^0H_2^0$ & $i\rho_3\left(2-\frac{6\rho_1v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{t-m^2}-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{u-m^2}\right)$ & 1 & $A_1^0Z_2$ & $-4ie\alpha_2\csc _{2W}\sqrt{c_{2W}}\kappa P^H_{43}$ & $(\frac{\kappa}{v_R})^2$\\
814: $h^0H_2^0$ & $-i\rho_3\alpha_1\kappa v_R\left(\frac{1}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}+\frac{1}{t-m^2}+\frac{1}{u-m^2}\right)$ & $(\frac{\kappa}{v_R})^2$ & $H_2^0Z_1$ &$4ie\rho_3\csc _{2W}v_R P_{TU}$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}$\\
815: $H_1^0H_2^0$ & $-2i\rho_3\alpha_2\kappa v_R\left(\frac{1}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}+\frac{1}{t-m^2}+\frac{1}{u-m^2}\right)$ & $(\frac{\kappa}{v_R})^2$ & $H_2^0Z_2$ & $2ie\rho_3\frac{t_W}{\sqrt{c_{2W}}}v_R P_{TU}$ & $\frac{e^2}{x_f}$\\
816: $H_1^+H_1^-$ & $i\alpha_1\left[1-(1+\frac{\alpha_3}{\alpha_1})\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right]$ & 1& $H_1^+W_1^-$ & $-2ie \alpha_2\csc _{2W}\kappa P^H_{43}$ & 1\\
817: $\delta_R^{++}\delta_R^{--}$ & $i\rho_3\left[1-\frac{2(\rho_1+2\rho_2)v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}-\frac{\rho_4}{\rho_3}\frac{8\rho_4v_R^2}{t-m^2}\right]$ & 1& $H_1^+W_2^-$ & $-2ie\alpha_2\csc _{2W}\kappa P^h_{43}$ & $(\frac{\kappa}{v_R})^2$\\ \hline
818: \end{tabular}
819: \end{center} \caption{The amplitude for $HH/HV$ final states,
820: where $c_W=\cos \theta_W$, $t_W=\tan \theta_W$, etc. We also
821: estimate the order of corresponding annihilation cross sections.
822: }\label{AMP}
823: \end{table}
824:
825:
826:
827:
828:
829: In this subsection, we apply the above three suppressing factors to
830: make an explicit demonstration of the LO processes, then give the
831: convincing dark matter annihilation cross sections. The LO amplitude
832: for each possible annihilation process is listed in Table \ref{AMP}.
833: The notations are as follows: $p_{1,2}$ denotes the momentum of the
834: dark matter pair, while $p_{3,4}$ is the momentum of the final
835: states, $\epsilon$ is the polar vector of gauge boson:
836: \begin{eqnarray}
837: P_{Z_{1,2}}&=&\frac{(p_1-p_2)\cdot(p_4-p_3)}{s-m^2_{Z_{1,2}}};
838: \hspace{0.4cm}P^{h,H}_{43}=\frac{p_4\cdot
839: \epsilon_(p_3)}{s-m^2_{h^0,H_1^0}};
840: \hspace{0.4cm}P_{TU}=\frac{p_2\cdot
841: \epsilon(p_3)}{t-m^2}-\frac{p_1\cdot \epsilon(p_3)}{u-m^2}.
842: \end{eqnarray}
843: Here we only consider the cross sections with amplitude order 1. In
844: terms of Table \ref{AMP}, nine LO annihilation cross sections are
845: listed in Table \ref{cs}, where
846: $A=1-\frac{2(\rho_1+2\rho_2)}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}$ and
847: $B=\frac{32\rho_4^2}{\rho_3} \frac{v_R^2}{s-2
848: m_{\delta_R^{\pm\pm}}^2}y(x_3)+ \frac{64\rho_4^4}{\rho_3^2}
849: \frac{v_R^4}{s m^2-4m^2 m^2_{\delta_R^{\pm\pm}}+
850: m^4_{\delta_R^{\pm\pm}}}$ with $x_3=\sqrt{(s-4
851: m^2)(s-4m^2_{\delta_{R}^{\pm\pm}})}
852: /(s-2m^2_{\delta_{R}^{\pm\pm}})$;
853: $a=2-\frac{3m^2_{H_2^0}}{s-m^2_{H_2^0}},b=4m^2+m^2_{H_2^0},
854: c=s-2m^2_{H_2^0},d=\sqrt{sm^2-4m^2m^2_{H_2^0}+m^4_{H_2^0}}$ and $
855: x_4=\sqrt{(s-4 m^2)(s-4m^2_{H_2^0})} /(s-2m^2_{H_2^0})$. We find
856: that these processes fail to provide enough large cross sections.
857: For $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow A_1^0 Z_1$ and $H_1^\pm
858: W_1^\mp$, one can easily obtain $m \sigma_0 \lesssim \alpha_2^2/(16
859: \pi m)$, which is far less than the required lower bound $0.13 \;
860: {\rm GeV}^{-1}$. Since the other processes have the similar forms,
861: we take the process $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow h^0
862: H_1^0$ as an example to illustrate the main features of this kind of
863: processes. One can immediately derive
864: \begin{eqnarray}
865: (m \sigma_0)_{h^0 H_1^0} = \frac{\alpha_2^2}{8 \pi v_R}
866: \sqrt{\frac{1}{\varepsilon \rho_1}- \frac{1}{4(\varepsilon
867: \rho_1)^2}} \left( \frac{\varepsilon -2}{2 \varepsilon -1} \right)^2
868: \;,
869: % (23)
870: \end{eqnarray}
871: where we have used $\alpha_3 =2$. It is obvious that the maximum
872: value can be obtained when $\varepsilon \rho_1=0.5$. Varying
873: $\varepsilon$, we may derive $(m \sigma_0)_{h^0 H_1^0} \leq
874: 3.5\times 10^{-4} \; {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $\alpha_2 = 2$. Therefore,
875: we don't discuss this class of processes in detail.
876:
877: \begin{table}
878: \begin{center}
879: \begin{tabular}{|c|l||c|l|}
880: \hline Process & $4 E_1E_2\sigma v $ & Process & $4 E_1E_2 \sigma v$
881: \\ \hline
882: $h^0h^0$ & $\frac{\alpha_1^2}{16\pi}(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2})^2$ & $H_1^+H_1^-$ & $\frac{\alpha_1^2}{8\pi}\left[1-(1+\frac{\alpha_3}{\alpha_1})\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2}\right]^2$ \\
883: $h^0H_1^0$ & $\frac{\alpha_2^2}{2\pi}(1-\frac{m^2_{H_1^0}}{s})^{1/2}(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2})^2$ & $\delta_R^{++}\delta_R^{--}$ & $\frac{\rho_3^2}{8\pi}(1-\frac{4m^2_{\delta_R^{\pm\pm}}}{s})^{1/2}(A^2+B)$ \\
884: $H_1^0H_1^0$ & $\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)^2}{16\pi}(1-\frac{4m^2_{H_1^0}}{s})^{1/2}(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2})^2$ & $A_1^0Z_1$ & $\frac{\alpha_2^2}{4\pi}(1-\frac{m^2_{A_1^0}}{s})^{5/2}$ \\
885: $A_1^0A_1^0$ & $\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)^2}{16\pi}(1-\frac{4m^2_{H_1^0}}{s})^{1/2}(1-\frac{\rho_3v_R^2}{s-2\rho_1v_R^2})^2$ & $H_1^+W_1^-$ & $\frac{\alpha_2^2}{4\pi}(1-\frac{m^2_{H_1^{\pm}}}{s})^{5/2}$\\
886: $H_2^0H_2^0$ & $ \frac{\rho_3^2}{16 \pi} \left [ a^2+\frac{b^2}{2
887: d^2}+\frac{2b}{c}(2a+\frac{b}{c})y(x_4) \right ]$ & &
888: \\\hline
889: \end{tabular}
890: \end{center} \caption{The annihilation cross sections for the leading order processes. }\label{cs}
891: \end{table}
892:
893:
894: \subsection{The resonance case}
895:
896: As pointed out in the previous discussion, the method of calculating
897: the effective thermally averaged annihilation cross section $\langle
898: \sigma_{eff} v \rangle$ is not valid for the resonance case
899: \cite{CO}. Here we numerically solve the Boltzmann equation
900: Eq.(\ref{BOL}), which can be reexpressed as \cite{Gondolo}
901: \begin{eqnarray}
902: \frac{dY}{dx} & = & -\frac{x}{H_{x=1} {\bf s}(x)} \gamma_{eff}
903: \left( \frac{Y^2}{Y^2_{\rm eq}}-1\right) \ ,
904: % (D1)
905: \end{eqnarray}
906: where $H_{x=1}$ is the Hubble parameter evaluated at $T = m$ and
907: ${\bf s(x)}$ is the entropy density given by
908: \begin{eqnarray} H_{x=1} = \sqrt{\frac{4 \pi^3 g_{\ast}}{45}}\,
909: \frac{m^2}{M_{Pl}}\;, \quad {\bf s} (x)=\frac{2 \pi^2 g_{\ast}}{45}
910: \frac{m^3}{x^3}\; .
911: % (D2)
912: \end{eqnarray}
913: $Y \equiv n/{\bf s}$ is the ratio of the total particle number
914: density $n$ to the entropy density ${\bf s}$. The equilibrium number
915: density $Y_{\rm eq}$ reads
916: \begin{eqnarray}
917: Y_{\rm eq}(x)=\frac{45}{4\pi^4}\frac{g_{eff}}{g_{\ast}} x^2
918: K_2\left(x \right)\,.
919: % (D3)
920: \end{eqnarray}
921: In fact, $\gamma_{eff}$ is the reaction density defined by
922: \begin{eqnarray}
923: \gamma_{eff} \equiv n_{eq}^2 \langle \sigma_{eff} v \rangle =
924: \frac{m^4}{64\,\pi^4 x} \int_{4}^{\infty}
925: \hat{\sigma}_{eff}(z)\,\sqrt{z}\,K_1(x\,\sqrt{z})\,dz\,,
926: % (D8)
927: \end{eqnarray}
928: with
929: \begin{eqnarray}
930: \hat{\sigma}_{eff}= g_{eff}^2 4 E_1 E_2 \sigma_{eff} v \sqrt{1-4/z}
931: \;, \label{fac}
932: % (D8)
933: \end{eqnarray}
934: where $z =s /m^2$, $K_1(x)$ and $K_2(x)$ are the modified Bessel
935: functions.
936:
937:
938: \begin{table}
939: \begin{center}
940: \begin{tabular}{|l|c||l|c|}
941: \hline $\rho_1 = 1.0$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}$ & $\rho_1 = 0.1$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}$
942: \\\hline
943: $\alpha_1 = 0.01$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=6.4 \times 10^{-13}$ & $\alpha_1 = 0.01$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=1.6 \times 10^{-12}$\\
944: $\alpha_1 = 0.1$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=6.5 \times 10^{-13}$ & $\alpha_1 = 0.1$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=1.4 \times 10^{-12}$\\
945: $\alpha_1 = 1.0$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=1.1 \times 10^{-12}$ & $\alpha_1 = 1.0$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=3.6 \times 10^{-12}$\\
946: $\alpha_1 = 2.0$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=2.5 \times 10^{-12}$ & $\alpha_1 = 2.0$ & $n_{\delta_L^0}=1.2 \times 10^{-11}$\\\hline
947: \end{tabular}
948: \end{center}
949: \caption{The relic number density $n_{\delta_L^0}$ in terms of
950: different $\alpha_1$ and $\rho_1$ for the $H_2^0$ case.}
951: \label{Resonant}
952: \end{table}
953:
954:
955: In our scenario, the exchanged particles may be $Z_1$, $Z_2$,
956: $h^0$, $H_1^0$ and $H_2^0$. It is obvious that the case of
957: exchanging gauge bosons $Z_1$ or $Z_2$ is a $p$-wave annihilation
958: process. If the exchanged particle is $H_1^0$, the corresponding
959: cross section will be suppressed by $\kappa^2/v_R^2$. For the $h^0$
960: case, the resonant condition $2 m \approx m_{h^0}$ implies that the
961: final states must be the Fermi pairs. In addition, the previous
962: analysis indicates that the maximal cross section might be from the
963: $H_2^0$ exchanging process. Therefore, we study the $h^0$ and
964: $H_2^0$ cases in this subsection.
965:
966: Firstly we consider the $H_2^0$ case. Due to the factor
967: $\sqrt{1-4/z}$ in Eq. (\ref{fac}), we take $m^2_{H_2^0}/m^2 = 4.1$
968: (namely $\varepsilon = 0.4878$). At this point, $\gamma_{eff}$
969: becomes more larger than the $m^2_{H_2^0}/m^2 = 4$ case. Then we
970: take $\rho_1 = 1$ ($\rho_3 = 2.98$). At this moment, $\delta_L^0$
971: and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ may annihilate into $h^0 h^0$, $h^0 H_1^0$ and
972: $W_2 W_2$. Since $h^0 h^0$ and $h^0 H_1^0$ have the similar form,
973: the key quantity is $\alpha_2^2 + \alpha_1^2/8$ for our calculation.
974: Without loss of generality, one may take different values for
975: $\alpha_1$ and require $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2$. The final results for
976: different $\alpha_1$ have been shown in Table \ref{Resonant}. In
977: addition, we also calculate the $\rho_1 = 0.1$ case, and list the
978: corresponding results in Table \ref{Resonant}. If $\rho_1 = 0.1$,
979: the final states have to be two SM Higgs bosons. In views of Table
980: \ref{Resonant}, we may find that the $H_2^0$ case fails to suppress
981: the relic number density of $\delta_L^0 $ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$.
982:
983:
984: \begin{figure}[h]\begin{center}
985: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Region.eps}
986: \end{center}
987: \caption{Numerical illustration of the relic number density
988: $n_{\delta_L^0}$ as a function of $2 m / m_{h^0} $ near a resonance,
989: where $m_{h^0} = 120$ GeV has typically been taken. The dashed line
990: denotes the present experimental upper bound on $n_{\delta_L^0}$.}
991: \end{figure}
992:
993:
994: Now we assume the SM Higgs mass $m_{h^0} = 120$ GeV in the $h^0$
995: case. Furthermore, one may obtain $m = 59.3$ GeV ($\varepsilon
996: \rho_1 = 3.5 \times 10^{-5}$) from $m^2_{H_2^0}/m^2 = 4.1$. Because
997: of $m < 100$ GeV, the bound in Eq.(\ref{n}) is not valid. For $m =
998: 59.3$ GeV, we take $\sigma_{n}^{exp} \leq 4.6 \times 10^{-44} \,
999: {\rm cm^2}$ \cite{CDMS} and derive the corresponding bound
1000: \begin{eqnarray}
1001: n_{\delta_L^0} \leq 1.1 \times 10^{-13} \;.
1002: % (23)
1003: \end{eqnarray}
1004: In this case, $\delta_L^0 $ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ mainly annihilate
1005: into the bottom quark pair. The annihilation cross section is given
1006: by
1007: \begin{eqnarray}
1008: (4 E_1 E_2 \sigma v)_{h^0} \simeq \frac{3}{4 \pi} \frac{\alpha_1^2
1009: m_b^2 s}{(s-m_{h^0}^2)^2+m_{h^0}^2 \Gamma_{h^0}^2}
1010: % (23)
1011: \end{eqnarray}
1012: where $m_b$ is the bottom quark mass and $\Gamma_{h^0} \simeq 3
1013: m_{h^0} m_b^2 /(8 \pi \kappa^2)$ is the decay width of $h^0$. One
1014: may obtain $n_{\delta_L^0} = 1.2 \times 10^{-15}$ for $\alpha_1 =2$.
1015: This wonderful result indicates that our scenario may be consistent
1016: with the direct dark matter search bound. To illustrate, we plot the
1017: relic number density $n_{\delta_L^0}$ versus the dark matter mass
1018: $m$ in Fig. 4, where all annihilation channels have been considered.
1019: Using the results from CERN LEP-II, Datta and Raychaudhuri have
1020: derived $m \geq 55.4$ GeV \cite{Datta}. To show the $h^0$ resonance
1021: region, we choose 48 GeV $\leq m \leq 72$ GeV ($0.8 \leq 2m/m_{h^0}
1022: \leq 1.2$) in Fig. 4. The peak around $2m/m_{h^0} = 0.83$ in Fig. 4
1023: is due to the competition between $h^0$ and $Z_1$ resonances. For
1024: $m_{h^0} = 120$ GeV, we find that $56 {\rm GeV} \lesssim m \lesssim
1025: 60 {\rm GeV}$ can satisfy the requirement $n_{\delta_L^0} \leq 1.1
1026: \times 10^{-13}$. At this moment, one may obtain
1027: $\Omega_{\delta_L^0} h^2 \lesssim 6.3 \times 10^{-7}$, which is far
1028: less than the total dark matter density $\Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.111 \pm
1029: 0.006$ \cite{PDG}.
1030:
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035: \section{Two Higgs bi-doublets model}
1036:
1037: Motivated by the general two Higgs doublet model as a model for
1038: spontaneous CP violation, one may simply extend the one Higgs
1039: bi-doublet LR model to a two Higgs bi-doublets LR model with
1040: spontaneous P and CP violation \cite{Wu}. Besides one left-handed
1041: Higgs triplet $\Delta_L$ (3,1,2) and one right-handed Higgs triplet
1042: $\Delta_R$ (1,3,2), this model consists of two Higgs bi-doublets
1043: $\phi$ (2,2,0) and $\chi$ (2,2,0), which can be written as
1044: \begin{eqnarray}
1045: \phi = \left ( \matrix{ \phi_1^0 & \phi_1^+ \cr \phi_2^- & \phi_2^0
1046: \cr } \right ) ; \; \chi = \left ( \matrix{ \chi_1^0 & \chi_1^+
1047: \cr \chi_2^- & \chi_2^0 \cr } \right ) \;.
1048: % (1)
1049: \end{eqnarray}
1050: The most general Yukawa interaction for quarks is given by
1051: \begin{eqnarray}
1052: -{\cal L}_Y = \overline{Q_L} \left ( Y_q \phi +\tilde{Y}_q
1053: \tilde{\phi} + F_q \chi +\tilde{F}_q \tilde{\chi} \right) Q_R \; ,
1054: % (4)
1055: \end{eqnarray}
1056: where $Q_{L,R} = (u_{L,R}, d_{L,R})^T$. Parity P symmetry requires
1057: $Y_q$, $\tilde{Y}_q$, $F_q$ and $\tilde{F}_q$ are hermitian
1058: matrices. When both P and CP are required to be broken down
1059: spontaneously, all the Yukawa couplings matrices are real symmetric.
1060: After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, two Higgs bi-doublets can
1061: have the following vacuum expectation values
1062: \begin{eqnarray}
1063: \langle \phi \rangle = \left ( \matrix{ \kappa_1/\sqrt{2} & 0 \cr 0
1064: & \kappa_2/\sqrt{2} \cr } \right ) ; \; \langle \chi \rangle =
1065: \left ( \matrix{ w_1/\sqrt{2} & 0 \cr 0 & w_2/\sqrt{2} \cr } \right
1066: )\;,
1067: % (2)
1068: \end{eqnarray}
1069: where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, $w_1$ and $w_2$ are in general
1070: complex. Then we may obtain the following quark mass matrices
1071: \begin{eqnarray}
1072: M_u &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_q \kappa_1 + \tilde{Y}_q \kappa_2 + F_q
1073: w_1 + \tilde{F}_q w_2) \;; \nonumber \\ M_d &=&
1074: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_q \kappa_2 + \tilde{Y}_q \kappa_1 + F_q w_2 +
1075: \tilde{F}_q w_1) \;.
1076: % (2)
1077: \end{eqnarray}
1078:
1079: In the two Higgs bi-doublets model, the stringent constraints from
1080: the low energy phenomenology can be significantly relaxed. In Ref.
1081: \cite{Wu}, the authors calculate the constraints from neural $K$
1082: meson mass difference $\Delta m_{K}$ and demonstrate that a
1083: right-handed gauge boson $W_2$ contribution in box-diagrams with
1084: mass around 600 GeV is allowed due to a cancelation caused by a
1085: light charged Higgs boson with a mass range $150 - 300$ GeV.
1086: Therefore, we take $v_R \approx 2$ TeV instead of the previous $v_R
1087: = 10$ TeV for this section. It is worthwhile to stress that our
1088: previous estimation is still right for this case except for the
1089: process $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow h^0 H_1^0$. $(m
1090: \sigma_0)_{h^0 H_1^0}$ in Eq.(30) will be about 5 times larger than
1091: that in the $v_R = 10$ TeV case, which does not affect our
1092: conclusion.
1093:
1094: Since there are two Higgs bi-doublets, we can give more dark matter
1095: annihilation processes for $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow H
1096: H$ and $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V H$. In this model,
1097: one may obtain three light neutral Higgs bosons and a pair of light
1098: charged Higgs bosons \cite{Wang}. The other Higgs bosons' masses are
1099: related to $v_R$. Although the annihilation cross section might be
1100: doubled or even increased by several times, it is still at least 10
1101: times less than the direct dark matter search bound.
1102:
1103: An significant advantage of the two Higgs bi-doublets model is that
1104: the Yukawa couplings may become very large. In view of Eq. (41),
1105: one can explicitly understand this feature. For example, we require
1106: the couplings $Y_q$ and $\tilde{Y}_q$ are very large when $w_1 \gg
1107: \kappa_1 \gg \kappa_2 \approx w_2$. Then one may obtain more larger
1108: annihilation cross section for the $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^*
1109: \rightarrow f \bar{f}$ process than Eq.(23). For illustration, we
1110: take the maximal annihilation cross section for each quark pair
1111: final states
1112: \begin{eqnarray}
1113: 4 E_1 E_2 \sigma v \sim \frac{3}{8 \pi} \frac{(\alpha_i Y_q w_1)^2
1114: s}{(s - m_{h}^2)^2} \;,
1115: % (23)
1116: \end{eqnarray}
1117: where $ m_{h}$ denotes the mass of a light Higgs boson which comes
1118: from $\phi_1^0$. For $\alpha_i =1$, $w_1 \approx 246$ GeV and $m
1119: =100$ GeV, $Y_q \gtrsim 4.3$ can be obtained from Eq.(\ref{msigma})
1120: when we take $2m/m_h =0.8$ and consider all quark final states but
1121: top quark. At this moment, we must consider the light Higgs $h$
1122: contribution to the direct dark matter detection experiments. The
1123: WIMP-nucleon cross section by exchanging $h$ is given by
1124: \begin{eqnarray}
1125: \sigma_n = \frac{M^2(n)}{2 \pi} \left (\frac{\alpha_i}{m
1126: m_h^2}\right)^2 f^2 M_n^2
1127: % (23)
1128: \end{eqnarray}
1129: where $f \sim 0.02 Y_q w_1/m_u$ \cite{DM}. Using the above
1130: parameter setting, we may derive $\sigma_n \gtrsim 6.1 \times
1131: 10^{-35} \; {\rm cm}^2$, which is far more than the $Z_1$ exchanging
1132: case of Eq.(13). The more larger $Y_q$ is, the more larger
1133: $\sigma_n$ is. Therefore, we can not give the desired relic number
1134: density through increasing the Yukawa couplings.
1135:
1136: Now we focus on the resonance case. For the $H_2^0$ exchanging case,
1137: the results in Table \ref{Resonant} can be increased by about 5
1138: times because of $v_R \approx 2$ TeV. On the other hand, more final
1139: states would generally increase the partial width
1140: $\Gamma_{H_2^0\rightarrow HH}$. Namely the case of more final states
1141: is equivalent to enhancing $\alpha_1$, which does no good for larger
1142: annihilation cross section as shown in Table \ref{Resonant}. For the
1143: $h^0$ case, we may obtain the same conclusion as the one Higgs
1144: bi-doublet case.
1145:
1146:
1147: \section{Summary and Comments}
1148:
1149: In the Left-Right symmetric model with one Higgs bi-doublet, we have
1150: demonstrated that the cold dark matter constraints should be
1151: considered in a specific scenario in which the so-called VEV-seesaw
1152: problem can be naturally solved. In such a scenario, we find that
1153: $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ are two degenerate and stable
1154: particles. To avoid the conflict with the direct dark matter
1155: detection experiments, we obtain the relic number density
1156: $n_{\delta_L^0} \leq 4.8 \times 10^{-14}$, which implies that the
1157: two particles can't dominate all the dark matter. Subsequently, the
1158: lower bounds $m \sigma_0 \geq 0.13 \; {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ and $m
1159: \sigma_0 \geq 9.8 \; {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ have been derived for the
1160: $s$-wave annihilation and the $p$-wave annihilation, respectively.
1161: In this paper, we examine whether our scenario can provide very
1162: large annihilation cross sections so as to give the desired relic
1163: abundance. We analyze in detail four classes of annihilation
1164: processes: $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow f \bar{f}$,
1165: $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow V V$, $\delta_L^0
1166: {\delta_L^0}^* \rightarrow H H$ and $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^0}^*
1167: \rightarrow V H$. However, our analysis shows that this scenario
1168: fails to suppress the relic number density of $\delta_L^0$ and
1169: ${\delta_L^0}^*$ except for the resonance case \footnote{It needs to
1170: be mentioned that $\delta_L^0$ and ${\delta_L^0}^*$ may be the
1171: candidate of the cold dark matter when we use the MOND to explain
1172: the rotation curves of disk galaxies.}. For the $h^0$ resonance
1173: case, we obtain $\Omega_{\delta_L^0} h^2 \lesssim 6.3 \times
1174: 10^{-7}$, which is far less than the total dark matter density
1175: $\Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.111 \pm 0.006$. Finally, we discuss the two
1176: Higgs bi-doublet model from the following three aspects: (1) $v_R
1177: \approx 2$ TeV; (2) more final states; (3) large Yukawa couplings.
1178: It turns out that our previous conclusions can be generalized to the
1179: two Higgs bi-doublet model.
1180:
1181: In recent years, several authors have shown that it is far from
1182: natural for the minimal LR model to generate spontaneous CP
1183: violation with natural-sized Higgs potential parameters
1184: \cite{Mohapatra,VEV,Barenboim}. It is of importance for us to
1185: comment on some more general LR models with one Higgs bi-doublet
1186: \cite{Langacker,Bernabeu,Pos, Frere, Kie, Ji}. The differences
1187: mainly come from the complexity of Higgs potential parameter
1188: $\alpha_2$ and Yukawa couplings. We stress that our conclusion in
1189: Sec V could be generalized to these more general cases without any
1190: dramatic alternation because the gauge and Higgs sectors are
1191: basically the same.
1192:
1193:
1194:
1195: \acknowledgments{This work was supported by the National Nature
1196: Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the grant 10475105 and
1197: 10491306. W. L. Guo is supported by the China Postdoctoral Science
1198: Foundation and the K. C. Wong Education Foundation (Hong Kong).}
1199:
1200:
1201: \appendix
1202:
1203: \section{scalar and scalar-gauge trilinear and quartic Couplings}\label{Appendix.A}
1204:
1205: We intend to calculate the cross section to the leading order for
1206: each process of dark matter annihilation. We first work in the
1207: framework of simple left-right symmetric model with one Higgs
1208: bi-doublet and one pair of LR triplets. To simplify our calculation,
1209: we take the decoupling limit in which $\kappa^2/v_R^2\simeq 0$ where
1210: $\kappa^2=|\kappa_1|^2+|\kappa_2|^2$ denotes the EWSB scale. The
1211: VEVs of the Higgs bi-doublet are required to satisfy the low energy
1212: phenomenology constraint $\kappa_2/\kappa_1\leq m_b/m_t$, which may
1213: produce correct quark masses, small quark mixing angles and the
1214: suppression of flavor-changing neutral currents \cite{Ecker,J.-M.
1215: Frere,M.Raidal,Ball}. For simplicity, we take $\kappa_2\simeq 0$
1216: which is a reasonable approximation at the leading order since
1217: $\kappa_2/\kappa_1$ is now around $10^{-2}$. Actually the limit
1218: $\kappa_2\rightarrow 0$ brings additional advantage that the vacuum
1219: CP phase $\theta_2$ could be taken zero safely without hampering
1220: the estimation. These approximations could largely simplify our
1221: calculation.
1222:
1223: \begin{table}
1224: \begin{center}
1225: \begin{tabular}{|c|l||c|c||c|l|}
1226: \hline Interaction & Coupling / $v_R$ & Interaction & Coupling / $\kappa$ & Interaction & Coupling \\ \hline
1227: $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* H_2^0$ & $\rho_3$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* h^0$ & $\alpha_1$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* h^0h^0$ & $\alpha_1$\\
1228: $\delta_L^0\delta_L^{--}\delta_R^{++}$ & $2\sqrt{2}\rho_4$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* H_1^0$ & $2\alpha_2$ &$\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* h^0H_1^0$& $2\alpha_2$ \\
1229: $H_2^0h^0h^0$ & $\alpha_1$ & $h^0h^0h^0$ & $6\lambda_1$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* H_1^0H_1^0$ & $\alpha_1+\alpha_3$ \\
1230: $H_2^0H_1^0h^0$ & $2\alpha_2$ &$H_1^0h^0h^0$ & $6\lambda_4$& $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* A_1^0A_1^0$ & $\alpha_1+\alpha_3$ \\
1231: $H_2^0H_1^0H_1^0$ & $\alpha_1+\alpha_3$ & $H_1^0H_1^0h^0$ & $2\tilde\lambda$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* H_1^+H_1^-$ & $\alpha_1$ \\
1232: $H_2^0A_1^0A_1^0$ & $\alpha_1+\alpha_3$ & $H_1^0H_1^0H_1^0$ & $6\lambda_4 $ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* H_2^0H_2^0$ & $2\rho_3$\\
1233: $H_2^0H_1^+H_1^-$ & $\alpha_1+\alpha_3$ & $H_1^0A_1^0H_1^0$ & $2\lambda_4$ & $\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* \delta_R^{++}\delta_R^{--}$ & $\rho_3$ \\
1234: $H_2^0H_2^0H_2^0$ & $6\rho_1$ & $h^0A_1^0A_1^0$ & $2\tilde\lambda'$ & &\\
1235: $H_2^0\delta_R^{++}\delta_R^{--}$ & $2(\rho_1+2\rho_2)$ & $H_2^0H_2^0h^0$ & $\alpha_1$ & & \\
1236: & & $H_2^0H_2^0H_1^0$ & $2\alpha_2$ & & \\\hline
1237: \end{tabular}
1238: \end{center}
1239: \caption{The relevant trilinear and quartic scalar couplings, where
1240: the dimensional trilinear couplings with different scales $v_R$ and
1241: $\kappa$ are separated shown separately in two columns.
1242: $\tilde\lambda=\lambda_1+4\lambda_2+2\lambda_3$ and
1243: $\tilde\lambda'=\lambda_1-4\lambda_2+2\lambda_3$ }
1244: \label{triquarcpl}
1245: \end{table}
1246:
1247:
1248: The relevant scalar trilinear couplings and quartic couplings under
1249: the unitary gauge are shown in Table \ref{triquarcpl}. Here we write
1250: out the scalar-gauge interactions:
1251: \begin{eqnarray}
1252: \mathcal{L}_{\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* VV}&=&\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* (gW_{3L}-g'B)^2+g^2\delta_L^0 {\delta_L^{0}}^* W_L^+W_L^-\label{DLVV};\\
1253: \mathcal{L}_{\delta_L^0\delta_LV}&=&-ig(\delta_L^0\partial\delta_L^--\delta_L^-\partial\delta_L^0)W_L^++i\delta_0\partial {\delta_L^{0}}^* (gW_{3L}-g'B)+h.c. ;\\
1254: \mathcal{L}_{HVV}&=&g^2v_R\left\{H_2^0[(gW_{3R}-g'B)(gW_{3R}-g'B)+W_R^+W_R^-]+(-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta_R^{--}W_R^+W_R^++h.c.)\right\}\nonumber\\
1255: &+&g^2k\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}H_1^{-}(W_{3R}W_L^+-W_{3L}W_R^+)-\frac{1}{2}(H_1^0+iA_1^0)W_L^-W_R^++h.c.\nonumber\\
1256: &+&\frac{1}{4}h^0[(W_{3L}-W_{3R})(W_{3L}-W_{3R})+2(W_L^+W_L^-+W_R^+W_R^-)]\bigg\}\label{HVV};\\
1257: \mathcal{L}_{HHV}&=&\frac{ig}{2}H_1^-\partial
1258: H_1^+(W_{3L}+W_{3R})-i\delta_R^{++}\partial\delta_R^{--}(gW_{3R}+g'B)
1259: -ig(\delta_R^{--}\partial\delta_R^+-\delta_R^+\partial\delta_R^{--})W_R^+\nonumber\\
1260: &+&\frac{ig}{2}\left[(H_1^-\partial H_1^0-H_1^0\partial H_1^-)W_L^++(h^0\partial H_1^--H_1^-\partial h^0)W_R^+\right]\nonumber\\
1261: &+&\frac{g}{2}\left[(A_1^0\partial H_1^--H_1^-\partial A_1^0)W_R^++h.c.\right.\nonumber\\
1262: &+&\left.(H_1^0\partial A_1^0-A_1^0\partial
1263: H_1^0)(W_{3L}-W_{3R})\right]\label{HHV},
1264: \end{eqnarray}
1265: where the connection between weak eigenstates $(W_{3L},W_{3R},B)$
1266: and physical states $(Z_1,Z_2,A)$ are demonstrated by the following
1267: orthogonal transformation at the leading order:
1268: \begin{eqnarray}
1269: \left(
1270: \begin{array}{c}
1271: W_{3L} \\
1272: W_{3R} \\
1273: B \\
1274: \end{array}
1275: \right) &=&\left(
1276: \begin{array}{ccc}
1277: c_W & 0 & s_W \\
1278: -s_W t_W & \sqrt{c_{2W}}\sec_W & s_W \\
1279: -\sqrt{c_{2W}}t_W & -t_W & \sqrt{c_{2W}} \\
1280: \end{array}
1281: \right)
1282: \left(
1283: \begin{array}{c}
1284: Z_1 \\
1285: Z_2 \\
1286: A \\
1287: \end{array}
1288: \right) \; .
1289: \end{eqnarray}
1290: The $SU(2)_{L,R}$ gauge coupling $g$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$ coupling $g'$
1291: are related to $U(1)_{EM}$ gauge coupling $e$:
1292: \begin{eqnarray}
1293: g=\frac{e}{\sin\theta_W},\hspace{1cm}g'=\frac{e}{\sqrt{\cos2\theta_W}}
1294: \;.
1295: \end{eqnarray}
1296: Here our conventions are the same as those in Ref. \cite{DUKA}.
1297:
1298:
1299: \newpage
1300:
1301: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1302:
1303: \bibitem{LR} J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974); R. N.
1304: Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 566 (1975); G.
1305: Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 12}, 1502 (1975).
1306:
1307: \bibitem{SCPV} T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 1226 (1973); Phys. Rep. {\bf 9}, 143 (1974).
1308:
1309:
1310: \bibitem{Mohapatra} A. Masiero, R. N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B192}, 66 (1981). J. Basecq,
1311: J. Liu, J. Milutinovic and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B272},
1312: 145 (1986).
1313:
1314: \bibitem{VEV} N. G. Deshpande, J. F. Gunion, B. Kayser and F.
1315: Olness, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 837 (1991).
1316:
1317: \bibitem{Barenboim}G. Barenboim, M. Gorbahn, U. Nierste and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 095003
1318: (2002); Y. Rodriguez and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B637}, 219
1319: (2002).
1320:
1321: \bibitem{Langacker} P. Langacker and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 40}, 1569 (1989).
1322:
1323: \bibitem{Bernabeu}G. Barenboim, J. Bernabeu, J. Prades and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 4213 (1997).
1324:
1325: \bibitem{Pos} M. E. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56},
1326: 259 (1997).
1327:
1328: \bibitem{Frere} P. Ball, J. M. Frere and J. Matias, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B572}, 3
1329: (2000).
1330:
1331: \bibitem{Kie} K. Kiers, M. Assis and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 115015
1332: (2005).
1333:
1334: \bibitem{Ji} Y. Zhang, H. P. An, X. D. Ji and R. N. Mohapatra,
1335: arXiv:0704.1662; Y. Zhang, H. P. An, X. D. Ji and R. N. Mohapatra,
1336: arXiv:0712.4218.
1337:
1338: \bibitem{Ken} K. Kiers, J. Kolb, J. Lee, A. Soni and G. H. Wu , Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 095002
1339: (2002).
1340:
1341: \bibitem{Wu} Y. L. Wu and Y. F. Zhou, arXiv:0709.0042.
1342:
1343:
1344:
1345: \bibitem{SEESAW} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421 (1977); T. Yanagida, in
1346: {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and the Baryon
1347: Number of the Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK,
1348: Tsukuba, 1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it
1349: Supergravity}, edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North
1350: Holland, Amsterdam, 1979); S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and
1351: Leptons}, edited by M. L$\acute{\rm e}$vy {\it et al.} (Plenum, New
1352: York, 1980); R.N Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1353: 44}, 912 (1980).
1354:
1355:
1356:
1357: \bibitem{DM} For a review, see: G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K.
1358: Griest, Phys. Rept. {\bf 267}, 195 (1996); G. Bertone, D. Hooper and
1359: J. Silk, Phys. Rept. {\bf 405}, 279 (2005).
1360:
1361: \bibitem{CDMS} CDMS collaboration, arXiv:0802.3530; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 011302
1362: (2006).
1363:
1364: \bibitem{XENON} XENON collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 100}, 021303
1365: (2008).
1366:
1367:
1368: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, W. M. Yao {\it et al.},
1369: J. Phys. {\bf G33}, 1 (2006).
1370:
1371: \bibitem{Perez} O. Khasanov and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
1372: 053007 (2002).
1373:
1374:
1375: \bibitem{DUKA} P. Duka, J. Gluza and M. Zralek, Annals Phys. {\bf 280}, 336
1376: (2000).
1377:
1378:
1379: \bibitem{Halo} J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 6}, 87 (1996).
1380:
1381:
1382: \bibitem{MDM} M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B753}, 178
1383: (2006).
1384:
1385: \bibitem{KIN} R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and V. S. Rychkov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74},
1386: 015007 (2006); E. M. Dolle and S. F. Su, arXiv:0712.1234.
1387:
1388:
1389: \bibitem{MOND} J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 083509
1390: (2004); C. Skordis, D. F. Mota, P. G. Ferreira and C. Boehm, Phys.
1391: Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 011301 (2006); I. Ferreras, M. Sakellariadou
1392: and M. F. Yusaf, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 100}, 031302 (2008); X. F.
1393: Wu, B. Famaey, G. Gentile, H. Perets and H. S. Zhao,
1394: arXiv:0803.0977; and references cited therein.
1395:
1396:
1397: \bibitem{CO} K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 3191
1398: (1991).
1399:
1400: \bibitem{KOLB} E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, {\it The Early Universe},
1401: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1990).
1402:
1403: \bibitem{APP} M. Srednicki, R. Watkins and K. A. Olive, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B310}, 693
1404: (1988); P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B360}, 145
1405: (1991).
1406:
1407:
1408: \bibitem{Gondolo} J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56},
1409: 1879 (1997).
1410:
1411:
1412: \bibitem{Datta} A. Datta and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62},
1413: 055002 (2000).
1414:
1415: \bibitem{Wang} Y. J. Huo, L. M. Wang and Y. L. Wu, in preparation.
1416:
1417: \bibitem{Ecker} G. Ecker, W. Grimus, W. Konetschny, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 94}, 381 (1980);
1418: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B177}, 489 (1981).
1419:
1420:
1421:
1422: \bibitem{J.-M. Frere} J. M. Frere, J. Galand, {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
1423: 46}, 337 (1992).
1424:
1425: \bibitem{M.Raidal} G. Barenboim, J. Bernabeu, M. Raidal, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B478}, 527
1426: (1996).
1427:
1428: \bibitem{Ball} P. Ball, arXiv:hep-ph/0004345.
1429:
1430:
1431:
1432: \end{thebibliography}
1433:
1434:
1435:
1436: \end{document}
1437: