1: \documentstyle[epsfig]{elsart}
2: \begin{document}
3: \begin{frontmatter}
4: \title{Halo Dark Matter and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays}
5: \author{Pasquale Blasi and Ravi K. Sheth}
6: \address{NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Group, Fermi National Accelerator
7: Laboratory, Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500, USA}
8: \maketitle
9:
10: \begin{abstract}
11: The decay of very heavy metastable relics of the Early Universe can
12: produce ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) in the halo of our own
13: Galaxy.
14: On distance scales of the order of the halo size, energy losses are
15: negligible---no Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff is expected.
16: In this letter we show that, as a consequence of the hierarchical
17: build up of the halo, this scenario predicts the existence of
18: small scale anisotropies in the arrival directions of UHECRs.
19: We also suggest some consequences of this scenario which will
20: be testable with upcoming experiments, as Auger.
21: \end{abstract}
22: \end{frontmatter}
23:
24: Heavy particles ($m_X\sim 10^{12}-10^{14}$ GeV) can be produced in the
25: Early Universe in different ways
26: \cite{kolb,bere,kuzmin,kt} and their lifetime can be finite though very
27: long compared to the present age of the universe. The decay of these
28: particles results in the production of UHECRs, as widely discussed in the
29: literature \cite{bere,sarkar,bbv,blasi}. If the relics cluster in
30: galactic halos, as is expected, this can explain the cosmic ray
31: observations above $\sim 5\times 10^{19}$ eV. These particles may
32: represent an appreciable fraction of the cold dark matter in the universe
33: \cite{kolb,bere,kuzmin,kt}.
34: Can this class of models explain the details of the present data,
35: including the spectrum, composition and anisotropy of the arrival
36: directions? We will briefly review the status of the first two points,
37: already discussed in the relevant literature and we will
38: instead concentrate on the last point, paying particular attention to
39: anisotropies one expects on small scales.
40:
41: The decay of heavy relics results usually in the production of a
42: quark-antiquark pair which rapidly hadronizes, generating two jets
43: with approximately $95\%$ of the energy in pions, and $\sim 5\%$ in
44: baryons. The decay of the pions results in the observed high energy
45: particles, mainly in the form of gamma rays, and
46: in the generation of ultra-high energy neutrinos. The spectrum of the gamma
47: photons is relatively flat ($\sim E^{-1.5}$) reflecting the behaviour of the
48: fragmentation function for the quarks. Therefore two main signatures of this
49: model are: {\it i)} a flat energy spectrum; {\it ii)} composition dominated
50: by gamma rays rather than by protons. Moreover, as in all top-down models,
51: heavy elements are expected to be completely absent.
52: Unfortunately present data on the composition is extremely poor and it is
53: impossible to rule out or confirm the presence of gamma photons in the UHECR
54: events.
55:
56: In \cite{dt,bbv} the issue of the anisotropy was first addressed.
57: The anisotropy results from the asymmetric position of the Earth in
58: the Galaxy, so that the flux of UHECRs coming from the direction of
59: the galactic center should be appreciably larger than
60: the flux from the anticenter direction. In
61: \cite{bm,medina} this issue was considered
62: more quantitatively, taking into account the exposure of the present
63: experiments.
64: All authors concur that the present data is consistent with
65: the predictions of the relic model for practically all reasonable values
66: of the model parameters.
67:
68: Recently an interesting pattern has arisen from the analysis of the
69: events with energy larger than $4\times10^{19}$ eV: in \cite{agasa}
70: the sample with this energy cut comprises 47 events, whose overall
71: distribution in space does not show appreciable deviation from isotropy.
72: However, 3 doublets and one triplet were identified within an
73: angular scale of $2.5^o$, comparable with the
74: angular resolution of the experiment. A complete analysis,
75: including the whole set of UHECR events above $4\times 10^{19}$ eV
76: from the existing experiments was performed in \cite{watson}.
77: This extended sample comprises
78: 92 events and shows 12 doublets and two triplets (each triplet is also
79: counted as three doublets) within an angle of $3^o$.
80: The chance probability of having more than this number of doublets
81: was estimated to be $\sim 1.5\%$. Although it is probably too soon to
82: rule out the possibility that these multiplets are just a random
83: fluctuation, it is instructive to think about the possibility that
84: their presence contains some physical information about the sources
85: of UHECRs. Clearly the most straightforward possibility
86: is that the multiplets correspond to some local overdensity in the
87: spatial distribution of the sources. Most of the top-down models for
88: UHECRs (e.g. strings, necklaces, vortons, etc.) cannot naturally
89: explain the multiplets.
90:
91: In the following we will discuss how the multiplets can be interpreted in
92: the context of the super-heavy dark matter (SHDM) model.
93:
94: The existence of dark matter in galactic halos is all but established,
95: and the main points are well understood in terms of hierarchical
96: structure formation scenarios. High resolution N-body simulations, e.g.,
97: \cite{simul}, suggest the following: {\it i)} the density
98: of dark matter particles in galaxy size halos is peaked in the center;
99: the density cusp scales as $\sim r^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma\sim 1-1.5$
100: on distances $r$ which are much smaller than a core radius, which is of
101: the order of several kpc in size;
102: {\it ii)} outside the core, the slope of the profile steepens;
103: it scales as $\propto r^{-3}$ at large distances;
104: {\it iii)} the profile is not completely smooth; some of the dark matter
105: is in small clumps.
106: To model the first two of these findings we adopt a dark matter
107: density distribution in the form suggested by numerical simulations
108: \cite{nfw}:
109: \begin{equation}
110: n_H(r)=n^0\frac{(r/r_c)^{-1}}{\left[1+\frac{r}{r_c}\right]^2}
111: \label{eq:NFW}
112: \end{equation}
113: where $r_c$ is the core size and $n^0$ is a normalization parameter.
114: These two parameters can be set by requiring that the halo
115: contains a given total mass ($M_H$) and that the velocity dispersion
116: at some distance from the center is known (in the case of the Galaxy,
117: the velocity dispersion is $\sim 200$ km/s in the vicinity of our
118: solar system.).
119: Alternative fits to the simulated dark matter halos and a discussion of
120: whether or not simulated halos appear to be consistent with observations
121: are provided in \cite{simul}.
122:
123: In addition to the smooth dark matter distribution, represented by
124: eq. (\ref{eq:NFW}), N-body simulations also show that there is a
125: clumped component which contains $\sim 10-20\%$ of the total mass.
126: The presence of these clumps are a natural consequence of the way in
127: which gravity assembles dense virialized halos such as our galaxy
128: today from the initially smooth density fluctuation field which
129: was present when the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
130: decoupled from the baryons.
131: Simulations suggest that most of the mass which makes up a
132: galactic halo was assembled by merging smaller clumps together
133: at about $z\sim 3$. Much of the mass initially in a small clump which
134: falls onto and orbits within the larger halo after that time gets
135: tidally stripped from it. The amount of mass which is lost from
136: any given clump increases as the distance of closest approach to
137: the galactic halo center decreases; the mass is stripped away, from
138: the outside in, as the clump falls towards the center.
139: We will call the size of a clump, after its outsides have been stripped
140: away, the tidal radius of the clump. Dynamical friction makes
141: the clumps gradually spiral in towards the halo center.
142:
143: This has three main consequences. Firstly, the range of clump masses
144: in the halo at the present time is different from that which fell in.
145: Secondly, halos of a fixed mass do not all have the same tidal radius.
146: Thirdly, the spatial distribution of the clumps in the halo is not the
147: same as that of the dark matter. We found that a good fit to
148: the joint distribution in clump mass and position in the simulations
149: of \cite{simul} is
150: \begin{equation}
151: n_{cl}(r,m) = n_{cl}^0 \left(\frac{m}{M_H}\right)^{-\alpha}
152: \left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_c^{cl}}\right)^2\right]^{-3/2},
153: \label{eq:clumps}
154: \end{equation}
155: where $n_{cl}^0$ is a normalization constant, $r_c^{cl}$ is the
156: core of the clumps distribution, and $\alpha$ describes the relative
157: numbers of massive to less massive clumps. The simulations suggest that
158: $\alpha\sim 1.9$ \cite{simul}. The constraints on the core size are
159: weaker---we will study the range where $r_c^{cl}$ is between 3 and
160: 30 percent of $R_H$.
161: In \cite{simul}, a halo with $M_H\approx 2\times 10^{12}~M_\odot$
162: contains about $500$ clumps with mass larger than $\sim 10^8~M_\odot$.
163: This sets the normalization constant in eq. (\ref{eq:clumps}).
164:
165: Clumps in the parent NFW halo are truncated at their tidal radii.
166: The tidal radius of a clump depends on the clump mass, the density
167: profile within the clump, and on how closely to the halo center it
168: may have been.
169: We assume that clumps of all mass are isothermal spheres (even though
170: they are not truly isothermal, \cite{simul} suggest this is reasonably
171: accurate): $\rho_{cl}(r_{cl})\propto 1/r_{cl}^2$,
172: where $r_{cl}$ is the radial coordinate measured from the center of
173: the clump. The tidal radius of a clump ($R_{cl}$) at a distance $r$ from
174: the center of the parent halo is determined by requiring that the
175: density in the clump at distance $R_{cl}$ from its center equals the
176: local density of the NFW halo at the distance $r$.
177: This means that
178: \begin{equation}
179: R_{cl} = \left(\frac{m}{4\pi n^0 x_c}\right)^{1/3} x^{1/3}
180: \left[ 1+\frac{x}{x_c} \right]^{2/3},
181: \label{eq:size}
182: \end{equation}
183: where $x_c=r_c/R_{H}$, $x=r/R_H$ and $R_H$ is the virial radius of
184: the halo, of order $300$ kpc. The average overdensity within $R_H$
185: is about 200 \cite{simul}.
186:
187: As shown in \cite{bbv,medina}, the total (energy integrated) flux of
188: UHECRs per unit solid angle from a smooth distribution of dark matter
189: particles in the halo is:
190: \begin{equation}
191: \frac{d\Phi}{d\Omega} \propto \int_0^{R_{max}} dR\, n_H(r(R)),
192: \label{eq:flux}
193: \end{equation}
194: where $R$ is the distance from the detector, and $r$ is the distance
195: from the galactic center (so $R$ and $r$
196: are related by trigonometrical relations accounting for the
197: off-center position of the Earth in the Galaxy).
198: The upper limit, $R_{max}$, depends on the line of sight.
199:
200: The existence of a clumped component changes the flux in eq.
201: (\ref{eq:flux}) only in that $n_H$ should be replaced with the total
202: dark matter density, the sum of the smooth and the clumped components.
203: It is intuitively obvious that clumped regions will give an excess
204: of events from certain directions, as was first pointed out in
205: \cite{bereproc}.
206:
207: To see how important the clumped contribution is, we used two different
208: ways of simulating the observed number of events.
209: The first approach consisted of calculating the flux
210: per unit solid angle [eq. (\ref{eq:flux})] along different lines of
211: sight directly, taking into account the smooth plus clumped contributions
212: to the total density profile [eqs.~\ref{eq:NFW} and~\ref{eq:clumps}].
213: Once a smooth flux map distribution had been obtained, the UHECR events
214: were generated from this distribution.
215: In the second approach, the events were generated in two steps.
216: First, a random subset of the dark matter distribution, which is supposed
217: to represent the subset of particles which decayed, was generated.
218: The second step was to draw particles from this distribution, and
219: then weight by the probability that the event would actually have been
220: detected---so a chosen particle generates an event with probability
221: $\propto 1/r^2$, where $r$ is the distance between the particle and
222: the detector.
223: In both codes, the detector was assumed to be at the position of the
224: Earth in the Galaxy, and a cut on the directions of arrival was
225: introduced to account for the exposure of the AGASA experiment (taken
226: here as an example).
227:
228: Fig. 1 shows as an example one of the generated flux maps:
229: the map represents
230: the ratio of the total flux including the contribution from clumps,
231: to the flux obtained by using a smooth NFW profile. The various free
232: parameters were $r_c=8$ kpc, $r_c^{cl}=10$ kpc, and the mass distribution
233: was truncated at a clump mass of $1\%$ of the mass of the NFW halo.
234: This sort of plot emphasizes the clump contribution.
235: (To avoid confusion many of the smallest scale fluctuations,
236: which arise from the many low mass clumps, have not been shown.)
237:
238: To calculate the small scale anisotropies, we generated $10^4$ mock
239: samples, each of 92 observed events, and counted the number of
240: doublets and triplets for angular scales of 3, 4, and 5 degrees.
241: Our codes can also be used to check the corresponding numbers for
242: the case of isotropic arrival directions (as in \cite{watson}). Two
243: sets of values of the cores for the NFW and the clumped component
244: were adopted, one
245: in which $r_c=8$ kpc and $r_c^{cl}=10$ kpc (case 1) and the other with
246: $r_c=r_c^{cl}=20$ kpc (case 2). The observed numbers of doublets within
247: 3, 4, and 5 degrees for an isotropic distribution of arrival directions
248: are given in \cite{watson} and are 12, 14 and 20 respectively.
249: The number of doublets that we obtain in case 1 are 8, 14, and 21
250: within 3, 4, and 5 degrees respectively. The probability that
251: the number of doublets equals or exceeds that observed is
252: $12\%$, $47\%$ and $57\%$ respectively. This should be compared with
253: the $1.5\%$, $13.4\%$ and $15.9\%$ quoted in \cite{watson} for an
254: isotropic distribution of arrival directions.
255:
256: We repeated the same calculation for the case 2. The corresponding
257: averages and probabilities of exceeding the observed number of
258: doublets within 3, 4 and 5 degree scales are 6.6, 12, and 18,
259: and $4.5\%$, $29\%$ and $36\%$ respectively.
260:
261: In both cases 1 and 2, the number of doublets on angular scales of
262: 4 and 5 degrees is consistent with the observed values; presumably
263: the discrepancy at 3 degrees is random chance.
264:
265: We have also studied the occurence of triplets.
266: There is some ambiguity as to how a triplet is best defined; we have
267: chosen to define triplets as configurations in which all three pairs
268: would have been classified as doublets. (This means, for example, that
269: a co-linear configuration of two doublets is not necessarily a triplet.)
270: With this definition, the average number of triplets in case one is
271: 0.5, 1.5 and 3, with the probability of having more than the
272: observed triplets (2, 2, 3 respectively) equal to 4\%, 16\% and 35\%.
273: For case 2, the correspondent numbers are 0.4, 1, and 2.5 triplets
274: and $2\%$, $8\%$ and $20\%$ for the probabilities to have more triplets
275: than observed.
276:
277: What is responsible for the multiplet-events in the SHDM model?
278: If we study the case in which all the halo mass is in the smooth
279: NFW component, then the number of doublets typically drops by
280: one or two. This suggests that the anisotropy due to our position
281: in an NFW halo can result in a number of multiplets of events which
282: is considerably larger than if the arrivals were from an isotropic
283: background. The number of multiplets from the clumped component is
284: mainly affected by the presence of large nearby clumps, whose number
285: depends on the high mass cutoff imposed in the mass function of clumps.
286: A maximum mass of $1\%$ of the halo mass implies a total mass in the
287: clumps of $\sim 10-15\%$ of $M_H$,
288: consistent with the results of the simulations \cite{simul}.
289: Larger cutoffs imply larger mass fractions,
290: which are harder to reconcile with the N-body simulations.
291:
292: Future experiments will definitely represent the real test for these
293: sorts of models. Therefore it is useful to propose tests to be
294: performed in the next years, in particular with the upcoming Auger
295: experiment \cite{auger}.
296: In the following we investigate what a full sky experiment
297: would observe if UHECRs were produced by the decay of super-heavy
298: halo dark matter.
299: As discussed in \cite{sommers} a powerful statistical tool that will be
300: available with a full sky experiment is the angular power spectrum, as a
301: function of $l$:
302: \begin{equation}
303: C(l)=\frac{1}{2l+1} \sum_{m=-l}^{l} a_{lm}^2,
304: \end{equation}
305: where the coefficients $a_{lm}$ are defined as
306: \begin{equation}
307: a_{lm}=\frac{1}{N_{ev}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{ev}} Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi),
308: \end{equation}
309: and we assumed, for simplicity, that the exposure is flat over all the
310: sky. Here $N_{ev}$ is the number of events and $Y_{lm}$ are the real valued
311: spherical harmonics, calculated in the direction determined by the two
312: angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ of the event.
313:
314: We simulated 5000 events over all the sky and computed the power spectrum
315: in two cases: 1) purely NFW profile (no clumps); 2) full dark matter halo,
316: (NFW plus a clumped component). The parameters were chosen as in
317: case 1 above.
318: The calculation was done for one specific realization of clumps in the
319: halo, since we are only interested here in the general features which
320: may appear in the power spectrum (the same realization shown in Fig. 1).
321:
322: The solid line (crosses) in Fig. 2 is the power spectrum corresponding
323: to the smooth profile case (no clumps), while the dashed line (diamonds)
324: is the power spectrum for the full dark matter profile (including clumps).
325: In both spectra the dipole anisotropy is evident. This anisotropy is due
326: to the asymmetric position of the Earth in the galaxy; it arises
327: from the fact that the flux from the direction of the galactic center
328: far exceeds (by an order of magnitude) that from the antigalactic center.
329: As shown in \cite{bm,medina} the present observations are not inconsistent
330: with this predicted dipole anisotropy.
331: Although not evident in this realization, there are cases in which the
332: power spectrum (of the smooth plus clumped models) has some features
333: (bumps). These are generally correlated with the presence
334: of a nearby clump of dark matter which gives a substantial contribution
335: to the flux on a specific angular scale.
336:
337: Contrary to the dipole enhancement, which is generic, the amplitude
338: and frequency of the other bumps completely depends on the specific
339: substructure distribution of the Milky Way's halo in which we happen to
340: live. It is, therefore, difficult to quantify the likelihood of detecting
341: these smaller bumps in the power spectrum of a future experiment. However,
342: if such structures in the power spectrum are detected, then they are
343: easily understood in the scenario discussed in this letter.
344:
345: In addition to features in the angular power spectrum (dipole and bumps)
346: analyses of the composition of events will be precious in constraining
347: or confirming the scenario of SHDM in the halo; as discussed above, this
348: should be dominated by gamma rays. For this reason, the halo magnetic field
349: does not affect our conclusions. (If the proton and gamma ray fractions in
350: UHECRs generated by SHDM are comparable \cite{sarkar}, then the magnetic
351: field might induce deflections on scales of a degree or so.
352: Since we considered slightly larger scales, our conclusions are unlikely
353: to change dramatically even in this case.)
354:
355: The study of the composition, together with an improved
356: measure of the spectrum of UHECRs, should nail down the nature of the
357: ``real'' sources of UHECRs and confirm or rule out the SHDM model.
358:
359:
360:
361: {\bf Aknowledgments} This work was
362: supported by the DOE and the NASA grant NAG 5-7092 at Fermilab.
363:
364:
365: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
366: \bibitem{kolb}
367: D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4048
368: (1998).
369:
370: \bibitem{bere}
371: V.S. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
372: {\bf 79} 4302 (1997).
373:
374: \bibitem{kuzmin}
375: V.A. Kuzmin, presented at the Workshop ``Beyond the Desert'', Castle
376: Ringberg, 1997, astro-ph/9709187; International Workshop on Non-Accelerator
377: New Physics, Dubna, 1997.
378:
379: \bibitem{kt}
380: V.A. Kuzmin, and I.I. Tkachev, preprint astro-ph/9903542.
381:
382: \bibitem{agasa}
383: M. Takeda, Astrophys. J. {\bf 522}, 225 (1999).
384:
385: \bibitem{watson}
386: Y. Uchihori, et al., Astropart. Phys. {\bf 13}, 151 (2000).
387:
388: \bibitem{simul}
389: S. Ghigna, B. Moore, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. Stadel,
390: preprint astro-ph/9910166; B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato,
391: G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. Stadel, P. Tozzi, Astrophys. J. {\bf 524}, 19 (1999);
392: G. Tormen, A. Diaferio, D. Syer, MNRAS, {\bf 299}, 728 (1998).
393:
394: \bibitem{bm}
395: V.S. Berezinsky and A. Mikhailov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 449}, 237 (1999).
396:
397: \bibitem{medina}
398: G.A. Medina Tanco and A.A. Watson, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 12}, 25 (1999).
399:
400: \bibitem{sarkar}
401: M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 9}, 297 (1998).
402:
403: \bibitem{bbv}
404: V.S. Berezinsky, P. Blasi and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 58}, 103515 (1998).
405:
406: \bibitem{blasi}
407: P. Blasi, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 60}, 023514 (1999).
408:
409: \bibitem{bereproc}
410: V. Berezinsky, Invited talk at TAUP-99, Paris, September 6 - 10, 1999,
411: preprint hep-ph/0001163.
412:
413: \bibitem{dt}
414: S.L. Dubovsky and P.G. Tynyakov, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 68}, 99
415: (1998) [JETP Lett. {\bf 68}, 107 (1998)].
416:
417: \bibitem{nfw}
418: J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, Astrophys. J. {\bf 462}, 563 (1996).
419:
420: \bibitem{sommers}
421: P. Sommers, preprint astro-ph/0004016.
422:
423: \bibitem{auger}
424: J.W. Cronin, Rev. Mod. Physics {\bf 71}, 175 (1999).
425:
426: \end{thebibliography}
427:
428:
429: \newpage
430: {\bf Figure Caption}
431: \vskip .5cm
432: {\bf Fig. 1} Map of the ratio of the local flux of UHECRs obtained from a
433: realistic dark matter distribution in the halo (NFW plus clumps) and the
434: pure NFW case, for a specific realization of clumps in the halo.
435:
436: {\bf Fig. 2} Flux power spectrum for the NFW case (solid line with crosses)
437: and the NFW plus clumped case (dashed line with diamonds). The same realization
438: of clumps as in Fig. 1 has been used.
439:
440:
441: \end{document}
442:
443: