1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%
3: %% Rinton-P9x6.tex : 7-28-00
4: %% This Latex2e file rewritten from various sources for use in the
5: %% preparation of the (larger [9''x6'']) single-column proceedings
6: %% Volume
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %
9: \documentclass{Rinton-P9x6}
10:
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: \newcommand{\newc}{\newcommand}
13: \newc{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newc{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
15: \newc{\barr}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newc{\earr}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{SUSY Cold Dark Matter Detection at large $\tan\beta$}
21:
22: \author{M. E. G\'omez}
23: \address{ Centro de F\'{\i}sica das
24: Interac\c{c}\~{o}es Fundamentais (CFIF),
25: Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, \\ Instituto Superior T\'{e}cnico,
26: Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.\\
27: E-mail:mgomez@cfif.ist.utl.pt}
28:
29: \author{ J. D. Vergados}
30: \address{ Theoretical Physics Division, University of Ioannina, \\
31: E-mail: vergados@cc.uoi.gr}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35: \abstracts{We study the direct detection rate for SUSY cold dark m
36: atter (CDM) predicted
37: by the minimal supersymmetric standard model with universal boundary
38: conditions and large values for $tan\beta$.
39: The relic abundance of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP),
40: assumed to be approximately a bino, is
41: obtained by including its coannihilations with the next-to-lightest
42: supersymmetric particle (NLSP), which is the lightest s-tau.
43: We find detectable rates in the currently planned experiments for a
44: sector of the parameter space consistent with the
45: cosmological constraint on the LSP relic abundance and the ones
46: imposed by $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ and the Higgs searches.
47: }
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49: \section{Introduction}
50: \par
51: The minimal Supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM)
52: \cite{haber} with $R$--parity conservation predicts an stable
53: lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). Its relic abundance
54: can provide the desirable amount of cold dark matter
55: (CDM) in order to close the Universe \cite{jun}.
56:
57: In the present work will concentrate on the more restrictive version
58: of the MSSM, with minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) and
59: gauge unification. We will show how at large values of $\tan\beta$
60: it is possible to find scenarios such that predicted
61: LSP is detectable in currently planned experiments and its relic
62: abundance falls inside the bounds of cosmological interest.
63:
64: \section{The MSSM at large $\tan\beta$ and the $b\rightarrow s \gamma$
65: constraint}
66:
67: Some details on the choice of the MSSM
68: parameter space have already been presented by J.D. Vergados in this
69: conference \cite{vtalk}. Further details are given in Refs.~\cite{cdm,nos}.
70:
71: The most two relevant characteristics of the MSSM at large
72: $\tan\beta$ for our study are the relatively low values of the
73: masses of pseudoscalar higgs $m_A$ and the NLSP (the
74: lightest stau in our analysis). The fist is
75: related to the enhancement of the LSP--nucleon
76: scalar cross section at large $\tan\beta$, the second enables
77: coannihilations LSP--NLSP which are required for the prediction of
78: a LSP relic abundance inside the cosmological bounds.
79:
80: An accurate determination of $m_A$ is crucial for our work. We follow
81: the procedure outlined in ref.~\cite{cdm}, which takes into account the full
82: 1--loop potential effective potential. Imposing a relation between the
83: LSP and NLSP masses we can find the values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$
84: corresponding to a certain value of $m_A$. Therefore the GUT
85: values of $M_{1/2}$ and $m_{0}$ can be traded by the value of
86: $m_A$ and the mass splitting between the
87: LSP and the NLSP $\Delta_{\tilde\tau_2}=(m_{\tilde\tau_2}-m_{\tilde\chi})/
88: m_{\tilde\chi}$.
89:
90: The values of our input parameters in the two scenarios we consider are
91: shown in fig.1. The higher one,
92: $\tan\beta=52$, corresponds approximately to the unification of the
93: tau and top Yukawa couplings at $M_{GUT}$.
94: The lower value, $tan\beta=40$, results in a $\sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}$
95: smaller by one order of magnitude. $M_S$ is the common SUSY threshold,
96: defined as $M_S=\sqrt{m_{\tilde t_1}m_{\tilde t_2}}$. The shaded
97: areas correspond to the range of
98: values taken by $m_A$, $M_S$ as $\Delta_{\tilde{\tau_2}}$ ranges from
99: 0 to 1. The area associated with $m_0$ for the same range of
100: $\Delta_{\tilde{\tau_2}}$ is wider as shown by the dashed and solid lines.
101:
102: The choice $\mu>0$ leads to a constraint on the parameter space arising
103: from the lower bound on $b\rightarrow s \gamma$. As a result the
104: relatively light values for
105: $m_\chi$ and the obtained detection rates are suppressed.
106: Our determination of $BR(b\rightarrow s \gamma)$ follows the procedure
107: described in ref.~\cite{cdm2}. We complete this analysis by including
108: the appropriate next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections
109: to the SUSY contribution
110: at large values of $\tan\beta$ which recently have
111: become available \cite{NLO}. The lower limits
112: on $m_\chi$ resulting from this constraint are shown in fig.2.
113: \begin{figure}
114: %\hspace*{-0.5in}
115: \begin{minipage}[b]{9in}
116: \epsfig{figure=mas40.eps,height=2.3in,width=2.3in,angle=0}
117: \epsfig{figure=mas54.eps,height=2.3in,width=2.3in,angle=0}
118: \end{minipage}
119: \medskip
120: \caption{The values of $m_0$, $m_{A}$
121: and $M_S$ as functions of $m_{\tilde\chi}$ or $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ for
122: $\tan\beta=40$ (left) and $\tan\beta=52$ (right),
123: $\mu>0$, $A_0=0$, the upper boundaries (lower) on the shaded areas
124: and the upper (lower) dashed line
125: corresponds to $m_{\tilde\tau_2}= 2 \times m_{\tilde\chi}$
126: ($m_{\tilde\tau_2}=m_{\tilde\chi}$).
127: \label{maslsp}}
128: \end{figure}
129:
130: \section{LSP relic abundance}
131:
132: Following the considerations of Ref.~\cite{cdm} on the composition
133: of the energy density of the universe in scenarios with vanishing
134: and non vanishing cosmological constant we assume $\Omega_{LSP} h^2$
135: in the range:
136: \begin{equation}
137: 0.09 \le \Omega_{LSP} h^2 \le 0.22
138: \label{eq:in2}
139: \end{equation}
140:
141: The composition of the LSP on the model under consideration can be written
142: in the basis of the gauge and Higgs bosons superpartners as:
143: \begin{equation}
144: \tilde{\chi}\equiv\tilde{\chi}^0=C_{11}\tilde{B}+C_{12}\tilde{W}+
145: C_{13}\tilde{H}_1+C_{14}\tilde{H}_2.
146: \end{equation}
147: In the parameter space we study, $\tilde{\chi}$
148: is mostly a gaugino
149: with $P=|C_{11}|^2+|C_{12}|^2 > .95$, with the Bino component being the most
150: dominant one.
151:
152: The fact that ($\tilde\chi$) is mostly a
153: $\tilde B$ implies that the main contribution
154: to its annihilation cross section arises from s-fermion
155: (squark, s-lepton) exchange in the t- and u-channel
156: leading to $f\bar f$ final states ($f$ is a quark
157: or lepton). If, however, the mass of $\tilde\chi$ is close to the one
158: of the NLSP, coannihilations between the two particles must be
159: taken into account \cite{coan}. The inclusion
160: these coannihilation effects results in a dramatic reduction of the
161: ($\tilde\chi$) relic abundance as the two lightest SUSY particles
162: approach in mass \cite{cdm,drees,ellis}.
163: We estimate the relic abundance of the LSP ($\tilde\chi$),
164: by employing the analysis of Ref.\cite{cdm} which is appropriate for
165: large $\tan\beta$ and includes coannihilations $\tilde\chi-\tilde{\tau}$,
166: suitable for Bino like LSP. To the list of coannihilation channels
167: is given in Table I.
168:
169:
170: \begin{center}
171: \vspace{1cm}
172: TABLE I. Feynman Diagrams
173: \end{center}
174: \begin{center}
175: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
176: \cline{1-1}\cline{2-2}\cline{3-3}
177: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Initial State} &
178: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Final State} &
179: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Diagrams}\\
180: \cline{1-1}\cline{2-2}\cline{3-3}
181: $\tilde\chi\tilde\chi$ & $\tau\bar\tau$ &
182: $t(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~u(\tilde\tau_{1,2})$
183: \\
184: & $e\bar e$ & $t(\tilde e_R),~u(\tilde e_R)$
185: \\
186: \hline
187: $\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2$ & $\tau h,~\tau H,
188: ~\tau Z$ &
189: $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_{1,2})$
190: \\
191: & $\tau A$ & $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_1)$
192: \\
193: & $\tau\gamma$ &
194: $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_2)$
195: \\
196: \hline
197: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2$ & $\tau\tau$ &
198: $t(\tilde\chi),~u(\tilde\chi)$
199: \\
200: \hline
201: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast$ &
202: $~hh,~hH,~HH,~ZZ~$ & $~s(h),~s(H),
203: ~t(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~u(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~c~$
204: \\
205: & $AA$ & $~s(h),~s(H),~t(\tilde\tau_1),
206: ~u(\tilde\tau_1),~c$
207: \\
208: & $H^+ H^-,~W^+ W^-$ & $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z),~c,~t(\tilde\nu_\tau)$
209: \\
210: & $\gamma\gamma,~\gamma Z$ & $t(\tilde\tau_2),
211: ~u(\tilde\tau_2),~c$
212: \\
213: & $t\bar t,~b\bar b$ &
214: $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z)$
215: \\
216: & $\tau\bar\tau$ & $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z),
217: ~t(\tilde\chi)$
218: \\
219: & $u\bar u,~d\bar d,~e \bar e$ & $s(\gamma),~s(Z)$
220: \\
221: \cline{1-1}\cline{2-2}\cline{3-3}
222: \end{tabular}
223: \vspace{1cm}
224: \end{center}
225:
226:
227: We should, at this point, clarify that
228: in the parameter space considered
229: here no resonances in the s--channels were found. In other words
230: the s--channel exchange of
231: A , h, H, Z into $\tilde{\tau_2} \tilde{\tau_2}^*$ never becomes
232: resonant in the parameter space of our analysis. We can see in Fig. 1, however,
233: that a line $mass= 2 m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ will be above of the $m_A$ region
234: for the
235: case of $\tan\beta=52$, while for $\tan\beta=40$ it will not.
236: However we should emphasize here, that the position the $m_A$ band
237: displayed is Fig.1 respect a line of $mass= 2 m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ is
238: very sensitive to small changes in $\tan\beta$ and
239: the values $m_t$,$m_b$ and the GUT values for $A_0$ and $m_0$.
240: Therefore, at the large values of $\tan\beta$ it is possible
241: to find sectors of the space of parameters where
242: $m_A\approx m_{\tilde{\chi}}$, in these cases the the adequate treatment
243: of the Higgs mediated annihilation channels will be determining for an accurate
244: calculation of $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$.
245:
246: The choice of parameter space in the two examples we present is aimed
247: to illustrate the decisive role of $\tan\beta$ in the LSP
248: detection rates as we show in Fig.2. In the two scenarios
249: we choose, annihilation resonant
250: channels are not present and coannihilations are required in order
251: to predict a cosmologically desirable LSP relic abundance.
252:
253: \begin{figure}
254: %\hspace*{-0.5in}
255: \begin{minipage}[b]{9in}
256: \epsfig{figure=area40.eps,height=2.5in,width=2.3in,angle=0}
257: \epsfig{figure=area54.eps,height=2.5in,width=2.3in,angle=0}
258: \end{minipage}
259: \medskip
260: \caption{The cosmologically allowed region in the
261: $m_{\tilde{\chi}}-\Delta_{\tilde\tau_2}$ plane (shaded area) for $\tan\beta=40$ (left)
262: and $\tan\beta=52$ (right).
263: The vertical bands in graph on the left
264: correspond to the bound $\sigma_{scalar}^{(nucleon)}=4 \cdot10^{-7} pb$,
265: obtained
266: from figure 2 for both models.
267: The vertical lines on the graph of the right
268: correspond to the bounds $\sigma_{scalar}^{(nucleon)}=4 \cdot10^{-7} pb$
269: (lines towards the right of the graph) and $2 \cdot 10^{-5} pb$ for
270: the models indicated. The marked areas on the left are excluded by
271: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$.
272: \label{area50}}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275: \section{LSP--Nucleon Elastic Cross Section}
276:
277: The coherent scattering
278: $\tilde\chi \, +\, (A,Z) \, \to \, \tilde\chi \, + \, (A,Z)^*$
279: can be mediated via s-quarks and neutral
280: Higgs particles (h and H). In our model we find that the Higgs contribution
281: becomes dominant and therefore:
282: \begin{equation}
283: \sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}\propto\left[f_s^0-f_s^1(1-2\frac{Z}{A})\right]^2,
284: \end{equation}
285: where:
286: \begin{eqnarray}
287: f_s^0&=&\frac{1}{2}(g_u+g_d)+g_s+g_c+g_b+g_t\\
288: f_s^1&=&\frac{1}{2}(g_u-g_d).
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: With:
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: g_{u_i}&=&\left[g_h cos\alpha +g_H sin\alpha\right]\frac{f_{u_i}}{sin\beta},
293: \ \ u_i=u,c,t;\\
294: g_{d_i}&=&\left[-g_h sin\alpha +g_H cos\alpha\right]\frac{f_{d_i}}{sin\beta},
295: \ \ d_i=d,s,b.
296: \end{eqnarray}
297:
298: In the eq, above $\alpha$ is the mixing angle which appear in the
299: diagonalizaton of the $CP$-even Higgs mass matrix, and $g_h,\ g_H$ can be
300: written as:
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: g_h&=& 4 (C_{11}^\star tan\theta_W-C_{11}^\star)
303: (C_{41}\cos\alpha+C_{31}\sin\alpha)\frac{m_N m_W}{m_h^2}\\
304: g_H&=& 4 (C_{11}^\star tan\theta_W-C_{11}^\star)
305: (C_{41}\sin\alpha-C_{31}\cos\alpha)\frac{m_N m_W}{m_H^2}.
306: \end{eqnarray}
307:
308: The last equations gets enhanced as $\tan\beta$ increases, since the
309: electroweak symmetry breaking imposes lower values for the
310: pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$ (see Fig. 1). This implies a lower value
311: for of $m_H$. The changes on $m_h$ are not so important,
312: since its value can only move below an upper bound of
313: about 120-130 GeV .
314: The coefficients $C_{ij}$ depends on the composition of the LSP.
315: For all the values of the $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$, however, reported
316: in the present work the condition $ P>.9$ is maintained. It becomes even more
317: stringent, $P >.95$, for $m_{\tilde{\chi}}>100 \ \rm{GeV}$.
318:
319: The factors $f_{u_i},\ f_{d_i}$ parametrize the quark nucleon matrix
320: element. They depend on the quark model used for the nucleon, we use
321: two different quark models in our calculation denoted as
322: models B and C.
323: Their values along with further details were given in by Vergados
324: \cite{vtalk} and can be found in Ref.~\cite{nos}.
325:
326: The parameter space leading to predictions of
327:
328: \begin{equation}
329: 4\times 10^{-7}~pb~ \le \sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}
330: \le 2 \times 10^{-5}~pb~
331: \label{eq:in3}
332: \end{equation}
333:
334: is shown in fig.2.
335:
336: \section{Conclusions}
337:
338: In summary, we have found that the most popular version of the MSSM with
339: gauge unification and universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale,
340: and a parameter space determined by large values of $\tan\beta$,
341: can accommodate a cosmologically suitable LSP relic abundance and
342: predict detection rates, which can be tested in current or projected
343: experiments.
344:
345: We should mention that the calculated detection rates can
346: vary by orders of magnitude, depending
347: on the yet unknown LSP mass. Other source of uncertainty comes
348: from estimating the heavy quark contribution in the
349: nucleon cross section. This seems to be under control. We take the difference
350: between the models B and C discussed above as an indication of such
351: uncertainties. They seem to imply uncertainties no more than factors of two.
352:
353: We believe, therefore, that, concerning the direct LSP detection event rates
354: the main uncertainties come from the fact that the SUSY parameter space
355: is not yet sufficiently constrained. The parameter space may be sharpened
356: by the accelerator experiments, even if the LSP is not found. We should
357: mention here, in particular, the Higgs searches, since, as we have seen, the
358: role of the Higgs particles in direct SUSY dark matter detection is crucial.
359: It is not an exaggeration to say that
360: the underground and accelerator experiments are complementary and should
361: achieve a symbiosis.
362:
363:
364: This work was supported by the European Union under the contracts
365: RTN No HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and TMR
366: No. ERBFMRX--CT96--0090 and $\Pi E N E \Delta~95$ of the Greek
367: Secretariat for Research.
368:
369:
370: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{ Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
371: \def\pl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
372: \def\zp#1#2#3{{ Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
373: \def\prl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
374: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{ Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
375: \def\prep#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
376: \def\pr#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1~}(#2)~#3}
377: \def\np#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
378: \def\npps#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Sup.) }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
379: \def\mpl#1#2#3{{ Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
380: \def\arnps#1#2#3{{ Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf
381: #1~}(#2)~#3}
382: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{{ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
383: \def\jetp#1#2#3{{ JETP Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
384: \def\app#1#2#3{{ Acta Phys. Polon. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
385: \def\rnc#1#2#3{{ Riv. Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
386: \def\ap#1#2#3{{ Ann. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
387: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{ Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
388: \def\plb#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf#1B~}(#2)~#3}
389: \def\apjl#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. J. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
390: \def\n#1#2#3{{ Nature }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
391: \def\apj#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. Journal }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
392: \def\anj#1#2#3{{ Astron. J. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
393: \def\mnras#1#2#3{{ MNRAS }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
394: \def\grg#1#2#3{{ Gen. Rel. Grav. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
395: \def\s#1#2#3{{ Science }{\bf #1~}(19#2)~#3}
396: \def\baas#1#2#3{{ Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
397: \def\ibid#1#2#3{{ ibid. }{\bf #1~}(19#2)~#3}
398: \def\cpc#1#2#3{{ Comput. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
399: \def\astp#1#2#3{{ Astropart. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
400: \def\epj#1#2#3{{ Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
401: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
402: \bibitem{haber}H.E. Haber and G.L.Kane, Phys. Rep. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985).
403: \bibitem{jun}G. Jungman {\it et al.},{\it Phys. Rep.}
404: {\bf 267}, 195 (1996).
405: \bibitem{cdm} M.E. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
406: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 123512; M.E. G\'{o}mez, hep-ph/0102049.
407: \bibitem{cdm2} M.E. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
408: \pl{487}{2000}{313}.
409: \bibitem{nos} M. G\'{o}mez and J.D. Vergados, hep-ph/00120020.
410: \bibitem{vtalk} J.D. Vergados and M. G\'{o}mez, hep-ph/0105114.
411: \bibitem{NLO} C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Guidice, JHEP
412: {\bf 0012} (2000) 009; M. Carena, D. Garc\'{\i}a,
413: U. Nierste and C. E. Wagner, \pl{499}{2001}{141};
414: \bibitem{coan} K. Griest and D. Seckel, \pr{43}{1991}{3191}.
415: \bibitem{drees} M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, \pr{47}{1993}{376};
416: S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, \pl{298}{1993}{120};
417: P. Gondolo and J. Edsj\"o, \pr{56}{1997}{1879};
418: \bibitem{ellis} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. A. Olive,
419: \pl{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis {\it et al.} \astp{13}{2000}{181}
420: and hep-ph/0102098; R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, hep-ph/0102181.
421: \end{thebibliography}
422: \end{document}
423:
424:
425: \subsection{Figures}
426:
427:
428:
429: