1: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
2: \usepackage{amssymb,a4wide}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
5: \usepackage[small]{caption}
6: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
7: \setlength{\headheight}{0.5cm}
8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm}
9: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5cm}
10: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.9cm}
11: \setlength{\textheight}{25cm}
12: \renewcommand\floatpagefraction{1.}
13: \renewcommand\topfraction{0.9}
14: \renewcommand\bottomfraction{0.1}
15: \renewcommand\textfraction{.0}
16: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathsf}{OT1}{cmss}{m}{n}
17: \SetMathAlphabet{\mathsf}{bold}{OT1}{cmss}{bx}{n}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Indirect
22: Evidence for Neutralinos as Dark Matter}
23:
24: \author{W. de Boer, M. Herold, C. Sander, V. Zhukov}
25: \institute{Institut f\"ur Experimentelle Kernphysik\\
26: Universit\"at Karlsruhe (TH),\\
27: P.O. Box 6980, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}
28:
29: \input{config.tex}
30:
31:
32: \abstract{
33: From the relic density measurement by
34: WMAP the WIMP annihilation cross section can be determined in a
35: model independent way. If the WIMPS are postulated to be the
36: neutralinos of Supersymmetry, then only a limited region of
37: the supersymmetric parameter space matches this annihilation cross section.
38: It is shown that the resulting positrons, antiprotons and gamma rays
39: from the neutralino annihilation (mainly into $b\overline{b}$
40: quark pairs) provide the correct shape and order of magnitude for
41: the missing gamma and hard positron fluxes in the Galactic Models
42: and are consistent with antiproton production.
43: }
44: \maketitle
45: \section{Introduction}
46: Cold Dark Matter (CDM) makes up 23\% of the energy of the
47: universe, as deduced from the temperature anisotropies in the
48: Cosmic Microwave Background in combination with data on the
49: Hubble expansion and the density fluctuations in the
50: universe~\cite{wmap}.
51: The nature of the CDM is unknown, but one of the most popular explanation
52: for it is the neutralino, a stable neutral particle predicted by
53: Supersymmetry~\cite{lspdm,jungman}. The neutralinos are spin 1/2
54: Majorana particles, which can annihilate into pairs of Standard Model (SM)
55: particles.
56: The stable decay and fragmentation products are neutrinos, photons, protons,
57: antiprotons, electrons and positrons. From these, the protons and
58: electrons are drown in the many matter particles in the universe,
59: but the antimatter may be detectable above the background from nuclear
60: interactions, especially because of the harder positron and gamma spectra
61: expected from neutralino annihilation.
62: This so-called indirect detection of Dark Matter has been discussed much before
63: (see e.g. Ref. \cite{bergstrom}). Our results differ from these previous
64: results by performing a statistical analysis to gamma rays,
65: antiprotons and gamma rays {\it simultaneously} and taking into
66: account the best known propagation mo\-dels and all constraints from WMAP
67: and electroweak data on the SUSY parameter space.
68: More details of this
69: analysis can be found in the contributed paper to this conference\cite{us}.
70:
71:
72:
73:
74:
75:
76: \begin{figure}[t]
77: \begin{center}
78: % \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb51_a0_mupos_fine_full_
79: %boostcontour.eps}
80: \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb51_a1_mupos_fine_full_boostcontour.eps}
81: % \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb51_a1_mupos_large_boos
82: %tcontour.eps}
83: % \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb52_a0_mupos_large_boos
84: %tcontour.eps}
85: \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb53_a0_mupos_large_boostcontour.eps}
86: % \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{scan_tb55_a0_mupos_large_boos
87: %tcontour.eps}
88: \caption[]{\it\label{relic}
89: % The region of relic density allowed by the WMAP data.
90: % The upper row is for \tb=51 and $A_0=0$ (left) and $A_0=m_0$ (right), which
91: % shows that the role of Higgs constraint (dotted line)
92: % and \bsg ~ constraint (solid line) are interchanged
93: % for the different values of the trilinear coupling, but the lower limit
94: % on $m_{1/2}$ is not very sensitive to $A_0$.
95: The light shaded (blue) area is the region allowed by WMAP and the
96: contours of larger $\Omega h^2$ are indicated by the dashed lines
97: in steps of 0.05. The upper plot is for \tb=51 and $A_0=m_0$, while the lower
98: plot is for \tb=53 and $A_0=0$. For the last parameters the neutralino
99: annihilation hits the pseudoscalar
100: Higgs resonance, which allows heavier neutralinos with still a small enough
101: relic density.
102: The black dots indicate the resonance region,
103: where $|m_A-2m_{\chi_0}| \le 10$ GeV.
104: The excluded regions, where the stau would be the LSP or EWSB fails or
105: the boost factors are above 10 are indicated by the dots.
106: }
107: \end{center}
108: \end{figure}
109: %
110: \section{Annihilation Cross section Constraints from WMAP}
111: %
112: In the early universe all particles were produced abundantly and
113: were in thermal equilibrium through annihilation and production
114: processes.
115: %The time evolution of the number density of the
116: %particles is given by the Boltzmann equation, which can be written
117: %for neutralinos as: \bq \frac{dn_\chi}{dt}+3Hn_\chi=-<\sigma
118: %v>(n_\chi^2-n_\chi^{eq 2}), \eq where H is the Hubble expansion
119: %rate, $n_\chi$ is the actual number density, $n_\chi^{eq}$ is the
120: %thermal equilibrium number density (before freeze-out), $<\sigma
121: %v>$ is thermally averaged value of the total annihilation cross
122: %section times the relative velocity of the annihilating
123: %neutralinos. The Hubble term takes care of the decrease in number
124: %density because of the expansion, while the first term on the
125: %right hand side represents the decrease due to annihilation and
126: %the second term represents the increase through creation by the
127: %inverse reactions.
128: %
129: At temperatures below the mass of the neutralinos the number
130: density drops exponentially. The annihilation rate $\Gamma=<\sigma
131: v> n_\chi$ drops exponentially as well, and if it drops below the
132: expansion rate, the neutralinos cease to annihilate
133: %They fall out
134: %of equilibrium (freeze-out) at a temperature of about $m_\chi/25$
135: and a relic cosmic abundance remains.
136: For the case that $<\sigma v>$ is energy independent, which is a
137: good approximation in case there is no coannihilation,
138: the present mass density in units of the
139: critical density is given by~\cite{jungman}: \bq \Omega_\chi
140: h^2=\frac{m_\chi n_\chi}{\rho_c}\approx (\frac{3\cdot 10^{-27}
141: cm^3 s^{-1}}{<\sigma v>})\label{wmap}.\eq One observes that the
142: present relic density is inversely proportional to the
143: annihilation cross section at the time of freeze out, a result
144: independent of the neutralino mass (except for logarithmic
145: corrections). For the present value of $\Omega_\chi h^2=0.11$ the
146: thermally averaged total cross section at the freeze-out
147: temperature of $m_\chi/25$ must have been $3\cdot 10^{-27}cm^3
148: s^{-1}$. This can be achieved only for restricted regions of
149: parameter space in the MSSM, as will be discussed in the next
150: section. Note that the annihilation cross section is given by
151: the Hubble expansion and therefore not dependent on the WIMP model.
152: %
153:
154:
155: \section{Predictions from Supersymmetry}
156: %
157: %
158: %Supersymmetry~\cite{susyrev} presupposes a symmetry between fermions
159: %and bosons, which can be realized in nature only if one assumes each particle
160: %with spin j has a supersymmetric partner with spin $\vert j-1/2\vert$
161: %($\vert j-1/2\vert$ for the Higgs bosons).
162: %This leads to a doubling of the particle spectrum.
163: %Unfortunately the supersymmetric particles
164: %or ``sparticles'' have not been observed so far, so the sparticle masses
165: %must be above the limits set by searches at present accelerators.
166: %Obviously SUSY cannot be an exact symmetry of nature; or else the
167: %supersymmetric partners would have the same mass as the normal
168: %particles.
169: The mSUGRA model, i.e. the Minimal Supersymmetric
170: Standard Model (MSSM) with supergravity inspired breaking terms,
171: is characterized by only 5 parameters: $m_0,~m_{1/2},~\tb,~\mbox{sign}(\mu),
172: ~A_0$\cite{susyrev}. Here $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ are the common masses for the
173: gauginos and scalars at the GUT scale, which is determined by the
174: unification of the gauge couplings. Exact gauge unification is still
175: possible with the precisely measured couplings at LEP~\cite{bs}.
176: %The ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs
177: %doublets is called \tb ~ and $A_0$ is the trilinear coupling at
178: %the GUT scale. We only consider the dominant trilinear couplings
179: %of the third generation of quarks and leptons and assume also
180: %$A_0$ to be unified at the GUT scale. The constraints on the
181: %supersymmetric parameters space are practically independent of
182: %$A_0$ due to a coincidence from the constraints from the \bsg~
183: %rate and the lower limit on the Higgs mass of 114 GeV~\cite{bs}.
184: %The absolute value of the Higgs mixing parameter $\mu$ is
185: %determined by electroweak symmetry breaking, while its sign is
186: %taken to be positive, as preferred by the anomalous magnetic
187: %moment of the muon~\cite{bs}.
188:
189:
190:
191: The neutralinos, which are assumed to be the stable, lightest supersymmetric
192: particles, can annihilate through higgs- and Z-exchange in the s-channel
193: and SUSY particles (neutralinos, charginos, sfermions) in the t-channel.
194: At large values of \tb~ the dominant channel is the pseudoscalar Higgs exchange with $b\overline{b}$ quarks in the final state, which lead to a well
195: defined shape of the final state gammas, positrons and electrons,
196: since the annhihilation is practically at rest,
197: The regions of parameter space allowed by the WMAP data are
198: plotted in Fig. \ref{relic} for two values of \tb. It is
199: clear that for $\tb\approx 50$ only a small region is allowed.
200: Scanning over all possible values of \tb~
201: the neutralino masses allowed by the WMAP data and electroweak constraints
202: are in the range of 150-400 GeV\cite{us}, if we exclude the coannihilation
203: regions, which would lead to anomously large boost factors, as discussed
204: in the next section.
205: For the fits discussed below
206: we use a typical mass of 200 GeV, which corresponds to $m_{1/2}\approx 500~ GeV$.
207: The data are not yet sensitive enough
208: to distinguish between masses in the range given above.
209: %
210:
211:
212:
213: %
214: \section{Global Fits to positrons, antiprotons and gamma rays}
215: %
216:
217: Trying to disentangle the contributions from nuclear interactions
218: and neutralino annihilation to the antimatter fluxes and gamma
219: rays is in practice not easy.
220: We use the following strategy: the shape of the background is taken
221: from the GALPROP program, which represents a detailed simulation
222: of our galaxy\cite{galprop}. The main background of hard gammas comes
223: from $\pi_0$ decays, which are produced in nuclear interactions and
224: inverse Compton scattering of electrons on photons.
225: The shape of the neutralino annihilation signal is taken from
226: DarkSusy\cite{darksusy}. These shapes are then multiplied
227: by an arbitrary normalization factor, which is left as a free parameter
228: in the $\chi^2$ fit to the data.
229:
230:
231: \begin{figure}[t]
232: \begin{center}
233: \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{dsflux_500_500_51_1_bgscale_gamma.eps}
234: \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{dsflux_500_500_51_1_bgscale_pb.eps}
235: \includegraphics [width=0.36\textwidth,clip]{dsflux_500_500_51_1_bgscale_ep.eps}
236: % \includegraphics [width=0.45\textwidth,clip]{dsflux_1000_1000_53_0_gamma.eps}
237: \caption[]{\it From top to bottom: Gamma ray , positron and antiproton
238: spectrum with contributions from nuclear interactions (grey/yellow)
239: and neutralino annihilation (dark/red) for a neutralino mass of
240: 207 GeV. The normalization factors for signal, called boostfactor, and
241: background (bg scaling) and the values of $\chi^2)$ with and without signal
242: have been indicated.}
243: \label{fit_gamma}
244: \end{center}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247:
248:
249:
250:
251: The following data were used in the fit:
252: \begin{itemize}
253: \item
254: Gamma ray data from the galactic center in the angular range
255: $330^\circ<\ell<30^\circ$ and $-5^\circ<b<5^\circ$
256: from the EGRET space telescope, which has
257: been taking data for about 9 years on the NASA Compton Gamma Ray
258: Observatory (CGRO).
259: We use the data as presented in Ref.~\cite{egret}.
260: \item
261: Positron data from AMS~\cite{ams01} and HEAT~\cite{heat}.
262: \item
263: Antiproton data from BESS in the years 1997 and 1998~\cite{bess}
264: \end{itemize}
265:
266:
267: The fit results
268: are shown in Fig. \ref{fit_gamma}.
269: The free parameters are only the normalization factors for signal
270: and background for each of the particle species and their values have been
271: indicated in the figures.
272: The boost factors, i.e. the free normalization factor after correcting
273: for the different propagations and energy
274: losses, for antiprotons, positrons and gamma rays are
275: all around 5-7 for the NFW halo profile\cite{nfw} taken\footnote{We use the
276: default $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ =(1,3,1) for a scale
277: $a=10$ kpc and a local relic density of 0.8 GeV/cm$^3$.}.
278: Much larger factors are not expected from theories of galaxy formation.
279: If we select SUSY parameters in the so-called coannihilation region,
280: where e.g. the stau and neutralino are almost degenerate, the boost
281: factors come out to be much larger, since the fast annihilation cross section
282: in the early universe by stau-neutralino coannihilation does not operate in the
283: present universe anymore and the small present annihilation cross section for
284: heavy neutralinos needs a large boost factor to fit the data.
285: The regions for which the boostfactors are above 10 are indicated
286: in Fig. \ref{relic}.
287:
288: The
289: $\chi^2$ improves significantly with the inclusion of Dark
290: Matter in the fits.
291: The $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ is reduced from 113/35 (110/38)for the background only
292: fit to 29/32 (33/35) for the fit including neutralino annihilation,
293: where the numbers in brackets
294: are valid, if one takes the shape {\it and} normalization from GALPROP,
295: while the first
296: numbers are obtained if only the shape is taken and the background normalization
297: is left free.
298: This corresponds to about a 4 (6) $\sigma$ effect, if calculated with
299: Gaussian errors.
300: For the antiprotons the increase in
301: probability is the least significant, as expected, since the shape
302: of background and signal are similar.
303:
304: It should be noted that the statistical significance is {\it independent}
305: of the choice of halo or propagation parameters, since
306: different halo or propagation parameters would only lead to different
307: normalization factors in the fit, but
308: the $\chi^2$ is not affected, since it is only sensitive to the shape
309: of the distribution with free normalization parameters.
310:
311:
312:
313: \section{Conclusion}
314:
315: It is shown that the discrepancies between EGRET data
316: and the galactic models can be reduced by taking as
317: an additional source of hard gammas the annihilation of
318: Dark Matter, assuming Dark Matter is made of neutralinos, as predicted
319: by Supersymmetry.
320: In addition, it is shown that adding
321: the positrons from neutralino annihilation in
322: the {\it same} Dark Matter model to the {\it same} background model
323: improves also the $\chi^2$ fit to the positron data significantly,
324: while the increase in antiprotons is compa\-tible with
325: the data.
326: These facts,
327: statistical significant improvement of the global fit
328: for positrons, antiprotons and gamma
329: rays {\it simultaneously} for a supersymmetric model with an annihilation
330: cross section compatible with the model-independent WMAP value, provide
331: strong experimental evidence for the supersymmetric
332: nature of Dark Matter.
333:
334:
335: We thank V. Moskalenko and A. Strong for sha\-ring with us all
336: their knowledge about our galaxy, O. Reimers to provide us with
337: the EGRET data.
338: This work was supported by the DLR (Deutsches Zentrum f\"ur
339: Luft- und Raumfahrt).
340: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
341: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
342:
343: \bibitem{wmap} The results of the first year of operation
344: of the WMAP satellite can be found on the Web:
345: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m\_mm/pub\_papers/firstyear.html
346: %
347: %\bibitem{bennett} C.L. Bennett, et al., astro-ph/0302207.
348: %
349: %\bibitem{spergel} D.N. Spergel, et al., astro-ph/0302209.
350: %
351: %\bibitem{verde} L. Verde et al., astro-ph/0302218
352: %
353: \bibitem{lspdm}
354: J. Ellis et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 453.
355: %
356: %\bibitem{olive}
357: %{\rm K. A. Olive, Phys. Rep. {\bf 190} (1990) 307.}
358: %
359: \bibitem{jungman}
360: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,
361: %``Supersymmetric dark matter,''
362: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 267} (1996) 195.
363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506380;%%
364: %\cite{Stoehr:2003hf}
365: \bibitem{bergstrom}
366: L.~Bergstrom,
367: %``Non-baryonic dark matter: Observational evidence and detection methods,''
368: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 63} (2000) 793
369: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002126];
370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002126;%%
371: \bibitem{us} W. de Boer et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0309029.
372: \bibitem{susyrev}
373: Reviews and original references can be found in:
374: W.~de Boer,
375: %``Grand unified theories and supersymmetry in particle physics and cosmology,''%
376: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33} (1994) 201 [arXiv:hep-ph/9402266].
377: % \\
378: %H.E. Haber, Lectures
379: %given at Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, University of Colorado, June
380: %1992, Preprint Univ. of Sante Cruz, SCIPP 92/33; see also SCIPP 93/22;\\ {\it
381: %Perspectives on Higgs Physics}, G. Kane (Ed.), World Scientific, Singapore
382: %(1993);\\ {\it Int. Workshop on Supersymmetry and Unification}, P. Nath
383: %(Ed.), World Scientific, Singapore (1993);\\ {\it Phenomenological Aspects of
384: %Supersymmetry}, W. Hollik, R. R\"uckl and J. Wess (Eds.), Springer Verlag
385: %(1993);\\ R. Barbieri, Riv. Nuovo Cim. {\bf 11} (1988) 1;\\
386: % A.B. Lahanus and
387: % D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rep. {\bf 145} (1987) 1;\\ H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane,
388: % Phys. Rep. {\bf 117} (1985) 75;\\ M.F. Sohnius, Phys. Rep. {\bf 128} (1985)
389: % 39;\\ H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110} (1984) 1;\\ P. Fayet and S. Ferrara,
390: % Phys. Rep. {\bf 32} (1977) 249.}
391: %
392: \bibitem{bs}
393: W.~de Boer and C.~Sander,
394: %``Global Electroweak Fits and Gauge Coupling Unification,''
395: arXiv:hep-ph/0307049.
396: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307049;%%
397: \bibitem{galprop} A.W. Strong and I.V. Moskalenko,
398: Astrophys. J. {\bf 509} (1998) 212; ibid.
399: Astrophys. J. {\bf 493} (1998) 694;
400: http://www.gamma.mpe-garching.mpg.de/\~{ }aws/propagate.html.
401: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906228;%%
402: \bibitem{darksusy}
403: %\cite{Gondolo:2000ee}
404: %\bibitem{Gondolo:2000ee}
405: %P.~Gondolo, J.~Edsjo, L.~Bergstrom, P.~Ullio and E.~A.~Baltz,
406: DarkSUSY, P.~Gondolo,
407: J.~Edsjo, L.~Bergstrom, P.~Ullio and E.~A.~Baltz,
408: %``DarkSUSY: A numerical package for dark matter calculations in the MSSM,''
409: arXiv:astro-ph/0012234 and http://www.physto.se/\~{ }edsjo/darksusy/.
410: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012234;%%
411: \bibitem{egret}
412: A.~W.~Strong, I.~V.~Moskalenko and O.~Reimer,
413: %``A new estimate of the extragalactic gamma-ray background from EGRET data,''
414: arXiv:astro-ph/0306345.
415: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306345;%%
416: %
417: %
418: \bibitem{ams01} J.~Alcaraz {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],
419: %``Leptons In Near Earth Orbit,''
420: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 484} (2000) 10 [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 440].
421: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B484,10;%%
422: %
423: \bibitem{heat}
424: %\cite{Barwick:1997ig}
425: %\bibitem{Barwick:1997ig}
426: S.~W.~Barwick {\it et al.} [HEAT Collaboration],
427: %``Measurements of the cosmic-ray positron fraction from 1-GeV to 50-GeV,''
428: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 482} (1997) L191
429: [arXiv:astro-ph/9703192].\\
430: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9703192;%%
431: %\cite{DuVernois:bb}
432: %\bibitem{DuVernois:bb}
433: M.~A.~DuVernois {\it et al.},
434: %``Cosmic Ray Electrons And Positrons From 1-Gev To 100-Gev: Measurements With HEAAT And Their Interpretation,''
435: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 559} (2001) 296.
436: %%CITATION = ASJOA,559,296;%%
437: %HEAT-pbar Coll., S. Coutu et al., Porc. of 27th ICRC (2001).
438: \bibitem{bess} BESS Coll. S. Orito et al., Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 84} (2000) 1078. T. Maeno et al., Astrop. Phys. {\bf 16} (2001) 121;
439: astro-ph/0010381.
440: \bibitem{nfw} J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frank and S.D.M. White, ApJ {\bf 490} (1997) 493.
441:
442: \end{thebibliography}
443:
444: \end{document}
445:
446: %The mass of the neutralino is not well constrained by the present
447: %data, since the data does not extend to high enough energies to
448: %see the end point of the neutralino annihilation. In order to see
449: %what range of neutralino masses provides large enough cross
450: %sections we plotted in Fig. \ref{boost} the contours in the
451: %$m_0,m_{1/2}$ plane for boost factors between 1 and 10 for
452: %different values of \tb. Clearly, quite a range of neutralino
453: %masses are allowed, but if one requires in addition that the
454: %constraints from electroweak precision data are fulfilled, only
455: %neutralino masses in the range 150 to 300 GeV are allowed for
456: %boost factors below 10. For the local dark matter density of
457: %value of 0.6 GeV/cm$^3$ was used, which is the highest one
458: %compatible with the rotation curves\cite{bergstrom1}. This yields
459: %us the maximum neutralino masses compatible with boost factors
460: %below 10. For the used NRW profile the boost factors for
461: %antiprotons, positrons and gamma rays are ALL similar, practically
462: %independent of the neutralino mass.
463:
464:
465: \bibitem{bsmumu}
466: A.~Dedes, H.~K.~Dreiner and U.~Nierste,
467: %``Correlation of B/s $\to$ mu+ mu- and (g-2)(mu) in minimal supergravity,''
468: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251804
469: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108037].
470: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108037;%%
471: %\cite{Alcaraz:bf}
472:
473: %\cite{Bergstrom:1997fj}
474: \bibitem{pdb}
475: {\rm Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002).}
476: %
477:
478: \begin{figure}[t]
479: \begin{center}
480: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb51_a0_mupos_fine_full_boostcontour.eps}
481: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb51_a1_mupos_fine_full_boostcontour.eps}
482: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb51_a1_mupos_large_boostcontour.eps}
483: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb52_a0_mupos_large_boostcontour.eps}
484: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb53_a0_mupos_large_boostcontour.eps}
485: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{Plots/scan_tb55_a0_mupos_large_boostcontour.eps}
486: \caption[]{\it
487: The region of relic density allowed by the WMAP data.
488: The upper row is for \tb=51 and $A_0=0$ (left) and $A_0=m_0$ (right), which
489: shows that the role of Higgs constraint (dotted line)
490: and \bsg ~ constraint (solid line) are interchanged
491: for the different values of the trilinear coupling, but the lower limit
492: on $m_{1/2}$ is not very sensitive to $A_0$.
493: The light shaded (blue) area is the region allowed by WMAP and the
494: contours of larger $\Omega h^2$ are indicated by the dashed lines
495: in steps of 0.05. The second (third) row show the same information
496: for a larger region
497: for \tb=51, 52 (l. and r.) ( 53 and 55 (l. and r.)).
498: The excluded regions, where the stau would be the LSP or EWSB fails or
499: the boost factors are above 10 are indicated by the dots.
500: The black dots indicate the resonance region,
501: where $|m_A-2m_{\chi_0}| \le 10$ GeV. For $\tb>52$ the acceptable
502: values for the relic densities are for $m_{1/2}$ values above the
503: resonance region.
504: }
505: \label{relic}
506: \end{center}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509:
510: This is the first time that these fluxes are studied
511: in a global fit using the best available diffusion
512: parameters without artificial constructs to remedy the
513: deficiencies of the galactic models and add to the contributions
514: from nuclear interactions the ones from neutralino annihilation in
515: the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM) with all the
516: known constraints from electroweak precision data and the relic
517: density from the WMAP satellite.
518: Actually, all we need from the
519: supersymmetric model to fill up the deficiencies is a neutralino
520: with a thermally averaged annihilation cross section times
521: relative neutralino velocities of about
522: $10^{-26}~\mbox{~cm}^3/\mbox{s}$ for the
523: present universe, which is the model independent annihilation
524: cross section, as determined from the WMAP data.
525:
526: With this annihilation cross section the
527: probability of the global fit to galactic fluxes of positrons,
528: antiprotons and gamma rays increases by several orders of magnitude,
529: which can be interpreted in case of gaussian errors as
530: an improvement by about 4-6 standard deviations. The higher
531: significance is obtained, if not only the shape, but also the
532: absolute normalization from the
533: galactic models is used.
534:
535: These facts, statistical significance of the global fit combined
536: with similar boost factors for positrons, antiprotons and gamma
537: rays, provide strong experimental evidence for the supersymmetric
538: nature of Dark Matter.
539:
540: \section{Acknowledgements}