1: \documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{psfig}

4: \usepackage{latexsym}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,graphics,graphicx}

7: \usepackage{epstopdf}

8: 

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{7.0 in}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{8.5 in}

11: \setlength{\headheight}{0 in}

12: \setlength{\parindent}{20 pt}

13: \setlength{\headsep}{0 in}

14: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5 in}

15: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.250 in}

16: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-.250 in}

17: 

18: 

19: 

20: \newcommand{\OO}{\mathcal{O}}

21: \newcommand{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}

22: \newcommand{\HH}{\mathcal{H}}

23: \newcommand{\NN}{\mathcal{N}}

24: \newcommand{\DD}{\mathcal{D}}

25: \newcommand{\hc}{\text{ h.c.}}

26: \newcommand{\GeV}{\text{GeV}}

27: \newcommand{\TeV}{\text{TeV}}

28: \newcommand{\cm}{\text{cm}}

29: \newcommand{\sr}{\text{sr}}

30: \newcommand{\s}{\text{s}}

31: \newcommand{\eff}{\text{eff}}

32: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

33: \newcommand{\bino}{\tilde{B}}

34: \newcommand{\wino}{\tilde{W}}

35: \newcommand{\gluino}{\tilde{g}}

36: \newcommand{\higgsino}{\tilde{H}}

37: \newcommand{\Top}{\text{top}}

38: \newcommand{\pslash}{p\hspace{-0.070in}/\,}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: \begin{center}

42: {\large\bf Indirect Signals from Dark Matter in Split Supersymmetry}\\

43: \vskip 0.3cm {\normalsize

44: Asimina Arvanitaki and Peter W. Graham\\

45: \vskip 0.2cm

46: Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

47: Department of Physics\\

48: Stanford University\\

49: Stanford, CA 94305 USA\\

50: email: aarvan@stanford.edu, pwgraham@stanford.edu\\

51: \vskip .1in}

52: \end{center}

53: 

54: \vskip .5cm

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}

57: We study the possibilities for the indirect detection of dark matter

58: in Split Supersymmetry from $\gamma$-rays, positrons, and

59: anti-protons. The most promising signal is the $\gamma$-ray line,

60: which may be observable at the next generation of detectors. For

61: certain halo profiles and a high mass neutralino, the line can even

62: be visible in current experiments. The continuous $\gamma$-ray

63: signal may be observable, if there is a central spike in the

64: galactic halo density.  The signals are found to be similar to those

65: in MSSM models. These indirect signals complement other experiments,

66: being most easily observable for regions of parameter space, such as

67: heavy wino and higgsino dominated neutralinos, which are least

68: accessible with direct detection and accelerator searches.

69: \end{abstract}

70: \vskip 1.0cm

71: 

72: \section{Introduction}

73: The principle of naturalness seems to fail in explaining the small

74: size of the cosmological constant. The apparent fine-tuning required

75: dwarfs that of the gauge hierarchy problem. Further, the current

76: experimental bound on the Higgs mass requires a 1\% tuning in the

77: MSSM \cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb}, the most popular solution to the

78: gauge hierarchy problem. In view of these problems with naturalness,

79: Arkani-Hamed and Dimopoulos have proposed accepting a single

80: fine-tuning in the Higgs sector \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}.

81: 

82: In exchange, many of the problems of the MSSM, including the SUSY

83: flavor and CP problems and the long lifetime of the proton, are

84: easily solved within one framework without sacrificing either gauge

85: coupling unification or the natural dark matter candidate of the

86: MSSM.  This model, called Split Supersymmetry \cite{Giudice:2004tc},

87: breaks SUSY at an intermediate scale, $M_S$, between the weak and

88: Planck scales, giving the squarks and sleptons masses $\sim M_S$. An

89: approximate R-symmetry keeps the gauginos and higgsinos light,

90: around a TeV in mass \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004yi}. This scale is

91: chosen to give a dark matter candidate whose relic abundance can be

92: in the observed range \cite{Lee:1977ua} and to preserve gauge

93: coupling unification.

94: 

95: Since dark matter is one of the main motivations for and constraints

96: on Split SUSY, it is important to understand the nature of the dark

97: matter candidate. We will assume that the neutralino is the LSP. The

98: relic abundance and direct detection signals have already been

99: calculated \cite{Giudice:2004tc, Pierce:2004mk}. We build on that

100: work to study indirect detection signals from the annihilation of

101: neutralinos in the dark matter halo of our galaxy.  These

102: annihilations produce cosmic rays which could be used not only to

103: discover dark matter but also to determine some of its properties.

104: We study the annihilation signals from $\gamma$-rays, positrons, and

105: antiprotons in Split SUSY. For $\gamma$-rays, we calculate the

106: fluxes from the center of the galaxy where the neutralino density is

107: greatest. Many processes contribute to the continuous flux of these

108: cosmic rays at tree level.  There are also one loop diagrams which

109: mediate the processes $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \gamma \gamma$ and $\chi^0

110: \chi^0 \to \gamma Z$, creating two sharp lines in the $\gamma$-ray

111: spectrum \cite{Bergstrom:1997fh}. The width of these lines is set by

112: the kinetic energy distribution of the dark matter particles, since

113: photons propagate through the galaxy without significant diffusion.

114: The energy of these lines then serves as a very precise measure of

115: the mass of the dark matter particle.

116: 

117: We find that cosmic ray signals from neutralino annihilations in

118: Split SUSY are similar to those in many MSSM models.  The lines in

119: the $\gamma$-ray spectrum should be detectable by future

120: experiments, if not by current ones.  The continuous $\gamma$-ray

121: signal is visible for dark matter density profiles with a spike at

122: the galactic center.  Positrons and antiprotons from neutralino

123: annihilations are more challenging, as they can be observed only if

124: the backgrounds are well understood.  The prospects for indirect

125: detection are generally promising and best in areas where collider

126: and direct detection searches are difficult.

127: 

128: \section{Indirect signals}

129: 

130: \subsection{Split Supersymmetry framework}

131: To find the flux of cosmic rays from neutralino annhiliations in the

132: halo, we must first find the cross sections for all the neutralino

133: annihilation processes.  Certain differences between Split SUSY and

134: the MSSM are crucial to this analysis.  The most salient is the lack

135: of scalar superpartners at low energies. The tree level Lagrangian

136: in Split SUSY below the SUSY breaking scale, $M_S$, contains the

137: terms %%

138: \begin{eqnarray}

139: \nonumber \LL &\supset&  \bino (\kappa'_1 h^\dagger \higgsino_1 +

140: \kappa_2' h \higgsino_2) +\wino^a( \kappa_1 h^\dagger \tau^a

141: \higgsino_1 + \kappa_2 \higgsino_2 \tau^a h) - \lambda |h|^4 - \mu

142: \higgsino_1 \higgsino_2 - \frac{1}{2}(M_1 \bino\bino + M_2

143: \wino\wino + M_3 \gluino\gluino).

144: \end{eqnarray}

145: %%

146: The neutralino and chargino mass matrices from this Lagrangian

147: are:%%

148: \begin{displaymath}

149: \mathbf{M_{\chi^0}}= \left( \begin{array} {cccc}

150: M_1 & 0 & -\frac{\kappa_1' \upsilon}{\sqrt {2}} & \frac{\kappa_2' \upsilon}{\sqrt {2}}\\

151: 0 & M_2 & \frac{\kappa_2 \upsilon}{\sqrt {8}} &-\frac{\kappa_1 \upsilon}{\sqrt {8}}\\

152: -\frac{\kappa_2' \upsilon}{\sqrt {2}} & \frac{\kappa_2 \upsilon}{\sqrt {8}} & 0 & -\mu\\

153: \frac{\kappa_1' \upsilon}{\sqrt {2}} & -\frac{\kappa_1 \upsilon}{\sqrt {8}} & -\mu & 0\\

154: \end {array} \right),

155: \end{displaymath}

156: \begin{displaymath}

157: \mathbf{M_{\chi^{\pm}}}= \left( \begin{array}{cc}

158: M_2 & \frac{\kappa_1 \upsilon}{2}\\

159: \frac{\kappa_2 \upsilon}{2} & \mu

160: \end{array} \right),

161: \end{displaymath}

162: with $\upsilon = 246 ~\GeV$. %%

163: At $M_S$ the following supersymmetric relations are satisfied: %%

164: \begin{eqnarray}

165: \nonumber \kappa'_1= \sqrt{\frac{3}{10}} g_1 \sin \beta

166: \hspace{0.3in} \kappa'_2= \sqrt{\frac{3}{10}} g_1 \cos\beta

167: \hspace{0.3in} \kappa_1= \sqrt{2} g_2 \sin \beta \hspace{0.3in}

168: \kappa_2= \sqrt{2} g_2 \cos \beta \hspace{0.3in} \lambda =

169: \frac{\frac{3}{5}g_1^2+g_2^2}{8}\cos ^2 2 \beta.

170: \end{eqnarray}

171: These couplings must be run from their SUSY values at $M_S$ down to

172: the scale at which we are working.  This affects all the couplings

173: and crucially raises the Higgs mass as high as 160 to 170 GeV

174: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb, Arvanitaki:2004eu, Binger:2004nn}, increasing the Higgs

175: width to around 1 GeV.  The lack of scalar superpartners greatly

176: decreases the number of parameters from the MSSM.  Split SUSY models

177: are specified completely in terms of the input parameters $M_S$,

178: $\tan \beta$, $\mu$, and the gaugino masses.

179: 

180: \subsection{Calculation of annihilation rates}

181: The DarkSUSY package calculates the current relic abundance of the

182: lightest neutralino, the cross sections for direct detection, and

183: the flux of cosmic rays from neutralino annihilation in the halo

184: \cite{Gondolo:2004sc}.  Our calculations are based on this package

185: as modified in \cite{Pierce:2004mk} to include the running of the

186: couplings from the SUSY breaking scale, the absence of scalar

187: superpartners, and the effect of the process $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to h

188: \to WW^*$ on the relic abundance.

189: 

190: DarkSUSY only calculates the neutralino annihilation rate into two

191: body final states.  The average decay products of these two on-shell

192: particles are then added together to produce the indirect signal.

193: Normally these channels are the dominant contribution to the

194: annihilation rate, but since the Higgs has a large mass and width,

195: there is a region where the neutralinos can annihilate resonantly

196: through an s-channel Higgs. Even if its energy is below threshold

197: for WW production, a Higgs heavier than $130$ GeV has a large

198: branching ratio for decays to $WW^*$, which is not a two-body final

199: state since one of the W's is not on-shell.  When it is on

200: resonance, this process can dominate the neutralino annihilation

201: rate and significantly affect the relic abundance.

202: 

203: It is necessary to include the effects of this annihilation channel,

204: $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to h \to WW^*$, in the calculation of indirect

205: signals as well. However, it is suppressed by the low velocity of

206: the neutralinos at the present time.  In the zero velocity limit

207: they have no angular momentum and can only create a pseudoscalar

208: state in the s-channel, not a scalar.  Because of the Higgs

209: resonance, a velocity-suppressed signal could still be significant.

210: We use the known rate for the process $h \to WW^* \to Wf \overline

211: f$, where $f$ is any SM fermion \cite{Keung:1984hn}. The usual

212: DarkSUSY routines are then used to find the average decay products

213: of the fermions, ignoring the complication that the center of mass

214: frame of the fermions, the $W^*$ frame, is moving.  Taking the

215: motion into account would slightly affect the energies of the decay

216: products, but is unnecessary since we merely wish to be sure this

217: channel is negligible below threshold for WW production.  We find

218: that the velocity suppression wins and the Higgs resonance channel

219: contributes very little to the annihilation signals at the present

220: time.  In principle, the usual DarkSUSY calculation also fails for

221: channels with a Higgs in the two body final state, however we find

222: that these processes are negligible as well.

223: 

224: \subsection{Halo model}

225: The density profile of the galactic dark matter halo can affect the

226: calculated indirect signals greatly. We take the Burkert profile

227: \cite{Burkert:1995yz}:

228: \begin{eqnarray}

229: \rho (r) = \frac{\rho_0}{(1+\frac{r}{R} ) (1+\frac{r^2}{R^2} )}

230: \end{eqnarray}

231: where $\rho_0  =  0.839 \ \frac{\GeV}{\cm^3}$ and $R  =  11.7 \

232: \text{kpc}$. This is a conservative profile from the point of view

233: of annihilation signals, since it does not have a spike at the

234: center of the galaxy. Other halo profiles are commonly parameterized

235: as:

236: \begin{eqnarray}

237: \rho(r) = \frac {\rho_0} {(\frac{r}{R})^\gamma

238: (1+(\frac{r}{R})^\alpha)^\frac{(\beta - \gamma)}{\alpha}}.

239: \end{eqnarray}

240: These do have a spike in the center of the galaxy for positive

241: $\gamma$.  We will consider the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) model

242: \cite{Navarro:1996he} with $\alpha  =  1$, $\beta  =  3$, and

243: $\gamma  =  1$ as an alternative to the conservative Burkert

244: profile. We hold fixed the density at the radius of the solar system

245: and so take $R = 20 \ \text{kpc}$ and $\rho_0 = 0.235 \

246: \frac{\GeV}{\cm^3}$.  This model will tend to produce greater

247: annihilation signals, since they are proportional to the square of

248: the density. In the following sections we will compare the results

249: for the Burkert and NFW profiles in detail.

250: 

251: \begin{figure}[t]

252: \begin{center}

253: %%

254: \epsfig{file=relic.eps, width=6.0in} \caption{ \label{Fig: Relic

255: Abundance} Points in the $\mu - M_1$ plane with relic abundance

256: within the WMAP allowed range. Here $M_S = 10^9 ~\GeV$, $\tan \beta

257: = 5$, and $M_2 = 2 M_1$.  The horizontal lines at low $M_1$ are the

258: Higgs resonance region.}

259: \end{center}

260: \end{figure}

261: 

262: \section{$\gamma$-ray, positron and antiproton signals}

263: 

264: \begin{table}[b]

265: \begin{center}

266: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

267: \hline

268:  & $M_1 (\GeV)$ & $M_2 (\GeV)$ & $\mu (\GeV)$ & $m_{\chi} (\GeV)$ & $\bino$ fraction & $\wino$ fraction & $\higgsino$ fraction & $\Omega h^2$\\

269: \hline

270: bino  & 300 & 600 & 350 & 281 & 0.730 & 0.010 & 0.260 & 0.111\\

271: \hline

272: higgsino & 1400 & 2800 & 1200 & 1192 & 0.024 & 0.002 & 0.974 & 0.109\\

273: \hline

274: wino & 4400 & 2200 & 3500 & 2197 & $\sim 10^{-7}$ & 0.997 &0.003 & 0.099\\

275: \hline

276: higgs resonance & 75.5 & 151 & 250 & 69.8 & 0.922 &  0.019 & 0.059 & 0.122\\

277: \hline

278: \end{tabular}

279: \caption{The characteristic bino, wino, higgsino and higgs resonance

280: points.  The mass, composition, and relic abundance of the LSP is

281: shown for each point.  For all points $\tan \beta = 5$ and $M_S =

282: 10^9 ~\GeV$.}

283: \end{center}

284: \end{table}

285: 

286: In Fig. \ref{Fig: Relic Abundance} we plot the points in parameter

287: space that satisfy the current experimental bounds on the relic

288: abundance $( 0.094 < \Omega h^2 < 0.129)$ from WMAP

289: \cite{Bennett:2003bz}. We have chosen $\tan \beta = 5$ and $ M_S =

290: 10^9 ~\GeV $ with $ \frac{M_2}{M_1}=2$. For low values of $M_1$,

291: there is a region where the neutralino annihilates through an

292: s-channel Higgs resonance. The neutralino in this region is almost

293: purely bino. Away from the Higgs resonance and as the mass of the

294: neutralino increases following the diagonal line, the content of the

295: neutralino switches from bino to higgsino.  For $m_{\chi}>1$ TeV,

296: the line turns upwards and the neutralino becomes almost purely

297: higgsino.  A wino dominated LSP can only be found at values of $M_1$

298: and $\mu$ larger than 3 TeV with $ \frac{M_2}{M_1}<1$, resulting in

299: a high mass neutralino. It should be noted that the above results

300: are consistent with \cite{Pierce:2004mk}.

301: 

302: In order to compare the continuous spectra of antiprotons,

303: positrons, and $\gamma$-rays in this framework with the cosmic ray

304: background, we consider four characteristic points in parameter

305: space. We calculate the fluxes for a bino, wino, and higgsino

306: dominated neutralino, as well as a neutralino that corresponds to

307: the Higgs resonance region. The masses and compositions of the LSPs

308: are given in Table 1.

309: 

310: \subsection{$\gamma$ lines}

311: 

312: \begin{figure}[t]

313: \begin{center}

314: %%

315: \epsfig{file=gammaln4.eps, width=6.0in} \caption{ \label{Fig: Gamma

316: Line} The strength of the gamma lines from $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \gamma

317: \gamma$ and $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \gamma Z$ is plotted against neutralino

318: mass for the points in Fig. \ref{Fig: Relic Abundance} and for a scan of wino-dominated LSPs with $M_1 = 2 M_2$ (section on right).  The flux is averaged over a $10^{-5} sr$ cone around the direction of the center of the galaxy.  The sensitivities of three current experiments are shown.  We have

319: used the NFW profile for the signal. While the energy of the $\gamma \gamma$

320: line is equal to $m_\chi$, the energy of the $\gamma Z$ line is

321: somewhat smaller.  The suppression due to the Higgs resonance is

322: clearly visible.}

323: \end{center}

324: \end{figure}

325: 

326: \begin{figure}[t]

327: \begin{center}

328: %%

329: \epsfig{file=gammacont3.eps, width=6.0in} \caption{ \label{Fig:

330: Continuous gamma ray spectrum} The continuous gamma ray spectra from

331: the galactic center for the four characteristic points and the

332: expected background.  We have used the less conservative NFW profile

333: for the signals.}

334: \end{center}

335: \end{figure}

336: 

337: 

338: The annihilations of two neutralinos to two $\gamma$-rays or to a

339: $\gamma$ and a Z produce lines in the $\gamma$-ray spectrum which

340: can provide a striking signature of the dark matter particle. The

341: energy of the $\gamma\gamma$ line is $E_{\gamma}=m_{\chi}$, since

342: the neutralinos have low velocities. The $\gamma Z$ line occurs at

343: an energy $E_{\gamma}=m_\chi-\frac{m_Z^2}{4m_{\chi}}$. This is

344: practically indistinguishable from the $\gamma \gamma$ line for

345: large neutralino masses, where the two will be easily within any

346: current experiment's energy bin size.

347: 

348: Unlike positrons and antiprotons, $\gamma$-rays can travel through

349: the halo with little diffusion, especially if they are highly

350: energetic. This makes probing distant sources that have

351: increased local density, such as the center of the galaxy, possible.

352: Now, the halo profile chosen for our calculations starts to play an

353: important role. As already discussed, many halo models favor the

354: existence of a spike in the dark matter profile at the galactic

355: center. We calculate the flux from this direction in the sky averaged

356: over a solid angle of $10^{-5} \ \sr$, which we assume to be the

357: angular resolution of our detector.

358: 

359: Fig. \ref{Fig: Gamma Line} shows the expected flux of the two

360: $\gamma$ lines from the direction of the galactic center as a

361: function of the neutralino mass, for all the points shown in Fig.

362: \ref{Fig: Relic Abundance}.  It also includes a scan of wino-dominated neutralinos (the strip on the right) with the same parameters except $M_1 = 2 M_2$.  Here we have used the NFW profile.  For the Burkert profile the signals are reduced by a factor of about 1000. The Higgs resonance causes a significant

363: suppression of the signal at $m_\chi \approx \frac{1}{2} m_H \approx

364: 80 ~\GeV$.  The $\gamma$ line signals are peaked at $\approx

365: 3 \times 10^{-14} ~\cm^{-2} \s^{-1}$. This signal is not observable

366: by space-based experiments, since even GLAST, with an effective area

367: of $\sim 10^4 \ \cm^2$ \cite{Morselli:2003xw}, will see only $\sim

368: 0.01 ~\text{photons} ~\text{yr}^{-1}$ from the galactic center and $\sim 1 ~\text{photons} ~\text{yr}^{-1}$ from the entire galaxy. Ground based telescopes, such

369: as HESS \cite{Aharonian:1997}, have a much larger effective area

370: ($\sim 10^8 ~\cm^2$), allowing a possible detection of the signal.

371: 

372: Of course, the astrophysical background could also overwhelm the

373: signal, though a line will be much easier to detect than the

374: continuous spectrum.  Fig. \ref{Fig: Gamma Line} includes the sensitivities of three currently operating telescopes.  These sensitivities are calculated for a 1 year exposure from the known integral point source sensitivities \cite{Morselli:2003xw, sensitivities}.  We expect the actual sensitivity to be better because our signal is not just a point source but also a monochromatic line which aids in distinguishing it from the background.  However, the quoted sensitivity should be approximately correct because the background falls sharply with energy.  If a line source is observable above the background at its own energy, it is probably observable above the total integrated background greater than its energy.  Further, a calculation of the sensitivity to a line source \cite{Bergstrom:1997fj} gives a sensitivity for HESS and VERITAS which is very similar to the quoted sensitivities.  From Fig. \ref{Fig: Gamma Line} it is clear that MAGIC has the best sensitivity in the relevant energy range although HESS is quite similar and VERITAS is just as sensitive above $1 ~\TeV$.  HESS and VERITAS are similar air-Cherenkov telescopes, but VERITAS is in the northern hemisphere.  Since the galactic center is a southern source, VERITAS observes it at a high zenith angle giving a higher energy threshold, but better sensitivity.

375: 

376: For high mass neutralinos the signal remains roughly constant, in contrast to the background which falls as a power law as in Fig. \ref{Fig: Continuous gamma ray spectrum}.

377: Unfortunately, the detectors have large energy resolutions, around

378: 10-25\%, which must be factored in when comparing the signal in Fig.

379: \ref{Fig: Gamma Line} to the background, making it harder to see a line.  For the NFW profile many of the heavier wino-dominated points should be visible at current experiments, especially since the $\gamma-\gamma$ and $\gamma$-Z signals should be added together as they will not be distinguishable in current telescopes.  The rest of the points are almost visible and will be probed by next generation experiments.  In addition, since there are multiple experiments operating in this energy range, a discovery could be confirmed easily.  Of course, these results depend strongly on the halo profile and so the improvements in sensitivity of future telescopes will really be allowing us to probe halo profiles with less dark matter at the center of the galaxy.

380: 

381: Using the Burkert profile reduces the signal from the galactic center by a factor of 1000 making it probably undetectable at current or next generation telescopes.  In this case it would actually be much easier to observe the signal by observing the entire galaxy instead of just the center because the density is roughly constant over the galaxy.  Thus telescopes like GLAST with a large field of view have an advantage over telescopes which must be focused on a small portion of the sky.  Since GLAST will see at most $\sim 1 ~\text{photon} ~\text{yr}^{-1}$ in the $\gamma$-line for either the Burkert or NFW profiles, it is probably not enough for a detection.  But because this is about the expected level of the background for neutralinos with mass $\gtrsim 1 ~\TeV$, a similar next generation telescope might even be able to detect the line signal in the case of a halo profile without a spike at the galactic center.

382: 

383: The calculated $\gamma$ line signals are similar in strength to

384: those of MSSM models, being slightly smaller than the signal from

385: Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking (AMSB) models but larger than that

386: from mSUGRA models \cite{Hooper:2003ka}.  In AMSB models the LSP is

387: either wino or higgsino dominated and so the comparison should be

388: with those points.  The mSUGRA models can also have a bino LSP and

389: allow a general comparison with Split SUSY. The new feature in Split

390: SUSY is the Higgs resonance region where the flux is greatly

391: suppressed. Away from this region, the prospects for the detection

392: of the $\gamma$ line in Split SUSY are much the same as in the MSSM.

393: 

394: 

395: \subsection{Continuous $\gamma$-ray, antiproton and positron flux}

396: 

397: \begin{figure}[t]

398: \begin{center}

399: %%

400: \epsfig{file=epcont2.eps, width=6.0in} \caption{ \label{Fig:

401: Continuous positron spectrum} The continuous positron spectra for

402: the four characteristic points and the expected background.  We have

403: used the NFW profile though it will not affect the signals

404: greatly, since they depend primarily on the local halo density.}

405: \end{center}

406: \end{figure}

407: 

408: \begin{figure}[t]

409: \begin{center}

410: %%

411: \epsfig{file=pbarcont3.eps, width=6.0in} \caption{ \label{Fig:

412: Continuous antiproton spectrum} The continuous antiproton spectra

413: for the four characteristic points and the expected background.  We

414: have used the NFW profile though it will not affect the signals

415: greatly, since they depend primarily on the local halo density.}

416: \end{center}

417: \end{figure}

418: 

419: The continuous spectrum of $\gamma$-rays, antiprotons and positrons is mainly produced from the

420: decay of annihilation products and, in particular for $\gamma$-rays, the radiative emission of photons

421: when those annihilation products propagate through the halo. While $\gamma$-rays make it possible to probe the galactic center directly, charged antimatter can only propagate a few kpc, and the signal will be determined by the known local halo density.

422: 

423: In Figs. \ref{Fig: Continuous gamma ray spectrum},  \ref{Fig: Continuous positron spectrum}, and \ref{Fig:

424: Continuous antiproton spectrum}, we present the differential yields for the four characteristic points, as evaluated using the NFW profile. We have used the solar modulation routines in DarkSUSY to account for the propagation of antimatter in our solar system. In the Higgs resonance

425: region the signal is strongly suppressed, as expected, because the LSP is almost purely bino and has reduced coupling strength. The signals from all other points are comparable in comparison to the

426: background, merely shifted towards higher energies for the

427: higher mass LSPs. The flux goes to zero as the energy approaches

428: $m_{\chi}$. Even though the number of tree level diagrams  contributing to the yield is reduced by the absence of the scalar superpartners, the calculated signal is not much smaller than in

429: ordinary SUSY models \cite{Ullio:2001qk, Profumo:2004ty,

430: Feng:2000zu}. LSP annihilations in an AMSB model provide a slightly

431: larger signal.

432: 

433: The calculated signal for the $\gamma$-ray spectrum with the NFW profile is comparable to the background while the antimatter signals are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than their backgrounds \cite{Morselli:2003xw,Boezio:1997ec,Orito:1999re,DuVernois:2001bb}.  For $\gamma$-rays, this signal should be observable by both ground and space based telescopes. The signal is suppressed without a spike in the density at the galactic center. For the Burkert profile, this suppression translates to a factor of $\sim 10^{-3}$. This signal is below the statistical errors for the background and so unobservable for experiments like GLAST and at experimental sensitivity for ground based telescopes like VERITAS. For antiprotons and positrons, the signal cannot be conclusively observed by current or next generation experiments.  Since charged antimatter particles cannot reach us from the center of the galaxy, the calculated fluxes will not be affected by the presence or absence of a cusp.

434: 

435: To determine whether these signals are observable, it is also important

436: to understand the background model. There is a lot of

437: uncertainty about the interstellar medium in which the diffuse

438: $\gamma$-ray background and antimatter particles propagate.  There have been efforts to create a viable model that agrees with the latest data \cite{Strong:2004de}. More data from

439: current and next generation experiments can improve our

440: understanding of the background spectrum.  In the absence of a well

441: understood background model, it may be impossible to see a

442: continuous $\gamma$-ray or antimatter signal that is a couple orders of magnitude

443: below background, even if it is above the statistical error.

444: 

445: Although the spectrum produced is similar in shape to the background

446: there are several features which should allow a detection.  The

447: annihilation signal has a characteristic rise compared to the

448: background and then decreases abruptly at the neutralino mass.  If

449: there is a central spike in the density profile, the $\gamma$-ray

450: signal should be readily observable.  With a good enough

451: understanding of the background, even the antimatter or the $\gamma$-ray signal from the Burkert

452: profile could be observable.

453: 

454: 

455: \section{Conclusion}

456: 

457: We have discussed the basic aspects of indirect dark matter signals

458: in the Split SUSY scenario.  In general, the situation is similar to

459: that in the MSSM, though with more restrictions on the possible

460: models. The positron and antiproton spectra probably cannot be

461: detected due to the large uncertainty in the background and the low

462: annihilation signal produced.  The continuous $\gamma$-ray signal

463: will be difficult to observe for conservative halo profiles.

464: However, a central spike in the galactic halo density could make

465: this signal observable at current or near-future detectors.

466: 

467: The $\gamma$-ray lines are easier to detect than the continuous

468: spectra, since there are no other known sources for such a signal.

469: Current experiments can already probe certain regions of Split SUSY

470: parameter space with a less conservative halo profile.  For halo profiles which are sharply peaked, MAGIC and HESS are sensitive to neutralino masses above $\sim 100 ~\GeV$ and VERITAS to masses above $\sim 1 ~\TeV$.  Since the diffuse $\gamma$-ray background falls with energy, experimental sensitivities improve at high energies, making the high mass higgsino- and wino-dominated neutralinos more easily observable.  Future

471: experiments should be able to see the $\gamma$-line signal for a wide range of

472: the available parameter space and halo profiles.  This could provide

473: not only a discovery of the dark matter particle, but also a

474: measurement of its mass.

475: 

476: Decays of gravitinos can produce an additional, non-thermal

477: abundance of LSPs in Split SUSY \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004yi}, which we

478: have not included in our calculations.  We expect this to increase

479: the relic abundance and thus change slightly the allowed regions of

480: parameter space from that shown in Fig. \ref{Fig: Relic Abundance}.

481: In general, this will increase the number density and decrease the

482: mass of the LSP, leading to enhanced indirect signals compared to

483: those presented above.

484: 

485: These indirect dark matter searches tend to complement accelerator

486: and direct detection experiments.  Of course, indirect signals can at best provide a detection of the dark matter particle and a measurement of its mass.  In order to discover supersymmetry or distinguish Split Supersymmetry from other supersymmetric models, further evidence will be required for example from colliders \cite{colliders}, cosmic ray observatories \cite{Anchordoqui:2004bd}, or neutrino telescopes.  A lower mass LSP will be

487: discovered at the LHC, while a heavier one gives the best

488: annihilation signals.  Pure higgsino or wino dark matter would be

489: very difficult for direct detection and collider searches

490: \cite{Pierce:2004mk}, but should be detectable indirectly. In this

491: case, astrophysics can fill in the pieces of the puzzle that other

492: experiments have missed.

493: 

494: \section*{Acknowledgements}

495: We would like to thank T. Abel, E.A. Baltz, P. Michelson, and S.

496: Thomas for useful discussions.  Special thanks to C. Davis, S.

497: Dimopoulos, A. Pierce, and J.G. Wacker for all their help.  P.W.G.

498: is supported by the National Defense Science and Engineering

499: Graduate Fellowship.

500: 

501: \begin{thebibliography}{1}

502: 

503: %\cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb}

504: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:1981zb}

505: S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,

506: %``Softly Broken Supersymmetry And SU(5),''

507: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193}, 150 (1981).

508: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,150;%%

509: 

510: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}

511: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}

512: N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos,

513: %``Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures

514: %for fine-tuning at the LHC,''

515: arXiv:hep-th/0405159.

516: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%

517: 

518: %\cite{Giudice:2004tc}

519: \bibitem{Giudice:2004tc}

520: G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,

521: %``Split supersymmetry,''

522: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699}, 65 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0406088].

523: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406088;%%

524: 

525: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004yi}

526: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2004yi}

527: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,

528: %``Aspects of split supersymmetry,''

529: arXiv:hep-ph/0409232.

530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409232;%%

531: 

532: %\cite{Lee:1977ua}

533: \bibitem{Lee:1977ua}

534: B.~W.~Lee and S.~Weinberg,

535: %``Cosmological Lower Bound On Heavy-Neutrino Masses,''

536: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 39}, 165 (1977).

537: %%CITATION = PRLTA,39,165;%%

538: 

539: %\cite{Pierce:2004mk}

540: \bibitem{Pierce:2004mk}

541: A.~Pierce,

542: %``Dark matter in the finely tuned minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

543: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 075006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0406144].

544: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406144;%%

545: 

546: %\cite{Bergstrom:1997fh}

547: \bibitem{Bergstrom:1997fh}

548: L.~Bergstrom and P.~Ullio,

549: %``Full one-loop calculation of neutralino annihilation into two photons,''

550: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 504}, 27 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9706232].

551: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706232;%%

552: %\cite{Ullio:1997ke}

553: P.~Ullio and L.~Bergstrom,

554: %``Neutralino annihilation into a photon and a Z boson,''

555: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1962 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9707333].

556: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707333;%%

557: 

558: %\cite{Arvanitaki:2004eu}

559: \bibitem{Arvanitaki:2004eu}

560: A.~Arvanitaki, C.~Davis, P.~W.~Graham and J.~G.~Wacker,

561: %``One loop predictions of the finely tuned SSM,''

562: arXiv:hep-ph/0406034.

563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406034;%%

564: 

565: %\cite{Binger:2004nn}

566: \bibitem{Binger:2004nn}

567: M.~Binger,

568: %``The Higgs boson mass at 2 loops in the finely tuned split  supersymmetric

569: %standard model,''

570: arXiv:hep-ph/0408240.

571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408240;%%

572: 

573: %\cite{Gondolo:2004sc}

574: \bibitem{Gondolo:2004sc}

575: P.~Gondolo, J.~Edsjo, P.~Ullio, L.~Bergstrom, M.~Schelke and

576: E.~A.~Baltz,

577: %``DarkSUSY: Computing supersymmetric dark matter properties numerically,''

578: JCAP {\bf 0407}, 008 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0406204].

579: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406204;%%

580: %\cite{Edsjo:1997bg}

581: J.~Edsjo and P.~Gondolo,

582: %``Neutralino relic density including coannihilations,''

583: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1879 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9704361].

584: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704361;%%

585: %\cite{Edsjo:2003us}

586: J.~Edsjo, M.~Schelke, P.~Ullio and P.~Gondolo,

587: %``Accurate relic densities with neutralino, chargino and sfermion

588: %coannihilations in mSUGRA,''

589: JCAP {\bf 0304}, 001 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0301106].

590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301106;%%

591: %\cite{Gondolo:1990dk}

592: P.~Gondolo and G.~Gelmini,

593: %``Cosmic Abundances Of Stable Particles: Improved Analysis,''

594: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 360}, 145 (1991).

595: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,145;%%

596: 

597: %\cite{Keung:1984hn}

598: \bibitem{Keung:1984hn}

599: W.~Y.~Keung and W.~J.~Marciano,

600: %``Higgs Scalar Decays: H $\to$ W+- X,''

601: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, R248 (1984).

602: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,248;%%

603: 

604: %\cite{Burkert:1995yz}

605: \bibitem{Burkert:1995yz}

606: A.~Burkert,

607: %``The Structure of dark matter halos in dwarf galaxies,''

608: IAU Symp.\  {\bf 171}, 175 (1996) [Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 447}, L25

609: (1995)] [arXiv:astro-ph/9504041].

610: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9504041;%%

611: 

612: %\cite{Navarro:1996he}

613: \bibitem{Navarro:1996he}

614: J.~F.~Navarro, C.~S.~Frenk and S.~D.~M.~White,

615: %``A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,''

616: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 490}, 493 (1997).

617: %%CITATION = ASJOA,490,493;%%

618: 

619: %\cite{Bennett:2003bz}

620: \bibitem{Bennett:2003bz}

621: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

622: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

623: %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

624: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 1 (2003)

625: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207];

626: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

627: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.}  [WMAP Collaboration],

628: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

629: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

630: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)

631: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

632: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

633: 

634: %\cite{Morselli:2003xw}

635: \bibitem{Morselli:2003xw}

636: A.~Morselli,

637: %``Search for supersymmetric dark matter with GLAST,''

638: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=6024459}{SPIRES entry}

639: {\it Prepared for 8th International Conference on Advanced

640: Technology and Particle Physics (ICATPP 2003): Astroparticle,

641: Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications,

642: Como, Italy, 6-10 Oct 2003}

643: 

644: \bibitem{Aharonian:1997}

645: F.~A.~Aharonian, W.~Hofmann, A.~K.~Konopelko, H.~J.~Volk,

646: %The potential of the ground based arrays of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov

647: %telescopes. II. Gamma ray flux sensitivities

648: Astroparticle\ Physics\ {\bf 6}, 365 (1997).

649: 

650: \bibitem{sensitivities}

651: %\cite{Magnussen:1997ys}

652: %\bibitem{Magnussen:1997ys}

653: N.~Magnussen,

654: %``The MAGIC telescope project for study of cosmic rays above 10-GeV,''

655: arXiv:astro-ph/9805184.

656: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9805184;%%

657: %\cite{Vassiliev:1999gt}

658: %\bibitem{Vassiliev:1999gt}

659: V.~V.~Vassiliev,

660: %``Flux sensitivity of VERITAS,''

661: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 11}, 247 (1999)

662: [arXiv:astro-ph/9905044].

663: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9905044;%%

664: %\cite{Hinton:2004eu}

665: %\bibitem{Hinton:2004eu}

666: J.~A.~Hinton  [The HESS Collaboration],

667: %``The status of the HESS project,''

668: New Astron.\ Rev.\  {\bf 48}, 331 (2004)

669: [arXiv:astro-ph/0403052].

670: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403052;%%

671: 

672: %\cite{Bergstrom:1997fj}

673: \bibitem{Bergstrom:1997fj}

674: L.~Bergstrom, P.~Ullio and J.~H.~Buckley,

675: %``Observability of gamma rays from dark matter neutralino annihilations  in the

676: %Milky Way halo,''

677: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 9}, 137 (1998)

678: [arXiv:astro-ph/9712318].

679: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9712318;%%

680: 

681: %\cite{Hooper:2003ka}

682: \bibitem{Hooper:2003ka}

683: D.~Hooper and L.~T.~Wang,

684: %``Direct and indirect detection of neutralino dark matter in selected

685: %supersymmetry breaking scenarios,''

686: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 035001 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309036].

687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309036;%%

688: 

689: %\cite{Ullio:2001qk}

690: \bibitem{Ullio:2001qk}

691: P.~Ullio,

692: %``Indirect detection of neutralino dark matter candidates in  anomaly-mediated

693: %supersymmetry breaking scenarios,''

694: JHEP {\bf 0106}, 053 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0105052].

695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105052;%%

696: 

697: %\cite{Profumo:2004ty}

698: \bibitem{Profumo:2004ty}

699: S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,

700: %``The role of antimatter searches in the hunt for supersymmetric dark

701: %matter,''

702: JCAP {\bf 0407}, 006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0406018].

703: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406018;%%

704: 

705: %\cite{Feng:2000zu}

706: \bibitem{Feng:2000zu}

707: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

708: %``Prospects for indirect detection of neutralino dark matter,''

709: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 045024 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0008115].

710: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008115;%%

711: 

712: %\cite{Boezio:1997ec}

713: \bibitem{Boezio:1997ec}

714: M.~Boezio {\it et al.}  [WIZARD Collaboration],

715: %``The cosmic-ray antiproton flux between 0.62-GeV and 3.19-GeV measured  near

716: %solar minimum activity,''

717: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 487}, 415 (1997).

718: %%CITATION = ASJOA,487,415;%%

719: 

720: %\cite{Orito:1999re}

721: \bibitem{Orito:1999re}

722: S.~Orito {\it et al.}  [BESS Collaboration],

723: %``Precision measurement of cosmic-ray antiproton spectrum,''

724: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 1078 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9906426].

725: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906426;%%

726: 

727: %\cite{DuVernois:2001bb}

728: \bibitem{DuVernois:2001bb}

729: M.~A.~DuVernois {\it et al.},

730: %``Cosmic ray electrons and positrons from 1-GeV to 100-GeV: Measurements with

731: %HEAT and their interpretation,''

732: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 559}, 296 (2001); C. ~Grimani {\it et al.},

733: %"Measurements of the absolute energy spectra of cosmic-ray positrons and electrons

734: %above 7 GeV",

735: Astron.\ \& \ Astrophys.\ {\bf 392}, 287 (2002); M.~Boezio {\it et

736: al.} [WIZARD Collaboration],

737: %``The cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra measured  at 1 AU during

738: %solar minimum activity,''

739: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 532}, 653 (2000).

740: %%CITATION = ASJOA,559,296;%%

741: 

742: %\cite{Strong:2004de}

743: \bibitem{Strong:2004de}

744: A.~W.~Strong, I.~V.~Moskalenko and O.~Reimer,

745: %``Diffuse Galactic continuum gamma rays. A model compatible with EGRET data

746: %and cosmic-ray measurements,''

747: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 613}, 962 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0406254].

748: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406254;%%

749: 

750: \bibitem{colliders}

751: %\cite{Zhu:2004ei}

752: %\bibitem{Zhu:2004ei}

753: S.~h.~Zhu,

754: %``Chargino pair production at linear collider and split supersymmetry,''

755: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604}, 207 (2004)

756: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407072].

757: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407072;%%

758: %\cite{Kilian:2004uj}

759: %\bibitem{Kilian:2004uj}

760: W.~Kilian, T.~Plehn, P.~Richardson and E.~Schmidt,

761: %``Split supersymmetry at colliders,''

762: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39}, 229 (2005)

763: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408088].

764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408088;%%

765: %\cite{Hewett:2004nw}

766: %\bibitem{Hewett:2004nw}

767: J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie, M.~Masip and T.~G.~Rizzo,

768: %``Signatures of long-lived gluinos in split supersymmetry,''

769: JHEP {\bf 0409}, 070 (2004)

770: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408248].

771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408248;%%

772: %\cite{Cheung:2004ad}

773: %\bibitem{Cheung:2004ad}

774: K.~Cheung and W.~Y.~Keung,

775: %``Split supersymmetry, stable gluino, and gluinonium,''

776: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 015015 (2005)

777: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408335].

778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408335;%%

779: 

780: %\cite{Anchordoqui:2004bd}

781: \bibitem{Anchordoqui:2004bd}

782: L.~Anchordoqui, H.~Goldberg and C.~Nunez,

783: %``Probing split supersymmetry with cosmic rays,''

784: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 065014 (2005)

785: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408284].

786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408284;%%

787: 

788: \end{thebibliography}

789: \end{document}

790: