1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
5:
6: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
7: %\usepackage{showkeys}
8:
9: \usepackage{color}
10: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
11: \usepackage{subfigure}
12: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
13:
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %%% Definizioni di simboli %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17:
18: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
19: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$<$}}}
20: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}
21: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
22: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$>$}}}
23: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}
24: \newcommand{\sigmav}{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} v \rangle}
25:
26: \newcommand{\vmin}{v_{\rm min}}
27: \newcommand{\vesc}{v_{\rm esc}}
28: \newcommand{\ivmin}{{\cal I}(\vmin)}
29: \newcommand{\mc}{\m_{\chi}}
30: \newcommand{\pbar}{\bar{p}}
31:
32: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
33: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
34: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
35: \newcommand{\ena}{\end{eqnarray}}
36: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
37: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
38:
39:
40:
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \newcommand{\app}[3]{Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
43: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{hep-ex/#1}}
44: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{hep-ph/#1}}
45: \newcommand{\astroph}[1]{{astro-ph/#1}}
46: \newcommand{\prep}[3]{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
47: \newcommand{\plb}[3]{Phys.\ Lett.\ B\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
48: \newcommand{\npb}[3]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
49: \newcommand{\npps}[3]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
50: \newcommand{\cpc}[3]{Comm.\ Phys.\ Comm.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
51: \renewcommand{\apj}[3]{Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
52: \newcommand{\aeta}[3]{Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
53: \newcommand{\pr}[3]{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
54: \renewcommand{\prl}[3]{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
55: \renewcommand{\prd}[3]{Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
56: \renewcommand{\rmp}[3]{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
57: \newcommand{\rnc}[3]{Riv.\ Nuovo\ Cim.\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
58: \newcommand{\zfpc}[3]{Z.\ Phys.\ C\ {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Inizio del testo %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61:
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: \preprint{DFTT 08/2005}
66: \preprint{LAPTH--1104/05}
67:
68: \title{Antiproton fluxes from light neutralinos}
69:
70: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
71: % Please use the appropriate macro for each each type of information
72:
73: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
74: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the
75: % other information
76: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
77:
78: %
79: \author{A. Bottino}
80: %\email{bottino@to.infn.it}
81: %\homepage{http://www.astroparticle.to.infn.it}
82: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universit\`a di Torino \\
83: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy}
84: %
85: \author{F. Donato}
86: %\email{donato@to.infn.it}
87: %\homepage{http://www.astroparticle.to.infn.it}
88: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universit\`a di Torino \\
89: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy}
90:
91:
92: %
93: \author{N. Fornengo}
94: %\email{fornengo@to.infn.it}
95: %\homepage{http://www.astroparticle.to.infn.it}
96: %\homepage{http://www.to.infn.it/~fornengo}
97: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universit\`a di Torino \\
98: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy}
99:
100:
101: %
102: \author{P. Salati}
103: %\email{Salati@lapp.in2p3.fr}
104: \affiliation{
105: Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Th\'eorique LAPTH\\
106: CNRS-SPM and Universit\'e de Savoie\\
107: 9, Chemin de Bellevue, B.P.110 74941 Annecy-le-Vieux, France}
108: %
109: \date{\today}
110:
111: \begin{abstract}
112: We analyze how the measurements of the low-energy spectrum of
113: cosmic antiprotons can provide information on relic neutralinos.
114: The analysis is focused on the light neutralinos which
115: emerge in supersymmetric schemes where gaugino-mass unification
116: is not assumed. We determine which ranges of the
117: astrophysical parameters already imply stringent constraints
118: on the supersymmetric configurations and those ranges
119: which make the antiproton
120: flux sensitive to the primary component generated
121: by the neutralino self-annihilation. Our results are derived
122: from some general properties of the antiproton flux
123: proved to be valid for a generic cold dark matter candidate.
124:
125: \end{abstract}
126:
127: \pacs{95.35.+d,98.35.Gi,98.35.Pr,96.40.-z,98.70.Sa,11.30.Pb,12.60.Jv,95.30.Cq}
128: % 11.30.Pb Supersymmetry
129: % 12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
130: % 95.30.Cq Elementary particle processes
131: % 95.35.+d Dark matter
132: % 98.35.Gi Galactic halo (Milky Way)
133: % 98.35.Df Kinematics, dynamics, and rotation
134: % 98.35.Pr Solar neighborhood
135:
136: \maketitle
137:
138:
139:
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141:
142:
143:
144: \section{Introduction}
145: \label{sect:intro}
146: In supersymmetric schemes, where gaugino-mass unification is not assumed,
147: the lower bound on the neutralino mass is determined by the upper limit on the
148: contribution of cold dark matter (CDM) to the cosmological density parameter,
149: $(\Omega_{\rm CDM})_{\rm max}h^2$.
150: Using the value $(\Omega_{\rm CDM})_{\rm max} h^2 = 0.13$,
151: derived from results of Refs. \cite{wmap,sloan}, one obtains the lower bound
152: $m_{\chi} \gsim 7$ GeV \cite{lowneu,lowmass}. This is at variance with the more
153: commonly employed lower limit of about 50 GeV, derived from the experimental
154: (LEP) lower bound on the chargino mass. The rich phenomenology related to
155: possible light neutralinos, with masses within the range 7 GeV $\leq m_{\chi}
156: \leq $ 50 GeV, has been discussed in Refs. \cite{lowneu,lowmass,lowdir,lowind}.
157:
158: In particular, in Ref. \cite{lowind} it was scrutinized the capability of indirect measurements of
159: WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)
160: to detect light neutralinos and it was concluded that measurements of cosmic antiprotons
161: represent the most promising mean of indirect exploration. The analysis of the antiproton
162: signal was based on a study of the antiproton flux at one single representative value of the
163: antiproton kinetic energy ($T_{\bar{p}}$ = 0.23 GeV). It was proved that, for a wide range of the
164: astrophysical parameters, the antiproton signal due to neutralino
165: pair-annihilation is within the
166: level of detectability at small values of $m_{\chi}$.
167:
168: In the present paper we extend the previous investigation of the antiproton signal by analyzing the
169: detailed features of the expected theoretical spectra, and discuss how our results can be employed
170: to determine the presence of an actual primary signal or, at least, to derive significant
171: constraints on supersymmetric configurations at small $m_{\chi}$. Our analysis is carried out in the
172: perspective of a significant breakthrough in the determination of some relevant astrophysical
173: parameters and in view of a sizeable improvement in the measurement of the cosmic antiprotons
174: spectrum, as expected in forthcoming experiments in space.
175:
176: This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \ref{sect:generic} we analyze
177: some properties of primary cosmic antiproton fluxes due to self-annihilation of
178: a generic candidate of cold dark matter. These features are derived in the
179: standard scheme usually employed to describe the decoupling
180: of cold particles from the primordial plasma. An upper bound is
181: obtained for the antiproton flux. Then, in Sect. \ref{sect:neu}, a full
182: evaluation of the antiproton spectrum is derived in the case of relic
183: neutralinos. Results and perspectives are presented in Sect. \ref{sect:results}.
184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
185:
186: \section{A few properties of the self-annihilation cross-section for
187: a generic WIMP}
188: \label{sect:generic}
189:
190: Cosmic primary antiprotons can originate from the hadronization of quarks and
191: gluons produced in WIMP self-annihilation processes
192: (we consider here selfconjugate WIMPs) \cite{bulk,pbar0,Bottino_Salati,bergstrom,pbar_susy}.
193: Once antiprotons are produced in the
194: dark halo, they diffuse and propagate throughout the Galaxy. The propagated
195: antiproton differential
196: flux at a generic point of coordinates $r, z$ in the Galactic rest frame ($r$ is the
197: radial distance from the Galactic center in the Galactic plane and $z$ is the vertical coordinate)
198: is
199:
200: \begin{equation}
201: \Phi_{\bar{p}} (r,z,E) = \frac{v_{\bar{p}}}{4\,\pi} \; \Upsilon \;
202: \frac{dN}{d T_{\bar{p}}}
203: S^{\bar{p}}_{\rm astro} (r,z,E),
204: \label{eq:flux}
205: \end{equation}
206:
207: \noindent
208: with
209: \begin{equation}
210: \Upsilon = \frac{1}{2} \xi^2 \, \frac{\sigmav_0}{m_\chi^2}.
211: \label{eq:upsilon}
212: \end{equation}
213:
214: \noindent Notations are as follows: $v_{\bar{p}}$ is the
215: antiproton velocity, $\sigmav_0$ is the average, over the Galactic
216: velocity distribution, of the WIMP annihilation cross-section
217: multiplied by the relative velocity.
218: $ S^{\bar{p}}_{\rm astro}$ is a function which
219: takes into account all the effects of propagation in the Galaxy and
220: includes $\rho^2(r,z)$, $\rho (r,z)$ being the galactic dark matter
221: distribution. Here we take:
222:
223: \begin{equation}
224: \rho(r,z) = \rho_l \frac{a^2 + R_\odot^2}{a^2+r^2+z^2},
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: \noindent
228: where $\rho_l$ is the total local dark matter density
229: set at the value of 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$, $a$ is a core parameter, $a$=3.5 kpc
230: and $R_\odot$=8 kpc.
231: In the following we do not include any clumpiness effect.
232: $\xi$ represents the fractional local density $\rho_\chi$ of our
233: generic WIMP as compared to $\rho_l$, {\it i.e.} $\xi = \rho_\chi/\rho_l$.
234: By applying the usual rescaling procedure \cite{gst}, one has $\xi =
235: \min[1,\Omega_{\chi} h^2/(\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2)_{\rm min}]$.
236: From the analyses of Refs. \cite{wmap,sloan} one derives that at
237: $2\sigma$ level the cosmologically interesting region for cold dark matter
238: is: $0.095 \leq \Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 \leq 0.13$ (in what follows this will be
239: denoted as the WMAP range for CDM abundance). Thus, for
240: $(\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2)_{\rm min}$ we use here the value
241: $(\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2)_{\rm min} = 0.095$.
242:
243:
244:
245:
246: $d N_{\bar p}/ d T_{\bar p}$
247: is the differential antiproton spectrum per annihilation event:
248: \begin{equation}
249: \frac{d N_{\bar p}}{d T_{\bar p}} =
250: \sum_F BR(\chi \chi \rightarrow {\bar p} + X) \frac{dN_{\bar p}^{F}}{dT_{\bar p}},
251: \label{eq:spectrum}
252: \end{equation}
253:
254: \noindent
255: where $F$ denotes the different annihilation final states, $BR(\chi \chi
256: \rightarrow {\bar p} + X)$ the branching ratios and $dN_{\bar p}^{F}/dT_{\bar
257: p}$ stands for the antiproton energy spectra in the $F$ channel.
258:
259: Throughout this paper we will be interested in the antiproton differential flux
260: at Earth ($r = R_\odot$ , $z$ = 0) as a function of the antiproton kinetic energy;
261: this flux will be simply denoted as $\Phi_{\bar{p}}(T_{\bar{p}})$.
262:
263: We turn now to a discussion about some general properties of the quantities
264: entering the flux factor $\Upsilon$.
265: To make the discussion more transparent, we consider a scenario where the standard expansion
266: in S and P waves for the thermally averaged product of
267: the annihilation cross-section times the relative velocity of the self-interacting particles
268:
269: \begin{equation}
270: <\sigma_{\rm ann} v> \; \simeq \; \tilde{a} + \tilde{b} \; \frac{1}{x},
271: \label{sigmav}
272: \end{equation}
273: \noindent
274: holds ($x$ is defined as $x=m_\chi/T$, $T$ being the temperature).
275:
276: For relic particles in the Galactic halo $x \sim 10^6$, then, usually, a good
277: approximation is:
278: \begin{equation}
279: <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0 \; \simeq \; \tilde{a}
280: \label{sigmav0}
281: \end{equation}
282: We recall that $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>$ enters also in the relic abundance:
283: \begin{equation}
284: \Omega_{\chi} h^2 = \frac{x_f}{{g_{\star}(x_f)}^{1/2}} \frac{3.3 \times
285: 10^{-38} \; {\rm cm}^2}{\widetilde{<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>}},
286: \label{omega}
287: \end{equation}
288: where $\widetilde{<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>} \equiv x_f {\langle \sigma_{\rm
289: ann} \; v\rangle_{\rm int}}$, ${\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \;
290: v\rangle_{\rm int}}$ being the integral
291: of $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>$ from the present temperature up to the freeze-out temperature $T_f$;
292: $x_f$ is defined as $x_f \equiv m_{\chi}/T_f$ and
293: ${g_{\star}(x_f)}$ denotes the relativistic degrees of freedom of the
294: thermodynamic
295: bath at $x_f$. Using the expansion of Eq. (\ref{sigmav}), one obtains:
296: $\widetilde{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle}\simeq \tilde{a} +
297: 1/(2 x_f) \tilde{b}$.
298: Since $x_f \simeq 20$, also the P-wave contribution $\tilde{b}$ has to be retained in
299: this case. In the following, we however specifically assume that
300: $\tilde{a} \geq 1/(2 x_f) |\tilde{b}|$.
301:
302:
303:
304:
305: \subsection{Lower bound on $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$}
306:
307: The cosmological upper bound
308: $\Omega_{\chi} h^2 \leq (\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm max}$
309: implies that $\widetilde{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle}$
310: is limited from below. For a cold relic with a mass in the range
311: 10 GeV $\lsim m_{\chi} \lsim $ 1 TeV, one has
312: ${g_{\star}(x_f \simeq 20)} \sim 90$, so that
313: $x_f / {g_{\star}(x_f)}^{1/2} \sim 2.2$ (with variations of order 10 \%).
314: Then, from Eq. (\ref{omega})
315: $\widetilde{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle}
316: \gsim 7.3 \times 10^{-38} {\rm cm}^2/(\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm max}$. Using the value
317: $(\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm max} = 0.13$, we obtain
318: $\widetilde{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle} \gsim 5.6 \times 10^{-37}$ cm$^2$.
319: If $\tilde{a} \geq 1/(2 x_f) |\tilde{b}|$, this implies
320:
321: \begin{equation}
322: <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0 \; \gsim \; 3 \times 10^{-37} {\rm cm}^2.
323: \label{sigmav0b}
324: \end{equation}
325:
326:
327:
328: \subsection{Upper bound on $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$}
329: \label{sect:upper}
330:
331: Often it turns out that $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$ may be orders of magnitude
332: larger than the lower limit of Eq. (\ref{sigmav0b}). However, this fact does
333: not automatically imply very large values for the antiproton flux, since the
334: relevant quantity which enters in the antiproton flux is not simply
335: $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$, but instead $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$, through
336: the factor $\Upsilon$. Indeed, the quantity $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$
337: coincides with $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$ when $\Omega_{\chi} h^2\geq
338: (\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm min}$, but it is proportional to $<\sigma_{\rm ann}
339: v>_0/{\widetilde{\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle}}^2$ when $\Omega_{\chi}
340: h^2< (\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm min}$; then it has a maximum at $\Omega_{\chi}
341: h^2= (\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm min}$ \cite{bffms,lathuile}. Let us call
342: $\eta$ the set of parameters of the particle-physics model which describes our
343: generic cold relic. The property, that we have just discussed, states that the
344: maximum of the quantity $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$:
345: \begin{equation}
346: (\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0)_{\rm max} = <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0|_{\eta = \eta'}
347: \end{equation}
348: \noindent
349: occurs when the model parameters $\eta$ have values $\eta'$, such that
350: $(\Omega_{\chi} h^2)_{\eta = \eta'} = (\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2)_{\rm min}$,
351: that is (using Eq. (\ref{omega})), when
352:
353: \begin{equation}
354: \left(\frac{{g_{\star}(x_f)}^{1/2}}{x_f}
355: {\widetilde{<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>}}\right)_{\eta = \eta'} =
356: \frac{3.3 \times 10^{-38} \; {\rm cm}^2}{(\Omega_{\chi} h^2)_{\rm min}}.
357: \label{eq:max}
358: \end{equation}
359:
360: \noindent
361: Using the estimate already employed above, {\it i.e.}
362: $x_f / {g_{\star}(x_f)}^{1/2} \sim 2.2$, from Eq. (\ref{eq:max}) one obtains
363:
364:
365: \begin{equation}
366: ({\widetilde{<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>}})_{\eta = \eta'} =
367: \frac{7.3 \times 10^{-38} \; {\rm cm}^2}{(\Omega_{\chi} h^2)_{\rm min}} \simeq
368: 7.7 \times 10^{-37} \; {\rm cm^2},
369: \label{eq:max1}
370: \end{equation}
371:
372: \noindent
373: where, in the last step, the value $(\Omega_{\chi} h^2)_{\rm min} = 0.095$ is used.
374: Thus, {\it within a factor of 2}, the maximum of $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$ is stable for all sets
375: of parameters $\eta$ which satisfy Eq. (\ref{eq:max1}) and is given by
376: \begin{equation}
377: (\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0)_{\rm max} \simeq 8 \times 10^{-37} \; {\rm cm^2}.
378: \label{bound}
379: \end{equation}
380: If we take the mass $m_{\chi}$
381: to be one of the model parameters, this limit is
382: independent of $m_{\chi}$, provided the other parameters vary within ranges which allow
383: solutions of Eq. (\ref{eq:max1}).
384:
385: As a consequence of the previous properties, we find that
386: the maximum of the factor $\Upsilon$, as a function of
387: $m_{\chi}$, is expected to decrease simply as
388: $\Upsilon_{\rm max} \propto m_{\chi}^{-2}$.
389:
390: We note that the above properties apply also to
391: any other primary flux of cosmic particles due to WIMP self-interactions in
392: the halo, {\it e. g.} to the gamma-ray or positron flux.
393:
394:
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396: \section{Primary cosmic antiproton flux from self-annihilation of light
397: neutralinos}
398: \label{sect:neu}
399:
400: Now we finalize our previous considerations to the case of light relic
401: neutralinos.
402:
403:
404: \subsection{The Supersymmetric Model}
405: \label{sect:susy}
406:
407: The supersymmetric scheme employed here is an
408: effective Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM)
409: at the electroweak scale, where gaugino-mass unification is not assumed. This
410: is defined in terms of a minimal number of parameters, only those
411: necessary to shape the essentials of the theoretical structure of MSSM
412: and of its particle content. The assumptions that we impose at the
413: electroweak scale are: a) all squark soft-mass parameters are
414: degenerate: $m_{\tilde q_i} \equiv m_{\tilde q}$; b) all slepton
415: soft-mass parameters are degenerate: $m_{\tilde l_i} \equiv m_{\tilde
416: l}$; c) all trilinear parameters vanish except those of the third
417: family, which are defined in terms of a common dimensionless parameter
418: $A$: $A_{\tilde b} = A_{\tilde t} \equiv A m_{\tilde q}$ and
419: $A_{\tilde \tau} \equiv A m_{\tilde l}$. As a consequence, the
420: supersymmetric parameter space consists of the following independent
421: parameters: $M_2, \mu, \tan\beta, m_A, m_{\tilde q}, m_{\tilde l}, A$
422: and $R \equiv M_1/M_2$. In the previous list of parameters we have
423: denoted by $\mu$ the Higgs mixing mass parameter, by $\tan\beta$ the
424: ratio of the two Higgs v.e.v.'s, by $m_A$ the mass of the CP-odd
425: neutral Higgs boson, and by $M_1, M_2$ the U(1), SU(2) gaugino masses,
426: respectively.
427:
428: In the numerical random scanning of the supersymmetric parameter
429: space we use the following ranges: $1 \leq \tan \beta \leq 50$,
430: $100~ {\rm GeV }\leq |\mu|$, $M_2 \leq 1000~{\rm GeV }$, $100~{\rm
431: GeV}\leq m_{\tilde q}, m_{\tilde l} \leq 1000~{\rm GeV }$, ${\rm
432: sign}(\mu)=-1,1$, $90~{\rm GeV }\leq m_A \leq 1000~{\rm GeV }$,
433: $-3 \leq A \leq 3$, in addition to the above mentioned range $0.01
434: \leq R \leq 0.5$. We impose the experimental constraints:
435: accelerators data on supersymmetric and Higgs boson searches,
436: measurements of the $b \rightarrow s + \gamma$ decay and of the
437: branching ratio $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$, and measurements of the
438: muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_\mu \equiv (g_{\mu} - 2)/2$. For
439: the ranges used for these observable and other details of the
440: model we refer to Ref. \cite{lowind}.
441:
442:
443:
444: \subsection{The supersymmetric flux factor $\Upsilon$}
445:
446: Figs. \ref{fig:sigmav0}, \ref{fig:xi2_sigma0}, \ref{fig:upsilon} give the
447: scatter plots of the quantities $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$, $\xi^2<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$
448: and $\Upsilon$ versus $m_{\chi}$, limited to supersymmetric configurations
449: which satisfy the approximation $\tilde{a} \geq 1/(2 x_f) |\tilde{b}|$
450: employed above. (Red) crosses denote configurations with a relic abundance in
451: the cosmologically relevant range $0.095 \leq \Omega_{\chi} h^2 \leq 0.13$,
452: (blue) dots denote susy configurations where rescaling is effective ({\it i.e.}
453: neutralinos form a subdominant species of relic particles). In Fig.
454: \ref{fig:sigmav0} we notice the effect of the lower bound on $<\sigma_{\rm ann}
455: v>_0$, implied by the cosmological upper bound on $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2$ (see Eq.
456: (\ref{sigmav0b})). The rapidly rising of the scatter plot as $m_{\chi}$ reaches
457: the value of 45 GeV is due to the self-annihilation process through the
458: $Z$-boson exchange, superimposed to a similar enhancement extending to higher
459: values of $m_{\chi}$, originating in the self-annihilation process with the
460: exchange of the lightest CP-even neutral Higgs boson $h$. The upper frontier of
461: the scatter plot at low values of $m_{\chi}$ is determined by the experimental
462: lower bound on the mass of this Higgs boson.
463:
464: Fig. \ref{fig:xi2_sigma0} displays the upper
465: bound on $\xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$, whose approximate estimate is given in Eq. (\ref{bound}).
466:
467: Finally, we note that the upper frontier of the scatter plot for $\Upsilon$ in Fig.
468: \ref{fig:upsilon} clearly displays the simple
469: behavior $\Upsilon_{\rm max} \propto m_{\chi}^{-2}$, as derived in Sect. \ref{sect:upper}.
470: The lower part of the plot is composed by
471: configurations with a large rescaling in the local density.
472:
473:
474:
475:
476: \begin{figure}[t]
477: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/r_sigmav0.ps}}
478: \caption{Scatter plot of $ <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$ vs $m_{\chi}$. Red crosses
479: denote the supersymmetric configurations whose relic abundance is in the range
480: $0.095\leq \Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.13$, while blue dots denote configurations
481: with $\Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.095$.
482: }
483: \label{fig:sigmav0}
484: \end{figure}
485:
486: \begin{figure}[t]
487: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/r_xi2_sigmav0.ps}}
488: \caption{Scatter plot of $ \xi^2 <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_0$ vs $m_{\chi}$.
489: Notations as in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmav0}.
490: }
491: \label{fig:xi2_sigma0}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: \begin{figure}[t]
495: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/r_upsilon.ps}}
496: \caption{Scatter plot of the quantity $\Upsilon$ vs $m_{\chi}$.
497: Notations as in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmav0}.
498: }
499: \label{fig:upsilon}
500: \end{figure}
501:
502:
503: \subsection{The differential antiproton spectrum $d N_{\bar p}/ d T_{\bar p}$}
504:
505: To evaluate $d N_{\bar p}/ d T_{\bar p}$, we follow
506: the treatment of Ref. \cite{lowind}. In case of neutralino masses below the
507: thresholds for gauge-bosons, Higgs-bosons and $t$ quark production, antiprotons
508: originate from the hadronization into $\bar{p}$'s of the quark and gluon pairs
509: produced in the neutralino self-annihilation. For light neutralinos
510: ($m_{\chi} \leq$ 50 GeV), which
511: are mainly binos with a slight mixing with a higgsino component
512: \cite{lowmass}, the dominant final states are
513: the ones into $b \bar{b}$ and into $\tau^- \tau^+$,
514: the channel into $b \bar{b}$ being largely prominent for
515: $m_{\chi} \lsim$ 25 GeV.
516: This property is displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:BR}.
517: Our calculation of the energy
518: spectra has been performed by using a Monte Carlo simulation with the PYTHIA
519: package \cite{pithia}.
520:
521: \begin{figure*}[t]
522: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/r_BR_intobottom_vs_mchi.ps}}
523: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/r_BR_intotau_vs_mchi.ps}}
524: \caption{Scatter plots of the branching ratios for the neutralino
525: self-annihilation into $b\bar{b}$ (left panel) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ vs
526: $m_\chi$ (right panel).
527: }
528: \label{fig:BR}
529: \end{figure*}
530:
531:
532:
533: For neutralino masses which kinematically allow other final states
534: (gauge-bosons, Higgs-bosons and $t\bar{t}$ pairs), the full decay
535: chain down to the production of quarks and gluons has been
536: evaluated analytically. The final antiproton spectrum is then
537: calculated from the previous results by boosting the differential
538: energy distribution to the rest frame of the annihilating
539: neutralinos.
540: Details of our procedure are given in Refs. \cite{lowind,pbar_susy}.
541: A sample of results is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:spectrum}, where the spectra of
542: antiprotons per annihilation event are shown for a sample of the neutralino
543: masses and self-annihilation into $b\bar{b}$.
544: \begin{figure}[t]
545: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/g_E.ps}}
546: \caption{The differential antiproton spectrum $d N_{\bar p}/ d T_{\bar p}$
547: for annihilation in the $b\bar{b}$ channel, as a function
548: of the antiproton kinetic energy $T_{\bar p}$. From left to
549: right: $m_\chi$=10, 20, 30, 40 and 100 GeV.}
550: \label{fig:spectrum}
551: \end{figure}
552:
553:
554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
556: % PARTE DI PIERRE
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559:
560: \subsection{Cosmic ray propagation in the Galaxy}
561: \label{subsect:cr_propagation}
562:
563: %Description of the semi-analytical two-zone model and its parameters.
564: As they propagate throughout the Galaxy, charged cosmic rays mostly
565: bounce on the spatial irregularities of its magnetic fields. That process
566: is well described by mere diffusion with the energy dependent coefficient
567: \beq
568: K \; = \; K_{0} \beta \, {\cal R}^{\delta} \;\; ,
569: \eeq
570: where ${\cal R}$ stands for the particle rigidity. The acceleration of
571: primary species by supernovae driven shock waves as well as their
572: subsequent interactions with the interstellar gas take place in a thin
573: galactic disk that is sandwiched above and beneath by two large diffusion
574: layers with thickness $L$. Because the magnetic field inhomogeneities
575: -- actually the Alfv\'en waves -- move with speed $V_{A}$, cosmic rays
576: undergo inside the disk some diffusive reacceleration that come into play
577: with the ionization, Coulomb and adiabatic energy losses. Particles are
578: finally wiped away by a vertical convective wind whose velocity is $V_{c}$.
579: %
580: The propagation of charged cosmic rays can be well accommodated in a
581: cylindrical two-zone diffusion model. The particle radial abundances
582: may be expanded as series of Bessel functions
583: $J_{0}(\alpha_{i} \, r / R_{\rm gal})$ where $\alpha_{i}$ is the i-th
584: zero of the function $J_{0}$ and where $R_{\rm gal} = 20$ kpc is the radius
585: of the propagation region. For a complete description of the semi-analytic
586: code on which the present analysis is based, we refer the reader
587: to Ref.~\cite{PaperI,PaperI_bis,revue}.
588: %
589: Suffice it to say that the five cosmic ray propagation parameters
590: mentioned above -- namely the diffusion coefficient normalization
591: $K_{0}$ and index $\delta$, the confinement layers thickness $L$
592: and the velocities $V_{c}$ and $V_{A}$ -- have been constrained
593: by comparing the flux predictions for various cosmic ray species with
594: observations. The most stringent observable is the boron to carbon ratio
595: B/C -- a typical secondary to primary relative abundance -- whose analysis
596: within our diffusion model has been detailed in Ref.~\cite{PaperI,PaperI_bis}.
597: The relevance of the latter has been further established by the compatibility
598: of the B/C results with several other observed cosmic ray
599: abundances \cite{PaperI_bis,pbar_sec,beta_rad}.
600:
601: %Background of secondary antiprotons.
602: As a matter of fact, the conventional background for antiprotons is
603: produced in the galactic disk by the spallation of proton and helium
604: cosmic rays on the interstellar medium. A calculation of the flux at
605: the Earth of that population of secondary antiprotons has been performed
606: in Ref.~\cite{pbar_sec} with the same propagation model as for the B/C
607: analysis. The secondary flux has been derived consistently by employing
608: the propagation parameters that have been obtained from the full and
609: systematic analysis of Ref.~\cite{PaperI} on stable nuclei.
610: The interstellar (IS) fluxes have been solar-modulated according to the force
611: field approximation in order to obtain top--of--atmosphere (TOA) fluxes.
612: Throughout this paper, we compare our results with data taken during minimal
613: solar activity periods and we fix the modulation potential $\phi$ to 500 MV.
614: It was found that the agreement between low-energy antiproton data and the
615: estimate is excellent. Furthermore, the band within which the secondary flux
616: lies is fairly restrained as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sec_band}. In
617: Ref.~\cite{pbar_sec} it was actually
618: inferred a $\sim$ 20\% astrophysical uncertainty -- related to the
619: propagation model -- of the same order of magnitude as the theoretical
620: error arising from nuclear physics.
621: %
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623: \begin{figure}[h!]
624: \vskip -2cm
625: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/new_secondary_pbar.ps}}
626: \caption{
627: The secondary antiproton flux lies within the uncertainty band -- delineated by
628: the two solid black lines -- which corresponds to all the possible propagation
629: schemes that are compatible with the B/C data. Experimental
630: observations at solar minimum are featured,
631: in good agreement with the theoretical estimate.
632: Full circles: {\sc bess} 1995-97 \cite{bess95-97};
633: open squares {\sc bess} 1998 \cite{bess98};
634: stars: {\sc ams} \cite{ams98};
635: empty circles: {\sc caprice} \cite{caprice}.
636: }
637: \label{fig:sec_band}
638: \end{figure}
639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
640: %
641: Taking adiabatic energy losses into account results -- below a kinetic energy
642: of 1 GeV -- into a small increase of our new secondary flux with respect to
643: the previously published spectrum of Ref.~\cite{pbar_sec}.
644:
645: %Signal of primary antiprotons.
646: Constraining cosmic ray propagation with B/C provides a strong handle on any
647: species that originates from the disk of the Milky Way and allows in particular
648: the astrophysical uncertainties on secondary antiprotons to be mild as discussed
649: above. At variance with that secondary component, primary antiprotons are produced
650: by the annihilations of neutralinos spread all over the galactic halo. As
651: extensively discussed in Ref.~\cite{pbar_susy}, the corresponding uncertainties
652: span now two orders of magnitude, when the propagation parameters are varied between
653: the minimal and maximal configurations presented in Tab.~\ref{table:prop}.
654: %
655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
657: \begin{table}[h!]
658: \begin{center}
659: {\begin{tabular}{@{}|c|c|c|c|c|c|@{}}
660: \hline
661: {\rm case} & $\delta$ & $K_0$ & $L$ & $V_{c}$ & $V_{A}$ \\
662: & & [${\rm kpc^{2}/Myr}$] & [kpc] & [km s$^{-1}$] & [km s$^{-1}$] \\
663: \hline
664: \hline
665: {\rm max} & 0.46 & 0.0765 & 15 & 5 & 117.6 \\
666: {\rm med} & 0.70 & 0.0112 & 4 & 12 & 52.9 \\
667: {\rm min} & 0.85 & 0.0016 & 1 & 13.5 & 22.4 \\
668: \hline
669: \end{tabular}}
670: %\end{center}
671: \caption{
672: Astrophysical parameters compatible with B/C analysis and yielding
673: the maximal, median and minimal primary antiproton flux.
674: \label{table:prop}}
675: \end{center}
676: \end{table}
677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
679: %
680: Primary fluxes depend sensitively on the thickness of the confinement
681: layers and also on the convective wind that wipes cosmic ray species
682: away from the galactic disk. It is not surprising therefore if the
683: largest primary antiproton yield corresponds to the combination
684: $L = 15$ kpc and $V_{c} = 5$ km s$^{-1}$, whereas the smallest flux
685: obtains when $L = 1$ kpc and $V_{c} = 13.5$ km s$^{-1}$.
686: %
687: The Alfv\'enic velocity $V_{A}$ is strongly correlated with the normalization
688: constant $K_{0}$ because the B/C ratio determines the diffusive reacceleration
689: parameter $K_{EE} \propto V_{A}^{2} / K_{0}$ -- see Ref.~\cite{pbar_susy} --
690: with an accuracy of $\pm 15$\%. The parameter $V_{A}$ will not be further discussed.
691: %
692: Finally, we remind that -- as obtained in Refs.~\cite{pbar_susy,lowind} -- the
693: specific form assumed for the dark matter distribution in the Galaxy is fairly
694: irrelevant in the calculation of the propagated primary antiproton flux.
695: In particular, for not too thick confinement layers and strong convection winds,
696: the cosmic ray diffusion range is small and solar circle abundances are blind
697: to the center of the Milky Way and its putative neutralino cusp.
698:
699:
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
702: % PARTE DI PIERRE
703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
705: \section{Results and conclusions}
706: \label{sect:results}
707:
708: %
709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
710: \begin{figure*}[t]
711: \vskip -2.0cm
712: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/chi2_sigmamax.ps}}
713: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/chi2_sigmamin_goodomega.ps}}
714: \vskip -2.0cm
715: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/chi2_sigmamin.ps}}
716: \vskip -1.0cm
717: \caption{
718: The $\chi^{2}$ is featured as a function of the diffusive halo thickness $L$.
719: Black squares, green big circles, red smaller circles and blue dots
720: correspond to a neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$ of 10, 20, 30 and 40 GeV, respectively.
721: At fixed
722: neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$, each point is associated to a specific combination
723: of the galactic propagation parameters yielding a good fit for the B/C ratio.
724: %
725: Panels a, b and c respectively correspond to cases A), B) and C) defined
726: in the text.
727: %
728: The upper horizontal line indicates the discriminating $\chi^{2}$ value
729: above which the fit to the low-energy antiproton data is no longer acceptable.
730: %
731: The lower horizontal line corresponds to the $\chi^{2}$ calculated with the
732: secondary component alone for the median configuration of Tab.~\ref{table:prop}.
733: }
734: \label{fig:chi2_L}
735: \end{figure*}
736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
737: %
738:
739: %Introduction with a description of the method.
740: Because our analysis is focused on light neutralinos
741: -- $m_{\chi} \leq 40$ GeV -- our main interest is
742: in low-energy antiprotons. That is why we have selected the observations
743: performed in the GeV region by
744: Bess 1995-97 \cite{bess95-97},
745: Bess 1998 \cite{bess98} and
746: AMS 1998 \cite{ams98}.
747: All these experiments operated at solar minimum for which $\phi = 500$ MV.
748: The corresponding 32 data points are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:sec_band}
749: and are already very well explained by a pure secondary component. Actually,
750: we have derived a $\chi^{2}$ of 33.6 in the case of the median configuration
751: of Tab.~\ref{table:prop}. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsect:cr_propagation},
752: should the galactic cosmic ray propagation parameters be varied so as to keep
753: the B/C reduced $\chi^{2}$ below a generous value of 1.8, the secondary
754: antiproton flux would change by less than 20\% -- see Ref.~\cite{pbar_sec}.
755: %
756: To put our discussion on a quantitative basis, we need to establish a
757: criterion for deciding whether or not a specific supersymmetric configuration
758: is excluded by the above mentioned antiproton data. To this purpose, we compute
759: the primary flux which such a configuration yields, add it to the secondary
760: component and derive the corresponding $\chi^{2}$. Notice that Caprice
761: \cite{caprice} has been disregarded in our calculation as it operated
762: at a slightly higher energy than the range in which we are interested.
763: %
764: Then we decide that a specific supersymmetric configuration is excluded if
765: the corresponding $\chi^{2}$ exceeds a critical value of 60. For 32 degrees of
766: freedom, this translates into a disagreement at the 99.5 \% C.L.
767: It is worth stressing that our exclusion criterion is purposely taken
768: on the conservative side.
769:
770: A final word of caution is in order before we proceed. The problem is complicated
771: by the fact that the galactic cosmic ray propagation model is not unique.
772: Actually, in the present analysis, we have varied the five propagation
773: parameters presented in Sec.~\ref{subsect:cr_propagation} and considered
774: all the possible combinations that are in good agreement with stable nuclei
775: \cite{PaperI}. We keep the conservative attitude of selecting propagation
776: models as long as they lead to a reduced $\chi^{2}_{\rm red \, B/C} \leq 1.8$
777: on the B/C data.
778:
779: %Discussion of the cosmologically relevant cases a and b.
780: To commence, we focus our investigation on the supersymmetric configurations
781: which the present data on low-energy cosmic ray antiprotons constrain most.
782: Those configurations are associated to large antiproton yields and
783: correspond to high values of the effective annihilation cross-section
784: $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$. We concentrate here on cases A) and B)
785: for which the neutralino relic density is relevant to cosmology.
786: %
787: Case A) corresponds to the largest antiproton signal and consequently to the
788: strongest constraint as is clear in the panel a of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}
789: where the $\chi^{2}$ is plotted as a function of the diffusive halo
790: thickness $L$. (Black) squares, (green) big circles, (red) smaller circles and
791: (blue) dots correspond to a neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$ of 10,
792: 20, 30 and 40 GeV, respectively. The constellation of points of the same
793: shape (and color) -- which
794: corresponds to a specific neutralino mass -- is obtained by scanning the
795: entire set of cosmic ray propagation models that are compatible with B/C
796: -- as discussed above. The effective annihilation cross-section
797: $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$ reaches here a maximal value of
798: $10^{-36}$ cm$^{2}$ as may be readily inferred from the scatter plot of
799: Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2_sigma0} and its upper boundary.
800: %
801: Case B) corresponds to the minimal value of the annihilation
802: cross-section $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$ that is yet compatible with WMAP.
803: The neutralino relic abundance is set to the upper bound
804: $(\Omega_{\rm CDM})_{\rm max} h^2 = 0.13$. The corresponding scatter plot
805: is presented in panel b of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}.
806: %
807: The lower horizontal line at $\chi^{2} = 33.6$ corresponds to the fit
808: with the secondary antiproton component alone. The upper horizontal line
809: indicates the discriminating $\chi^{2}$ value above which the fit to the
810: low-energy antiproton data is no longer acceptable.
811: %
812: The large spread exhibited by the scatter plots of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}
813: illustrates the strong sensitivity of the primary antiproton flux to
814: the astrophysical parameters that account for cosmic ray propagation
815: throughout the Milky Way and its halo. This is at variance with the
816: stability of the secondary flux as already remarked above.
817: %
818: As is clear from panels a and b, light neutralinos of cosmological interest
819: -- {\it {i.e.}} with a relic abundance in the WMAP range -- are compatible
820: with the present data on cosmic ray antiprotons only if the parameter $L$ is
821: on the very low side of its physical interval. Should the diffusive halo
822: thickness $L$ turn out to be larger than 2 kpc -- a quite realistic
823: assumption given the existence of electron synchrotron radiation far
824: above the galactic disk -- neutralinos lighter than 20 GeV would be
825: excluded. If we now assume that $L \geq 5$ kpc, we readily conclude
826: that neutralinos with sizeable relic abundance must be heavier than
827: 40 GeV.
828: %
829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
830: \begin{figure}[h!]
831: \vskip -2.0cm
832: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/spectra_m20_goodomega_bestfitBC.ps}}
833: \vskip -1.0cm
834: \caption{
835: The primary antiproton spectrum -- blue long-dashed curve -- has been computed
836: for a 20 GeV neutralino and corresponds to the case B) of a maximal relic
837: abundance. The median configuration of Tab.~\ref{table:prop} has been assumed.
838: When added to the secondary component -- blue dotted line -- the primary signal
839: results into a total antiproton flux -- red solid spectrum -- well above the data
840: points. We actually infer a $\chi^{2}$ value of 200 to be compared to the
841: exclusion limit of 60.
842: Symbols for experimental data as in Fig. \ref{fig:sec_band}.
843: }
844: \label{fig:spectra_m20_case_b_best_fit_BC}
845: \end{figure}
846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
847: %
848: In order to illustrate how our $\chi^{2}$ exclusion criterion
849: translates on the observations, we have plotted in
850: Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra_m20_case_b_best_fit_BC} the total antiproton spectrum
851: -- (red) solid curve -- for a 20 GeV neutralino with maximal relic abundance.
852: The median configuration of Tab.~\ref{table:prop} has been selected for the
853: cosmic ray propagation parameters. It corresponds to the best fit to the B/C data.
854: The primary (blue long-dashed curve) and secondary (blue dotted line)
855: components add up to yield an antiproton signal well in excess of the observations.
856: The corresponding $\chi^{2}$ reaches actually the unacceptable value of 200.
857:
858: %
859: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
860: \begin{figure}[h!]
861: \vskip -2.0cm
862: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/spectra_m10_sigmamin.ps}}
863: \vskip -1.0cm
864: \caption{
865: The antiproton spectrum is featured together with its primary -- blue
866: long-dashed curve -- and secondary -- blue dotted line -- components
867: for a 10 GeV neutralino. The supersymmetric configuration corresponds
868: to maximal rescaling -- case C) -- and the specific set of astrophysical
869: parameters that has been extracted from panel c of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}.
870: This case corresponds to $\chi^2$=60, and then
871: is marginally acceptable.
872: Symbols for experimental data as in Fig. \ref{fig:sec_band}.
873: }
874: \label{fig:spectra_m10_case_c}
875: \end{figure}
876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
877: %
878:
879: %
880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
881: \begin{figure}[h!]
882: \vskip -2.0cm
883: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/spectra_m20_sigmamin.ps}}
884: \vskip -1.0cm
885: \caption{
886: Same as in Fig.\ref{fig:spectra_m10_case_c} with a 20 GeV neutralino.
887: }
888: \label{fig:spectra_m20_case_c}
889: \end{figure}
890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
891: %
892:
893: %Discussion of the maximal rescaling case C).
894: The last panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L} features supersymmetric configurations
895: for which the effective annihilation cross-section $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$
896: is minimal and rescaling is maximal. The antiproton signal is at its weakest
897: level and we do not expect low-energy antiproton
898: data to be very constraining. Panel c
899: of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L} indicates nevertheless that a 10 GeV neutralino is
900: excluded provided that the diffusive halo thickness $L$ exceeds 2.5 kpc.
901: Should $L$ be larger than 10 kpc, the limit rises to 20 GeV. That panel shows
902: also to what extent cosmologically subdominant neutralinos with a mass in the
903: range 20 GeV $\lsim m_{\chi} \lsim $ 40 GeV escape conflict with present data.
904: %
905: A potential distortion is difficult to unravel from the antiproton spectrum
906: given the available observations because error bars are too large. Actually,
907: Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra_m10_case_c} and \ref{fig:spectra_m20_case_c} feature
908: respectively the primary antiproton flux of a 10 and 20 GeV neutralino
909: (blue long-dashed curves) in the case C) of maximal rescaling together with
910: the conventional secondary component (blue dotted lines). The cosmic ray
911: propagation configurations that have been extracted from the panel c of
912: Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L} -- a (black) square if the neutralino mass is 10 GeV
913: or a (green) big circle when $m_{\chi}$ is twice as large -- lie on the upper
914: horizontal line for which the fit to the low-energy antiproton data yields
915: a $\chi^{2}$ value of 60. Below an antiproton kinetic energy of $\sim$ 1 GeV,
916: the global signal represented by the (red) solid curves is slightly shifted
917: upwards with respect to the secondary spectrum whereas above 1 GeV, both
918: spectra are identical.
919: %
920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
921: \begin{figure*}[t!]
922: \vskip -2.0cm
923: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/VC_L.ps}}
924: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/K0L_L.ps}}
925: \vskip -2.0cm
926: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/delta_L.ps}}
927: \vskip -1.0cm
928: \caption{
929: The three panels feature the same selection of astrophysical
930: configurations from panel c of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L} for which
931: the fit to the antiproton data is acceptable with $\chi^{2} \leq 60$.
932: %
933: Big black circles, smaller green circles and red dots respectively
934: correspond to a neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$ of 10, 20 and 30 GeV.
935: %
936: The panels successively display the cosmic ray propagation parameters
937: $V_{c}$ , $K_{0} / L$ and $\delta$ as a function of the diffusive halo
938: thickness $L$.
939: }
940: \label{fig:case_c_propagation_OK}
941: \end{figure*}
942: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
943: %
944: Richer samples of experimental data are a necessary condition for disentangling
945: a supersymmetric signal from background secondary antiprotons. The spectrum
946: of the latter suffers nevertheless from theoretical uncertainties -- cosmic
947: ray propagation and nuclear cross-sections -- that need to be further reduced
948: in order to make antiproton measurements a useful probe for cosmologically
949: subdominant neutralinos in the 10 to 30 GeV range.
950:
951: It is very instructive to pursue the analysis of the maximal rescaling case C)
952: in terms of other astrophysical parameters. The three scatter plots of
953: Fig.~\ref{fig:case_c_propagation_OK} feature the same selection of astrophysical
954: configurations drawn from Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L} -- panel c -- for which
955: the fit to the antiproton data is acceptable with $\chi^{2} \leq 60$. Big
956: (black) circles, smaller (green) circles and (red) dots correspond
957: to a neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$ of 10, 20 and 30 GeV respectively. The smaller the latter,
958: the more abundant the neutralinos at fixed mass density and the stronger
959: the antiproton annihilation signal. This trend is clear in each of the panels
960: of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}. It is even clearer in panel c. The relevant
961: annihilation cross-section is in that case the minimal value of
962: $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$ which increases rapidly with decreasing neutralino
963: mass -- see the lower boundary of the scatter plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2_sigma0}.
964: Low $m_{\chi}$ configurations are allowed if the primary antiproton excess
965: which they yield does not propagate efficiently from the halo of
966: the Milky Way to the solar system. Thin diffusive halos and strong galactic winds
967: are preferred. This is particularly obvious for a 10 GeV neutralino. Notice how
968: the big (black) circles concentrate in the upper-left corner of the $V_{c}$ versus
969: $L$ diagram. Remark also how the normalization $K_{0}$ of the diffusion coefficient
970: scales with the diffusive halo thickness $L$. In the second panel of
971: Fig.~\ref{fig:case_c_propagation_OK}, the ratio $K_{0} / L$ lies actually in the
972: range between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-2}$ kpc Myr$^{-1}$ irrespective of $L$. That
973: ratio turns out to be crucial in the diffusion equation. Finally, we do not find
974: any particular correlation between $\delta$ and $L$ even if small values for the
975: latter are still pointed towards in the last panel of
976: Fig.~\ref{fig:case_c_propagation_OK}.
977:
978: %
979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
980: \begin{figure}[h!]
981: \vskip -2.0cm
982: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/chi2_L_m100_m200.ps}}
983: \vskip -1.0cm
984: \caption{
985: Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}, panel a) but for $m_{\chi}$=100 GeV
986: -- upper branch -- and $m_{\chi}$=200 GeV -- lower branch. Horizontal
987: lines are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}.
988: }
989: \label{fig:chi2_L_m100_m200}
990: \end{figure}
991: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
992: %
993:
994: %
995: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
996: \begin{figure}[h!]
997: \vskip -2.0cm
998: {\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/chi2_mchi_sigmamax_astromax.ps}}
999: \vskip -1.0cm
1000: \caption{
1001: The $\chi^{2}$ is plotted as a function of the neutralino mass.
1002: Case A) has been
1003: selected with astrophysical parameters leading to the maximal signal. Horizontal
1004: lines are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}.
1005: }
1006: \label{fig:chi2_mchi_case_a_astromax}
1007: \end{figure}
1008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1009: %
1010:
1011: %Massive neutralino case.
1012: To conclude our investigation, we would like to assess the potential of
1013: low-energy antiproton measurements for discovering heavier neutralinos.
1014: For that purpose, we present in the $\chi^{2}$ versus $L$ plane of
1015: Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L_m100_m200} the same kind of scatter plot as in panel a
1016: of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_L}. Neutralino masses of 100 GeV (red stars) and 200
1017: GeV (blue crosses) have been displayed. In the supersymmetric configuration
1018: which we have selected for each neutralino mass, the effective annihilation
1019: cross-section $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>_{0}$ reaches its maximal value
1020: -- case A) -- so that the antiproton signal is the strongest. At fixed
1021: $m_{\chi}$, each star or cross is associated to a combination of galactic
1022: propagation parameters yielding a good fit for the B/C ratio. Notice how
1023: the constellation of (blue) crosses lies between the two horizontal lines.
1024: We readily conclude that whatever the cosmic ray propagation model is,
1025: low-energy antiproton data are useless as long as $m_{\chi} \gsim$ 200 GeV.
1026: %
1027: Our statement is supported by Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_mchi_case_a_astromax} where
1028: the maximal possible value of $\chi^{2}$ has been plotted as a function of
1029: neutralino mass. The effective annihilation cross-section $\xi^{2} <\sigma_{\rm
1030: ann} v>_{0}$ has been once again tuned to its maximal value -- case A) -- and
1031: the astrophysical configuration max of Tab.~\ref{table:prop} has been chosen.
1032: The $\chi^{2}$ curve drops below the exclusion value of 60 when the neutralino
1033: mass exceeds 200 GeV.
1034: \\
1035: Observations at significantly higher energies will probably be necessary to
1036: explore the regime where neutralinos are heavy. We leave such an investigation
1037: for a future publication but we cannot resist noticing that the Caprice data
1038: above 10 GeV already exhibit an excess with respect to the secondary antiproton
1039: background. If such a distortion is confirmed -- by the forthcoming
1040: Pamela satellite mission \cite{pamela} for instance -- it should have
1041: to be explained \cite{pbar_susy}. Pamela will actually probe the antiproton
1042: spectrum between 80 MeV and 190 GeV and collect data during three years
1043: starting at the end of 2005.
1044: As well as the Pamela experiment, other space missions are planned - such as
1045: AMS-02 on board the International Spatial Station \cite{ams02} or the
1046: balloon-borne Bess Polar mission in Antarctica \cite{bess_polar} - or in
1047: project - such as the GAPS satellite experiment \cite{gaps}. They will
1048: measure the low-energy antiproton spectrum with very high accuracy, and their
1049: results will be of great relevance for improving the study developed in the
1050: present paper.
1051: Improvements in the understanding of the propagation of galactic cosmic rays are
1052: foreseeable in the next future, thanks to long and ultra-long duration balloon
1053: missions \cite{cream} and space-based expriments \cite{ams02}.
1054: Even if the best expectations are deserved to the determination of the diffusion
1055: coefficient power spectrum $\delta$, data on the B/C quantity in the GeV/n
1056: region will also constrain the diffusive halo thickness $L$
1057: \cite{wwp} which, among the
1058: astrophysical parameters, plays the most important role in our previous
1059: analysis.
1060:
1061: Finally, we recall that the conclusions of the present paper are drawn
1062: for the case of a smooth distribution of dark matter in the galactic halo.
1063: Should the dark matter distribution have some clumpiness, the antiproton
1064: signal would be enhanced \cite{clump},
1065: and consequently some of the constraints on the previously
1066: discussed supersymmetric configurations would become more stringent.
1067:
1068: \newpage
1069:
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1072: \acknowledgments
1073: We acknowledge Research Grants funded jointly by the
1074: Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca
1075: (MIUR), by the University of Torino and by the Istituto Nazionale di
1076: Fisica Nucleare (INFN) within the {\sl Astroparticle Physics Project}.
1077: P.S. acknowledges a support from the French Programme National de
1078: Cosmologie PNC.
1079: F.D. acknowledges support from the A. von Humboldt Stiftung and hospitality
1080: from the Max-Planck Institute f\"ur Physik in Munich, where part of this work
1081: was done.
1082:
1083:
1084: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1085: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAFIA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1086: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1087:
1088: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1089:
1090: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1092: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1093: \bibitem{wmap}
1094: D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)
1095: [astro-ph/0302209].
1096:
1097: \bibitem{sloan}
1098: M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 103501 (2004) [astro-ph/0310723].
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102: \bibitem{lowneu}
1103: A. Bottino, N. Fornengo and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D
1104: {\bf 67}, 063519 (2003) [hep-ph/0212379].
1105:
1106: \bibitem{lowmass}
1107: A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and S. Scopel,
1108: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 043506 (2003) [hep-ph/0304080]
1109:
1110: \bibitem{lowdir} A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 037302
1111: (2004) [hep-ph/0307303].
1112:
1113: %For prospects to detect these light neutralinos at {\sc tevatron}
1114: %and $e^+ - e^-$ colliders see:
1115: %G. B\'elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant,
1116: %A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, hep-ph/0310037.
1117:
1118: \bibitem{lowind}
1119: A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and S. Scopel,
1120: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 015005 (2004) [hep-ph/0401186].
1121:
1122: \bibitem{bulk}
1123: J. Silk and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}, 624 (1984);
1124: J. Ellis, R.A. Flores, K. Freese, S. Ritz, D. Seckel and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B
1125: {\bf 214}, 403 (1988); F. Stecker, S. Rudaz and T. Walsch, Phys.
1126: Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 2622 (1985);
1127: J.S. Hagelin and G.L. Kane, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 263}, 399 (1986);
1128: S. Rudaz and F.W. Stecker, Astrophys. J. {\bf 325}, 16 (1988);
1129: F. Stecker and A. Tylka, Astrophys. J. {\bf 336}, L51 (1989);
1130: G. Jungman and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 2316 (1994).
1131:
1132: \bibitem{pbar0}
1133: A. Bottino, C. Favero, N. Fornengo, and G. Mignola, Astropart. Phys.
1134: {\bf 3}, 77 (1995).
1135:
1136: \bibitem{Bottino_Salati}
1137: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo, and P.~Salati, \prd{58}{1998}{123503}.
1138:
1139: \bibitem{bergstrom}
1140: L. Bergstr\"om, J. Edsj\"o, and P. Ullio, Astrophys. J. {\bf 526}, 215 (1999).
1141:
1142: \bibitem{pbar_susy}
1143: F. Donato, N. Fornengo, D. Maurin, P. Salati,
1144: R. Taillet \prd{69}{2004}{063501}.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{gst} T.K. Gaisser, G. Steigman and S. Tilav, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 34}, 2206
1147: (1986).
1148:
1149: \bibitem{bffms} A. Bottino, C. Favero, N. Fornengo, G. Mignola and S. Scopel,
1150: Proc. of the International Workshop "Double-beta Decay and Related Topics"
1151: (Ed. H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and S. Stoica,
1152: ECT*/Trento, 1995), 281 (World Scientific, 1996).
1153:
1154: \bibitem{lathuile} A. Bottino, F. Donato,
1155: N. Fornengo and S. Scopel, Proc. of "Results and Perspectives in Particle
1156: Physics", (Ed. M. Greco, La Thuile, 2001) 135 (INFN Laboratori Nazionali
1157: Frascati) [hep-ph/0105233].
1158:
1159: \bibitem{pithia} T. Sj\"ostrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. Lonnblad, G. Miu,
1160: S. Mrenna and E. Norrbin, Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 135}, 238 (2001).
1161:
1162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1163: %%%%%%%%%% ANTIPROTONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168:
1169: \bibitem{PaperI}
1170: D.~Maurin, F.~Donato, R.~Taillet, and P.~Salati,
1171: Astrophys. J. {\bf 555}, 585 (2001).
1172:
1173: \bibitem{PaperI_bis}
1174: D. Maurin, R. Taillet, F. Donato,
1175: Astron. \& Astrophys. {\bf 394}, 1039 (2002).
1176:
1177: \bibitem{revue}
1178: D. Maurin, R. Taillet, F. Donato, P. Salati, A. Barrau, and G. Boudoul,
1179: in research Signposts, ``Recent Developments in Astrophysics'',
1180: [astro-ph/0212111].
1181:
1182:
1183: \bibitem{pbar_sec}
1184: F. Donato {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 563}, 172 (2001).
1185:
1186: \bibitem{beta_rad}
1187: F. Donato, D. Maurin, and R. Taillet,
1188: Astron. \& Astrophys. {\bf 381}, 539 (2002).
1189:
1190: \bibitem{bess95-97}
1191: S. Orito, {\etal}
1192: (BESS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1078 (2000).
1193:
1194: \bibitem{bess98}
1195: T. Maeno, {\etal} (BESS Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. {\bf 16}, 121 (2001).
1196:
1197: \bibitem{ams98}
1198: M Aguilar, {\etal} (AMS Collaboration), Phys. Rep. {\bf 366}, 331 (2002).
1199:
1200: \bibitem{caprice}
1201: M. Boezio, {\etal} (CAPRICE Collaboration),
1202: Astrophys. J. {\bf 561}, 787 (2001).
1203:
1204: \bibitem{pamela}
1205: http://wizard.roma2.infn.it/pamela/
1206:
1207: \bibitem{ams02}
1208: J. Burger, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 33}, s941 (2004).
1209:
1210: \bibitem{bess_polar}
1211: S. Haino et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 518}, 167 (2004).
1212:
1213: \bibitem{gaps}
1214: K. Mori et al., Astrophys. J. {\bf 566}, 604 (2002).
1215:
1216: \bibitem{cream}
1217: E.S. Seo et al., Adv. in Space Res. {\bf 33}, 1777 (2004).
1218:
1219: \bibitem{wwp}
1220: A. Castellina and F. Donato, Astropart. Phys., in press, [astro-ph/0504149].
1221:
1222:
1223: \bibitem{clump}
1224: H. Bengtsson, P. Salati and J. Silk, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 346},
1225: 129 (1990);
1226: J. Silk and A. Stebbins, Astrophys. J. {\bf 411}, 439 (1993);
1227: V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino and G. Mignola, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 391}, 355
1228: (1997).
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233: \end{thebibliography}
1234: \end{document}
1235: