1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt,showkeys]{article}
2: %to do:
3: %ref to sander
4: %discuss uncertainty of relic density
5: %why so sensitive to tb
6: %running with larger tb.
7: %ref to so10
8:
9: %\usepackage[english,ngerman]{babel}
10: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
11: %\usepackage{theorem}
12: \usepackage{graphicx}
13: \usepackage{rotating}
14: %\usepackage{afterpage}
15: %\usepackage{fancyhdr}
16: \usepackage{rotcapt}
17: \usepackage[hang,bf,nooneline]{subfigure}
18: \usepackage[hang,bf,nooneline]{caption}
19:
20: \topmargin -10mm \oddsidemargin -5mm \textwidth 170mm \textheight
21: 240mm
22: \input{config}
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \begin{center}
26: \Large \textbf{The supersymmetric interpretation of the \\EGRET
27: excess of diffuse Galactic gamma rays}
28:
29: \vspace{10mm}
30:
31: \large
32:
33: W. de Boer$^{1}$, C. Sander$^{1}$, V. Zhukov$^{1}$,\\
34: A.V. Gladyshev$^{2,3}$, D.I. Kazakov$^{2,3}$
35:
36: \normalsize \vspace{5mm}
37: $^1$ \textit{Institut f\"ur Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universit\"at Karlsruhe (TH),\\
38: P.O. Box 6980, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}
39:
40: \vspace{5mm}
41: $^2$ \textit{Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,\\
42: 141980, 6 Joliot-Curie, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia}
43:
44: \vspace{5mm}
45: $^3$ \textit{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics,\\
46: 117218, 25 B.Cheremushkinskaya, Moscow, Russia}
47:
48: \vspace{30mm} \textbf{Abstract} \vspace{5mm}
49:
50: \begin{minipage}[c]{12cm}
51:
52: \textit{Recently it was shown that the excess of diffuse Galactic
53: gamma rays above 1 GeV traces the Dark Matter halo, as proven by
54: reconstructing the peculiar shape of the rotation curve of our
55: Galaxy from the gamma ray excess. This can be interpreted as a Dark
56: Matter annihilation signal. In this paper we investigate if this
57: interpretation is consistent with Supersymmetry. It is found that
58: the EGRET excess combined with all electroweak constraints is
59: fully consistent with the minimal mSUGRA model for scalars in the
60: TeV range and gauginos below 500 GeV.}
61:
62: \end{minipage}
63: \end{center}
64:
65: \thispagestyle{empty} \setcounter{page}{0} \clearpage
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: Cold Dark Matter (CDM) makes up 23\% of the energy of the universe,
70: as deduced from the temperature anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave
71: Background (CMB) in combination with data on the Hubble expansion
72: and the density fluctuations in the universe~\cite{wmap}. One of the
73: most popular CDM candidates is the neutralino, a stable neutral
74: particle predicted by Supersymmetry~\cite{lspdm,jungman}. The
75: neutralinos are spin 1/2 Majorana particles, which can annihilate
76: into pairs of Standard Model (SM) particles. A large fraction of the
77: annihilations is expected to go into quark-antiquark pairs. Since
78: the DM particles are strongly non-relativistic, the initial energy
79: is simply given by two times the neutralino mass, which is converted
80: into energy of the quarks, which are then mono-energetic. In a
81: recent paper we showed that the observed excess of diffuse Galactic
82: gamma rays has all the properties of the $\pi^0$ decays of such
83: mono-energetic quarks originating from the annihilation of
84: neutralinos with a mass around 60 GeV \cite{us,sander}. For a better
85: understanding of the following we shortly summarize these results.
86:
87: Gamma rays from Dark Matter Annihilation (DMA) can be distinguished
88: from the background (BG) by their completely different spectral
89: shape: the background originates mainly from cosmic rays (CR)
90: hitting the gas of the disc and producing abundantly $\pi^0$ mesons,
91: which decay into two photons. The initial CR spectrum is a steep
92: power law spectrum, which yields a much softer gamma ray spectrum
93: than the fragmentation of the hard mono-energetic quarks from DMA.
94: The spectral shape of the gamma rays from the background is well
95: known from fixed target experiments given the known CR spectrum. The
96: spectral shape of the gamma rays from DMA is well known from the
97: fragmentation of mono-energetic quarks studied at electron-positron
98: colliders, like LEP at CERN, which has been operating up to
99: centre-of-mass energies of about 200 GeV, i.e. it corresponds to
100: gamma spectra from neutralino masses up to 100 GeV. The different
101: quark flavours all yield similar gamma spectra at high energies. In
102: addition to these two main components with a shape well known from
103: accelerator experiments, there are contributions from inverse
104: Compton scattering and Bremsstrahlung. In the gamma ray energy range
105: of interest (above 0.1 GeV) these contributions are small, but their
106: shape is well known too.
107:
108: Experimentally, the spectral shape of the diffuse Galactic gamma
109: rays has been measured with the EGRET satellite in the range 0.1 to
110: 10 GeV. The EGRET data are publicly available as high resolution
111: (0.5$^\circ$) sky maps from the NASA archive\footnote{NASA archive:
112: \texttt{http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/.}}, which allows an
113: independent analysis in many different sky directions\cite{us}.
114: Comparing the BG with the EGRET data shows that above 1 GeV there is
115: a large deficit of gamma rays, which reaches more than a factor of
116: two towards the Galactic centre. However, fitting two components,
117: namely BG and DMA, yields a perfect fit in all sky directions for a
118: DM particle mass around 60 GeV. From the normalization factors for
119: the BG and DMA components in 180 independent sky directions the
120: distribution of DM has been obtained. Combining this with the known
121: distribution of the visible matter yields the complete mass
122: distribution, which in turn can be used to reconstruct the rotation
123: curve of our Galaxy. The surprise was, that the gamma rays indeed
124: explain the peculiar structure of this rotation curve, which was
125: found to originate from substructure in the DM halo.
126:
127: So the famous EGRET excess of diffuse Galactic gamma rays, discussed
128: already in 1997 \cite{hunter}, was found to possess all the expected
129: properties from DMA: it is observable in all sky directions and has
130: everywhere the shape expected for the annihilation of DM particles
131: with a mass around 60 GeV. In addition, the reconstruction of the
132: rotation curve from the EGRET excess proves that the latter traces
133: the DM in our Galaxy \cite{us}. Note that the evidence for DMA is
134: not so much the amount of excess, but how it is distributed in the
135: sky and that it has the same spectral shape in all sky directions.
136: Any unknown systematic errors in the EGRET data are expected to be
137: independent of the sky direction, so the evidence for DMA does not
138: depend on ``unknown unknowns''.
139:
140: It is the purpose of the present paper to see if this intriguing
141: hint of DMA is compatible with Supersymmetry. Here we will
142: concentrate on the Minimal Supersymmetric Model with supergravity
143: inspired symmetry breaking (mSUGRA model)\cite{susyrev}. We assume
144: that the EGRET excess originates from the annihilation of the
145: stable, neutral lightest supersymmetric particles, the neutralinos.
146: Their mass is then constrained to be between 50 and 100 GeV from the
147: EGRET data, which strongly constrains the masses from all other SUSY
148: particles, if mass unification at the GUT scale is assumed. It will
149: be shown that combining the EGRET data with other constraints, like
150: the electroweak precision data, Higgs mass limits, chargino limits,
151: radiative electroweak symmetry breaking and relic density leads to a
152: very constrained SUSY mass spectrum with light gauginos and heavy
153: squarks and sleptons.
154:
155: \section{Comparison with mSUGRA} \label{susywimp}
156:
157: The mSUGRA model, i.e. the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
158: (MSSM) with supergravity inspired breaking terms, is characterised
159: by only 5 parameters: $\mzero$, $\mhalf$, $\tb$, sign($\mu$), $A_0$
160: \cite{susyrev}. Here $m_0$ and $\mhalf$ are the common masses for
161: the gauginos and scalars at the GUT scale. The latter is determined
162: by the unification of the gauge couplings. Gauge unification is
163: still possible with the precisely measured couplings at
164: LEP~\cite{bs}. The ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the
165: neutral components of the two Higgs doublets in Supersymmetry is
166: called \tb ~ and $A_0$ is the trilinear coupling at the GUT scale.
167: We only consider the dominant trilinear couplings of the third
168: generation of quarks and leptons and assume also $A_0$ to be unified
169: at the GUT scale. Electroweak symmetry breaking fixes the scale of
170: $\mu$ \cite{susyrev}, so only its sign is a free parameter. We use
171: the positive sign, as suggested by the small deviation of the muon
172: anomalous moment from the Standard Model (SM) \cite{bs}.
173:
174: The dominant annihilation diagrams of the lightest supersymmetric
175: particle (LSP) neutralino are shown in figure \ref{diagrams}. The
176: cross sections are proportional to the final state fermion mass,
177: which originates either from the Yukawa couplings for the Higgs
178: exchange diagram or from the helicity suppression at the low
179: energies involved in cold DMA \cite{goldberg}. Therefore heavy
180: fermion final states, i.e. third generation quarks and leptons, are
181: expected to be dominant. The Higgs exchange diagram is in addition
182: proportional to \tb ~ for down type quarks and 1/\tb ~ for up type
183: quarks, indicating that top quark final states are suppressed for
184: large \tb. The W- and Z-final states from t-channel chargino and
185: neutralino exchange have usually a much smaller cross section due to
186: the weak couplings involved and are in addition kinematically
187: suppressed for the 60 GeV neutralino mass preferred by the EGRET
188: data.
189:
190: The annihilation rate, which is proportional to the cross section
191: multiplied by the relative neutralino velocities, is practically
192: independent of the centre of mass energy for the pseudoscalar Higgs
193: and sfermion exchange diagrams, but strongly dependent on energy for
194: the other diagrams, as was calculated with the CalcHEP package
195: \cite{calchep} and shown in Fig. \ref{sigmap}. This implies that for
196: the present temperature of the universe close to absolute zero the
197: neutralino annihilation is dominated by either sfermion exchange or
198: pseudoscalar Higgs exchange. The sfermion exchange is suppressed for
199: the following reason. The Born mass of the lightest Higgs is below
200: the $Z^0$ mass, but radiative corrections can boost it up to 130 GeV
201: in the minimal mSUGRA model\cite{susyrev}. These corrections depend
202: on the heavy particles coupling to the lightest Higgs, like the top
203: and stop quarks. These scalars have to be sufficiently heavy in
204: order to reach a Higgs mass above 114 GeV, which is the present
205: lower limit from the direct searches at LEP \cite{lephiggs}. The
206: Higgs mass was calculated with the FeynHiggs program
207: \cite{feynhiggs}. Note that this Higgs limit from LEP is the limit
208: on the Standard Model Higgs particle, but for heavy scalars the
209: lightest SUSY Higgs particle has very much the properties of the SM
210: Higgs, so the above limit is also valid in our case, as will be
211: shown below.
212:
213: For light neutralinos, i.e. small $\mhalf$, the Higgs mass limit requires
214: $\mzero$ to be in the TeV range, as indicated in the left hand panel
215: of Fig. \ref{msugra} by the almost vertical line, labeled $m_h$. The
216: EGRET data requires $\mhalf$ to be below the almost horizontal line
217: at $\mhalf=230$ GeV. The low value of $\mhalf$ implies that the
218: gluino QCD corrections to the stop quarks are rather small, so the
219: ``bare'' quark mass $\mzero$ has to be large to obey the Higgs
220: limit, which requires heavy stops. In addition, the excluded regions
221: from $\bsg$ and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon have been
222: indicated (left from the corresponding lines). These latter values
223: were calculated with the publicly available web-based program from
224: Ref. \cite{kraml}, which uses \texttt{micrOMEGAs 1.4}
225: \cite{micromegas} for the relic density calculation and we opted for
226: the SUSY mass spectrum from the \texttt{Suspect 2.3.4} program
227: \cite{suspect}. For the exclusion limits the following inputs were
228: used: a) $Br(B \to X_s\gamma)=(3.43\pm 0.36)\cdot 10^{-4}$, which is
229: the average from BaBar, CLEO and BELLE \cite{bsgexp} and b) the
230: deviation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $a_\mu$ from
231: the expected value in the Standard Model was taken to be \cite{amu}:
232: $\Delta
233: a_\mu=a_\mu^{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp}}}-a_\mu^{\mbox{\scriptsize{theo}}}=(27\pm
234: 10)\cdot 10^{-10}$.
235:
236: The lower limits on $\mzero$ discussed above are practically
237: independent of $A_0$ due to a coincidence from the constraints from
238: the \bsg~ rate and the lower limit on the Higgs mass of 114
239: GeV~\cite{bs}. The absolute value of the Higgs mixing parameter
240: $\mu$ is determined by electroweak symmetry breaking, while its sign
241: is taken to be positive, as preferred by the anomalous magnetic
242: moment of the muon. The region of large $\mzero$, for which no
243: electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) is possible, has been indicated
244: in Fig. \ref{msugra} as well as the region of small $\mzero$, where
245: the stau would be the lightest SUSY particle, which is excluded,
246: since the DM candidate has to be neutral.
247:
248: The $\mzero$ values in the TeV range between the Higgs mass limit
249: and EWSB limit are allowed by all constraints considered sofar. It
250: should be noted that these boundaries are quite sensitive to the
251: gauge and Yukawa couplings, which determine the radiative
252: corrections to the Higgs mass and the radiative corrections to the
253: Higgs potential needed for EWSB. E.g. increasing the top mass from
254: 175 to 178 GeV increases the lightest Higgs mass by about 1 GeV,
255: which can be compensated by lowering $\mzero$ by 200 GeV. Thus the
256: error on the curve labeled $m_h$ is around 200 GeV in the horizontal
257: direction in the range below the EGRET line. The uncertainty on the
258: EWSB region is even larger at large values of $\tb$. Increasing the
259: top mass from 175 to 178 GeV moves the EWSB boundary by
260: approximately 1 TeV to the right. This sensitivity can be understood
261: as follows. Electroweak symmetry breaking is triggered if the
262: following condition is fulfilled:
263: \begin{equation}
264: {M_Z^2\over 2} = {m_1^2 - m_2^2\tan^2\beta \over \tan^2\beta-1} \approx -m_2^2. \label{ewsb}
265: \end{equation}
266: Here $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the mass parameters in the Higgs potential
267: with two Higgs doublets\cite{susyrev}. The last term is valid for
268: large \tb, implying $m_2$ becoming negative for a positive value of
269: $M_Z^2$ and large $\tb$ is required by the relic density, as will be
270: discussed below. EWSB is then possible for large values of the top
271: Yukawa coupling, which drives $m_2$ negative, as shown on the right
272: hand side of Fig. \ref{msugra}, where the running masses
273: corresponding to a set of GUT scale parameters compatible with all
274: constraints are shown. The starting value of $m_2$ at the GUT scale
275: is $\sqrt{m_0^2+\mu^2}$. The running of $m_2$ over 14 orders of
276: magnitude between the GUT scale and the electroweak scale implies
277: that a small increase in the top Yukawa coupling, thus increasing
278: the slope of the running, requires a large increase in $m_0$.
279:
280: In summary: increasing the top mass by 3 GeV widens the allowed
281: region in Fig. \ref{msugra}: 200 GeV to lower values of $m_0$ and
282: around 1 TeV to larger values of $m_0$, but from the running of the
283: masses in Fig. \ref{msugra} it is clear that the low energy masses
284: for squarks and sleptons are in the TeV range or above and the
285: gauginos below 500 GeV. The spectrum and the corresponding values
286: of the relic density $\Omega h^2$, $\bsg$ and $\Delta a_\mu$ have
287: been tabulated in Table \ref{t1} for a typical set of parameters
288: compatible with all constraints.
289:
290: As discussed above the uncertainty in $m_0$ is large, but the 95\%
291: C.L. upper limit on the lightest neutralino is around 70 GeV, as can
292: be deduced from the $\chi^2$ fit to the EGRET energy spectrum of the
293: diffuse gamma rays. This $\chi^2$ distribution is shown in Fig.
294: \ref{uncertainties} together with the probabilities. Above 70 GeV
295: the fit probability is below 5\%, implying $\mhalf <175$ GeV.
296: However, for background models, which try to maximize the background
297: by assuming that the local cosmic ray spectrum is not representative
298: for our galaxy, neutralino values up to 100 GeV can be obtained
299: \cite{us,sander}, as indicated in Fig. \ref{msugra} by the ``EGRET''
300: line. A lower limit of 50 GeV on the neutralino mass avoids the
301: dominance of the $Z^0$ cross section in the annihilation, since if
302: the neutralino mass is close to half of the $Z^0$ mass the
303: annihilation signal at the present temperature of the universe would
304: be practically zero, as demonstrated in Fig. \ref{sigmap} in
305: disagreement with the EGRET excess (unless one allows
306: unrealistically large clumping of the DM, which increases the
307: annihilation rate). The lightest neutralino is a mixture of all spin
308: 1/2 neutral particles: $|\chi_o\rangle =N_1|B_0\rangle
309: +N_2|W^3_0\rangle +N_3|H_1\rangle +N_4|H_2\rangle$ with
310: $(N_1,N_2,N_3,N_4)=(0.95,-0.10,0.27,-0.09)$ for the values of Table
311: \ref{t1} meaning that the lightest neutralino is an almost pure bino
312: for the allowed region of Fig. \ref{msugra}.
313:
314: The correct value of the relic density is obtained for large \tb, as
315: shown on the right hand side of Fig. \ref{uncertainties} for a given
316: set of SUSY mass parameters and different values of the SM
317: parameters $\alpha_s$, $m_t$ and $m_b$. The relic density was
318: calculated with \texttt{micrOMEGAs 1.4} \cite{micromegas}. Scanning
319: over the allowed region of Fig. \ref{msugra} {\it and} requiring an
320: LSP mass above 50 GeV requires $\tb$ to be in the range of 50 to 55.
321: Note that the EGRET data itself is only sensitive to the masses, not
322: to \tb. But for practically any set of masses the correct relic
323: density can be obtained by a suitable value of \tb~ and $A_0$
324: \cite{sander}. The strong dependence of the relic density on \tb~
325: for large values of \tb~ originates from the strong dependence of
326: the pseudoscalar Higgs mass on \tb, which in mSUGRA is given by:
327: \begin{equation}
328: m_A^2=m_1^2+m_2^2=m_{H_1}^2+m_{H_2}^2+2\mu^2,
329: \end{equation}
330: where $m_{H_i}$ are the Higgs mass terms.
331: However, at large \tb~ $m_1^2$ is
332: also driven negative, since then the bottom Yukawa coupling becomes
333: of the same order as magnitude as the top Yukawa coupling. This can
334: be seen as follows: the top and bottom masses are given by:
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: m_t^2 &=& h_t^2 \cdot\vert H_2\vert^2 = h_t^2 \cdot v_2^2 = h_t^2 \cdot |v|^2 \sin^2\beta \nonumber \\
337: m_b^2 &=& h_b^2 \cdot\vert H_1\vert^2 = h_b^2 \cdot v_1^2= h_b^2 \cdot |v|^2 \cos^2\beta,
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: so if the ratio $ \tb\approx 50 \approx m_t/m_b$ then the Yukawa
340: couplings $h_t$ and $h_b$ must be of the same order of magnitude. If
341: both $m_1$ and $m_2$ are driven negative, the pseudoscalar Higgs
342: mass can only become positive by large radiative corrections from
343: stop and sbottom quarks, which works if the latter are heavy. But
344: large radiative corrections lead to a large variation in the
345: pseudoscalar Higgs mass and a correspondingly large variation in the
346: relic density, as shown in Fig. \ref{uncertainties}. Note that it is
347: interesting that the EGRET scenario combined with the relic density
348: from WMAP requires $\tb$ to be in the range, where the Yukawa
349: couplings of top, bottom and tau can be unified\cite{zp}, as
350: expected e.g. in SO(10), which allows simultaneously for massive
351: neutrinos\cite{susyrev}.
352:
353:
354: For large values of $\tb$ the annihilation via pseudoscalar Higgs
355: exchange, being proportional to $(\tb)^2$, becomes dominant. The
356: annihilation cross section for a correct relic density requires
357: relatively light pseudoscalar Higgs masses, typically below or
358: around 500 GeV, which is consistent with the values given in Table
359: \ref{t1}. It should be noted that the annihilation is still in the
360: so-called bulk region, i.e. the regions not dominated by
361: co-annihilation or resonances, since the neutralino mass is far away
362: from the pseudoscalar Higgs mass resonance for the mSUGRA spectrum
363: and not close to any of the other sparticles, like stau or chargino,
364: as shown in Table \ref{t1}. If these latter Next-to Lightest
365: Supersymmetric Particles (NLSP) are almost degenerate with the LSP,
366: their number density, given by the Boltzmann factor, would be high
367: enough to cause a fast annihilation in the early universe into taus
368: and charged W-bosons. The total annihilation rate, which is the sum
369: of the self-annihilation and co-annihilation rate, is fixed by the
370: observed relic density. Therefore a large co-annihilation rate
371: automatically implies a negligible self-annihilation rate. Since in
372: the present universe the NLSPs have decayed, only the
373: self-annihilation is operative now and would be practically zero in
374: case of strong co-annihilation. So it is fortunate for indirect DM
375: detection that the combination of EGRET data with the Higgs mass
376: limit results in a spectrum, for which the co-annihilation is
377: negligible.
378:
379: An independent check that the scalars should be heavy comes directly
380: from the EGRET data: if the scalars are light, the stau is usually
381: the lightest scalar, in which case the stau exchange in the
382: t-channel (left diagram of Fig. \ref{diagrams}) would be dominant,
383: thus leading to tau final states. The low decay multiplicity of tau
384: leptons leads to a much harder gamma ray spectrum from the hadronic
385: decays, which is excluded by the EGRET data, as shown in Fig.
386: \ref{dsflux}. This plot has been made for a neutralino mass of about
387: 100 GeV in order to obey the Higgs limit with the low value of $m_0$
388: required for the stau exchange to be dominant. A neutralino of 50
389: GeV would still yield a maximum in the spectrum around 20 GeV in
390: disagreement with the EGRET data, which shows a maximum excess
391: around 2 GeV.
392:
393: The SUSY spectrum of Table \ref{t1} yields excellent gauge
394: unification, as shown in Fig. \ref{f5}. The used value of
395: $\alpha_s=0.122$ was taken from the ratio $R_l$ of the hadronic and
396: leptonic width of the $Z^0$ boson was taken, since the averaged LEP
397: value of 0.118 is the average of 0.115 from the hadronic cross
398: section $\sigma_h$ at LEP and 0.122 from $R_l$. However, the value
399: of 0.115 becomes 0.122 as well, if the luminosity at LEP is
400: normalized such that the number of neutrino generations is moved
401: from 2.98 to 3 \cite{bs}. Note that in contrast to the earlier
402: evidence for gauge unification, where the SUSY mass scale had to be
403: taken as a free parameter \cite{unification}, there are now {\it no}
404: free parameters anymore since the initial starting points of the
405: running coupling constants are given by the electroweak precision
406: data from LEP and the change in the running from the SM to the MSSM
407: value is determined by the allowed masses in Fig. \ref{msugra} or
408: Table \ref{t1}. So one either gets unification or one does not get
409: it. Using the EGRET data and Higgs constraints one {\it gets}
410: unification in mSUGRA.
411: \section{Conclusion}
412:
413: In our previous paper \cite{us} the observed excess of diffuse
414: Galactic gamma rays was shown to exhibit all features of Dark
415: Matter Annihilation, especially the spatial distribution of the
416: excess was shown to trace the DM distribution, as proven by the fact
417: that one could reconstruct the peculiar shape of the rotation curve
418: of our Galaxy from the gamma ray excess. In this paper the DM
419: interpretation of the EGRET excess is compared with Supersymmetry
420: and it is shown that the minimal supersymmetric model with the
421: popular supergravity inspired symmetry breaking, gauge unification
422: and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking is in perfect agreement
423: with the EGRET excess. The mass spectrum of the gauginos is governed
424: by the neutralino mass corresponding to $\mhalf$ between 125 and 175
425: GeV, if the conventional background model is chosen. In case of a
426: model maximizing the background (optimized model, see Ref.
427: \cite{us}) values of $\mhalf$ up to 230 GeV are allowed. For the low
428: values of $\mhalf$ the scalar masses are constrained by the Higgs
429: mass and/or $\bsg$ to have $\mzero$ above 1 TeV. The allowed mass
430: spectrum is observable at the LHC. If confirmed, especially a
431: neutralino mass around 60 GeV, then this would prove that DM can
432: indeed be considered to be the supersymmetric partner of the Cosmic
433: Microwave Background, since the neutralino is almost a pure bino in
434: this case.
435:
436: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
437:
438: \bibitem{wmap}
439: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},
440: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''
441: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} (2003) 1
442: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207].
443: %
444: \bibitem{lspdm}
445: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and
446: M.~Srednicki,
447: %``Supersymmetric Relics From The Big Bang,''
448: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 238} (1984) 453.
449: %
450: \bibitem{jungman}
451: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,
452: %``Supersymmetric dark matter,''
453: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 267} (1996) 195 [arXiv:hep-ph/9506380].
454: %
455: \bibitem{us}
456: W.~de Boer, C.~Sander, V.~Zhukov, A.~V.~Gladyshev and D.~I.~Kazakov,
457: %``EGRET excess of diffuse galactic gamma rays as tracer of dark matter,''
458: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 444} (2005) L51
459: [arXiv:astro-ph/0508617];\\
460: %
461: \bibitem{sander}
462: C. Sander,
463: %"Interpretation of the excess in diffuse Galactic gamma rays above 1 GeV as dark matter annihilation signal,"
464: PhD Thesis, 2005 (University of Karlsruhe),
465: http://www-ekp.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/theses/phd/2005.html.
466: %
467: \bibitem{hunter}
468: S. D. Hunter {\it et al.},
469: %``EGRET Observations of the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission from the Galactic Plane},''
470: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 481} (1997) 205.
471: %
472: \bibitem{susyrev}
473: Reviews and original references can be found in:\\
474: W.~de Boer,
475: %``Grand unified theories and supersymmetry in particle physics and cosmology,''
476: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33} (1994) 201
477: [arXiv:hep-ph/9402266];\\
478: D.~I.~Kazakov,
479: %``Beyond the standard model (in search of supersymmetry),''
480: arXiv:hep-ph/0012288, arXiv:hep-ph/0411064;\\
481: P.~Fayet and S.~Ferrara,
482: %``Supersymmetry,''
483: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 32} (1977) 249;\\
484: H.~P.~Nilles,
485: %``Supersymmetry, Supergravity And Particle Physics,''
486: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 110} (1984) 1;\\
487: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane,
488: %``The Search For Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond The Standard Model,''
489: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 117} (1985) 75;\\
490: M.~F.~Sohnius,
491: %``Introducing Supersymmetry,''
492: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 128} (1985) 39;\\
493: %H.~E.~Haber, Lectures given at Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, University of Colorado, June 1992, Preprint Univ. of Sante Cruz, SCIPP 92/33; see also SCIPP 93/22;\\
494: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
495: %``The Road To No Scale Supergravity,''
496: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 145} (1987) 1.
497: %
498: \bibitem{bs}
499: W.~de Boer and C.~Sander,
500: %``Global electroweak fits and gauge coupling unification,''
501: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 585} (2004) 276 [arXiv:hep-ph/0307049].
502: %
503: \bibitem{goldberg}
504: H.~Goldberg,
505: %``Constraint On The Photino Mass From Cosmology,''
506: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.
507: %
508: \bibitem{calchep}
509: A. Pukhov,
510: %``CalcHEP 3.2: MSSM, structure functions, event generation, batchs, and generation of matrix elements for other packages,''
511: arXiv:hep-ph/0412191;\\
512: \texttt{http://www-zeuthen.desy.de/~pukhov/calchep.html}.
513: %
514: \bibitem{lephiggs}
515: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches
516: Collaboration],
517: %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,''
518: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].
519: %
520: \bibitem{feynhiggs}
521: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
522: %``FeynHiggs: A program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral
523: %CP-even Higgs bosons in the MSSM,''
524: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 124}, 76 (2000)
525: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; The program is available from
526: http://www.feynhiggs.de.
527: %
528: \bibitem{kraml}
529: B.~C.~Allanach, S.~Kraml and W.~Porod,
530: %``Theoretical uncertainties in sparticle mass predictions from computational tools,''
531: JHEP {\bf 0303} (2003) 016
532: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302102];\\
533: \texttt{http://cern.ch/kraml/comparison/}.
534: %
535: \bibitem{micromegas}
536: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
537: %``MicrOMEGAs: Version 1.3,''
538: arXiv:hep-ph/0405253; \\
539: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
540: %``micrOMEGAs: A program for calculating the relic density in the MSSM,''
541: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 149} (2002) 103 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112278].
542: %
543: \bibitem{suspect}
544: A.~Djouadi, J.~L.~Kneur and G.~Moultaka,
545: %``SuSpect: A Fortran code for the supersymmetric and Higgs particle spectrum in the MSSM,''
546: arXiv:hep-ph/0211331.
547: %
548: \bibitem{bsgexp}
549: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
550: %``A measurement of the branching fraction for the inclusive B $\to$ X/s gamma decays with Belle,''
551: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 151
552: [arXiv:hep-ex/0103042]; \\
553: S.~Chen {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
554: %``Branching fraction and photon energy spectrum for b $\to$ s gamma,''
555: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251807
556: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108032]; \\
557: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
558: %``Determination of the branching fraction for inclusive decays B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
559: arXiv:hep-ex/0207076.
560: %
561: \bibitem{amu}
562: G.~W. Bennett {\it et al.} [Muon g-2 Collaboration],
563: %``Measurement of the negative muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''
564: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 161802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008].
565: %
566: \bibitem{zp}
567: W.~de Boer, M.~Huber, A.~V.~Gladyshev and D.~I.~Kazakov,
568: %``The b $\to$ X/s gamma rate and Higgs boson limits in the constrained minimal
569: %supersymmetric model,''
570: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 689 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0102163].
571: \bibitem{unification}
572: U.~Amaldi, W.~de Boer and H.~F\"urstenau,
573: %``Comparison of grand unified theories with electroweak and strong coupling constants measured at LEP,''
574: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 447.
575: \end{thebibliography}
576:
577: \newpage
578:
579: \begin{table}
580: \begin{center}
581: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
582: \hline
583: Parameter & Value \\
584: \hline
585: $\mzero$ & 1500 GeV \\
586: $\mhalf$ & 170 GeV \\
587: $A_0$ & $0\cdot m_0$ \\
588: $\tb$ & 52.2 \\
589: sign $\mu$ & + \\
590: \hline
591: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & 0.122 \\
592: $\alpha_{em}(M_Z)$ & 0.0078153697 \\
593: $1/\alpha_{em}$ & 127.953 \\
594: $\sin^2(\theta_W)_{\overline{MS}}$ & 0.2314 \\
595: $m_t$ & 175 GeV\\
596: $m_b$ & 4.214 GeV\\
597: %\hline
598: %$M_{GUT}$ & 2.60 E+16 \\
599: %$M_{1,2,3}(M_Z)$ & 73, 136, 402 \\
600: %$\mu(M_Z)$ & 165 \\
601: %$A_{\tau,b,t}(M_z)$ & -22, -345, -303\\
602: \hline
603: \end{tabular}
604: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
605: \hline
606: Particle & Mass [GeV] \\
607: \hline
608: $\tilde \chi^0_{1,2,3,4}$ & 64, 113, 194, 229 \\
609: $\tilde \chi^\pm_{1,2},\tilde{g}$ & 110, 230, 516 \\
610: $\tilde u_{1,2}=\tilde c_{1,2}$ & 1519, 1523 \\
611: $\tilde d_{1,2}=\tilde s_{1,2}$ & 1522, 1524 \\
612: $\tilde t_{1,2}$ & 906, 1046 \\
613: $\tilde b_{1,2}$ & 1039, 1152 \\
614: $\tilde e_{1,2}=\tilde \mu_{1,2}$ & 1497, 1499 \\
615: $\tilde \tau_{1,2}$ & 1035, 1288 \\
616: $\tilde \nu_e, \tilde \nu_\mu, \tilde \nu_\tau$ & 1495, 1495, 1286 \\
617: $h,H,A,H^\pm$ & 115, 372, 372, 383 \\
618: \hline
619: Observable & Value \\
620: \hline
621: $Br(b\to X_s\gamma)$ & $3.02 \cdot 10^{-4}$ \\
622: $\Delta a_\mu$ & $1.07\cdot 10^{-9}$ \\
623: $\Omega h^2$ & 0.117 \\
624: \hline
625: \end{tabular}
626: \caption[]{Typical mSUGRA parameters from the EGRET analysis and electroweak
627: constraints.
628: The corresponding mass spectrum of the SUSY particles and observables is shown on the right.} \label{t1}
629: \end{center}
630: \end{table}
631:
632: \begin{figure}
633: \begin{center}
634: \includegraphics [width=0.6\textwidth,clip]{plots/f1.eps}
635: \caption[]{The dominant annihilation diagrams for the lightest neutralino, which is a
636: linear combination of the gaugino and Higgsino states: $|\chi_0\rangle =N_1 |B_0\rangle +N_2|W^3_0\rangle +N_3|H_1\rangle +N_4|H_2\rangle$. The dependence of the amplitudes on masses and neutralino mixing parameter $N_i$ has been indicated.} \label{diagrams}
637: \end{center}
638: \end{figure}
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \begin{center}
642: %\subfigure[$\mzero=1400$ GeV, $\mhalf=175$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=51$, $m_t=174.3$ GeV, $m_b(m_b)=4.2$ GeV and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.122$]
643: {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./plots/f2a.eps}}
644: %\subfigure[$\mzero=1400$ GeV, $\mhalf=120$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=51$, $m_t=178$ GeV, $m_b(m_b)=4.2$ GeV and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.121$]
645: {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./plots/f2b.eps}}
646: \caption[]{The neutralino annihilation cross section $\sigma$ multiplied by the relative neutralino velocities ($v$) for the different diagrams of Fig. \ref{diagrams} (indicated by the exchanged particle) as function of the center of mass momentum for two different sets of parameters: left: the annihilation via the pseudoscalar Higgs $A$ is dominant (heavy scalars, large \tb); right: the dominant channel is through the $Z$-Boson ($m_\chi\sim m_Z/2$).} \label{sigmap}
647: \end{center}
648: \end{figure}
649:
650: \begin{figure}
651: \begin{center}
652: \includegraphics [width=0.45\textwidth,clip]{plots/f3a.eps}
653: \includegraphics [width=0.45\textwidth,clip]{plots/f3b.eps}
654: \caption[]{Left: the light shaded area (blue) indicates the 95\% C.L. parameter
655: range in the $\mzero$-$\mhalf$-plane allowed by the EGRET data, if the constraints
656: from electroweak data, a neutral LSP and electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) are imposed as well.
657: The individual constraints have been indicated by the lines and dots.
658: For the left hand panel the values of $A_0=0$ and $\tb=52.2$ were
659: chosen and the choice of parameters of Table \ref{t1} has been
660: indicated by a star.
661: The right hand side shows the running SUSY masses for a set of allowed parameters.} \label{msugra}
662: \end{center}
663: \end{figure}
664:
665: \begin{figure}
666: \begin{center}
667: \includegraphics [width=0.52\textwidth,clip]{plots/f4a.eps}
668: \includegraphics [width=0.39\textwidth,clip]{plots/f4b.eps}
669: \caption[]{Left hand side: the $\chi^2$ distribution and corresponding probability as function of
670: the WIMP mass from a fit to the EGRET data on galactic gamma rays.
671: The 95\% CL upper limit on the WIMP mass is 70 GeV for the conventional background model.
672: The limit can be stretched to 100 GeV for a model maximizing the background \cite{sander}.
673: On the right hand side $\Omega h^2$ as a function of $\tb$ is plotted for $\mzero =1500$ GeV,
674: $\mhalf =200$ GeV, $A_0=0$. The horizontal shaded band corresponds to
675: the observed relic density.} \label{uncertainties}
676: \end{center}
677: \end{figure}
678:
679: \begin{figure}
680: \begin{center}
681: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{plots/f5a.eps}
682: \includegraphics [width=0.4\textwidth,clip]{plots/f5b.eps}
683: \caption[]{The EGRET gamma ray spectrum fitted with DM annihilation for
684: ($\mzero =70$ GeV, $\mhalf =250$ GeV, $\tb=10$) (left) and ($\mzero =1400$ GeV,
685: $\mhalf =175$ GeV, $\tb=51$) (right). In both cases the relic density corresponds to
686: the WMAP value, but in the first case of low $m_0$ the annihilation into tau pairs dominates,
687: while in the latter case the annihilation into $b$-quarks dominates.
688: The first case is excluded by the EGRET data. On the right hand side the variation of
689: the WIMP mass between 50 and 70 GeV ($m_{1/2}$ between 125 and 175 GeV) is shown as well
690: (blue shaded area), which is the range allowed by the EGRET data with the conventional
691: background (see Ref. \cite{us}).} \label{dsflux}
692: \end{center}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695:
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \begin{center}
699: \includegraphics [width=0.7\textwidth,clip]{plots/f6.eps}
700: \caption[]{The running of the inverse of the gauge couplings in the SM (left) and in Supersymmetry with the SUSY mass spectrum from Table \ref{t1} (right).} \label{f5}
701: %The value of $\alpha_s=0.122$ from the ratio $R_l$ of the hadronic and leptonic width of the $Z^0$ boson was taken, since the averaged LEP value of 0.118 is the average of 0.115 from the hadronic cross section $\sigma_h$ at LEP and 0.122 from $R_l$. However, the value of 0.115 becomes 0.122 as well, if the luminosity at LEP is normalized such that the number of neutrino generations is moved from 2.98 to 3 \cite{bs}.}
702: \end{center}
703: \end{figure}
704:
705: \end{document}
706: