<<

,

DARK MATTER and NEW

Pierre FAYET

CHRIS QUIGG Symposium , Fermilab, Dec. 14-15 2009

1 In honor of Chris Quigg

Chris was Visiting Professor at Ecole Normale (Superieure)´ in Paris

some time ago ...

2 He knows very well

le cinquieme` arrondissement

PARIS

....

3 THE WORLD

so the remaining thing to do, maybe,

is to go together and try to visit

4 THE SUPERWORLD !

5 Is there a

“ SUPERWORLD ” ?

of new particles ?

Could half of the particles (at least) have escaped our direct observations ?

→ new matter ... ?

→ dark matter ... ?

6 moreover ... Could there exist new LIGHT PARTICLES ?

NEUTRAL, and VERY WEAKLY COUPLED ?

among which ...

a new light gauge U ?

axionlike ... particles ?

light dark matter particles ?

...

new forces beyond strong, electro + weak, gravity ... ?

7 New particles, new forces, and also new space-time ...

Should the notion of space-time be extended to

new ( fermionic or bosonic ) coordinates ?

−→

SUPERSPACE EXTRA DIMENSIONS (xµ, θ) ... (xµ, x5, x6) ...

furthermore: extended supersymmetric theories naturally formulated with extra (compact) space dimensions

8 starting point:

describes

strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions of and

SU(3) SU(2) U(1) gauge × ×

+ -1 gauge : , W , W −, Z,

| {z } 1 spin-2 : quarks and leptons

+ 1 (still unobserved) spin-0 Englert-Brout-

associated with spontaneous electroweak breaking

– remarkably successful

– but leaves many questions unanswered: (a long list ...)

9 • fundamental Higgs fields ? ( do they actually exist ? )

many physicists long reluctant to accept fundamental spin-0 fields

• why a potential V (ϕ) = λ ϕ 4 µ2 ϕ 2 ? | | − | |

what is the mass of the B-E-Higgs boson ? ( mH = µ √2 = v √2 λ ... )

what fixes µ ? what fixes coupling constant λ ?

is B-E-Higgs sector as in SM, or more complicated ... ?

• do new particles exist ? maybe also new forces ?

after LEP, we think we know all (sequential) quarks and leptons

now essential, in view of growing evidence for

non-baryonic dark matter

10 Other interrogations :

• role of gravity (related to spacetime through general relativity)

can it be more closely connected with physics ?

can one get a consistent theory of quantum gravity ?

question of cosmological constant Λ ...

• can interactions be unified ? approach of grand-unification :

SU(3) SU(2) U(1) e.g. SU(5), ... × × ⊂

gluons W ±,Z, γ ( + other gauge bosons)  ←→   quarks leptons  ←→  with its own questions: Higgs potential and , origin of hierarchy of mass scales, many coupling constants, relations between q and l masses ...

can one relate particles of different spins ? etc. ... •

11 We have a “new” tool, SUPERSYMMETRY

BOSONS ←→ FERMIONS

(integer spins) (half-integer spins)

What to do with supersymmetry ?

Can it be of any help in the real world

of fundamental particles and interactions ?

12 (according to common wisdom)

SUPERSYMMETRY BOSONS ←→ FERMIONS

could one relate Fermions constituants of matter

to Bosons, messengers of interactions ?

and arrive to some sort of

Unification FORCES ↔ MATTER ??

13 This would be very attractive !

but unfortunately things don’t work out that way !! ...

14 SUSY ALGEBRA :

¯ µ  Q, Q = 2 γµ P  { } −   µ  [ Q, P ] = 0  

Gol’fand-Likhtman, Volkov-Akulov, Wess-Zumino, 1970-73 Initial motivations ?

– SUSY algebra at origin of parity non-conservation ? ( no ... )

– is the a Goldstone particle ? ( no ... )

V-A model: SUSY without bosons !!! −→ SUSY algebra does not require ... !

– extend to 4 dim. supergauge transformations on 2d string worldsheet

SUSY gauge theories in 4 dim. →

15 P µ space-time translations → relation with spacetime, general relativity supergravity →

ct spacetime xµ =   extended to superspace (xµ, θ )  ~x   

θ1   θ2 1   θ =   = spin-2 Majorana anticommuting coordinate  θ3       θ4   

θ θ = θ θ , (θ )2 = 0 ... 1 2 − 2 1 1

SUPERFIELDS Φ( x, θ) describe both BOSONS and FERMIONS

16 Can SUSY apply to fundamental laws of Nature ?

( what would be the consequences ... ? )

17 Nature is “obviously” not supersymmetric !

it seems

1 (Unbroken) SUSY ⇒ Bosons and fermions should have EQUAL MASSES :

→ break (spontaneously (?)) susy ??

But: spontaneous susy breaking did not seem possible !

( SUSY vacuum has E = 0, always stable ... )

still it turns out possible, but very constrained

( → easier to use soft susy-breaking terms: price to pay : many arbitrary parameters ... )

→ predict existence of new particles , but difficult to predict their masses

18 1 2 Spontaneous SUSY breaking → massless spin-2 Goldstone

1 where is the spin-2 Goldstone fermion of SUSY ?

it cannot be a neutrino, why has not it been observed ?

present answer: eliminated in favor of

3 → massive spin-2 warning: 1 this one may still behave very much as a spin-2 , if very light ... !!

... which could be observable ... !

e.g. through decays of SUSY particles, like

→ gravitino + photon depending on m3/2

(cf. “GMSB” models ... )

19 • Which bosons and fermions relate ? ?  photon neutrino  ←→      ± ? ±  W ←→ e    ?  gluons ←→ quarks      ...  does not work ...  

• How to deal with Majorana fermions ?

SUSY theories systematically involve (self-conjugate) Majorana fermions

while Nature only knows Dirac fermions !

• How to construct Dirac fermions ?

20 How to give fermions

conserved quantum numbers ( B, L ) ?

B and L carried by fermions only (quarks and leptons), not bosons !

this cannot be, in a supersymmetric theory ... !!

seemed to make supersymmetry irrelevant to the real world !!

21 Solution:

1) keep Majorana fermions → new class of particles:

photon not associated with νe, νµ or ντ

but with new “photonic neutrino” called in 1977

and gluons with ...

Majorana fermions of SUSY → , GLUINOS ....

2) Introduce new BOSONS carrying and numbers

SQUARKS, SLEPTONS

( still you are not safe yet ... see later ... )

22 =⇒ all particles should be associated with new superpartners

photon spin-1 photino ←→ 2 gluons spin-1 gluinos ←→ 2 leptons spin-0 sleptons ←→ quarks spin-0 squarks ←→ ...

“doubling the number of degrees of freedom” in susy theories (within “linear realisations” of susy)

SUSY does not relate directly known bosons and fermions !! but:

Known bosons ←→ New fermions Known fermions ←→ New bosons

(long mocked as a sign of irrelevance of supersymmetry ...)

23 Further problem: get interactions from W ±, Z, photon and exchanges

avoid unwanted spin-0 exchanges ?

( q,˜ ˜l carrying B and L ) related with introduction of R-symmetry and R-parity

in Susy extensions of the Standard Model ,

pair production of SUSY particles → Stable LSP (usually neutralino) candidate for

non-baryonic dark matter of Universe

24 continuous R-symmetry U(1)R

(before susy breaking)

acting “chirally” on susy generator: Q e γ5α Q → − → Not all possible superpotential interactions admissible ...

Continuous R-symmetry progenitor of R-parity ... →

U(1) reduced to ( 1)R to allow for gravitino and masses R −

R first defined as discrete symmetry ( 1)R p − then identified as ( 1)2S ( 1)3B+L − −

→ stable dark matter candidate

25 R-parity LSP stable ⇒

usually a neutralino

combination of superpartners of neutral gauge and Higgs bosons,

SUSY W , W ; h , h ; ... W˜ , W˜ ′; h˜ ◦, h˜ ◦; ... . { 3 ′ 1◦ 2◦ } ←→ { 3 1 2 } | neutralinos{z }

relation of dark matter with gauge (γ, Z, ...) and Higgs bosons

with σann ≈ weak cross sections from squark, slepton, Z or Higgs exchanges

neutralino = natural WIMP candidate

26 supersymmetry does not relate known particles together

No SUSY relation between known particles and forces ....

but ...

DARK MATTER candidate naturally obtained

from lightest (neutralino)

in SUSY extension of Standard Model

DARK MATTER related with mediators of ELECTROWEAK INTERACTIONS

27 → possibility of pair-producing neutralinos

(i.e. Dark Matter particle candidates) at particle colliders.

Missing energy -momentum signature of SUSY ... (1977)

neutralinos interact ∼ weakly with matter through q˜ etc. exchanges

lightest neutralino became natural DM candidate

Accelerators can look for the Dark Matter of the Universe ...

+  e e− 2 neutralinos + ...  →    p p 2 neutralinos + ...   →

( ... , PETRA, PEP, LEP) FNAL , LHC, ILC, ...

28 + additional ingredients needed for

SU(2) U(1) electroweak theory ×

Nucl. Phys. B 90, 104 (1975)

electroweak breaking

we need, also, a pair of doublet Higgs superfields,

0 +  H1   H2  H1 = ,H2 = , (left-handed)    0   H −   H   1   2 

< h0 > = v1 , < h0 > = v2 1 √2 2 √2

v2 mixing angle β, tan β = . v1

WHY ?

29 1 charged Dirac “” ˜ ˜ ˜  W − = WL− + WR− • With 1 doublet (H1):   ˜ + 1 chiral charged “” e.g. h1−L   ˜ ˜ one massive charged Dirac fermion ( h1−L + WR− )

with only one Brout-Englert-Higgs doublet ˜ one charged chiral fermion (WL−) massless

˜ ˜ ˜  W1− = h1−L + WR−  With H1,H2:  2 “” •  ˜ ˜ ˜+ c  W2− = WL− + (h2L)  

mass matrix

g v2 ( m2 ) = mW √2 sin β  √2  =   M  g v1   = m √2 cos β µ   W   √2 

30 Ingredients of Supersymmetric Standard Model (minimal or not ...)

( Phys. Lett. 64B (1976) 159; 69B (1977) 489 )

1) SU(3) SU(2) U(1) gauge superfields [ extra-U(1)] × × × 2) chiral and lepton superfields

3) two doublet Higgs superfields H1 and H2

4) trilinear superpotential for q and l masses

Superpotential even function of quark and lepton superfields ! • h H . E¯ L + h H . D¯ Q h H . U¯ Q [+ µ H H ] e 1 d 1 − u 2 1 2

R-invariance R-parity →

31 Minimal content of Supersymmetric Standard Model

Spin 1 Spin 1/2 Spin 0

gluons g gluinos g˜ photon γ photino γ˜ —————— ————————— −−−−−−−−−− W ± winos W ± H± 1,2  g  zinos  Higgs Z Z1,2 H  g   bosons  ˜0  higgsino h h, A    leptons l sleptons ˜l quarks q squarks q˜

2 neutral + 2 mix 4 neutralinos → “MSSM”

32 Nice features of Higgs interactions

in supersymmetric theories :

(and not so nice ones ... )

33 SUSY quartic Higgs interactions

appear as electroweak gauge interactions, with

2 2 2 g + g′ 2 g 2 V quartic = (h† h1 h† h2) + h† h2 8 1 − 2 2 | 1 |

= quartic Higgs potential of the MSSM

Quartic Higgs couplings fixed by electroweak gauge couplings !

at the origin of mass inequality

m (lightest Higgs) m + rad. corr. in MSSM ≤ Z should| be{z large} !!

(potentially problematic, as it requires radiative correction effects to be large)

(need squark masses TeV scale, recreates (“little”) hierarchy problem ...) ≈ 34 “ Beyond MSSM ” →

EXTRA SINGLET S (NPB 75)

2 in the old days : start with h , h , but µ µ (h† h + h† h ) ( ξ g /2 term) 1 2 → 1 1 2 2 ± ′ obstacle for satisfactory EW breaking with v and v = 0 at tree level 1 2 6 without terms breaking explicitly susy µ promoted to dynamical variable µ(x,θ) µ H H 1 2 →

trilinear coupling λ H1H2 S with extra singlet chiral superfield S (NPB 1975)

(generates effectively an h1h2 soft term ...)

λ H1 H2 S + f(S) superpotential

N/nMSSM

κ 3 µS 2 with f(S) = 3 S + 2 S + σ S

35 = λ H .E¯ L + λ H .D¯ Q λ H .U¯ Q W e 1 d 1 − u 2 κ 3 µS 2 + λ H1H2 S + S + S + σ S 3 2

| f({zS) }

Restrictions on f(S) may be obtained by using

extra-U(1)A and/or R symmetries

36 Potential of N/nMSSM:

2 2 2 V = g +g′ (h h h h )2 + g h h 2 8 1† 1 − 2† 2 2 | 1† 2|

∂f(s) 2 2 2

+ λh1h2 + + λ s (h1†h1 + h2†h2) + ... . ∂s | |

new bound on the lightest Higgs mass, λ allows to get all Higgs bosons sufficiently heavy

additional singlino → effective µ term may be regenerated through a translation of the extra singlet S

as now needed for the two charginos both > mW (in MSSM and N/nMSSM)

37 EXTRA-U(1)

supersymmetric extensions of the SM

gauge extra-U(1) symmetry ...

extra-U(1) gauge superfield (“USSM”)

additional gaugino → where is such an extra U(1) coming from ?

a number of possibilities ...

38 “New” possibility for extra-U(1) symmetry : electroweak breaking as in SUSY, with 2 doublets:

cf. h1 and h2 of SUSY extensions of the standard model

h h h+  1◦  c  2◦∗   2  h1 = , h = − h2 =   2      h−   h−  →  h◦   1   2   2  allows for possibility of rotating independently the two doublets (Nucl. Phys. B 78, 14 (1974)) : extra- U(1) symmetry →

iα c iα c iα h e h , h e− h h e h 1 → 1 2 → 2 ↔ 2 → 2

constraining interaction potential and Yukawa couplings

constraints on superpotential from extra-U(1) ...

( λ H H S OK with S e 2iαS) 1 2 → −

39 extra- U(1) acts as

H U ei α H ,H U ei α H ,S U e 2 i α S 1 −→ 1 2 −→ 2 −→ −

U i α (Q, U,¯ D¯ ; L, E¯) e− 2 (Q, U,¯ D¯ ; L, E¯) −→

for superpotential to be invariant.

(acts axially on quarks and leptons)

axial U(1)A (often known as ‘PQ’ symmetry)

extra- U(1) , global or local, broken explicitly by (small) superpotential terms and/or (small) soft susy-breaking terms

or spontaneously through the 2 Higgs doublets and possibly a large singlet v.e.v.

40 BUT WHAT ABOUT A POSSIBLE “” ?

Extra-U(1) (if global and unbroken in ) L could lead to massless (or quasimassless) Goldstone boson now known as an “axion”.

(momentarily) present in early models (1974-1976)

with h eiα h , h eiα h 1 → 1 2 → 2

before extra-U(1) symmetry U(1)A was either

1) explicitly broken through f(S) = σS ... superpotential interactions

of singlet S N/nMSSM (would-be “axion” acquires mass λ) → ∝ (but can sometimes “resurrect” !)

or 2) gauged (assuming anomalies cancelled): would-be axion “eaten away” by new Z′ (later also called U boson)

USSM (1977) (but can also sometimes “resurrect” !) →

41 LIGHT DARK MATTER with C. Boehm

( just a few words ) Too light dark matter particles (say in MeV to GeV range) normally forbidden as they could not annihilate sufficiently relic abundance too large ... → unless a new interaction exists as induced by a new light spin-1 U boson sufficiently strong at lower energies,

χ + ϕ + U e U e or χ e− ϕ e−

+ 1 DM annihilations into e e−, for spin-2 or spin-0 particles extra-U(1) symmetry ... how a light U could be detected ?

42 Relic density of light dark matter particles:

χχ e+ e → −

(other modes possible, νν¯ ... , depending on mχ)

2 2 2 MeV vχ cχ fe mχ 1.8  σann vrel   × (4 pb) 6  2 2  ≃ .16  10−   mU 4 mχ     − 

allows to estimate required cχ fe for correct annihilation cross section at freeze out time

2 2 1 m 4 m ee 2 3 U χ cχ fe B 10− | − | .  ann | | ≃ mχ (1.8 GeV)

or 2 2 1 m 4 m ee 2 6 U χ cχ fe B 10− | − | .  ann | | ≃ mχ (1.8 MeV)

43 SEARCHING FOR A LIGHT U

NPB 187, 184, 1981, ... , PRD 75, 115017 (2007); PLB 675, 267 (2009)

ψ and Υ DECAYS :

Υ γU →

γ γ b e b fbA Υ { + Υ { ¯ ¯ b fbA b e U U

44 Amplitude for producing U proportional to gauge coupling

( A B + U ) g” ... A → long ∝ ↑ may be very small !!

(at least in visible sector)

such a gauge boson will be unobservable,

if its gauge coupling is extremely small ...

it seems ...

45 NO ! µ µ k longitudinal polarisation ǫL gets singular when g” 0 , as mU g” ... 0 ! ≃ mU → ∝ →

µ k U 1 µ ( A B + Ulong ) g” < B JµU A > = k U < B JµU A > A → ∝ mU | | FU | |

kµ ψγ¯ γ ψ 2 m ψγ ψ µ 5 → q 5

A very light U does not decouple for very small gauge coupling ! behaves as “eaten-away” pseudoscalar Goldstone boson a

2 mq,l effective pseudoscalar coupling: fq,l P = fq,l A mU

Equivalence theorem similar to Equivalence theorem of SUSY

3 1 according to which very light spin-2 gravitino behaves as spin-2 goldstino

46 B(Υ γ U) B(Υ γ a) ⇒ → ≃ → same experiment can search for light spin-1 gauge boson, or spin-0 pseudoscalar, or scalar

 U νν¯ (or light dark matter particles)  → Decays:   + +  U e e−, µ µ−, ... (depending on mU )   →

invisible  Υ γ + search for  →  + + + ⇒ Υ γ + e e− (or µ µ−, τ τ −), ... )   →

47 New gauge boson U possibly light if extra-U(1) gauge coupling is small

behaves very much as almost “equivalent”

spin-0 ‘axionlike’ (eaten-away) pseudoscalar a

with a (possibly large) singlet v.e.v.:

√ √ a = cos ζ  2 Im (sin β h1◦ + cos β h2◦  + sin ζ ( 2 Im s ) singlet | A{z } | {z }

r = cos ζ = INVISIBILITY PARAMETER

a = mixing of doublet and singlet components

PLB 95, 285, 1980; NPB 187, 184, 1981

(reduces strength or effective strength of U or a interactions, cf. “invisible axion”)

48 Axial coupling

3 1  rx = cos ζ cot β (u, c, t) f 2−4 G 2 m  q,l A F U  ≃ 6 × r/x = cos ζ tan β (d, s, b; e, µ, τ ) 2| 10− m{zU (MeV)}  

Equivalent pseudoscalar coupling

1 1  rx = cos ζ cot β (u, c, t) fq,l P 24 GF 2 mq,l  ≃ ×  6 r/x = cos ζ tan β (d, s, b; e, µ, τ ) 4 10 m (MeV)  | − {zq,l } 

mq,l ratio: 2 mU

r = cos ζ = invisibility parameter tan β = v2 v1

49 B ( ψ γ U/a ) 5 10 5 cos2 ζ cot2 β C F → ≃ − ψ ψ B (Υ γ U/a ) 2 10 4 cos2 ζ tan2 β C F → ≃ − Υ Υ

(F phase space factor; C > 1 for QCD radiative and rel. corrections) ∼ 2

Υ DECAYS PLB 675, 267 (2009) CLEO, BABAR hep-ex/0808.0017

f < 4 10 7 m (MeV)/√B , or f < 4 10 3/√B | bA| − U inv | bP | − inv 3 For invisibly decaying boson: fbP < 4 10− 5 times smaller than standard Higgs coupling to b, m /v 2 10 2 b ≃ − = ⇒ 2 2 2 doublet fraction: r = cos ζ < 4 % / (tan β Binv)

a ( < 4 % doublet, > 96 % singlet) for tan β > 1 with inv. decays 6 4 B ( ψ γ + neutral ) Binv < 10− / tan β , ⇒ → ∼ 8 i.e. < 10− for tan β > 3 , independently of B inv ∼ ∼ 50 Consequences for couplings to LEPTONS

implications for the couplings of the new spin-1 or spin-0 boson to e, µ or τ . !!

Universality of the axial coupling of the U : feA = fµA = fτA = fdA = fsA = fbA

= limit on f applies to f : ⇒ bA eA

f < 4 10 7 m (MeV) /√B , f < 4 10 7 /√B | eA| − U inv | eP | − inv

1 for invisible decays: feP < 5 standard Higgs coupling to the electron

51 Υ DECAYS γ + (µ+ µ ) → −

BABAR: hep-ex/0902.2176

r/x = cos ζ tan β < .15/ Bµµ = ∼ q ⇒

7 fbA < 3 10− mU (MeV)/ Bµµ | | ∼ q 3 3 fbP < 3 10− / Bµµ , or fbS < 5 10− / Bµµ | | ∼ q | | ∼ q

(for B 1, lim. on f is 15 % of SM Higgs coupling to b). µµ ≃ bP ≃

2 2 2 doublet fraction: r = cos ζ < 2 % / (tan β Bµµ) . ∼ 7 4 B ( ψ γ + neutral ) Bµµ < 5 10− / tan β , → ∼ 9 i.e. < 5 10− for tan β > 3 , independently of Bµµ . ∼ ∼

52 LIGHT DARK MATTER in Υ DECAYS

PLB 269, 213 (1991); PRD 74, 054034, 2006, ...

invisible  Υ χχ =   →   Υ γ χχ = γ + invisible   → mediated by light U (or a spin-0 for γ χχ)

(no decay Υ invisible mediated by spin-0) →

( Υ χχ and γ χχ test vector and axial couplings to b, resp.) →

Υ χχ < 3 10 4 c f < 5 10 3 arXiv:0910.2587 → − ⇒ | χ bV | − inv | {z } (as recently improved by Babar)

Υ γ χχ can constrain c f → | χ bA| inv | {z }

53 Many other processes ...

(Dark Matter annihilations, 511 keV line, other signatures ... )

Parity violations in atomic physics

feA e− e− U q q fq V

strong limit : f f < 10 7 m (MeV) r | eA qV | − U

54 Other constraints from:

g 2 − ν scatterings

Supernovae explosions

...

Direct production in e+ e γ U − → e+ γ e+ γ e− U e− U

55 CONCLUSIONS

pair-production of SUSY particles at colliders     2 doublets + possible singlet complementarity:  expected Higgs sector: 

  stable LSP (neutralino ... ) dark matter   → 

Search for dark matter ... Explore the high-energy frontier

waiting for more experimental data, especially from LHC ...

But another frontier exists at lower energies !

light weakly (or very weakly) coupled new particles

NEW PARTICLES, NEW FORCES, NEW (super) SPACETIME DIMENSIONS ...

56 BON ANNIVERSAIRE

CHRIS !

et, comme dirait Chris, un grand merci aux gentils organisateurs de la Conference´

57