arXiv:0902.1344v1 [astro-ph.HE] 9 Feb 2009 ∗ ymty[] h ihetKlz-li photon Kaluza-Klein lightest the Standard [1], neutralino the the symmetry beyond include nat- physics examples occur of (SM); or type Model theories one this many is of in DM Particles urally for WIMP. na- candidate of its popular species yet A universe, more the unknown. in is quantities ture large in exist must nvra xr-ieso UD hois[–] rthe or [2–4], photon theories heavy (UED) extra-dimension universal iiainsae stesur fteWM est,any density, an- WIMP WIMP the of from square particles the of as flux scales nihilation the Since population. halo. DM the Way’s in Milky annihilations WIMP from resulting [12]) PAMELA is satellites Telescope of the generation (e.g., photons new of for A searching signatures SM. see the may tech- par- beyond Collider, in physics of Hadron colliders, number Large particle the of a WIMP ticular generation of complementary next maturity The but the signals. different to targeting due nologies DM of to ture needed amount the [8]. produced roughly matter thermally dark in are the universe explain and early matter, the dark in cold be- self-annihilating, as stable, have all are candidates particular akmte nteslrsse :Tedsrbto function distribution The I: system solar the in matter Dark lcrncaddress: Electronic hr soewemn vdneta o-ayncDM non-baryonic that evidence overwhelming is There hr r loeprmnst rb h oa WIMP local the probe to experiments also are There na- the constraining in progress rapid expect may We 9 0)adohrprils(.. TC[11], ATIC (e.g., particles other and 10]) [9, .Dr atradDetection and Matter Dark A. σ xeietlcntanso h IPncencossectio e cross detection WIMP-nucleon direct the the on to enhancement constraints maximum experimental the that find we at sulkl ome h hehl fnext-generation, of threshold WIM the from meet neutrinos to from unlikely rate event is the Earth while WIMPs, halo from ftebudWM ouaindpnso h IPmass WIMP the on S depends the population only p WIMP massive of interacting bound consisting weakly the of system species of orb solar t single of toy In a simulations a of present system. consists in we solar system, capture the solar solar h to the the by bound in both DM DM or of on of In models three population good space. the have and parameter to system matter necessary dark is of it swaths experiments, large probe will ASnmes 95.35.+d,96.25.De,95.85.Ry,96.60.Vg numbers: PACS telescopes. p SI h etgnrto fdr atr(M ietdtcinexp detection direct (DM) matter dark of generation next The A n pndpnetcossection cross spin-dependent and , .INTRODUCTION I. H [email protected] nLtl ig oes[–] These [5–7]. models Higgs Little in aionaIsiueo ehooy alCd 0-4 Pasa 105-24, Code Mail Technology, of Institute California eateto hsc,PictnUiest,Pictn N Princeton, University, Princeton Physics, of Department em am-a Space Gamma-Ray Fermi rmslrcapture. solar from χ Dtd coe 4 2018) 24, October (Dated: niaH .Peter G. H. Annika nsuper- in σ B p SD (1) sn tnaddsrpino h aatcD halo, DM Galactic the of description standard a Using . in σ ineprmnsadnurn eecpsaedetermined are telescopes neutrino and experiments tion σ magnitude. aueo IP nteeeprmnsi ml ( small a is experiments these sig- in keV The 10 WIMPs experiments. of detection direct nature from come tions 2] MS 2] n ob estv ocossections cross to sensitive be to to and down [28]) XENON1T XMASS [26], WARP [21], [27], [23–25], target DEAP/CLEAN SuperCDMS have (e.g., [22], to kg LUX slated 1000 is approaching experiments masses detection direct of ( iyaWM niiainsgaue hyaeprojected are on iden- they constraints not signature, improve do annihilation to [20]) WIMP KM3NeT a proposed tify the [19], IceCube ntesi-eedn IPpoo rs section cross WIMP-proton constraints spin-dependent strongest the the places Super-Kamiokande on 17]) [14], [16, the AMANDA MACRO telescopes or [15], neutrino [13], Sun of the BAKSAN of generation (e.g., wells previous settle potential The and the trapped planets. in be cores may pass- dense system WIMPs into solar that generically high the means WIMPs unusually through which ing target. an baryons, good has with a that interact is system WIMPs of solar density the in region vni h etgnrto fnurn eecpswith telescopes km neutrino 1 of approaching generation volumes next detector Earth. the and if Sun the Even in annihilation WIMP from neutrinos ∼ < n n SD SD o ie IPmdl vn ae ndrc detec- direct in rates event model, WIMP given a For h etlmt ntesi-eedn WIMP-neutron spin-dependent the on limits best The 10 ∼ n pnidpnetWIMP-nucleon spin-independent and ril WM) edsrb o h size the how describe We (WIMP). article − km 39 10 − ∗ ,is n, 3 − cm σ 0 e)ncerrci.Tenx generation next The recoil. nuclear kev) 100 t fD on oteslrsystem solar the to bound DM of its l Msraigtruhtesolar the through streaming DM alo szd(cCb,K3e)neutrino KM3NeT) (IceCube, -sized e oitrrttesgasi these in signals the interpret to der .WMsi h oa System Solar the in WIMPs B. nadJptr suigta DM that assuming Jupiter, and un m 42 p SI niiaini h etro the of center the in annihilation P 2 χ etrt,cnitn ihcurrent with consistent rate, vent rmnsadnurn telescopes neutrino and eriments < cm pnidpnetcossection cross spin-independent , i ae,tefis nasre of series a in first the paper, his at ∼ ea A915 USA 91125, CA dena, %rltv oteeetrate event the to relative 1% 2 84,UAand USA 08544, J m 2,30]. [29, 10 χ − ∼ 46 fWMsa h Earth the at WIMPs of 0 e)bsdo u iisof limits flux on based GeV) 100 cm σ 2 p SD , σ yams w resof orders two almost by p SD 3 ∼ eg,Atrs[18], Antares (e.g., 10 − σ 40 p SI cm rs sec- cross 2 and , σ p SD ∼ 2 by the phase space distribution function (DF) of WIMPs of WIMP orbits in the solar system, including both the in the solar system. The fiducial assumption is that the gravitational effects of the dominant planet, Jupiter, and direct detection event rate and WIMP capture rate in the an accurate Monte Carlo description of WIMP-nuucleon Earth are dominated by DM particles from the Galactic elastic scattering in the solar interior, as well as a discus- halo, passing through the solar system on unbound orbits sion of the likely contribution of bound WIMPs to direct [1, 31]. There are potentially observable consequences if detection experiments and neutrino telescopes. In this even a tiny fraction of WIMPs may become captured to paper, Paper I, we focus on WIMP capture in the Sun. the solar system, since bound WIMPs have lower speeds In order to put our results in context, we first summarize than halo WIMPs. The push for many direct detection the treatment of Damour and Krauss [37], and describe experiments is toward ever-lower nuclear recoil energy the mechanism they found that extended the lifetimes of thresholds ( 0.1 keV 1 keV), both in order to gain solar captured WIMPs in the solar system and built up sensitivity to∼ low mass− WIMPs and because the event the DF of WIMPs at the Earth: the Kozai mechanism. rate is much higher there than at lower energies [32, 33]. At such low energies, low speed WIMPs contribute dis- proportionately to the event rate for kinematic reasons. C. Damour and Krauss (1999) and the Kozai Low speed WIMPs have an even greater impact on the Mechanism event rate of neutrinos from annihilation in the Earth. The shallowness of the Earth’s potential well means that In the absence of gravitational torques from the plan- only low speed WIMPs may be captured in the Earth. ets, WIMPs captured onto Earth-crossing orbits by elas- In particular, if the WIMP mass is above 400 GeV, only tic scattering in the Sun will have a small number density WIMPs bound to the solar system may be trapped in the at the Earth relative to the halo number density for two Earth. reasons. (i) Unless the WIMP is massive (m > 1 TeV), Two processes have been identified by which WIMPs the characteristic energy a WIMP loses to a∼ solar nu- may become captured to the solar system at rates large cleus is large enough such that most captured WIMPs enough to be important for terrestrial dark matter exper- have aphelia that lie inside the Earth’s orbit. (ii) The iments. Gravitational Capture: Gould [34, 35] pointed characteristic time to the next scatter, which will almost out that WIMPs may be captured from the halo by grav- certainly remove the WIMP from an Earth-crossing orbit itationally scattering on the planets. By treating WIMP unless m > 1 TeV, is of order t P/τ. For a WIMP with ∝ orbits in the solar system as a diffusion problem, Gould semi-major∼ axis a = 1 AU, Pχ = 1 year. If, for example, [35] and Lundberg and Edsj¨o[36] estimated that bound SI −41 2 SD −39 2 −3 σp = 10 cm (or σp = 10 cm ), τ 10 , so WIMPs dominate the annihilation rate of WIMPs in the the WIMP lifetime in the solar system is only∼ of order a Earth for WIMP masses > 100 GeV. Solar Capture: thousand years, short compared to the age of the solar WIMPs captured in the Sun∼ will reach thermal equilib- system. rium with solar nuclei on timescales t τ −1P , where ∼ Damour and Krauss [37] recognized that the lifetimes τ is the optical depth of the Sun for WIMPs and P is of bound WIMPs in Earth-crossing orbits could be ex- the orbital period of a bound WIMP. However, Damour tended by orders of magnitude if gravitational torques and Krauss [37] identified a population of solar-captured from the planets decreased the WIMP eccentricity (in- WIMPs that could survive for much longer periods of creased the perihelion distance) enough that the WIMP time due to a type of secular resonance that pulls their orbit no longer penetrated the Sun. For WIMPs in plan- perihelia outside the Sun. Using secular perturbation etary systems such as our own, such behavior is possible theory, they found that this population could produce a if the rate of perihelion precessionω ˙ is small, since then low-recoil direct detection rate comparable to that of halo the torques from the planets act in a constant direction SI −42 −40 2 WIMPs for σp 10 10 cm , and could yield an over many WIMP orbits. This process was first exam- annihilation rate∼ in the Earth− a factor of 100 greater ∼ ined by Kozai [41] in the context of asteroid orbits and than the rate expected from unbound halo WIMPs for is sometimes called the Kozai resonance. The signature WIMP masses 100 150 GeV [38]. ∼ − of this resonance is large fluctuations in both the inclina- While these results are intriguing, the semi-analytic tion and eccentricity while the semi-major axis is fixed. treatments used in these papers cannot fully capture the The Kozai resonance can lead to both libration and cir- rich range of behavior in small-N systems such as the so- culation in the argument of perihelion ω, and we use the lar system. It is important to check these results with nu- term “Kozai cycles” to describe these oscillations. Kozai merical experiments. Moreover, the annihilation rate of cycles have been studied in the context of comets [42], as- WIMPs in the Sun depends critically on whether WIMPs teroids [43, 44], triple star systems [45], and exoplanets captured in the Sun thermalize rapidly with solar nuclei. [46]. If the planets can pull the WIMPs out of the Sun for Damour & Krauss found approximate analytic Kozai extended periods of time, or even eject the particles from solutions for a solar system containing the inner planets the system, the annihilation rate will be depressed with and Jupiter on circular, coplanar orbits. The require- respect to current estimates. ment thatω ˙ is small means that Kozai cycles are only In a set of three papers [39, 40], we present simulations significant for WIMPs with perihelia that are not too 3 far inside the solar radius, so the solar potential is not for the event rates in direct detection experiments and far from that of a point mass. Damour & Krauss use neutrino telescopes are made in Sections V and VI. We an analytic approximation to the solar potential in the discuss our results in the context of the previous work on outer r > 0.55R⊙ of the Sun, where R⊙ is the radius solar captured-WIMPs by Damour and Krauss [37] and of the Sun. They expanded the potentials of the plan- Bergstr¨om et al. [38], the presence of other planets, and ets to quadrupole order in the small parameter aP /a, the assumptions concerning the halo DF in Section VII, where aP is the semi-major axis of a planet, and ne- and summarize the main results of this work in Section glected short-period terms and mean-motion resonances. VIII. The solutions have an additional feature—if the orbital We defer the topic of annihilation of WIMPs in the Sun plane of the planets in the solar system is the x y to Paper II [39], and the simulations of gravitationally plane, the z-component of the specific angular momen-− captured WIMPs to Paper III [40]. 2 tum, Jz = GM⊙a(1 e )cos I (I is the inclination) is a conserved quantity. − p To estimate the size of the solar-captured WIMP pop- II. ORBIT INTEGRATION ulation at the Earth, Damour & Krauss made the follow- ing additional assumptions. (i) Jupiter-crossing WIMPs The problem of determining the long-term trajectories (with aphelia greater than Jupiter’s semi-major axis, of bound dark matter particles imposes a set of difficult ra > aX 5.2 AU) were ignored, since their lifetimes ≈ challenges to the integration algorithm. The algorithm in the solar system were assumed to be short. Similarly, must (i) be stable and accurate over 4.5 Gyr; (ii) accu- all WIMPs with ra < aX that were not on Kozai cycles rately follow highly eccentric (e > 0.995) orbits with no were also ignored. (ii) They assumed that all WIMPs numerical dissipation; (iii) accurately integrate trajecto- on Kozai cycles would survive for the lifetime of the so- ries that are influenced by perturbing forces that may be lar system without rescattering in the Sun, regardless of comparable to the force from the Sun for short intervals the optical depth in the Sun for WIMPs. Since the typ- (including close encounters with and passages through ical lifetime of Earth-crossing WIMPs is 103 yr for SI −41 2 ∼ planets); and (iv) be fast, in order to obtain an adequate σp 10 cm , the extension of the lifetimes of even a statistical sample of orbits. few Earth-crossing∼ particles to the age of the solar system Much progress has been made in the past fifteen years results in a significant boost to the DF of bound WIMPs to address the first and last criteria. This progress has at the Earth. largely been motivated by interest in the long-term sta- bility of planetary systems. The most significant develop- ment has been the advent of geometric integrators (sym- D. This Work plectic and/or time-reversible integrators), which have the desirable property that errors in conserved quanti- To investigate the validity of these assumptions and ties (such as the Hamiltonian) are oscillatory rather than to provide a more accurate assessment of the contribu- growing. However, the most commonly used algorithms tion of bound WIMPs to direct detection experiments [47–49] are not immediately applicable to the present and neutrino telescopes, we perform a set of numerical problem, for two main reasons. First, one would like simulations of WIMP orbits in the solar system. In this to use an adaptive time step to quickly but accurately paper, Paper I, we present a suite of simulations of solar- integrate a highly eccentric orbit (using very small time captured WIMP orbits in a toy solar system consisting steps near perihelion and larger ones otherwise), or to re- only of the Sun and Jupiter. Jupiter is the only planet solve close encounters with the planets. It is difficult to included in the simulations for two reasons. (i) As the introduce an adaptive time step in a symplectic or time- largest planet in the solar system, it dominates the dy- reversible way since varying the time step by criteria that namics of minor bodies in the system. We address the depend on phase space position destroys symplecticity. issue of other planets in Section VII of this paper as Secondly, since for practical purposes the integrations of well as in later papers. (ii) Since some of our numeri- planetary or comet orbits end when two bodies collide, cal methods (described in Section II) are new, and since there has been little attention to integrating systems for it is important to have a physical understanding of the which the potential can deviate significantly from the Ke- principal mechanisms that determine the key features of plerian point-mass potential, as it does in the solar inte- the bound WIMP population, it is useful to simulate a rior. simple system first. In particular, particle orbits in our In the following sections, we describe an algorithm to toy solar system enjoy a constant of motion (Eq. 20), efficiently carry out the long-term integration of dark which provides a check on the numerical accuracy of the matter particles in the solar system. In Section II A, integrations. we outline an adaptive time step symplectic integrator We describe the simulations in Section III, and the (simultaneously formulated by Preto and Tremaine [50] DFs derived from the simulations in Section IV. Also in and Mikkola and Tanikawa [51]) that is used for most Section IV, we show how the DFs depend on the WIMP of the orbital integrations. We explain the error proper- SI SD mass and cross section mχ, σp , and σp . Predictions ties of the integrator in Section II B. In Section II C, we 4 discuss procedures to handle special cases, such as close Outside the Sun, the gravitational potential of the solar planetary encounters. We discuss the merits of various system is coordinate systems in Section II D. GM⊙ U(q,t)= + Φi(q, qi), (10) − q q⊙ i | − | X A. The Adaptive Time Step Integrator where the first term in the potential denotes the Kep- lerian potential of the Sun and Φi is the potential from We closely follow the arguments of Mikkola and planet i, and the potential from the Sun dominates most Tanikawa [51] and Preto and Tremaine [50] in the de- of the time. Preto and Tremaine show that for a choice scription of the adaptive time step symplectic integrator. of A separable Hamiltonian H(q, p,t) = T (p)+ U(q,t) g(Q, P) = q q⊙ (11) (T is the kinetic energy and U is the potential energy), | − | a function of the canonical position q and momentum p, GM⊙ (12) can be implemented as a symplectic integrator with fixed ≈−U(q,t) time step ∆t. The key to finding a symplectic integrator with a variable time step is to promote the time t to the two-body problem can be solved exactly, with only a time (phase) error δt/P N −2, where P is the orbital a canonical variable, and make it a function of a new ∝ “time” coordinate s, period and N is the number of steps per orbit. This is a good feature because phase errors are far less important dt = g(q, p,t)ds. (1) for our purposes than, for example, systematic energy drifts or numerical precession. Note that the time step find a separable Hamiltonian Γ in the extended phase is proportional to the particle’s separation from the Sun, space that describes the motion, and take fixed time steps so that small time steps are taken near the perihelion of ∆s when integrating the new equations of motion. The the orbit and large steps near the aphelion. We use Eq. (11) as our choice for g(Q, P), for which the functional new canonical coordinates are q0 = t and p0 = H, so − form of f(x) is the new set of canonical variables Q = (q0, q) and P = (p0, p). Preto and Tremaine and Mikkola and Tanikawa f(x)= GM⊙ log(x). (13) find such an extended phase space Hamiltonian, The adaptive time step equations of motion are imple- Γ(Q, P)= g(Q, P)[H(q, p,t) p0] , (2) mented via a second-order leapfrog integrator (also called − a Verlet integrator) with ∆s ∆t/g = h, where h is de- which can be made separable with the choice termined by the number of steps≃ desired per orbit. Since the goal is to understand the behavior of a large ensem- f(T (p)+ p ) f( U(Q)) g(Q, P)= 0 − − , (3) ble of orbits, we are more interested in maintaining small T (p)+ U(Q)+ p0 energy errors over long times rather than precisely in- tegrating orbits over short times, and so a second-order so that the extended Hamiltonian is symplectic integrator is sufficient. For our choice of f(x), and given T = v2/2 and U = U(r,t), the change over a Γ(Q, P)= f(T (p)+ p ) f( U(Q)). (4) 0 − − single fictitious time step h can be written as the map- ping The equations of motion for this Hamiltonian are: 1 GM⊙v r = r + h 0 (14) dq 1/2 0 1 2 0 ′ 2 v0 + p0,0 = f (T (p)+ p0) (5) 2 ds 1 GM⊙ dq ′ ∂T t1/2 = t0 + h 1 2 (15) = f (T (p)+ p ) (6) 2 v + p0,0 ds 0 ∂p 2 0 GM⊙ ∂U(r1/2,t1/2) dp0 ′ ∂U(Q) v1 = v0 + h (16) = f ( U(Q) (7) U(r1/2,t1/2) ∂r ds − − ∂q0 dp ∂U(Q) GM⊙ ∂U(r1/2,t1/2) = f ′( U(Q) . (8) p0,1 = p0,0 + h (17) ds − − ∂q U(r1/2,t1/2) ∂t 1 GM⊙v r r 1 1 = 1/2 + h 1 2 (18) To determine a useful choice for f(x), Preto and 2 2 v1 + p0,1 Tremaine expand Eq. (3) in a Taylor series about the 1 GM⊙ t1 = t1/2 + h , (19) small parameter T + p0 + U (= 0 if the Hamiltonian is 1 2 2 v1 + p0,1 exactly conserved) to show that 2 where the subscript i = 0, 1/2, 1 labels what fraction of g(Q, P) f ′( U(Q)). (9) the total time step h has been taken. ≈ − 5
B. Errors Along the Path
We explore the behavior of the energy errors in the adaptive time step integrator as a function of energy, eccentricity, distance from the Sun, and number of steps per orbit. This study allows us, in conjunction with the results of Section II C 2, to determine which the fictitious time step h to use to meet accuracy requirements. The choice of h for the simulations is described in Section III D. For the current study, we use short integrations in order to focus on the errors of the adaptive time step integrator alone. We will discuss the long-term behavior of the whole integration scheme after we discuss the other pieces of our algorithm. Since our toy solar system (Sun + Jupiter + WIMP) is a restricted three-body problem, there is one constant of motion, the Jacobi constant
CJ = 2(E nXJz), (20) − − where E is the particle energy in an inertial frame, nX is the mean motion of Jupiter, and Jz is the z-component of the particle’s angular momentum, assuming that the FIG. 1: Jacobi constant errors as a function of distance from motions of the Sun and Jupiter are confined to the x y − the primary for a trajectory with a = 1.73 AU, followed for plane. Therefore, we can parameterize errors in terms of 2 × 104 Kepler periods. This trajectory was integrated with the Jacobi constant. There are no analogous conserved 500 steps/orbit. Errors are calculated at perihelion and aphe- quantities for particles orbiting in planetary systems with lion. Points to the left of the vertical line lie within the vol- more than one planet or if the planetary orbit is eccentric. ume of the Sun; however, we used a point-mass Sun for this In those systems, one can quantify errors for integrators integration. of the type described in Section II A in terms of the rela- tive energy error ∆E/E = (E + p0)/E, where E is deter- mined by the instantaneous position and velocity of the for the symplectic mapping of Eqs. (14)–(19) in the case particle and p0 is the 0 component of the momentum of the Kepler two-body problem. The number of steps in the extended phase space.− If the equations of motion per orbit is given by (5)–(8) were integrated with no error, then p0 = E and 2π ∆E/E = 0. − N = . (22) ∆u In this section, we treat the Sun as a point mass, and consider trajectories with aphelia well inside Jupiter’s or- We show the dependence of the error on the distance bit. We consider two different initial semi-major axes, from the Sun in Fig. 1. In this figure, we plot the perihe- a = aX/3 and a = aX/6 respectively, where aX is the lion and aphelion Jacobi constant errors for a trajectory semi-major axis of Jupiter. To determine the size of the with initial a = aX/3 and e = 0.999, integrated with errors in CJ as a function of eccentricity, we integrate 500 steps/orbit, representative of all the simulations. We orbits with initial eccentricity e = 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 and plot only errors at perihelion and aphelion for clarity; a 0.9999. We perform integrations for each combination of plot showing errors at each time step would be similar a and e for 10 different initial, random orientations and but with more scatter. The interior of the Sun is in the an ensemble of step sizes. We run each integration for shaded region (though the integrations were done for a a total of 2 104 Kepler periods. The integrations are point-mass Sun). From Figure 1, it appears that × started at perihelion (to mimic the initial conditions of −1 −8 −1 ∆CJ /CJ r (23) scattering in the Sun) with a very small h = 10 R⊙ | |∝ year. We use such a small time step because the mag- This is a generic feature of the integrator, and implies nitude of the errors in the integrator are largest if the that the maximum Jacobi constant or energy error occurs integration is started at pericenter, and smallest when at perihelion. The errors are oscillatory, i.e., there is no started at apocenter. Once the particle reaches its first secular growth in the error envelope with time. aphelion, h is adjusted so that it will provide the desired In Fig. 2, we show the maximum Jacobi constant error number of steps per orbit. The fictitious time step is re- as a function of initial semi-major axis ai and eccentricity lated to the number of steps per orbit by the step in the e . To find the maximum error, we calculate the error in eccentric anomaly ∆u and semi-major axis a by i Jacobi constant every time e is in the range ei 0.1(1 ei). 1 cos∆u The restriction on e isolates the effect of eccentricity± − on h =2 − , (21) (GM⊙/a)1/2 sin ∆u ∆CJ /CJ , since Fig. 1 demonstrates that the maximum | | 6
deferred to Section IIID, after we discuss close encoun- ters with Jupiter in Section II C 2.
C. Special Cases
While we would like to use this adaptive time step integrator as much as possible, keeping the fictitious step h fixed, there are two situations which must be handled separately.
1. The Sun
The interior of the Sun has a potential that deviates strongly from Keplerian. The integrator described in Sec- tion II A works badly inside the Sun because it is designed for nearly Keplerian potentials. Thus, we replace the in- tegration through the Sun by a map. We exploit the fact that tidal forces from the planets are small near the Sun. Since the two-body problem can be solved exactly, we can define a region about the Sun (called a “bubble,” with FIG. 2: Errors in the Jacobi constant as a function of eccen- tricity and semi-major axis. Each point shows the maximum a typical radius of 0.1 AU) for which we use the exact error for 10 trajectories initialized with the same eccentricity solutions to the two-body problem. In reality, we create but with random initial orientation, and followed for 2 × 104 a map for the bubble but only use it if the orbital perihe- Kepler orbits. Open points denote those trajectories for which lion lies within r =2R⊙. The bubble wall is larger than the semi-major axis a = aX/3 = 1.73 AU; closed points refer 2R⊙ so that a particle does not accidentally step into the to trajectories with a = aX/6 = 0.87 AU. Circles mark tra- Sun when stepping into the bubble. In the WIMP orbital jectories with initial eccentricity ei = 0.9999, squares denote plane, we map the incoming position and velocity to the those with ei = 0.999, diamonds indicate those with ei = 0.99, outgoing position and velocity using look-up tables for and triangles those with ei = 0.9. 2 ∆t(a,e)= GM⊙ error in a simulation depends on the largest eccentricity rb dr p (24) in the orbit. We then plot the maximum error found × 1 Zrp(a,e) 2[ Φ˜ ⊙(r)] a(1 e2)/r2 among all simulations for the same initial ai and ei. For ± 2a − ± − each type of simulation, the maximum error occurs at and q perihelion. Fig. 2 indicates that the maximum Jacobi constant error is a decreasing function of the number of ∆φ(a,e)=2 a(e2 1) steps per orbit, and an increasing function of semi-major ± − rb dr axis and eccentricity. Furthermore, the maximum error p , (25) × 1 for e ei 0.1(1 ei) within each simulation is a function Zrp(a,e) r2 2[ Φ˜ ⊙(r)] a(1 e2)/r2 ∈ ± − ± 2a − ± − of the initial conditions. In the simulations with fixed q eccentricity and a = aX/6, the spread in these central which are the time ∆t and phase ∆φ through which the values is less than a factor of two, while the spread is particle passes in the bubble region. By convention, a is about a factor of ten in the a = aX/3 simulations. This always positive, such that E = GM⊙/2a for hyperbolic is described more in [52]. orbits and E = GM⊙/2a for eccentric orbits. The +/ − − To set the fictitious time step h for the simulations de- signs in Eqs. (24) and (25) correspond to hyperbolic tailed in Section III D, it is preferable to consider errors (e> 1) and elliptical orbits (e< 1) respectively. We have ˜ at a fixed, small distance from the Sun rather than ex- normalized the solar potential Φ⊙ = Φ⊙/GM⊙. Note clusively at perihelion. This is because we use a mapping that rb is the bubble radius and rp is the true perihelion, defined by technique to follow perihelion passages where rp 2R⊙. Therefore, we want to impose a maximum Jacobi≤ con- dr stant (or energy) error for the simulations at r = 2R⊙. = 0 (26) However, we also want to optimize h such that passages dt rp near planets can be integrated accurately with the least overall CPU time. A full discussion which values h are 1 2 2 = 2 Φ˜ ⊙(rp) a(1 e )/r . (27) used for the main set of simulations in this work will be ±2a − ± − p s 7
We parameterize the look-up tables in terms of the semi- 2. The Planets major axis and Keplerian perihelion r = a(1 e) . K | − | There is one subtlety in matching the map through While the adaptive time step integrator works well in a the bubble to the integrator outside of bubble. In the near-Keplerian potential, one must treat close encounters Keplerian two-body problem, one solves the equations of with planets more carefully. If the time step is too large motion dp/dt and dq/dt instead of dp/ds and dq/ds. If near a planet, the particle fails to resolve the force from one divides dq/ds and dp/ds by the differential equation the planet. This can cause growing errors in the parti- for the time coordinate, the time-transformed equations cle’s trajectory. Since we use an f(x) that is optimized to of motion are the potential of the Sun, the only way to achieve a small dq dq/ds time step near each planet is to either make the fictitious = (28) time step h small or to switch to a different integration dt dt/ds Γ method near each planet while using the method of Sec- ′ f (T + p0)dT/dp tion II A with a reasonably large h for the rest of the = ′ (29) f (T + p0) orbit. The advantage of the former approach is that it = p (30) does not break the symplectic nature of the integrator. However, it is also prohibitively computationally expen- sive. Therefore, we use the latter approach. dp dp/ds = (31) We define a spherical region (“bubble”) about each dt dt/ds planet for which we allow a different integration scheme, Γ ′ while continuing to use the adaptive time step symplec- f ( U)∂U/∂q = −′ (32) tic integrator (Section II A) outside the spheres. The − f (T + p0) ′ transition between the integration schemes is not sym- f ( U) ∂U plectic, but reduce errors in the integration by enforcing = ′ − . (33) −f (T + p0) ∂q an accuracy requirement on ∆E/E = (p0 + E)/E = ( H + E)/E in the bubble| of each| planet.| | The second of these differs from the equations of motion | − | of the original Hamiltonian H by a multiplicative factor In the bubble of each planet, we continue to use the adaptive time step integrator, but the value of h′ (the ′ ′ µ = f ( U)/f (T + p0), (34) prime denotes the fact that this fictitious time step is − only in other words, the particle follows a Kepler orbit about used within a planet bubble) used in the bubble is selected to keep the quantity ∆E/E as small as possible a Sun of mass µM⊙. Therefore, we calculate the orbital | | elements using while also keeping the total integration time short. To find the optimal value of h′, we use the following algo- p0 rithm. When a particle first enters a bubble, we record a = (35) 2µGM⊙ the particle’s energy error at the first step, ∆Ei/Ei . | | Then, we integrate the particle’s trajectory through the e = 1 J 2/ (µGM⊙a), (36) ± bubble using the default value of h. As the particle is where the upper (lower)p sign should be used for hyper- about to exit the bubble, we calculate the energy error bolic (elliptical) orbits. We use a look-up table for ∆t ∆Ef /Ef . If the energy error meets the accuracy crite- | | and ∆φ with the modification that ∆t, as calculated for rion, or if it is less than ∆Ei/Ei , then the integration | | a and e with µ = 1, must be multiplied by a factor of is allowed to continue normally. If, however, ∆Ef /Ef | | µ−1/2. The change in phase is unaffected by the choice does not satisfy the accuracy criterion, we restart the of central mass since it is a purely geometric quantity. integration in the bubble from the point at which the Similar lookup tables are also used to determine the particle first entered with a smaller fictitious time step ′ perihelion rp and the optical depth as a function of semi- h . This process iterates until either the energy accu- major axis and eccentricity. We discuss additional scat- racy condition is satisfied or the energy error plateaus tering in the Sun in Appendix B. in value. If the energy error plateaus in value, whichever We demonstrate the robustness of the map in the up- trajectory (corresponding to a particular choice of h′) has per left panel of Fig. 3, where we show errors in the the minimum ∆Ef /Ef is chosen. | | Jacobi constant over a 500 Myr time span for an orbit The choice of the bubble size lX is related to the choice with a 1.54 AU. The orbit enters the Sun 107 times of fiducial value of h and to the mass of the planet. A in this≈ time span. We sample the orbit at the∼ first aphe- larger value of h means that the bubble needs to be larger lion after a 105 yr interval from the previous sample, to ensure that the planet’s gravitational potential is prop- and there are approximately 100 steps/orbit. This fig- erly resolved. Planets with larger masses will require ure shows that there are only oscillatory errors through- larger bubbles than smaller planets. We choose to keep out this long-term integration, and these fractional errors the bubble size fixed for all orbits. In general, we tune never exceed 10−6 at aphelion. Long-term integrations of h so that the typical energy errors for all energies are the two-body problem using the map demonstrate energy similar near each planet, and to keep the error in the Ja- −4 errors only at the level of machine precision. cobi constant small ∆C /C < 10 at r =2R⊙. The | J J | 8
10-6 ai = 16 AU, ejected
5x10-7 J / C
J 0 C ∆ -5x10-7
103
102 a [AU] 101 0 5x105 106 1.5x106 Time [years]
FIG. 3: Error in the Jacobi constant as a function of time for several particles. The Jacobi constant is recorded at aphelion at 105 yr intervals. Top left: A particle with a = 1.54 AU. This particle repeatedly goes through the Sun (about 107 times), −5 −1 but never goes through the bubble around Jupiter. It is integrated with h = 6 × 10 R⊙ yr, which corresponds to ≈ 100 steps/orbit. Top right: A particle that gets stuck near a Sun-skimming 2:1 resonance with Jupiter. This particle repeatedly −5 −1 goes through the Jupiter bubble. It is integrated with h = 2 × 10 R⊙ yr, or ≈ 350 steps/orbit. Bottom left: A particle gets −5 −1 stuck near a 3:2 resonance with Jupiter. This orbit was integrated with h = 1.5 × 10 R⊙ yr, or ≈ 650 steps/orbit. Bottom right: This particle repeatedly crosses rc, the transition radius between barycentric and heliocentric coordinates (dashed line marks rc/2, the crossing semi-major axis for an orbit with e ∼ 1) and has its last aphelion before ejection from the solar system 6 −6 −1 3 at t = 1.6 × 10 years. It is integrated with h = 2 × 10 R⊙ yr, or 9 × 10 steps/orbit.
optimum sizes of the Jupiter bubble is lX 1 3 AU if the integrations. The Jacobi constant is measured at the we require that ∆E /E 10−7 10−6.∼ − aphelion of the orbit at 105 year intervals. The trajecto- | f f |∼ − A complication arises when particles experience large ries of the particles in the upper right and bottom panels changes in energy in their passage through the planetary repeatedly pass through the bubble around Jupiter. For bubble. In this case, the value of h that guaranteed a cer- these integrations, lX =2.3 AU, and the energy criterion −7 tain precision in ∆E/E in the pre-encounter orbit may was ∆Ef /Ef < 2 10 . There are no secular changes | | × be either too large| (for adequate| precision) or too small of the Jacobi constant with time. Therefore, even though (it will slow down the orbital integration). Therefore, the planet bubble disrupts the symplecticity of the inte- we change the value of h at the next aphelion. Again, grator, the integrator tracks the Hamiltonian well. this procedure breaks the symplectic nature of the inte- grator, but by changing h at aphelion, our experiments show that we minimize errors. In Section III D, we out- line how h is chosen for the initial orbits, and how h is D. Coordinate Choice changed if the particle experiences significant changes in energy from planetary encounters. For most of the integration, we use a heliocentric co- We demonstrate the performance of the bubble for the ordinate system for both the particles and the planets. case of the 3-body problem in Fig. 3. In this figure, the There are two main reasons why we choose a heliocentric fractional error of the Jacobi constant is plotted against system. First, it is much simpler to use heliocentric coor- the time since the initial scatter in the Sun that pro- dinates for passages through the Sun. Secondly, consider duced a bound orbit, and we show the first 500 Myr of the gravitational potential of the planets in the heliocen- 9 tric frame, choose to treat the transition the same way we treat the transition into the bubble about the Sun. Namely, we cal- Φ(r)P = Φd(r)+Φi(r) (37) culate µ (Eq. 34), the factor by which the gravitational GMP GMP r rP potential is modified in the integrator (see Eq. 33), in = + 3 · , (38) the initial coordinate frame i. Then we set − r rP xP XP | − | XP p = µ E(r,t) , (45) where the indirect term (i) arises from the fact that this 0 |f − i |f coordinate system is not the center-of-mass coordinate where quantities calculated in the final frame are denoted system, and d denotes the direct term. For orbits that by f, and E is the energy derived from the position and are well within a planet’s orbit, the direct term can be velocity coordinates of the particle. While this transition expanded into spherical harmonics is not symplectic, in practice it conserves the Jacobi con- stant to adequate precision. This is demonstrated in the GMP Φd(r) = (39) lower left panel in Figure 3, an orbit for which the initial r rP XP | − | semi-major axis is 50 AU. In this integration, ǫ = 0.1, which translates to r = 53 AU. GMP GMP c = 3 r rP (40) " − rP − rP · XP ∞ l III. SIMULATIONS GMP r r rP Pl · , (41) − rP rP rrP # Xl=2 A. Dark Matter Model where the Pl are Legendre polynomials. The dipole term of the direct potential is canceled by the indirect poten- In order to perform the orbit simulations, it is neces- tial. Therefore, the primary contributor to the force on sary to specify some dark matter properties. The parti- the particle by the planet comes from the l = 2 tidal term cle mass and elastic scattering cross sections completely of the potential, whereas the l = 1 term is dominant in determine scattering properties in the Sun, and hence, the barycentric frame. these are the only WIMP-dependent parameters neces- While there are distinct advantages to using the he- sary to run the simulations and find the WIMP distribu- liocentric frame, the indirect term of the potential domi- tion function at the Earth. The particle physics model nates the potential at large distances from the Sun. This and parameter space within each model do not need to poses a problem for the adaptive time step integrator, be specified for the simulations, although we assume that since the choice of g = GM⊙/U = r r⊙ is only opti- the dark matter particle is a neutralino when we estimate mal if the Keplerian solar− potential is| − dominant.| There- event rates in neutrino telescopes in Section VI. Thus, fore, we choose to work in the barycentric frame at large we use mχ to denote the WIMP mass. distances. The relative strengths of the spin-dependent and spin- In practice, this means switching between heliocentric independent elastic scattering cross sections are impor- and barycentric coordinate systems for long-period or- tant in the context of scattering in both the Sun and bits. We choose the crossover radius such that the Earth. For simplicity in interpreting the simulations, we would like to use either a spin-independent or spin- GM⊙ dependent cross section, but not a mixture of the two. max Φi,P (rc,θP = 0) = ǫ , (42) | | rc We choose to focus on the spin-independent cross sec- tion for the simulations, but in Section IV D, we show where θP is the angle between r and rP , rc is the how to extend our results to the case of non-zero spin- crossover radius, the “max” signifies the planet for the dependent interactions. In Section III D, we discuss the planet P for which the indirect potential is strongest, specific choices for the WIMP mass and σSI used in the < p and ǫ is a factor 1. In our solar system, the planet for simulations. which the indirect∼ potential is strongest is Jupiter. The We adopt the Maxwellian distribution function (DF) choice of ǫ 0.1 works well. The crossover radius is thus ≈ n v2 2 f (x, v)= χ e− /2σ (46) MXrc M⊙ h (2πσ2) 2 = ǫ , (43) aX rc to describe the dark matter distribution function in the or solar neighborhood in Galactocentric coordinates and far outside the gravitational sphere of influence of the Sun. rc ǫM⊙/MXaX. (44) Here, σ is the one-dimensional dark matter velocity dis- ≈ q persion, set to σ = v⊙/√2. We set the speed of the In changing coordinates, one breaks the symplectic flow Sun around the Galactic center to be v⊙ = 220 km/s, of the integrator. Therefore, one must treat the Hamil- for which the observational uncertainty is about 10% tonian, and therefore p0, carefully at the crossover. We [53, 54]. The WIMP number density is nχ = ρχ/mχ. 10
We assume that the dark matter density is smooth and An important consequence of this result is that the dis- time-independent in the neighborhood of the Sun, and tribution function is identically zero for local velocities −3 that ρχ = 0.3 GeV cm . Even if the dark matter were v < 2Φ⊙(r) = vesc(r) below the escape velocity at somewhat lumpy, the results of the simulations will still that distance.− p be valid if ρχ is interpreted as the average density in the solar neighborhood [55]. Transforming to the heliocentric frame via a velocity B. Astrophysics Assumptions transformation v = v v⊙, s − 3 3 3 3 fs(x, vs)d xd vs = fh(x, vs + v⊙)d xd vs, (47) The Sun: The Sun is modeled as spherical and non- rotating. The gravitational potential and chemical com- where the subscript s refers to quantities measured in position are described by the BS(OP) solar model [56]. the heliocentric frame. This distribution is anisotropic We include the elements 1H, 4He, 12C, 14Ni, 16O, 20Ne, with respect to the plane of the solar system (the eclip- 24Mg, 28Si, and 56Fe in computing the elastic scattering tic). The direction of the anisotropy with respect to the rate. ecliptic depends on the phase of the Sun’s orbit about We treat the Sun with the “zero-temperature” approx- the Galactic center. In order to avoid choosing a spe- imation (i.e., the solar nuclei are at rest) since the kinetic cific direction for the anisotropy (i.e., to avoid choosing energy of nuclei in the Sun is much less than the kinetic to start our simulations at a particular phase of the Sun’s energy of dark matter particles. At the center of the Sun, motion about the Galactic center), we angle-average this 7 the temperature is Tc 10 K, so the average kinetic en- anisotropic distribution function to obtain an isotropic ergy of a nucleus is of∼ order DF of the form 1 K = 3 kT (54) f¯ (x, v ) = f (x, v )dΩ (48) A 2 c s s 4π s s Z 1 keV. (55) 2 2 ∼ 1 nχ −(vs−v⊙) /2σ = 3/2 e 2(2π) σv⊙vs In the cooler outer layers of the Sun, the nuclei have even h 2 2 less kinetic energy. In contrast, the kinetic energy of dark e−(vs+v⊙) /2σ . (49) − matter particles in the Sun is of order Using the angle-averaged DF is approximately validi for K m v2 (56) two reasons: (i) Scattering in the Sun is isotropic, so any χ χ esc ∼ m bound WIMPs produced by elastic scattering will ini- 103 χ keV. (57) tially be isotropically distributed. (ii) The time-averaged ∼ 100 GeV distribution function (averaged over the Sun’s 200 2 1/2 ≈ The rms velocity of the nuclear species A is vA = Myr orbit about the Galactic center) only has a small −1/2 −1 h i 2KA/mA 500(mA/GeV) km s , lower than the anisotropic component [34], a consequence of the large 3 ≈ o 10 km/s speed of dark matter particles. Therefore, to (60 ) inclination of the ecliptic pole with respect to the ∼p rotation axis of the Galaxy. If the flux at the Earth is good approximation, one can treat the baryonic species dominated by particles whose lifetime in the solar sys- in the Sun as being at rest (i.e., having T = 0) tem is greater than the period of the Sun’s motion about The Solar System: The solar system is modeled as the Galactic center, the use of time-averaged distribution having only one planet, Jupiter, since Jupiter has the function is appropriate. largest mass of any planet by a factor of 3.3 and there- We use Liouville’s theorem to find the halo DF for an fore dominates gravitational scattering. We place Jupiter arbitrary point in the Sun’s potential well. Neglecting the on a circular orbit about the Sun, with a semi-major axis gravitational potential of the planets and the extremely aX = 5.203 AU, its current value, for the entire simula- rare interactions between dark matter particles, each par- tion, since its eccentricity is only e 0.05 [57], and the ≈ < −9 ticle’s energy E is conserved: fractional variation in its semi-major axis is 10 over the lifetime of the solar system [58]. Jupiter∼ is modeled 1 2 as having constant mass density to simplify calculations E = vs (50) 2 of particle trajectories. This is not a realistic represen- 1 2 tation of Jupiter’s actual mass density but only a small = v +Φ⊙(r), (51) 2 fraction of particles scattered by Jupiter actually pene- where v is the speed of particle with respect to and in the trate the planet. WIMP-baryon interactions in Jupiter gravitational sphere of influence of the Sun, and Φ⊙(r) is are neglected since the optical depth of Jupiter is small the gravitational potential of the Sun (Φ⊙ = GM⊙/r enough that the probability of even one scatter occurring − for r > R⊙, where R⊙ represents the surface of the Sun). in the simulation is significantly less than unity. Thus, the DF within the Sun’s potential well is The orbit of Jupiter defines the reference plane for the ¯ simulation. The Earth’s orbit is assumed to be coplanar f(r, v) = fs(r, vs(r, v)), (52) with the reference plane, since the actual relative incli- 2 ◦ vs(r, v) = 2Φ⊙(r)+ v . (53) nation of the two orbits is currently only 1.3 . p 11
C. Initial Conditions where a⊕ is the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit, with the lower bound determined by the fact that the aphelion The goal of this section is to compute the rate of elas- of a highly eccentric orbit is 2a. tic scattering of halo WIMPs by baryons in the Sun onto For a given incoming energy E, it may not be kine- bound orbits, as a function of the energy and angular matically possible to scatter into the full range of bound, momentum of particles after the scatter. We also show Earth-crossing orbits. In particular, if E Qmax = ′ − how we use this to choose the initial starting positions Emin > 0, the particle cannot scatter onto a bound orbit and velocities of the particles. There are two natural at all. Therefore, the lower bound on allowed outgoing approaches to this problem: (i) Sample the dark matter energy is flux through a shell a distance R > R⊙ from the cen- ter of the Sun, treating scatter in the Sun probabilisti- ′ GM⊙mχ Emin = max , min(E Qmax(v), 0) ,(65) − 2(0.5a⊕) − cally, and keeping only those particles which scatter onto Earth-crossing bound orbits. (ii) Calculate the scatter- ing probability in the Sun directly. The second approach while the upper bound remains is more efficient, and this is the one described below. ′ The initial energy of a dark matter particle is Emax =0. (66)
1 2 Thus scattering rate of particles onto bound, Earth- E = m v +Φ⊙(r) (58) 2 χ crossing orbits is 1 = m v2 v2 (r) , (59) χ esc ˙ 2 − dN⊕ 2 3 dσA =4π r nA(r)v f(r, v) drdΩrdvdQ dQ where we have expressed the gravitational potential in A terms of the local escape velocity from the Sun. The X ′ Θ(R⊙ r)Θ[ E ] final energy of the dark matter particle is × − − ′ ′ Θ[E Emin], (67) ′ × − E = E Q (60) − where we have imposed spherical symmetry on the Sun, 1 ′2 2 = mχ v vesc(r) , (61) Ω is the solid angle in the Sun, f(x, v) is the distribution 2 − r function in Eq. (52), dσ /dQ is the WIMP-nucleus cross A where Q is the energy transfer between the dark matter section (Eq. A1), and Θ(x) is the step function. Since particle and the nucleus during the collision. The energy transfer can be expressed in terms of the center-of-mass dE′ = dQ, (68) scattering angle θ as (cf. Eq. A5) we can write Eq. (67) as µ2 1 cos θ Q(v, cos θ)=2 A v2 − , (62) mA 2 ˙ dN⊕ 2 3 dσA ′ =4π r nA(r)v f(r, v) where drdΩrdvdE dQ A m m X ′ A χ Θ(R⊙ r)Θ[ E ] µA = (63) × − − mA + mχ Θ[E′ E′ ], (69) × − min is the reduced mass for a nuclear species of nucleon By sampling this distribution, we find the initial energy, number A. The maximum energy transfer Qmax = 2 2 speed, and scattering position vector of the WIMPs. 2µAv /mA occurs if the dark matter particle is back- scattered, i.e., θ = π. Since we are interested in particles The outgoing energy is distributed uniformly unless that scatter onto bound, Earth-crossing orbits,1 the in- there is kinematic suppression. The kinematic suppres- teresting range of outgoing energy is sion is most pronounced for large WIMP masses and very negative energies because, in order for a particle to scat- GM⊙mχ ′ ter onto a bound orbit, E 0, (64) − 2(0.5a⊕) ≤ ≤ √mχmA v 2 v (r) (70) s ≤ m m esc χ − A 1 In principle, particles scattered to bound orbits with a < a⊕/2 where vs is the particle velocity at infinity. Heavy dark could later evolve onto Earth-crossing orbits. However, the matter particles can only scatter onto bound orbits if torque from Jupiter is never high enough to pull a particle with their velocities at infinity are only a small fraction of a < a⊕/2 onto an Earth-crossing orbit unless ((a⊕/2) − a)/a ∼< 10−3. Moreover, each additional scatter in the Sun reduces the the escape velocity from the Sun a distance r from the energy of the orbit in the limit of a cold Sun, so the semi-major Sun. For energies for which the kinematic suppression ′ axis may only shrink. is minimal, we express the uniformity of dN˙ ⊕/dE in 12
′ terms of the semi-major axis. Since E = GM⊙/2a for -40 ˙ −−2 10 http://dmtools.brown.edu/ particles on elliptical orbits, dN⊕/da a , or Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini ∝ DAMA d log N˙ ⊕ = 1. (71) d log a − -42 10 Therefore, most particles scatter onto relatively small or- bits. The angular momentum of each scattered particle is ′ Med Large in the range J [0, rv ], where r is the radius from the -44 CDMS ] (normalised to nucleon) Mass Mass center of the Sun∈ at which the particle scatters. To de- 2 10 termine the distribution of magnitudes and directions for the angular momentum, we assume that the direction of the final velocity v′ is isotropically distributed with re- -46 spect to the position vector r. If we specify θv to be the 10 colatitude of the velocity vector with respect to the po- sition vector, and the magnitude of the angular momen- ′ Cross-section [cm 080707150400 tum is J = rv sin θv, then the distribution in angular 1 2 3 momentum at fixed r, v′ has the form 10 10 10 WIMP Mass [GeV/c2] 2 dJ DATA listed top to bottom on plot dN˙ ⊕ dcos θ = . (72) v ′ ′ DAMA 2000 58k kg-days NaI Ann. Mod. 3sigma w/DAMA 1996 ∝ 2r2v 2 1 J 2/(r2v 2) CDMS (Soudan) 2004 + 2005 Ge (7 keV threshold) − CDMS: 2004+2005 (reanalysis) +2008 Ge XENON10 2007 (Net 136 kg-d) p SuperCDMS (Projected) 25kg (7-ST@Snolab) The effect of kinematic suppression due to a large WIMP XENON1T (projected, 1 ton-year exposure) mass is that the particles that do scatter onto bound or- 080707150400 bits can only do so close to the center of the Sun where SI − vesc is highest. This reduces the maximum angular mo- FIG. 4: Points in the σp mχ parameter space used for the mentum of the outgoing particle, and so eccentricity is solar capture simulations, plotted along with exclusion curves an increasing function of WIMP mass. from recent experiments. This plot was generated with By sampling Eq. (69), Eq. (72), and the azimuth of v′ http://dendera.berkeley.edu/plotter/entryform.html . with respect to the position vector, we fully specify the 6-dimensional initial conditions of the WIMPs, sampled to the same density as they would actually scatter in the of the simulations on WIMP mass. The choices for mχ SI Sun. and σp are plotted in Fig. 4 in addition to some re- cent direct detection results. The details on the initial conditions of the simulations are summarized in Table I. D. Simulation Specifics Since integrating the orbits of particles in the solar sys- tem is computationally expensive, it is more important The goals of the simulations are to predict the direct to integrate just enough orbits to determine the approx- and indirect detection signals from particles bound to the imate size of the bound DF relative to the unbound dis- solar system (relative to the signal from unbound parti- tribution, and to get a sense of which effects matter the cles) as a function of mχ and the elastic scattering cross most, than it is to get small error bars on the DF. This section. The simulate orbits for a variety of WIMP pa- principle guides our choices in the sizes of the ensembles rameters and then interpolate the results for other values of particles. of those parameters. The number of particles simulated Np in each of the We ran four sets of simulations with different choices of solar capture simulations is given in Table I. We follow SI mχ and σp . The first simulation, called “DAMA”, used particles with semi-major axes slightly below the Earth- SI −41 mχ = 60 atomic mass units (AMUs) and σp = 10 crossing threshold so that if the semi-major axis increases cm2. These parameters lie in the DAMA annual mod- modestly during the simulation, the contribution to the ulation region [59, 60]. A second simulation, called Earth-crossing flux is included. Fewer particles were sim- “CDMS”, used the same WIMP mass as in the DAMA ulated in the runs with lower cross section because the simulation but a cross section two orders of magnitude lifetimes were far longer than in the DAMA run. SI −43 2 lower, σp = 10 cm , below the minimum of the We use the flowchart in Fig. 5 to sketch the simu- CDMS 2006 exclusion curve (Fig. 4). Two more sim- lation algorithm. There are six things that need to be SI −43 2 ulations were chosen to have σp = 10 cm but with set in order to run the simulations: starting conditions; larger WIMP masses. The “Medium Mass” simulation the radius rc at which the heliocentric-barycentric coor- uses mχ = 150 AMU, and the “Large Mass” simulation dinate change needs to be made; methods for initializing uses mχ = 500 AMU, selected to explore the dependence h and potentially changing h at later times; conditions 13
TABLE I: Solar capture simulations TABLE II: The fictitious time step h as a function of semi- major axis a for the DAMA simulation and the simulations SI −43 2 SI 2 with σp = 10 cm (CDMS, Medium Mass, Large Mass). Name mχ [AMU] σp [cm ] Np [a> 0.48 AU] DAMA 60 10−41 1078586 SI −43 2 CDMS 60 10−43 145223 DAMA σp = 10 cm −1 −1 Medium Mass 150 10−43 144145 a [AU] h [R⊙ yr] h [R⊙ yr] −4 −4 Large Mass 500 10−43 148173 a< 0.75 1 × 10 1 × 10 0.75 ≤ a< 1.1 7 × 10−5 7 × 10−5 1.1 ≤ a< 1.6 6 × 10−5 6 × 10−5 1.6 ≤ a< 2.2 5 × 10−5 2 × 10−5 −5 −5 for passing through and scattering in the Sun; the size of 2.2 ≤ a< 3.5 4 × 10 2 × 10 −5 −5 the bubble about Jupiter, lX, and the accuracy criterion 3.5 ≤ a< 6.2 3 × 10 1.5 × 10 5 5 ∆E/E ; and conditions for terminating the simulation. 6.2 ≤ a< 11 2 × 10− 1 × 10− Following| | the flowchart, we discuss each point in turn. 11 ≤ a< 13 9 × 10−6 2 × 10−6 Starting Conditions We sample the distribution of 13 ≤ a< 22 2 × 10−6 2 × 10−6 WIMPs initially scattered into the solar system accord- 22 ≤ a< 30 2 × 10−6 2 × 10−6 ing to Eqs. (69) and (72). Once we have determined 30 ≤ a< 45 1 × 10−6 1 × 10−6 the initial position and velocity of each WIMP, we trace 45 ≤ a< 120 6 × 10−7 6 × 10−7 the WIMPs back to perihelion and start the integration −7 −7 120 ≤ a< 200 4 × 10 4 × 10 there. We follow all particles after the initial scatter, us- 7 7 200 ≤ a< 500 3 × 10− 3 × 10− ing the map to evolve the particles to the Sun bubble −7 −7 wall (0.1 AU) using map described in Section II C 1. In a> 500 or unbound 2 × 10 2 × 10 order to account for the fact that particles may experi- ence a second scatter before leaving the Sun for the first time, we perform a rescattering Monte Carlo when we construct the DFs. that the behavior of long-lived WIMPs was not an arti- Once the particles have reached the bubble boundary, fact of the choice of parameters. we initialize the adaptive time step symplectic integra- A particle’s energy (and hence, semi-major axis) may −8 −1 tor (Section II A), setting h = 10 R⊙ yr and integrat- change throughout the simulation. If the energy changes ing the equations of motion in heliocentric coordinates. by 20% or more from when the particle enters the Jupiter With this choice of initial h, a particle with initial semi- bubble to when it exits, the particle is flagged to have h major axis a = 1 AU will be integrated with 4.7 105 adjusted at the next aphelion. We do not readjust h af- × steps/orbit, while a particle with a = 100 AU will be ter every aphelion, or after each time the particle passes integrated with 4.7 106 steps/orbit. We choose such through the bubble, because very frequent changes in h × a small h to minimize errors near perihelion, which is can induce growing numerical errors in the Jacobi con- the point in the orbit at which errors are largest (Sec- stant. We impose any changes in h at aphelion instead tion IIB). If the semi-major axis exceeds rc/2, it may of the bubble boundary, since we have determined exper- be necessary to change to barycentric coordinates before imentally that aphelion is the optimal point at which to the particle reaches aphelion for the first time. change h. Coordinate Change For the weak scattering simula- The Sun Bubble When a particle first crosses into the tions, we set ǫ =0.1 (Eq. 42), thus setting the transition bubble about the Sun, we calculate its perihelion. If the radius between the heliocentric and barycentric coordi- perihelion is smaller than 2R⊙, we proceed to map its nated regimes to rc = 53 AU. This is large enough that current position and velocity to its position and velocity only a small percentage of particles routinely cross the as it exits the bubble according to the prescription of transition radius, but small enough that the heliocentric Section II C 1. If the perihelion lies within the Sun, we potential does not have too large a contribution from the employ a Monte Carlo simulation of scattering in the indirect potential. Sun (Appendix B). The vast majority of the time, the Setting h: After the particles reach their first aphelion, particle does not scatter, and we simply use the map to h is reset according the values listed in Table II. These move the particle to the edge of the bubble. If the particle values of h are chosen such that both errors at perihelion rescatters onto an orbit with semi-major axis a< 0.3 AU, ( ∆E/E < 10−4) and near Jupiter ( ∆E/E < 10−6) we terminate the integration. If the particle rescatters are| small.| The combination of the values| of |h and the onto an orbit with a > 0.3 AU, we evolve the new orbit Jupiter bubble radius lX (see below) were determined to the edge of the bubble, and then resume the adaptive empirically. We used slightly smaller values of h for some time step symplectic integration. semi-major axes in the CDMS, Medium Mass, and Large The Jupiter Bubble For the DAMA, CDMS, and Mass runs compared to the DAMA run in order to check Medium Mass simulations, we set the Jupiter bubble 14
Solar Capture Simulations
START Use map to r=0.1 AU r = r_p h = 10^−8 R_0^−1 year
adaptive timestep integrator heliocentric coordinates fiducial h
adaptive timestep integrator Yes Cross rc from barycentric coordinates above? fiducial h
No
Cross rc from Yes First apocenter? Yes change fiducial h above?
No No
In Sun change fiducial h Yes First apocenter? bubble?
No No Yes
In planet No r > 5000 AU? No r > 2R ? Yes bubble? o
Yes Yes No
END adaptive timestep integrator heliocentric coordinates Use map optimal h'
Yes
No Does p_0 change Scatter? No by > 20%?
Yes Yes
change fiducial h a>0.3 AU? Yes
No
END
FIG. 5: Flowchart for the simulation algorithm for the solar capture experiments.
−7 boundary to be lX = 1.7 AU, and the accuracy crite- criterion ( ∆Ef /Ef < 2 10 for the first 500 Myr, −6 | −7| × rion to be ∆E /E < 10 . We adjusted this value ∆Ef /Ef < 3 10 later) and a larger bubble, lX =2.1 f f | | × for some particles| in| order to speed up the integration AU. The only effect the larger accuracy criterion had was in cases where particles had generically slightly smaller to raise slightly the maximum energy error per orbit. initial ∆E /E than ∆E /E , and took a longer time i i f f Stopping Conditions There are three reasons for ter- with ∆| E /E |= 10−6| to reach| a sufficiently flat plateau f f minating an integration. If the particle crosses outward in ∆|E /E than| with a slightly larger accuracy crite- f f through the shell r = 5000 AU, the integration stops. rion.| We set|l =3.4 AU past 500 Myr for the Medium X Particles crossing this shell will rarely cross the Earth’s Mass simulation to determine if there were any effects of orbit again. Secondly, if the particle rescatters in the Sun a larger lX on the orbits. There were no effects on the DF onto an orbit with a < 0.3 AU, we halt the integration resulting from this change. For the Large Mass simula- since the particle will soon thermalize in the Sun and tion, we experimented with a lower value of the accuracy will not cross the Earth’s orbit. Thirdly, we stop the in- 15 tegration if the particle survives for a time t⊙ =4.5 Gyr, how the DF varies with WIMP mass and cross section, approximately the lifetime of the solar system. and estimate the maximum DF consistent with limits on the spin-independent cross section. The DFs from the four simulations show similar mor- E. Computing phologies, although the normalization of the features dif- fers. The most prominent feature in all four DFs in Fig. −1 Simulations were performed on three Linux beowulf 6 is the “high plateau” between 27 (a) (b) -8 10 Geocentric DF, m = 60 AMU, σSI = 10-43 cm2 DAMA χ p CDMS 8 -9 Med Mass 10 Large Mass 7 Free space Unbound -10 10 6 CDMS ] ] -3 -3 10-11 5 (km/s) [(km/s) -8 χ 4 -12 10 [10 χ f(v) / n 3 -13 10 f(v) / n 2 10-14 1 10-15 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 v [km/s] v [km/s] FIG. 6: Geocentric distribution functions from the simulations. (a) Results from all simulations. (b) The CDMS distribution function relative to theoretical distribution functions for unbound WIMPs. (a) (b) FIG. 7: Distribution functions divided by nχ in the v−cos θ plane (integrated over φ) for both (a) heliocentric and (b) geocentric frames. These DFs come from the CDMS simulation, and the units are (km s−1)−3 to Sun-penetrating orbits also cover orbits with Jz fixed 8, we identify this feature with bound, Jupiter-crossing by the initial scatter in the Sun for other values of φ. orbits. Small gaps exist in the heliocentric DF with Thus, the high plateau in the 1-dimensional geocentric v > 40 km s−1 and cos θ < 0 and 38 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 8: Locations of various types of orbits in the (a) φ = 0 and (b) φ = π/2 slices of heliocentric velocity space, and (c) φ = 0 and (d) φ = π/2 slices of geocentric velocity space. lifetime tail of Jupiter-crossing or nearly Jupiter-crossing particles that spend significant time near mean-motion resonances or on Kozai cycles. The minimum semi- major axis for these spikes corresponds to the 3:1 reso- nance, a 2.5 AU. Long lifetime tails due to “resonance- sticking”≈ orbits have also been observed in simulations of comets [61, 62]. The error bars on the spikes are large due to the small numbers of long-lived resonance-sticking particles in each simulation. There is also some Poisson noise in the height of the spikes between simulations due to the small number long-lived WIMPs in each simula- tion. Next, we show the lifetime distribution of bound WIMPs and demonstrate which mechanisms (thermal- ization or ejection) terminates the contribution of orbits to the DF. In Fig. 9, we present the lifetime distribu- tions for all WIMPs in the DAMA, CDMS, Medium Mass and Large Mass simulations. There are several notable features in this plot. First, and most striking, many of the bound particles survive for very long times—up to 106 108 yr. However, in none of the simulations is there a large− population of particles that survive for times of order the age of the solar system, although there is a FIG. 9: Particle lifetime distributions for the DAMA (solid), CDMS (dot-dashes), Medium Mass (short dashes), and Large small population that does (the notch at 4.5 Gyr in Fig. Mass (long dashes) simulations. 9). Secondly, the lifetime distribution functions of the 18 CDMS, Medium Mass, and Large Mass runs are very some orbits at the low end of the semi-major axis range similar. However, these lifetime distributions are quite 1.5 AU < a aX/2 for which a and Jz are conserved different from that of the DAMA simulation. The differ- and the Kozai≤ description is accurate. ences in the lifetime distributions are due almost entirely The median lifetime of WIMPs on quasi-Kozai cycles is to the elastic scattering cross section, at least for the well-described by tl/Pχ 300/τ, where Pχ is the WIMP range of WIMP masses we consider. orbital period and τ is≈ the optical depth through the In order to both explain these features in the lifetime center of the Sun. This implies that particles are eventu- and phase space distribution functions, it is useful to ex- ally removed from Earth-crossing orbits by rescattering amine the lifetime distributions as a function of the initial in the Sun. The height of the rescattering peak relative semi-major axis ai, as shown in Fig. 10. to the quasi-Kozai peak is greater in the DAMA simula- The largest feature in Fig. 9 is the strong peak at tion than the other simulations because the optical depth 3 5 tl 10 yr for the DAMA simulation and tl 10 yr in the Sun is large enough that particles originating deep ∼ SI −43 2 ∼ for the simulations with σp = 10 cm , which we within the Sun rescatter before the torque from Jupiter call the “rescattering peak.” It encompasses the major- can pull the perihelion towards the surface of the Sun. ity of particles in each simulation. This feature results The fourth feature is not obvious in Fig. 9, but is once from WIMPs that rescatter in the Sun before they are the lifetime distribution is displayed on logarithmic scales ejected from the solar system by Jupiter or precess onto in Fig. 10. This feature is the “Kozai peak.” This peak 8 orbits that do not intersect the Sun. This rescattering is located at about tl 10 yr for the DAMA simula- ∼ peak is offset between DAMA and the other simulations tion, and near tl t⊙ = 4.5 Gyr for the other simula- ∼ because the lifetime is inversely proportional to the scat- tions. This feature results from particles whose orbital −1 tering probability in the Sun, t σ . evolution can be described by Kozai cycles (a, Jz con- l ∝ p There is one important difference in the composition served), of which we see both circulating and librating of the rescattering peak between the DAMA and other populations. For the CDMS, Medium Mass, and Large simulations. In Fig. 10, we show that particles on Mass simulations, the peak is at t⊙ because that is the Jupiter-crossing orbits exhibit a rescattering feature in time at which we terminate the simulations. Particles the DAMA simulation but not in the other simulations. on these orbits have ai < 1.5 AU, and originate in the Indeed, about 23% of Jupiter-crossing particles in the outer r > 0.5R⊙ in the Sun. They constitute only a DAMA simulation are rescattered in the Sun, while < 2% small fraction∼ ( 0.1%) of all orbits with ai < 1.5 AU, ∼ are rescattered in the other simulations. This is because but dominate the lifetime distribution of particles with the timescale on which Jupiter can perturb the perihelia lifetimes > 108 yr. The median lifetime of particles on of Jupiter-crossing orbits out of the Sun is significantly Kozai cycles∼ depends on the WIMP-nucleon cross section − 5 shorter than rescattering timescales for the σSI = 10 43 in the form tl/Pχ 10 /τ, where again τ is the optical p ≈ −3 cm2 simulations, but the two timescales become closer at depth through the very center of the Sun (τ 10 for DAMA, τ 10−5 for the other simulations). ∼ higher cross sections. ∼ 6 Now that we have identified the types and lifetimes of Another feature occurs at tl 10 yr, which we call the “ejection peak.” This feature occurs∼ at the same time for bound WIMP orbits, we see how these come together to each simulation, and from Fig. 10 we see that this arises build up the phase space DF as a function of WIMP mass from Jupiter-crossing orbits. The median time at which and cross section. SI this feature occurs is independent of σp since ejection, not rescattering, sets the lifetime of these WIMPs. The SI slope of the Jupiter-crossing lifetime distribution changes A. The Distribution Function as a Function of σp near 10 Myr for all simulations. WIMPs that have ∼ tl > 10 Myr are resonance-sticking, and their lifetime We have identified (i) which range of initial semi-major −α distribution goes as N(t) t , where α is slightly less axis ai corresponds to the features in the geocentric DFs than one. ∝ in Fig. 6, and (ii) described the lifetime distributions A third feature, called the “quasi-Kozai peak,” is cen- of WIMPs. Next, we describe the composition (not just 6 tered at tl 10 yr in the DAMA simulation, and in terms of the semi-major axis ai but by the type of t 108 yr in∼ the other simulations. The feature is seen orbit) and height of the DFs as a function of σSI . This l ∼ p in the 1.5 AU ai < 2 AU and 2 AU ai < aX/2 is most easily illustrated with the time-evolution of the bins of Fig. 10.≤ The WIMPs in the quasi-Kozai≤ peak DFs, which we show in Fig. 11 for the (a) DAMA and (b) are not on true Kozai cycles because of significant in- CDMS simulations. We focus on these two simulations teractions with mean-motion resonances. In the simu- since the salient results of the Medium Mass and Large lations, particles in the quasi-Kozai peak are observed Mass simulations closely resemble those of the CDMS to alternate between rescattering peak-type orbits with run. In each plot, we show distribution functions as a perihelion well inside the Sun, and orbits that look like function of time since the birth of the solar system, for 6 7 8 9 Kozai cycles. Both the semi-major axis and Jz vary with t = 10 yr, t = 10 yr, t = 10 yr, t = 10 yr, and time; neither is conserved although the combination giv- t = t⊙ =4.5 Gyr. ing the Jacobi constant CJ is fixed (Eq. 20). There are The low plateau, composed of Jupiter-crossing parti- 19 FIG. 10: Lifetime distributions as a function of initial semi-major axis. cles, has reached equilibrium in both 107 year for both N˙ X and the relative ejection and rescattering timescales; simulations. The only growth in the∼ low plateau after the spikes in the DAMA simulation are more prominent 10 Myr comes from particles on resonance-sticking or- than in the CDMS simulation because N˙ X is two orders bits that pump up the spikes. The time evolution of the of magnitude larger. The time-evolution of the spikes low plateau (but not its final equilibrium height) is in- can be explained by the following. The lifetime dis- dependent of cross section over two orders of magnitude tribution of spike WIMPs falls as N(t) t−α, where in WIMP-baryon cross section because the equilibrium α is slightly less than one. The rate at which∝ WIMPs timescale is essentially the ejection timescale. The height cross the Earth’s orbit is N˙ c(t) = const if the long-lived of the low plateau is proportional to the rate at which WIMPs are resonance-sticking. Therefore, the total con- particles are initially scattered onto Jupiter-crossing or- tribution of the spike WIMPs to the DF beyond time t bits, N˙X. Since the scattering rate is proportional to goes as the cross section, the height of the low plateau is pro- t⊙ portional to the spin-independent cross section, at least ′ ′ ′ fspike(>t) N(t )N˙ c(t )dt (74) in these simulations. One would expect that the plateau ∝ t SI height would grow less rapidly with σ if the lifetimes of Z − − p t1 α t1 α. (75) Jupiter-crossing WIMPs were dominated by rescattering ∝ ⊙ − in the Sun, not ejection from the solar system. This argument is only strictly true if the types of spike The absolute height of the spikes is similarly related to orbits is independent of the lifetime distribution, which is 20 (a) where fKozai is the DF due to Kozai cycling WIMPs, -8 10 frescatt that of rescattering peak WIMPs, β is the frac- tion of WIMPs with a < 1.5 AU on Kozai cycles, and -9 10 tmed is the median lifetime of rescattering peak WIMPs. β 10−3 for WIMPs experiencing Kozai cycles, and ≈ 3 10-10 tmed 10 yr, so fKozai/frescatt 1 at t = 1 Myr. ] -3 This assumes∼ that the increase in the∼ DF for a Kozai cy- 10-11 cling WIMP as a function of time is similar to that of a [(km/s) χ WIMP on a rescattering peak-type orbit. The feature in −1 −1 f(v)/n -12 the DF between 45 km s ] Even though we simulate 10 WIMPs on Kozai cy- -3 ∼ 9 cles, we are clearly undersampling those with tl > 10 10-11 yr. To estimate how much larger the DF could be, we [(km/s) χ note that the lifetime distribution of Kozai WIMPs with f(v)/n −2 10-12 tl > 100 Myr is well fit by N(t) t . If we assume that the rate at which the long-lived∝ WIMPs contribute to -13 the DF as a function of time is the same as for the Kozai 10 WIMPs we simulate, then N˙ c(t) = const. Therefore, -14 according to Eq. (74), the part of the DF built after 10 −1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 time t is fKozai(v,> t) t . For the high plateau, v [km/s] 8 ∝ 9 fKozai(v,t > 10 yr) fKozai(v,t > 10 yr), so we be- lieve that we have not≫ underestimated the high plateau. FIG. 11: Growth of the distribution functions as a function A major consequence of this equilibrium distribution of time for the (a) DAMA and (b) CDMS simulations. is that the high plateau of the DF f(v)/nχ is fixed es- sentially fixed above a certain cross section. Since the SI −1 lifetime of Kozai orbits tl (σp ) , we find that the ∝SI > −42 2 uncertain due to the small number statistics of the spike high plateau is is fixed for σp 10 cm . WIMPs. However, in Fig. 11, some of the spikes either The time evolution of the distribution∼ function is a SI −43 grow linearly with time or do not grow at all for some bit different in the simulations for which σp = 10 stretches of time. This phenomenon is due to the small cm2. At t = 1 Myr, the high plateau is dominated by numbers of long-lived resonance-sticking particles. For rescattering peak WIMPs, which have a median lifetime 5 an individual WIMP, f(v) t if t There is little variation in the morphology of the life- increases. SI time distributions for the three simulations with σp = (ii) The particle mass affects the rescattering prob- 10−43 cm2. The shape of the lifetime distribution appears ability in the Sun. In Eq. (B8), we show that the to be determined almost solely by the elastic scattering scattering probability along a path l is proportional to cross section, not the particle mass, at least in the range dτ/dl 1 e−Qmax/QA , which is a mildly increas- ∝ − of masses considered in these simulations. It is possible ing function of WIMP mass mχ (since Qmax is mass- that these distributions (in lifetime and density compo- dependent, Eq. 62). The optical depth for the Large sition) for a very high or very low mass WIMP would Mass simulation (mχ = 500 AMU) for a given path is perhaps look different from those in Fig. 10. about 15% higher than for mχ = 60 AMU. However, However, the DFs in Fig. 6 did show some variation while high mass WIMPs have a higher scattering prob- with WIMP mass. There are three effects that might ability than low mass WIMPs, they also rescatter far induce a mass dependence on the DF. (i) The mass can more often onto Earth-crossing orbits. Therefore, it is affect the initial energy and angular momentum distribu- not clear from the outset whether high mass WIMPs tion of bound WIMPs. As discussed in Section III C, it is will have longer or shorter lifetimes relative to low mass increasingly difficult to scatter halo WIMPs onto bound WIMPs. orbits as the WIMP mass increases. The maximum en- (iii) The WIMP mass also affects the overall amplitude ergy transfer Qmax approaches an asymptote for large of the final bound dark matter DF because the WIMP WIMP masses, but the unbound WIMP energy increases mass determines the scattering rate of halo particles onto since energy E mχ. Thus, the minimum scattered bound, Earth-crossing orbits. For high mass WIMPs, the ∝′ particle energy E = E Qmin increases for fixed initial total capture rate of halo WIMPs in the Sun is [e.g., 63] speed but increasing WIMP− mass. However, this is not −1 expected to be a major effect for the range of masses used N˙ tot/nχ m , mχ mA. (77) ∝ χ ≫ in the simulations. The angular momentum distribution is also affected by The function N˙ tot/nχ is plotted in Fig. 13(a) for the the WIMP mass, as parametrized by the initial particle capture rate due to all species in the Sun (solid red) perihelion in Fig. 12. As discussed in Section III C, the and for scattering only on hydrogen (blue dots; calcu- maximum angular momentum decreases with increasing lated in the limit of a cold Sun). The capture rate mχ since high mass particles scattering onto bound or- of particles onto Earth-crossing orbits is shown in Fig. bits must do so at smaller distances from the center of 13(b). Note that the capture rate N˙ ⊕/nχ onto Earth- the Sun. Thus, the Medium Mass and Large Mass simu- crossing orbits is an increasing function of WIMP mass lations have a deficit of large perihelion particles relative until about mχ TeV ( 100 GeV in the case of only to the CDMS simulation. Since Kozai WIMPs originate hydrogen scattering).≈ This≈ is because low mass WIMPs in the outskirts of the Sun, this suggests that there will may be scattered onto very small orbits (whose aphelia be fewer particles on Kozai cycles as the WIMP mass may be within the Sun), which are kinematically sup- 22 SI −42 2 pressed for higher mass WIMPs. Even though the total TeV and σp = 10 cm , which we interpret as the WIMP capture rate decreases for higher WIMP mass, maximum possible DF consistent with exclusion limits if those WIMPs that are captured are increasingly prefer- spin-independent scattering dominates in the Sun. This entially scattered onto Earth-crossing orbits. The func- DF is based on the DAMA simulation DF, appropriately tion N˙ ⊕/nχ turns over when most captured particles are scaled by WIMP cross section and mass. This DF yields on Earth-crossing orbits, and then the function follows a bound WIMP fraction (relative to the halo) which is a ˙ −1 the familiar N⊕/nχ mχ . factor of 4 greater than that of the DAMA simulation. The consequence∝ of these scattering rates of halo In conclusion,∼ we find that even for the maximal DF WIMPs in the Sun is that, if the DFs were otherwise for bound WIMPs, the bound population is more than independent of WIMP mass, the high mass DFs would three orders of magnitude smaller than the total halo be greater than the low mass DFs simply due to the population at the Earth. prefactor N˙ ⊕ in Eq. (C13). In order to isolate the ef- fects of WIMP mass on the initial distribution of energy and angular momentum as well as subsequent rescatter- D. Extension to Spin-Dependent Capture ing, we divide the three DFs from the simulations with SI −43 2 ˙ σp = 10 cm in Fig. 6(a) by N⊕ and show these So far, we have only explored the dark matter DF functions in Fig. 14. The low plateaus do not appear to in the case where WIMP-nucleon scatters in the Sun be significantly different. There are some discrepancies are dominated by spin-independent, scalar interactions. in the spikes, which are due to the low numbers of long- However, limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton lived resonance-sticking WIMPs in each simulation. The 7 SI cross section are (10 ) times weaker than σp , and spin- high plateaus look relatively consistent with each other, dependent crossO sections are generally higher than spin- given the large error bars. independent cross sections in large parts of parameter space for well-motivated WIMPs. We showed that the low plateau of the solar capture DF, consisting of Jupiter- C. Maximum DF from Spin-Independent Solar ˙ SI SD crossing WIMPs, grows as N⊕/nχ σp or σp . Since Capture SD ∝ SI the constraints on σp are so much weaker than on σp , the low plateau could become large, reaching equilibrium An important quantity to estimate is the maximum when rescattering in the Sun occurs on timescales shorter allowed DF consistent with experimental constraints on than the time to pull the Jupiter-crossing WIMP perihe- σSI . We expect the point in m σSI yielding this max- p χ − p lia outside of the Sun. imum DF to lie on the exclusion curve, but the maximal In Fig. 16, we show a prediction for the low plateau SD −36 2 point is determined by the shape of the curve for the fol- for mχ = 500 AMU and σ = 10 cm , if the only SI p lowing reason. The best limits on σp are shown in Fig. 4 dependence of the DF on the WIMP cross section is SD and come from the XENON10 (below mχ = 40 GeV) and f(v) N˙ ⊕. The cross section is above the best m σ ∝ χ − p CDMS (above mχ = 40 GeV) experiments [32, 64]. The unless mχ > 1 TeV [69, 70], but is chosen to demonstrate SI −44 2 exclusion curves reach a minimum of σp 4 10 cm an approximate maximum possible bound DF. At higher in the range m = 20 70 GeV. Below these∼ × masses, the χ − cross sections, the Sun becomes optically thick to WIMP exclusion curve rises sharply due to kinematic reasons. scattering, at which point we expect the WIMP DF at Above m 70 GeV, the exclusion curves rise m χ ∼ ∝ χ the Earth to drop dramatically. The large central peak because the flux of halo WIMPs at the detector goes as in the predicted DF arises from the nearly radial orbits. ρχ/mχ. If the low plateau scales strictly with cross section un- Since extensions to the standard model generically pre- til the Sun becomes optically thick, the Jupiter-crossing > dict mχ 100 GeV (with the notable exception of some particles dominate the bound DF, and can swamp the gauge-mediated∼ supersymmetry breaking models which unbound DF at low speeds (v< 50 km s−1). predict m 1 keV [65–68]), we focus on this part of χ ∼ However, there are some indications within the simula- the exclusion curve [1, 2, 5]. In the previous sections, tions that the low plateau will grow less rapidly with cross we found that (i) the high plateau dominates the DF section than in this simple model. Recall that 98% SI −41 2 ≈ at least up to σp = 10 cm , (ii) this plateau is a of Jupiter-crossing WIMPs are ejected in the CDMS, growing function of cross section until it reaches equi- Medium Mass, and Large Mass simulations, but a smaller SI > −42 2 librium for σp 10 cm , and (iii) for a fixed cross fraction ( 73%) of WIMPs are ejected in the DAMA ∼ ≈ section, f(v)/n N˙ ⊕/n , which reaches its maximum simulation. Therefore, a more careful estimate of the DF χ ∝ χ for mχ 2 TeV (Fig. 13(b)). If the CDMS exclusion is required. curve in∼ Fig. 4 were extended to higher mass, one would To find how large the WIMP DF can get, we estimated SI −42 2 find that the exclusion curve hits σp = 10 cm near the bound WIMP DF for various large spin-dependent SD −40 2 mχ = 2 TeV, which is exactly the point at which both cross sections (σp > 10 cm ) using the DAMA sim- ˙ SI equilibrium in the high plateau is achieved and N⊕/nχ ulation as a starting point, since it has the highest σp reaches its maximum. and best statistics of all the spin-independent simula- In Fig. 15, we show the estimated DF for mχ = 2 tions. We scaled the total optical depth of each particle in 23 (a) (b) FIG. 13: In each plot, the red solid line denotes all species in the Sun, and the dotted blue line represents hydrogen. (a): The SI −43 2 capture rate N˙ of WIMPs by the Sun for σp = 10 cm , divided by the halo number density of WIMPs. The short solid −1 black line gives the slope N/n˙ χ ∝ mχ , the limiting slope for mχ ≫ mA for a nuclear species A. (b): The capture rate N˙ ⊕ to Earth-crossing orbits divided by the halo WIMP number density. -8 SI -42 2 10 Geocentric DF, mχ = 2 TeV, σ = 10 cm CDMS p Med Mass 8 -9 Large Mass ) 10 χ 7 Free space Unbound /dt n Estimated Maximum ⊕ 10-10 6 ] -3 5 -11 10 (km/s) -8 4 [10 10-12 χ = 60 AMU )/ ( dN 3 χ f(v) / n /dt(m -13 2 ⊕ 10 1 f(v) dN 10-14 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10-15 v [km/s] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 v [km/s] FIG. 15: The estimated maximum DF consistent with current exclusion limits if spin-independent scattering dominates in the Sun, for a WIMP mass mχ = 2 TeV and WIMP-proton SI −43 2 SI −42 2 FIG. 14: DFs for the three simulations with σp = 10 cm cross section σp = 10 cm . scaled by N˙ ⊕. optical depth. For the particles on Jupiter-crossing or- the DAMA simulation by an estimate of the optical depth bits, we used the optical depth data from the DAMA for a particular spin-dependent cross section. For parti- simulation to find the approximate time at which each cles that were not on Jupiter-crossing orbits, we scaled particle hit a total optical depth τ = 1 for the new cross the lifetimes by the ratio of the optical depth for the section, which we interpreted as the new WIMP lifetime. particular spin-dependent cross section and the DAMA We calculated the DFs using the methods in Appendix 24 -36 2 Predicted DF for mχ = 500 AMU, σ = 10 cm p, SD Estimated DF for mχ = 500 AMU, Spin-Dependent -7 8×10 8 Unbound Unbound Prediction σ × -39 2 7 p, SD = 1.3 10 cm σ = 10-38 cm2 σp, SD -37 2 × -7 p, SD = 10 cm 6 10 6 σ -36 2 p, SD = 10 cm ] ] -3 -3 5 -7 (km/s) × -8 [(km/s) 4 10 4 χ [10 χ 3 f(v) / n × -7 f(v) / n 2 10 2 1 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 v [km/s] v [km/s] SD −36 2 SD −39 FIG. 16: Predicted geocentric DF if σp = 10 cm , assum- FIG. 17: Estimated geocentric DFs for σp = 1.3 × 10 , SI,SD −38 −37 −36 2 SD ing f(v) ∝ σp for Jupiter-crossing orbits. This prediction 10 , 10 , and 10 cm . The estimated DF for σp = is based on the output of the DAMA simulation. 1.3 × 10−39 cm2 is based on the DAMA simulation result, SI −41 2 since the optical depth of the Sun for σp = 10 cm is SD −39 2 approximately the same as σp = 1.3 × 10 cm . C, with the inclusion of a Monte Carlo treatment of the initial conditions to determine if captured WIMPs scat- SD tered multiple times before they could leave the Sun. We estimated DFs for mχ = 60 AMU at σp = 1.3 10−39, 10−38, 10−37, and 10−36 cm2, and then ex- There are several assumptions in this approach. First, × we used the initial distribution of semi-major axis and trapolate the results to other WIMP masses by rescaling ˙ H eccentricity derived from the DAMA simulation without the DFs by N⊕ (mχ), the rate of scattering halo WIMPs any kinematic corrections due to the extreme mass dif- on hydrogen to reach bound, Earth-crossing orbits. The SD −39 2 ference between hydrogen atoms and WIMPs. Thus, we cross section σp =1.3 10 cm yields similar same × SI −41 2 tend to overestimate the Kozai contribution to the DF optical depths in the Sun as σp = 10 cm . We used since scattering in the outer part of the Sun is suppressed 50 bootstrap resamplings for each spin-dependent cross for high mχ. This also underestimates the contribution of section to estimate the DFs. The results are shown in Jupiter-crossing particles since the semi-major axis dis- Fig. 17, displaying f(v)/nχ for each cross section against tribution skews to higher a for large imbalances between the geocentric unbound DF. the WIMP a. However, between mχ = 60 AMU and There are several key points this figure. The central mχ = 500 AMU, the fraction of Earth-crossing particles part of the DF for each cross section (v = 30 45 km that are also Jupiter-crossing only increases from 18.9% s−1) is approximately independent of cross section,− which to 21.5% if the particles scatter only on hydrogen. is what one would expect if Kozai cycles dominate this Secondly, we did not recalculate optical depths for region and particles have lifetimes of at least one Kozai each passage through the Sun. This would be too time- cycle. This region is relatively unaffected by multiple consuming. Instead, we scaled the optical depths of each scatters before the WIMPs exit the Sun for the first time particle by the ratio of the scattering rate of E = 0 halo because the particles on Kozai cycles originate in a part particles with the new cross section to the scattering rate of the Sun that still has very low optical depth, even for of E = 0 halo particles in the DAMA simulation. Since the highest cross section considered. The peak near 50 − bound Earth-crossing particles do not have energies that km s 1 is due to nearly radial Jupiter-crossing orbits. vary significantly from E = 0 relative to typical energies The spikes in the low plateau grow for a while and then of unbound halo particles, using the ratio of the scat- disappear, a consequence of rescattering in the Sun before tering rates to scale the DAMA optical depths should WIMPs can stick to resonances. be a reasonable proxy for finding optical depths for spe- The most striking result of Fig. 17 is that the low cific paths through the Sun. However, this approximation plateau is quite a bit lower than the naive prediction does neglect any differences in the radial distributions of in Fig. 16. It appears that, while the low plateau hydrogen and heavier elements in the Sun, as well as any does rise for large WIMP-proton cross sections, rescat- kinematic effects due to scattering off hydrogen rather tering in the Sun plays an integral role in severely reduc- than heavier atoms. ing Jupiter-crossing particle lifetimes. We find that the 25 low plateau reaches approximately its maximum value We focus on directionally-insensitive direct detection SD −36 2 if σp = 10 cm . Even though the low plateau is rates for spin-independent interactions, but the results SD −37 2 still very slowly increasing between σp = 10 cm for of this section can be applied qualitatively to spin- v < 50 km s−1, the plateau actually decreases between dependent interactions as well. There is another class going from σSD = 10−37 cm2 to σSD = 10−36 cm2. This of direct detection experiment that is directionally sen- p p sitive [72–76]. In principle, the bound WIMPs should is because WIMPs with geocentric speeds v> 50 cm s−1 leave a unique signal in such experiments (see Fig. 7), are retrograde with respect to the planets in the solar sys- but it would be challenging to measure this given the tem, and the torques from the planets are less effective small bound WIMP density, current errors in directional for retrograde than prograde WIMPs. Thus, the time for reconstruction, and high energy thresholds. WIMP perihelia to exit the Sun is longer for retrograde We calculate the bound WIMP event rate for mχ = WIMPs than prograde WIMPs, and so the probability SI −43 2 for a retrograde WIMP to rescatter in the Sun before its 500 AMU and σp = 10 cm and a high spin- SD −36 2 perihelion exits the Sun for the first time is significantly dependent proton cross section (σp = 10 cm , ap- higher than for a prograde WIMP. Therefore, the maxi- proximately the point at which the Sun becomes optically SD −36 2 thick to WIMPs). We choose this point in parameter mum low plateau occurs for σp 10 cm , or about SI −38 2 ∼ space because it yields the largest DF due to WIMPs σp 10 cm . Combining∼ these results with the maximum DF for bound by solar capture. The event rate can simply be scaled for lower (or higher) spin-independent cross sec- spin-independent solar capture in Fig. 15, we find that SD particles captured to the solar system by elastic scatter- tions. The scaling for other values of mχ and σp is ing in the Sun are only small population relative to the different, but can be easily determined. halo population at the Earth, even if the spin-dependent The geocentric bound DF is anisotropic. Therefore, WIMP-proton elastic scattering cross section is quite to translate the DF outside the sphere of influence of large. Improving on the approximations we used in this the Earth to the corresponding DF at the detector, one section is unlikely to change this conclusion. should use the mapping technique in Appendix C, aver- aged over the detector’s daily motion about the Earth’s rotation axis. However, using the isotropic mapping in- stead of the full six-dimensional mapping in Appendix V. THE DIRECT DETECTION SIGNAL C produces errors in dR/dQ of at most a few percent. Therefore, we use this simplification for the bound WIMP Direct detection experiments look for nuclear recoil of DF at the surface of the Earth in calculating dR/dQ. rare WIMP-nuclear interactions in the experimental tar- In Fig. 18, we show the maximal direct detection signal get mass. The WIMP-nucleus scattering rate per kg of due to solar captured WIMPs if mχ = 500 AMU (lower detector mass per unit recoil energy Q can be expressed two lines). We find direct detection rates assuming 131Xe as [cf. 1] and 73Ge targets, since the current and planned experi- − ments most sensitive to the spin-independent (and spin- dR m 1 ∞ dσ = A d3v A vf(x, v), (78) dependent neutron) cross section have isotopes of either dQ kg dQ Xe or Ge as their target mass. For comparison, we also Zvmin plot the event rate expected for the halo DF in Eq. (49). where dσA/dQ is the differential interaction cross section We find that bound WIMPs can only enhance the direct between a WIMP and a nucleus of mass mA and atomic detection rate at very small Q, and that the enhancement number A, and v is the velocity of the dark matter par- is largest at the smallest recoil energies. For both the ger- ticle with respect to the experiment. The lower limit to manium and xenon targets, the maximum enhancement the integral in Eq. (78) is set to to the total event rate is 0.5% at Q = 0. This enhance- ment is actually disproportionally∼ large compared to the 2 1/2 vmin = (mAQ/2µA) , (79) enhancement in the local WIMP number density due to −4 bound WIMPs, which is nχ,bound 10 nχ,halo, since the minimum WIMP speed that can yield a nuclear recoil incoherence in the WIMP-nucleon∼ interaction for large Q, The dark matter DF at the Earth is f(x, v). nuclei suppresses the elastic scattering cross section for In this section, we will determine the maximum possi- high speed halo WIMPs. We also show the experimental ble contribution of the bound DF to the direct detection analysis windows for the recent XENON10 and CDMS rate. We focus on the maximum event rate from bound experiments in this figure [32, 64]. The current analysis WIMPs instead of exploring how the bound WIMP event threshold of the CDMS experiment is too high to de- rate depends on WIMP mass and elastic scattering cross tect bound WIMPs. If this experiment and its successor section since we expect the event rate to be small. We are SuperCDMS could push down their analysis thresholds, interested in both the total excess signal due to bound as other germanium-based rare event experiments have WIMPs for particular experiments, as well as the con- (e.g., CoGeNT [33]), bound WIMPs may be observed. tribution to the differential event rate, since the latter is At Q = 4.5 keV, the current analysis threshold for the important for determining the WIMP mass [31, 71]. XENON10 experiment, the boost to the differential event 26 scattering is defined as. 3 3 dσA C = d x d vdΩ nA(x)v vf Here, dσA/dΩ is the WIMP-nucleus elastic scattering cross section for nuclear species A and v is the relative speed between the WIMP and a nucleus. The number density of species A is described by nA(x). The cutoff in the velocity integral reflects the fact that the WIMP’s speed after scattering vf must be less than the local es- cape velocity vesc(x). If the WIMP DF is time-independent, the annihilation rate goes as 1 Γ= C tanh2(t/t ), (82) 2 e where −1/2 te = (CCa) (83) is the equilibrium timescale and Ca is a constant that depends on the distribution of WIMPs in the Earth and FIG. 18: The differential direct detection rate for mχ = 500 SI −43 2 is proportional to the annihilation cross section. AMU and σp = 10 cm assuming the DF is dominated by SD −36 2 While the contribution of bound particles to the direct spin-dependent scattering in the Sun with σp = 10 cm . The shaded region indicates the XENON10 analysis region detection rate is expected to be minuscule, it is not unrea- [32], and the vertical dashed line indicates the lower limit to sonable to expect that the bound particles could notice- the CDMS analysis window (which extends to Q = 100 keV) ably boost the neutrino-induced muon event rate from [64]. WIMP annihilation in the Earth. Because the Earth’s gravitational potential is shallow, it is difficult for halo WIMPs to lose enough energy during collisions with the rate is 0.1%, and the total boost in their analysis win- Earth’s nuclei to become bound unless the WIMP mass ∼ −3 dow is 10 %. Thus, the bound particles only neg- is nearly equal to the mass of one of the abundant nu- ∼ ligibly increase the total event rate (integrating dR/dQ clear species in the Earth [79]. For WIMPs with mass over the range of Q’s allowed in the analysis window), if mχ > 400 GeV, only WIMPs bound to the solar system at all. Estimates of the WIMP mass and cross section may be captured in the Earth. from direct detection experiments will not be affected by In Fig. 19, we show the capture rate (Eq. 81) of SI solar captured particles. WIMPs in the Earth as a function of mass for σp = 10−43 cm2 for several different WIMP DFs. We use the potential and isotope distributions in Encyclopædia Bri- VI. THE NEUTRINO SIGNAL FROM WIMP tannica [80] and McDonough [81]. The lowest line shows ANNIHILATION IN THE EARTH the capture rate of only the unbound WIMPs in the so- lar system. The peaks in the capture rate correspond WIMPs may accumulate and annihilate in the Earth. to points at which the WIMP mass is nearly exactly the The signature of WIMP annihilation will be GeV to TeV same as a one of the common elements in the Earth, neutrinos. Neutrino observatories (e.g., Antares [77], Ice- of which the iron peak (mF e 56 AMU = 53 GeV) Cube [78]) are sensitive to the Cerenkovˇ radiation of is especially prominent. The long-dashed≈ line represents muons created in charged-current interactions of muon the capture rate for both unbound particles and particles neutrinos in and around the experiment. bound to the solar system by spin-independent scatter- The neutrino flux at a detector on the surface of ing in the Sun. We show extrapolations to the regime the Earth is proportional to the annihilation rate Γ of in which spin-dependent scattering dominates in the Sun WIMPs trapped in the Earth. Finding Γ requires solv- with the short dash-dotted and long dash-dotted lines, ing a differential equation for the number of WIMPs N representing σSD = 1.3 10−39 cm2 and σSD = 10−36 p × p in the Earth, described by cm2 respectively. We included unbound WIMPs in those N˙ = C 2Γ, (80) estimates. − From Fig. 17, we note that the high plateaus in the SD −39 2 where the capture rate of WIMPs in the Earth by elastic DF’s if σp > 10 cm are nearly identical; the main 27 actly parallel to the PMT strings, but it is reasonable for the more densely packed water experiments (e.g., Super- Kamiokande). The signal drops sharply with increasing muon energy threshold [84]. We assume that the mate- rial both in and surrounding the detector volume is either water or ice, since the largest current and upcoming neu- trino telescopes are immersed in oceans or the Antarctic ice cap. We include all muons oriented within a 30◦ cone relative to the direction of the center of the Earth. In the following figures, we present muon event rates in neutrino telescopes for various DFs. In Fig. 20, we show the event rates for WIMPs unbound to the solar system. The solid black line on Fig. 20 represents the most optimistic flux threshold for IceCube [36, and ref- erences therein]. To show how the event rates depend on the SUSY models for a given spin-independent cross sec- tion, we mark the models on the figure according to which direct detection experiments bracket the cross section for a given neutralino mass. The open circles correspond to SI SUSY models with σp above the that lie above the 2006 CDMS limit [85], which is shown in Fig. 4. The triangles SI are models for which σp lies between the 2006 CDMS SI FIG. 19: Capture rate of WIMPs in the Earth as a function of limit and the current best limits on σp (a combination of SI −43 2 WIMP mass for σp = 10 cm . All capture rates include XENON10 [32] and CDMS [64] limits), and squares de- the capture of unbound halo WIMPs as well as the capture note models consistent with all current direct detection of bound WIMPs. experiments. It appears that no halo WIMPs from any of the mod- els found in our scan of the MSSM consistent with exper- reason for the difference in the capture rate is the low iments would produce an identifiable signal in IceCube. speed DF of Jupiter-crossing WIMPs. In fact, the cap- We cannot say that it is impossible for neutralino WIMPs ture rate is extremely sensitive to the DF of the lowest from the halo to be observed by IceCube or other km3- speed WIMPs. For the relatively low capture rates in scale experiments, since we are only sampling a small part 2 Fig. 19, te >t⊙, soΓ C . Even small variations in the of the vast SUSY parameter space, but Fig. 20 suggests low speed WIMP DF∝ can lead to large variations in the that it is not likely. event rate at a neutrino telescope. In Fig. 21, we show the muon flux for WIMPs cap- To estimate a plausible range of muon event rates given tured in the Earth from the halo or from the population the capture rates in Fig. 19, we explore part of the MSSM of bound WIMPs. We calculate the muon event rate SD −39 2 parameter space. We can in principle explore other mod- with the bound DF for σp =1.3 10 cm no mat- SD × els, but the MSSM yields, on average, somewhat larger ter what the actual σp in the model is since this is near spin-independent cross sections. Given that iron is the the maximum spin-dependent cross section found in the SI most common element in the core of the Earth, and oxy- parameter scans. σp is almost always small enough that gen, silicon, and magnesium the most common element the DF due to spin-independent scattering in the Sun is in the mantle, none of which has spin-dependent inter- subdominant to the spin-dependent-derived DF. There- actions with WIMPs, only in WIMP models with appre- fore, the points in Fig. 21 are almost entirely upper lim- ciable spin-independent interactions will capture in the its to the solar captured WIMP event rates. This figure Earth be relevant. is almost indistinguishable from Fig. 20. We find that We scan MSSM parameter space to estimate the the maximum enhancement over the halo WIMP event neutrino-induced muon event rate for neutrino telescopes rate is of order 20%. Thus, the solar captured WIMPs from neutralino annihilation in the Earth using routines produce almost no enhancement in the neutrino-induced from the publicly available DarkSUSY v.5.0.2 code [82]. muon event rate. The code can also check whether a model described by a One caveat to this pessimistic result is that we esti- set of SUSY parameters is consistent with current collider mated the event rate using only the flux of muons from constraints and relic density measurements. We describe outside the detector volume. However, Bergstr¨om et al. our scans in more detail in Paper III. [84] suggest that muons created inside the detector vol- To estimate the muon event rate in a neutrino tele- ume may dominate the signal for smaller WIMP masses th < 3 scope, we set the muon energy threshold to Eµ = 1 (mχ 300 GeV) in large (km ) telescopes, although the GeV. This is somewhat optimistic for the IceCube exper- exact∼ enhancement has not been calculated. But, the en- iment [36, 83] unless muon trajectories lie near and ex- hancement of the event rate due to bound WIMPs over 28 halo WIMPs will be fixed and small. VII. DISCUSSION A. Comparison with Damour and Krauss Here, we compare the simulation results with the semi- analytic predictions in Damour and Krauss [37]. Damour & Krauss neglected the population of WIMPs on Jupiter-crossing orbits, arguing that it would be short- lived because of the strong perturbations from Jupiter. This argument is plausible, but it neglects the impor- tance of long-lived WIMPs on resonant orbits. The pres- ence of long-lived WIMPs on resonances suggests that SI Jupiter-crossing WIMPs may be important for σp −41 2 SD −39 2 ∼ 10 cm (σp 10 cm ). However, such WIMPs are unlikely to contribute∼ significantly for much larger or much smaller cross sections. For much larger cross sections, long-lived WIMPs should be exceedingly rare; they are likely to rescatter and thermalize in the Sun be- fore Jupiter can pull the perihelia out of the Sun. For FIG. 20: Muon event rates from halo WIMPs unbound to the smaller cross sections, the rate of scattering of WIMPs SI solar system. Open circles mark MSSM models for which σp onto Jupiter-crossing orbits is negligible. is above the 2006 CDMS limit [85], filled triangles mark those Before we describe where our results diverge from with limits between that limit and the current best limits on Damour & Krauss for a B. Planets The DF of solar-captured WIMPs could be greatly in- creased if the planets other than Jupiter were to either Of course, all of the conclusions in this work are based (i) pull a larger percentage of particles out of the rescat- on simulations in a toy solar system, consisting of Jupiter tering peak and onto orbits that only occasionally enter on a circular orbit about the Sun. Dynamics in the solar the Sun or (ii) extend the lifetimes of particles that al- system are much more complex, both because Jupiter has ready did exit the Sun in the toy solar system simulations. non-zero eccentricity and inclination and because other Here, we discuss three mechanisms for pulling additional planets are present. Bodies may have close encounters WIMPs out of the Sun: (i) close encounters with inner with any planet within its aphelion, and may be influ- planets, (ii) changes to the Kozai structure by other plan- enced by additional mean-motion and secular resonances ets, and (iii) additional secular resonances. Then, we will [e.g., 62, 87–90]. The combination of these effects yields estimate the lifetimes of such WIMPs. far greater diversity of orbits in the real solar system than Close encounters: Here, we describe how random-walk what we found in the toy solar system. encounters with planets can pull WIMPs that were in the There are two qualitatively different ways in which a rescattering peak in our simulations onto long lifetime more realistic treatment of the solar system could change orbits in the solar system. Close encounters with the the WIMP distribution at the Earth. First, additional inner planets can alter the WIMP angular momentum parts of phase space become accessible. While it is a tri- with respect to the Sun. Ignoring resonant phenomena umph of our numerical methods that the Jacobi constant in the solar system, the close encounters can be treated is conserved to high accuracy in our simulations, the con- as a diffusion problem. We use the rms change in an- servation of the Jacobi constant restricts the range of mo- gular momentum as a function of time to estimate the tion for WIMPs. For example, WIMPs with a 3 The change in planet-centric speed can be related to the the DAMA simulation, tmed 10 yr, implying that −5 SI ∼ −43 2 −3 change in heliocentric speed by ǫf tmed/td 10 . For σp = 10 cm , ǫf 10 . To∼ estimate∼ the impact of this population on the∼ num- uδu δv (94) ber density of bound WIMPs, we must also estimate Et, ∼ v the ratio of the median lifetime including the gravita- GM = P . (95) tional effects of the planets to the lifetime if the Sun bv were isolated. Still ignoring resonances, we estimate the rms timescale for WIMPs to be ejected from the solar As a rough approximation, the change in angular mo- system once the perihelia are outside the Sun, mentum per encounter is thus (∆E)2 /E2 (∆a)2 /a2 1. (101) δJ aP δv. (96) h i ∼ h i ∼ ∼ Since We use the approximation that the angular momentum undergoes a random walk to estimate the timescale on a2 which a particle’s angular momentum changes by of order δa = vδv, (102) GM⊙ ∆J⊙ GM⊙R⊙ (Eq. 89) in order for the orbital ∼ perihelion to lie outside the Sun. The rms change in we use the expression for δv in Eq. (95) to find angular momentump will go as 2 MP a (∆J)2 N(δJ)2, (97) δa = . (103) M⊙ b h i∼ where the particle encounters planet P with an impact Using the expression for N in Eq. (98), we find that parameter b or less a total of N times in a time span t. In general, 2 2 2 −3/2 (∆a) MP a a t h 2 i 10 ,(104) t a ∼ M⊙ aP a⊕ yr N 2 , (98) ∼ (aP /b) Pχ where again we have included a factor of 10 for the where Pχ is the orbital period of the WIMP. The factor Coulomb logarithm. The inner planets which will per- 2 (b/aP ) is the probability per WIMP period that the turb the orbits the most are Venus and the Earth, yield- 10 WIMP comes within a distance b of the planet. Thus, ing ejection timescales of tej 10 yr, longer than the ∼ 6 with some rearranging, we find age of the solar system. This yields Et a few 10 ∼ × 4 for the DAMA simulation and Et a few 10 if SI −43 2 ∼ × ′ 2 2 −3/2 σ = 10 cm . Combined, this would yield n /n (∆J) MP aP a p h i 10 a few 10, where n is the number density of the rescat-∼ (∆J⊙)2 ∼ M⊙ R⊙ a⊕ × tering peak WIMPs in the toy solar system simulations. a −1 t 2 P , (99) This is of the same order as the increase in the bound × − a yr WIMP DF due to Kozai cycles in our simulations. However, there are reasons to believe that Et is in where the factor of 10 comes from the heretofore ig- fact significantly smaller than these estimates suggest. nored Coulomb logarithm (see [91]). The singularity at First, if a WIMP can diffuse out of the Sun, it can a = aP /2 is artificial and would vanish in a more care- also diffuse back in. Secondly, once a WIMP becomes ful treatment of WIMP-planet encounters. Thus, the Jupiter-crossing, it will be ejected from the solar system timescale for WIMPs to diffuse out of the Sun due to on timescales of Myr, which is essentially instanta- the action of planet P is neous. ∼ Thirdly, studies of Near Earth Object (NEO) orbits 2 3/2 M⊙ R⊙ a show that once small bodies reach a > 2 AU, they td/yr 0.1 ∼ M a a⊕ are driven into the Sun on rather short∼ timescales, P P ∼ a 1 10 Myr, mostly by secular resonances but also by 2 P . (100) − × − a mean-motion and Kozai resonances [87, 89]. Given that WIMPs have significantly higher eccentricity that the 5 For both the Earth and Venus, MP /M⊙ 3 10 typical NEO, the timescale to drive a WIMP back into −2 ∼ × 8 and R⊕/aP 10 , yielding a diffusion time td 10 the Sun via resonances may be shorter. On the other yr for a 1∼ AU. The timescales for Mercury and∼ Mars hand, such WIMP orbits have high speeds relative to the ∼ 11 10 are td 10 and 10 years respectively. Thus, an- planets, while the low eccentricity, prograde, low inclina- gular momentum∼ diffusion∼ is dominated by the Earth tion NEO orbits have relatively low speeds. Hence, NEOs and Venus. To estimate the impact on the number will be more efficiently gravitationally scattered onto the density, we must find ǫf , the fraction of WIMPs with mean-motion and secular resonances that drive up the a < 1.5 AU that may be perturbed out of the Sun. For eccentricity. In spite of this latter effect, it is likely that 32 WIMPs will be scattered back into the Sun on timescales crease the number of particles on Kozai cycles in the inner shorter than the age of the solar system. If the integrated solar system. optical depth in each instance that the WIMP perihelion Secular resonances: There are additional secular reso- is driven into the Sun (i.e., that the WIMP experiences nances in the full solar system that do not appear in the many Sun-penetrating orbits each time a resonance ini- circular restricted three-body problem considered in this tially drives the WIMP into the Sun), the lifetime of the work. These occur when the rate of change of either the WIMPs will be less than the age of the solar system, longitude of perihelion (̟ ˙ ) or of the longitude of the as- hence reducing Et. cending node (Ω)˙ of the WIMP is almost equal to that of Fourthly, Gladman et al. [89] have identified additional one of the planets. The evolution of NEOs is greatly af- resonances that drive some NEOs of a< 1.9 AU into the fected by the secular resonances with Jupiter and Saturn, Sun without first boosting the semi-major axis above a = although several authors show that other resonances are 2 AU. This will reduce Et for WIMPs with a< 1.9 AU. also important [87, 89, 92–94]. There are complications However, WIMPs can survive many passes through the in interpreting and extending results from NEO simula- Sun before scattering with solar nuclei onto uninterest- tions. For example, most analytic and numerical effort ing orbits. The timescale for rescattering in the Sun de- has focused on the regimes of prograde orbits with small pends crucially on how many passages WIMPs can make e and I relative to typical WIMPs since most observed through the Sun before gravitational torques from the NEOs have such properties [95–97]. planets pull the perihelia out again. However, just like Kozai cycles, secular resonances In general, it appears that the lifetimes of WIMPs with should be able to pull WIMP perihelia outside of the a < 1.5 AU initially pulled out of the Sun by angular mo- Sun if the WIMP orbits originate in the outer layers of mentum∼ diffusion will be shorter than those predicted by the Sun, where the orbital precession due to the Sun’s arguments based on energy diffusion, although quanti- potential is small. Although there are neither analytic fying this is difficult without a full solar system Monte nor numerical investigations of secular resonances for Carlo simulation. Even if WIMP lifetimes were domi- e > 0.995 relevant for bound WIMP orbits, extrapolat- nated by diffusion instead of the effects listed above, the ing from Williams and Faulkner [98], it appears that for boost to the DF would only just be comparable to that fixed a, the prograde resonances lie at higher inclination due to Kozai cycles in the toy solar system. for higher e, so secular resonances will be relevant at high Changes to the Kozai structure: Next, we consider inclination, as for Kozai cycles [98]. It is not clear how changes to the Kozai structure caused by planets other strong these resonances are, although it is unlikely that than Jupiter. Both the inner and outer planets can affect they are much stronger than Kozai resonances. the structure of Kozai cycles. However, torques from the Lifetimes: Since Kozai WIMPs dominate the solar- outer planets other than Jupiter are unlikely to change captured WIMP DF at the Earth in the simulations, it the number of particles whose perihelia exit the Sun. As is important to understand the stability of these orbits demonstrated in Eq. (88), the torque on a particle by a in the true solar system. There are two important ques- 2 −3 faraway planet goes as K MP a a , where MP and tions: (i) How long, on average, does it take for a WIMP ∝ P aP are the mass and semi-major axis of the planet, and to be perturbed off a Kozai cycle? (ii) How does the a is the semi-major axis of the particle. A planet will integrated optical depth per Kozai cycle change? provide a torque Since the diffusion approximation has nothing to say 3 about the stability of resonant orbits, we look to simu- MP aX lations of NEOs again for insight. Unfortunately, NEO KP = KX (105) MX a simulations are either fundamentally short (< 100 Myr) P or end when NEOs hit the Sun, making it difficult to ex- relative to the torque from Jupiter. Even Saturn, the tract estimates of the long-term stability of Kozai cycles. next largest planet in the solar system, and the second There are a few hints from even those short simulations nearest gas giant to the Earth, will only produce a torque with initial conditions significantly different from those about 5% that from Jupiter. Jupiter dominates the tidal of WIMPs. First, Gladman et al. [89] find examples of field for particles that do not cross the orbits of the outer NEOs with a< 2 AU in Kozai cycles for tens of Myr in planets, and so it dominates the structure of the Kozai their 60 Myr integrations. The lifetimes of those NEOs cycles. is limited only by the termination of the simulations at Among the inner planets, Michel and Thomas [44] find either 60 Myr or when the body hits the Sun. Thus, it that the Earth and Venus can dominate the structure of seems probable that WIMPs born on Kozai cycles will the Kozai cycles if the semi-major axis of the particle typically stay there for a least of order tens of millions of is near the semi-major axis of either planet, the initial years, and maybe significantly longer. If the timescale to eccentricity of the particle orbits is small, and the max- perturb a WIMP off a Kozai cycle occurs on timescales imum inclination of the orbit is low. However, WIMPs similar to the ejection timescale (Eq. 104), then WIMPs tend to have power-law distributed semi-major axes, high can exist on Kozai cycles of order the age of the solar sys- eccentricities, and are scattered isotropically in the Sun. tem. In this case, the DF for WIMPs with a < 1.5 AU Therefore, we expect that the extra planets will not in- should be relatively unchanged. On the other hand, if 33 the typical timescale for the removal of a WIMP from a high speed encounters with planets. Thus, we expect the Kozai cycle is shorter (such that ǫf becomes larger), the timescale for WIMPs to be removed from quasi-Kozai impact on the DF depends crucially on what timescales orbits, tq, to be similar to that of WIMPs on Kozai cycles. those WIMPs are then either ejected from the solar sys- After being removed from a quasi-Kozai orbit, the WIMP tem or rescattered in the Sun. should hit the Sun again in 1 10 Myr, according The structural changes to the Kozai cycles in a more to NEO simulations, or get perturbed∼ − onto a Jupiter- complex solar system (a is no longer constant, frequent crossing orbit and get ejected. switches between librating and circulating modes, emax We find that ǫ t /t , and E t /t , where f ∼ med q t ∼ max med and Imax vary) mean that the integrated optical depth tmax is t⊙ if the perturbed WIMPs have lifetimes tl >t⊙, per Kozai cycles may vary with time (see Figs. 7 & 8 in and is equal to the median perturbed lifetime otherwise. Gladman et al. [89]). In principle, this could go up or If the other factors in Eq. (84) are 1, this implies that down; in the case of the quasi-Kozai cycles in our toy so- any boost or deficit in the number∼ density of WIMPs of ′ lar system, the mean optical depth per Kozai cycle went 1.5 AU −2 to achieve the best statistics with the least amount of M M⊕ or length scales of 10 pc. While high- computational time. The optimal weighting for each in- resolution∼ simulations show that∼ very little ( 0.1 0.5% termediate simulation will be guided by the results from [105, 106]) dark matter within the solar circle∼ is− in re- the previous. For example, say that we learn from the solved subhalos, these simulations can only probe sub- 5 6 first intermediate stage we propose, a three-planet solar halo masses down to M 10 10 M⊙. There is thus system with large inner planet masses, that the popu- an uncertainty in the degree∼ of clumpiness− spanning more lation of WIMPs with a < 1.5 AU with perihelia per- than 10 orders of magnitude in mass [55]. Here, we de- turbed out of the Sun by angular momentum diffusion scribe how the DF will change if any of the assumptions is significant for neutrino telescope event rates. Perhaps of our fiducial halo model are challenged. the effect is dominated by WIMPs initially scattered into We note that the primary change to the DF will be in a very narrow range of semi-major axes. If we then wish normalization, not shape. The only way to change the to simulate this population in a solar system in which shape of the bound WIMP DF relative to that calculated the Earth and Venus have their true masses, it makes for our fiducial model for fixed mχ and elastic scattering sense to focus the computational resources on this nar- cross section is to change the distribution of semi-major row semi-major axis window. Furthermore, in order to axes or locations of initial scatter in the Sun onto Earth- gain good statistics for this window, we would need at crossing orbits. The former is robust over several orders least of order 103 long-lived angular momentum-diffused of magnitude in WIMP mass. The latter may be signifi- SD −41 −5 WIMPs. For σ = 10 , ǫf 10 . If we want a sam- cant for large (m > 1 TeV) WIMP masses if the velocity p ∼ χ ple of at least 103 WIMPs in this population, we would phase space is radically∼ different from the fiducial model, need to simulate 108 WIMPs. However, 0.1% of but will not be significant as long as there is non-trivial these WIMPs, or 10∼ 5 total, should initially be∼ on Kozai phase space density of WIMPs at low heliocentric speeds. cycles. In order to focus on the angular diffusion popula- However, the height of the DF is proportional to N˙ ⊕, tion instead of the Kozai population, we would simulate which is increasingly sensitive to the low speed end of the all 108 WIMPs for a short time, 105 106 years, halo DF for increasingly massive WIMPs. This is because ∼ ∼ − 2 which would be sufficient to identify the Kozai popula- the halo WIMP energy is E = mχv∞/2 (where v∞ is the tion. At that point, we would only continue simulations heliocentric speed in the absence of the Sun’s gravity) but of the WIMPs not identified as Kozai cycling. Thus, the maximum energy a WIMP can lose in a collision with 2 2 we would have good statistics on one WIMP population a solar nucleus is Qmax = 2µAv (r)/mA, so it becomes without burning resources on less important populations. hard to scatter high mass WIMPs, high energy WIMPs Therefore, while we believe that getting good statis- onto bound orbits. If the low speed phase space den- tics for estimating the event rates in neutrino telescopes sity were increased, N˙ ⊕ would increase, and the bound will be difficult, it will be possible given (i) a clever and WIMP density would increase relative to the halo den- adaptive simulation strategy, and (ii) patience to acquire sity. This could be achieved, for example, if the WIMP a sufficient number of CPU cycles. halo were rotating in the same sense as the stellar disk, reducing the speed relative speed between the halo and the Sun. Conversely, if the low speed halo WIMP density C. The Halo Distribution Function were decreased, the bound WIMP population would be even more insignificant with respect to the halo. Throughout the simulations, we assumed that the While clumpiness in the halo may affect the halo DF at halo WIMP DF was smooth, non-rotating in an iner- the Earth (although it is unlikely that a subhalo is cur- tial Galactocentric frame (lagging the Sun by a speed rently passing through the solar system [55]), it will have −1 v⊙ = 220kms ), and had a velocity dispersion of surprisingly little effect on the DF of WIMPs bound to σ = v⊙/√2. These choices are motivated by N-body sim- the solar system if the rate at which clumps pass through ulations of Milky Way-mass dark matter halos [99, 100]. the solar system is either much higher or lower than the However, there are a few severe limitations to these N- equilibrium timescale for the bound WIMP DF. In the body simulations. First, while we hope that the simu- former case, as long as the velocity distribution of the en- lations are a good representation of the real Milky Way, semble of subhalos is similar to that of the smooth DM there is no way we can directly measure the dark mat- component (if the rate at which clumps enter the solar ter phase space density. Secondly, these simulations do system is high), the bound WIMP DF is proportional to the time-averaged capture rate in the Sun, f(v) N˙ ⊕ . not include baryons, although we know baryons domi- ∝ h i nate the gravitational potential within the solar circle. This is unlikely to be significantly different from N˙ ⊕ cal- Simulations that include a treatment of baryonic disks culated for a purely smooth halo unless the solar system and the accretion of dwarf galaxies suggest that the local is deeply embedded in a dense subhalo. In the latter phase space structure of dark matter depends sensitively case, passages of a subhalo through the solar system are on the accretion history of the Milky Way [101]. Thirdly, so infrequent that the DF is dominated by the smooth dark matter is fundamentally clumpy, with the smallest component in the halo. halos corresponding to the size of the free-streaming scale Diemand et al. [104] estimate that if all Earth-mass [102–104], which for a SUSY WIMP corresponds to about subhalos survive intact to the present, the rate at which 36 subhalos pass through the solar system is 10−4 yr−1, experiment, we predict the maximum enhancement with each passage lasting 50 yr. Diemand∼ et al. [107] integrated over their analysis window is of order and Faltenbacher and Diemand∼ [108] find that the veloc- 10−3%. In the MSSM, we find less than order unity ity distribution of subhalos is only slightly biased with enhancements to the neutrino-induced muon event respect to the smooth component, with the major dis- rate in neutrino telescopes from the annihilation of crepancy being a decrement of subhalos with low Galac- solar-captured WIMPs in the Earth. tocentric speeds due to merging. The escape velocity from a subhalo is much smaller than either any charac- 4. Although we only include one planet (Jupiter) in teristic speed in the solar system or characteristic speeds our toy solar system, we do not expect that our con- in the solar neighborhood, making it unlikely that the clusions would be significantly different than if we Sun is bound to a subhalo. Thus, even if dark matter in had included more planets in our simulations. If the the solar neighborhood were highly clumpy, the bound other planets are efficient at putting solar-captured −1 WIMP DF would resemble that estimated in this work. WIMPs at geocentric speeds v < 30 km s , there may be large increase in the event rate at neutrino detectors due to WIMP annihilation in the Earth. VIII. CONCLUSION However, it is unlikely that the boost will be suf- ficient to move the event rate above the detection In conclusion, we highlight the key points of this paper: threshold for the IceCube neutrino telescope unless the halo WIMP DF is significantly different from 1. We have developed numerical methods to efficiently the fiducial model. track the highly eccentric solar-captured orbits from their initial scatter in the Sun to up to 4.5 Gyr In two other papers in this series, we examine the impact without secularly increasing errors in the Jacobi of the finite optical depth in the Sun and gravitational constant and without numerical precession. These interactions between WIMPs and Jupiter on the rate of methods will be employed in future simulations of WIMP annihilation in the Sun (Paper II); and we char- WIMPs in a more realistic solar system, and may acterize the population of WIMPs bound to the solar be used to simulate eccentric orbits in other hierar- system by gravitational interactions with Jupiter (Paper chical systems in which one central body dominates III). the gravitational potential. 2. We have characterized the bound WIMP DF at the Acknowledgments Earth as a function of WIMP mass mχ and spin- SI SD independent σp and spin-dependent σp elastic We thank Scott Tremaine for advising this project, and scattering cross sections. For the range of masses Aldo Serenelli and Carlos Penya-Garay for providing ta- m = 60 AMU 500 AMU, we find very lit- χ − bles of isotope abundances in the Sun. We acknowledge tle variation in the WIMP DFs aside from the financial support from NASA grants NNG04GL47G and mass-dependent rate at which WIMPs scatter onto NNX08AH24G and from the Gordon and Betty Moore Earth-crossing orbits. In contrast to Damour and Foundation. The simulations were performed using com- Krauss [37], we find that the optical depth in the puting resources at Princeton University supported by Sun to WIMPs imposes a ceiling to the size of the Department of Astrophysical Sciences (NSF AST- the WIMP DF. For WIMPs that do not inter- 0216105), the Department of Physics, and the TIGRESS sect Jupiter’s orbit, the equilibrium DF is reached High Performance Computing Center. SI −42 2 SD −40 2 for σp 10 cm and σp 10 cm . For WIMPs∼ that intersect Jupiter’s∼ orbit, equilib- rium is reached for σSI 10−38 cm2 or σSD p ∼ p ∼ APPENDIX A: WIMP ELASTIC SCATTERING 10−36 cm2. 3. The maximum phase space density of WIMPs at 1. Spin-Independent Scattering the Earth consistent with current constraints on the elastic scattering cross section is significantly less For particle physics models of dark matter, the general than that of WIMPs unbound to the solar system. spin-independent (“SI”; scalar) scattering cross section Even though bound WIMPs occupy the low veloc- has the form [1, 2]: ity phase space that disproportionally contributes SI to the event rates in both direct detection experi- dσ 2mA 2 2 = 2 [Zfp + (A Z)fn] FSI (Q), (A1) ments and neutrino telescopes, the total enhance- dQ πgA − ment to those event rates is negligible. For direct detection experiments, we find that the maximum where Q is the energy transferred from the WIMP to enhancement to dR/dQ occurs at Q = 0 and is a nucleus of mass mA (with atomic mass A and charge < 0.5% of the halo event rate. For the XENON10 Z) during the scatter, gA is the relative velocity between ∼ 37 the particles, fp and fn are the proton and neutron ef- WIMP-nucleon cross section. In the limit of high WIMP fective couplings to the WIMP, and FSI (Q) is a nuclear mass, form factor. The nuclear form factor used in this set of calculations is of the standard exponential form, µA mA (A13) → µp mp (A14) −Q/2QA → FSI (Q)= e , (A2) 2 SI mA 2 SI σA 2 A σp (A15) where the coherence energy is → mp 2 4 SI 1.5¯h A σp , (A16) Q = , (A3) ≈ A m R2 A A where the last approximation can be made since m A ≈ and the coherence length (the radius of the nucleus A) is Amp. set to 2 1/3 RA = 1 fm[0.3+0.91(mA/(GeV/c )) ]. (A4) 2. Spin-Dependent Scattering The nuclear form factor quantifies the extent to which the The likely WIMP candidates for both the MSSM (neu- WIMP interacts coherently with the nucleus as a whole trino χ) and UED (Kaluza-Klein photon B(1)) theories (if the de Broglie wavelength of the nucleus is small), or can have elastic axial-vector interactions with quarks, via incoherently with the nucleons individually. squarks in the MSSM or the lightest Kaluza-Klein exci- It is often more convenient to use the center-of-mass tation of quarks q(1) in UED models. In both cases, the differential cross section. Using the functional form of spin-dependent (SD) WIMP interaction with a nucleus the energy transfer of atomic number A can be parameterized as [1, 3] 2 µA 2 1 cos θ SD Q =2 gA − , (A5) dσ 2mA 2 2 mA 2 = α 2 Λ J(J + 1)FSD( q ), (A17) dQ × πgA | | where where m m µ = A χ , (A6) A m + m 2 A χ 8GF MSSM ′ α = 1 g 4 (A18) the differential cross section is 6 2 2 2 UED (mB(1) mq(1) ) dσSI 1 dQ dσ − = (A7) ′ dΩ 2π d(cos θ) dQ parameterizes the coupling in each theory. Here, g is the 2 coupling constant for the B boson in electroweak theory, 1 µA 2 dσ (1) (1) = g (A8) and m (1) and m (1) are the masses of the B and q 2π m A dQ B q A particles respectively. The other quantities in Eq. (A17) 1 4 2 2 2 depend on nuclear properties. Here J is the total angular = µ [Zfp + (A Z)fn] F (Q) (A9) 4π π A − momentum of the nucleus, and σSI F 2(Q(cos θ)) = A . (A10) 1 4π Λ= [a S + a S ] , (A19) J ph pi nh ni We have parameterized the strength of the interaction by σA. If fp = fn, which is often a good approximation for where an and ap describe the WIMP couplings to the neu- both supersymmetric and UED models, tron and proton, and Sn and Sp are the spin expecta- tion values for the neutronsh i andh protonsi within the nu- 4 σSI = µ2 A2f 2, (A11) cleus. The couplings an and ap are derived from specific A π A n WIMP models, while the spin expectation values must be calculated using detailed nuclear physics models [e.g., so that the strength of the coupling between a nucleus 1, 109–111], and calculations using different techniques and the WIMP depends only on the atomic number of often yield different results. The function F ( q ) is the the nucleus. This coupling can also be parameterized in SD spin-dependent nuclear form factor as a function| | of the terms of the strength of the WIMP-proton (or -neutron) momentum transfer q . Its form must be carefully cal- cross section: culated for each nucleus| | of interest [112, and references µ2 therein]. σSI = A A2σSI , (A12) A 2 p There are several important differences between the µp form of the spin-dependent and spin-independent cross which is useful since experimental constraints on the spin- sections that have major implications for detection ex- independent cross section are reported in terms of the periment design. The first point is that nuclei with even 38 numbers of protons and neutrons will have zero spin- then interpolate for a particular orbit through the Sun. dependent interactions with WIMPs. Secondly, the spin- The optical depth in differential form is given by dependent cross section has a much weaker dependence dτ dτA on the atomic mass than the spin-independent cross sec- = (B4) dldQ dldQ tion. This is apparent if Eq. (A17) is written in the same A X form as Eq. (A10), dσ = n (l) A , (B5) A dQ dσSD 1 dQ dσSD A = (A20) X dΩ 2π dcos θ dQ where l denotes the particle trajectory, nA(l) is the num- 2 2 ber density of element A in the Sun at position l along 1 µ g 2mA = A A J(J + 1)αΛ2 the path, and dσ /dQ is the differential elastic scattering 2π m πg2 A A A cross section with respect to the energy transfer Q be- F 2 ( q ) (A21) tween element A and the WIMP. Since we assume that × SD | | 1 spin-independent scattering dominates in the Sun, the = σSDF 2( q ), (A22) 4π A | | integral over energy transfer can be computed using the form of the differential cross section in Eq. (A1) and the where form factor in Eq. (A2): 4 Qmax σSD = µ2 J(J + 1)αΛ2. (A23) dτ dσA A π A = nA(l) (B6) dl 0 dQ XA Z In the limit that mWIMP mA, 2m ≫ l A 2 = nA( ) 2 [Zfp + (A Z)fn] QA (B7) SD 2 πv(l) − σ A , (A24) A A ∝ X 1 e−Qmax,A/QA , unlike × − where we have used the approximation of a zero-temper- σSI A4 (A25) A ∝ ature Sun to set vrel = v(l). Using Eq. (62), we find the SD maximum energy transfer for the spin-independent case. Therefore, even if σp > SI SD SI µ2 σp or σn > σn , the spin-independent cross section A 2 Qmax,A =2 v(l) . (B8) may dominate for heavy nuclei. The spin-dependent mA cross section could be large if J scaled with A (since The integration of Eq. (B8) is greatly simplified be- σ J 2), but this is not the case for heavy nuclei. Note A ∝ cause the torque on the particle by Jupiter is negligible that, in contrast to predictions for spin-independent scat- in the Sun compared to the rest of the orbit. Therefore, tering, the spin-dependent WIMP-proton and WIMP- neutron cross sections are generally not the same to dl = v(t)dt (B9) within a few percent. dt = v(t(r)) dr (B10) dr APPENDIX B: SUBSEQUENT SCATTERING IN v(r(t)) = dr, (B11) THE SUN vr(r(t)) | | where Each time a particle passes through the Sun, there is v(E, r)= 2[E Φ⊙(r)] (B12) a probability − is the particle’s speed and −τ p Pscatt =1 e (B1) 2 2 − vr(E, J, r) = 2[E Φ⊙(r)] J /r (B13) that it will be scattered at least once, given the optical | | − − is the radial velocity ofp the particle. Thus, depth τ for one jaunt through the Sun. Since the WIMP- nucleon cross sections relevant to this paper imply low dτ(E,J) v(r) dτ < −3 = . (B14) opacity in the Sun (τ 10 ), the scattering probability dr vr(r) dl per solar passage is well∼ approximated by | | and the total optical depth along the path is 2 Pscatt = 1 1 τ + (τ ) (B2) 4 − − O τ(E,J)= m Q [Zf + (A Z)f ]2 τ. (B3) π A A p − n ≈ A X 2 2 −2µ v (E,r)/mAQA Instead of calculating the scattering probability τ on R⊙ nA(r) 1 e A the fly, we create a table for optical depth indexed by the dr − . (B15) × v(E, r) v (E, J, r) semi-major axis and Kepler perihelion of the orbit, and Zrp | r | 39 In order to express the optical depth τ as a function of is the flux of dark matter particles through the Earth’s the semi-major axis and eccentricity, We use the relations orbit as a function of time. To convert the flux at position x and time t, F (x,t), GM E = c (B16) into a DF f(x, v,t), we assume that the timescale of vari- ± 2a ation in the distribution function is much larger than the 2 2 J = GMca(e 1), (B17) typical dynamical timescale of particles in the solar sys- ± − tem ( year). We adopt the usual argument [cf. 113] ∼ where Mc = µM⊙ is the central mass, as determined by to relate the flux as a function of velocity dF/dv to the Eq. (34), and the upper (lower) sign is used for hyper- distribution function. Consider particles passing outward bolic (elliptical) orbits. Therefore, through a wall of area δA with a unit vector normal to the surface nˆ. For particles with velocity between v and v˜(a, r) = v(a, r)/ GMc v + δv, the particles that pass through the wall in time δt inhabit a prism volume of base δA, long side vδt, and p1 = 2 Φ˜ ⊙(r) (B18) height δtv nˆ. The total number of particles with velocity ±2a − · s between v and v + δv passing out through the surface δA per unit time δt is dF (x,t) v˜(a,e,r) = vr(a,e,r) / GMc dvδAδt = f(x, v,t)(vδt) (δAnˆ)dv (C1) | | | | dv · 2 1 p a(e 1) x v v = 2 Φ˜ ⊙(r) − (B19), = f( , ,t)v cos γd δAδt, (C2) ±2a − ∓ r2 s where cos γ = v nˆ/v. In the simulations, we do not care · where Φ˜ ⊙ =Φ⊙/GMc. If we insert these expression into if the particles pass inward or outward through the wall Eq. (B15), of the cylinder, so we estimate the distribution function from the simulations using 4 1 2 τ(a,e) = mAQA[Zfp + (A Z)fn] (B20) dF (x,t) π GMc − dvδAδt = f(x, v,t)v cos γ dvδAδt, (C3) XA dv | | 2 2 −2µ GMcv˜ (a,r)/mAQA R⊙ n (r) 1 e A A or dr − . × r v˜(a,e,r) v˜r(a,e,r) Z p | | dF (x,t)/dv f(x, v,t) = (C4) We make a look-up table for τ using for the choice µ = 1, v cos γ − and then scale τ by a factor of µ 1. There is also a dF (x,t)/dv = , (C5) factor of µ in the exponent. However, its impact on τ is v < −6 −5 r negligible since µ 1 10 10 . | | If the particle| scatters− | ∼ in the− Sun, its new phase space since vr = v cos γ is the velocity component normal to coordinates can be determined by sampling the scattering the wall of the cylinder (i.e., the radial component of the distribution velocity). We now describe in detail how to estimate the distribu- dτ(E,J) v(E, r) dσA = nA(r) , (B21) tion function from the data obtained in the simulations. drdΩ vr (E, J, r) dΩ For each simulation, we start integrating the orbits of N XA | | p particles (Table I) at time ti since the birth of the solar where Ω is the center-of-mass scattering solid angle. system. Particles scatter onto bound, Earth-crossing or- bits at a rate N˙ ⊕(ti), where ti is the time at which the particle first scatters onto a bound orbit. In principle, APPENDIX C: DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION N˙ ⊕ can vary with time if the halo dark matter distribu- ESTIMATORS tion function varies on timescales shorter than the age of the solar system, but we assume that the halo distribu- In this section, we describe the outputs of the simula- tion function is static, so that N˙ ⊕(ti)= N˙ ⊕. tions, and how to estimate the bound distribution func- Each time a particle α crosses through the cylinder tion from these data. wall, we record the time of passage tαβ (here, β labels the Our method is to find the average DF along Earth’s particular passage of the particle α through the Earth’s path. We record the phase space coordinates of particles orbit) since the start of the simulation at ti, position xαβ, passing near the Earth’s orbit. Since we treat the Earth’s and velocity vαβ. The height zc is chosen to be larger orbit as circular and coplanar with Jupiter’s orbit, this than the radius of the Earth R⊕ in order to improve means that we focus on particles passing through the wall statistics, but is small enough (z 1 AU) so that the c ≪ of a cylinder of height 2zc centered on the reference plane estimate should be unaffected by gradients in flux as a and radius a⊕ from the Sun. Thus, the raw data product function of height above the reference plane. 40 Each particle crossing can be characterized as one the flux is measured, point in a six-dimensional phase space: nαβ, the vec- t tor describing the orientation (φ, z) of the particle when dFˆ dFˆ = dti (C10) it crosses the cylinder of radius a⊕; the three components dv 0 dvdti of the velocity v ; and t . The vector n only has Z αβ αβ αβ ˙ Np Nα N⊕ (5) two independent coordinates since the radial component = δ (n nαβ, v vαβ) Np − − of xαβ is fixed. We estimate the flux of particles passing α=1 β=1 passing through a patch of the cylinder at position n in X X Θ(t t ) the cylinder at time t since the birth of the solar system, × − αβ for which the particles had initial scattering time in the In order to get better statistics for the flux through the Sun at time ti, with velocity between v and v + dv, as Earth, we average the flux in Eq. (C10) over all positions n on the cylinder wall. In this case, ˆ Np dF 2 = 1/ dλ w(λ)δ(λ λα) d n = δA =2 2πa⊕z , (C11) dvdt − c i α=1 cylinder × Z X Z Np Nα the whole area through which we count particle crossings. (6) N˙ ⊕w(λα)δ (n nαβ, This implies that the averaged flux is × − α=1 X βX=1 dFˆ (n,t) 1 dFˆ v vαβ,t (ti + tαβ)) (C6) = d2n (C12) − − dv δA dv Zcylinder ˆ for each experiment. Here, F denotes that this is an ˙ Np Nα N⊕ 1 (3) estimator for the true flux F . The total flux can be es- = δ (v vαβ) Np δA − timated by integrating Eq. (C6) over ti and v. Nα is α=1 β=1 the total number of times particle α crosses the Earth’s X X Θ(t tαβ). orbit. The weight function w(λ) describes how we sam- × − (C13) ple the initial conditions λ relative to the initial particle distribution at the first scatter. The denominator of Eq. In effect, we are averaging the flux over the Earth’s orbit. (C6) normalizes the flux. We find the local estimate of the distribution function by Since we sample the bound, Earth-crossing WIMPs to inserting Eq. (C13) into Eq. (C5). the same density as they scatter onto such orbits in the To find the distribution function in the frame of the solar system, w = 1 for each particle α. Thus, Earth, we make a Galilean transformation u = v v⊕, − where v⊕ is the circular velocity of the Earth about the Np Np Sun, to find w(λ)δ(λ λ ) = δ(λ λ ) (C7) − α − α α=1 α=1 ˆ ˆ X X f⊕(x, u,t)= f(x, u + v⊕,t). (C14) so that 1. Estimating Distribution Functions in Practice Np dλ w(λ)δ(λ λ )= N , (C8) − α p In practice, there are 108 109 Earth-orbit crossings α=1 Z X in each simulation. In order− to present and use the DFs in a manageable form, we use a small z and bin the dis- where the integral over λ spans the entire range of λα. c The flux at position n as a function of velocity, observa- tribution function in velocity space. We set zc = 10R⊕, but using different z up to z = 10−3 AU (the largest tion time, and initial time ti is c c value we tried) yields consistent DFs, demonstrating the desired result that the estimate for the DF does not de- Np Nα dFˆ N˙ ⊕ pend on the choice of z . = δ(6)(n n , v v , c dvdt N − αβ − αβ The most straightforward way of estimating uncer- i p α=1 X βX=1 tainty in the distribution function and any calculations t (ti + tαβ)). (C9) derived from it is to use bootstrap resampling. Bootstrap − resampling yields accurate parameter and error estima- We are interested in the flux arising from particles en- tion if the data sample the underlying distribution well. tering the solar system at all times prior to the present, In each resampling, we select Np initial conditions with not just at a particular time ti. Therefore, to estimate replacement from the Np WIMPs. We then calculate all the total flux in a unit volume of velocity-space, one must distribution functions and event rates using the trajecto- integrate Eq. (C6) over ti, in the range between the time ries and crossings of the new sample as described in the of the formation of the solar system and the time at which previous section. 41 2. The Distribution Function in the Earth sitions between R and R + dR and speeds between vloc and vloc + dvloc would be represented as In the previous section, we found DFs in the absence of the Earth’s gravity. However, since both direct detection dN =4πv2 f(v(R, v ))d3Rdv . (C18) experiments and neutrino telescopes are sensitive to par- iso loc loc loc ticles within the potential well of the Earth, it is neces- sary to find the mapping between the velocity coordinates However, the DFs are not isotropic in the frame of the at distances 1 AU from the Earth but well outside the Earth. Thus, it is necessary to find v in terms of the Earth’s gravitational≪ field and those at distances at which velocity vloc at position R. The speeds are still related the Earth’s gravity is significant. Let v = (v,θ,φ) denote by Eq. (C17), so that v is a function of only two variables, the velocity outside the Earth’s gravitational field in an vloc and R. The angular coordinates (θ, φ), however, will inertial frame centered on and moving with the Earth, now be a complicated function of all six local phase space with the polar axis along the Earth’s direction of mo- coordinates, so that the number of particles at (R, vloc) tion, and the velocity vloc = (vloc,θloc, φloc) be in the is described as Earth’s gravitational field at a position R = (R,ζ,ψ) from the Earth’s center, where vloc is also in an inertial frame centered on and moving with the Earth. In these dN = f(v(R, vloc),θ(R, vloc), φ(R, vloc)) coordinates, the angles θ, θloc, and ζ are measured rela- R2v2 dRdcos ζdψdv dcos θ dφ . (C19) tive to the direction of motion of the Earth with respect × loc loc loc loc to the Sun, and the φ, φloc, and ψ angles are azimuthal. To relate the angular coordinates, we make use of an- Since the particle energy E and angular momentum J gular momentum conservation as well as energy conser- with respect to the Earth are approximately conserved vation, and the fact that the problem reduces to a spheri- near the Earth, the local DF floc of dark matter in the cally symmetric two-body problem. Since orbits are con- gravitational field of the Earth can be written as fined to a plane, R and vloc are a set of basis vectors for the orbital plane if the vectors are not parallel. Then, floc(R, vloc)= f(v(vloc, R)). (C15) in general, the position Rfar and velocity v far from the Earth can be described by Here, f(v) is the dark matter DF in the frame of the Earth but far from the Earth’s center. Eq. (C15) is a restatement of Liouville’s theorem. The number of parti- Rfar = αR + βvloc, (C20) cles in an interval between (R, v ) and (R + dR, v + loc loc v = γR + δvloc, (C21) dvloc) is 3 3 dN = floc(R, vloc)d Rd vloc. (C16) where the coefficients α, β, γ, and δ only depend on the local coordinates R and vloc, E, and J. If the Earth’s If the DF f(v) were isotropic, then the mapping be- potential were purely Keplerian, α and β would be the tween velocity coordinates would be greatly simplified. Gauss f and g functions [see Section 2.5 in 57], with In such a situation, the speeds v and vloc are related γ =α ˙ and δ = β˙. The functional form of the coeffi- through conservation of energy, cients is different in the case of non-Keplerian spherically symmetric potentials, but the general framework of Eqs. 1 2 1 2 E = v = vloc(R)+Φ⊕(R), (C17) (C20) and (C21) holds. Therefore, Eqs. (C20) and (C21) 2 2 describe the mapping between coordinates in the gravi- assuming that the Earth’s potential Φ⊕ is spherical. tational field of the Earth to those outside the Earth’s Therefore, the number of dark matter particles with po- sphere of influence. [1] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. 69, 065022 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0306161. Rep. 267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380. [7] A. Birkedal, A. Noble, M. Perelstein, and A. Spray, [2] D. Hooper and S. Profumo, Phys. Rep. 453, 29 (2007), Phys. Rev. D 74, 035002 (2006), arXiv:hep- arXiv:hep-ph/0701197. ph/0603077. [3] G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, New J. Phys. 4, 99 (2002), [8] E. Komatsu et al. (2008), arXiv:0803.0547. arXiv:hep-ph/0209262. [9] L. Wai et al., in SUSY06, edited by J. L. Feng (American [4] H.-C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2007), vol. 903 of AIP Lett. 89, 211301 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207125. Conference Series, pp. 599–602. [5] J. Hubisz and P. Meade, Phys. Rev. D 71, 035016 [10] M. Kuhlen, J. Diemand, and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411264. 686, 262 (2008), arXiv:0805.4416. [6] A. Birkedal-Hansen and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. D [11] J. Chang et al., Nature (London) 456, 362 (2008). 42 [12] O. Adriani et al. (2008), arXiv:0810.4995. [50] M. Preto and S. Tremaine, Astron. J. 118, 2532 (1999), [13] M. M. Boliev, E. V. Bugaev, A. V. Butkevich, A. E. arXiv:astro-ph/9906322. Chudakov, S. P. Mikheyev, O. V. Suvorova, and V. N. [51] S. Mikkola and K. Tanikawa, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron. Zakidyshev, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 48, 83 (1996). 74, 287 (1999). [14] M. Ambrosio et al., Phys. Rev. D 60, 082002 (1999). [52] A. H. G. Peter, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University [15] S. Desai et al., Phys. Rev. D 70, 083523 (2004), (2008). arXiv:hep-ex/0404025. [53] J. E. Gunn, G. R. Knapp, and S. D. Tremaine, Astron. [16] A. Achterberg et al., Astropart. Phys. 26, 129 (2006). J. 84, 1181 (1979). [17] M. Ackermann et al., Astropart. Phys. 24, 459 (2006). [54] F. J. Kerr and D. Lynden-Bell, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. [18] G. Lim and for the ANTARES Collaboration (2007), Soc. 221, 1023 (1986). arXiv:0710.3685. [55] M. Kamionkowski and S. M. Koushiappas (2008), [19] C. de los Heros et al. (2008), arXiv:0802.0147. arXiv:0801.3269. [20] E. de Wolf, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 588, 86 [56] J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, Astrophys. (2008). J. 621, L85 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412440. [21] A. Hime, APS Meeting Abstracts pp. 14002–+ (2007). [57] C. D. Murray and S. F. Dermott, Solar System Dy- [22] R. Gaitskell, APS Meeting Abstracts namics (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. H3002+ (2007), slides available at 2000). http://xenon.astro.columbia.edu/talks/ [58] T. Ito and K. Tanikawa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. APS2007/070415 DM Noble Gaitskell v08.pdf. 336, 483 (2002). [23] P. L. Brink et al. (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503583. [59] P. Belli, R. Bernabei, A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. For- [24] SuperCDMS Collaboration (2005), arXiv:astro- nengo, D. Prosperi, and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D 61, ph/0502435. 023512 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9903501. [25] D. S. Akerib et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 559, 411 (2006). [60] R. Bernabei et al., Phys. Lett. B 480, 23 (2000). [26] R. Brunetti et al., New Astron. Rev. 49, 265 (2005), [61] L. Malyshkin and S. Tremaine, Icarus 141, 341 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/0405342. arXiv:astro-ph/9808172. [27] E. Aprile et al. (2002), astro-ph/0207670, arXiv:astro- [62] M. J. Duncan and H. F. Levison, Science 276, 1670 ph/0207670. (1997). [28] The Xmass Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. [63] A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 388, 338 (1992). 143, 506 (2005). [64] CDMS Collaboration (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0802.3530. [29] V. Zacek (2007), arXiv:0707.0472. [65] M. Dine and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 48, 1277 [30] L. Baudis (2008), http://xenon.astro.columbia.edu/ (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9303230. presentations/baudis idm08.pdf. [66] M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D [31] A. M. Green, JCAP 8, 22 (2007), arXiv:hep- 51, 1362 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9408384. ph/0703217. [67] M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman, Phys. [32] J. Angle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 021303 (2008), Rev. D 53, 2658 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507378. arXiv:astro-ph/0706.0039. [68] E. A. Baltz and H. Murayama, JHEP 5, 67 (2003), [33] C. E. Aalseth et al. (2008), arXiv:0807.0879. arXiv:astro-ph/0108172. [34] A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 328, 919 (1988). [69] H. S. Lee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 091301 (2007), [35] A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 368, 610 (1991). arXiv:astro-ph/0704.0423. [36] J. Lundberg and J. Edsj¨o, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123505 [70] E. Behnke et al., Science 319, 933 (2008), arXiv:astro- (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401113. ph/0804.2886. [37] T. Damour and L. M. Krauss, Phys. Rev. D 59, 063509 [71] M. Drees and C.-L. Shan, JCAP 6, 12 (2008), (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807099. 0803.4477. [38] L. Bergstr¨om et al., JHEP 8, 10 (1999), arXiv:hep- [72] G. J. Alner et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 555, 173 (2005). ph/9905446. [73] T. Naka et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 581, 761 (2007). [39] A. H. G. Peter (2009), arXiv:0902.1347. [74] D. Santos et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 65, 012012 (2007), [40] A. H. G. Peter (2009), arXiv:0902.1348. arXiv:astro-ph/0703310. [41] Y. Kozai, Astron. J. 67, 591 (1962). [75] H. Nishimura et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 120, 042025 [42] F. Thomas and A. Morbidelli, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron. (2008). 64, 209 (1996). [76] G. Sciolla et al. (2008), arXiv:0805.2431. [43] Y. Kozai, in Dynamics of the Solar System, edited by [77] P. Amram et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 75, 415 R. L. Duncombe (1979), vol. 81 of IAU Symposium, pp. (1999). 231–236. [78] G. C. Hill et al. (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0611773. [44] P. Michel and F. Thomas, Astron. Astrophys. 307, 310 [79] A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 321, 571 (1987). (1996). [80] Encyclopædia Britannica, The Earth: Its Properties, [45] E. B. Ford, B. Kozinsky, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. Composition, and Structure (Britannica CD, Version 99. J. 535, 385 (2000). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1994-1999). [46] D. Fabrycky and S. Tremaine, Astrophys. J. 669, 1298 [81] W. F. McDonough, Treatise on Geochemistry, vol. 2 (2007), arXiv:0705.4285. (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2003). [47] J. Wisdom and M. Holman, Astron. J. 102, 1528 (1991). [82] P. Gondolo et al., JCAP 7, 8 (2004), arXiv:astro- [48] P. Saha and S. Tremaine, Astron. J. 108, 1962 (1994), ph/0406204. arXiv:astro-ph/9403057. [83] The IceCube Collaboration (2001), [49] J. E. Chambers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 304, 793 http://www.icecube.wisc.edu/ (1999). science/publications/pdd/pdd.pdf. 43 [84] L. Bergstr¨om, J. Edsj¨o, and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D [101] J. I. Read, G. Lake, O. Agertz, and V. P. Debat- 58, 103519 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806293. tista, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 389, 1041 (2008), [85] D. S. Akerib et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 011302 (2006). arXiv:0803.2714. [86] L. G. Kiseleva, P. P. Eggleton, and S. Mikkola, Mon. [102] S. Hofmann, D. J. Schwarz, and H. St¨ocker, Phys. Rev. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 300, 292 (1998). D 64, 083507 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0104173. [87] P. Farinella, C. Froeschle, R. Gonczi, G. Hahn, A. Mor- [103] A. M. Green, S. Hofmann, and D. J. Schwarz, Mon. bidelli, and G. B. Valsecchi, Nature (London) 371, 314 Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 353, L23 (2004), arXiv:astro- (1994). ph/0309621. [88] L. Dones, B. Gladman, H. J. Melosh, W. B. Tonks, H. F. [104] J. Diemand, B. Moore, and J. Stadel, Nature (London) Levison, and M. Duncan, Icarus 142, 509 (1999). 433, 389 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501589. [89] B. Gladman, P. Michel, and C. Froeschl´e, Icarus 146, [105] J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, M. Zemp, B. Moore, 176 (2000). D. Potter, and J. Stadel, Nature (London) 454, 735 [90] B. J. Gladman, F. Migliorini, A. Morbidelli, V. Zap- (2008), arXiv:0805.1244. pala, P. Michel, A. Cellino, C. Froeschle, H. F. Levison, [106] V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, M. Bailey, and M. Duncan, Science 277, 197 (1997). A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and [91] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics (Prince- S. D. M. White (2008), arXiv:0809.0898. ton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2008). [107] J. Diemand, B. Moore, and J. Stadel, Mon. Not. Roy. [92] C. Froeschle, G. Hahn, R. Gonczi, A. Morbidelli, and Astron. Soc. 352, 535 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402160. P. Farinella, Icarus 117, 45 (1995). [108] A. Faltenbacher and J. Diemand, Mon. Not. Roy. As- [93] P. Michel, Icarus 129, 348 (1997). tron. Soc. 369, 1698 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602197. [94] P. Michel, C. Froeschl´e, and P. Farinella, Cel. Mech. [109] V. I. Dimitrov, J. Engel, and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. D Dyn. Astron. 69, 133 (1997). 51, 291 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9408246. [95] J. G. Williams, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, [110] M. T. Ressell, M. B. Aufderheide, S. D. Bloom, K. Gri- Los Angeles (1969). est, G. J. Mathews, and D. A. Resler, Phys. Rev. D 48, [96] Z. Knezevic, A. Milani, P. Farinella, C. Froeschle, and 5519 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9307228. C. Froeschle, Icarus 93, 316 (1991). [111] M. T. Ressell and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C 56, 535 [97] A. Lemaitre and A. Morbidelli, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron. (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702290. 60, 29 (1994). [112] P. Gondolo, in Dark Matter in Cosmology Quan- [98] J. G. Williams and J. Faulkner, Icarus 46, 390 (1981). tam Measurements Experimental Gravitation, edited by [99] B. Moore, C. Calc´aneo-Rold´an, J. Stadel, T. Quinn, R. Ansari, Y. Giraud-Heraud, and J. Tran Thanh van G. Lake, S. Ghigna, and F. Governato, Phys. Rev. D (1996), pp. 41–+. 64, 063508 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0106271. [113] F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal [100] A. Helmi, S. D. White, and V. Springel, Phys. Rev. D Physics (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965). 66, 063502 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201289.