March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe1 Wim de Boer, Christian Sander, Valery Zhukov Univ. Karlsruhe Dmitri Kazakov, Alex Gladyshev Dubna Outline (see astro-ph/ ) EGRET Data on diffuse Gamma Rays show excess in all sky directions with the SAME energy spectrum from monoenergetic quarks WIMP mass between 50 and 100 GeV from spectrum of EGRET excess Halo distribution from sky map Data consistent with Supersymmetry EGRET excess of diffuse Galactic Gamma Rays interpreted as Dark Matter Annihilation From CMB + SN1a + structure formation

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe2 DM annihilation in Supersymmetry Dominant diagram for WMAP cross section in MSSM:  +   A  b bbar quark pair B-fragmentation well studied at LEP! Yield and spectra of positrons, gammas and antiprotons well known!           f f f f f f Z Z W W  00 f ~ AZ Galaxy = SUPER-B-factory with luminosity some 40 orders of magnitude above man-made B-factories ≈ 37 gammas

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe3 Basics from cosmology: Hubble const. determines WIMP annihilation x-section Thermal equilibrium abundance Actual abundance T=M/22 Comoving number density x=m/T T>>M: f+f->M+M; M+M->f+f T f+f T=M/22: M decoupled, stable density (wenn annihilation rate  expansion rate, i.e.  = n  (x fr )  H(x fr ) !) Jungmann,Kamionkowski, Griest, PR 1995 Present WMAP  h 2 =0.113  requires  cm 3 /s H-Term takes care of decrease in density by expansion. Right-hand side: annihilation and production. More precisely by solving Boltzmann eq.  h 2 = m  n  /  c  [cm 3 /s]/ ( independ. of m  !) DM density increases locally after galaxy formation. In this room:  1 WIMP/coffee cup  10 5 averaged density.

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe4 RED=flux from DM Annihilation Yellow = backgr. Blue = BG uncert. Bremsstr. Extragal. IC WIMPS 00 Blue: uncertainty from background shape Blue: uncertainty from WIMP mass Basics of background and signal shapes WIMP MASS GeV Bremsstr. Extragal. IC WIMPS 00

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe5 No SM Electrons No SM Protons Quarks from WIMPS Quarks in protons Basics of background and signal shapes

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe6 Energy loss times of electrons and nuclei Protons diffuse for long times without loosing energy!  -1 = 1/E dE/dt  univ If centre would have harder spectrum, then hard to explain why excess in outer galaxy has SAME shape (can be fitted with same WIMP mass!)

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe7 EGRET on CGRO (Compton Gamma Ray Observ.) 9 yrs of data taken ( ) Main purpose: sky map of point sources above diffuse BG.

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe8 Gamma Ray Flux from WIMP annihilation in given direction ψ: Similar expressions for: pp->  0 +x->  +x, (  given by gas density, highest in disc) e  ->e , eN->e  N, (  given by electron/gamma density, highest in disc) Extragalactic Background (isotropic) DM annihilation (  1/r 2 for flat rotation curve) All have very different, but known energy spectra. Cross sections known. Densities not well known, so keep absolute normalization free for each process. Basics of astro-particle physics Fit shape of various contributions with free normalization, but normalization limited by experimental overall normalization error, which is 15% for EGRET data. Point-to-point errors  7% (yields good  2 ).

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe9 x y z 2003, Ibata et al, Yanny et al. v 2  M/r=cons. and  M/r 3  1/r 2 for const. rotation curve Divergent for r=0? NFW  1/r Isotherm const. Executive Summary for fits in 360 sky directions xy xz Expected Profile Halo profile Outer Ring Inner Ring bulge totalDM 1/r 2 halo disk Rotation Curve Observed Profile

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe10 Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays above 1 GeV (first publications by Hunter et al, Sreekumar et al. (1997) Strong, Moskalenko, Reimer, APJ.613, astro-ph/ A: inner Galaxy (l=±30 0, |b|<5 0 ) B: Galactic plane avoiding A C: Outer Galaxy D: low latitude ( ) E: intermediate lat. ( ) F: Galactic poles ( ) A BC D EF 00 Bremsstrahlung Inv. Compton

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe11 Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays has same spectrum in all directions compatible with WIMP mass of GeV Important: if experiment measures gamma rays down to 0.1 GeV, then normalizations of DM annihilation and background can both be left free, so one is not sensitive to abso- lute background estimates, BUT ONLY TO THE SHAPE, which is much better known. Egret Excess above extrapolated background from data below 0.5 GeV Excess same shape in all regions implying same source everywhere Statistical errors only

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe12 Diffuse Gamma Rays for different sky regions Good Fits for WIMP masses between 50 and 100 GeV 3 components: galactic background + extragalactic bg + DM annihilation fitted simultaneously with same WIMP mass and DM normalization in all directions. Boost factor around 70 in all directions and statistical significance > 10  ! A: inner Galaxy B: outer disc C: outer Galaxy D: low latitude E: intermediate lat.F: galactic poles

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe13 Optimized Model from Strong et al. astro-ph/ Change spectral shape of electrons AND protons

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe14 Optimized Model from Strong et al. astro-ph/ Change spectral shape of electrons AND protons Nucleon and electron spectra tuned to fit gamma ray data. Apart from the difficulty to have inhomogeneous nuclei spectra (SMALL energy losses!) the model does NOT describe the spectrum IN ALL DIRECTIONS! Electrons Protons B/C

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe15 Optimized Model from Strong et al. astro-ph/ Change spectral shape of electrons AND protons 100 MeV 150 MeV 300 MeV 500 MeV1000 MeV 2000 MeV

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe16 Optimized Model from Strong et al. astro-ph/ Change spectral shape of electrons AND protons Probability of optimized model if  2 measured in 360 sky directions and integrate data with E>0.5 GeV:  2= 962.3/324 for Optimized Model without DM +correl. errors: Prob = <  2= 306.5/323 for Optimized Model +DM +correl. errors: Prob = Boostfactor=25 for OM vs 70 for CM

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe17 Determining halo profile DM Gamma Ray Flux:  1/r 2 =2 2 Gaussian ovals

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe18 Enhancement of rings over 1/r 2 profile 2 and 7, respectively. Mass in rings 1.6 and 0.3% of total DM 14 kpc coincides with ring of stars at kpc due to infall of dwarf galaxy (Yanny, Ibata, …..) 4 kpc coincides with ring of neutral hydrogen molecules! Fit results of halo parameters ( from WMAP) Parameter values: H2H2 H R [kpc] 4 Boostfactor  Dokuchaev et al: 10<B<200, IDM2004

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe19 Halo density on scale of 300 kpc Sideview Topview Cored isothermal profile with scale 4 kpc Total mass: solar masses

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe20 Halo density on scale of 30 kpc Sideview Topview

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe21 Longitude fits for 1/r 2 profile with/w.o. rings Halo parameters from fit to 180 sky directions: 4 long. profiles for latitudes <5 0, 5 0 <b<10 0, 10 0 <b<20 0, 20 0 <b<90 0 (=4x45=180 directions) WITHOUT rings DISC 5 0 <b< <b< <b<90 0 WITH 2 rings DISC 5 0 <b< <b< <b<20 0 E > 0.5 GeV

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe22 Longitude on linear scale ABOVE 0.5 GeV BELOW 0.5 GeV

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe23 Do other galaxies have bumps in rotation curves? Sofue & Honma

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe24 From Eric Hayashi

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe25 Normalization of background: Compare with GALPROP, which gives absolute prediction of background from gas distributions etc.

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe26 Background scaling factors Background scaling factor = Data between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV/GALPROP GALPROP = computer code simulating our galaxy (Moskalenko, Strong)

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe27 Normalization of DMA -> “Boost factor” (= enhancement of DMA by clustering of DM)

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe28 Clustering of DM -> boosts annih. rate Clumps with M min give the dominant contribution to DM annihilation -> many in a given direction -> similar boost factor in all directions Annihilation  DM density squared! Clustersize: cm =10x solar system M min  M סּ Cluster density  25 pc -3 Halo mass fraction in clumps: From Berezinsky, Dokuchaev, Eroshenko Boost factor  / 2 

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe29 What about Supersymmetry? Assume mSUGRA 5 parameters: m 0, m 1/2, tanb, A, sign μ

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe30 Annihilation cross sections in m 0 -m 1/2 plane (μ > 0, A 0 =0) tan=5 tan=50 bb t  WW bb t  WW For WMAP x-section of  cm 3 /s one needs large tanβ EGRET WMAP

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe31 Coannihilations vs selfannihilation of DM If it happens that other SUSY particles are around at the freeze-out time, they may coannihilate with DM. E.g. Stau + Neutralino -> tau Chargino + Neutralino -> W However, this requires extreme fine tuning of masses, since number density drops exponentially with mass. But more serious: coannihilaition will cause excessive boostfactors Since  anni =  coanni +  selfanni must yield =10 26 cm 3 /s. This means if coannihilation dominates, selfannihilation  0 In present universe only selfannihilation can happen, since only lightest neutralino stable, other SUSY particles decayed, so no coannihilation. If selfannihilation x-section 0, no indirect detection. CONCLUSION: EGRET data excludes largely coannih.

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe32 EGRET excess interpreted as DM consistent with WMAP, Supergravity and electroweak constraints MSUGRA can fulfill all constraints from WMAP, LEP, b->s , g-2 and EGRET simultaneously, if DM is neutralino with mass in range GeV and squarks and sleptons are O(1 TeV) WMAP EGRET Stau coannihilation m A resonance Bulk Incomp. with EGRET data Stau LSP No EWSB

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe33 SUSY Mass spectra in mSUGRA compatible with WMAP AND EGRET LSP largely Bino  DM is supersymmetric partner of CMB Charginos, neutralinos and gluinos light

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe34 Unification of gauge couplings With SUSY spectrum from EGRET data and start values of couplings from final LEP data perfect gauge coupling unification possible Update from Amaldi, dB, F ü rstenau, PLB SM SUSY

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe35 Predictions from EGRET data assuming Supersymmetry Comparison with direct DM Searches DAMA CDMS ZEPLIN Edelweiss Projections Spin-independent Spin-dependent

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe36 Positron fraction and antiprotons from present balloon exp. SAME Halo and WIMP parameters as for GAMMA RAYS but fluxes dependent on propagation! DMA can be used to tune models: at present no convection, nor anisotropic diffusion in spiral arms. Positrons Antiprotons Positrons Signal Background Signal Background

March. 7, 2005 Moriond Electroweak, 2005, W. de Boer, Univ. Karlsruhe37 Summary EGRET excess shows all key features from DM annihilation: These combined features provide FIRST (>10  ) EVIDENCE that DM is not so dark and follow ALL DMA expectations imagined so far. Excess has same shape in all sky directions: everywhere it is perfectly (only?) explainable with superposition of background AND mono-energetic quarks of GeV Results and x-sect. in agreement with SUPERSYMMETRY Excess connected to MASS, since it can explain peculiar shape of rotation curve Excess follows expectations from galaxy formation: 1/r 2 profile with substructure, visible matter/DM  0.02 Conventional models CANNOT explain above points SIMULTANEOUSLY, especially spectrum of gamma rays in all directions, DM density profile, shape of rotation curve, stability of ring of stars at 14 kpc,..