Next Article in Journal
Spherically Symmetric Exact Vacuum Solutions in Einstein-Aether Theory
Next Article in Special Issue
Modified Equations of State for Dark Energy and Observational Limitations
Previous Article in Journal
Tractor Beams, Pressor Beams and Stressor Beams in General Relativity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hyperfine Splitting of Excited States of New Heavy Hadrons and Low-Energy Interaction of Hadronic Dark Matter with Photons, Nucleons, and Leptons
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

A Dark Matter WIMP That Can Be Detected and Definitively Identified with Currently Planned Experiments

Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Universe 2021, 7(8), 270; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7080270
Submission received: 21 June 2021 / Revised: 22 July 2021 / Accepted: 23 July 2021 / Published: 27 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Focus on Dark Matter)

Abstract

:
A recently proposed dark matter WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) has only second-order couplings to gauge bosons and itself. As a result, it has small annihilation, scattering, and creation cross-sections, and is consequently consistent with all current experiments and the observed abundance of dark matter. These cross-sections are, however, still sufficiently large to enable detection in experiments that are planned for the near future, and definitive identification in experiments proposed on a longer time scale. The (multi-channel) cross-section for annihilation is consistent with thermal production and freeze-out in the early universe, and with current evidence for dark matter annihilation in analyses of the observations of gamma rays by Fermi-LAT and antiprotons by AMS-02, as well as the constraints from Planck and Fermi-LAT. The cross-section for direct detection via collision with xenon nuclei is estimated to be slightly below 10 47 cm 2 , which should be attainable by LZ and Xenon nT and well within the reach of Darwin. The cross-section for collider detection via vector boson fusion is estimated to be ∼1 fb, and may be ultimately attainable by the high-luminosity LHC; definitive collider identification will probably require the more powerful facilities now being proposed.

1. Introduction

Following many brilliant innovations during the past third of a century, current dark matter experiments have achieved amazing sensitivities [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], imposing stringent constraints on any theoretical dark matter candidate [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In particular, the most simplistic models with supersymmetry (susy) and weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) have been disconfirmed by experiment, and this has led some to increasing pessimism about their existence [34,35,36]. However, there are still quite compelling arguments for both susy [37,38,39,40] and WIMPs [41,42]. A natural supersymmetric dark matter particle is still possible in a multicomponent dark matter scenario, containing both, e.g., the lightest neutralino of susy and some other constituent such as the axion [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53].
Here, however, we will focus on a recently proposed WIMP [54] which does not require susy, which can account for the dark matter either by itself or as part of a multicomponent scenario, and which is fully consistent with experiment and observation. This particle is the lowest-mass “higgson" [54], represented by H 0 to distinguish it from the lowest mass Higgs boson h 0 and higgsino h ˜ 0 .

2. Mathematical Formulation

Before gauge interactions are added, the action for a generic 4-component higgson field H is
S H = d 4 x H x μ μ m 2 H x .
As described in Ref. [54], these and Higgs/amplitude modes are the Lorentz-invariant mass eigenstates in an extended Higgs sector.
The gauge interactions of H 0 are given by [54]
L 0 Z = g Z 2 4 H 0 Z μ Z μ H 0 , L 0 W = g 2 2 H 0 W μ + W μ H 0
where g Z = g / cos θ w . The original electroweak gauge covariant derivative after symmetry-breaking [55]
D μ = μ i g 2 W μ + T + + W μ T i g cos θ w Z μ T 3 sin 2 θ w Q i e A μ Q
with
μ Z μ = 0 , μ W μ ± = 0 , μ A μ = 0
reduces to the simple second-order interactions of (2) because H 0 is one of the real components of a Majorana-like bosonic field, for which the first-order gauge interactions vanish, with the generic form
Φ S = H S + i H S , Φ S = 1 2 Φ s Φ s c .
Here, each 4-component complex field Φ S consists of a primitive 2-component field Φ s and its charge conjugate.
The present theory provides no interaction of the higgson H 0 with the Higgs boson h 0 , so we will take this interaction to be zero. This implies that:
(i) The dark matter particle H 0 interacts with only the Z and W gauge bosons (and itself), and
(ii) the role of susy in protecting the mass of the Higgs boson is unchanged, with the usual cancellation of radiative corrections between bosons and fermions. The present picture is thus compatible with susy (while not requiring it).
In Figure 1 and Figure 2 we show some of the processes involved in annihilation and scattering of neutralinos. These and many other processes are not available to higgsons, which can therefore have much smaller cross-sections. One of the most important aspects of the present theory is that the processes relevant to dark matter production and detection—shown in Figure 3—are very much simplified and weakened compared to those of susy models.

3. Results

We have performed approximate calculations of the annihilation cross-sections for processes shown in the left-most panel of Figure 3, using standard methods [55,56], and making the approximation of neglecting the masses of the fermions (which are all small compared to m Z , m W , and m H ). We find that
σ a n n v σ v S with m H 72 GeV
where σ v S = 2.2 × 10 26 cm 3 / s is the benchmark value obtained by Steigman et al. [57] for a WIMP with mass above 10 GeV that is its own antiparticle, if the relic dark matter density is to agree with astronomical observations.
We have also made crude estimates of the scattering and creation cross-sections, but for these we principally rely on previous detailed calculations for closely related processes. In particular, the cross-sections for H 0 will be the same as those for H I 0 in the inert doublet model (IDM) [58], which adds an extra field
H I + 1 2 H I 0 + i A I 0 ,
if (i) the coupling of H I 0 to the Higgs is set equal to zero and (ii) the masses of the other particles A I 0 and H I + are set far above that of H I 0 . In addition, the cross-section for the creation processes on the right of Figure 3 are comparable to those for double-Higgs production via vector boson fusion. Based on the calculations discussed below [59,60,61,62,63], we estimate that the cross-section for collider detection in an LHC proton-proton collision is ∼10 3 pb and that the cross-section for direct detection in a Xe-based experiment is slightly below 10 11 pb.
The (multi-channel) annihilation cross-section of (6) is consistent with the limits set by observation of gamma-ray emissions from dwarf spheroidal galaxies by Fermi-LAT [64,65,66].
This cross-section and mass are also consistent with analyses of the gamma ray excess from the Galactic center observed by Fermi-LAT [67,68,69,70,71], and with analyses of the antiprotons observed by AMS [71,72,73,74,75], which independently have been interpreted as potential evidence of dark matter annihilation. The inferred values of the particle mass and annihilation cross-section are in fact remarkably similar to those obtained here; see, e.g., the abstracts of Refs. [69,74], and Figure 12 of Ref. [75].
The predictions of the present theory within this context are also very similar to those for the IDM [58] if the masses of A I 0 and H I ± are well separated from that of H I 0 and the Higgs coupling is small. A very detailed analysis of the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data, and its comparison with IDM predictions, has been given in Ref. [58]. For annihilations of a dark matter WIMP with a mass of ∼72 GeV the basic qualitative conclusions are the same as above.
The Planck observations of the CMB have ruled out a dark matter interpretation of the AMS positron excess [19], but are quite consistent with a dark matter particle having the mass and annihilation cross-section of the present candidate. Further clarification may come from future experiments such as the Cherenkov Telescope Array [76].
The present particle is also consistent with the current collider-detection limits. The best possibility for creation in a collider experiment appears to be the process depicted in Figure 3. In the present context this is a weak process, but the results of Refs. [59,60] (for double Higgs production) and [61,62] (for the IDM), indicate that the cross-section for LHC proton-proton scattering is of ∼1 fb, and that observation of this process should ultimately be possible with a sustained run of the high-luminosity LHC (if an integrated luminosity of up to 3000 fb 1 can be achieved). Definitive collider studies may have to await a 100 TeV hadron collider or a very high energy lepton collider.
The best prospect for direct detection appears to be the one-loop processes shown in Figure 3, which are the same as for the IDM in Figure 1 of [63]. The results in e.g., Figures 2, 3 and 7 of that paper—as well as the general conclusion “ σ S I (1-loop) is never below ∼10 11 pb” indicate that this mechanism—scattering via an exchange of two Z or W bosons—has a cross-section slightly below 10 11 pb for the present particle, which should be within reach of the LZ and Xenon nT direct-detection experiments now under construction. It should be well within reach of Darwin, the planned ultimate extension of the Xenon series of experiments, and certainly above the neutrino floor [8].

4. Conclusions

The results described above—from approximate calculations, estimates, and comparisons with calculations for closely related processes—make it clear that the present dark matter candidate is consistent with current experiments and observations, while also potentially observable within the foreseeable future through a range of experiments. We plan to perform more detailed and precise calculations using the specialized software that has been developed for this purpose, such as MadDM [77] for relic abundance, indirect detection, and direct detection, and Madgraph, Pythia, and Delphes for collider detection.
It should be mentioned that the lowest-mass excitation H 0 is not the only stable higgson, but it will emerge from the early universe with the highest density: The more massive particles will fall out of equilibrium earlier and be rapidly thinned out by the subsequent expansion, and they also will have larger annihilation cross-sections. The higher mass higgsons should eventually be observable in collider experiments at higher energies.
The fact that the present WIMP is fully consistent with experiment and observation, but still observable in the near future through multiple experiments, suggests that the patient search for WIMPs may soon be rewarded. Historic achievements have never been easy—the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, black holes, and atoms were, respectively, observed about a half century, century, two centuries, and two millennia after they were predicted—and it will not be surprising if WIMP detection comes only after decades of heroic efforts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L., B.T. (Bailey Tallman), S.E., T.C., B.T. (Brandon Torres), S.H., D.C.G., J.J., D.L. and R.A.; Data curation, R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research required no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aprile, E.; et al. [XENON Collaboration] Dark Matter Search Results from a One Tonne×Year Exposure of XENON1T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 111302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Aprile, E.; et al. [XENON Collaboration] Constraining the Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Cross Sections with XENON1T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 141301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Akerib, D.S.; et al. [LUX Collaboration] Results on the Spin-Dependent Scattering of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles on Nucleons from the Run 3 Data of the LUX Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 161302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Agnese, R.; et al. [SuperCDMS Collaboration] Search for low-mass dark matter with CDMSlite using a profile likelihood fit. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 062001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Cui, X.; et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration] Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 181302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Amole, C.; et al. [PICO Collaboration] Improved dark matter search results from PICO-2L Run 2. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 93, 061101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. ANTARES Collaboration and IceCube Collaboration. Combined search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilation in the Galactic Center with ANTARES and IceCube. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 082002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Billard, J.; Figueroa-Feliciano, E.; Strigari, L. Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments. Phys. Rev. D 2014, 89, 023524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Baum, S.; Catena, R.; Conrad, J.; Freese, K.; Krauss, M.B. Determining Dark Matter properties with a XENONnT/LZ signal and LHC-Run3 mono-jet searches. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 083002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Lin, T. TASI lectures on dark matter models and direct detection. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1904.07915. and references therein. [Google Scholar]
  11. Undagoitia, T.M.; Rauch, L. Dark matter direct-detection experiments. J. Phys. G 2016, 43, 013001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lisanti, M. Lectures on Dark Matter Physics. In New Frontiers in Fields and Strings: TASI 2015 Proceedings of the 2015 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics; TASI Lecture Notes; World Scientific: Singapore, 2017; pp. 399–446. [Google Scholar]
  13. Klasen, M.; Pohl, M.; Sigl, G. Indirect and direct search for dark matter. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2015, 85, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bertone, G.; Hooper, D.; Silk, J. Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints. Phys. Rep. 2005, 405, 279–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Porter, T.A.; Johnson, R.P.; Graham, P.W. Dark Matter Searches with Astroparticle Data. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2011, 49, 155–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Slatyer, T.R. TASI Lectures on Indirect Detection of Dark Matter. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1710.05137. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hooper, D. TASI Lectures on Indirect Searches For Dark Matter. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1812.02029. [Google Scholar]
  18. Strigari, L.E. Galactic Searches for Dark Matter. Phys. Rep. 2013, 531, 1–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A6, See Figure 46 in particular. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Boveia, A.; Doglioni, C. Dark Matter Searches at Colliders. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2018, 68, 429–459, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kahlhoefer, F. Review of LHC dark matter searches. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2017, 32, 1730006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abercrombie, D.; Akchurin, N.; Akilli, E.; Maestre, J.A.; Allen, B.; Gonzalez, B.A.; Andrea, J.; Arbey, A.; Azuelos, G.; Azzi, P.; et al. Dark Matter benchmark models for early LHC Run-2 Searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum. Phys. Dark Univ. 2019, 26, 100371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. CMS Collaboration. Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 2019, 793, 520–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aaboud, M. et al. [ATLAS Collaboration]. Combination of Searches for Invisible Higgs Boson Decays with the ATLAS Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 231801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Arrenberg, S. Dark Matter in the Coming Decade: Complementary Paths to Discovery and Beyond; Snowmass 2013 CF4 Working Group Report; Fermi National Accelerator Lab. (FNAL): Batavia, IL, USA, 2013.
  26. Baer, H.; Choi, K.-Y.; Kim, J.E.; Roszkowski, L. Dark matter production in the early Universe: Beyond the thermal WIMP paradigm. Phys. Rep. 2015, 555, 1–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Olive, K.A. Supersymmetric Dark Matter after Run I at the LHC: From a TeV to a PeV. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference from the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale, Ioannina, Greece, 25–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Serce, H. SUSY under siege from direct and indirect WIMP detection experiments. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 115019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Sengupta, D.; Tata, X. Is natural higgsino-only dark matter excluded? Eur. Phys. J. C 2018, 78, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roszkowski, L.; Sessolo, E.M.; Trojanowski, S. WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—Current status and future prospects. Rept. Prog. Phys. 2018, 81, 066201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Sengupta, D.; Salam, S.; Sinha, K. Midi-review: Status of weak scale supersymmetry after LHC Run 2 and ton-scale noble liquid WIMP searches. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2020, 229, 3085–3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kowalska, K.; Sessolo, E.M. The discreet charm of higgsino dark matter: A pocket review. Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 2018, 6828560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Baudis, L.; Profumo, S. Dark Matter. In M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group). Phys. Rev. D 2018, 98, 030001, 2018 and 2021 Update. Available online: https://pdg.lbl.gov/ (accessed on 26 July 2021).
  34. Bertone, G. The moment of truth for WIMP dark matter. Nature 2010, 468, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Peskin, M.E. Supersymmetric dark matter in the harsh light of the Large Hadron Collider. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 12256–12263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Olive, K.A. Supersymmetric Dark Matter or Not. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop Dark Side of the Universe 2015, Kyoto, Japan, 14–18 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Haber, H.E.; Kane, G.L. The search for supersymmetry: Probing physics beyond the standard model. Phys. Rep. 1985, 117, 75–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Baer, H.; Tata, X. Weak Scale Supersymmetry: From Superfields to Scattering Events; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; and references therein. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kane, G.L. (Ed.) Perspectives on Supersymmetry II; World Scientific: Singapore, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Allanach, B.C.; Haber, H.E. Supersymmetry, Part I (Theory), and O. Buchmuller and P. de Jon Supersymmetry, Part II (Experiment). In M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group). Phys. Rev. D 2018, 98, 030001, 2018 and 2019 Update. Available online: http://pdg.lbl.gov (accessed on 26 July 2021).
  41. Jungman, G.; Kamionkowski, M.; Griest, K. Supersymmetric Dark Matter. Phys. Rep. 1996, 267, 195–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kamionkowski, M. WIMP and Axion Dark Matter. arXiv 1997, arXiv:hep-ph/9710467. [Google Scholar]
  43. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Huang, P. Hidden SUSY at the LHC: The light higgsino-world scenario and the role of a lepton collider. J. High Energy Phys. 2011, 2011, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Huang, P.; Mickelson, D.; Mustafayev, A.; Tata, X. Radiative natural supersymmetry: Reconciling electroweak fine-tuning and the Higgs boson mass. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 87, 115028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Baer, H.; Barger, V.; Mickelson, D. Direct and indirect detection of higgsino-like WIMPs: Concluding the story of electroweak naturalness. Phys. Lett. B 2013, 726, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Tata, X. Natural Supersymmetry: Status and Prospects. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2020, 229, 3061–3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Peccei, R.D.; Quinn, H.R. CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1977, 38, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Weinberg, S. A New Light Boson? Phys. Rev. Lett. 1978, 40, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wilczek, F. Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1978, 40, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sikivie, P. Experimental Tests of the “Invisible” Axion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1983, 51, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sikivie, P.; Sullivan, N.; Tanner, D.B. Proposal for Axion Dark Matter Detection Using an LC Circuit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 112, 131301, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Irastorza, I.G.; Redondo, J. New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2018, 102, 89–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Graham, P.W.; Irastorza, I.G.; Lamoreaux, S.K.; Lindner, A.; van Bibber, K.A. Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-like Particles. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2015, 65, 485–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Thornberry, R.; Throm, M.; Killough, J.; Blend, D.; Erickson, M.; Sun, B.; Bays, B.; Frohaug, G.; Allen, R.E. Experimental signatures of a new dark matter WIMP. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2104.11715. [Google Scholar]
  55. Peskin, M.E.; Schroeder, D.V. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory; Perseus: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cheng, T.-P.; Li, L.-F. Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  57. Steigman, G.; Dasgupta, B.; Beacom, J.F. Precise relic WIMP abundance and its impact on searches for dark matter annihilation. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 023506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Eiteneuer, B.; Goudelis, A.; Heisig, J. The inert doublet model in the light of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data: A global fit analysis. Eur. Phys. J. C 2017, 77, 624, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Bishara, F.; Contino, R.; Rojo, J. Higgs pair production in vector-boson fusion at the LHC and beyond. Eur. Phys. J. C 2017, 77, 481, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Dreyer, F.A.; Karlberg, A.; Lang, J.-N.; Pellen, M. Precise predictions for double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Dutta, B.; Palacio, G.; Restrepo, D.; Ruiz-Ávarez, J.D. Vector Boson Fusion in the Inert Doublet Model. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 055045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Dercks, D.; Robens, T. Constraining the Inert Doublet Model using Vector Boson Fusion. Eur. Phys. J. C 2019, 79, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Klasen, M.; Yaguna, C.E.; Ruiz-Ávarez, J.D. Electroweak corrections to the direct detection cross section of inert higgs dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 87, 075025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Leane, R.K.; Slatyer, T.R.; Beacom, J.F.; Ng, K.C.Y. GeV-scale thermal WIMPs: Not even slightly ruled out. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 98, 023016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ando, S.I.; Geringer-Sameth, A.; Hiroshima, N.; Hoof, S.; Trotta, R.; Walker, M.G. Structure Formation Models Weaken Limits on WIMP Dark Matter from Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 061302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leane, R.K. Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.00513. [Google Scholar]
  67. Goodenough, L.; Hooper, D. Possible Evidence for Dark Matter Annihilation in the Inner Milky Way from the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope. arXiv 2009, arXiv:0910.2998. [Google Scholar]
  68. Vitale, V.; et al. [For the Fermi/LAT Collaboration] Indirect Search for Dark Matter from the center of the Milky Way with the Fermi-Large Area Telescope. arXiv 2009, arXiv:0912.3828. [Google Scholar]
  69. Karwin, C.; Murgia, S.; Tait, T.M.P.; Porter, T.A.; Tanedo, P. Dark matter interpretation of the Fermi-LAT observation toward the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 103005, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Leane, R.K.; Slatyer, T.R. Revival of the Dark Matter Hypothesis for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 123, 241101, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Cuoco, A.; Heisig, J.; Korsmeier, M.; Krämer, M. Probing dark matter annihilation in the Galaxy with antiprotons and gamma rays. JCAP 2017, 10, 053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cuoco, A.; Krämer, M.; Korsmeier, M. Novel dark matter constraints from antiprotons in the light of AMS-02. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 191102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Cui, M.-Y.; Yuan, Q.; Tsai, Y.-L.S.; Fan, Y.-Z. Possible dark matter annihilation signal in the AMS-02 antiproton data. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 191101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Cholis, I.; Linden, T.; Hooper, D. A Robust Excess in the Cosmic-Ray Antiproton Spectrum: Implications for Annihilating Dark Matter. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 103026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Cuoco, A.; Heisig, J.; Klamt, L.; Korsmeier, M.; Krämer, M. Scrutinizing the evidence for dark matter in cosmic-ray antiprotons. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 103014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Hermann, G.; et al. [The CTA Consortium] The future ground-based gamma-ray observatory CTA. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 2011, 212, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ambrogi, F.; Arina, C.; Backović, M.; Heisig, J.; Maltoni, F.; Mantani, L.; Mattelaer, O.; Mohlabeng, G. MadDM v.3.0: A Comprehensive Tool for Dark Matter Studies. Phys. Dark Univ. 2019, 24, 100249, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Left to right: Annihilation to fermion-antifermion pairs via Z 0 exchange, and sfermion exchange, occurs for neutralinos but not higgsons. (These left two figures follow Ref. [41], retaining the same conventions.) Annihilation to W + W pairs via χ ± exchange, and coannihilation to Z 0 W + via χ 2 exchange, occur for neutralinos but not higgons. (These right two figures follow Ref. [32], retaining the same conventions.)
Figure 1. Left to right: Annihilation to fermion-antifermion pairs via Z 0 exchange, and sfermion exchange, occurs for neutralinos but not higgsons. (These left two figures follow Ref. [41], retaining the same conventions.) Annihilation to W + W pairs via χ ± exchange, and coannihilation to Z 0 W + via χ 2 exchange, occur for neutralinos but not higgons. (These right two figures follow Ref. [32], retaining the same conventions.)
Universe 07 00270 g001
Figure 2. Left panels: Scattering off an atomic nucleus via Z 0 exchange and squark exchange occurs for neutralinos but not higgsons. Right panels: Scattering off an atomic nucleus via Higgs exchange leads to strong spin-independent scattering for natural neutralinos which are dominantly higgsino but have a significant gaugino admixture.
Figure 2. Left panels: Scattering off an atomic nucleus via Z 0 exchange and squark exchange occurs for neutralinos but not higgsons. Right panels: Scattering off an atomic nucleus via Higgs exchange leads to strong spin-independent scattering for natural neutralinos which are dominantly higgsino but have a significant gaugino admixture.
Universe 07 00270 g002
Figure 3. From left to right: (i) Example of annihilation into one real and one virtual W boson; there are 18 such processes for fermion-antifermion pairs (6 for leptons and 12 for the quarks with sufficiently low masses). (ii) Collider creation through vector boson fusion. (iii) and (iv) Scattering off a quark in an atomic nucleus through Z and W loop processes.
Figure 3. From left to right: (i) Example of annihilation into one real and one virtual W boson; there are 18 such processes for fermion-antifermion pairs (6 for leptons and 12 for the quarks with sufficiently low masses). (ii) Collider creation through vector boson fusion. (iii) and (iv) Scattering off a quark in an atomic nucleus through Z and W loop processes.
Universe 07 00270 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

LaFontaine, C.; Tallman, B.; Ellis, S.; Croteau, T.; Torres, B.; Hernandez, S.; Guerrero, D.C.; Jaksik, J.; Lubanski, D.; Allen, R. A Dark Matter WIMP That Can Be Detected and Definitively Identified with Currently Planned Experiments. Universe 2021, 7, 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7080270

AMA Style

LaFontaine C, Tallman B, Ellis S, Croteau T, Torres B, Hernandez S, Guerrero DC, Jaksik J, Lubanski D, Allen R. A Dark Matter WIMP That Can Be Detected and Definitively Identified with Currently Planned Experiments. Universe. 2021; 7(8):270. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7080270

Chicago/Turabian Style

LaFontaine, Caden, Bailey Tallman, Spencer Ellis, Trevor Croteau, Brandon Torres, Sabrina Hernandez, Diego Cristancho Guerrero, Jessica Jaksik, Drue Lubanski, and Roland Allen. 2021. "A Dark Matter WIMP That Can Be Detected and Definitively Identified with Currently Planned Experiments" Universe 7, no. 8: 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7080270

APA Style

LaFontaine, C., Tallman, B., Ellis, S., Croteau, T., Torres, B., Hernandez, S., Guerrero, D. C., Jaksik, J., Lubanski, D., & Allen, R. (2021). A Dark Matter WIMP That Can Be Detected and Definitively Identified with Currently Planned Experiments. Universe, 7(8), 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7080270

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop