Light Neutralinos and Charginos are Expected!

March 29, 2009 at 2:14 pm 5 comments

One of my favorite papers of the last year is a very well-done scan of the phenomenological-MSSM (pMSSM) by Berger, Gainer, Hewett and Rizzo: arXiv:0812.0980 which has the wonderful title, Supersymmetry Without Prejudice. The authors applied an absolute minimum of theoretical constraints, and a maximum of experimental ones, and they took real care to do it right. (OK, you do have to accept the premise that the MSSM is the right theory of nature, but many people are prepared to do that for the sake of discussion, i.e., as an hypothetical.)

So what are the consequences?

A follow-up paper just appeared, arXiv:0903.4409, which elucidates the consequences of the first paper for the properties of dark matter particles. The authors (R.C. Cotta, J.S. Gainer, J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo) find that the lightest neutralino and chargino states should be rather light, in the range 100 to 400 GeV, and this conclusion does not depend crucially on the way they sample parameter space. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the mass difference typically is small – less than 10 GeV in 80% of the cases generated by the scan. Interestingly, searches for quasi-stable, heavy charged particles at the Tevatron have had an important impact here – something that the LHC experimenters should (and will) notice.

M(NLSP) - M(LSP)  versus  M(LSP)

M(NLSP) - M(LSP) versus M(LSP)

Another interesting point is that the majority of the models surviving current experimental bounds are inconsistent with mSUGRA.

The lightest neutralino provides the best candidate for dark matter, but as it turns out, only a small fraction of the models predict a relic density high enough for this one particle to explain what is observed. Typical models predict a relic density ten times smaller than what is observed. So while it is true that Supersymmetry provides a good candidate for dark matter particles, obtaining a high enough relic density does not happen naturally. It might have been interesting to see whether the models which do match the WMAP relic density are different from the bulk of the models (sorry for the pun), but the authors do not furnish that information, unfortunately.

The authors checked predictions for direct detection of dark matter and found a huge range of predicted cross sections extending some eight orders of magnitude below the current bounds from XENON10 and CDMS. Most of the models, however, could be tested if the sensitivity of these experiments were improved by a factor of a thousand. (Again the question: is there anything distinctive about the models which are near the current XENON and CDMS sensitivities?) The authors also compared predictions to the PAMELA data; large boost factors are needed and the shape does not, to my eye, agree with the published data.

Bottom line: SUGRA-lovers and tri-lepton devotees, beware!

About these ads

Entry filed under: Particle Physics. Tags: .

Workshop in Torino shows CMS is ready! 100 Hours of Astronomy – Historic Telescope at Northwestern

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. JoAnne  |  March 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Hey, Michael. Thanks! I think it’s a pretty cool paper too. ;)

  • 2. Tim Tait  |  April 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Another interesting note: Jamie Gainer will be joining us at Northwestern next year as a postdoc!

  • 3. Michael Schmitt  |  April 9, 2009 at 1:30 am

    Wonderful news. I look forward to talking to him there. :)

  • 4. Guest  |  July 27, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    “The bad news is that the mass difference typically is small – less than 10 GeV in 80% of the cases generated by the scan.”

    This is very good new for the G2-MSSM where the LSP is Wino (if one turns off flavor violating effects) and is almost degenerate (\delta m~100-200 MeV) with the lightest chargino. In this case the relic density (which comes out pretty close to the observed value) is generated non-thermally via moduli decays.

  • 5. apetrov  |  December 8, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Actually, the relic density constraint may turn out to be irrelevant — if part (or all) of Dark Matter is produced non-thermally — for example, in decays of some long-lived resonances. It might be not as beautiful as the thermal mechanism, but it is possible…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Recent Posts

March 2009
« Jan   Apr »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers

%d bloggers like this: