Direkte und indirekte Suche nach Dunkler Materie

1

Astroteilchenphysik in Deutschland - Status und Perspektiven

Karlsruhe, 30. Sept/1. Okt. 2014

Thomas Schwetz-Mangold

Woraus besteht die Dunkle Materie?

2

Evidence for Dark Matter from cosmology Cosmic microwave background

ΛCDM fit using CMB+BAO Planck, 1303.5076

baryons: Ωbh2 = 0.02214± 0.00024

CDM: Ωch2 = 0.1187± 0.0017

DE: ΩΛ = 0.692± 0.010

H0 h = 0.6780± 0.0077

⇒ ΩBΩM

= 0.186± 0.0034

“normal” matter (baryons) can provide only about 19% of the total matterin the universe!

T. Schwetz 24

ΛCDM Fit an CMB + BAOPlanck, 1303.5076

68% Dunkle Energie

27% Dunkle Materie

5% Atome

axino

keV ν

?

Dunkle Materie an der TeV-Skala

3

ΩDM ≈ 2× 10−37cm2

σannihv≈ 0.23

Lee, Weinberg, 1977 Bernstein, Brown, Feinberg, 1985 Scherrer, Turner, 1986

“typischer” Annihilationswirkungsquerschnitt:

σannihv ∼g4

2πm2 6× 10−37cm2

g

0.1

4 m

100GeV

−2

• “Weakly Interacting Massive Particle” (WIMP)

• Zusammenhang mit neuer Physik and TeV-Skala?

Experimentelle Suche nach WIMPs

4

DM DM

SM SM

Experimentelle Suche nach WIMPs

4

DM DM

SM SM

indirekte Suche

PAMELA, FERMI, AMS-2, HESS, IceCube

Experimentelle Suche nach WIMPs

4

DM DM

SM SM

indirekte Suche Beschleuniger

PAMELA, FERMI, AMS-2, HESS, IceCube

LHC

Experimentelle Suche nach WIMPs

4

DM DM

SM SM

indirekte Suche Beschleuniger

direkte SuchePAMELA, FERMI, AMS-2, HESS, IceCube

LHC

XENON, LUX, CDMS, Edelweiss, DAMA, CoGeNT, CRESST, PICASSO, COUPP,...

Inhalt:• indirekte Suche nach DM

kurze Kommentare zu - 10 GeV Gamma Exess vom gal. Zentrum- 130 GeV FERMI Gamma-Line- Positronanteil in kosmischer Strahlung

• direkte Suche nach DM- Überblick über derzeitige Situation- Status der DM Interpretation von DAMA und CDMS-Si- DM-Halo unabhängige Methoden

• beschränke mich auf WIMPs- z.B.: keine Zeit für 3.5 keV X-ray Linie (warme DM, z.B. steriles Neutrino)

5

subjektive Selektion an Themen!

Indirekte Suche nach WIMPs

6

DM DM

SM SM

Indirekte Suche nach WIMPs

6

DM DM

SM SM

today @ freeze-out

Indirekte Suche nach WIMPs

6

DM DM

SM SM

today @ freeze-out

• Wirkungsquerschnitt heute entspricht dem “thermalen” nur für s-Wellen Prozesse (v-unabhängig)

• p-Wellen-Annihilation: σv ~ v2 ⇒@ freeze-out: v2 ~ T/m ~ 0.05 c2 heute: v ~ 10-3 c

FERMI dwarf spheroidials

7

10−22

10−23

10−24

10−25

10−26

σv

(cm

3s−

1)

e+e−

Observed Limit

Median Expected

68% Containment

95% Containment

10−22

10−23

10−24

10−25

10−26

σv

(cm

3s−

1)

µ+µ−

101 102 103

Mass (GeV/c2)

10−22

10−23

10−24

10−25

10−26

σv

(cm

3s−

1)

τ+τ−

uu

bb

101 102 103

Mass (GeV/c2)

W+W−

FIG. 5. Constraints on the dark matter annihilation cross section at 95% CL derived from acombined analysis of 15 dwarf spheroidal galaxies assuming an NFW dark matter distribution(solid line). In each panel bands represent the expected sensitivity as calculated by repeatingthe combined analysis on 300 randomly-selected sets of blank fields at high Galactic latitudes inthe LAT data. The dashed line shows the median expected sensitivity while the bands representthe 68% and 95% quantiles. For each set of random locations, nominal J-factors are randomizedin accord with their measurement uncertainties. Thus, the positions and widths of the expectedsensitivity bands reflect the range of statistical fluctuations expected both from the LAT data andfrom the stellar kinematics of the dwarf galaxies. The most significant excess in the observed limitsoccurs for the bb channel between 10GeV and 25GeV with TS = 8.7 (global p-value of p ≈ 0.08).

36

Ackermann, 1310.0828

Limit an den DM Annihilationsquerschn.von γ-Strahlung von der kombinierten Analyse von 15 dwarf spheroidial Galaxien

“thermale Xsec” für DM masse ~ 10 GeV

FERMI γ Exess vom galaktischem Zentrum

• GeV excess robust and highly statistically significant

• with a spectrum, angular distribution, and overall nor- malization that is in good agreement with that predicted by simple annihilating dark matter models.

• the signal is very well fit by a 31-40 GeV dark matter particle annihilating to b b with an annihilation cross section of σv = (1.4 − 2.0) × 10−26 cm3/s

• angular distribution of the excess is approximately spherically symmetric and centered around the dynamical center of the Milky Way

8

Hooper, Goodenough, 2009, 2010; many more

e.g.: Daylan et al., 1402.6703:

FERMI γ Exess vom galaktischem Zentrum

9

Hooper, Goodenough, 2009, 2010; many more

e.g.: Daylan et al., 1402.6703:

13

FIG. 14: The quality of the fit (χ2, over 25-1 degrees-of-freedom) for various annihilating dark matter models to the spectrumof the anomalous gamma-ray emission from the Inner Galaxy (as shown in Fig. 5) as a function of mass, and marginalizedover the value of the annihilation cross section. In the left frame, we show results for dark matter particles which annihilateuniquely to bb, cc, ss, light quarks (uu and/or dd), or τ+τ−. In the right frame, we consider models in which the dark matterannihilates to a combination of channels, with cross sections proportional to the square of the mass of the final state particles,the square of the charge of the final state particles, democratically to all kinematically accessible Standard Model fermions, or80% to τ+τ− and 20% to bb. The best fits are found for dark matter particles with masses in the range of ∼20-40 GeV andwhich annihilate mostly to quarks.

FIG. 15: The range of the dark matter mass and annihilation cross section required to fit the gamma-ray spectrum observedfrom the Inner Galaxy, for a variety of annihilation channels or combination of channels (see Fig. 14). The observed gamma-rayspectrum is generally best fit by dark matter particles with a mass of ∼20-40 GeV and that annihilate to quarks with a crosssection of σv ∼ (1− 2)× 10−26 cm3/s.

VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR DARK MATTER

In this section, we use the results of the previous sec-tions to constrain the characteristics of the dark matterparticle species potentially responsible for the observedgamma-ray excess. We begin by fitting various dark mat-ter models to the spectrum of the gamma-ray excess asfound in our Inner Galaxy analysis (as shown in Fig. 5).In Fig. 14, we plot the quality of this fit (χ2) as a function

of the WIMP mass, for a number of dark matter annihila-tion channels (or combination of channels), marginalizedover the value of the annihilation cross section. Giventhat this fit is performed over 25-1 degrees-of-freedom,a goodness-of-fit with a p-value of 0.05 (95% CL) cor-responds to a χ2 of approximately 36.8. We take anyvalue less than this to constitute a “good fit” to the InnerGalaxy spectrum. Excellent fits are found for dark mat-ter that annihilates to bottom, strange, or charm quarks

thermal Xsec

• Galaktisches Zentrum ist eine komplizierte Region (Astrophysik)

• “Exess” abhängig vom Untergrundmodell (kosmische Strahlung im gal. Zentr.)

• keine charakteristische spektrale Signatur

10

FERMI γ Exess vom galaktischem Zentrum

• Limits an DM Interpretation von anderen Kanälen (Antiprotonen, Radiowellen, Positronen)

11

FERMI γ Exess vom galaktischem Zentrum

Bringmann, Vollmann, Weniger, 1406.6027

Andere “DM-Signale” • FERMI γ-Linie vom galaktischem Zentrum bei

~130 GeV

• zu stark im Vergleich zu typischem Loop-Annihilationsquerschn.

• Signifikanz sinkt

12

Weniger, 1303.1798

Bringmann et al., 2012; Weniger, 2012

• Positronanteil in der kosm. Strahlung

• DM-Interpretation benötigt sehr großen Annihilationsquerschnitt (“Boostfaktor” 100~1000)

• In Widerspruch zu Limits in anderen Kanälen (Antiproton, γ-Strahlung,...)

• Astrophysikalische Erklärungen (Pulsare)

13

Andere “DM-Signale”

PAMELA, AMS-II (Vortrag v. Andreas Obermeier)

Direkte Suche nach Dunkler Materie

14

DM DM

SM SM

Direkte Suche nach Dunkler Materie

14

DM DM

SM SM

Direkte Suche - Signatur

15

dN

dER∝ ρDM

mDM

v>vmin

d3vdσ

dERvf⊕(v, t)

f⊕(v, t) = f(v + v⊙ + v⊕(t))

Ereignisse / keV :

exponentielles Spektrum jährliche Modulation

Direkte Suche - Status

16

CoGeNT

CDMSSi

CRESST

DAMA

XENON10

CDMSLT

KIMS

CDMSGe

XENON100LUX

10. 100 10001045

1044

1043

1042

1041

1040

1039

mΧ GeV

ΣSIcm2

• testen Wirkungsquerschn. ~ 10-45 cm2

• Parameterraum motiviert durch WIMP-Argument (thermal freeze-out)modellabhängig!

Bozorgnia, Catena, Schwetz, 2013Vortrag von Teresa Marrodan

σStreuung < 10-45 cm2 ↔ σAnnih. ~10-36 cm2?

WIMP-Argument vs direkte Suche

17

Beispiel: Higgsportal mit fermionischer DM χ1

Λ1(χχ)(H†

H)

WIMP-Argument vs direkte Suche

17

Beispiel: Higgsportal mit fermionischer DM χ

χ

χH

SM

SM

χ χ

(A,Z)

H

Annihilation: Streuung:

1

Λ1(χχ)(H†

H)

18

• Ausgeschlossen durch XENON, LUX

• s-Kanal Resonanz bei mχ ≈ mH/2

• pseudo-skalares Higgs-Portal

Lopez-Honorez, TSM, Zupan, 12 1

Λ5(χγ5χ)(H

†H)

1

Λ1(χχ)(H†

H)

WIMP-Argument vs direkte Suche

Hinweise für ein ~10 GeV WIMP?

• DAMA: hoch-signifikantes Signal für jährliche Modulation

• CDMS-Si: 3 Ereignisse, P=0.19% LH-test

• CoGeNT: Ereignis-Überschuss bei niedrigen Energien

• CRESST-II: mehr Ereignisse als nach Untergrundmodell erwartet (~4σ)

19

CoGeNT

20

!"#$%&'()*+,)-.+/01+1'+123+4"1"+

Background model is good fit to the data

see also, Aalseth et al., 1401.6234; Davis, McCabe, Boehm, 1405.0495

Bellis, Collar, Fields, Kelso, talk at Astroparticle 2014, Amsterdam

CRESST

21

5

FIG. 5. WIMP parameter space for spin-independent (∼A2)WIMP-nucleon scattering. The 90% C.L. upper limit (solidred) is depicted together with the expected sensitivity (1σC.L.) from the background-only model (light red band). TheCRESST 2σ contour reported in [3] is shown in light blue.The dash-dotted red line refers to the reanalyzed data fromthe CRESST commissioning run [22]. Shown in green are thelimits (90% C.L.) from Ge-based experiments: SuperCDMS(solid)[7], CDMSlite (dashed) [23] and EDELWEISS (dash-dotted) [24]. The parameter space favored by CDMS-Si [4]is shown in light green (90% C.L.), the one favored by Co-GeNT (99% C.L. [2]) and DAMA/Libra (3σ C.L. [25]) inyellow and orange. The exclusion curves from liquid xenonexperiments (90% C.L.) are drawn in blue, solid for LUX [6],dashed for XENON100 [5]. Marked in grey is the limit fora background-free CaWO4 experiment arising from coherentneutrino scattering, dominantly from solar neutrinos [26].

masses and, thus, to clarify the nature of the higher massmaximum (M1). This will be the subject of a blind anal-ysis of additional data collected during the currently on-going run.

The improved performance of the upgraded detectormanifests itself in a significantly improved sensitivity ofCRESST-II for very low WIMP masses. This can beseen by comparing the current limit (solid red line) usingthe data of a single detector to the one obtained fromthe reanalyzed commissioning run data (dash-dotted redline) [22]. For WIMP masses below 3 GeV/c2 CRESST-II probes new regions of parameter space, previously notcovered by other direct dark matter searches.

The sensitivity for light WIMPs can be improved infuture runs by further reducing the background level andenhancing the detector performance. Such improvementsare realistic and substantial gains in sensitivity for lowWIMP masses are possible, even with a moderate targetmass.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by funds of the German Fed-eral Ministry of Science and Education (BMBF), the Mu-nich Cluster of Excellence (Origin and Structure of theUniverse), the Maier-Leibnitz-Laboratorium (Garching),the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)UK, as well as the Helmholtz Alliance for AstroparticlePhysics. We gratefully acknowledge the work of MichaelStanger from the crystal laboratory of the TU Munich.We are grateful to LNGS for their generous support ofCRESST, in particular to Marco Guetti for his constantassistance.

[1] DAMA Collaboration, R. Bernabei et al., Eur. Phys. J.C 73 (2013), arXiv:1308.5109.

[2] CoGeNT Collaboration, C. E. Aalseth et al., Phys. Rev.D 88, 012002 (2013), arXiv:1208.5737.

[3] CRESST Collaboration, G. Angloher et al., Eur. Phys.J. C 72 (2012), arXiv:1109.0702.

[4] CDMS-II Collaboration, R. Agnese et al., Phys. Rev.Lett. 111, 251301 (2013), arXiv:1304.4279.

[5] XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev.Lett. 109, 181301 (2012), arXiv:1207.5988.

[6] LUX Collaboration, D. S. Akerib et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 091303 (2014).

[7] SuperCDMS Collaboration, R. Agnese et al., Phys. Rev.Lett. 112, 241302 (2014).

[8] CRESST Collaboration, G. Angloher et al., Astropart.Phys. 31, 270 (2009), arXiv:0809.1829.

[9] CRESST Collaboration, G. Angloher et al., As-tropart.Phys. 23, 325 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408006.

[10] A. Erb and J.-C. Lanfranchi, CrystEngComm 15, 2301(2013).

[11] A. Münster et al., JCAP 2014, 018 (2014),arXiv:1403.5114.

[12] R. Strauss, (to be published).[13] M. Kiefer et al., AIP Conference Proceedings 1185, 651

(2009).[14] W. Moses, S. Payne, C. W.-S, G. Hull, and B. Reuter,

IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 55, 1049 (2008).[15] R. F. Lang et al., (2009), arXiv:0910.4414.[16] C. Cozzini et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, 064606 (2004),

arXiv:nucl-ex/0408006.[17] M. Kiefer, Improving the Light Channel of the CRESST-

II Dark Matter Detectors, PhD thesis, Technische Uni-versität München, 2012.

[18] R. B. Firestone, C. Baglin, and S. Y. F. Chu, Table of

isotopes: 1998 update with CD-ROM (Wiley, New York,NY, 1998).

[19] R. Strauss et al., (2014), arXiv:1401.3332, accepted forpublication in Eur.Phys.J. C (2014).

[20] S. Yellin, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002),arXiv:physics/0203002.

[21] J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87(1996).

[22] A. Brown, S. Henry, H. Kraus, and C. McCabe, Phys.Rev. D 85, 021301 (2012), arXiv:1109.2589.

Angloher et al., 1407.3146

Vortrag von Raimund Strauss

• “possible excess over background discussed for the previous run (from 2009 to 2011) is not confirmed”• Interessantes Limit für kleine DM Masse

DAMA modulation & CDMS-Si

22

3

FIG. 2. Ionization yield versus recoil energy in all detectorsincluded in this analysis for events passing all signal criteriaexcept (top) and including (bottom) the phonon timing crite-rion. The curved black lines indicate the signal region (-1.8σand +1.2σ from the mean nuclear recoil yield) between 7 and100 keV recoil energies for detector 3 in Tower 4, while thegray band shows the range of charge thresholds across de-tectors. Electron recoils in the detector bulk have yield nearunity. The data are colored to indicate recoil energy ranges(dark to light) of 7–20, 20–30, and 30–100 keV to aid theinterpretation of Fig. 3.

of data taking (∼24 hours ).In yield, events were required to be within +1.2σ and

−1.8σ from the mean of the nuclear recoil yield. Can-didate events were also required to have phonon pulsetiming consistent with a nuclear recoil. In order to takeadvantage of the fact that the timing parameters arebetter measured at high energies, the phonon timingdata-selection cut was optimized in three energy bins:7–20 keV, 20–30 keV, and 30–100 keV [23]. Fig. 1 showsthe nuclear-recoil efficiency i.e., the estimated fraction ofnuclear recoils at a given energy that would be acceptedby these signal criteria, measured using nuclear recoilsfrom 252Cf calibration. The abrupt changes in efficiencyare due to the different detector thresholds and changesto the timing cuts in the three energy bins. Signal ac-ceptance was measured using nuclear recoils from 252Cfcalibration. After applying all selection criteria, the ex-posure of this analysis is equivalent to 23.4 kg-days overa recoil energy range of 7–100 keV for a WIMP of mass10 GeV/c2.

Neutrons from cosmogenic or radioactive processescan produce nuclear recoils that are indistinguishablefrom those from an incident WIMP. Simulations of therates and energy distributions of these processes usingGEANT4 [24] lead us to expect < 0.13 false candidateevents (90% confidence level) in the Si detectors fromneutrons for this exposure with all efficiencies included.

A greater source of background is the misidentifica-tion of surface electron recoils, which may suffer from re-duced ionization yield and thus contribute events to the

4 2 0 2 4 6 810

5

0

5

10

15

20

25N

orm

aliz

ed Y

ield

Normalized Timing

FIG. 3. Normalized ionization yield (standard deviationsfrom the nuclear recoil band centroid) versus normalizedphonon timing parameter (normalized such that the medianof the surface event calibration sample is at -1 and the cutposition is at 0) for events in all detectors from the WIMP-search data set passing all other selection criteria. The blackbox indicates the WIMP candidate selection region. The dataare colored to indicate recoil energy ranges (dark to light) of7–20, 20–30, and 30–100 keV. The thin red curves on the bot-tom and right axes are the histograms of the data, while thethicker green curves are the histograms of nuclear recoils from252Cf calibration data; both are normalized to have the samearbitrary peak value.

WIMP-candidate region; these events are termed “leak-age events”. Prior to looking at the WIMP-candidateregion (unblinding), the expected leakage was estimatedusing the rate of single scatter events with yields consis-tent with nuclear recoils from a previously unblinded Sidataset [25] and the rejection performance of the timingcut measured on low-yield multiple-scatter events from133Ba calibration data. Two detectors used in this anal-ysis were located at the end of detector stacks, so scatterson their outer faces could not be tagged as multiple scat-ters. The rate of surface events on the outer faces of thesetwo detectors were estimated using their single-scatterrates from a previously unblinded dataset presented in[25] and the multiples-singles ratio on the interior de-tectors. The final pre-unblinding estimate for misidenti-fied surface electron-recoil event leakage into the signalband in the eight Si detectors was 0.47+0.28

−0.17(stat.) events.This initial leakage estimate informed the decision to un-blind. After unblinding, we developed a Bayesian es-timate of the rate of misidentified surface events basedupon the performance of the phonon timing cut mea-sured using events near the WIMP-search signal region[21, 25]. Multiple-scatter events below the electron-recoilionization-yield region from both 133Ba calibration andthe WIMP-search data were used as inputs to this model.Because the WIMP-search sample is sparser comparedto the calibration data, the combined estimates are moreheavily weighted towards the calibration data leakage es-timates. Additionally the leakage estimate is corrected

DAMA/LIBRA

CDMS1304.4279

...in Widerspruch zu Limits vonCDMS / XENON / LUX

23

CoGeNT

CDMSSi

CRESST

DAMA

XENON10

CDMSLT

KIMS

CDMSGe

XENON100LUX

10. 100 10001045

1044

1043

1042

1041

1040

1039

mΧ GeV

ΣSIcm2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

1042

1041

1040

1039

mΧ GeV

ΣSIcm2

Bozorgnia, Catena, Schwetz, 2013

Spin-unabhängige WW

...in Widerspruch zu Limits vonCDMS / XENON / LUX

23

CoGeNT

CDMSSi

CRESST

DAMA

XENON10

CDMSLT

KIMS

CDMSGe

XENON100LUX

10. 100 10001045

1044

1043

1042

1041

1040

1039

mΧ GeV

ΣSIcm2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

1042

1041

1040

1039

mΧ GeV

ΣSIcm2

Bozorgnia, Catena, Schwetz, 2013

Spin-unabhängige WW

abh. von - Teilchenphysik- Astrophysik

Modifizierte DM-Kern Wechselwirkung?

24

Bsp: negative Interferenz von WW an Neutron und Proton:

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6fn / fp

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

A2 ef

f / A

2

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6

Si

Na

Ge

I

Xe

F

Cl

CoGeNT

CDMSSiCDMSGe

DAMA

XENON10

CDMSLT

KIMS

XENON100

LUX

CRESST

10. 100 10001042

1041

1040

1039

1038

1037

1036

mΧ GeVΣSIcm2

fnfp

= −0.7

Modifizierte DM-Kern Wechselwirkung?

24

Bsp: negative Interferenz von WW an Neutron und Proton:

• Inelastische Streuung• leichte Austauschteilchen• elektromagnetische WW

Weitere Beispiele für exotische Wechselwirkungen:

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6fn / fp

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

A2 ef

f / A

2

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6

Si

Na

Ge

I

Xe

F

Cl

CoGeNT

CDMSSiCDMSGe

DAMA

XENON10

CDMSLT

KIMS

XENON100

LUX

CRESST

10. 100 10001042

1041

1040

1039

1038

1037

1036

mΧ GeVΣSIcm2

fnfp

= −0.7

DM-Halo unabhängiger Vergleich von Experimenten

25

Working in vmin space Fox, Kribs, Tait 1011.1910; Fox, Liu, Weiner, 1011.1915

dNdER

=ρχσ0|F (ER)|2

2mχµ2 η(vmin) with η(vmin) ≡

v>vmin

d3vf⊕(v)

v

consider now

2mχµ2

σ0|F (ER)|2dNdER

= ρχ η(vmin)

r.h.s. is independent ofexperiment (target nucleus)

fix DM mass, transform observedspectrum into function of vminusing the l.h.s. andvmin =

ERmA/(2µ2)

comparison of experimentspossible without specifying r.h.s.

T. Schwetz 22

Dark Matter direct detection

colliding a DM particle (mχ ∼ 100 GeV) with a nucleus(mA ∼ 100 GeV) and DM velocity: v ∼ 10−3c ⇒ non-relativistic

(elastic) recoil energy: ER =2µ2v2

mAcos2 θlab∼ 10 keV

µ ≡ mχmA/(mχ + mA)

minimal DM velocity required to produce recoil energy ER :

vmin =

ERmA2µ2

T. Schwetz 5

Fox, Kribs, Tait, 2010Fox, Liu, Weiner, 2010

26

DM-Halo unabhängiger Vergleich von Experimenten

LUXSuperCDMSDAMACDMSSi

300 400 500 600 700 800024681012

vmin kms

105keV1kg1day1

mΧ12 GeV

Bozorgnia, Schwetz, in prep.

s. auch Gelmini, Gondolo, Kahlhöfer, McCabe,...

27

DM-Halo unabhängiger Vergleich -CDMS-Si versus LUX / SuperCDMS

Bozorgnia, Schwetz, in prep.

LUX LUX

SuperCDMS

SuperCDMS

dashed : Method 1solid : Method 2

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.001

0.0050.010

0.0500.100

0.5001.000

mΧ GeV

Probability

gemeinsame Wahrscheinlichkeit für 3 Ereignisse in CDMS-Si und die LUX / SuperCDMS Ergebnisse

berücksichtigt Energie-Information der 3 Si-Ereignisse

28

DM-Halo unabhängiger Vergleich -DAMA versus LUX / SuperCDMS / ...

Bozorgnia, Schwetz, in prep.

gemeinsame Wahrscheinlichkeit für Modulationsampl. in DAMA (3. Bin) und die LUX / SuperCDMS Ergebnisse

LUX

LUX

SuperCDMS

SuperCDMS

solid : trivial bounddashed : ve expansion

5 10 15 201010

109

108

107

106

105

mΧ GeV

Probability

5 10 15 20mχ (GeV)

10-1210-1110-1010-910-810-710-610-510-410-310-2

Prob

abili

ty

3

4

5

6

7

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns

SIMPLE (SD)SIMPLE (IV)

CDMS LT (IV)

CDMS Si (IV) XE100 (SI)

XE10 (SI)

CDMS LT (SI)

CDMS Si (IV)

XE10 (SI)

solid: general halo, dashed: symmetric halo

Herrero-Garcia, Schwetz, Zupan, 2012

Entwicklung d. Modulation in ve

Zusammenfassung• WIMP-Hypothese wird von allen Seiten getestet

(direkte / indirekte Suchen + LHC)

• mögliche DM Signale, indirekt:- 10 GeV Exess vom galaktischen Zentrum- (130 GeV Linie, Positronanteil)

• mögliche DM Signale, direkt:- DAMA, CDMS-Si (in starkem Widerspruch zu Limits von LUX, XENON, CDMS, ...)

• Die kommenden Jahre werden spannend!

29