1. 西藏羊八井实验探测暗物质信号 XJ Bi ， IHEP （ 2008/4/28 ） 第十届高能物理年会 南京大学

2. Outline  Dark matter and new physics  Sites looking for DMA  GC vs subhalos  YBJ and its potential for DMA detection  conclusion

3. Energy budget of the universe

4. Non-baryonic DM From BBN and CMB, it has  B h 2 =0.02+-0.002. Therefore, most dark matter should be non- baryonic.  DM h 2 =0.113+-0.009 Non-baryonic cold dark matter dominates the matter contents of the Universe. New particles beyond the standard model are required! New physics!

5. Cosmology/astrophysics/particle physics

6. mSUGRA or CMSSM: simplest (and most constrained) model for supersymmetric dark matter R-parity conservation, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking Free parameters (set at GUT scale): m 0, m 1/2, tan  A 0, sign(  ) 4 main regions where neutralino fulfills WMAP relic density: bulk region (low m 0 and m 1/2 ) stau coannihilation region m   m stau hyperbolic branch/focus point (m 0 >> m 1/2 ) funnel region (m A,H  2m  ) However, general MSSM model versions give more freedom. At least 3 additional parameters: , A t, A b (and perhaps several more…) H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas, J. O’Farrill, JCAP 0408:005,2004

7. Detection of WIMP  Collider  Indirect detection DM increases in Galaxies, annihilation restarts( ∝ ρ 2 ); ID looks for the annihilation products of WIMPs, such as the neutrinos, gamma rays, positrons at the ground/space-based experiments  Direct detection of WIMP at terrestrial detectors via scattering of WIMP of the detector material.   Direct detection  p e+e+  _ indirect detection

8. Status of dark matter search  Direct detection (null results)

10. Flux of the annihilation products  Flux is determined by the products of two factors  The first factor is the strength of the interaction, determined completely by particle physics  The second by the distribution of DM  The flux depends on both the astrophysics and the particle aspects.

11. GC and Subhalos for indirect detection  The fluxes of the annihilation products are proportional to the annihilation cross section and the DM density square. Fluxes are greatly enhanced by clumps of DM.  The Galactic center and center of subhalos have high density.  There are 5%~10% DM of the total halo mass are enclosed in the clumps.  The following characters make subhalos more suitable for DM detection: GC is heavily contaminated by baryonic processes. Structures in CDM from hierarchically, i.e., the smaller objects form earlier and have high density. Subhalos may be more cuspy profile than the GC. Mass is more centrally concentrated when an object is in an environment with high density.

12. Problems at small scale of CDM  Galactic satellite problem and cusp at GC  Nature of dark matter or astrophysics process?

13. Predicted number Observed number of luminous satellite galaxies The predicted number of substructures exceeds the luminous satellite galaxies: dark substructures? Satellite galaxies are seen in Milky Way, e.g. Saggittarius, MCs 20km/s100km/s10km/s

14. Universal Density Profile NFW profile Navarro, Frenk, White 1997 Cusp Dark matter distribution—Density profile Observation of rotation curve favors cored profile strongly

15. Nature of dark matter or astrophysics process?

16. Profiles of dark matter  Two generally adopted DM profiles are the Moore and NFW profiles from N-body simulation  They have same density at large radius, while different slope as r->0 NFW: Moore:

17. Uncertainties from the distribution of the DM

18. Some recent developments  The slope at the inner most radius is under debate. The most recent simulations seem indicate that the slope is between the NFW and Moore profiles [Navarro, 0311231, Reed, 0312544]. The slope may even be not universal, depending on the mass scale [Reed].  The central super massive black hole will affect the central cusp heavily depending on the its initial mass and adiabatic growth.

19.  Dark subhalos, with no baryon matter, is cuspy at the center, which is more favorable sites than GC to detect dark matter annihilation.  YBJ can not observe GC, but has advantage to search signals from subhalos.

20. Complexity of GC X-ray radio γ-ray

21. Difficulty in DM detection from GC  It is found only a narrow window is left for GLAST to probe the GC considering the strong gamma source detected by HESS.

22. No opportunity for GLAST with cored profile

23. Subhalos  We do not know the exact position of subhalos: we give a statistic study  The subhalo profiles have greater uncertainties from simulations for large mass range 10 6 ~ 10 10 M ⊙  N-body simulation (MNRAS352,535 (2004) ) gives the probability for a subhalo of the mass m and at the position r with M, host mass, r cl =0.14r virial andα ＝－ 1.9 (1.7 ~ 2.0)  The tidal effect will strip the particles beyond a tidal radius,

24. -rays from the subhalos Reed et al, MNRAS35 7,82(2004)  -rays from subhalos  -rays from smooth bkg source sunGC 

25. Cumulative number of gamma ray sources  Fixing the particle factor we give the cumulative number of gamma rays sources as function of their intensities.  There are large uncertainties from the subhalos profile determined by simulations.  Once the sensitivity of a detector is known, we can predict the number of sources from subhalos detected by it.

26. Unidentified sources of EGRET  More than half of the sources detected by EGRET are unidentified. Recent analyses show that most of the unidentified sources are not from subhalos. If none of them are from subhalos, this is translated into a constraint on the SUSY parameter space.  Similarly, GLAST in space, ARGO in Tibet, (the next generation all-sky VHE Gamma- Ray water Cherenkov telescope) HAWC can also put constraints.

27. Search the subhalos at different detectors  Simulation can not predict the position of subhalos we can only look for subhalos with high sensitivity and large field of view detectors.  Satellite-based experiments, EGRET, GLAST ， AMS02, have large field of view, high identification efficiency of /P, low threshold energy.  EAS ARGO/MILAGRO/HAWC observatories, have large field of view, (low identification efficiency of /P), while large effective area ~10 4 -10 5 m 2, high threshold energy and high sensitivity.  Cerenkov telescopes have high angular resolution, high identification efficiency of /P, large effective area ~10 4 m 2, small filed of view.

28. Complementary capabilities ground-based space-based ACTEAS Pair angular resolutiongoodfair good duty cyclelowhigh high arealargelarge small field of viewsmalllarge large + can reorient energy resolutiongoodfair good, with smaller systematic uncertainties Gamma ray detection experiments HAWC~0.04I CRAB

29. 中意合作 ARGO 实验 RPC 大厅 中日合作 AS γ 实验区闪烁体探测器阵列 ASand ARGO ： (High Duty cycle,Large F.O.V) ~TeV ~100GeV ARGO hall, floored by RPC. Half installed. Here comes the two experiments hosted by YBJ observatory. One is call AS , a sampling detector covering 1% of the area and have been operated for 15 years. The other full coverage one is called ARGO, still under installation. AS  use scintillation counter and ARGO use RPC to detector the arrival time and the number of secondary particles, with which the original direction and energy of CR particle can be restored. AS  has a threshold energy at a few TeV while ARGO down to about 100GeV. Both experiment have the advantages in high duty cycle and large field of view. Because for both of the experiments there is only one layer of detector, it is very difficult to separate the  ray shower from CR nuclei showers. Working in the similar energy range on mountain Jemez near Los Alamos, by using water cherenkov technique, MILAGRO has two layer of PMT, which enable it a rather good capability to separate  ray from background. Though it locates in a low altitude, has a smaller effective area, it has similar sensitivity to AS  experiment. To combine this technique with high altitude would greatly improve the sensitivity of our current EAS experiments.

30. Sensitivity study of ARGO We adopt the simulated effective area of ARGO, assuming a constant angular resolution of 1°and energy threshold of 100 GeV. X.X. Zhou et al., ICRC 29 th

31. The SUSY factor  Process  Parameters ：  Method ： scan the SUSY 7-dimensional parameter space and constrain it by the present experimental bounds, then calculate the SUSY factor  Constraints ： 1 ） self consistent ； 2 ） neutralino being the LSP ; 3 ） spectrum given by PDG ； 4 ） other constraints ； 5 ） relic density by WMAP 2σ

32. Sensitivity at ARGO for DM detection （ 10yr ）

33. Sensitivity at HAWC for DM detection （ 5yr ）

34. Constrant by EGRET/GLAST

35. Conclusion  The GC has been extensively studied to search the gamma rays from DM annihilation. However, if the DM profile is cored, there is no chance to detect its DMA signal. Further there is strong gamma background detected by HESS.  Subhalos are alternative sites for DM annihilation detection. EGRET/GLAST/ARGO/HAWC are possible to detect gamma rays from these sites. No such detection implies strong constraints on the SUSY parameter space.  Satellite and ground experiments are complementary.