Mohamad-Ziad Charif - Antares

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2.9: Parameter space of m 1/2 and m 0 plane with constrains on the LSP.Green region is where the predicted Ω c is in agreement with WMAP.• Tri-linear scalar couplings on the GUT scale: A 0• The ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the neutral components of thetwo Higgs doublets 〈Hu 0 〉 and 〈Hd 0 v2〉 at the electro-weak scale: tan(β) =v1• Sign of the higgsino mass parameter µ (+1 or -1)Having four parameters (plus sign(µ)) is much easier to deal with, and constrainingmodels is something now extremely easy to do.The lightest supersymmetric particle in this model is usually the lightest of theneutralinos which are a mixing of the four superpatners ( ˜B, ˜W 3 , ˜H u 0 and ˜Hd 0 ) of theneutral gauge bosons and higgs of the electro-weak section of Standard Model (B,W 3 , Hu 0 and Hd 0 ). The neutralinos are neutral and colorless making the lightest ofthem a natural candidate for WIMPs. Additionally, inspection of various regionsof the parameters space showed that many regions of the space produce the correctrelic density Ω c as we can see in figure 2.9.Finally it is important to note that while LHC is constraining the parameter space(m ˜q, ˜g > 1TeV ), there have not been any constraining on the neutralino mass sofar in addition to those from the LEP, leaving a reduced parameter space that isstill valid for consideration. In addition, CMSSM is used as a general benchmark,so it will be used during this thesis as a benchmark scenario for WIMP studies aswell.18
2.3 Methods of detection2.3.1 Direct detectionDirect detection of dark matter refers to the detection of dark matter via its scatteringoff nucleus in a detector, causing transfer of momentum to the target nucleusand forcing it to recoil. Direct detection experiments use different techniquesfor detection (scintillation, phonon, and ionization) depending on the material ofthe detector (Ge, Si, NaI, and Xenon). The physics in dark matter nucleus interactioninvolves elastic scattering on nucleus, this scattering can be axial-vectorgiving rise to spin-dependent scattering or scalar giving rise to spin-independentscattering. Experiments using heavy nuclei such as the Iodine, Germanium orXenon like DAMA[32], Edelweiss[33], SuperCDMS[34], XENON[35], and othersare more sensitive to scalar interactions and their limits are mainly constrainingthe spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross-section. On the other hands experimentsusing light nuclei are more sensitive to spin-dependent such as COUPP[36],SIMPLE[37] and NAIAD[38].The spin-independent scattering amplitude can be written as follows[39] in equation2.14 and the cross-section in equation 2.15, where N denotes the nucleontype, λ N is WIMP nuclei coupling, m χ and M N are the WIMP and nucleon massrespectively, A is the atomic mass and Z the atomic number.|A SI | 2 = 64(m χ M N ) 2 (λ p Z + λ n (A − Z)) 2 (2.14)σ SI =4m 2 χM 2 Nπ(m χ + M N ) 2 .(λ pZ + λ n (A − Z)) 2 (2.15)The spin-dependent scattering amplitude and cross section can be written as follows[39]in equations 2.16 & 2.17, where J is the angular momentum of the nuclei, and Sis the spin of the nuclei where it takes the value of 0 for nuclei that have an evennumber of protons and neutrons and 0.5 for all other.|A SD | 2 = 192(m χ M N ) 2 (2.16)σ SD =16m 2 χMN2π(m χ + M N ) 2 .J A + 1(J A∑ ε i Si A ) 2 (2.17)i=p,nFindings in direct detection has yielded some results that might indicate thepresence of a light dark matter particle. DAMA experiment claims the observationof a dark matter signal[40]. This signal corresponds to annual modulation in theirdata that is related to Earth’s rotation around the Sun. However, while these resultsare with an extremely high statistical significance (above 6σ), these results are in19
Page 2 and 3: "The most exciting phrase to hear i
Page 4 and 5: 3.2.1.4 Performance and characteris
Page 6 and 7: Chapter 1IntroductionThe early hist
Page 8 and 9: Chapter 2Dark MatterIn this chapter
Page 10 and 11: Figure 2.2: Comparison of the measu
Page 12 and 13: Figure 2.4: CMB anisotropy observed
Page 14 and 15: Figure 2.5: Combination of the WMAP
Page 17: Figure 2.6: Temporal evolution of t
Page 22 and 23: Figure 2.10: Limits on spin-indepen
Page 26 and 27: Figure 2.14: Detected gamma ray flu
Page 28 and 29: 600km/s. If we assume the worst cas
Page 30 and 31: Figure 2.17: Conversion factor from
Page 32 and 33: The eigenstate mixing can be writte
Page 34 and 35: Figure 2.19: Flux of ν µ / ¯ν
Page 36 and 37: Figure 3.1: The neutral current (NC
Page 38 and 39: Muon Energy (GeV )1p| dEdx | (GeV.c
Page 40 and 41: Figure 3.4: Energy loss of per dist
Page 42 and 43: Figure 3.6: Effective muon range as
Page 44 and 45: Figure 3.8: Differential flux of at
Page 46 and 47: 3.2.1.1 Detector layoutOptical Modu
Page 48 and 49: • The LED (light emitting diode)
Page 50 and 51: Anchor & BuoyEach line is anchored
Page 52 and 53: Figure 3.17: Distribution of azimut
Page 54 and 55: Figure 3.20: Height and radial disp
Page 56 and 57: Figure 3.22: Distribution of sea cu
Page 58 and 59: Figure 3.24: Time offset among OMs
Page 60 and 61: Figure 3.26: Distribution of time d
Page 62 and 63: Line number Connection Date Mainten
Page 64 and 65: Figure 3.29: Comparison between sky
Page 66 and 67: Figure 3.31: The effective area for
Page 68 and 69: Figure 4.1: Median counting rate of
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 4.4: Average neutrino events
Page 72 and 73:
2. All hits on the same floor are m
Page 74 and 75:
4.2.1 Neutrino simulationFigure 4.6
Page 76 and 77:
• Multiplicity range of the muon
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 5Dark Matter search in the
Page 80 and 81:
Figure 5.2: Annihilation spectrum f
Page 82 and 83:
Livetime(days) 5 Lines 9 Lines 10 L
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 5.4: Monte Carlo Truth distr
Page 86 and 87:
Figure 5.7: Tchi2 distribution for
Page 88 and 89:
Figure 5.9: Tchi2 distribution for
Page 90 and 91:
Figure 5.11: Sun’s position taken
Page 92 and 93:
Figure 5.13: Comparison between the
Page 94 and 95:
Figure 5.15: Estimation of the back
Page 96 and 97:
Figure 5.16: Mean angle between the
Page 98 and 99:
Figure 5.18: A comparison of the di
Page 100 and 101:
a look at figure 5.22 we find a cle
Page 102 and 103:
The resulting optimized sensitiviti
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 5.26: A comparison plot of t
Page 106 and 107:
dΦ µdE ν= dΦ νdE νP earth ρN
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 5.31: Limits on the muon flu
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 6Dark Matter search in the
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 6.1: . True Position of the
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 6.3: Comparison of the three
Page 116 and 117:
For BBFit all variables mentioned i
Page 118 and 119:
Figure 6.6: The distribution of χ
Page 120 and 121:
annihilation channel W + W − the
Page 122 and 123:
lowering the total contribution of
Page 124 and 125:
6.4.2 BBFit Single-line analysisThe
Page 126 and 127:
Figure 6.15: Comparison between the
Page 128 and 129:
Figure 6.17: Comparison of Nhit dis
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 6.19: The estimation of the
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 6.21: Comparison of the opti
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 6.23: Comparison of sensitiv
Page 136 and 137:
Figure 6.25: Estimation of our back
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 6.28: Comparison of the mult
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 6.29: Comparison of the Λ d
Page 142 and 143:
Figure 6.31: Comparison of the cos(
Page 144 and 145:
Figure 6.34: Comparison of the esti
Page 146 and 147:
The optimal Λ cut for all dark mat
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 6.40: Sensitivity to neutrin
Page 150 and 151:
6.7 Comparison with 2007-2008 analy
Page 152 and 153:
mass of 200 GeV and a cross-section
Page 154 and 155:
Chapter 7ConclusionsThe limits pres
Page 156 and 157:
Bibliography[1] Volders, L. M. J. S
Page 158 and 159:
[22] S. Burles et al., “Big bang
Page 160 and 161:
[46] G. Debrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W.
Page 162 and 163:
[74] C. Hettlage, K. Mannheim, and
Page 164:
[102] D. Heck and J. Knapp, “Fors
show all

Mohamad-Ziad Charif - Antares

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?