-
O. Catà et al. [16] considered that DM can nonminimally couple with the Ricci scalar, whose global symmetry is broken in curved space-time. In this paper, we focus on ssDM. In the Jordan Frame, the action
$ {\cal{S}} $ of a system can be written as:$ {\cal{S}} = \int {\rm d}^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[-\frac{R}{2\kappa^2}+{\cal{L}}_{\rm SM}+{\cal{L}}_{\rm DM} -\xi M \varphi R \right], $
(1) where g is the determinant of metric tensor
$ g_{\mu\nu} $ .The Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian
$ -R/2\kappa^2 $ describes the gravitational sector, where R is the Ricci scalar;$ \kappa = \sqrt{8\pi G} $ is the inverse (reduced) Planck mass, and G the Newtonian gravitational constant.${\cal{L}}_{\rm SM}$ is the Standard Model Lagrangian that accurately describes the electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces at energies around the electroweak scale. It can be expressed as follows:$ {\cal{L}}_{\rm SM} = {\cal{T}}_F+{\cal{T}}_f+{\cal{T}}_H+{\cal{L}}_Y-{\cal{V}}_H , $
(2) where
$ {\cal{V}}_H $ is the Higgs potential,$ {\cal{L}}_Y $ is the Yukawa interaction term, and$ {\cal{T}}_i $ are the kinetic terms of spin-one particles, fermions, and scalars.$ {\cal{T}}_F = -\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu\nu}g^{\lambda\rho}F^a_{\mu\lambda}F^a_{\nu\rho}, $
(3) $ {\cal{T}}_{f} = \frac{i}{2} \bar{f} \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\not\!{\nabla}} f, $
(4) $ {\cal{T}}_H = g^{\mu\nu}(D_\mu \phi)^\dagger (D_\nu \phi). $
(5) In these equations, the slashed derivative operator is defined as
$\not\!{\nabla} = \gamma^a e^\mu_a \nabla_\mu$ , where$ \nabla_\mu = D_\mu - \frac{i}{4} e^b_\nu (\partial_\mu e^{\nu c})\sigma_{bc} $ , and$ e^{\nu c} $ is the vierbein.$ D_\mu $ represents the gauge covariant derivative, and$ \phi $ denotes the Higgs doublet.In Eq. (1),
${\cal{L}}_{\rm DM} = {\cal{T}}_\varphi-V(\varphi,X)$ is the Lagrangian of ssDM, where$ \varphi $ represents ssDM.$ V(\varphi,X) $ is the DM potential. Because the DM potential contains interactions between ssDM and standard model particle X, it could be responsible for the correct DM relic abundance.The research content of this paper comes from the last term of Eq. (1). Specifically,
$ -\xi M \varphi R $ is the assumed non-minimal coupling operator between ssDM and gravity, where$ \xi $ is the coupling constant, and M is a parameter with dimension one so that$ \xi $ is dimensionless. For convenience, we set$ M = \kappa^{-1} $ . This non-minimal coupling operator breaks the global$ {\mathbb{Z}}_2 $ symmetry of$ \varphi $ , which causes ssDM to decay into standard model particles.Using conformal transformation,
$ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} = \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}, $
(6) where
$ \Omega^2 = 1+2\xi M\kappa^2 \varphi $ , and one can acquire action in the Einstein frame as$ {\cal{S}} = \int {\rm d}^4x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \bigg[ -\frac{\tilde{R}}{2\kappa^2} +\frac{3}{\kappa^2} \frac{\Omega_{,\rho}\tilde{\Omega}^{,\rho}}{\Omega^2} +\tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{\rm SM}+\tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{\rm DM}\bigg], $
(7) where
$ \tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{\rm SM} = \tilde{{\cal{T}}}_F+\Omega^{-3}\tilde{{\cal{T}}}_f+\Omega^{-2} \tilde{{\cal{T}}}_H+\Omega^{-4}({\cal{L}}_Y-{\cal{V}}_H), $
(8) and
$\tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{\rm DM} = \tilde{{\cal{T}}}_\varphi/\Omega^2-V(\varphi,X)/\Omega^{4}$ . In these expressions, all tilded quantities are formed from$ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} $ .Eq. (8) indicates that DM
$ \varphi $ could decay or annihilate into standard model particles through gravity portals. The Taylor expansion of Eq. (8) with respect to$ \xi $ shows that the dominant term is the decay term then becomes$ \tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{\rm SM,\varphi} = -2\kappa\xi \varphi \bigg[\frac{3}{2}\tilde{{\cal{T}}}_f + \tilde{{\cal{T}}}_H +2({\cal{L}}_Y-{\cal{V}}_H)\bigg]. $
(9) Using Eq. (9), O. Catà et al. [17] reported the Feynman rules for DM decay, as shown in Table 1.
terms from $ \tilde{{\cal{L}}}_{sm,\varphi} $ (2.7)physical process Feynman rules $ \xi \kappa m_{f_i} \varphi \bar{f}_i f_i $ $ \varphi \rightarrow \bar{f}_i , f_i $ $ i\xi \kappa m_{f_i} $ $ - 3 \xi \kappa \varphi Y_\mu\bar{f}_i (\gamma^a e^\mu_a) ( a_{f_{ij}}-b_{f_{ij}}\gamma^5) f_j $ $ \varphi \rightarrow Y_\mu, \bar{f}_i, f_j $ $ - 3 i\xi \kappa (\gamma^a e^\mu_a) ( a_{f_{ij}}-b_{f_{ij}}\gamma^5) $ $ - \xi \kappa \varphi [ (\partial_\mu h)^2 - 2 m_h^2 h^2] $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h,h $ $ 2i\xi \kappa [p_{1\mu} p_2^\mu + 2 m_h^2 ] $ $ - \xi \kappa \varphi [2m_W^2 W^{\mu +} W_\mu^- + m_Z^2 Z^\mu Z_\mu ] $ $ \varphi \rightarrow Y_\mu , Y_\nu $ $ -2 i\xi \kappa m_{Y_\mu}^2 \tilde{g}^{\mu\nu} $ $ - 2 \xi \kappa \varphi \dfrac{h}{v} [2m_W^2 W^{\mu +} W_\mu^- + m_Z^2 Z^\mu Z_\mu ] $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h, Y_\mu , Y_\nu $ $ - 4 i\xi \kappa \dfrac{1}{v} m_{Y_\mu}^2 \tilde{g}^{\mu\nu} $ $ - \xi \kappa \varphi \dfrac{h^2}{v^2} [2m_W^2 W^{\mu +} W_\mu^- + m_Z^2 Z^\mu Z_\mu ] $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h,h,Y_\mu , Y_\nu $ $ - 4i\xi \kappa \dfrac{1}{v^2} m_{Y_\mu}^2 \tilde{g}^{\mu\nu} $ $ 4 \xi \kappa \varphi m_{f_i} \bar{f}_i f_i \frac{h}{v} $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h,\bar{f}_i , f_i $ $ 4 i\xi \kappa \dfrac{m_{f_i}}{v} $ $ 2 \xi \kappa \dfrac{m_h^2}{v} \varphi h^3 $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h,h,h $ $ 12 i\xi \kappa \dfrac{m_h^2}{v} $ $ \frac{1}{2} \xi \kappa \dfrac{m_h^2}{v^2} \varphi h^4 $ $ \varphi \rightarrow h,h,h,h $ $ 12i \xi \kappa \dfrac{m_h^2}{v^2} $ In the table, $f_i$ represents a fermion, and index i includes all fermion flavors.$Y_\mu$ represents a spin-one particle, and$a_{f_{ij}}$ and$b_{f_{ij}}$ can be obtained from the expansion of$\tilde{\cal{T}}_f$ .$W^\mu$ represents the W boson;$Z^\mu$ represents the Z boson; h represents the Higgs boson;$v=246.2$ GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value;$m_{Y_\mu}$ represents the mass of the spin-one particle;$m_{f_i}$ represents the mass of the fermion; and$m_h$ represents the mass of the Higgs boson. The second column lists the decay channels. For example,$\varphi \rightarrow \bar{f}_i , f_i$ represents the channel through which DM$\varphi$ decays into a pair of fermions.Table 1. Feynman rules for DM decay.
-
The decay branch ratios of ssDM were drawn according to O. Catà et al. [16] and are shown in Fig. 1. O. Catà et al. also provided the asymptotic dependence of the corresponding partial width on the ssDM mass, using the limit of the massless final-state standard model particles, as shown in Table 2. This work focuses on the ssDM whose mass is around the electroweak scale.
Decay mode Asymptotic scaling $ \varphi\to hh, WW, ZZ $ $ m_\varphi^3 $ $ \varphi\to f\bar{f} $ $ m_\varphi m_f^2 $ $ \varphi\to hhh $ $ m_\varphi v^2 $ $ \varphi\to WWh,ZZh $ $ m_\varphi^5/ v^2 $ $ \varphi\to f\bar{f}h $ $ m_\varphi^3 m_f^2/ v^2 $ $ \varphi\to f'\bar{f}W,f\bar{f}Z $ $ m_\varphi^5/ v^2 $ $\varphi\to f\bar{f}\gamma,q\bar{q}g$ $ m_\varphi^3 $ $ \varphi\to hhhh $ $ m_\varphi^3 $ $ \varphi\to WWhh,ZZhh $ $ m_\varphi^7/v^4 $ Table 2. Tree-level decay modes of ssDM [16].
Below the electroweak scale (
$ m_\varphi < v $ ), the decay branch ratio is dominated by the$ \varphi\to q\bar{q}g $ channel. Although the asymptotic scaling of the$ \varphi\to f\bar{f}\gamma $ channel is also$ m_\varphi^3 $ , it is suppressed by$ \alpha_{em}/\alpha_s $ . Compared with the$ \varphi\to q\bar{q}g $ channel,$ \varphi\to f\bar{f}h $ channel is suppressed by$ m_f^2/v^2 $ . The ratio of$ \varphi\to f\bar{f} $ channel to$ \varphi\to q\bar{q}g $ channel is$ m_f^2/m_\varphi^2 $ . Therefore, when the mass of fermions is close to that of ssDM, the contribution of the$ \varphi\to f\bar{f} $ channel cannot be ignored. It is logical to recognize that in Fig. 1, the final-state particles of the$ \varphi\to f\bar{f} $ channel in the double-humped peak centered near 10 GeV are mainly tau leptons, charm quarks, and bottom quarks, and the final-state particles in the peak near 500 GeV are mainly top quarks.Above the electroweak scale (
$ 4\pi v \lesssim m_\varphi \lesssim 10^5\; {\rm{GeV}} $ ), the decay branch ratio is dominated by the$ \varphi\to f'\bar{f}W+f\bar{f}Z $ channel. Compared with the$ \varphi\to f'\bar{f}W+f\bar{f}Z $ channel, the$ \varphi\to q\bar{q}g $ channel is suppressed by the factor$ v^2/m_\varphi^2 $ . Similarly, the$ \varphi\to hhh $ channel is suppressed by the factor$ v^4/m_\varphi^4 $ . Although the asymptotic scaling of the$ \varphi\to WWh+ZZh $ channel is same as that of the$ \varphi\to f'\bar{f}W+f\bar{f}Z $ channel, it is suppressed by the smaller phase space.Around the electroweak scale (
$ m_\varphi\sim v $ ), many channels have an asymptotic scaling of$ m_\varphi^3 $ , including$ \varphi\to WW+ZZ+hh+q\bar{q}g+\bar{f}f'W+f\bar{f}Z $ . Because the mass of the top quark is also near the electroweak scale, the contribution from the$ \varphi\to f \bar{f} $ channel cannot be ignored. Therefore, the decay channels near the electroweak scale are the most abundant and worth a thorough analysis.Only the channels shown in Fig. 1 were included in the following numerical calculations.
-
Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group) [37] provided a detailed procedure to calculate decay rates and decay spectrum at production. These authors gave expressions for differential decay rates, e.g. Eq. (10), relativistically invariant three-body phase space, e.g. Eq. (11), and relativistically invariant four-body phase space, e.g. Eq. (14).
For convenience, we indicate the three product particles arising from three-body decay as particle 1, particle 2, and particle 3. The nomenclature used to indicate the rest frame of particle i and particle j is
$ F_{ij} $ .The expression of the differential decay rate is
$ {\rm d}\Gamma = \frac{1}{2m_\varphi}|{\cal{M}}|^2 {\rm d}\Phi^{(n)}(m_\varphi;p_1,...,p_n), $
(10) where
$ \Gamma $ is the decay rate of$ \varphi $ in its rest frame;$ m_\varphi $ is mass of the DMp;$ {\cal{M}} $ is the invariant matrix element;$ \Phi^{(n)} $ is the n-body phase space; and$ p_i $ is the four momentum of terminal particle i. We also use the definitions$ p_{ij} = p_i+p_j $ and$ m_{ij}^2 = p_{ij}^2 $ so that the element of three body phase space${\rm d}\Phi^{(3)}$ can be written as$ {\rm d}\Phi^{(3)} = \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm d}m_{12}^2 \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{|\vec{p}_1^*|}{m_{12}}{\rm d}\Omega_{1}^* \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{|\vec{p}_3|}{m_\varphi}{\rm d}\Omega_{3}, $
(11) where (
$ |\vec{p}_1^*|,\Omega_{1}^* $ ) is the three momentum of particle 1 in$ F_{12} $ , and$ \Omega_3 $ is the angle of particle 3 in the rest frame of the decaying particle. The symbol$ * $ always denotes the quantity in$ F_{12} $ .The relationship between
$ E_3 $ and$ m_{12} $ is$ E_3 = \frac{m_{\varphi}^2+m_{3}^2-m_{12}^2}{2m_{\varphi}}, $
(12) where
$ m_3 $ and$ E_3 $ are the mass and energy of particle 3, respectively. The energy spectrum of particle 3 per decay in a channel with final state l can be calculated as follows:$ \frac{{\rm d}{N}^l}{{\rm d}E_3} = \frac{\partial\Gamma^l}{\Gamma^l \partial E_3}. $
(13) By using the Feynman rules listed in Table 1 and following Eqs. (10), (11), (12), and (13), we numerically calculated the decay rate
$ \Gamma $ and energy spectrum${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_3$ ;${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_1$ and${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_2$ were calculated according to translatable symmetry , where$ E_1 $ is the energy of particle 1,$ E_2 $ is the energy of particle 2.There are three channels for the four-body decay:
$ \varphi\to W^+,W^-,h,h $ ;$ \varphi\to Z,Z,h,h $ , and$ \varphi\to h,h,h,h $ . We will consider$ \varphi\to W^+,W^-,h,h $ here to illustrate our method of calculation. The calculations of$ \Gamma $ and${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_1$ are demonstrated by regarding the$ W^+ $ boson as particle 1 and the$ W^- $ boson as particle 2; the remaining two Higgs bosons are particles 3 and 4. We continue to denote the rest frame of particles i and j as$ F_{ij} $ , as noted earlier.The element of four-body phase space
${\rm d}\Phi^{(4)}$ can be written as$\begin{aligned}[b] {\rm d}\Phi^{(4)} =& \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm d}m_{12}^2 \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm d}m_{34}^2 \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{|\vec{p}_1^*|}{m_{12}}{\rm d}\Omega_{1}^* \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{|\vec{p}_3^{**}|}{m_{34}}\\&\times {\rm d}\Omega_{3}^{**} \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{|\vec{p}_{12}|}{m_\varphi}{\rm d}\Omega_{12},\end{aligned} $
(14) where (
$ |\vec{p}_{12}|,\Omega_{12} $ ) is the three momentum of$ p_{12} $ , and$ (\vec{p}_3^{**},\Omega_{3}^{**}) $ is the three momentum of particle 3 in$ F_{34} $ . The symbol$ ** $ always denotes the quantity in$ F_{34} $ . We numerically calculated$ \Gamma $ and$ \partial^2{N}^l/ (\partial m_{12}\partial m_{34}) $ using Eqs. (10) and (14), where$ \partial^2{N}^l/(\partial m_{12}\partial m_{34}) = \partial^2{\Gamma}^l/(\Gamma\partial m_{12}\partial m_{34}) $ . We then applied Lorentz transformations to$ |\vec{p}_1^*| $ and$ E_1^* $ . We find that the isotropic spectrum of particle 1 with momentum$ |\vec{p}_1^*| $ in$ F_{12} $ has a spectrum described by Eq. (15) in the rest frame of$ \varphi $ :$ g(E_1,m_{12}) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\gamma_{12}\beta_{12}|\vec{p}_1^*|} \Theta(E_1-E_-) \Theta(E_+-E_1), $
(15) where
$ \beta_{ij} $ is the velocity of$ F_{ij} $ relative to the decaying DMp;$ \gamma_{ij} = (1-\beta_{ij}^2)^{-1/2} $ ;$ E_\pm \equiv \gamma_{12}E_1^* \pm \gamma_{12}\beta_{12}|\vec{p}_1^*| $ ; and$ \Theta(x) $ is the Heaviside function.The energy spectrum of particle 1 produced per decay in the channel with final state l can be described by
$ \frac{{\rm d}{N}^l}{{\rm d}E_1} = \int\int g(E_1,m_{12}) \frac{\partial^2{N}^l}{\partial m_{12}\partial m_{34}} {\rm d}m_{12}{\rm d}m_{34}. $
(16) As before,
${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_2$ ,${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_3$ , and${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_4$ can also be calculated according to translatable symmetry, where$ E_2 $ ,$ E_3 $ , and$ E_4 $ represent the energy of particles 2, 3, and 4, respectively.Spectra have been obtained for many stable and unstable particles, such as the Higgs boson, Z boson, and neutrino. However, the spectra of final–state stable particles (i.e., photons and positrons) also need to be calculated for comparisons with observations. Cirelli et al. [38] used the PYTHIA codes to generate spectra of photons and positrons
$ k(E,E_{\gamma,e^+}) $ induced by a primary state particle with energy E, where$ E_{\gamma,e^+} $ represents the energy of the photon or positron. The effects of QED and EW Bremsstrahlung were included when they used PYTHIA to generate$ k(E,E_{\gamma,e^+}) $ , whereas the effects of inverse Compton processes and synchrotron radiation are not included [38]. The secondary photon or positron energy spectrum produced per decay in a channel with final state l represented by${\rm d}{N}^l/{\rm d}E_{\gamma,e^+}$ was then numerically calculated as$ \frac{{\rm d}{N}^l}{{\rm d}E_{\gamma,e^+}} = \sum\limits_s \int k(E_s,E_{\gamma,e^+}) \frac{{\rm d}{N}^l}{{\rm d}E_s} {\rm d}E_s , $
(17) where s includes all final state particles in the channel with final state l. In the three-body decay case, s ranges from 1 to 3, whereas in the four-body decay case s ranges from 1 to 4.
-
The spectra that can be detected by satellites are calculated via PPPC 4 DM ID [38]. In the following, we uniformly adopt the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) DM distribution model:
$ \rho(r) = \rho_s\frac{r_s}{r}\left(1+\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^{-2}, $
(18) where
$ \rho_s = 0.184\; {\rm{GeV}}/{\rm{cm}}^3 $ ;$ r_s = 24.42\; {\rm{kpc}} $ ; and$ \rho(r) $ is the energy density of DM at a distance of r from the galactic center.The differential flux of positrons in space
$ \vec{x} $ and time t is given by${\rm d}\Phi_{e^+}/{\rm d}E_{e^+}(t,\vec{x},E_{e^+}) = v_{e^+}f/4\pi$ , where$ v_{e^+} $ is the velocity of the positrons. The positron number density per unit energy f obeys the diffusion–loss equation [38, 39]:$ \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}-\triangledown({\cal{K}}(E_{e^+},\vec{x})\triangledown f)-\frac{\partial}{\partial E_{e^+}}(b(E_{e^+},\vec{x})f) = Q(E_{e^+},\vec{x}) , $
(19) where
$ {\cal{K}}(E_{e^+},\vec{x}) $ is the diffusion coefficient function that describes the transport through turbulent magnetic fields. We adopt the customary parameterization of${\cal{K}} = $ $ {\cal{K}}_0(E_{e^+}/{\rm{GeV}})^\delta = {\cal{K}}_0 \epsilon^\delta $ with the parameters${\cal{K}}_0 = 0.0112 $ $ {\rm{kpc}}^2/{\rm{Myr}} $ and$ \delta = 0.70 $ , which produce a median final result [38].$ b(E_{e^+},\vec{x}) $ is the energy loss coefficient function that describes the energy lost from several processes, such as synchrotron radiation, inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of CMB photons, and infrared and optical galactic starlight. This coefficient is provided numerically by PPPC 4 DM ID [38] in the form of MATHEMATICA® interpolating functions. Q is the source term that can be expressed as$ Q = \frac{\rho(r)}{m_\varphi}\sum\limits_l \Gamma_l \frac{{\rm d}N_{e^+}^l}{{\rm d}E_{e^+}}. $
(20) Eq. (19) is solved in a cylinder that sandwiches the galactic plane with height
$ 2L $ and radius$ R = 20\; {\rm{kpc}} $ . The distance between the solar system and the galactic center is 8.33 kpc. Conditions under which electrons/positrons can escape freely are adopted on the surface of the cylinder. The resulting differential flux of positrons in the solar system is$ \begin{aligned}[b] \frac{{\rm d}\Phi_{e^+}}{{\rm d}E_{e^+}}(E_{e^+},r_\odot) =& \frac{v_{e^+}}{4\pi b(E_{e^+},r_\odot)} \frac{\rho_\odot}{m_\varphi} \sum\limits_l \Gamma_l \int_{E_{e^+}}^{m_\varphi/2} {\rm d}E_s \frac{{\rm d}N^l_{e^+}}{{\rm d}E_{e^+}} \\ &\times(E_s) I(E_{e^+},E_s,r_\odot), \end{aligned} ,$
(21) where
$ r_\odot $ is the distance between the solar system and the galactic center, and$ \rho_\odot $ is the DM density of the solar system.$ E_s $ is the positron energy at production (s stands for "source").$ I(E_{e^+},E_s,r_\odot) $ is the generalized halo function, which is the Green function from a source with positron energy$ E_s $ to any energy$ E_{e^+} $ , and it is also provided numerically by PPPC 4 DM ID [38] in the form of MATHEMATICA® interpolating functions.The calculation of gamma rays consists of three parts: the direct ("prompt") decay from the Milky Way halo, extragalactic gamma rays emitted by DM decay, and gamma rays from inverse Compton scattering (ICS). Synchrotron radiation is prevalent where the magnetic field and DM are very dense, near the galactic center. This work focuses on a high galactic latitude (
$ |b|>20^\circ $ ) where the magnetic field is very weak; therefore, synchrotron radiation is not included in this work.The differential flux of photons from the prompt decay of the Milky Way halo is calculated via
$ \frac{{\rm d}\Phi_\gamma}{{\rm d}E_\gamma {\rm d}\Omega} = \frac{r_\odot \rho_\odot}{4\pi m_\varphi} \bar{J} \sum\limits_l \Gamma_l \frac{{\rm d}N^l_\gamma}{{\rm d}E_\gamma} , $
(22) where
$\bar{J}(\triangle\Omega) = \int_{\triangle\Omega} J {\rm d}\Omega/\triangle\Omega$ is the averaged J factor of the region of interest;$J = \int_{\rm{l.o.s.}} \rho(r(s,\theta))/(r_\odot\rho_\odot) {\rm d}s$ ,$ r(s,\theta) = (r_\odot^2+s^2-2 r_\odot s {\rm{cos}}\theta)^{1/2} $ is the distance between the DM and the galactic center; and$ \theta $ is the angle between the direction of the line of sight (l.o.s.) and the line connecting the sun to the galactic center.The extragalactic gamma rays received at a point with redshift z are calculated via [38]
$\begin{aligned}[b] \frac{{\rm d}\Phi_{{\rm{EG}}\gamma}}{{\rm d}E_\gamma}(E_\gamma,z) =& \frac{c}{E_\gamma}\int_{z}^{\infty} {\rm d}z' \frac{1}{H(z')(1+z')}\left(\frac{1+z}{1+z'}\right)^3 \\&\times\frac{1}{4 \pi} \frac{\bar{\rho}(z')}{m_\varphi}\sum\limits_l \Gamma_l \frac{{\rm d}N^l_\gamma}{{\rm d}E_\gamma'}(E_\gamma') {\rm e}^{-\tau(E_\gamma',z,z')}, \end{aligned}$
(23) where
$ H(z) = H_0\sqrt{\Omega_m (1+z)^3+(1-\Omega_m)} $ is the Hubble function;$ \bar{\rho}(z) = \bar{\rho}_0(1+z)^3 $ is the average cosmological DM density; and$ \bar{\rho}_0 \simeq 1.15\times 10^{-6}\; {\rm{GeV}}/{\rm{cm}}^3 $ ,$ E_\gamma' = E_\gamma(1+z') $ ,$ \tau(E_\gamma',z,z') $ are values for the optical depth provided numerically by PPPC 4 DM ID [38] in the form of MATHEMATICA® interpolating functions.$ \tau(E_\gamma',z,z') $ describes the absorption of gamma rays in the intergalactic medium between the redshifts z and$ z' $ . The presence of an ultraviolet (UV) background lowers the UV photon densities. There are three absorption models provided by PPPC 4 DM ID [38]: no ultraviolet (noUV), minimal ultraviolet (minUV), and maximal ultraviolet (maxUV). We calculated the Hubble function in the$ \Lambda $ CDM cosmology with a pressure-less matter density of the universe$ \Omega_m = 0.27 $ , dark energy density of the universe$ \Omega_\Lambda = 0.73 $ , and a scale factor for Hubble expansion rate of$ 0.7 $ .Galactic electrons/positrons generated by ssDM could convert their energy into photons by inverse Compton scattering. The greater the mass of the ssDM, the higher the energy of the electrons/positrons generated by the ssDM, and the more important the effect. Inverse Compton gamma rays are calculated as follows:
$ \frac{{\rm d}\Phi_{{\rm{IC}}\gamma}}{{\rm d}E_\gamma {\rm d}\Omega} = \frac{1}{E_\gamma^2}\frac{r_\odot}{4\pi}\frac{\rho_\odot}{m_\varphi} \int_{m_e}^{m_\varphi/2} \!\!{\rm d}E_s \sum\limits_i \Gamma_i \frac{{\rm d}N_{e^+}^i}{{\rm d}E}(E_s) I_{{\rm{IC}}}(E_\gamma,E_s,b,l), $
(24) where b and l are the galactic latitude and galactic longitude, respectively.
$ I_{{\rm{IC}}}(E_\gamma,E_s,b,l) $ is a halo function for the IC radiation process, which is also provided numerically by PPPC 4 DM ID [38] in the form of MATHEMATICA® interpolating functions. -
The IGRB is measured using Fermi-LAT data [33]. We compared the
$ \gamma $ -ray flux produced by DM with the IGRB to define the constraints on the lifetime of ssDM. The region of interest includes high-latitude regions ($ |b|>20^\circ $ ), where b is the galactic latitude, because the analysis of the IGRB by Fermi-LAT is limited to these regions [33].The cosmic positron flux is measured by the AMS on the International Space Station [34]. We also compared the positron flux produced by DM with the measured flux to define constraints on the lifetime of ssDM.
The comparison strategies used in this paper are as follows. Define
$ \chi^2 $ as$ \chi^2 = \sum\limits_i \frac{(\Phi^{\rm{th}}_i-\Phi^{\rm{obs}}_i)^2}{\delta_i^2} \Theta(\Phi^{\rm{th}}_i-\Phi^{\rm{obs}}_i), $
(25) where
$ \Phi^{\rm{th}}_i $ and$ \Phi^{\rm{obs}}_i $ denote the predicted and observed fluxes, respectively;$ \delta_i $ are the experimental errors, and$ \Theta(x) $ is the Heaviside function. This work requires$ \chi^2<9 $ to obtain an approximate estimate of the 3-$ \sigma $ constraint [40, 41], and only energy bins located above 1 GeV are used. -
Unresolved sources, such as non-blazar active galactic nuclei, the unresolved star-forming galaxies, BL Lacertae objects, flat-spectrum radio quasar blazars, and electromagnetic cascades generated through ultra-high energy cosmic-ray propagation, can contribute to the IGRB. When the IGRB is used to constrain the lifetime of DM, some studies consider the contribution of these sources to obtain the most stringent constraints [42]. Other studies do not consider the contribution of these sources to obtain conservative constraints [41]. In this study, we do not consider unresolved source contributions to the IGRB; therefore, the results we obtain are conservative.
The cosmic positron spectrum is believed to have a power-law background. We do not consider this contribution in the total predicted flux; therefore, the results obtained using the cosmic positron flux are also conservative.
Observational constraints on dark matter decaying via gravity portals
- Received Date: 2020-05-13
- Accepted Date: 2020-07-22
- Available Online: 2020-12-01
Abstract: Global symmetry can guarantee the stability of dark matter particles (DMps). However, the nonminimal coupling between dark matter (DM) and gravity can break the global symmetry of DMps, which in turn leads to their decay. Under the framework of nonminimal coupling between scalar singlet dark matter (ssDM) and gravity, it is worth exploring the extent to which the symmetry of ssDM is broken. It is suggested that the total number of decay products of ssDM cannot exceed current observational constraints. Along these lines, the data obtained with satellites such as Fermi-LAT and AMS-02 suggest that the scale of ssDM global symmetry breaking can be limited. Because the mass of many promising DM candidates is likely to be in the GeV-TeV range, we determine reasonable parameters for the ssDM lifetime within this range. We find that when the mass of ssDM is around the electroweak scale (246 GeV), the corresponding 3