text:
# Detection of CO emission 12CO J=1→0 and 12CO J=2→1 from the Luminous Blue Variable Star AG Carinae: circumstellar envelope or disk?Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile.

## 1 Introduction

Massive stars spend their H-burning phase as O stars and become, after a few million years, Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars undergoing core He-burning. Mass loss plays a key role in driving the stellar evolution from the main sequence to the WR stage, especially during the intermediate phase of Luminous Blue Variable (LBV). Luminous Blue Variables have been recognized to be at the point of core H-burning exhaustion (Pasquali et al. 1997). In the H-R Diagram (HRD) they are located close to the Humphreys-Davidson (HD) boundary limit (Humphreys & Davidson 1979), which represents an empirical instability limit to the evolution of stars more massive than 40 M. They display large and irregular spectro-photometric variability by transiting between hot visual minima phases (Teff $``$ 20000 - 30000K) to cooler visual maxima phases (Teff $`<`$ 10000K). Their variability is also characterized by violent eruptions, with visual brightness increases of 3 magnitudes or more, and extreme mass loss (up to several solar masses of material ejected in the surrounding medium). In between such dramatic outbursts, LBVs still lose mass at high rates – typically 10-5 \- 10-4 M/yr (e.g. Leitherer et al. 1994).

The relics of these eruptions are spectacular circumstellar nebulae, such as the one observed around Eta Carinae. A systematic investigation of LBVs in the Galaxy and in the Large Magellanic Cloud (Nota et al. 1995) has shown that the majority of the known LBVs is surrounded by an ejected nebula, whose kinematical and chemical properties may be used to constrain the mass loss history of the central star. Their morphology suggests they are shaped by wind interactions. The nebular dynamics indicates that the ejection timescale is comparable to the evolutionary lifetime of the LBV phase. Their chemical composition has been used to infer the evolutionary status of the central star at the moment of the ejection (Lamers et al. 2001). However, these evolutionary diagnostics are mostly derived from optical data. So far, LBVs have been little studied at infrared or submillimeter wavelengths although these spectral regions provide a number of diagnostics probes of the nebular physical conditions which are not available at optical or UV wavelengths. A great wealth of information can be derived from such observations on the presence of dust or molecular gas in the close surrounding of these hot stars, to complement the optical data and to help determine the total amount of mass lost during the LBV phase. This piece of information, presently incomplete, is crucial to constrain the theoretical models which currently fail to reproduce the transition between O and WR stars (Langer et al. 1994).

In the past few years, near-IR imaging and spectroscopy both from the ground and more recently with ISO (Waters et al. 1998a,b; Voors et al. 1997; Morris et al. 2000) have greatly expanded our understanding of the properties, formation and survival mechanisms of dust in hot stellar environments (Teff $``$ 20000 - 40000 K). For the first time it has been possible to study the spatial distribution of the dust, to quantify the nebular dust mass with some accuracy, and to investigate the dust - gas correlation. In addition, the spectroscopic investigation of the dust features has contributed to better characterise the dust properties and has provided additional independent evidence that these stars were cool and extended (mimicing a Red Supergiant - RSG) during the ejection of the nebula (Lamers et al. 2001).

Presence of molecular gas around hot, evolved stars had unexpectedly been found in 1988 by McGregor et al. in a survey of blue supergiants in the LMC. McGregor et al. unambiguously detected the first overtone band heads of CO at 2.3 $`\mu `$ in six objects. Given the very low CO dissociation energy (11.1 eV), the presence of CO emission in close proximity to O and B supergiants characterised by fast stellar wind (Vinf $``$ 200-400 km s-1) and strong radiation fields has been difficult to explain. One possible explanation is that the CO emission is spatially extended, and far from the star. If the star has already experienced a RSG phase, the CO emission could be a tracer of the previous cool and dense wind which has been compressed and excited by the interaction with the present hotter stellar wind. Alternatively, the CO emission may be localised and close to the star. McGregor et al. (1988) had tentatively identified the CO emitting region with a circumstellar disk which is able to shield the CO from the stellar radiation and ionized wind. Localised emission can also be explained, as is observed in the case of cooler giants and supergiants (such as S and C stars), by the survival of the CO in an outer layer of the stellar envelope and its excitation by the stellar radiation field (Knapp & Morris 1985; Olofsson et al. 1988; Heske 1990). This explanation is only acceptable if the star mimiced a RSG during the ejection of the nebula. Unfortunately, the observations by McGregor did not have the spatial resolution necessary to discriminate among the possible scenarios.

Among the luminous supergiants which McGregor et al. (1988) observed, there was the galactic LBV AG Carinae. AG Carinae is one of the most luminous LBVs, which is located in the HRD very close to the HD limit. Its distance is $`6\pm 1`$ kpc and its luminosity is $`1.710^6`$ L (Humpreys et al. 1989). The effective temperature is variable between about 9000 K and 25000 K, and so the radius changes from 70 to 500 R (Lamers 1986; Voors et al. 2000). It is surrounded by a very bright, extended nebula which has been known since the 1950’s (Thackeray 1950). The nebula is composed of ionized gas and dust. When imaged in the light of H$`\alpha `$, it exhibits an elliptical shell-like morphology (30′′ $`\times `$ 40′′ in size). The nebular lines indicate that the nebula is expanding at an average velocity of 70 km s-1 (Smith 1991). In the light of the line free continuum, which displays the stellar radiation scattered by dust, the AG Carinae nebula appears quite different (Paresce & Nota 1989): the dust grains are distributed in a jet-like feature which HST has resolved into a myriad of clumps and filaments with an overall bipolar structure (Nota et al. 1996). Recent ISO observations indicate that the dust grains are mostly crystalline olivine with an emission peak at 33.8 $`\mu `$m (Waters et al. 1998). McGregor et al. (1988) did not detect any CO overtone emission in AG Carinae. They found little or no emission from hot dust in the near-infrared, but surprisingly detected strong far-infrared emission from cool dust, and inferred the action of a strong stellar wind, which possibly removed the dust from the inner region. We decided to revisit the question of the presence of molecular gas in the circumstellar environment of AG Carinae, for a number of reasons: AG Carinae is the ideal target for a neutral material study, given its proximity and the large spatial extension of the nebula. The nebula is rich in gas and dust and displays a strong far-infrared eccess. We have therefore decided to start an investigation aimed at detecting and characterising the properties of the neutral material around AG Carinae, with the objective to: 1) detect CO emission from molecular gas, 2) understand whether the emission is localised or spatially extended, and 3) determine the amount of molecular gas in the circumstellar environment. We have carried out this program with the SEST telescope in the submillimeter range, studying the transitions 12CO J=$`21`$ and 12CO J=$`10`$ and obtaining CO emission maps of the entire nebula. The observation strategy and data reduction procedures are described in Sect. 2, and the results of our investigation are presented in Sect. 3. Discussion and conclusions follow in Sect. 4 and 5, respectively.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Observations of the region around AG Carinae were made with the Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) in February 1997, March 1998 and February 1999. In February 1997 observations were made with the 3 mm receiver and High Resolution Spectrometer (HRS) covering the 12CO J=$`10`$ (115.271GHz) emission line. This provided 2000 frequency channels covering an 86MHz bandwidth. The frequency resolution of this system is 80kHz, providing a velocity resolution of approximately 0.22 km s-1. At this wavelength SEST has a beamwidth of approximately 45′′. Single beam spectra were taken along an east-west strip from 12 E of AG Carinae to 15 W of AG Carinae using 45′′ steps. A total of 36 spectra were acquired, with typical on-source integration times of 30 seconds. A dual beam switching method was used in which the source was alternately placed in the two beams to eliminate baseline ripples. The beam throw was 11.6. For several of the positions, emission in the off-source beams affected our final profile. The corresponding spectra were therefore discarded during our analysis.

Additional observations were taken with the same configuration on February 28, 1999, with the objective of extending the spatial coverage to 30’ to the East and to the West of AG Carinae. Typical exposure times were 30s to 2m. A smaller map in declination was performed in the same configuration, from 0 to 10 North and South, with pointings at 0, -2, -10, +2, +10. In Figure 1 we show a large field image centered on AG Carinae, generated from POSS plates, on which we have drawn the region covered by the 12CO J=$`10`$ observations.

Observations were made of the southwest quadrant of AG Carinae nebula in March 1998 using the 230GHz receiver with HRS centered on the 12CO J=$`21`$ (230.537GHz) emission line. We concentrated on this spatial region first, because optical images show the highest concentration of gas emitting and dust scattering stellar light. The complete mapping of the nebula was then achieved in February 1999, with the other three quadrants covered. At these frequencies, our velocity resolution is 0.11 km s-1 and the effective beam width of the telescope is 23′′. The observations of the SW quadrant covered a regular grid of 36′′ $`\times `$ 36′′ at 12′′ intervals, starting at the position of the star. The SE quadrant covered a grid of nine observations, to 24′′ S, also spaced by 12′′. The NE quadrant covered nine pointings extending to 36′′ E, symmetrical to the SW quadrant, and finally the NW quadrant covered nine pointings, also spaced by 12′′. In Figure 2 we show all pointings overlaid on a ground based coronographic image of the AG Carinae nebula, taken in the light of H$`\alpha `$ (Nota et al. 1992). Several on-source observations were made at each grid position with 30 seconds integration each. Summation of these spectra provided total on-source integration times 5 to 10 minutes at each of the grid positions. Elimination of baseline ripples was achieved by position switching to an area of the sky apparently devoid of CO emission-lines.

For both sets of observations, pointing to better than 3′′ was achieved through observations of bright SiO masers, e.g. VY CMa.

Intensity calibration, resulting in an antenna temperature T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{}`$, was provided by the chopper wheel method and a set of internal calibrators. This was done on-line as the data was collected at the telescope. Linear drifts in frequency were also removed during each calibration through the use of a frequency comb (a set of narrow lines with well defined frequencies). To convert the intensities to main beam brightness temperatures (T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{mb}{}^{}`$), the antenna temperatures were divided by the main beam efficiency of the telescope (0.7 and 0.5 at 115 and 230GHz respectively). For both sets of observations constant and/or residual sinusoidal baselines were removed, as necessary, from each of the final CO profiles. The resulting profiles were then plotted on a velocity scale, after being reduced to the local standard of rest (Vlsr).

## 3 CO maps and CO-line profiles

The 12CO J=$`21`$ and the 12CO J=$`10`$ profiles taken at the star position are plotted in Figure 3. They are both characterised by a broad component, with a FWHM of $``$ 15 km s-1 centered on the star, and by two narrow components, which in the 12CO J=$`10`$ profile have a FWHM of 2 km s-1 and 1.2 km s-1 respectively, and are separated in velocity by approximately 10 km s-1.
The first goal of this work is to establish which components are intrinsic to AG Carinae and which are generated by the underlying interstellar region.

### 3.1 The 12CO J=$`10`$ map

We investigated the circumstellar region around AG Carinae, by performing a map in right ascension of the 12CO J=$`10`$ line, from 30 West to 30 East, and a smaller map in declination, from 0 to 10 to the North and to the South. The map is illustrated in Figure 4, where selected pointings in the North, East South and West regions are shown, and compared with the observation on the star. The sampling of the observations is different in different regions: every 3 in the East, every 2 in the West, and selected pointings in the North-South direction (0, -2, -10, +2, +10). Some of the pointings along the East-West direction show the two ”narrow” components seen at the star position, although at different levels of intensity, broadening and separation. They are easily visible in the East region, although with remarkable variations in relative intensity (eg. pointings at +12 and +20 in Figure 4). They become very faint in the West region, and almost disappear beyond detection westward than 14. They are visible in the South, but they are very weak in the North. In Figure 5, we have illustrated the motion of these two components in the East - West direction. Their velocity is reported, referenced to the LSR, as a function of position with respect to the star (East to the left and West to the right). The overall motion is consistent with parallel sheets of neutral material at constant radial velocity and very different emissivity from point to point. From the line profiles in the maps, it is also clear that other narrow components are present, indicating that the source of this narrow CO component is in the complex motions of the underlying molecular gas, and is not physically associated with AG Carinae.

The ”broad” component appears to have a different . It is strongest in the pointing centered on the star and somehow visible, although at lower intensity levels, in the spectra at $`+`$4 and $`+`$2. However, this ”broad” component disappears completely beyond a few arcminutes from the central star, as it can be seen in Figure 4. We have fitted a gaussian of FWHM $``$ 12 km s-1 to the broad component in each of the pointings in which it is visible, other than the central star, to estimate its intensity in the pointings adajacent to the star. We find that the broad  component observed on the star is approximately a factor two brighter than the average of the adjacent pointings in which the broad component, is at some level, visible (Figure 6).

It is important to understand whether the emission is associated with the AG Carinae system. From the observations presented so far it is clear that the emission is maximum in correspondence to AG Carinae, and that it extends over a region which is possibly a few arcminutes in size. However, it is not possible, on the basis of these observations alone, to conclude whether the emission originates from the star and close circumstellar environment or from the surrounding nebula, which is rich in dust, and most plausibly could also contain molecular gas. Unfortunately the spatial resolution of the 12CO J=1$``$0 observation is $``$ 45′′, which is roughly corresponding to the spatial extent of the circumstellar nebula. The combination of the spatial resolution (45′′) with the spatial sampling (2) does not allow us to assess, from these observations alone, the origin of the detected emission.

We then performed a second map in the 12CO J=2$``$1 line, with the expectation to be able to better define the nature of this broad emission. In fact, in this observing mode the spatial resolution of SEST is almost a factor two better (beam width = 23′′, compared with 45′′).

### 3.2 The 12CO J=$`21`$ map

The central section of the grid of 12CO J=2$``$1 spectra covering the AG Carinae nebula is shown in Figure 7. The SW quadrant of the nebula is of particular interest because it presents the highest concentration of gas and dust. This is the region where we would expect to detect the presence of molecular gas and therefore, CO emission. Spectra of this region have been taken in 1998 with a spacing of 12′′ in both RA and DEC. Additional maps of the remaining three quadrants were obtained a year later with the same observing configuration. The total spatial coverage of the 12CO J=$`21`$ map is $``$ 72′′ in the two directions (E-W, N-S). The spectra cover the velocity range from -2 km s-1 to 51 km s-1 and a beam temperature T$`{}_{mb}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ range from -0.4 K to 2.3 K. All spectra acquired at each position have been summed. As can be seen from the map, the 12CO J=2$``$1 profiles are characterised by a complex structure of sub-peaks where a number of recurrent features can be identified. For example, the two dominant narrow components observed in the 12CO J=1$``$0 spectra are detected in all 12CO J=2$``$1 profiles. Their morphology seems to change as function of position. In the South, the blueshifted component develops a broad and complex profile, with a number of sub-peaks. The redshifted component increases in intensity with distance from the star, reaching a peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ DEC = -24′′. Additional, fainter, emission sub-peaks are found between the two dominant components, and we notice they tend to merge with the two dominant narrow components at increasing distance from the star.

Throughout the map, the same observational features are found, namely: 1) the two recurrent narrow emissions which eventually blend with secondary peaks, 2) a broad component well visible in the pointing on the star and in many adjacent positions.

In order to better characterise the evolution of the emission components as a function of spatial position, we have applied a multi-gaussian fit to all the spectra in the 12CO J=2$``$1 SW map, to: 1) identify the sub-peaks detected at some of the offset positions, and 2) track their motion as a function of position with respect to the star. The velocity-position map is shown in Figure 8, where we have identified 10 separate components in the 12CO J=2$``$1 profile seen on the star (top panel) and tracked them at increasing distances from the star, in the SW quadrant. Their velocities, reduced to the LSR, are plotted as a function of distance from the star in the bottom panel of Figure 8. The filled and open circles indicate the two dominant narrow components - already discussed - at Vlsr = 18.5 km s-1 and 29.7 km s-1, respectively. Five additional components are present in all positions observed: these are at Vlsr = 11 km s-1, 18.5 km s-1, 21.5 km s-1, 29.7 km s-1 and 41 km s-1. Other components are detected, which have a more limited spatial extent: a feature at Vlsr = 13.5 km s-1 appears only at distances larger than 17′′ from the star while a component at Vlsr = 26 km s-1 disappears at distances larger than 38′′. Two other components, at Vlsr = 27 and 28 km s-1, develop at distances of 24′′ and 27′′, respectively. Finally, a component at Vlsr = 33.5 km s-1 is not detected at distances larger than 12′′. It is interesting to notice that all detected components have constant velocity over the entire spatial range. This shows that the CO producing the narrow components is most likely in sheets of neutral material moving at constant velocity in the background/foreground of the AG Carinae system.

The most intriguing feature remains, however, the broad component observed in the spectra taken on and around the central star. It is still detected, but much less prominent, in the spectra on regions further away from the star (eg. (+12′′, -24′′), and (+12′′, -12′′) most likely due to the fact that part of the beam (FWHM = 23′′) still subtends the inner region. It seems unlikely that the emission is originated by the AG Carinae optical nebula. In fact, the AG Carinae nebula is $``$ 35′′ in diameter. The brightest regions are located $``$ 12′′ from the star. If the CO emission were originating from the gaseous nebula, we would expect to detect little CO emission in the spectrum obtained on the star, and strong emission at distances 10-20′′ from the star. We observe exactly the opposite: the emission is stronger and best defined in the spectrum taken on the star, and is much less prominent as soon as we depart from that position. This indicates clearly that the source of the broad CO component is in the close circumstellar environment of AG Carinae.

An independent confirmation of our conclusion comes from kinematical considerations: we have fitted a multi-gaussian function to the 12CO J=2$``$1 profile acquired on the star (0, 0), to disentangle the broad component from the two narrow components which are detected at that position. The results of the fit are shown in Figure 3 (bottom panel). We have measured the broad component to have a FWHM of $``$ 15 km s-1, a peak velocity of 26.5 km s-1, and a peak T$`{}_{mb}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ of 0.8 K. For comparison, in Figure 3 (upper panel) we show the 12CO J=1$``$0 line profile, which is very similar in morphology. In the case of the 12CO J=1$``$0 line we have derived a peak Vlsr of 24.5 km s-1, a peak T$`{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ of 1.5 K and a FWHM value of 14 km s-1. This resulting expansion velocity of the outflow ($``$ 7 km s-1) is much lower than the expansion velocity of the optical nebula ($``$ 70 km s-1, Smith et al. 1991). This difference in velocity again indicates that the CO emission does not originate at the location of the optical nebula, at a distance of $``$20′′ from the central star. The location and the velocity of the CO broad component show that the CO emission comes from a region close to the star, with a small outflow velocity of $``$ 7 km s-1. Of course this broad component could be due to a foreground or background cloud that happens to coincide with the position of the star. This is very unlikely, however, for the following reasons: first, because of the low probability of such a coincidence, and second, because of the larger width of the CO broad line compared with the other narrower interstellar CO components.

## 4 Discussion

Observations of the first overtone band of CO at 2.3 $`\mu `$m in AG Carinae were attempted by McGregor et al. (1988). No CO emission was detected in the infrared spectrum of AG Carinae or in Eta Carinae and P Cygni, the three most well known galactic LBVs. Our detection of a broad emission in the submillimeter 12CO J=2$``$1 and 12CO J=1$``$0 lines is, therefore, the first to date. This type of emission is typically found in carbon stars, which lose large amounts of matter in the form of a slow stellar wind, and typically form circumstellar envelopes of gas and dust. The physical conditions of temperature and density in these envelopes are such that molecular species can form and survive, and be shielded from the dissociating UV radiation field (Oloffson 1988, Oloffson et al. 1993a,b)

Carbon stars come from low-mass progenitors and follow a very different evolutionary path compared with the much more massive counterparts discussed here. However, it is interesting to notice that an inspection of the CO line profiles collected by Olofsson et al. (1993) from their large sample of galactic bright carbon stars shows that the broad component observed in AG Carinae quite closely resembles similar features observed in the spectra of several stars in their sample. In general, the observed line profiles were found to lie in the middle of two extremes: the rectangular profile and the parabolic profile.

In determining the amount of CO, we have to make an assumption about its spatial and velocity distribution. The broad emission observed in AG Carinae closely mimics the standard parabolic profile (cf. Figure 3). Such a parabolic profile can be due to an optically thin outflow, if the beam size is smaller than the angular extension of the source. This option is excluded on the basis that we believe the emission to be unresolved. The parabolic profile can also be due to:

* a) an optically thick spherically symmetric outflow at constant velocity,
* b) an optically thin wind with a non-spherical outflow or a velocity that is not constant with distance.

The presence of CO in close proximity to these very hot stars implies that the neutral material must be shielded from the stellar radiation. This is possible if the outflow is mainly in a disk (option b). This disk could be either gravitationally bound, i.e. a Keplerian disk, or an outflowing disk. As shown by Bjorkman (1998) and Kraus & Lamers (2002) effective shielding occurs in disks around B\[e\]-stars, so that H remains neutral very close to the stars and CO can form at a distance of only a few stellar radii.

Moreover, the study of the chemical abundances in LBV nebulae (Lamers et al. 2001) and the currently accepted scenarios for the nebula ejection (Langer 1997) indicate that rotation must play an important role in the mixing and the ejection of the nebula. Therefore, we cannot use the optically thick spherical approximation to estimate the amount of CO mass (option a). Instead we will use the optically thin approximation to estimate a lower limit of the mass. The line luminosities of the 2.6mm and the 1.3mm lines are derived from the source monochromatic brightness $`B_\nu (T)`$ per steradian, where the brightness temperature T (= T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{mb}{}^{}`$) is the antenna temperature T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{}`$ corrected for the telescope efficiency. The net line flux is computed from the ‘on the star’ broad component after subtraction of the mean interstellar contribution. The monochromatic brightness is actually the integral of the residual temperature profile as a function of frequency for the CO $`J=10`$ line and the beam size of the telescope:

$$F_{2.6mm}=Beam\times \mathrm{\Sigma }B_\nu (T)\mathrm{\Delta }\nu $$
(1)
Therefore, the luminosity of the $`J=10`$ line turns out to be:

$$L_{2.6mm}=4\pi D^2F_{2.6mm}=1.3\times 10^3L_{}$$
(2)
Similarly, we find for the 1.3mm line,

$$L_{1.3mm}=2.3\times 10^3L_{}$$
(3)
If the emitting region is optically thin, the line luminosity can be expressed in terms of the total number of emitting CO molecules in the $`J=1`$ level as $`L_{2.6mm}=N_{J=1}A_{J=1,0}h\nu `$ and similarly for the $`J=21`$ line, where the Einstein coefficients $`A_{J=1,0}=6\times 10^8`$ s-1 and $`A_{J=2,1}=7\times 10^7`$ s-1. The population of the $`J=1`$ level can be expressed in terms of an excitation temperature as

$$N_{J=1}=N_{J=0}\frac{g_u}{g_l}exp(\chi /kT_{\mathrm{exc}})$$
(4)
with $`g_u=3`$ and $`g_l=1`$ and $`\chi =4.77\times 10^4`$ eV. The excitation temperature is at least as high as that of the 2.7 K background radiation. This implies that NJ=0 $`<`$ 2.6 NJ=1 and Ntot $`<`$ 3.6 NJ=1. We can estimate the excitation temperature from a comparison of the line luminosities of the COJ=2→1 and the COJ=1→0 lines, which is L2→1/L1→0 = 1.7. With the parameters given above, we find that NJ=2/NJ=1 = 0.090 which corresponds to an excitation temperature between these two levels of 3.8 K. Note that this is the excitation temperature produced by collisions with H2 molecules, and not the gas temperature which can be much higher. Adopting this value for both excitation steps we find that Ntot = NJ=0 \+ NJ=1 \+ NJ=2 = 2.52 $`\times `$ NJ=1. We will adopt this ratio for the derivation of the lower limit to the CO mass.

From the values of L2.6mm and L1.3mm we find that the total number of CO molecules required to produce these line strenghts is 2.3 $`\times `$ 1053. This implies a minimum CO mass of 5.2 $`\times `$ 10-3 M ==¿ 5.4 $`\times `$ 10-3 M.

We can estimate the total amount of molecular gas by quantifying the present fraction of CO. Studies of the CNO abundances in the nebulae of LBVs by Smith et al. (1998) and Lamers et al. (2001) show that the nebula of AG Car consists roughly of 80% processed material in which C is severely depleted, and 20% of unprocessed material. This suggests that the mass fraction of C is depleted by about a factor 5 relative to the initial composition, for which the mass fraction of C is 4.9 $`\times `$ 10-3 in Population I gas. Oxygen is also depleted, but the C/O ratio will still be smaller than unity so that the CO abundance is set by the C abundance. If all the C is locked in CO, which is a reasonable assumption for a shielded region, the mass fraction of 12C16O is 28/12 times the mass fraction of C. In the assumption that the CO emission was generated when AG Carinae was an evolved object, the CO mass fraction would then be of $`(1/5)\times (28/12)\times 4.9\times 10^3=2.3\times 10^3`$. Accounting for this fraction we find a total mass of the molecular region of 2.8 M. With this estimated minumum mass, and a maximum radius of the unresolved CO-emitting region of about 30 ′′ in diameter, we find that the optical depth of the CO lines is $`\tau _{J=10}8`$ and $`\tau _{J=21}4`$. So the lines are marginally optically thick and the mass estimate is indeed a lower limit. The H2 density, derived from the CO column density and the ratio n(H2)/n(CO)$`6\times 10^3`$, is at least $`5\times 10^2`$ mol cm-3.

This cool gas is most likely concentrated in the outer regions of a circumstellar disk.

Such a disk might be the result of a strong equatorial mass loss, possibly combined with wind compresssion, similar to the disks of B\[e\] supergiants (Zickgraf et al. 1986; Bjorkman 1998; Cassinelli 1998) or due to an outburst when the star has reached its $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ limit, which is the rotationally modified Eddington limit (Langer 1997). In the case of AG Carinae, some circumstantial evidence already exists that the star might host a gaseous disk (which is required to shield the CO in its outer layers from the stellar radiation), based on several independent observational factors:

* the bipolarity of the circumstellar nebula; especially in the light of the continuum, the ejected nebula surrounding AG Carinae displays a remarkable axisymmetry (Nota et al. 1996) which could have been produced by a strong stellar wind interacting with a pre-existing equatorial enhancement;
* the variability in the intrinsic polarization ($``$ 1.2$`\%`$). Very large variations in AG Carinae’s linear polarization have been observed with time at UV and optical wavelengths (Schulte-Ladbeck et al. 1994; Leitherer et al. 1994). The polarization is found to vary along a preferred position angle which is co-aligned with the major axis of the circumstellar nebula. The authors interpret this finding as the presence of a strong anisotropy in the stellar wind.
* the coexistence of different wind components in the UV line profiles. The UV spectra show both presence of recombination lines due to a slow, dense wind and UV P Cygni profiles indicative of a faster, less dense wind (Leitherer et al. 1994). This two component wind structure is very reminiscent of the wind conditions in B\[e\] stars where the slow, dense wind is usually referred to as a circumstellar disk (Zickgraf et al. 1986; Kraus & Krügel 2002).

The comparison with the B\[e\] supergiants is also interesting. B\[e\] stars share approximately the same location in the HRD with LBVs, although at slightly cooler temperatures. B\[e\] supergiants show clear evidence for a fast low density wind with V $``$ 1000 km s-1, that can be seen in the UV resonance lines, and a more slowly expanding equatorial disk with V $``$ 100 - 200 km s-1 that can be seen in the Balmer lines, in the low excitation permitted emission lines of the metals, and in the forbidden emission lines of \[FeII\] and \[OI\].

Zickgraf et al. (1986) have explained the observed bimodality in terms of a two-component wind, developing along the polar axis and on the equatorial plane of the stars. Such a structure can be explained by the rotation induced bi-stability model (Lamers & Pauldrach 1991; Pelupessy et al. 2000). The polar wind is a radiation-driven wind, hot but not dense, expanding at higher speed. It is responsible for the strong P Cygni emissions of the UV resonance lines. The equatorial outflow, which is also radiation-driven, but by ions of lower ionization stages than the polar wind, is cooler and denser, moving at lower velocity. The conditions in the dense equatorial outflow allow shielding of the heavy elements and are met by an equatorial enhancement of the stellar wind, which is also referred to as a disk. This disk is possibly further compressed by the wind compressed disk mechanism (Bjorkman & Cassinelli 1993; Lamers & Cassinelli 1999, Chapter 11). The circumstellar disk prevents dust from being destroyed by the stellar radiation and may well explain the characteristic strong infrared excess observed in B\[e\] supergiants due to thermal emission from dust at T $``$ 1000 K (Bjorkman 1998).

AG Carinae is not the only LBV for which the possible presence of a disk has been indicated by a number of independent observations. HR Carinae for example, which is to date the most plausible LBV candidate for having a disk, shares some of the same observational evidence: 1) a bipolar nebula, 2) CO overtone emission detected in the infrared spectrum (McGregor et al. 1988), indicative of a cool (a few thousand K) and dense ($``$ 1010 cm-3) region of circumstellar gas, 3) evidence for presence of intrinsic polarization, from the change of polarization at the H$`\alpha `$ emission line with respect to the continuum (Clampin et al. 1995). These results imply that the scattering material in close proximity to the star is also not distributed with a spherical symmetry. In addition, in similarity with AG Carinae, the intrinsic polarization vector turns out to be coarsely perpendicular to the nebular major axis.

It is interesting to understand why McGregor et al. (1988) failed to detect any near-IR CO overtone emission in AG Carinae, while detecting it in HR Carinae. McGregor et al. observed HR Carinae four times between 1984 and 1986. In March and June 1984 they detected the three CO overtone bands at $`\lambda `$ 2.295, 2.324, and 2.354. In March 1985 and February 1986 they reobserved the star, but could only obtain an upper limit to the flux. Morris et al. (1997) reobserved HR Carinae in November 1995 with ISO and again detected presence of the three CO band heads. They found that a combination of a bi-stable wind with rapid rotation or wind compression forming a disk would meet the density and shielding required to explain the observed CO flux. In addition, they found that the variability of the CO overtone emission was in phase with the variations in the V magnitude, that is CO overtone would be detected when the light curve was at a minimum. Morris et al. (1997) explained this observed variability with optical depth variations as predicted by the theory of bi-stable line-driven winds (Pauldrach & Puls 1990), and for bistable disks by Lamers & Pauldrach (1991).

The non detection of CO band heads in AG Carinae could also be explained by a similar mechanism. AG Carinae was observed three times: in March 1984, June 1984 and January 1985, always obtaining upper limits to the flux determination of the three CO bands. When comparing with the optical light curve provided by Leitherer et al. (1994, their Figure 1), we find that AG Car was transitioning from maximum to minimum in 1982 - 1985, reaching a stable minimum at the beginning of 1985. It is unfortunate that no subsequent CO observations were taken.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented the first detection of 12CO J=2$``$1 and 12CO J=1$``$0 emission from the LBV AG Carinae. The emission is spatially unresolved. We believe it to be spatially localised, rather than extended, and most likely associated with the immediate circumstellar region of AG Carinae, i.e. inside the optical nebula. Both the detected CO lines are characterised by a pseudo-gaussian profile of FWHM $``$ 15 km s-1, indicating a slowly expanding region of molecular gas in close proximity to the hot central star. We have explored two possible scenarios to explain the observed profile: a circumstellar envelope, similar to carbon stars, or a circumstellar disk. We believe that the option of the circumstellar disk is preferable to provide the shielding necessary for the CO molecules to survive.

What is the origin of the CO emission? The outflow velocity ($``$ 7 km s-1) is atypically low when compared to the wind velocities of LBVs (Vinf $`>`$ 100-200 km s-1). As we already mentioned, the CO velocity is also much slower than the expansion velocity of the optical nebula ($``$ 70 km s-1), with whom it is unlikely associated. In terms of absolute values, slow winds are usually found in red supergiants (RSG). The question whether AG Carinae spent any time as a RSG is still open and argued on the basis of independent observational facts.

Smith et al. (1988) and Waters et al. (1998) argued that the abundances of the nebula and the composition of the dust would be in agreement with the ejection of the nebula as a RSG. Alternatively, Lamers et al. (2001) have shown that the abundances, the velocity, the dynamical age and the morphology of the nebula are all consistent with the nebula being ejected immediately after the main sequence phase of a rapidly rotating star. In that case the star cannot have been a RSG in the evolutionary sense (i.e. a massive star with a very extended convective envelope), but it may have resembled a RSG during an outburst phase, when the wind was optically thick, the effective radius very large and the outflow velocity very low.

We consider several possible origins for the CO emission:

* In the scenario proposed by Smith et al. (1998) which includes a RSG phase, or by Lamers et al. (2001) which includes a brief RSG-like phase, the molecular outflow could have originated during the RSG phase and survived protected by the disk likely formed when the star, evolving as an LBV to the blue side of the HRD, developed its fast wind. This could easily explain the low expansion velocity.
* Alternatively, the CO may originate at the outer regions of a circumstellar disk, similar to the case of the B\[e\] stars. In this case the low velocity is difficult to explain. In normal B\[e\] stars the outflow velocity is of order of 100 km s-1, even at large distances as shown by the forbidden lines (Zickgraf 1986). This is much larger than the value of 7 km s-1 that we observe.
* Or, the CO emission may originate at the interaction-zone at the edge of the IS bubble that was blown by the star. The maximum size of the emitting region ($`<`$ 1 arcmin) corresponds to a radius of about 1 pc. The amount of mass lost by the star in its main sequence phase is about 10 M. The observed amount of molecular gas is $``$ 3 M, which is only about 1/4 of the total mass of the shocked gas at the edge of the bubble. The main problem with this interpretation is the small radius of the unresolved CO-emitting region (diameter $`<`$ 30′′ or 0.9 pc) compared with the predicted much larger size (several tens of parsecs) of the bubble blown by a spherical wind from a massive star with a velocity of 1000 km s-1 during 4 $`\times `$ 106 years (see e.g. Lamers & Cassinelli 1999, p. 369). However, if the wind were aspherical, e.g. concentrated in a disk due to the rapid rotation, the expansion speed of the interaction region in the equatorial plane would be much smaller because the bubble can more easily expand in the other direction. This might result in a high density and very low velocity waist of the bipolar interstellar bubble, from which the observed CO emission might originate.

We estimate a lower limit to the mass of the molecular region of 2.8 M. This is smaller, but still comparable with the mass of ionized gas present in the circumstellar environment (4.2 M). The implication is that the molecular gas fraction can contribute significantly to the overall mass lost from the central star in its post main sequence evolution, and therefore one should be careful when assuming that the ionized gas mass well approximates, at least in the case of AG Carinae, the total mass lost.

APM would like to acknowledge financial support from NASA ADP grants NAG5-2999 and NAG5-6854 and a grant from NASA administered by the AAS. APM and HJGLML would also like to thank the STScI’s Visitor Fund for the funding and the hospitality.

FIGURES

Figure 1:A 30 x 30 optical image of the region around AG Carinae (in the center) shows the position of the 12CO J=1$``$0 observations. The size of the symbols is matched to the size of the beam. North is up and East is to the left.

Figure 2: H$`\alpha `$ image of the ejected nebula surrounding AG Carinae on which we overlaid the pointings for the 12CO J=2$``$1 map, which are spaced by 12′′. The circle indicates the beam width for these observations (23′′ in diameter). In this image, North is up, East is to the left.

Figure 3: The 12CO J=1$``$0 and 12CO J=2$``$1 profiles are shown for the position centered on the star AG Carinae. A multi-gaussian fit has been performed for each observed line.

Figure 4: Map for the 12CO J=1$``$0 observations of the region around AG Carinae. The numbers in abscissa/ordinate provide the pointing location in arcminutes from the star (N, S, E or W).

Figure 5: Radial velocity map of the two narrow components in the 12CO J=1$``$0 emission as a function of position with respect to the star. The full dots and the empty dots identify the two components.

Figure 6:The mean interstellar, broad component (dashed line) is superposed to the 12CO J=1$``$0 profile observed on the star. The ‘on star’ broad 12CO J=1$``$0 emission is a factor of 2 higher than its interstellar counterpart, and it is slightly broader.

Figure 7: Map for the 12CO J=2$``$1 observations of the region around AG Carinae. The numbers in abscissa/ordinate provide the pointing location in arcseconds from the star (N, S, E or W).

Figure 8: Gaussian multifit to the various components present in the 12CO J=2$``$1 profile on the star (upper panel). The various components are identified and tracked to a distance of 50′′ from the star. They move in parallel sheets, and they show a limited spatial extent. Most likely, they belong to the underlying molecular gas region.


format: text

text:
# Upper and Lower Limits on Neutralino WIMP Mass and Spin–Independent Scattering Cross Section, and Impact of New (𝒈-𝟐)_𝝁 Measurement

## 1 Introduction

The hypothesis of the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$, as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), providing the dominant contribution to cold dark matter (CDM) in the Universe, has inspired much activity in the overlap of today’s particle physics and cosmology. It is well–known that the relic density of the neutralinos is often comparable with the critical density . The expectation that the Galactic dark matter (DM) halo is mostly made of weakly–interacting massive particles (WIMPs) has further led to much experimental activity. In particular, the experiments looking for CDM WIMPs elastically scattering off underground targets have recently set limits on spin–independent (SI), or scalar, cross section of the order of $`10^6\text{pb}`$ . They have also nearly ruled out the region of ($`m_\chi ,\sigma _p^{SI}`$) that has been claimed by the DAMA experiment to be consistent with an annual modulation effect . Initial and early studies  were followed by more recent work , where it was concluded that current experimental sensitivity is generally comparable with the ranges expected from the neutralino WIMP in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). It is, however, still at least on order of magnitude, or so, above the ranges predicted by recent analyses of the Constrained MSSM (CMSSM) .

For comparison, cross sections for spin–dependent (SD) interactions are in the case of the neutralino generally some two or three orders of magnitude larger than the SI ones. On the other hand, at present detectors are still not sensitive enough to explore the parameter space of the MSSM, despite recent progress .

In light of the ongoing and planned experimental activities, it is timely to conduct a thorough and careful re–analysis of the predicted cross sections for SI scattering of neutralino WIMPs. Such a study is rather challenging because resulting ranges often strongly depend on a given SUSY model and on related theoretical assumptions. They are further affected by experimental limits on SUSY, both from colliders and from indirect searches, as well as by cosmological input, where the relic abundance of the CDM has been measured with better accuracy both directly and in CMBR studies . Over the last few years and months there have been also new results for LEP lower bounds on the masses of the lightest Higgs and electroweakly–interacting superpartners, Tevatron lower limits on strongly–interacting superpartners, as well as limits on allowed SUSY contributions to $`bs\gamma `$, and especially to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ . The new result for $`(g2)_\mu `$ indicates a sizable deviation from the Standard Model prediction, whose value is still a subject of much discussion. As we will show, when interpreted in terms of SUSY, the required extra contribution to $`(g2)_\mu `$ plays a unique role in implying a stringent upper bound $`m_\chi \text{ }<350\text{GeV}`$ ($`1\sigma `$ CL) and $`m_\chi \text{ }<512\text{GeV}`$ ($`2\sigma `$), but it does not affect much the allowed ranges of the SI scattering cross section $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$.

In this paper we carefully study the impact of the above constraints. In an attempt to minimize theoretical bias, we work here in the context of the general MSSM, which will be defined below, with an additional assumption of $`R`$–parity conservation. We focus here on the SI cross section case. Other recent studies of the general MSSM include . The results presented here show that the level of experimental sensitivity that has recently been reached  has now indeed allowed one to start exploring cosmologically favored ranges of the neutralino WIMP mass and SI cross section. However, we point out a number of caveats and relations and further discuss the origin of, and robustness of, the upper and lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. In particular, for a big range of the heavy neutralino mass $`440\text{GeV}\text{ }<m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}\text{GeV}`$ we are able to derive parameter–independent lower bounds on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. Collider lower limits on Higgs and superpartner masses plus requiring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ alone leads to a parameter–independent upper bound $`m_\chi \text{ }<2.6\text{TeV}`$.

## 2 The MSSM

We start by reviewing relevant features of the general MSSM . (We follow the convention of .) By the MSSM we mean a supersymmetrized version of the Standard Model, with Yukawa and soft SUSY–breaking terms consistent with $`R`$–parity. We neglect CP–violating phases in the Higgs and SUSY sectors and assume no mixings among different generations of squarks and sleptons, since both are probably small. In the MSSM, all the slepton and squark masses can be considered as a priori free parameters set at the electroweak scale. In the same way we treat the trilinear parameters $`A_i`$ ($`i=t,b,\tau `$) of the third generation while neglecting the ones of the first two. The Higgs sector is determined at the tree level by the usual ratio of the neutral Higgs VEV’s $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_t/v_b`$ and the mass of the pseudoscalar $`m_A`$. In computing full one-loop and leading two-loop radiative corrections to the lightest scalar Higgs we use the package FeynHiggsFast (FHF) . As we will see, Higgs masses will play an important role in the analysis.

The lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ is lightest of the four mass eigenstates of the linear combinations of the bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, the wino $`\stackrel{~}{W}_3^0`$ and the two higgsinos $`\stackrel{~}{H}_b^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t^0`$

$$\chi \chi _1^0=N_{11}\stackrel{~}{B}+N_{12}\stackrel{~}{W}_3^0+N_{13}\stackrel{~}{H}_b^0+N_{14}\stackrel{~}{H}_t^0.$$
(1)
The neutralino mass matrix $``$  is determined by the $`U(1)_Y`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ gaugino mass parameters $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, respectively (and we impose the relation $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2`$, which comes from assuming gaugino mass unification at GUT scale), the Higgs/higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$, as well as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In the region $`|\mu |M_1`$, the lightest neutralino is mostly a bino with mass $`m_\chi M_1`$. In the other extreme, it is mostly higgsino–dominated and $`m_\chi |\mu |`$.

For the purpose of this analysis, we take as independent parameters: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$, $`M_2`$, $`m_A`$, $`A_{t,b}`$ as well as the soft masses of the sleptons and of the squarks. In order to make our analysis manageable, we make an additional assumption that, at the electroweak scale, the soft mass parameters of the sleptons are all equal to some common value $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$, and analogously $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ for all the squarks. One normally expects certain relations among the physical masses of the sleptons and the squarks since they in addition receive well–defined D–term and F–term contributions to their mass matrices. Assuming common soft mass terms, at either GUT or electroweak scale, this normally leads to the sleptons being lighter than the squarks. Furthermore, for the sfermions of the 3rd generation it is natural to expect large mass splittings. However, we believe that, for our purpose, introducing just two separate common soft mass scales $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, while greatly simplifying the analysis, will not play much role in our overall conclusions for the SI cross sections. (This is in contrast to often assumed full degeneracy of soft sfermion masses which leads in our opinion to an unnecessary limitation on the allowed SUSY parameter space.)

What we do find important is to disentangle squark and slepton masses. This is mainly because experimental limits on slepton masses are significantly weaker than in the case of squarks. For the case of the bino–like neutralino, which is the most natural case for providing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^21`$ , it is therefore the mass of the lightest slepton which often predominantly determines $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. Assuming common soft masses for sleptons and squarks at the electroweak scale would therefore generally lead to overestimating $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ by missing the cases where relatively light sleptons (below current squark mass bounds) would otherwise provide acceptable $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. An additional effect is that of coannihilation. When slepton mass is only somewhat larger than that of the LSP, the neutralino relic abundance is strongly reduced and otherwise forbidden cases become allowed .

## 3 The Spin–Independent Cross Section

For non-relativistic Majorana particles, like the neutralino WIMP, the elastic scattering off constituent quarks and gluons of some nucleon $`{}_{Z}{}^{A}X`$ is given by an effective differential cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{SI}}{d|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{SD}}{d|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}},`$ (2)
where the transferred momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}=\mu _A\stackrel{}{v}`$ depends on the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ of the incident WIMP, and $`\mu _A=m_Am_\chi /(m_A+m_\chi )`$ is the reduced mass of the system. The effective WIMP-nucleon cross sections $`\sigma ^{SI}`$ and $`\sigma ^{SD}`$ are computed by evaluating nucleonic matrix elements of corresponding WIMP–quark and WIMP–gluon interaction operators.

In the SI part, contributions from individual nucleons in the nucleus add coherently and the finite size effects are accounted for by including the SI nuclear form factor $`F(q)`$. The differential cross section for the scalar part then takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{SI}}{d|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi v^2}}\left[Zf_p+(AZ)f_n\right]^2F^2(q),`$ (3)
where $`f_p`$ and $`f_n`$ are the effective neutralino couplings to protons and neutrons, respectively. Explicit expressions for the case of the supersymmetric neutralino can be found, e.g., in . The formalism we follow has been reviewed in several recent papers . We have re–done the original complete calculation of Drees and Nojiri  and agreed with their results.

A convenient quantity which is customarily used in comparing theory and experimental results for SI interactions is the cross section $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ for WIMP elastic scattering of free proton in the limit of zero momentum transfer:

$$\sigma _p^{SI}=\frac{4}{\pi }\mu _p^2f_p^2$$
(4)
where $`\mu _p`$ is defined similarly to $`\mu _A`$ above. The analogous quantity for a target with nuclei with mass number $`A`$ can then be expressed in terms of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ as

$$\sigma _A^{SI}=\frac{4}{\pi }\mu _A^2\left[Zf_p+(AZ)f_n\right]^2=\left(\frac{\mu _A}{\mu _p}\right)^2A^2\sigma _p^{SI}.$$
(5)
One can do so because, for Majorana WIMPs, $`f_pf_n`$.

The coefficients $`f_{p,n}`$ can be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_p}{m_p}}={\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{Tq}^{(p)}}{m_q}}f_q+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}f_{TG}^{(p)}{\displaystyle \underset{c,b,t}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_q}{m_q}}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`f_{TG}^{(p)}=1_{q=u,d,s}f_{Tq}^{(p)}`$, and $`f_{Tq}^{(p)}`$ is given by $`<p|m_q\overline{q}q|p>=m_pf_{Tq}^{(p)}`$ ($`q=u,d,s`$), and analogously for the neutron. The masses and ratios $`B_q=p|\overline{q}q|p`$ of light constituent quarks in a nucleon come with some uncertainties. For definiteness, we follow a recent re–evaluation  and assume $`m_u/m_d=0.553\pm 0.043`$, $`m_s/m_d=18.9\pm 0.8`$, and $`B_d/B_u=0.73\pm 0.02`$, as well as

$`f_{Tu}^{(p)}=0.020\pm 0.004,f_{Td}^{(p)}=0.026\pm 0.005,f_{Ts}^{(p)}=0.118\pm 0.062`$
$`f_{Tu}^{(n)}=0.014\pm 0.003,f_{Td}^{(n)}=0.036\pm 0.008,f_{Ts}^{(n)}=0.118\pm 0.062,`$
which numerically gives SI cross section values very similar to using the set of . Some other recent studies use a new determination of $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ to derive a much larger value for $`f_{Ts}^{(p)}0.37`$ . We find such values somewhat questionable since they imply that the strange quark component of the nucleon would be larger than the up and down ones. We have numerically checked that using the set of input parameters of  gives typically SI cross section values a factor of six higher than in our case.

It is worth noting that, despite several different diagrams and complicated expressions, it is the exchange of the heavy scalar Higgs that in most cases comes out to be numerically dominant. It is further enhanced when the neutralino is a mixed gaugino–higgsino state . As $`m_Hm_A`$ increases, $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ drops as $`m_H^4`$ because of the $`t`$–channel propagator effect in $`\chi q\chi q`$ elastic scattering. Eventually, at smaller $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$, squark exchange becomes important, and even dominant, instead.

## 4 Details of the Scan

As outlined above, we use seven parameters $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$, $`m_A`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ and $`A_t=A_b`$ to conduct a careful scan of the general MSSM parameter space. For their allowed ranges we take:

$`50\text{GeV}`$ $`M_2`$ $`2\text{TeV}`$
$`50\text{GeV}`$ $`|\mu |`$ $`2\text{TeV}(4\text{TeV})`$
$`50\text{GeV}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ $`2\text{TeV}(4\text{TeV})`$
$`200\text{GeV}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`2\text{TeV}(4\text{TeV})`$ (6)
$`90\text{GeV}`$ $`m_A`$ $`2\text{TeV}`$
$`0`$ $`|A_{t,b}|`$ $`1\text{TeV}`$
$`5`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`65`$
while we set $`A_\tau =0`$ since we treat the masses of the slepton as independent parameters anyway. In addition to a general scan of the parameter space, in many cases we do several focused scans and explore the effect of extremely large values of $`\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ beyond $`2\text{TeV}`$ (given in brackets above) in order to derive parameter–independent lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ for a big range of large $`m_\chi `$, as described below. The minimum values are set so that the resulting physical masses of Higgs and superpartners are limited from below by collider bounds. For the lighter chargino we take $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }>104\text{GeV}`$ , for sleptons the lower limit of $`90\text{GeV}`$  and for squarks $`200\text{GeV}`$ . The lower limit on $`m_\chi `$ depends not only on a model but also on a number of additional assumptions . For this reason, in our analysis we conservatively do not impose a direct experimental limit on $`m_\chi `$, but instead infer it from the other limits, especially the one on the chargino mass. As regards the lightest Higgs mass $`m_h`$, in much of the parameter space ($`m_A>120\text{GeV}`$) the lower limit on the Standard Model Higgs of $`114.1\text{GeV}`$  applies. However there are two important points to note. Firstly, theoretical uncertainties in computing $`m_h`$ in the MSSM are estimated at $`23\text{GeV}`$. Conservatively, we thus require only $`m_h>111\text{GeV}`$. Secondly, for $`90\text{GeV}<m_A<120\text{GeV}`$, there still remains a sizable range of the ($`m_h,m_A`$)–plane where the lightest Higgs mass given roughly by $`m_h>0.78(m_A+21.7\text{GeV})`$ is allowed . We will comment below on the effect of this low–mass range on increasing the largest allowed values of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$.

Among indirect limits on SUSY, $`bs\gamma `$ often places an important additional constraint on the allowed parameter space. We calculate the SM contribution to $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ at the full NLO level and include dominant $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$–enhanced NLO SUSY , and also include the $`c`$-quark mass effect on the SM value . At this level of accuracy the SM prediction is $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )=(3.70\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ . This range is partially overlapping with the new world–average

$$\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )=(3.41\pm 0.36)\times 10^4$$
(7)
which has gone up from the previous range of $`(3.23\pm 0.72)\times 10^4`$ following the new result from BaBAR . As described in more detail in , with an update in , we accordingly allow the full SM+SUSY contribution to be in the range $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )=(3.41\pm 0.67)\times 10^4`$. It is important, however, to stress here an important salient point. In computing the SUSY contribution to $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ one usually makes an implicit assumption of minimal flavor violation in the down–type squark sector, which is theoretically poorly justified. Even a slight modification of the assumption often leads to a significant relaxation of the bound from $`bs\gamma `$ to the point of even allowing $`\mu <0`$ and relatively light superpartner masses .

A very recent measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$  has confirmed a previous value  but with twice–increased precision

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{expt}}11659000\times 10^{10}=(203\pm 8)\times 10^{10}.$$
(8)
The LO hadronic vacuum polarization contribution has recently been re–evaluated in  and the light–by–light corrections in . In  the updated SM prediction of  has been found to be $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}11659000\times 10^{10}=(169.1\pm 7.8)\times 10^{10}`$ when applying data from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation cross sections and $`(186.3\pm 7.1)\times 10^{10}`$ when applying $`\tau `$–decay data. This leads to a $`3\sigma `$ discrepancy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{\mathrm{expt}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=(33.9\pm 11.2)\times 10^{10}$$
(9)
when using the $`e^+e^{}`$–based data, or to a $`1.6\sigma `$ deviation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{\mathrm{expt}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=(16.7\pm 10.7)\times 10^{10}$$
(10)
when applying the $`\tau `$–based data.

If interpretted in terms of SUSY, eq. (9) restricts the allowed SUSY contribution to

$`22.7\times 10^{10}<`$ $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ $`<45.1\times 10^{10}(1\sigma )`$ (11)
$`11.5\times 10^{10}<`$ $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ $`<56.3\times 10^{10}(2\sigma ).`$ (12)
Similar ranges are obtained by using the results of . The eqs. (9) and (10) further imply that $`\mu >0`$ (the sign of the SUSY contribution is the same as that of $`\mu `$).

This is clearly an intriguing hint for “new physics”. However, since some other recent evaluations tend to give a larger value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$  and a larger error bar , at this point we will not strictly impose the $`(g2)_\mu `$ constraint on the parameter space that is otherwise allowed by all other constraints. Nevertheless, below we will discuss the important impact it has on the upper bounds on $`m_\chi `$.

As regards the WIMP relic abundance, a lower limit on the age of the Universe conservatively gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$, while “direct” measurements of the CDM lead to $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$ which we will treat as a preferred range. Recent studies of the CMBR seem to imply even more restrictive ranges; for example, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.12\pm 0.04`$ in . We will not apply this narrower range yet but will comment below on its impact on the upper and/or lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. We compute $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ as accurately as one reasonably can, at the level of a few per cent both near and further away from poles and thresholds, by applying our recently derived exact analytic expressions for neutralino pair–annihilation  and neutralino–slepton coannihilation , and by using an exact procedure for the neutralino coannihilation with chargino and next–to–lightest neutralino .

## 5 Results

The allowed ranges of the SI cross section that result from our scans are illustrated in Fig. 1 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$, $`A_t=A_b=1\text{TeV}`$ and $`\mu >0`$. Since $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ generally grows with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ due to an enhancement in the heavy scalar Higgs coupling to down–type quarks, the above choice is a reasonable compromise between the low and the very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In deriving the allowed ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ we have imposed the bounds from colliders and from $`bs\gamma `$, and have further required $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$, as described earlier, but not yet the bound from $`(g2)_\mu `$. We also mark with a thick solid line a parameter–independent lower bound on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ which will be explained below.

We can see a big spread of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ over some seven (four) orders of magnitude at small (large) $`m_\chi `$. In fact, the upper values of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ exceed the latest experimental limits, including the recent result from Edelweiss  and the new limit from the UKDMC Zeplin I detector . Also shown is the CDMS bound and the so–called DAMA region. It is clear that today’s experiments have already started probing the most favored ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ that come from SUSY predictions for neutralino cold dark matter.

In the four windows of Fig. 2 we show the effect of the most important constraints on the upper and lower limits on the allowed ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. Firstly, in the upper left window we show the effect of relaxing the cosmological bound by allowing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.1`$. Obviously, larger ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ now become allowed since an enhancement in the neutralino pair–annihilation cross section often, by crossing symmetry, implies an increase in $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. Note, however, that a combination of all the other constraints, most notably a lower limit on $`m_h`$ from LEP and the constraint from $`bs\gamma `$, prevents $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ from rising by more than about one order of magnitude and only for not very large values of $`m_\chi `$. On the other hand, imposing a narrower range $`0.08<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.16`$ has almost no effect on the upper and lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$, although it does remove a number of points from the allowed ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$.

In the same window we also show an important effect, already pointed out in , of including neutralino coannihilation with sleptons (predominantly with the lighter stau) on allowing very low ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ at smaller $`m_\chi `$. At lowest $`m_\chi \text{ }<120\text{GeV}`$ the relic abundance can be reduced to the favored range by choosing in the scan light enough sleptons, even without coannihilation. By simultaneously choosing large enough heavy Higgs and squark masses, one can reduce $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ to very low values of a few $`\times 10^{12}\text{pb}`$. As $`m_\chi `$ increases, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ would normally increase as well, and become too large, but it is there that neutralino–slepton coannihilation kicks in. Since $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ is independent of the slepton masses, by carefully scanning the parameter space, one can always find $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ not much above $`m_\chi `$, in which case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ can be sufficiently reduced again to fall into the favored range. The effect is very strong for smaller $`m_\chi `$, thus explaining a sharp rise of the left side of the dark–red region allowed by neutralino–slepton coannihilation, but, as the process becomes increasingly inefficient at larger $`m_\chi `$ , it gradually fades away.

In the upper right window of Fig. 2 we present the effect of imposing the constraint from $`(g2)_\mu `$. We can see that, for this case, $`m_\chi \text{ }<245\text{GeV}`$ ($`1\sigma `$ CL) and $`m_\chi \text{ }<420\text{GeV}`$ ($`2\sigma `$ CL). This upper limit comes from the fact that, as $`m_\chi `$ increases, the SUSY contribution from the $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\chi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$ loops become suppressed and at some point becomes too small to explain the apparent discrepancy between the SM and the experimental measurement . On the other hand, the upper and lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ are not really affected.

In the same window we also show the effect of relaxing the constraints from $`bs\gamma `$. We can see that if it were not imposed, at large $`m_\chi `$ the upper limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ would significantly increase. In this region, the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs, and therefore also the heavier scalar, is rather small, thus giving larger $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. However, the mass of the charged Higgs is then also on the lower side, and a cancellation between a charged Higgs–top quark loop and chargino–stop loop contribution is not sufficient to reduce $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ to agree with the experimental limit.

However, we remind the reader that a slight relaxation of the underlying assumption of minimal flavor violation in the squark sector often leads to a significant weakening of the bound from $`bs\gamma `$ to the point of even allowing $`\mu <0`$ . We would therefore be cautious in applying the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint rigidly.

In the lower left window of Fig. 2 we present the sensitivity of the upper limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ to the lower limit on the light Higgs mass. We can see that it would sizably decrease if we neglected the region of small $`90\text{GeV}\text{ }<m_h\text{ }<111\text{GeV}`$ which is still allowed at $`m_A\text{ }<120\text{GeV}`$, and instead required $`m_h>111\text{GeV}`$ for all $`m_A`$. Note also that the new experimental limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ are for the most part inconsistent with the possibility of the light Higgs scalar.

In the same window and in the lower right window we explore the existence of the lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ and its dependence on the assumed upper limit on $`m_A`$ and $`\mu `$, respectively. As we can see, the lowest values of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ are often to a large extent determined by a somewhat subjective restrictions from above on these parameters. As one allows either $`\mu `$ or $`m_A`$ above $`1\text{TeV}`$ the lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ relaxes considerably.

However, we argue that, by requiring sizable enough $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.1`$), it is possible to set a parameter–independent lower bound on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ for a considerable range of large $`m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}`$ (marked with a thick solid line and left–pointing arrow in Fig. 2). The limit holds for an arbitrary case of the neutralino (gaugino, higgsino or mixed), independently of how large $`\mu `$ and other SUSY parameters are taken. Let us first consider the gaugino limit $`\mu M_2`$. In this case the origin of the parameter–independent bound is displayed in Fig. 3 where we plot $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ as a function of the pseudoscalar Higgs $`m_A`$ for $`m_\chi 800\text{GeV}`$ and scan over all the other parameters. As $`m_A`$ and other parameters are varied, large ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ remain allowed by collider and indirect constraints, depending on the maximum allowed value of $`\mu `$. For each fixed $`\mu `$, $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ decreases proportionally to the fourth power of $`m_Hm_A`$ because of the (typically dominant) $`t`$–channel exchange of the heavy Higgs, as the marked cases of $`\mu `$ in Fig. 3 clearly demonstrate. As $`\mu `$ increases, at fixed $`m_\chi `$ one moves deeper into the gaugino region and typically finds large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.2`$. By imposing $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$ one selects only a narrow red (dark) range with a large bino component. The bino purity ($`p_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=N_{11}^2`$) increases with increasing $`\mu `$, which normally quickly gives too large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. However, for each $`m_\chi `$ one can choose $`m_A2m_\chi `$ (roughly $`m_A=1600\text{GeV}`$ in Fig. 3) in which case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ is reduced to an allowed level by a wide resonance due to $`A`$–exchange. This leads to allowing a much reduced $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$, while still being consistent with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$. However, because of the finite width of the $`A`$–resonance, at large enough $`\mu `$ one reaches the lowest value of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ (in this case $`2\times 10^{11}\text{pb}`$) which is parameter–independent. Away from the resonance (for example, if one imposed $`m_A<1\text{TeV}`$), one would obtain the lower bound $`\sigma _p^{SI}\text{ }>3\times 10^8\text{pb}`$, basically independently of whether $`\mu <1\text{TeV}`$ is imposed or not. In fact, one can see this effect in the lower left window of Fig. 2 where imposing $`m_A<1\text{TeV}`$ causes the lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ to suddenly jump up at around $`m_\chi m_A/2500\text{GeV}`$.

The above parameter–independent lower limit arises in the gaugino case and applies to arbitrarily large $`m_\chi `$. The case of the gaugino–like LSP can be argued to be more attractive as being less fine–tuned than the higgsino–like one . In the MSSM the LSP is a nearly–pure higgsino for $`M_2\text{ }>300\text{GeV}`$ which, by applying the assumption of gaugino mass–unification (see below (1)) to the gluino mass, implies $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _2}M_2\text{ }>1\text{TeV}`$ and therefore large and less “natural” soft SUSY–breaking scale. Nevertheless, in the spirit of generality, we need to extend the analysis to the case of the higgsino–like neutralino.

For the higgsino–like LSP ($`M_2\mu m_\chi `$), if we remain within the ranges of parameters given in (6), we find $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ some two orders of magnitude larger than in the gaugino case presented above. However, one can in principle reduce $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ to arbitrarily small values by going to the limit of pure enough higgsino ($`M_2`$ in the multi- TeV range), in which case the neutralino–Higgs coupling would be arbitrarily reduced, and by further suppressing the squark contribution by making them extremely heavy. It is therefore reasonable to question the existence of the lower bound on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. However, in the multi–hundred GeV range ($`m_t<m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ remains typically very small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.1`$ although it does increase with $`m_\chi `$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ it reaches $`0.1`$ for $`m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}`$, $`0.2`$ for $`m_\chi \text{ }<1.6\text{TeV}`$ and $`0.3`$ for $`m_\chi \text{ }<2.5\text{TeV}`$. (These values decrease somewhat with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.) Since, as mentioned above, we impose $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ (or a similar sizable lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$), in the range of $`m_\chi <1\text{TeV}`$ displayed in Figs. 1 and 2 the parameter–independent lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ holds. (In order to be clear that the parameter–independent lower bound on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ applies to a general neutralino so long as $`m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}`$, in Figs. 1 and 2 we have put a left–pointing arrow at $`m_\chi =1\text{TeV}`$.)

For the higgsino–like LSP in the mass range $`1020\text{GeV}\text{ }<m_\chi \text{ }<1600\text{GeV}`$ the relic abundance is $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$, basically indpendently of how large $`M_2`$ is, and no lower bound on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ can in principle be set. The range of $`m_\chi `$ increases to $`2.5\text{TeV}`$ if we allow $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$. Larger values of $`m_\chi `$ for an arbitrary neutralino gaugino/higgsino composition are inconsistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$. This upper limit on $`m_\chi `$ relaxes to $`2.6\text{TeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$.

On the other side, at low enough $`m_\chi `$ coannihilation with sleptons prevents one from deriving a firm lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$. Indeed, by suitably choosing the slepton mass not too much above $`m_\chi `$, we can always reduce $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ below $`0.2`$. Thus, it is possible to set firm lower limits on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ but only for large enough $`m_\chi `$ and even though they correspond to extremely large values of $`\mu `$ and accordingly involve much fine–tunning.

The above discussion of the parameter–independent lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ and upper limit on $`m_\chi `$ has been presented in the case of $`\mu >0`$ but it obviously applies also to the case $`\mu <0`$.

The dependence of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ on $`A_t`$ and $`A_b`$ is rather weak. As the tri–linear terms deviate from zero, the mass of the lightest Higgs generally increases due to somewhat larger mass splittings among the stops and sbottoms. As a result, the normally subdominant contribution to $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ from the $`t`$–channel $`h`$–exchange is slightly reduced.

A far more important effect is that the number of SUSY configurations satisfying all experimental constraints, especially that from $`bs\gamma `$, decreases significantly. This is because the cancellation between charged Higgs loop and chargino loop contribution to the $`bs\gamma `$ decay rate becomes more inefficient as $`A_t`$ decreases. For example, for $`A_t=1\text{TeV}`$ only a handful of points remain allowed. Generally, we have concluded that the regions allowed by lower values of $`A_t`$ and $`A_b`$ fall into the regions allowed by the choice $`A_t=1\text{TeV}`$.

In order to display the dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, in the left and right window of Fig. 4 we present the cases of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`50`$, respectively. Note that, for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ the largest allowed values of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ are roughly an order of magnitude smaller than at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ because of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$–dependence of the heavy scalar coupling to down–type quarks, as mentioned earlier. Notice a significant decrease in the upper ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ at large $`m_\chi `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, which is caused by exceeding the upper limit ($`4.08\times 10^4`$) of the allowed range of $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$. It is clear that the constraint is more severe in the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ rather than at larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This may sound somewhat counter–intuitive since, for example, in the Constrained MSSM, the constraint from $`bs\gamma `$ on the (CMSSM) parameter space becomes more pronounced at larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This is because, in the CMSSM the pseudoscalar Higgs mass, hence also the charged Higgs mass, is typically large, and the corresponding charged Higgs–top quark loop contribution to $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ becomes suppressed. At smaller $`m_{1/2}`$ (thus also $`m_\chi `$ and $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }`$) and $`m_0`$ (thus also light enough stop) the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$–dependent (negative) contribution from the chargino-stop loop gives too small $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$, below the lower experimental limit, thus producing a strong lower bound on $`m_\chi `$ at not too large $`m_0`$. In contrast, in the general MSSM case, we can choose small values of $`m_A`$ which is a free parameter. This small $`m_A`$ implies a big positive charged Higgs loop contribution to $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$. For smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and at smaller $`m_\chi `$ this is reduced to an acceptable range by the chargino-stop loop contribution. However, at large $`m_\chi `$, the chargino-stop loop cannot cancel the charged Higgs contribution anymore and one exceeds the upper experimental limit on $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$. Since the chargino loop contribution is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the cancellation can be achieved even at large $`m_\chi `$. For this reason, in the right window of Fig. 4 there is no analogous decrease in the largest allowed $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ at large $`m_\chi `$, in contrast to the left window. Clearly, the constraint from $`bs\gamma `$ is more severe for smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

A similar effect of can be observed in the case of the $`(g2)_\mu `$ constraint. By comparing Fig. 4 with the upper right window of Fig. 2 one can see that it produces as stronger upper bound on $`m_\chi `$ at smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For example, imposing a $`1\sigma `$ bound implies $`m_\chi \text{ }<120\text{GeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, while for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ the bound moves up to $`m_\chi \text{ }<310\text{GeV}`$, as denoted in the two windows of Fig. 4. Also marked is the effect of imposing $`\mu <1\text{TeV}`$. While not being a firm constraint, it does, in our opinion, indicate the region which may be considered as somewhat less fine–tuned.

As discussed above, for a considerable range of large $`m_\chi \text{ }<1020\text{GeV}`$ (marked with a thick solid line and left–pointing arrow in Fig. 4), we can again set up the parameter–independent lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$, in analogy with the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ of Fig. 2. In order to do so, we had to explore extremely large ranges of $`\mu `$ up to some $`4\text{TeV}`$ at smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in order to saturate the bound $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$. On the other hand, at smaller $`m_\chi \text{ }<440(800)\text{GeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10(50)`$ the lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ remains basically independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ at lower $`m_\chi `$ is determined mostly by the coannihilation with sleptons, as discussed in detail in the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$. In this case the lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ arises from restricting $`\mu `$ below the value for which the parameter–independent lower limit arises at larger $`m_\chi `$. Notice that the thick line extends to lower $`m_\chi `$ at smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ because the efficiency of the neutralino–slepton coannihilation increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Finally, in Fig. 5 we summarize the results for the full scan conducted so far for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5,10,35,50,55,60,65`$ and for $`\mu >0`$. We repeat that, in determining the allowed (blue) region we applied the constraints from collider searches, $`bs\gamma `$ and $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$. The lower limit on $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ mostly comes from low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and, where applicable, we mark with the solid line where it is parameter–independent. The effect of restricting $`\mu <1\text{TeV}`$ is marked with a dashed line. Also indicated is the impact of the new measurement of $`(g2)_\mu `$ on the mass of the neutralino. If confirmed, the $`e^+e^{}`$–based range (9) will imply rather stringent upper limits on $`m_\chi `$

$`m_\chi `$ $`\text{ }<`$ $`350\text{GeV}(1\sigma \mathrm{CL})`$ (13)
$`m_\chi `$ $`\text{ }<`$ $`510\text{GeV}(2\sigma \mathrm{CL}).`$ (14)
If the $`\tau `$–based numbers (10) are applied instead, one obtains $`m_\chi \text{ }<800\text{GeV}(1\sigma \mathrm{CL})`$ and no upper bound at $`2\sigma \mathrm{CL}`$ (for $`\mu >0`$).

The vast ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ predicted in the framework of the general MSSM may be somewhat discouraging to DM WIMP hunters. It is worth noting, however, that it is the region of smaller $`m_\chi `$, below a few hundred GeV, that not only is implied by the new result for $`(g2)_\mu `$, but is also theoretically more favored as corresponding to less fine–tuning. Furthermore, ranges of very small $`10^{12}\text{pb}\text{ }<\sigma _p^{SI}\text{ }<10^8\text{pb}`$ generally correspond either to very large (and therefore perhaps somewhat less natural) values of $`\mu `$ and/or $`m_A`$, or become allowed by selecting slepton masses on the light side, and in the $`\chi `$–slepton coannihilation region, within some $`20\text{GeV}`$ of $`m_\chi `$, which again can be be considered as a finely–tuned case.

At the end, we comment again on the case of the Constrained MSSM. Because the model is much more restrictive, the ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ that one obtains in the parameter space allowed by all constraints, are very much narrower . They are also typically somewhat lower than the largest ones allowed in the general MSSM. For example, at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ we find $`\sigma _p^{SI}10^7\text{pb}`$ at $`m_\chi =100\text{GeV}`$ and $`\sigma _p^{SI}7\times 10^{11}\text{pb}`$ at the largest (neglecting $`(g2)_\mu `$) allowed value of $`m_\chi =800\text{GeV}`$. On the other hand, because the model is defined at the grand–unified, and not electroweak, scale, in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \text{ }>50`$ and/or large scalar masses, theoretical uncertainties involved in the running of parameters are substantial and have much impact on the resulting ranges of both $`m_\chi `$ and $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ . We will explore the case of the Constrained MSSM in an oncoming publication.

## 6 Conclusions

We have delineated the ranges of the SI cross section $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ in the general MSSM, which are consistent with current experimental bounds and for which one finds the expected amount of dark matter. We have further discussed the dependence of our results on the experimental constraints and on the underlying theoretical assumptions. While the ranges which we have obtaine extend over more than six orders of magnitude, we find it encouraging that the experimental sensitivity that has recently been reached, now allows one to explore our theoretical predictions for the MSSM. As we have argued above, smaller values of the WIMP mass and also larger values of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ may be considered as more natural, which will hopefully be confirmed by a measuring a positive WIMP detection signal in the near future.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank M. Brhlik for his help in testing our numerical code for computing the cross section for WIMP–proton scattering. L.R. is grateful to A. Czarnecki for helpful comments about theoretical and experimental aspects of $`(g2)_\mu `$. This work was supported in part by the EU Fifth Framework network ”Supersymmetry and the Early Universe” (HPRN-CT-2000-00152).


text:
# Untitled Document

Baltic Astronomy, vol.11, \***--\***, 2002.

WHITEDWARF.ORG - ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT ENDOWMENT FOR THE WHOLE EARTH TELESCOPE

Travis S. Metcalfe1

1   White Dwarf Research Corporation, Austin, Texas U.S.A.

Received August 8, 2002

## Abstract

White Dwarf Research Corporation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to scientific research and public education on topics relevant to white dwarf stars. It was founded in 1999 in Austin, Texas to help fulfill the need for an alternative research center where scarce funding dollars could be used more efficiently, and to provide a direct link between astronomers who study white dwarf stars and the general public. Due to its administrative simplicity, WDRC can facilitate the funding of multi-institutional and international collaborations, provide seamless grant portability, minimize overhead rates, and actively seek non-governmental funding sources. I describe the motivation for, and current status of, one of the long-term goals of WDRC: to establish a permanent endowment for the operation of the Whole Earth Telescope. I pay particular attention to fund-raising efforts through the website at http://WhiteDwarf.org/donate/

Key words:  sociology of astronomy—stars: white dwarfs

1. INTRODUCTION

Several years ago, while I was a graduate student at the University of Texas in Austin, I recognized the need for an alternative to traditional academic and government research centers where the overhead rates, or “indirect costs” negotiated with federal funding agencies, are consuming a growing slice of research budgets. This need seemed particularly urgent since astronomical research funding has actually been shrinking when adjusted for inflation, and many institutions appear to be providing fewer services even while their overhead rates increase. Furthermore, many of the services they are providing—fast computers, Internet access, and libraries—can now be purchased at better prices through consumer markets. I soon learned that I was not the first to make this realization. An early pioneer was Research Corporation (founded in 1912), but the basic idea has also been applied more recently by Eureka Scientific (in 1992), Extrasolar Research Corporation (in 1996), and probably many others that I do not know about.

2. HISTORY

Of course, recognizing the need for an alternative does not automatically lead a poor graduate student with no legal experience to establish an alternative. The idea of White Dwarf Research Corporation would never have become a reality had it not been for two other factors: (1) creating a non-profit corporation in Texas is simple, and (2) it is also inexpensive. The concept of a corporation historically involved the granting of limited liability by kings or governments to an artificial legal entity created, for specific projects that were in the public interest, with finite lifetimes. But over the years the scope and definition of the corporation has slowly expanded (Derber 1998). In the state of Texas, anyone can create a non-profit organization with no personal liability, a perpetual existence, and no specific public interest requirement—all for the low price of $25. The office of the Secretary of State in Texas, and the Internal Revenue Service even offer samples of the required incorporation documents to make it easy to satisfy the (minimal) requirements, and to help ensure that the organization will be tax-exempt for specific purposes (e.g. scientific research). After a few nights of reading at the campus Law library, I had everything I needed to start a corporation.

The most important feature of a non-profit organization, from a fund-raising standpoint, is the recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. This allows benefactors to deduct the full amount of their donations from the incomes they report to the federal government, which can substantially reduce their tax liability. If the financial structure of the non-profit organization is relatively simple, then the application form that needs to be filed with the IRS to obtain tax-exempt status is not too difficult. If the organization anticipates an average of less than $10,000 of revenue per year during the first four years of operation, then the filing fee for this document is only $150. Otherwise, it is $500, which is by far the single most expensive part of the process. Within 6 months of filing the application, I received a letter from the IRS recognizing the tax-exempt status of White Dwarf Research Corporation. I was ready to begin raising money for research and public outreach.

The first grant to WDRC came from the Fund for Astrophysical Research, a private foundation that makes small awards to support specific projects. In December 2000, less than a year after receiving tax-exempt status, WDRC received a check in the mail for $2,812 to support the construction of a small parallel computer cluster. We used this grant to attract matching funds from another program through the American Astronomical Society, and obtained an additional $4,288 for the project in July 2001. We purchased the parts for the computer facility a few months later, and it has already contributed to a published research paper (see Metcalfe et al. 2002).

There have been several small private contributions to WDRC, but they have all come from acquaintances of the members of the board of directors. This is fine, but it would be more comforting to attract donations from members of the general public, as a sign of trust and support for basic research. To facilitate this goal, the most recent addition to the website at WhiteDwarf.org is a page describing specific projects that are seeking funds (including the Whole Earth Telescope project), and a secure online donation process. This service is provided free of charge by the Network for Good, a non-profit organization that attempts to guide potential donors through a database of non-profit organizations. It is now possible, with the click of a button, for interested donors to use their credit card to make a contribution to WDRC. The full amount of the donation is then transferred to WDRC’s bank account, and a notice is sent indicating whether it is earmarked for a specific project or purpose.

The alternative funding machinery is now fully in place: we have established a non-profit organization, it has tax-exempt status, it has successfully received and allocated funding for a small research project, and the website has the capability for secure online donation. What can we do with this new tool, and why should we bother?

3. MOTIVATION

The Whole Earth Telescope (WET; Nather et al. 1990) operates like any large research facility: it produces significant results on time-scales that can be considerably longer than than the 3-year funding cycles of federal granting agencies. It is natural for these agencies to request a specific and detailed accounting of the results that arise from their investment in a research project. But this can sometimes lead to a conflict between the political needs of these institutions and the scientific needs of the project. In the short-term, we can adapt the way the Whole Earth Telescope operates to respond to these political pressures, but in the long-term it may be better to find an alternative source of funding to alleviate the pressures altogether. I believe that White Dwarf Research Corporation can offer this alternative, by providing an administrative vehicle for the establishment of a permanent endowment to operate the Whole Earth Telescope. If the WET collaboration could identify a group of donors who can collectively make contributions totaling $1-2 million, WDRC could easily provide the $50-100 thousand annual operating budget of the WET through secure investments that never diminish the endowment. The WET could free itself from the tyranny of the government funding cycle.

For an individual, $1 million is a lot of money. But there are many ways to reach this funding goal through a larger group of people. We could make an appeal to 100,000 people to contribute only $10, or just 10,000 people to contribute $100. This is comparable to what people might spend on a magazine subscription, or to support their favorite political candidate.

For most transnational corporations, $1 million is a tiny fraction of a typical annual advertising budget. It is realistic to think that we may be able to identify ten $100,000 donors, or one hundred $10,000 donors. Some people may think that no transnational corporation could possibly be interested in helping to fund the WET. What could possibly be in it for them, besides a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

During a WET campaign in 1998 on the massive DAV star BPM 37093, a test of the theory of stellar crystallization, a flurry of reports surfaced in the popular press about this “Diamond in the Sky”. According to Steve Kawaler, a large diamond company saw these press reports and contacted the headquarters in Iowa during the run to ask what it would cost to sponsor the run on this object. When he replied that the price tag would be in the neighborhood of $100,000 they replied, “Oh, is that all?”. The point is that if we can be creative and capture the public imagination, and if we are receptive to seemingly unlikely sponsors, we may be able to get more science done with less hassle.

The right approach is probably to seek some mixture of these funding possibilities. The numbers are not staggering: with some collective effort now, the goal is realistic and will yield a payoff far into the future. In the worst case, we might fail to reach the full funding level, but the interest on the partial sum could still provide flexible supplemental funding to the WET—perhaps enough to send the PI to headquarters, a graduate student to the observatory, or to purchase GPS units for distribution around the globe.

4. CURRENT STATUS

The purpose of this paper is not to “pass around a hat” and beg a group of underpaid scientists for money. The point is to make it clear that together we can come up with more creative ways of funding our collaboration, and the pipeline for incoming funds already exists: White Dwarf Research Corporation. Now that you know about it, do what you can to raise awareness about it. Be receptive to any offers of support, and direct potential donors to http://WhiteDwarf.org/donate/ or to the Whole Earth Telescope web page. Do your best to think about ways to make our work appealing, or better yet fascinating to the general public, and imagine which private companies might want to help fund it.

For my part, I have started the Whole Earth Telescope endowment with a donation of $50 through the website (just to make sure it really does work as advertised—which it does). Within the next three years, before the current NSF grant expires, let’s see if we can raise enough money to operate the WET for as long as the white dwarf stars shine.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to thank Ed Nather and Don Winget for their early participation in WDRC, and Jim Liebert, Mike Montgomery and Hugh Van Horn for agreeing to serve as members of the Board of Directors.

REFERENCES

Derber, C. 1998, Corporation Nation: how corporations are taking over our lives and what we can do about it (New York: St. Martin’s Press)

Metcalfe, T. S., Salaris, M., & Winget, D. E. 2002, ApJ, 573, 803

Nather, R. E. et al. 1990, ApJ, 361, 309