Welcome to visit Communications in Theoretical Physics,
Particle Physics and Quantum Field Theory

PeV neutrinos of IceCube with very heavy fermion and very light scalar

  • Zhao-Xing Fan , 1, 2 ,
  • Qin-Ze Li , 1 ,
  • Chun Liu , 1, 2 ,
  • Yakefu Reyimuaji , 3
Expand
  • 1School of Physical Sciences, UCAS, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 2CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
  • 3School of Physical Science and Technology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830046, China

Received date: 2023-05-16

  Revised date: 2023-06-01

  Accepted date: 2023-06-01

  Online published: 2023-09-01

Copyright

© 2023 Institute of Theoretical Physics CAS, Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing

Abstract

A new physics scenario to explain PeV neutrinos observed in the IceCube experiment is introduced, with dark matter and dark energy considered. A slowly decaying very heavy fermion with a PeV mass as the dark matter particle is the origin of the PeV neutrinos. They couple to an extremely light field and this light field constitutes the dark energy.

Cite this article

Zhao-Xing Fan , Qin-Ze Li , Chun Liu , Yakefu Reyimuaji . PeV neutrinos of IceCube with very heavy fermion and very light scalar[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2023 , 75(9) : 095203 . DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/acda82

PeV neutrinos have been observed in the IceCube experiment [1, 2]. Their origin, namely how they got to be so energetic, is still unclear. In this work, we consider the possibility that they are a result of new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
More remarkably, in fundamental physics nowadays, there are dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) problems. Attempting to make the connection between all these phenomena, we will work in a simple scenario that includes DM and DE to understand PeV neutrinos.
To be specific, supposing that the PeV neutrino is a decay product of a heavy fermion N, Nν + h where ν stands for SM neutrinos and h the SM Higgs boson, the observation is explained if the mass of N is about MN ∼ PeV. In such a situation, N should exist in the Universe for a long time which is beyond the age of the Universe. Thus N is naturally a DM constituent that is decaying slowly. We assume N consists of all of the DM. To describe the above process, the relevant interaction Lagrangian is written as follows,
$\begin{eqnarray}{ \mathcal L }\supset \displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M}\phi \bar{l}{hN},\end{eqnarray}$
where a light scalar φ is introduced, l stands for the three generation SU(2)L doublet leptons, and λ and M are the coupling constant and the high energy scale, respectively. The coupling should be very small for N being long-lived.
The main reason for introducing φ is that it is related to DE, also that in this way the small coupling is made to be more natural. Attributing a PeV neutrino to long-lived heavy DM was proposed before [330]. Here we also involve DE. The point here is the introduction of the static and free light scalar field $\phi =\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2{\rho }_{\phi }}}{{m}_{\phi }}\sin ({m}_{\phi }t)$ [31, 32], where mφ and ρφ are its mass and energy density, respectively. We consider ρφ as DE, and it is a kind of time-variational or dynamical DE [3338]. In this case, mφ is extremely small which is about the inverse of the Universe lifetime.
Taking φ as a background field due to Bose–Einstein condensation, the production of PeV neutrinos is a two body decay
$\begin{eqnarray}N\to h+\nu ,\end{eqnarray}$
with a coupling proportional to $\lambda \displaystyle \frac{\langle \phi \rangle }{M}\sim \lambda \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2{\rho }_{\phi }}}{{m}_{\phi }M}$. Since this decay produces Higgs particles, there will be a series of subsequent decays to Standard Model particles.
Now we estimate N's lifetime. With 7.5 year accumulation, the experiment observed about 60 events of PeV neutrinos [2]. For simplicity, the dark matter N is assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the Universe. Based on the IceCube experimental data, the observed high energy neutrinos have no particular direction. Thus we assume that the PeV neutrinos come from some isotropic sources. Assuming that N has only one decay channel, we divide the detected high energy neutrinos into two parts:
a

(a) Neutrinos produced BEFORE the IceCube turned on;

b

(b) Neutrinos produced AFTER the IceCube turned on.

Moreover, high-energy neutrinos move at the speed of light c = 3 × 108 m s−1 approximately.
Figure 1. Neutrinos produced before the IceCube is turned on are in a sphere of R = 7.5 ly.
Figure 2. Neutrinos produced after the IceCube is turned on are in a sphere of R = 7.5 ly.
For part (a) neutrinos, at the moment the IceCube turned on, they were at least inside a sphere with the IceCube as the sphere’s centre and radius R = 7.5 ly = 7.10 × 1016 m. Denote neutrinos number density as ρν, then the number of neutrinos in a thin spherical shell with radius r is 4πρνr2dr. For a neutrino ν at a distance of IceCube r, its velocity is evenly distributed in all directions. The IceCube detector has a cross-sectional area of S on a sphere with ν as the sphere’s centre, and r as radius. A neutrino at a distance r away from the IceCube can be detected with a probability of $\tfrac{S}{4\pi {r}^{2}}$. To sum up, the number of part (a) neutrinos is
$\begin{eqnarray}{\int }_{0}^{R}4\pi {\rho }_{\nu }{r}^{2}\displaystyle \frac{S}{4\pi {r}^{2}}{\rm{d}}r.\end{eqnarray}$
Assuming η = 10% is the detection efficiency of the IceCube, and the above quantity times η is about 60, so ρν = 8.46 × 10−21 m−3. The energy density of dark matter in the Universe is about 10 GeV · m−3 [39], so the number density of N is ρN = 10−5 m−3. It is known that the lifetime of N follows the exponential distribution of the parameter τ−1, where τ is the mean lifetime. The number density of N that has not decayed is a function of time t:
$\begin{eqnarray}{\rho }_{N}(t)={\rho }_{N}(0)\exp \left(-\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }\right).\end{eqnarray}$
Now t is the age of the Universe tu = 4.32 × 1017 s. Considering equation (2), ρν = ρN(0) − ρN(tu), so the equation $\displaystyle \frac{{t}_{{\rm{u}}}}{\tau }=\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\displaystyle \frac{{\rho }_{\nu }}{{\rho }_{N}}\right)$ holds. Then we have N's mean lifetime τ = 4.86 × 1032 s.
For part (b) neutrinos, suppose that at the moment t (0 ≤ tT, T = 7.5 y) after the IceCube turned on, they were generated by N’s decay. Since the lifetime of N follows the exponential distribution, the probability that lifetime between tu and tu + (Tt) is
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\int }_{{t}_{{\rm{u}}}}^{{t}_{{\rm{u}}}+(T-t)}\tau \exp \left(-\displaystyle \frac{\tilde{t}}{\tau }\right)\,{\rm{d}}\tilde{t}\mathop{===========}\limits^{T-t,{t}_{{\rm{u}}}\ll \tau }\displaystyle \frac{T-t}{\tau }.\end{eqnarray*}$
They were at least inside a sphere with the IceCube as the sphere’s centre and radius R − ct. Similarly, the number of part (b) neutrinos is
$\begin{eqnarray}\eta {\int }_{0}^{T}4\pi {\rho }_{N}{(R-{\rm{c}}t)}^{2}\displaystyle \frac{S}{4\pi {(R-{\rm{c}}t)}^{2}}\displaystyle \frac{T-t}{\tau }{\rm{d}}t=60.\end{eqnarray}$
We have τ = 2.65 × 1014 s. In part (b), N decays more than a dozen orders of magnitude faster than part (a), but we can not tell directly which one is dominant.
If the detected neutrinos are mainly part (a), then part (b) contributes to detected neutrinos a dozen orders of magnitude less than (a), therefore no contradiction arises. However, if the detected neutrinos are mainly part (b), we take τ = 2.65 × 1014 s in part (a)'s calculation, and we find that ρν is more than a dozen orders of magnitude larger than previously calculated. (a) becomes the dominant source of neutrinos, contradicting the hypothesis.
So in summary, we have found part (a) is the main source of neutrinos, with N's mean lifetime τN = 4.86 × 1032 s.
Let us consider the model in detail. By introducing a real scalar field φ and a Majorana fermion field N, the Lagrangian is written as
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}{ \mathcal L } & = & {{ \mathcal L }}_{\mathrm{SM}}+\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}{\partial }_{\mu }\phi {\partial }^{\mu }\phi -\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}{m}_{\phi }^{2}{\phi }^{2}+{\rm{i}}\bar{N}{\gamma }^{\mu }{\partial }_{\mu }N\\ & & -\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}{\bar{N}}^{{\rm{C}}}{M}_{N}N-\left(\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M}\phi \bar{l}\tilde{h}N+{\rm{h}}.{\rm{c}}.\right),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where $\tilde{h}={\rm{i}}{\sigma }^{2}{h}^{* }$. The Lagrangian follows a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$ symmetry with ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$ quantum numbers assigned as:
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}N:+1,\qquad h:+1,\qquad \phi :-1,\\ l:-1,\qquad {e}_{{\rm{R}}}:-1.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
All other fields have a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$ quantum number of 1 (called ‘even parity’).
The φ field behaves like a free field because the coupling λ is very small, and its motion is typically described by plane waves, in the static case,
$\begin{eqnarray}\phi ={\phi }_{0}\sin ({m}_{\phi }t).\end{eqnarray}$
We assume that there is a Bose–Einstein condensation in this static φ field. In other words, now φ field exists as a background field and its vacuum expectation ⟨φ⟩ changes over time:
$\begin{eqnarray}\langle \phi \rangle =\langle \phi {\rangle }_{0}\sin ({m}_{\phi }{t}_{{\rm{u}}}),\end{eqnarray}$
where tu is now the age of the Universe. In this way, the value of φ field has increased after the Big Bang, and so does the φ's energy density. We take this energy density as the DE.
Suppose that φ is extremely light and its current value becomes large for the first time today, namely
$\begin{eqnarray}{m}_{\phi }{t}_{{\rm{u}}}\approx \displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2},\end{eqnarray}$
it is obtained that mφ ≃ 1.0 × 10−32 eV. In this model, DE is then
$\begin{eqnarray}{\rho }_{\mathrm{DE}}={\rho }_{\phi }=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}{m}_{\phi }^{2}\langle \phi {\rangle }_{0}^{2}.\end{eqnarray}$
From the measured DE today (10−6 GeV · cm−3), the field value is obtained: ⟨φ0 ≃ 1015 GeV. This means that the φ field is highly condensed. Therefore N mainly has the two-body decay mode Nh + ν. Considering MN ∼ PeV, ν is just the PeV neutrino detected by the IceCube experiment. The decay width is
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\rm{\Gamma }}=\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }{\left(\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \langle \phi \rangle }{M}\right)}^{2}{M}_{N}.\end{eqnarray*}$
According to our previous estimate of the mean lifetime of N, when the new physics scale M takes the Planck mass 1019 GeV, the value of λ is about 10−26.
Is it possible for N to decay into three particles? It is necessary to take a fresh look at the issue. For two-body decay, the decay width has already been calculated in the previous content. One has to note the fact that the produced φ is a boson, and then the probability that φ is involved in the Bose–Einstein condensation needs to be considered. It is much easier for φ to transition to the state where a large number of φ particles already exist [40]. We think of φ as the dark energy field, assuming φ has zero momentum, thus the vacuum (noted as ∣⟩, which consists of a large number of φ particles with zero momentum) is φ's eigenstate whose eigenvalue is ⟨φ⟩: φ⟩ = ⟨φ⟩∣⟩. For three-body decay Nφ + ν + h, the decay width is
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\rm{\Gamma }}=\displaystyle \frac{1}{{2}^{6}{\pi }^{3}}{\left(\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M}\right)}^{2}\int {\rm{d}}{E}_{\phi }\,{E}_{\phi }({M}_{N}-{E}_{\phi }),\end{eqnarray*}$
at the Eφ → 0 region,
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\rm{\Delta }}{\rm{\Gamma }}\simeq \displaystyle \frac{1}{{2}^{6}{\pi }^{3}}{\left(\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M}\right)}^{2}{M}_{N}{E}_{\phi }\,{\rm{\Delta }}{E}_{\phi }.\end{eqnarray*}$
For the above decay process, when Eφ → 0, at the amplitude level, the amplitude is proportional to ${\left({a}^{\phi }\right)}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}={\bf{0}}}^{\dagger }| 0\rangle $ with ∣0⟩ the trivial vacuum, and ${\left({a}^{\phi }\right)}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{\dagger }$ is the creation operator of the φ field. When we consider the vacuum is a Bose–Einstein condensate, the amplitude will be proportional to $({a}^{\phi }{)}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{\dagger }| \mho \rangle $, then the decay width is proportional to the square of the amplitude, thus proportional to $\left\langle 0\right|{({a}^{\phi })({a}^{\phi })}^{\dagger }\left|0\right\rangle \sim \left\langle | \phi {| }^{2}\right\rangle $. Once the φ particle is produced by decay, it immediately ‘melts into’ the Bose–Einstein condensation state ∣⟩. So in summary, the width of two-body decay is equivalent to the width of three-body decay.
For (2n + 1)-body decay N → (2n − 1)φ + ν + h (corresponding interaction Lagrangian is $\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{n}}{M}{\phi }^{2n-1}\bar{\nu }{hN}$), the decay width is
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{\rm{\Gamma }} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{{2}^{4n+2}{\pi }^{4n-1}}{\left(\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{n}}{{M}^{2n-1}}\right)}^{2}\\ & & \times \,\int \left(\displaystyle \prod _{k=1}^{2n-1}{\rm{d}}{E}_{{\phi }_{k}}\,{E}_{{\phi }_{k}}\right)\left({M}_{N}-\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{2n-1}{E}_{{\phi }_{k}}\right),\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
at the ${E}_{{\phi }_{1}},...,{E}_{{\phi }_{2n-1}}\to 0$ region,
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{\rm{\Delta }}{\rm{\Gamma }} & \simeq & \displaystyle \frac{1}{{2}^{4n+2}{\pi }^{4n-1}}{\left(\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{n}}{{M}^{2n-1}}\right)}^{2}\\ & & \times {M}_{N}{E}_{{\phi }_{1}}\cdots {E}_{{\phi }_{2n-1}}\,{\rm{\Delta }}{E}_{{\phi }_{1}}\cdots {\rm{\Delta }}{E}_{{\phi }_{2n-1}}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Similar discussion and analysis as in the previous paragraph can also be carried out.
Discussion to clarify the physics meaning of this work is necessary. (1) The IceCube experiment has observed high energy for TeV up to PeV. While TeV neutrinos are expected to be explained mainly by standard astrophysics, PeV ones are considered using new physics in this work. If this is to be true, with the accumulation of data, the IceCube experiment will observe that TeV neutrinos can be traced back to astrophysical origins, and the PeV neutrinos are more isotropic. In addition, this model predicts the existence of cosmic high energies positrons and electrons with energy up to PeV, since
Thus the neutrino energy spectrum is a continuous distribution with an apparent accumulation at PeV energy. (2) The neutrino masses have alternative origins such as the standard seesaw mechanism. The mass induced by equation (6) is too small to be realistic. (3) DM is decaying slowly. (4) The involvement of a very light scalar field is ad-hoc, however, the model is very simple. It says that DE is oscillating, and DE has been increasing since the Big Bang of the Universe. In the early universe, the cosmological constant is small. More complicated or elegant DE models can be incorporated. (5) The coupling constant is unnaturally small, this interaction seems weaker than the gravity. However, we may introduce higher dimension interaction instead of dimension 5 of equation (1), to make the coupling more natural. Nevertheless, in our way, it is interesting the PeV neutrinos, the DM and the DE are coupled together.

The authors acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11875306 and 12275335).

1
Aartsen M G (IceCube) 2013 First observation of PeV-energy neutrinos with IceCube Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 021103

2
For a review, see Halzen F 2023 arXiv:2305.07086 [astro-ph.HE]

3
Cholis I Hooper D 2013 On the Origin of IceCube's PeV Neutrinos J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP06(2013)030

DOI

4
Feldstein B Kusenko A Matsumoto S Yanagida T T 2013 Neutrinos at IceCube from heavy decaying dark matter Phys. Rev. D 88 015004

5
Barger V Keung W-Y 2013 Superheavy particle origin of IceCube PeV neutrino events Phys. Lett. B 727 190

DOI

6
Esmaili A Serpico P D 2013 Are IceCube neutrinos unveiling PeV-scale decaying dark matter? J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP11(2013)054

DOI

7
Bai Y Lu R Salvado J 2016 Geometric compatibility of IceCube TeV-PeV neutrino excess and its galactic dark matter origin J. High Energy Phys. JHEP01(2016)161

DOI

8
Rott C Kohri K Park S C 2015 Superheavy dark matter and IceCube neutrino signals: bounds on decaying dark matter Phys. Rev. D 92 023529

DOI

9
Esmaili A Kang S K Serpico P D 2014 IceCube events and decaying dark matter: hints and constraints J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP12(2014)054

DOI

10
Fong C S Minakata H Panes B Funchal R Z 2015 Possible interpretations of IceCube high-energy neutrino events J. High Energy Phys. JHEP02(2015)189

DOI

11
Dudas E Mambrini Y Olive K A 2015 Monochromatic neutrinos generated by dark matter and the seesaw mechanism Phys. Rev. D 91 075001

DOI

12
Kopp J Liu J Wang X-P 2015 Boosted dark matter in IceCube and at the galactic center J. High Energy Phys. 04 JHEP04(2015)105

DOI

13
Roland S B Shakya B Wells J D 2015 PeV neutrinos and a 3.5 keV x-ray line from a PeV-scale supersymmetric neutrino sector Phys. Rev. D 92 095018

DOI

14
Anchordoqui L A Barger V Goldberg H Huang X Marfatia D da Silva L H M Weiler T J 2015 IceCube neutrinos, decaying dark matter, and the Hubble constant Phys. Rev. D 92 061301 [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 94, 069901 (2016)]

DOI

15
Boucenna S M Chianese M Mangano G Miele G Morisi S Pisanti O Vitagliano E 2015 Decaying leptophilic dark matter at IceCube J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP12(2015)055

DOI

16
Ko P Tang Y 2015 IceCube events from heavy DM decays through the right-handed neutrino portal Phys. Lett. B 751 81

DOI

17
El Aisati C Gustafsson M Hambye T Scarna T 2016 Dark matter decay to a photon and a neutrino: the double monochromatic smoking gun scenario Phys. Rev. D 93 043535

18
Ema Y Moroi T 2016 Early decay of Peccei–Quinn fermion and the IceCube neutrino events Phys. Lett. B 762 353

DOI

19
Chianese M Merle A 2017 A consistent theory of decaying dark matter connecting IceCube to the sesame street J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP04(2017)017

DOI

20
Dev P S B Mohapatra R N Zhang Y 2017 Heavy right-handed neutrino dark matter in left-right models Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32 1740007

DOI

21
Borah D Dasgupta A Dey U K Patra S Tomar G 2017 Multi-component fermionic dark matter and icecube PeV scale neutrinos in left-right model with gauge unification J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2017)005

DOI

22
Hiroshima N Kitano R Kohri K Murase K 2018 High-energy neutrinos from multibody decaying dark matter Phys. Rev. D 97 023006

DOI

23
Sahoo B Parida M K Chakraborty M 2019 Matter parity violating dark matter decay in minimal SO(10), unification, vacuum stability and verifiable proton decay Nucl. Phys. B 938 56

DOI

24
Chakravarty G K Khan N Mohanty S 2020 Supergravity model of inflation and explaining IceCube HESE data via pev dark matter decay Adv. High Energy Phys. 2020 2478190

DOI

25
Dhuria M Rentala V 2018 PeV scale supersymmetry breaking and the IceCube neutrino flux J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2018)004

DOI

26
Xu Y 2018 Search for ultra-high energy WIMPs by detecting neutrino signatures from the earth core J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP05(2018)055

DOI

27
Lambiase G Mohanty S Stabile A 2018 PeV IceCube signals and dark matter relic abundance in modified cosmologies Eur. Phys. J. C 78 350

DOI

28
Kachelriess M Kalashev O E Kuznetsov M Y 2018 Heavy decaying dark matter and IceCube high energy neutrinos Phys. Rev. D 98 083016

DOI

29
Chianese M Miele G Morisi S Peinado E 2018 Neutrinophilic dark matter in the epoch of IceCube and fermi-LAT J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP12(2018)016

DOI

30
Bhattacharya A Esmaili A Palomares-Ruiz S Sarcevic I 2019 Update on decaying and annihilating heavy dark matter with the 6-year IceCube HESE data J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP05(2019)051

DOI

31
Farzan Y 2019 Ultra-light scalar saving the 3+1 neutrino scheme from the cosmological bounds Phys. Lett. B 797 134911

DOI

32
Zhao Y 2017 Cosmology and time dependent parameters induced by a misaligned light scalar Phys. Rev. D 95 115002

DOI

33
Caldwell R R Dave R Steinhardt P J 1998 Cosmological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1582

DOI

34
Caldwell R R 2002 A phantom menace? Phys. Lett. B 545 23

DOI

35
Guo Z Piao Y Zhang X Zhang Y 2005 Cosmological evolution of a quintom model of dark energy Phys. Lett. B 608 177

DOI

36
Li M 2004 A model of holographic dark energy Phys. Lett. B 603 1

DOI

37
Wei H Cai R-G 2008 Cosmological constraints on new agegraphic dark energy Phys. Lett. B 663 1

DOI

38
Zhang H-C 2023 Dynamical dark energy can amplify the expansion rate of the universe Phys. Rev. 107 103529 D

DOI

39
Lahav O Liddle A R 2022 arXiv:2201.08666 [astro-ph.CO]

40
Feynman R P Leighton R B Sands M 1963 The Feynman Lectures on Physics Addison Wesley

Outlines

/