Scalar field dark matter with two components: Combined approach from particle physics and cosmology

Eréndira Gutiérrez-Luna, Belen Carvente, Víctor Jaramillo, Juan Barranco, Celia Escamilla-Rivera, Catalina Espinoza, Myriam Mondragón, and Darío Núñez

Phys. Rev. D 105, 083533 – Published 28 April 2022

Abstract

In this work we explore the possibility of incorporating particle physics motivated scalar fields to the dark matter cosmological model. In this landscape, we consider the classical complex scalar field in a certain region in the parameter space of the model that increases the number of neutrino species $N_{eff}$ in order to be consistent with the observed abundance of light elements produced at big bang nucleosynthesis. We perform analyses using one and two scalar fields. We examine the difference between these models and the priors considered at the edges of the cosmic ladder, this with the purpose of studying the impact of such models on the Hubble cosmic flow. In the two scalar field models we explore the possibility of combining an axion and a Higgs-like field as well as a Higgs-like field and the classical field, we show that in the first case there is no set of parameters that allows us to be consistent with $N_{eff}$ , while in the second case a strong restriction to the set of parameters is obtained. This last restriction is given in terms of a maximum bound of the fraction of Higgs-like field that can be incorporated together with the classical field. Our results could be relevant in the direct dark matter detection programs.

Received 5 November 2021
Accepted 25 March 2022

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083533

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Dark matter Evolution of the Universe General relativity Particle dark matter

Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

Authors & Affiliations

Eréndira Gutiérrez-Luna ^1,*, Belen Carvente ², Víctor Jaramillo ², Juan Barranco ³, Celia Escamilla-Rivera ², Catalina Espinoza ⁴, Myriam Mondragón ¹, and Darío Núñez ²

¹Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 20-364, México D.F. 01000, México
²Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior C.U., A.P. 70-543, México D.F. 04510, México
³Departamento de Física, División de Ciencias e Ingenierías, Campus León, Universidad de Guanajuato, León 37150, México
⁴Cátedras Conacyt, Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 20-364, México D.F. 01000, México

^*lgutierrez@estudiantes.fisica.unam.mx

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Issue

Vol. 105, Iss. 8 — 15 April 2022

Reuse & Permissions

Access Options

Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Images

Figure 1
Single scalar field representative cases of Table 1. Top panel: all solid lines correspond to the classical positive self-interaction fiducial cosmology [18]. The dashed lines are the reference CDM universe, which happens to coincide in this plot to the Higgs and axion (GUT, Planck) cases. Bottom panel: equations of state. While the positive self-interaction classical field undergoes three phases, the negative self-interaction case undergoes two and the Higgs field remains indistinguishable from standard cold dark matter.
Reuse & Permissions
Figure 2
Evolution of the density parameters of the Universe. All solid lines correspond to the scalar field dark matter model with two components and the dashed lines represent the rest of the density contributions. Top panel: two scalar field model I ( $classical + Higgs$ ). (a) Two scalar field model I. Density fractions for $η = 0.25$ . (b) Two scalar field model I. Density fractions for $η = 0.75$ . Bottom panel: two scalar field model II ( $axion + Higgs$ ). (c) Two scalar field model II. Density fractions for $η = 0.25$ . (d) Two scalar field model II. Density fractions for $η = 0.75$ .
Reuse & Permissions
Figure 3
Variability of our model, labeled as 2SFDM, with respect to Planck 2018 (PL18) and Riess et al. (R19) $H_{0}$ priors in (a) the case I ( $classical + Higgs$ ) for $η = 0.25$ and (b) for $η = 0.75$ . (c) The variability in the case II ( $axion + Higgs$ ) for $η = 0.25$ and (d) for $η = 0.75$ . The values for the free model parameters are in Table 1.
Reuse & Permissions
Figure 4
Quantification [Eq. (43)] of the shift on the slope of the variability (see Fig. 3) of the models I and II. The maximum relative difference in the density fraction between $η = 0.25$ and $η = 0.75$ for the $classical + Higgs model$ computed with R19 relative to the density fraction of the two scalar field model occurs at $a \sim 10^{- 6}$ (red solid line); while for the $axion + Higgs model$ this occurs earlier at $a \sim 10^{- 12}$ (blue dashed line). This behavior is the same for the density fraction when PL18 is used and shows that model I is more sensitive to the current energy density fraction than model II.
Reuse & Permissions
Figure 5
Constraints from $z_{eq}$ and $N_{eff}$ within $1 σ$ for the two scalar field model I. $η$ is the fraction of the classical field with respect to the total dark matter components. The crosshatched region that appears on the right side of all figures, represents the values of the scalar field parameters not allowed by the $z_{eq}$ constraint. The green and yellow bands are the allowed regions from the $N_{eff}$ constraint, (48), at $a_{n / p}$ and $a_{nuc}$ , respectively. The red band is the region of the parameter space that is consistent with both the $z_{eq}$ and $N_{eff}$ , throughout BBN, constraints.
Reuse & Permissions

Physical Review D

covering particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology