Dark Matter and Dark Energy:

Summary and Future Directions

By John Ellis
TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

CERN–TH/2003-086 astro-ph/0304183 April 2003

This paper reviews the progress reported at this Royal Society Discussion Meeting
and advertizes some possible future directions in our drive to understand dark
matter and dark energy. Additionally, a first attempt is made to place in context
the exciting new results from the WMAP satellite, which were published shortly
after this Meeting. In the first part of this review, pieces of observational evidence
shown here that bear on the amounts of dark matter and dark energy are reviewed.
Subsequently, particle candidates for dark matter are mentioned, and detection
strategies are discussed. Finally, ideas are presented for calculating the amounts of
dark matter and dark energy, and possibly relating them to laboratory data.
Keywords: cosmology, particle physics, dark matter, dark energy

1. The Density Budget of the Universe

It is convenient to express the mean densities ρi of various quantities in the Universe
in terms of their fractions relative to the critical density: Ωi ≡ ρi /ρcrit . The theory
of cosmological inflation strongly suggests that the the total density should be very
close to the critical one: Ωtot ≃ 1, and this is supported by the available data on
the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) (Bond 2003). The fluctuations
observed in the CMB at a level ∼ 10−5 in amplitude exhibit a peak at a partial
wave ℓ ∼ 200, as would be produced by acoustic oscillations in a flat Universe with
Ωtot ≃ 1. At lower partial waves, ℓ ≪ 200, the CMB fluctuations are believed to be
dominated by the Sachs-Wolfe effect due to the gravitational potential, and more
acoustic oscillations are expected at larger ℓ > 200, whose relative heights depend
on the baryon density Ωb . At even larger ℓ > ∼ 1000, these oscillations should be
progressively damped away.
Fig. 1 compares measurements of CMB fluctuations made before WMAP (Bond
2003) with the WMAP data themselves (Bennett et al. 2003; Hinshaw et al. 2003),
that were released shortly after this Meeting. The position of the first acoustic peak
indeed corresponds to a flat Universe with Ωtot ≃ 1: in particular, now WMAP finds
Ωtot = 1.02±0.02 (Spergel et al. 2003), and two more acoustic peaks are established
with high significance, providing a new determination of Ωb h2 = 0.0224 ± 0.0009,
where h ∼ 0.7 is the present Hubble expansion rate H, measured in units of
100km/s/Mpc. The likelihood functions for various cosmological parameters are
shown in Fig. 2. Remarkably, there is excellent consistency between the estimate
of the present-day Hubble constant H ∼ 72km/s/Mpc from WMAP (Spergel et

Article submitted to Royal Society TEX Paper

2 J. Ellis

Figure 1. Spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background measured by

WMAP (darker points with smaller error bars), compared with previous measurements
(lighter points with larger error bars, extending to greater ℓ) (Hinshaw et al. 2003).

al. 2003) with that inferred from the local distance ladder based, e.g., on Cepheid
variables.

Figure 2. The likelihood functions for various cosmological parameters obtained from the
WMAP data analysis (Spergel et al. 2003). The panels show the baryon density Ωb h2 , the
matter density Ωm h2 , the Hubble expansion rate h, the strength A, the optical depth τ , the
spectral index ns and its rate of change dns /lnk, respectively.

As seen in Fig 3, the combination of CMB data with those on high-redshift

Type-Ia supernovae (Perlmutter 2003; Perlmutter & Schmidt 2003) and on large-
scale structure (Peacock 2003a, b) favour strongly a flat Universe with about 30 %
of (mainly dark) matter and 70 % of vacuum (dark) energy. Type-Ia supernovae
probe the geometry of the Universe at redshifts z < ∼ 1. They disagree with a flat

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 3

Figure 3. The density of matter Ωm and dark energy ΩΛ inferred from WMAP and other
CMB data (WMAPext), and from combining them with supernova and Hubble Space Tele-
scope data (Spergel et al. 2003).

Ωtot = 1 Universe that has no vacuum energy, and also with an open Ωm ≃ 0.3
Universe (Perlmutter 2003; Perlmutter & Schmidt 2003). They appear to be ade-
quate standard candles, and two observed supernovae with z > 1 argue strongly
against dust or evolution effects that would be sufficient to cloud their geometri-
cal interpretation. The supernovae indicate that the expansion of the Universe is
currently accelerating, though it had been decelerating when z was > 1. There are
good prospects for improving substantially the accuracy of the supernova data, by
a combination of continued ground-based and subsequent space observations using
the SNAP satellite project (Perlmutter 2003; Perlmutter & Schmidt 2003).
It is impressive that the baryon density inferred from WMAP data (Spergel et
al. 2003) is in good agreement with the value calculated previously on the basis of
Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), which depends on completely different (nuclear)
physics. Fig. 4 compares the abundances of light elements calculated using the
WMAP value of Ωb h2 with those inferred from astrophysical data (Cyburt et al.
2003). Depending on the astrophysical assumptions that are made in extracting the
light-element abundances from astrophysical data, there is respectable overlap.
As we heard at this Meeting, several pillars of inflation theory have now been
verified by WMAP and other CMB data (Bond 2003): the Sachs-Wolfe effect due to
fluctuations in the large-scale gravitational potential were first seen by the COBE
satellite, the first acoustic peak was seen in the CMB spectrum at ℓ ∼ 210 and this
has been followed by two more peaks and the intervening dips, the damping tail of

Article submitted to Royal Society

4 J. Ellis

Figure 4. The likelihood functions for the primordial abundances of light elements inferred
from astrophysical observations (lighter, yellow shaded regions) compared with those cal-
culated using the CMB value of Ωb h2 (darker, blue shaded regions). The dashed curves
are likelihood functions obtained under different astrophysical assumptions (Cyburt et al.
2003).

the fluctuation spectrum expected at ℓ > ∼ 1000 has been seen, polarization has been
observed, and the primary anisotropies are predominantly Gaussian. WMAP has,
additionally, measured the thickness of the last scattering surface and observed the
reionization of the Universe when z ∼ 20 by the first generation of stars (Kogut et
al. 2003). Remaining to be established are secondary anisotropies, due, e.g., to the
Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, weak lensing and inhomogeneous reionization, and tensor
perturbations induced by gravity waves.
As we also heard at this meeting, the values of ΩCDM inferred from X-ray
studies of gas in rich clusters using the Chandra satellite (Rees 2003), which indicate
ΩCDM = 0.325±0.34, gravitational lensing (Schneider 2003) and data on large-scale
structure, e.g., from the 2dF galaxy redshift survey (Peacock 2003a, b), are very
consistent with that inferred by combining CMB and supernova data. The WMAP
data confirm this concordance with higher precision: ΩCDM h2 = 0.111 ± 0.009
(Spergel et al. 2003).
The 2dF galaxy survey has examined two wedges through the Universe. Sig-
nificant structures are seen at low redshifts, which die away at larger redshifts
where the Universe becomes more homogeneous and isotropic. The perturbation
power spectrum at these large scales matches nicely with that seen in the CMB
data, whilst the structures seen at small scales would not be present in a baryon-
dominated Universe, or one with a significant fraction of hot dark matter. Indeed,

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 5

the 2dF data were used to infer an upper limit on the sum of the neutrino masses
of 1.8 eV (Elgaroy et al. 2002), which has recently been improved using WMAP
data (Spergel et al. 2003) to

Σνi mνi < 0.7 eV, (1.1)

as seen in Fig. 5. This impressive upper limit is substantially better than even the
most stringent direct laboratory upper limit on an individual neutrino mass, as
discussed in the next Section. Thw WMAP data also provide (Crotty et al. 2003) a
new limit on the effective number of light neutrino species, beyond the three within
the Standard Model:

−1.5 < ∆Nνef f < 4.2. (1.2)

This limit is not as stringent as that from LEP, but applies to additional light
degrees of freedom that might not be produced in Z decay.

Figure 5. The likelihood function for the total neutrino density Ων h2 derived by WMAP
(Spergel et al. 2003). The upper limit mν < 0.23 eV applies if there are three degenerate
neutrinos.

2. What is it?
As discussed here by Kolb (2003), particle candidates for dark matter range from
the axion with a mass > ∼ 10
−15
GeV (van Bibber 2003) to cryptons with masses
<
∼ 10 +15
GeV (Ellis et al. 1990; Benakli et al. 1999), via neutrinos with masses
<
∼ 10 −10
GeV, the gravitino and the lightest supersymmetric particle with a mass

Article submitted to Royal Society

6 J. Ellis

> 2
∼ 10 GeV (Ellis et al. 1984; Goldberg 1983). In recent years, there has been
considerable experimental progress in understanding neutrino masses, so I start
with them, even though cosmology now disfavours the hot dark matter they would
provide (Spergel et al. 2003). All the others are candidates for cold dark matter,
except for the gravitino, which might constitute warm dark matter, another possi-
bility now disfavoured by the WMAP evidence for reionization when z ∼ 20 (Kogut
et al. 2003).

(a) Neutrinos
Particle theorists expect particles to have masses that vanish exactly only if they
are protected by some unbroken gauge symmetry, much as the photon is massless
because of the U(1) gauge symmetry of electromagnetism, that is associated with
the conservation of electric charge. There is no corresponding exact gauge sym-
metry to protect lepton number, so we expect it to be violated and neutrinos to
acquire masses. This is indeed the accepted interpretation of the observed oscilla-
tions between different types of neutrinos, which are made possible by mixing into
non-degenerate mass eigenstates (Wark 2003); Pakvasa & Valle 2003).
Neutrino masses could arise even within the Standard Model of particle physics,
without adding any new particles, at the expense of introducing a interaction be-
tween two neutrino fields and two Higgs fields (Barbieri et al. 1980):
1M νH · νH → mν = h0|H0i2 M . (2.1)
However, such an interaction would be non-renormalizable, and therefore is not
thought to be fundamental. The (presumably large) mass scale M appearing the
denominator of (2.1) is generally thought to originate from the exchange of some
massive fermionic particle that mixes with the light neutrino (Gell-Mann et al.
1979; Yanagida 1979; Mohapatra & Senjanovic 1980):
  
0 MD νL
(νL , N ) T , (2.2)
MD M N
Diagonalization of this matrix naturally yields small neutrino masses, since we
expect that the Dirac mass term mD is of the same order as quark and lepton
masses, and M ≫ mW .
We have the following direct experimental upper limits on neutrino masses. From
measurements of the end-point in Tritium β decay, we know that (Weinheimer et
al. 1999; Lobashov et al. 1999):
mνe <
∼ 2.5 eV, (2.3)
and there are prospects to improve this limit down to about 0.5 eV with the pro-
posed KATRIN experiment (Osipowicz et al. 2001). From measurements of π → µν
decay, we know that (Hagiwara et al. 2002):
mνµ < 190 KeV, (2.4)
and there are prospects to improve this limit by a factor ∼ 20. From measurements
of τ → nπν decay, we know that (Hagiwara et al. 2002):
mντ < 18.2 MeV, (2.5)

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 7

and there are prospects to improve this limit to ∼ 5 MeV.

However, the most stringent laboratory limit on neutrino masses may come from
searches for neutrinoless double-β decay, which constrain the sum of the neutrinos’
Majorana masses weighted by their couplings to electrons (Klapdor-Kleingrothaus
et al. 2001):
2 <
hmν ie ≡ |Σνi mνi Uei | ∼ 0.35 eV (2.6)

and there are prospects to improve this limit to ∼ 0.01 eV in a future round of
experiments. The impact of the limit (2.6) in relation to the cosmological upper
limit (1.1) is discussed below, after we have gathered further experimental input
from neutrino-oscillation experiments.
The neutrino mass matrix (2.2) should be regarded also as a matrix in flavour
space. When it is diagonalized, the neutrino mass eigenstates will not, in general, co-
incide with the flavour eigenstates that partner the mass eigenstates of the charged
leptons. The mixing matrix between them (Maki et al. 1962) may be written in the
form
   
c12 s12 0 1 0 0 c13 0 s13
V =  −s12 c12 0   0 c23 s23   0 1 0  . (2.7)
−iδ −iδ
0 0 1 0 −s23 c23 −s13 e 0 c13 e

where the symbols c, sij denote the standard trigonometric functions of the three
real ‘Euler’ mixing angles θ12,23,31 , and δ is a CP-violating phase that can in prin-
ciple also be observed in neutrino-oscillation experiments (De Rújula et al. 1999).
Additionally, there are two CP-violating phases φ1,2 that appear in the double-β
observable (2.6), but do not affect neutrino oscillations.
The pioneering Super-Kamiokande and other experiments have shown that at-
mospheric neutrinos oscillate, with the following difference in squared masses and
mixing angle (Fukuda et al. 1998):

δm2 ≃ 2.4 × 10−3 eV2 , sin2 2θ23 ≃ 1.0, (2.8)

which is very consistent with the K2K reactor neutrino experiment (Ahn et al.
2002), as seen in the left panel of Fig. 6. A flurry of recent solar neutrino exper-
iments, most notably SNO (Ahmad et al. 2002a, b), have established beyond any
doubt that they also oscillate, with

δm2 ≃ 6 × 10−5 eV2 , tan2 θ31 ≃ 0.5. (2.9)

Most recently, the KamLAND experiment has reported a deficit of electron an-
tineutrinos from nuclear power reactors, leading to a very similar set of preferred
parameters, as seen in the right panel of Fig. 6 (Eguchi et al. 2003).
Using the range of θ12 allowed by the solar and KamLAND data, one can es-
tablish a correlation between the relic neutrino density Ων h2 and the neutrinoless
double-β decay observable hmν ie , as seen in Fig. 7 (Minakata & Sugiyama 2002).
Pre-WMAP, the experimental limit on hmν ie could be used to set the bound (Mi-
nakata & Sugiyama 2002)

10−3 <
∼ Ων h <
2 −1
∼ 10 . (2.10)

Article submitted to Royal Society

 8 J. Ellis

-3
10

∆m (eV )
2
2
-2
10

∆m [eV ]
2
-4
10

2
★

-3
10

-4 -5
10
10 10
-1
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2
2
sin 2θ tan θ
Figure 6. Left panel: The region of neutrino oscillation parameters (sin2 2θ, ∆m2 ) inferred
from the K2K reactor experiment (Ahn et al. 2002) includes the central values favoured
by the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric-neutrino experiment, indicated by the star (Fukuda
et al. 1998). Right panel: The region of neutrino oscillation parameters (tan2 θ, ∆m2 ) in-
ferred from solar-neutrino experiments is very consistent with derived from the KamLAND
reactor neutrino experiment (Eguchi et al. 2003). The shaded regions show the combined
probability distribution (Pakvasa & Valle, 2003).

Alternatively, now that WMAP has set a tighter upper bound Ων h2 < 0.0076 (1.1),
one can use this correlation to set an upper bound:

< mν > e <

∼ 0.1 eV, (2.11)

which is difficult to reconcile with the signal reported in (Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et

al. 2002).
The ‘Holy Grail’ of neutrino physics is CP violation in neutrino oscillations,
which would manifest itself as a difference between the oscillation probabilities for
neutrinos and antineutrinos (De Rújula et al. 1999):

P (νe → νµ ) − P (ν̄e → ν̄µ ) = 16s12 c12 s13 c213 s23 c23 sin δ (2.12)
2 2 2




sin ∆m12 4EL sin ∆m13 4EL sin ∆m23 4EL ,

For this to be observable, ∆m12 and θ12 have to be large, as SNO and KamLAND
have shown to be the case, and also θ13 has to be large enough - which remains to
be seen.
In fact, even the minimal seesaw model contains many additional parameters
that are not observable in neutrino oscillations (Casas & Ibarra 2001). In addition to
the three masses of the charged leptons, there are three light-neutrino masses, three
light-neutrino mixing angles and three CP-violating phases in the light-neutrino
sector: the oscillation phase δ and the two Majorana phases that are relevant to
neutrinoless double-β decay experiments. As well, there are three heavy singlet-
neutrino masses, three more mixing angles and three more CP-violating phases that
become observable in the heavy-neutrino sector, making a total of 18 parameters.

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 9

0.1

(b)
0.01

Ων h2

0.001

0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
<m>max
ββ (eV)
Figure 7. Correlation between Ων h2 and hmν ie . The different diagonal lines correspond
to uncertainties in the measurements by KamLAND and other experiments (Minakata &
Sugiyama 2002).

Out of all these parameters, so far just four light-neutrino parameters are known,
two differences in masses squared and two real mixing angles.
As discussed later, it is often thought that there may be a connection between
CP violation in the neutrino sector and the baryon density in the Universe, via
leptogenesis. Unfortunately, this connection is somewhat indirect, since the three
CP-violating phases measurable in the light-neutrino sector to not contribute to
leptogenesis, which is controlled by the other phases that are not observable directly
at low energies (Ellis & Raidal 2002). However, if the seesaw model is combined
with supersymmetry, these extra phases contribute to the renormalization of soft
superymmetry-breaking parameters at low energies, and hence may have indirect
observable effects (Ellis et al. 2002a, b).

(b) Problems with Cold Dark Matter?

A recurring question is whether the cold dark matter paradigm for structure
formation is compatible with all the observational data (Navarro 2003; Abadi et al.
2002). One of the issues is the mass profile at the core of a galactic halo. As we heard
at this meeting, density profiles clearly differ from naive power laws, and are much
shallower than simple isothermal models. However, the haloes of γ < 2.5 seem to
be in reasonable agreement with CDM sumulations, though there are still problems
with γ > 2.5 galaxies. The theoretical predictions are not yet conclusive, though,
with questions such as triaxiality, departures from equilibrium and time dependence
remaining to be resolved. Another issue is halo substructure and the abundance of
Milky Way satellites. However, the latest news is that there is apparently better

Article submitted to Royal Society

10 J. Ellis

Figure 8. Exclusion domains for the halo density of different types of axion, as functions of
the frequency corresponding to the possible axion mass, as obtained from microwave cavity
experiments (van Bibber 2003; Asztalos et al. 2001).

agreement between the number of Milky Way satellites and the number of massive
halo substructures predicted in CDM simulations. It has been argued that a Milky
Way-like stellar disk would be thickened if there were substructures in the halo, but
recent simulations do not display any significant such effect (Navarro 2003; Abadi
et al. 2002).
Thus, the latest advice from the simulators seems to be that there is no show-
stopper for the CDM paradigm, so let us examine some of the candidates for the
CDM.

(c) Axions
As we heard here from van Bibber (van Bibber 2003), axions were invented
in order to conserve CP in the strong interactions: in the picturesque analogy of
Sikivie (Sikivie 1996), to explain why the strong-interaction pool table is apparently
horizontal. Axion-like particles may be characterized by a two-dimensional param-
eter space, consisting of the axion mass ma and its coupling to pairs of photons,
gaγ . Many areas of this parameter space are excluded by laser experiments, tele-
scopes, searches for solar axions currently being extended by the CAST experiment
at CERN (Irastorza et al. 2002), astrophysical constraints (Hagiwara et al. 2002)
and searches for halo axions using microwave cavities (Asztalos et al. 2001), as seen
in Fig. 8. These and searches using Rydberg atoms (Yamamoto et al. 2001) have
the best chances of excluding ragions of parameter space where the axion might
constitute cold dark matter.

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 11

(d ) Supersymmetric Dark Matter

The appearance of supersymmetry at the TeV scale was originally motivated by
the hierarchy problem (Maiani 1979; ’t Hooft 1979; Witten 1981) - why is mW ≪
mP ∼ 1019 GeV, the only candidate we have for a fundamental mass scale in
physics, or alternatively why is the Coulomb potential in an atom so much larger
than the Newton potential? The former is ∝ e2 = O(1), whereas the latter is
∝ GN m2 ∼ m2 /m2P , where m is a typical particle mass scale. It is not sufficient
simply to set particle masses such as mW ≪ mP , since quantum corrections will
increase them again. Many one-loop quantum corrections each yield

δm2W ≃ O (απ) Λ2 , (2.13)

where Λ is an effective cut-off, representing the scale at which the Standard Model
ceases to be valid, and new physics appears. If Λ ≃ mP or the GUT scale ∼
1016 GeV, the ‘small’ correction (2.13) will be much larger than the physical value
of m2W . It would require ‘unnatural’ fine-tuning to choose the bare value of m2W to
be almost equal and opposite to the ‘small’ correction (2.13), so that their combina-
tion happens to have the right magnitude. Alternatively, supersymmetry introduces
an effective cut-off Λ by postulating equal numbers of bosons and fermions with
identical couplings, in which case the corrections (2.13) cancel among themselves,
leaving

δm2W ≃ O (απ) (m2B − m2F ), (2.14)

which is < 2
∼ mW if
|m2B − m2F | < 2
∼ O(1) TeV , (2.15)

i.e., if supersymmetry appears at relatively low energy.

This naturalness argument for low-energy supersymmetry is supported by sev-
eral pieces of indirect empirical evidence. One is that the strengths of the different
gauge interactions measured at low energies, particularly at the LEP accelerator,
are consistent with unification at high energies if there are low-mass supersymmet-
ric particles (Ellis et al. 1991b; Amaldi et al. 1991; Langacker & Luo 1991; Giunti
et al. 1991). A second is that LEP and other precision low-energy data are fitted
well by the Standard Model if there is a relatively light Higgs boson with mass
< 200 GeV, very consistent with the range mh < ∼ 130 GeV predicted by supersym-
metry (Okada et al. 1991; Ellis et al. 1991a; Haber & Hempfling 1991). A third is
that the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) con-
tains a good candidate χ for cold dark matter, which has a suitable relic density if
the supersymmetric mass scale < ∼ 1 TeV (Ellis et al. 1984; Goldberg 1983). A fourth
may be provided by the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, gµ −2 (Brown et
al. 2001; Bennett et al. 2002), if its experimental value deviates significantly from
the Standard Model prediction.
When considering the experimental, cosmological and theoretical constraints
on the MSSM, it is common to assume that all the unseen spin-0 supersymmetric
particles have some universal mass m0 at some GUT input scale, and similarly
for the unseen fermion masses m1/2 . These two parameters of this constrained
MSSM (CMSSM) are restricted by the absences of supersymmetric particles at

Article submitted to Royal Society

12 J. Ellis

LEP: mχ± > ∼ 103 GeV, mẽ > ∼ 99 GeV, and at the Fermilab Tevatron collider.
They are also restricted indirectly by the absence of a Higgs boson at LEP: mh >
114.4 GeV, and by the fact that b → sγ decay is consistent with the Standard
Model, and potentially by the BNL measurement of gµ − 2, as seen in Fig. 9 (Ellis
et al. 2003a; Lahanas & Naopoulos 2003).

tan β = 10 , µ > 0 tan β = 10 , µ < 0

800 800

700 mh = 114 GeV 700 mh = 114 GeV

600 600

m0 (GeV)
m0 (GeV)

500 mχ± = 104 GeV 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

m1/2 (GeV) m1/2 (GeV)

Figure 9. The (m1/2 , m0 ) planes for (left panel) tan β = 10, µ > 0, and (right panel)
tan β = 10, µ < 0. In each panel, the region allowed by the older cosmological constraint
0.1 ≤ Ωχ h2 ≤ 0.3 has light shading, and the region allowed by the newer WMAP cosmo-
logical constraint 0.094 ≤ Ωχ h2 ≤ 0.129 has very dark shading. The region with dark (red)
shading is disallowed because there the lightest supersymmetric particle would be charged.
The regions excluded by b → sγ have medium (green) shading, and those in panels (a,d)
that are favoured by gµ − 2 at the 2-σ level have medium (pink) shading. LEP constraints
on the Higgs and supersymmetric particle masses are also shown (Ellis et al. 2003a).

As shown there, the CMSSM parameter space is also restricted by cosmological

bounds on the amount of cold dark matter, ΩCDM h2 . Since ρχ = mχ nχ , and the
relic number density nχ ∝ 1/σann (χχ → ...) where σann (χχ → ...) ∝ 1/m2 , the
relic density generically increases with increasing sparticle masses. For some time,
the conservative upper limit on ΩCDM h2 has been < 0.3 (Lahanas et al. 2000,
2001a, 2001b; Barger & Kao 2001; Arnowitt & Dutta 2002), but the recent WMAP
data allow this to be reduced to < 0.129 at the 2-σ level. As seen in Fig. 9, this
improved upper limit significantly improves the cosmological upper limit on the
sparticle mass scale (Ellis et al. 2003a, Lahanas & Nanopoulos 2003). If there are
other important components of the cold dark matter, the CMSSM parameters could
lie below the dark (blue) strips in Fig. 9.
In order to facilitate discussion of the physics reaches of different accelerators
and strategies for detecting dark matter, it is convenient to focus on a limited
number of benchmark scenarios that illustrate the various different supersymmet-
ric possibilities (Battaglia et al. 2001). In many of these scenarios, supersymmetry
would be very easy to observe at the LHC, and many different types of super-

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 13

symmetric particle might be discovered. However, searches for astrophysical dark

matter may be competitive for some scenarios (Ellis et al. 2001).
One strategy is to look for relic annihilations out in the galactic halo, which
might produce detectable antiprotons or positrons in the cosmic rays (Silk & Sred-
nicki 1984). As discussed here by Carr (2003), both the PAMELA (Pearce et al.
2002) and AMS (Aguilar et al. 2002) space experiments will be looking for these
signals, though the rates are not very promising in the benchmark scenarios we
studied (Ellis et al. 2001). Alternatively, one might look for annihilations in the
core of our galaxy, which might produce detectable gamma rays. As seen in the left
panel of Fig. 10, this may be possible in certain benchmark scenarios (Ellis et al.
2001), although the rate is rather uncertain because of the unknown enhancement
of relic particles in our galactic core. A third strategy is to look for annihilations
inside the Sun or Earth (Silk et al. 1985), where the local density of relic parti-
cles is enhanced in a calculable way by scattering off matter, which causes them
to lose energy and become gravitationally bound. The signature would then be
energetic neutrinos that might produce detectable muons. As also discussed here
by Carr (2003), several underwater and ice experiments are underway or planned
to look for this signature, and this strategy looks promising for several benchmark
scenarios, as seen in the right panel of Fig. 10 †.

Figure 10. Left panel: Spectra of photons from the annihilations of dark matter particles in
the core of our galaxy, in different benchmark supersymmetric models (Ellis et al. 2001).
Right panel: Signals for muons produced by energetic neutrinos originating from annihila-
tions of dark matter particles in the core of the Sun, in the same benchmark supersymmetric
models (Ellis et al. 2001).

The most satisfactory way to look for supersymmetric relic particles is directly
via their scattering on nuclei in a low-background laboratory experiment Good-
man & Witten 1985). There are two types of scattering matrix elements, spin-
independent - which are normally dominant for heavier nuclei, and spin-dependent
- which could be interesting for lighter elements such as fluorine. The best experi-
mental sensitivities so far are for spin-independent scattering, and one experiment
has claimed a positive signal (Bernabei et al. 1998). However, this has not been
† It will be interesting to have such neutrino telescopes in different hemispheres, which will be
able to scan different regions of the sky for astrophysical high-energy neutrino sources.

Article submitted to Royal Society

14 J. Ellis

confirmed by a number of other experiments, as discussed here by Kraus (2003)

and Smith (2003). In the benchmark scenarios the rates are considerably below
the present experimental sensitivities, but there are prospects for improving the
sensitivity into the interesting range, as also discussed by Kraus (2003) and Smith
(2003), as seen in Fig. 11.

Figure 11. Rates calculated for the spin-independent elastic scattering of dark matter par-
ticles off protons in the same benchmark supersymmetric models (Ellis et al. 2001) as in
Fig. 10.

Overall, the searches for astrophysical supersymmetric dark matter have dis-
covery prospects (Ellis et al. 2001) that are comparable with those of the LHC
(Battaglia et al. 2001).

(e) Superheavy Dark Matter

As discussed here by Kolb (2003), it has recently been realized that interest-
ing amounts of superheavy particles with masses ∼ 1014±5 GeV might have been
produced non-thermally in the very early Universe, either via pre- and reheat-
ing following inflation, or during bubble collisions, or by gravitational effects in
the expanding Universe. If any of these superheavy particles were metastable they
might be able, as seen in Fig. 12, to explain the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays that
seem (Takeda et al. 2002; Abu-Zayyad et al. 2002) to appear beyond the Greisen-
Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff (Greisen 1966; Zatsepin & Kuzmin 1966). Such
models have to face some challenges, notably from upper limits on the fractions of
gamma rays at ultra-high energies, but might exhibit distinctive signatures such as
a galactic anisotropy (Sarkar 2002). Examples of such superheavy particles are the
cryptons found in some models derived from string theory, which naturally have
masses ∼ 1012±2 GeV and are metastable (like protons), decaying via higher-order
multiparticle interactions (Ellis et al. 1990; Benakli et al. 1999). The Pierre Auger
experiment (Cronin et al. 2002) will be able to tell us whether ultra-high-energy

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 15

cosmic rays really exist beyond the GZK cutoff, and, if so, whether they are due
to some such exotic top-down mechanism, or whether they have some bottom-up
astrophysical origin. Following Auger, there are ideas for space experiments such
as EUSO (Petrolini et al. 2002) that could have even better sensitivities to ultra-
high-energy cosmic rays.

26.0
AGASA
Akeno 1 km2
25.5
log10 E3J(E) (eV2m-2s-1sr-1)
Stereo Fly’s Eye
Haverah Park
Yakutsk
25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0
17 18 19 20 21
log10 E (eV)
Figure 12. Calculation of the spectrum of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays that might be
produced by the decays (Sarkar 2002) of metastable superheavy particles.

3. Calculate it!
Now that we have a good idea of the matter and energy content of the Universe, and
some prospects for detecting it, the next task is to calculate it from first principles
on the basis of microphysics and laboratory data.
• Ωb : As Sakharov taught us (Sakharov 1967), baryogenesis requires the violation
of charge conjugation C and its combination CP with parity, interactions that
violate baryon number B, and a departure from thermal equilibrium. The first two
have been observed for quarks, and are expected within the Standard Model. B
violation is also expected in the Standard Model, at the non-perturbative level.
One might therefore wonder whether the observed cosmological baryon asymmetry
could have been generated by the Standard Model alone, but the answer seems
to be no (Gavela et al. 1994). However, it might be possible in the MSSM, if it
contains additional sources of CP violation beyond the Standard Model (Carena
et al. 2003). An attractive alternative is leptogenesis (Fukugita & Yanagida 1986),
according to which first the decays of heavy singlet neutrinos create a CP-violating
asymmetry ∆L 6= 0, and then this is partially converted into a baryon asymmetry
by non-perturbative weak interactions.
At the one-loop level, the asymmetry in the decays of one heavy singlet neutrino

Article submitted to Royal Society

16 J. Ellis

Ni due to exchanges of another one, Nj , is

2
ǫij = 18π1(Yν Yν† )ii Im (Yν Yν† )ij f (Mj Mi ) , (3.1)

where Yν is a matrix of Yukawa couplings between heavy singlet and light doublet
neutrinos. The expression (3.1) involves a sum over the light leptons, and hence
is independent of the CP-violating MNS phase δ and the Majorana phases φ1,2 .
Instead, it is controlled by extra phase parameters that are not directly accessible
to low-energy experiments.
This leptogenesis scenario produces effortlessly a baryon-to-photon ratio YB of
the right order of magnitude. However, as seen in Fig. 13, the CP-violating decay
asymmetry (3.1) is explicitly independent of δ (Ellis & Raidal 2002). On the other
hand, other observables such as the charged-lepton-flavour-violating decays µ → eγ
and τ → µγ may cast some indirect light on the mechanism of leptogenesis (Ellis
et al. 2002a, b). Predictions for these decays may be refined if one makes extra
hypotheses.
ε1

ε1

MN1 [GeV] MN1 [GeV]

Figure 13. Comparison of the CP-violating asymmetries in the decays of heavy singlet
neutrinos giving rise to the cosmological baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis (left panel)
without and (right panel) with maximal CP violation in neutrino oscillations (Ellis &
Raidal 2002). They are indistinguishable.

One possibility is that the inflaton might be a heavy singlet sneutrino (Mu-
rayama et al. 1993, 1994). This would require a mass ≃ 2 × 1013 GeV, which is well
within the range favoured by seesaw models. The sneutrino inflaton model predicts
(Ellis et al. 2003b) values of the spectral index of scalar perturbations, the fraction
of tensor perturbations and other CMB observables that are consistent with the
WMAP data (Peiris et al. 2003) . Moreover, this model predicts a branching ratio
for µ → eγ within a couple of orders of magnitude of the present experimental
upper limit.
• ΩCDM : The relic density of supersymmetric dark matter is calculable in terms
of supersymmetric particle masses and Standard Model parameters. The sensitivity

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 17

to these parameters is quite small in generic regions, but may be larger in some
exceptional regions corresponding to ‘tails’ of the MSSM parameter space (Ellis &
Olive 2001). At least away from these regions, data from the LHC on supersymmet-
ric parameters should enable the cold dark matter density to be calculated quite
reliably.
• ΩΛ : The biggest challenge may be the cosmological vacuum energy. For a long
time, theorists tried to find reasons why the cosmological constant should vanish,
but no convincing symmetry to guarantee this was ever found. Now cosmologists
tell us that the vacuum energy actually does not vanish. Perhaps theorists’ previ-
ous failure should be reinterpreted as a success? If the vacuum energy is indeed a
constant, the hope is that it could be calculated from first principles in string or
M theory. Alternatively, as argued here by Steinhardt 2003, perhaps the vacuum
energy is presently relaxing towards zero, as in quintessence models (Maor et al.
2002). Such models are getting to be quite strongly constrained by the cosmological
data, in particular those from high-redshift supernovae and WMAP (Spergel et al.
2003) as seen in Fig. 14, and it seems that the quintessence equation of state must
be quite similar to that of a true cosmological constant (Spergel et al. 2003). Either
way, the vacuum energy is a fascinating discovery that provides an exciting new
opportunity for theoretical physics.

Figure 14. Constraints on the equation of state of the dark energy from WMAP and other
CMB data (WMAPext) combined with data on high-redshift supernovae, from the 2dF
galaxy redshift survey and from the Hubble Space Telescope (Spergel et al. 2003).

4. Test it!
Laboratory experiments have explored the energy range up to about 100 GeV, and
quantum gravity must become important around the Planck energy ∼ 1019 GeV:
where will new physics appear in this vast energy range? There are reasons to

Article submitted to Royal Society

18 J. Ellis

think that the origin of particle masses will be found at some energy < 3
∼ 10 GeV.
If they are indeed due to some elementary scalar Higgs field, this will provide a
prototype for the inflaton. If the Higgs is accompanied by supersymmetry, this may
provide the cold dark matter that fills the Universe. Some circumstantial evidence
for supersymmetry may be provided by the anomalous magnetic moment of the
muon and by measurements of the electroweak mixing angle θW , in the framework
of grand unified theories. These would operate at energy scales ∼ 1016 GeV, far
beyond the direct reach of accelerators. The first hints in favour of such theories
have already been provided by experiments on astrophysical (solar and atmospheric)
neutrinos, and cosmology may provide the best probes of grand unified theories,
e.g., via inflation and/or super-heavy relic particles, which might be responsible
for the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Cosmology may also be providing our first
information about quantum gravity, in the form of the vacuum energy.
The LHC will extend the direct exploration of the energy frontier up to ∼
103 GeV. However, as these examples indicate, the unparallelled energies attained
in the early Universe and in some astrophysical sources may provide the most direct
tests of many ideas for physics beyond the Standard Model. The continuing dialogue
between the two may tell us the origins of dark matter and dark energy.

References
Abadi, M. G. et al. 2002 arXiv:astro-ph/0211331.
Abu-Zayyad, T. et al. 2002 arXiv:astro-ph/0208301.
Aguilar, M. et al. 2002 Phys. Rept. 366, 331.
Ahmad, Q. R. et al. 2002a Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008].
Ahmad, Q. R. et al. 2002b Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011302 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009].
Ahn, M. H. et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 041801 [arXiv:hep-ex/0212007].
Amaldi, U., de Boer, W. & Furstenau, H. 1991 Phys. Lett. B 260, 447.
Arnowitt, R. & Dutta, B. 2002 arXiv:hep-ph/0211417.
Asztalos, S. J. et al. 2002 Astrophys. J. 571, L27 [arXiv:astro-ph/0104200].
Barbieri, R., Ellis, J. R. & Gaillard, M. K. 1980 Phys. Lett. B 90, 249.
Barger, V. & Kao, C. 2001 Phys. Lett. B518, 117 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189].
Battaglia, M. et al. 2001 Eur. Phys. J. C 22, 535 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].
Benakli, K., Ellis, J. R. & Nanopoulos, D. V. 1999 Phys. Rev. D 59, 047301 [arXiv:hep-
ph/9803333].
Bennett, C. L. et al. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302207.
Bennett, G. W. et al. 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101804 [Erratum-ibid. 89, 129903]
[arXiv:hep-ex/0208001].
Bernabei, R. et al. 1998 Phys. Lett. B 436, 379.
Bond, J. R. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Bond, J. R. & Crittenden, R. G. 2001 arXiv:astro-ph/0108204.
Brown, H. N. et al. 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2227 [arXiv:hep-ex/0102017].
Carena, M. et al. 2003 Nucl. Phys. B 650, 24 [arXiv:hep-ph/0208043].
Carr, J. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Casas, J. A. & Ibarra, A. 2001 Nucl. Phys. B 618, 171 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].
Chung, D. J., Crotty, P., Kolb, E. W. & Riotto, A. 2001 Phys. Rev. D 64, (2001) 043503
[arXiv:hep-ph/0104100].
Cronin, J. et al. 2002 http://www.auger.org/.

Article submitted to Royal Society

 Dark Matter and Dark Energy 19

Crotty, P., Lesgourgues, J. & Pastor, S. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302337.

Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D. & Olive, K. A. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302431.
De Rújula, A., Gavela, M. B. & Hernández, P. 1999 Nucl. Phys. B547, 21 [arXiv:hep-
ph/9811390].
Eguchi, K. et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0212021].
Elgaroy, O. et al., 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 061301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0204152].
Ellis, J. R. & Olive, K. A. 2001 Phys. Lett. B 514, 114 [arXiv:hep-ph/0105004].
Ellis, J. R. & Raidal, M. 2002 Nucl. Phys. B 643, 229 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206174].
Ellis, J. R., Hagelin, J. L., Nanopoulos, D. V., Olive, K. A., & Srednicki, M. 1984 Nucl.
Phys. B 238, 453.
Ellis, J. R., Lopez, J. L. & Nanopoulos, D. V. 1990 Phys. Lett. B 247, 257.
Ellis, J. R., Ridolfi, G. & Zwirner, F. 1991a Phys. Lett. B 257, 83.
Ellis, J. R., Kelley, S. & D. V. Nanopoulos 1991b Phys. Lett. B 260, 131.
Ellis, J. R. et al. 2001 Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 311 [arXiv:astro-ph/0110225].
Ellis, J. R. et al. 2002a Nucl. Phys. B 621, 208 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109125].
Ellis, J. R., et al. 2002b Phys. Lett. B 528, 86 [arXiv:hep-ph/0111324].
Ellis, J. R. et al. 2003a arXiv:hep-ph/0303043.
Ellis, J. R., Raidal, M. & Yanagida, T. 2003b arXiv:hep-ph/0303242.
Fukuda, Y. et al. 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003].
Fukugita, M. & Yanagida, T. 1986 Phys. Lett. B174, 45.
Gavela, M. B. et al. Nucl. Phys. B 430, 382 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406289].
Gell-Mann, M., Ramond, P. & Slansky, R. 1979 Proceedings of the Supergravity Stony
Brook Workshop, New York, 1979 (eds. P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman).
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Giunti, C., Kim, C. W. & Lee, U. W. 1991 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 1745.
Goldberg, H. 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419.
Goodman, M. W. & Witten, E. 1985 Phys. Rev. D 31, 3059.
Greisen, K. 1966 Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748.
Haber, H. E. & Hempfling, R. 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1815.
Hagiwara, K. et al. 2002 Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001.
Hinshaw, G. et al. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302217.
Irastorza, I. G. et al. 2002 arXiv:astro-ph/0211606.
Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V. et al. 2001 Eur. Phys. J. A 12, 147 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103062].
Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V., et al. I. V. 2002 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2409 [arXiv:hep-
ph/0201231].
Kogut, A. et al. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302213.
Kolb, E. W. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Kraus, H. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Lahanas, A. B. & Nanopoulos, D. V. 2003 arXiv:hep-ph/0303130.
Lahanas, A. B., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Spanos, V. C. 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62, 023515
[arXiv:hep-ph/9909497].
Lahanas, A. B., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Spanos, V. C. 2001a Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 1229
[arXiv:hep-ph/0009065].
Lahanas, A. B., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Spanos, V. C. 2001b Phys. Lett. B518, 94 [arXiv:hep-
ph/0107151].
Langacker, P. & Luo, M. X. 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44, 817.
Lobashev, V. M. et al. 1999 Phys. Lett. B 460, 227.
Maiani, L. 1979 Proceedings of the 1979 Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School on Particle
Physics.

Article submitted to Royal Society

20 J. Ellis

Maki, Z. Nakagawa, M. & Sakata, S. 1962 Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870.
Maor, I. et al. 2002 Phys. Rev. D 65, 123003 [arXiv:astro-ph/0112526].
Minakata, H. & Sugiyama, H. 2002 arXiv:hep-ph/0212240.
Mohapatra, R. & Senjanovic, G. 1980 Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912.
Murayama, H. et al. 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1912.
Murayama, H. et al. 1994 Phys. Rev. D 50, 2356 [arXiv:hep-ph/9311326].
Navarro, J. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Okada, Y., Yamaguchi, M. & Yanagida, T. 1991 Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991), 1.
Osipowicz, A. et al. 2001 arXiv:hep-ex/0109033.
Pakvasa, S. & Valle, J. W. 2003 arXiv:hep-ph/0301061.
Peacock, J. A. 2003a arXiv:astro-ph/0301042.
Peacock, J. A. 2003b talk at this meeting.
Pearce, M. et al. 2002 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 113, 314.
Peiris, H. V. et al. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302225.
Perlmutter, S. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Perlmutter, S. & Schmidt, B. P. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0303428.
Petrolini, A. et al. 2002 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 113, 329.
Rees, M. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Sakharov, A. D. 1967 Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32
Sarkar, S. 2002 arXiv:hep-ph/0202013.
Schneider, P. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Sikivie, P. 1996 Phys. Today 49N12, 22 [arXiv:hep-ph/9506229].
Silk, J. & Srednicki, M. 1984 Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 624.
Silk, J., Olive, K. A. & Srednicki, M. 1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 257.
Smith, P. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.
Steinhardt, P. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Takeda, M. et al. 2002 arXiv:astro-ph/0209422.
’t Hooft, G. 1979 Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, Proceedings of the Nato Ad-
vanced Study Institute, Cargese, 1979 (eds. G. ’t Hooft et al.). Plenum Press, NY, 1980.
van Bibber, K. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Wark, D. 2003 talk at this meeting.
Weinheimer, W. et al., 1999 Phys. Lett. B 460, 219.
Witten, E. 1981 Phys. Lett. B 105, 267.
Yamamoto, K. et al. 2001 arXiv:hep-ph/0101200.
Yanagida, T. 1979 Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number
in the Universe, Tsukuba, Japan 1979 (eds. A. Sawada and A. Sugamoto). KEK Report
No. 79-18, Tsukuba.
Zatsepin, G. T. & Kuzmin, V. A. 1966 JETP Lett. 4, 78.

Article submitted to Royal Society