Post on 12-Dec-2021
Unveiling ν secrets with cosmology
Sunny Vagnozzi
The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Stockholm University
Based on:
arXiv:1605.04320 [Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 083522],arXiv:1610.08830 [Phys. Rev. D, in press],
arXiv:1701.08172
with Katherine Freese, Shirley Ho, Olga Mena,Martina Gerbino, Elena Giusarma, Massimiliano Lattanzi
Cosmology on Safari, Zulu Nyala, South Africa, February 2017
1 / 18
Overview: Qs (& As)
Q: How constraining are the bounds on Mν from cosmology if webelieve some of the most recent datasets?A: VERY
Q: Within a flat ΛCDM background and with recent datasets, isshape [P(k)] or geometrical (BAO) information more constraining?A: GEOMETRICAL 1
Q: Can we say something quantitatively interesting and statisticallycorrect about the ν mass hierarchy?A: YES, WE CAN
Q: Do assumptions on the distribution of mass among the threeeigenstates matter?A: NOT MUCH
1with caveats2 / 18
Neutrino masses
Nobel Prize 2015: “for upptackten av neutrinooscillationer, som visar attneutriner har massa” (“for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, whichshows that neutrinos have mass”)
3 / 18
Neutrino oscillationsSensitive to mass-squared differences∆m2
ij ≡ m2i − m2
j
Exploits quantum-mechanical effects
Currently not sensitive to the mass hierarchy
Beta decay
Sensitive to effective electron neutrino massm2
β ≡∑
i |Uei |2m2i
Exploits conservation of energy
Model-independent, but less tight bounds
Cosmology
Sensitive to sum of neutrino massesMν ≡
∑i mi
Exploits GR+Boltzmann equations
Tightest limits, but somewhat model-dependent
Neutrinoless double-beta decay
Sensitive to effective Majorana massmββ ≡
∑i |U
2eimi |
Exploits GR+Boltzmann equations
Limited by NME uncertainties and ν nature
4 / 18
The CνB
Background of relic νs generic prediction of standard cosmological model:νs kept in thermal equilibrium with the plasma until T ∼ 1MeV (z ∼ 1010)Below T ∼ 1MeV νs free-stream keeping an equilibrium spectrum
Today Tν ' 1.9K, nν ' 113 cm−3, Neff = 3.046
Courtesy of Elena Giusarma5 / 18
How can cosmology measure ν masses?
Courtesy of Martina Gerbino; see Lyman’s talk6 / 18
Datasets: CMB temperature and polarization
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
DT
T`
[µK
2]
30 500 1000 1500 2000 2500`
-60-3003060
D
TT
`
2 10-600-300
0300600
0
20
40
60
80
100
CEE
`[1
05µK
2]
30 500 1000 1500 2000
`
-404
CE
E`
-140
-70
0
70
140
DT
E`
[µK
2]
30 500 1000 1500 2000
`
-100
10
D
TE
`
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 10 100 500 1000 2000
[L(L
+1)
]2C
L/2
[10
7]
L
Planck (2015)
Planck (2013)
SPTACT
TT TE
EE
φφ
Courtesy of Massimiliano Lattanzi; see Francois’ talk
7 / 18
Datasets: galaxy power spectrum
BOSS DR12 CMASS P(k)
10-2 10-1102
103
104
105
P(k
)[h−
3M
pc
3]
Halofit Non Linear Matter Power, PHF
Non Linear Matter Power, PNL
(PNL-PHF)/PHF
DR9 data
DR12 data
10-2 10-1
k[h/Mpc]
0.20.00.20.40.60.8
∆P/P
Modelling of data and theory withinlikelihood:
Pgmeas(ki ) =
∑j
W (ki , kj)Pgtrue(kj)
Pgth(k, z) = b2
HFPmHFν(k , z) + Ps
HF
Power on small scales is affected by free-streaming of neutrinos:
∆P(k)
P(k)∼ −8fν , knr ' 0.018Ω
12m
( m
1 eV
) 12
h Mpc−1
Issues: (scale-dependent?) bias, non-linearities, redshift-spacedistortions, systematics
8 / 18
Datasets: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
Approximately constrain the quantityDv (zeff)/rs(zdrag), where:
Dv (z) =
[(1 + z)2DA(z)2 cz
H(z)
] 13
Several BAO measurements available(BOSS DR11/DR12CMASS/LOWZ, WiggleZ, 6dFGS)
Standard ruler: constrain expansion history and break degeneracies (mainlyinvolving Ωm and H0)
Substantially less affected by systematics (bias, non-linear evolution)
9 / 18
Other “external” datasets
Consider other “external” datasets:
Optical depth to reionization τ = 0.055± 0.009 from Planck HFI
Direct measurements of the Hubble parameterH0 = 73.02± 1.79 km/s/Mpc
Planck SZ clusters
Each of them is important for resolving parameter degeneracies:
Degeneracy between Mν and τ in CMB and P(k): τ ↓ =⇒ Mν ↓Degeneracy between Mν and H0 with CMB, affects distance to lastscattering: H0 ↑ =⇒ Mν ↓ (careful with tensions see Adam’s talk )
Cluster mass function probes Ωm and σ8, important for fixing thenormalization of P(k)
10 / 18
Results
Results reported assuming a spectrum of three massive degenerate νs
PlanckTT+lowP: Mν < 0.716 eV@95% C.L.
+P(k): < 0.299 eV
+P(k)+BAO: < 0.246 eV
+P(k)+BAO+τ : < 0.205 eV
+P(k)+BAO+SZ: < 0.239 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0: < 0.164 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0+τ :< 0.140 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0+τ+SZ:< 0.136 eV
PlanckTT+lowP+TTTEEEE :Mν < 0.485 eV @95% C.L.
+P(k): < 0.275 eV
+P(k)+BAO: < 0.215 eV
+P(k)+BAO+τ : < 0.177 eV
+P(k)+BAO+SZ: < 0.208 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0: < 0.132 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0+τ :< 0.109 eV
+P(k)+BAO+H0+τ+SZ:< 0.117 eV
11 / 18
Shape vs geometry
What’s more constraining: shape [P(k)] or geometrical (BAO)information? To answer this question we replace the DR12 CMASS P(k)by the DR11 CMASS BAO information
PlanckTT+lowP+BAO:Mν < 0.186 eV @95% C.L.
+τ : < 0.151 eV
+H0: < 0.148 eV
+H0+τ : < 0.115 eV
+H0+τ+SZ: < 0.114 eV
PlanckTT+lowP+TTTEEEE :Mν < 0.153 eV @95% C.L.
+τ : < 0.118 eV
+H0: < 0.113 eV
+H0+τ : < 0.094 eV
+H0+τ+SZ: < 0.093 eV
12 / 18
Shape vs geometry
Mν posteriors: compare shape information (solid) with geometricalinformation (dashed), for a given color
Without small-scale polarization
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Mν [eV]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
P/
Pm
ax
basePK
baseBAO
basePK+τ0p055
baseBAO+τ0p055
basePK+H073p02+τ0p055
baseBAO+H073p02+τ0p055
With small-scale polarization
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Mν [eV]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
P/
Pm
ax
basepolPK
basepolBAO
basepolPK+τ0p055
basepolBAO+τ0p055
basepolPK+H073p02+τ0p055
basepolBAO+H073p02+τ0p055
Geometrical information more constraining than shape (win-win, as BAOalso less prone to systematics), BUT:
true within the assumption of a background flat ΛCDMlimit of our analysis methodology (e.g. we don’t know the bias)
13 / 18
What about the mass hierarchy?
For each mass hierarchy, there exists a minimal allowed value for Mν
14 / 18
Sensitivity to the mass hierarchy
Current cosmological data is mainly sensitive to Mν
Sensitivity to the mass hierarchy is only due to volume effects
We are approaching region of parameter space where these effects areimportant
Current data cannot distinguish between the two mass orderings,futuristic data might be able to measure individual neutrino massesthrough their free-streaming imprint on P(k) and on the EISW
In the most optimistic case, need a sensitivity of 0.02 eV todistinguish between NH and IH at 2σ (reachable withCMB-S4/COrE+DESI BAO) through volume effects alone
15 / 18
Model comparison for mass hierarchies
Probability for a given mass hierarchy H = N, I given data:
pH =p(H)
∫∞0 dm0 L(D|m0,H)
p(N)∫∞
0 dm0 L(D|m0,N) + p(I )∫∞
0 dm0 L(D|m0, I )
Can then report posterior odds for NH vs IH, or exclusion C.L. for IHCLIH = 1− pI ( 6= C.L. at which we exclude the minimal mass in the IH,0.1 eV, CL0.1). Examples:
PlanckTT+lowP+BAO+τ : Mν < 0.151 eV @95% C.L.pN/pI = 1.8 : 1, CLIH = 64%, CL0.1 = 82%
+TTTEEE Mν < 0.118 eV @95% C.L.pN/pI = 2.4 : 1, CLIH = 71%, CL0.1 = 91%
+H0+SZ: Mν < 0.093 eV @95% C.L.pN/pI = 3.3 : 1, CLIH = 77%, CL0.1 = 96%
16 / 18
Assumptions on the neutrino mass spectrum
Bounds derived assuming 3 massive degenerate νs spectrum (3deg)Compare results when considering 1 massive + 2 massless νs (1mass)1mass more constrained than 3deg when not using high-`polarization, less constraining otherwise (O(0.1)σ shifts)
0.00 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.40
Mν [eV]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
P/
Pm
ax
basepol : 3deg
basepol : 1mass
17 / 18
Conclusions
Cosmology provides tightest constraints on ν masses (Mν < 0.093 eV)
Geometrical surpasses shape information in constraining power
Data are starting to put the inverted hierarchy under pressure
Model comparison excludes inverted hierarchy at most @77% C.L.
Weak dependence on assumptions about ν mass spectrum
18 / 18