Neutrino Cosmology in 2020: Where do we Stand? · 2020. 1. 28. · Choudhury & Hannestad 19'...

Neutrino Cosmology in 2020:Where do we Stand?

LCDM23-01-2020

Miguel Escudero Abenzamiguel.escudero@kcl.ac.uk

Neutrino Cosmology in 2020 LCDM 23-01-20Miguel Escudero (KCL)

New Laboratory Neutrino Mass Bound

3H ! 3He+ + e� + ⌫̄eKATRIN experiment

Mainz and Troitsk (2001) : m⌫e < 2.2 eV (95 % CL)

(90 % CL)(PRL 2019, 1909.06048)

m⌫e < 1.1 eVCurrent laboratory bound:

(90 % CL)(PRL 2019, 1909.06048)

(95 % CL)X

m⌫ < 3.9 eV

KATRIN expected reach Xm⌫ < 0.6 eV

(90 % CL)m⌫e < 0.2 eV(in ~3-years)

(90 % CL)(PRL 2019, 1909.06048)

(95 % CL)X

m⌫ < 3.9 eV

Planck Legacy Data is now Public

Planck Likelihoods 1907.12875

CLASS/CAMB MontePython/CosmoMC

The Hubble Tension Increases

From Verde et. al. 1907.10625

Outline

1) Neutrinos and ΛCDM2) Neutrino Masses

Cosmological Constraints within ΛCDM Non-standard Cosmologies

3) NeffBBN and the CMB Constraints on BSM Physics

4) Neutrinos and the Hubble Tension

5) Conclusions and Outlook

Neutrino Decoupling

e+e� $ ⌫̄i⌫ie±⌫i $ e±⌫i

ElectronsNeutrinos Z-W (off-shell)Photons

Neutrino Decoupling

Ne↵ ⌘ 8

◆4/3 ✓⇢rad � ⇢�⇢�

Neutrino Decoupling

Ne↵ ⌘ 8

◆4/3 ✓⇢rad � ⇢�⇢�

◆Ne↵ = 3

✓1.4T⌫

Neutrino Decoupling

Ne↵ ⌘ 8

◆4/3 ✓⇢rad � ⇢�⇢�

de Salas & Pastor 1606.06986Escudero 2001.04466NSM

e↵ = 3.045

Ne↵ = 3

✓1.4T⌫

Neutrino Decoupling

Ne↵ ⌘ 8

◆4/3 ✓⇢rad � ⇢�⇢�

de Salas & Pastor 1606.06986Escudero 2001.04466NSM

e↵ = 3.045

Why is it not 3?Some e+e- heatingNon-instantaneous decouplingQED thermal correctionsNeutrino Oscillations

Excellent reviewby Dolgov 0202122

T⌫µ/⌫⌧⇠ 3.5MeV

T⌫e ⇠ 2MeV

Relic Neutrino Decouplingt ⇠ 0.1 s

Ne↵ = 3

✓1.4T⌫

Neutrino Evolution

Xm⌫ = 1 eV

Neutrinos are always a relevant species in the Universe evolution

Hot DM: ⌦⌫h2 ' 0.01

Xm⌫/eVNon-Rel: znon�rel

⌫ ' 600m⌫

0.3 eV

q�m2

' 0.01 eV

q�m2

atm ' 0.05 eV

Neutrino Properties

InvertedNormal

Figure from de Salas et. al. 1806.11051

q�m2

' 0.01 eV

q�m2

atm ' 0.05 eV

Neutrino Properties

InvertedNormal

Xm⌫ & 0.06 eV

Xm⌫ & 0.10 eV

q�m2

' 0.01 eV

q�m2

atm ' 0.05 eV

Neutrino Properties

InvertedNormal

Xm⌫ & 0.06 eV

Xm⌫ & 0.10 eV

Mass differences and mixings measured with high precision

q�m2

' 0.01 eV

q�m2

atm ' 0.05 eV

Neutrino Properties

InvertedNormal

Xm⌫ & 0.06 eV

Xm⌫ & 0.10 eV

What is Delta CP and what is the mass ordering?(see Sophie's talk)

q�m2

' 0.01 eV

q�m2

atm ' 0.05 eV

Neutrino Properties

InvertedNormal

Xm⌫ & 0.06 eV

Xm⌫ & 0.10 eV

What is mmin? The lightest neutrino could still be massless!

What is Delta CP and what is the mass ordering?(see Sophie's talk)

Neutrino Masses from Cosmology

Planck 2018 (1807.06209)X

m⌫ < 0.54 eVX

m⌫ < 0.26 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.12 eV

(95 % CL, TT+lowE)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+lensing+BAO)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+lensing)X

m⌫ < 0.24 eV

Planck 2018 (1807.06209)X

m⌫ < 0.54 eVX

m⌫ < 0.26 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.12 eV

(95 % CL, TT+lowE)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+lensing+BAO)

(95 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+lensing)X

m⌫ < 0.24 eV

1) Prior dependent bounds (see next talk by Constance)

2) Dependence upon the Cosmological Model

3) Other not that linear data sets?

Very robust bounds from linear Cosmology

Cosmological Model DependencePlanck+BAO and 3 degenerate neutrinosX

m⌫ < 0.12 eV ΛCDM+mνPlanck 1807.06209

Standard Case

Cosmological Model DependencePlanck+BAO and 3 degenerate neutrinos

Choudhury & Hannestad 19'CDM+mν+ωa+ω

Xm⌫ < 0.25 eV Dark Energy dynamics

Xm⌫ < 0.12 eV ΛCDM+mν

Planck 1807.06209Standard Case

Varying CurvatureX

m⌫ < 0.15 eV ΛCDM+mν+Ωk Choudhury & Hannestad 19'

Varying CurvatureX

Varying Neff ΛCDM+mν+Neff

Xm⌫ < 0.23 eV

Planck 1807.06209

Varying CurvatureX

Xm⌫ < 0.23 eV

Planck 1807.06209

Varying Neff+ω+αs+mνdi Valentino et al. 1908.01391

Xm⌫ < 0.17 eV CDM+mν+Neff+ω+αs+mν

Varying CurvatureX

Xm⌫ < 0.23 eV

Planck 1807.06209

Varying Neff+ω+αs+mνdi Valentino et al. 1908.01391

Xm⌫ < 0.17 eV CDM+mν+Neff+ω+αs+mν

Constraints are robust upon standard modifications of ΛCDM

Cosmological Model DependenceMore exotic scenarios:

relaxed by 0.1 eVEscudero & Fairbairn 1907.05425

Invisible Neutrino Decay

Xm⌫ . 1 eV

Chacko et. al. 1909.05275

Lorenz et. al. 1811.01991

Time dependent Neutrino Masses

Xm⌫ < 4.8 eV

m⌫(t)

Xm⌫ . 1 eV

Lorenz et. al. 1811.01991

Time dependent Neutrino Masses

Xm⌫ < 4.8 eV

m⌫(t)

Xm⌫ . 1 eV

Bounds can be significantly loosen in some extensions of ΛCDM. They typically require modifications to the neutrino sector.

Data beyond Planck and BAO within ΛCDMPlanck Planck 1807.06209

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

Data beyond Planck and BAO within ΛCDMPlanck Planck 1807.06209X

m⌫ < 0.12 eV Planck 1807.06209Planck+BAO

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

Ivanov et. al. 1909.05277BOSS P(k)X

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

Ivanov et. al. 1912.08208Planck+BOSS P(k)X

m⌫ < 0.16 eV

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

m⌫ < 0.16 eV

Palanque-Delabrouilleet. al. 1911.09073

Lyman-α+H0prior X

m⌫ < 0.58 eV

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

m⌫ < 0.16 eV

Planck+Lyman-α X

m⌫ < 0.10 eVPalanque-Delabrouilleet. al. 1911.09073

Lyman-α+H0prior X

m⌫ < 0.58 eV

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

m⌫ < 0.16 eV

Planck+Lyman-α X

m⌫ < 0.10 eV

Choudhury & Hannestad 19'Planck+BAO+H0X

m⌫ < 0.08 eV

Lyman-α+H0prior X

m⌫ < 0.58 eV

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Xm⌫ < 0.26 eV

m⌫ < 0.16 eV

Planck+Lyman-α X

m⌫ < 0.10 eV

Choudhury & Hannestad 19'Planck+BAO+H0X

m⌫ < 0.08 eV

Lyman-α+H0prior X

m⌫ < 0.58 eV

m⌫ < 0.86 eV

Planck is driving current cosmological constraints

Non-linear or mildly non-linear data sets break degeneracies in the fit

The larger H0 is, the stronger the constraint on areX

Current Constraints on Neff

Ne↵ = 2.99± 0.17 Planck 2018, 1807.06209

Current Constraints

Fields et. al. 1912.01132Ne↵ = 2.88± 0.28

Ne↵ = 3.27± 0.15

Planck+BAO

Planck+BAO+H0 Planck 2018, 1807.06209

Current Constraints on Neff

Ne↵ = 2.99± 0.17 Planck 2018, 1807.06209

Current Constraints

Fields et. al. 1912.01132Ne↵ = 2.88± 0.28

Ne↵ = 3.27± 0.15

Planck+BAO

Planck+BAO+H0 Planck 2018, 1807.06209

Data is in excellent agreement with the Standard Model prediction

Standard Model Prediction: NSMe↵ = 3.045

Constraints from Neff

Sterile NeutrinoGoldstone BosonsOther sterile long-lived particles Gravitino, axino, hidden sector particles ...

mN ⇠ eV �Ne↵ = 1

Weinberg 1305.1971

(e.g. Gariazzo, de Salas, Pastor 1905.11290)

mN ⇠ eV �Ne↵ = 1

Weinberg 1305.1971

mN ⇠ eV �Ne↵ = 1

Weinberg 1305.1971

Constraints are relevant in many other BSM settings (see James' talk)

The Hubble Tension

The Hubble Tension:

H0 = 67.36± 0.54 km s�1 Mpc�1

4.4 σ tension within ΛCDM! Planck 2018 1807.06209

Riess et. al. 1903.07603H0 = 74.03± 1.42 km s�1 Mpc�1

The Hubble Tension

The Hubble Tension:

H0 = 67.36± 0.54 km s�1 Mpc�1

Possible resolutions:1) Systematics in the CMB data very unlikely2) Systematics in local measurements none so far3) New feature of ΛCDM

The Hubble Tension

The Hubble Tension:

H0 = 67.36± 0.54 km s�1 Mpc�1

Possible resolutions:1) Systematics in the CMB data very unlikely2) Systematics in local measurements none so far3) New feature of ΛCDM

Possibilities Beyond ΛCDM (Knox and Millea 1908.03663):1) Late Universe Modifications very unlikely2) Early Universe Modifications hard but doable

The Hubble Tension: Theory

Way to Resolve the Hubble Tension (Knox and Millea 1908.03663):

Enhance the expansion history of the Universe prior and close to recombination!

Most Popular Scenario: Early Dark EnergyPoulin, Smith, Karwal, Kamionkowski 1811.04083. Smith, Poulin, Amin 1908.06995 Agrawal, Cyr-Racine, Pinner, Randall 1904.01016.

V (�) ⇠ �2n

M2n�4Pl

n = 2� 3 z� ⇠ 3000 f� ⇠ 10%

Most Popular Scenario: Early Dark EnergyPoulin, Smith, Karwal, Kamionkowski 1811.04083. Smith, Poulin, Amin 1908.06995 Agrawal, Cyr-Racine, Pinner, Randall 1904.01016.

V (�) ⇠ �2n

M2n�4Pl

n = 2� 3 z� ⇠ 3000 f� ⇠ 10%

Resolve the tension 4.4σ to ~1σ

Theoretical Interpretation is not simple ... m� ⇠ 10�27 eV

So far, only Planck 2015 analysesThere are some discrepancies between these analyses

f� ⇠ 10% z� ⇠ 3000

Neutrinos and the Hubble Tension

Why Neutrinos?

1) Neutrinos are always a relevant species in the Universe evolution

Why Neutrinos?

1) Neutrinos are always a relevant species in the Universe evolution

2) Neutrino masses are the only Laboratory evidence of Physics Beyond the Standard Model

Why Neutrinos?

Dark Radiation

(68 % CL, Planck+BAO+H0)

�Ne↵ = 0.23± 0.15

Dark Radiation

�Ne↵ = 0.23± 0.15 H0 tension from 4.4σ to 3σCMB fit is degraded

Clear Interpretation 😃😐☹

Dark Radiation

Strong Neutrino Scattering + Dark Radiation Kreisch, Cyr-Racine, Doré 1902.00543

Dark Radiation

H0 tension solved if TEEE data is ignored 😃

Almost excluded by Lab data (Blinov++1905.02727)☹If pol data is included no solution for H0 😐

Dark Radiation

Light Neutrinophilic Scalar + Dark Radiation Escudero & Witte 1909.04044

Dark Radiation

�H0 tension from 4.4σ to 2.5σ 😐CMB fit is not degraded 😃Direct connection with Seesaw 😃

Dark Radiation

Early Dark Energy sourced by neutrinos Sakstein & Trodden 1911.11760

Dark Radiation

Early Dark Energy sourced by neutrinos Sakstein & Trodden 1911.11760

Use which is excluded at 3σ by KATRIN! m⌫ = 2 eVGood attempt to solve the coincidence problem 😃

Conclusions

Neutrino Masses:New lab bound from KATRIN: (95 % CL)

Bounds from Planck+BAO:X

m⌫ < 0.12 eV (95 % CL)

Xm⌫ < 3.9 eV

Conclusions

m⌫ < 0.12 eV (95 % CL)

Xm⌫ < 3.9 eV

Neff:Planck Constraints:BBN Constraints:

Ne↵ = 2.99± 0.17

Ne↵ = 2.88± 0.28

Conclusions

m⌫ < 0.12 eV (95 % CL)

Xm⌫ < 3.9 eV

Neff:Planck Constraints:BBN Constraints:

Ne↵ = 2.99± 0.17

Ne↵ = 2.88± 0.28

The Hubble Tension:Many neutrino related approaches

Outlook

Neutrino Masses:KATRIN reach: (90% CL)

Next Galaxy Surveys+CMB should detect neutrino masses

Xm⌫ < 0.6 eV

e.g.: 1308.4164 Font-Ribera et. al., 1408.7052 Kitching et. al.

DESI/EUCLID+Planck: �⇣X

⌘' 0.02 eV (1�)

Outlook

Xm⌫ < 0.6 eV

⌘' 0.02 eV (1�)

Neff:Stage-IV experiments will reach 1% precision, e.g. CMB-S4Strong constraints on new physics

Outlook

Xm⌫ < 0.6 eV

⌘' 0.02 eV (1�)

Neff:Stage-IV experiments will reach 1% precision, e.g. CMB-S4Strong constraints on new physics

The Hubble Tension:Further data on the way: Gaia, Strong Lensing, GW, DESI ...More models will appear and neutrinos will play a leading role

Time for Questions and Comments

Upcoming years are going to be exciting!

Thank you for your attention!

Back Up

KATRIN

18535 18555 18575 18595 18615

KATRIN data with 1 errorbars 50 Fit result

18535 18555 18575 18595 18615-2

Stat. Stat. and syst.

18535 18555 18575 18595 18615

Retarding energy (eV)

m⌫̄e = 0

m⌫̄e = 1 eV

Ch. Weinheimer hep-ex/0210050

1909.06048

Neutrino Mass Models

Asai et. al. 1811.07571

U(1)Lµ�L⌧

Particle Physicists take very seriously neutrino mass constraints:

ΛCDM in 2020

Weak lensing

Lyman-α forest

BBN CMBΛCDM model tested on very different time/length scales

CMB constraints on Neff

Planck Results

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Riess et al. (2018)

Ne↵ = 2.92± 0.18 (68 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE)

(68 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+len+BAO)Ne↵ = 2.99± 0.17Ne↵ = 3.27± 0.15 (68 % CL, TTTEEE+lowE+len+BAO+H0)

ΔNeff ~ 0.2-0.5 can ameliorate the Hubble tension

But values ΔNeff ~ 0.2-0.5 are not favoured by Planck Observations within ΛCDM

Beyond ΛCDM : ΔNeff ~ 0.5 can occur: e.g. Escudero & Witte 1909.04044

Neutrino Interactions

Neutrino Perturbations have a strong effect on the CMB spectra.

Gµ⌫ = 8⇡GTµ⌫ �Gµ⌫ = 8⇡G �Tµ⌫

Bashinsky & Seljak astro-ph/0310198

CMB: Follin, Knox, Millea & Pan, PRL 1503.07863BAO: Baumann et. al., Nature Phys. 1803.10741

Free Streaming effect detection:

This can be used to test relevant particle physics models:Annihilations Decays Scatterings Light Species

Parametrization mattersVagnozzi et. al. 1701.08172 Mahony et. al. 1907.04331

Choudhury & Hannestad 1907.12598 Gariazzo et. al. 1801.04946 Loureiro et. al. 1811.02578

⌫1⌫2

Degenerate

⌫1 ⌫2 ⌫3

Normal

⌫1⌫2

⌫3Inverted

Parametrization mattersVagnozzi et. al. 1701.08172

Xm⌫ < 0.12 eVPlanck+BAO Degenerate

Planck+BAO Normal Hierarchy (vary mlight)X

m⌫ < 0.15 eV

bounds from Choudhury & Hannestad 1907.12598

Planck+BAO Inverted Hierarchy (vary mlight)X

m⌫ < 0.17 eV

Mahony et. al. 1907.04331Choudhury & Hannestad 1907.12598

Gariazzo et. al. 1801.04946 Loureiro et. al. 1811.02578

⌫1⌫2

Degenerate

⌫1 ⌫2 ⌫3

Normal

⌫1⌫2

⌫3Inverted

Parametrization mattersVagnozzi et. al. 1701.08172

Xm⌫ < 0.12 eVPlanck+BAO Degenerate

Planck+BAO Normal Hierarchy (vary mlight)X

m⌫ < 0.15 eV

bounds from Choudhury & Hannestad 1907.12598

Planck+BAO Inverted Hierarchy (vary mlight)X

m⌫ < 0.17 eV

Mahony et. al. 1907.04331Choudhury & Hannestad 1907.12598

Gariazzo et. al. 1801.04946 Loureiro et. al. 1811.02578

Constraints are prior dependent (see next talk by Constance)

⌫1⌫2

Degenerate

⌫1 ⌫2 ⌫3

Normal

⌫1⌫2

⌫3Inverted

Neutrino Cosmology in 2020: Where do we Stand? · 2020. 1. 28. · Choudhury & Hannestad 19'...

Documents

Transcript of Neutrino Cosmology in 2020: Where do we Stand? · 2020. 1. 28. · Choudhury & Hannestad 19'...

NEUTRINO COSMOLOGY · 2006. 10. 3. · neutrino cosmology steen hannestad university of aarhus planck ’06, 31 may 2006 n e n m n t. limits on the properties of light neutrinos from

THE CONNECTION OF NEUTRINO PHYSICS WITH COSMOLOGY AND ASTROPHYSICS STEEN HANNESTAD CERN, 1 OCTOBER 2009 e

NEUTRINOS AND COSMOLOGY STEEN HANNESTAD AARHUS UNIVERSITY 11 OCTOBER 2010 e

Phys101 EqsheetF · 2020. 5. 3. · T=1 f € ω=2πf= 2π T € x max =A v max =ωA a max =ω 2A (s) € 2 T=2π L g € f= 1 2π g L € ω= g L Mass/Spring: Energy in System €

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology · 2006-11-01 · yield a constraint on the sum of the neutrino masses, P mν

Journal of Sound and Vibrationssslab.kaist.ac.kr/article/pdf/2013_Nonlinear_JSV.pdf · 2017-05-30 · When two waves a and b, at distinctive frequencies ωa and ω bðωa oω Þ,

NEUTRINO PHYSICS FROM COSMOLOGY EVIDENCE FOR NEW PHYSICS? STEEN HANNESTAD, Aarhus University NuHorizons 2011 e

Astrophysics Theory Review - INDICO (Indico) · 2011. 9. 26. · Evidence emerging for extra N ν? 95% CL Errors PSCz + CMB (Hannestad 2001) WMAP1 (Crotty et al.; Pierpaoli; Hannestad)

Stress Urinary Incontinence - English · Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Total 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65-69 75-79 85-89 Ages n N=27,936. Hannestad YS,

NEUTRINO COSMOLOGY STEEN HANNESTAD UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS LAUNCH WORKSHOP, 21 MARCH 2007 e

AN INTRODUCTION TO MODERN COSMOLOGYlxmi.mi.infn.it/ISAPP/editionsold/2009karlsruhe/ · AN INTRODUCTION TO MODERN COSMOLOGY STEEN HANNESTAD ISAPP 2009, 28 JULY 2009. A rough outline

A N -G SIGNATURE G S F INFLATION - AUphys.au.dk/fileadmin/site_files/publikationer/phd/Philip_Jarnhus.pdfPhilip Roland Jarnhus Supervisor: Steen Hannestad Co-Supervisor: Martin S.

Back to de Broglie and the electron as a wave · 2017. 3. 6. · Back to de Broglieand the electron as a wave p h mν λ = h = We will soon see that the energies (speed for now if

NEUTRINO PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY STEEN HANNESTAD, Aarhus University COSMO, 14 SEPTEMBER 2012 e

NEUTRINO PHYSICS FROM COSMOLOGY e STEEN HANNESTAD, SDU HEP2003, 18 JULY 2003 e

NEUTRINO COSMOLOGY AFTER PLANCK - Indico...NEUTRINO COSMOLOGY AFTER PLANCK STEEN HANNESTAD, AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRAGUE, 23 MAY 2013 n e nm nt Fermion Mass Spectrum 1 10 100 1 10 100

AppendixA List of Symbols, Notation, and Useful Expressions(Lorentz and 2-spinor indices) ωA Bμ,ω a bμ,ω AA BB Spin connections ψA μ Gravitino ﬁeld nμ, nAA Normal to the

Cosmological constraints on the number of neutrino species · 2011. 7. 20. · [JH, Hannestad, Raffelt, Wong (in preparation)] N m a s s l e s s m S = 0 m S = 1 eV m S = 2 eV CMB+BAO

NEUTRINO MASS FROM LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE STEEN HANNESTAD CERN, 8 December 2008 e

Alpha Omega Alpha - Robert Larner College of Medicinemed.uvm.edu/docs/aoainfosession_ppt/medical... · Alpha Omega Alpha – Visiting Professorships • Each A ΩA chapter can host