Paper detail

Breaking Be: a sterile neutrino solution to the cosmological lithium problem

The possibility that the so-called "lithium problem", i.e. the disagreement between the theoretical abundance predicted for primordial $^7$Li assuming standard nucleosynthesis and the value inferred from astrophysical measurements, can be solved through a non-thermal BBN mechanism has been investigated by several authors. In particular, it has been shown that the decay of a MeV-mass particle, like, e.g., a sterile neutrino, decaying after BBN not only solves the lithium problem, but also satisfies cosmological and laboratory bounds, making such a scenario worth to be investigated in further detail. In this paper, we constrain the parameters of the model with the combination of current data, including Planck 2015 measurements of temperature and polarization anisotropies of the CMB, FIRAS limits on spectral distortions, astrophysical measurements of primordial abundances and laboratory constraints. We find that a sterile neutrino with mass $M_S=4.35_{-0.17}^{+0.13}\,MeV$ (at $95\%$ c.l.), a decay time $τ_S=1.8_{-1.3}^{+2.5}\cdot 10^5\,s$ (at $95\%$ c.l.) and an initial density $\bar{n}_S/\bar{n}_{cmb}=1.7_{-0.6}^{+3.5}\cdot 10^{-4}$ (at $95\%$ c.l.) in units of the number density of CMB photons, perfectly accounts for the difference between predicted and observed $^7$Li primordial abundance. This model also predicts an increase of the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom at the time of CMB decoupling $ΔN_{eff}^{cmb}\equiv N_{eff}^{cmb}-3.046=0.34_{-0.14}^{+0.16}$ at $95\%$ c.l.. The required abundance of sterile neutrinos is incompatible with the standard thermal history of the Universe, but could be realized in a low reheating temperature scenario. We provide forecasts for future experiments finding that the combination of measurements from the COrE+ and PIXIE missions will allow to significantly reduce the permitted region for the sterile lifetime and density.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.