Paper detail

Is cosmology compatible with sterile neutrinos?

By combining data from cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments (including the recent WMAP third year results), large scale structure (LSS) and Lyman-alpha forest observations, we constrain the hypothesis of a fourth, sterile, massive neutrino. For the 3 massless + 1 massive neutrino case we bound the mass of the sterile neutrino to m_s<0.26eV (0.44eV) at 95% (99.9%) c.l.. These results exclude at high significance the sterile neutrino hypothesis as an explanation of the LSND anomaly. We then generalize the analysis to account for active neutrino masses (which tightens the limit to m_s<0.23eV 0.42eV) and the possibility that the sterile abundance is not thermal. In the latter case, the contraints in the (mass, density) plane are non-trivial. For a mass of >1eV or <0.05eV the cosmological energy density in sterile neutrinos is always constrained to be omega_nu <0.003 at 95 c.l.. However, for a sterile neutrino mass of ~0.25eV, omega_nu can be as large as 0.01.

preprint2006arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.