Paper detail

Light WIMPs, Equivalent Neutrinos, BBN, and the CMB

Recent updates to the observational determinations of the primordial abundances of helium and deuterium are compared to the predictions of BBN to infer the universal ratio of baryons to photons (or, the present Universe baryon mass density parameter Omega_B h^2), as well as to constrain the effective number of neutrinos (N_eff) and the number of equivalent neutrinos (Delta N_nu). These BBN results are compared to those derived independently from the Planck CMB data. In the absence of a light WIMP (chi), N_eff = 3.05(1 + Delta N_nu/3). In this case, there is excellent agreement between BBN and the CMB, but the joint fit finds that Delta N_nu = 0.40 +/- 0.17, disfavoring standard big bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN: Delta N_nu = 0) at 2.4 sigma, as well as a sterile neutrino (Delta N_nu = 1) at 3.5 sigma. In the presence of a light WIMP, the relation between N_eff and Delta N_nu depends on the WIMP mass, leading to degeneracies among N_eff, Delta N_nu, and m_chi. The complementary and independent BBN and CMB data can break some of these degeneracies. Depending on the nature of the light WIMP (Majorana or Dirac fermion, real or complex scalar) the joint BBN + CMB analyses set a lower bound to m_chi in the range from 0.5 to 5 MeV, and they identify best fit values for m_chi in the range from 5 to 10 MeV. The joint BBN + CMB analyses find a best fit value for the number of equivalent neutrinos, Delta N_nu = 0.65, nearly independent of the nature of the WIMP. The best fit still disfavors the absence of dark radiation (Delta N_nu = 0 at 95% confidence), while allowing for the presence of a sterile neutrino (Delta N_nu = 1 at less than 1 sigma). For all cases considered here, the lithium problem persists. These results, presented at the 2013 Rencontres de l'Observatoire de Paris - ESO Workshop, are based on Nollett & Steigman 2013 (arXiv:1312.5725 [astro-ph.CO]).

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.