Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

R. Jimenez: Fundamental Physics Beyond the Standard Model from Astronomical Observations

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Poster Physics@FOM
Poster Physics@FOM
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 37 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Advertisement

Similar to R. Jimenez: Fundamental Physics Beyond the Standard Model from Astronomical Observations (20)

More from SEENET-MTP (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

R. Jimenez: Fundamental Physics Beyond the Standard Model from Astronomical Observations

  1. 1. Raul Jimenez ICREA ICC University of Barcelona CERN Planck Planck SKA
  2. 2. In cosmology one can actually perform ultimate experiments, i.e. those which contain ALL information available for measurement in the sky. The first one of its kind is Planck (in primordial fluctuations in Temperature) and in this decade we will also have such experiments mapping the galaxy field. Question is: how much can we learn about fundamental physics, if any, from such experiments? My talk will cover a few examples: 1.Nature of the initial conditions and perturbations 2.Neutrinos 3.Beyond the Standard Model Physics
  3. 3. State of the art of data then (1992) … (DMR)COBE CMB 380000 yr (a posteriori information) ~14 Gyr Extremely successful model
  4. 4. Detailed statistical properties of these ripples tell us a lot about the Universe
  5. 5. Last Judgment, Vasari, Florence Duomo Precision cosmology
  6. 6.  Flat universe: Ωtot = 1.01 ± 0.01  Gaussianity: ƒNL < 13  Power Spectrum spectral index nearly scale-invariant: ns = 0.96 ± 0.01 (Planck only)  Adiabatic initial conditions  Superhorizon fluctuations (TE anticorrelations) WMAP TE data in bins of ∆l=10 Primordial Adiabatic i.c. Causal Seed model (Durrer et al. 2002) Primordial Isocurvature i.c. (Peiris et al. 2003) Hu & Sujiyama 1995 Zaldarriaga & Harari 1995 Spergel & Zaldarriaga 1997
  7. 7. Gaussian but: How small is small? In some models “small” can be “detectable” Simplest inflationary models predict SMALL deviations from Gaussian initial conditions Many write: Salopek Bond 1990; Gangui et al 1994; Verde et al 2000 (VWHK); Komatsu Spergel 2001 Gaussian Defined on Gravitational potential (actually Bardeen potential, important for sign) This evolves in a LCDM universe… more later And then say: “fNL” constant And call it “local” form
  8. 8. Relating the skewnness to the slow-roll parameters But the primordial slope is So a measurement of fNL and n gives you a measurement of the slow-roll parameters. There is a minimum value of fNL > 0.04 (the tilt)…can we measure this? fNL = Verde, RJ, Kamionkowski, Matarrese MNRAS (2001)
  9. 9. Clusters? Inflation limit 0.04 Anomalies? Planck 2013 upper limit For an exact (NG) PDF see Verde, RJ et al. 1301.6017 GR test
  10. 10. From Verde & Matarrese 2009
  11. 11. Current obs. Constraint (Planck 2013) Verde, Peiris, Jimenez (2003) JCAP Inflation is probably small field class Best limit ever?
  12. 12. Are neutrinos Dirac or Majorana? (in other words, origin of neutrino mass: Higgs mechanism or beyond the SM mechanism?)
  13. 13.  Behaves like radiation at T~ eV (recombination/decoupling)  Eventually (possibly) becomes non-relativistic, behaves like matter  Small interactions (not perfect fluid)  Has a high velocity dispersion (is “HOT”)
  14. 14. A relict of the big bang, similar to the CMB except that the CvB decouples from matter after 2s (~ MeV) not 380,000 years At decoupling they are still relativistic (mν << Τν)  large velocity dispersions (1eV ~ 100 Km/s) Recall: T~1eV Matter-radiation equality, T=0.26eV Recombination 60M nu/s/cm3 from the sun, ~100 from CvB
  15. 15. Total mass >~1 eV become non relativistic before recombination CMB Total mass <~1 eV become non relativistic after recombination: alters matter-radn equality but effect can be “cancelled” by other parameters Degeneracy After recombination FINITE NEUTRINO MASSES SUPPRESS THE MATTER POWER SPECTRUM ON SCALES SMALLER THAN THE FREE-STREAMING LENGTH m =Σ 0 eV m =Σ 0.3 eV m =Σ 1 eV P(k)/P(k,mν=0) linear theory
  16. 16.  Oscillations indicate neutrinos have mass:  Three possible hierarchies  Physics beyond the standard model?  The standard model has 3 neutrino species, but… Neutrino mass eigenstates are not the same as flavor NORMAL INVERTED DEGENERATE ∆matmo ∆msol ∆matmo ∆msol Total v mass increases
  17. 17. Inverted normal degenerate The problem is systematic errors This means that neutrinos contribute at least to ~0.5% of the total matter density
  18. 18. Jimenez-Kitching-Pena-Garay-Verde JCAP (2010)Jimenez-Kitching-Pena-Garay-Verde JCAP (2010)
  19. 19. Credit: Ben Wandelt (IAP)
  20. 20. Credit: Ben Wandelt (IAP)
  21. 21.  When performing numerical simulations the non-linearities help!! (Wagner, Verde, Jimenez arXiv 1203:5342)
  22. 22. From Fisher matrix (naïve though and in real space)
  23. 23. Future surveys can help! Jimenez, Kitching, Penya-Garay, Verde, arXiv:1003:5918 (JCAP 2010)
  24. 24. Any thermal background of light particles, anything affecting expansion rate Look at BBN Neff=3.045Standard: Neff around 3 to 4 Systematics! Look at CMB: effects matter-radn equality and so sound horizon at decoupling -> degeneracy with ωm and H Anisotropic stress, zeq on diffusion damping From WMAP9: Hinshaw et al 2012 WMAP ACT SPT
  25. 25. WMAP only WMAP+H0+BAO The adopted H0 value matters! For aficionados: Straight from the on-line LAMBDA cosmological parameters plotter
  26. 26. Verde, RJ, Feeney 2013 arXiv:1301.5341 Planck2013 WMAP9 tU from subgiant HD140283, with very precise parallax, error budget dominated by uncertainty in oxygen abundance.
  27. 27. From tU Neff < 4 at 95% cl
  28. 28. Moresco et al. 2012 JCAP
  29. 29. Based on: Arxiv:1004.2053 (JCAP 2010)Arxiv:1004.2053 (JCAP 2010) Arxiv:0902.2006 (JCAP 2009)Arxiv:0902.2006 (JCAP 2009) Update this month on arXivUpdate this month on arXiv with A. Avgoustidis, C. Burrage, J. Redondo & L. Verdewith A. Avgoustidis, C. Burrage, J. Redondo & L. Verde
  30. 30. Luminosity distance: Inferred from standard candles, notably Ia SNae (from standard rulers) • Ang. diameter distance related through Etherington relation: ? If photon number conservation is violated, there will be a mismatch in the above due to a non-trivial “opacity” : This can happen if photons are converted to ALPs along line of sight
  31. 31. Measure from SN observations Can constrain jointly ALP coupling and cosmological parameters by using SN and H(z) (or BAO) data. Any ALP coupling to photons via or will produce non-trivial opacity. Predict from H(z) data constrain
  32. 32. Run likelihood analysis for flat ΛCDM models in Constrain opacity parameter(s) by marginalising over cosmologies: •For ALPs: •For MCPs: Initial SN flux mix: Photon-axion conversion probability Rate of
  33. 33. SN only SN + H(z) No photon-axion mixing Flux thermalised at SN: no propagation effect Rapid photon-axion thermalization Fits SNae w/o Λ (Csaki et al 2002) Ruled out by H(z)
  34. 34. Dramatic improvement on these constraints expected with future BAO (notably EUCLID) and SN missions Mini-Charged Particles Simple Axions Opacity
  35. 35. • Vast quantity of high quality cosmo data fast approaching: CMB, BAOs, Gravitational waves, 21cm,... • Fruitful interplay between HEP/cosmo theory and cosmological observation • New physics at sub-eV scales (notably ALPs & MCPs) generic in fundamental theory • A good chance to measure neutrino mass and hierarchy • Dramatic improvement expected as new data arrives and astrophysics better understood

Editor's Notes

  • Although many issues are still open…
  • TE correlation shows modulation between velocity mode and density mode, which has a peak on scales larger than the horizon scale at decoupling.
  • Don’t interpret points statistically! Each point has equal weight Not every point coincides with a physically realistic model Monte Carlo realizations of inflationary flow equations
  • Nu decouping 1Mev e+ e- annihilation at 0.2eV Tphotons&gt; Tnu a temp  N, neff (QED effects and non instantaneous decoupling)…. Cosmology is sensitive to Neff primarily because energy density in relativistic particles affects directly the universe’s expansion rate during the radiation domination era. H^2(t) propto rhogamma +rhonu any thermal background of light particles such as axions and axion-like particles, hidden sector photons, majorons, or even gravitons will contribute to the relativistic energy density. Likewise, any process that alters the thermal abundance of neutrinos (e.g., a low reheating temperature) or affects directly the expansion rate itself (e.g., a time-dependentNewton’sconstantG)canmimicanon-standardNeff value. BBN!

×