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

413 views

Published on

Balkan Workshop BW2013
Beyond the Standard Models
25 – 29 April, 2013, Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
413
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
47
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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> 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!
  • R. Jimenez: Fundamental Physics Beyond the Standard Model from Astronomical Observations

    1. 1. Raul JimenezICREAICC University of BarcelonaCERNPlanck PlanckSKA
    2. 2. In cosmology one can actually perform ultimate experiments, i.e.those which contain ALL information available for measurement in thesky. The first one of its kind is Planck (in primordial fluctuations inTemperature) and in this decade we will also have such experimentsmapping the galaxy field. Question is: how much can we learn aboutfundamental physics, if any, from such experiments?My talk will cover a few examples:1.Nature of the initial conditions and perturbations2.Neutrinos3.Beyond the Standard Model Physics
    3. 3. State of the art of data then (1992) …(DMR)COBECMB380000 yr(a posteriori information)~14 GyrExtremely successful model
    4. 4. Detailed statisticalproperties of these ripplestell us a lot about theUniverse
    5. 5. Last Judgment, Vasari, Florence DuomoPrecision cosmology
    6. 6.  Flat universe: Ωtot = 1.01 ± 0.01 Gaussianity: ƒNL < 13 Power Spectrum spectral indexnearly scale-invariant:ns = 0.96 ± 0.01 (Planck only) Adiabatic initial conditions Superhorizon fluctuations(TE anticorrelations)WMAP TEdata inbins of∆l=10Primordial Adiabatic i.c.CausalSeed model(Durrer etal. 2002)PrimordialIsocurvaturei.c.(Peiris et al. 2003)Hu & Sujiyama 1995Zaldarriaga & Harari 1995Spergel & 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 initialconditionsMany write:Salopek Bond 1990; Gangui et al 1994;Verde et al 2000 (VWHK);Komatsu Spergel 2001GaussianDefined on Gravitational potential(actually Bardeen potential, important for sign)This evolves in a LCDM universe… more laterAnd then say: “fNL” constant And call it “local” form
    8. 8. Relating the skewnness to the slow-roll parametersBut the primordial slope isSo 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 0.04Anomalies?Planck 2013 upper limitFor an exact (NG) PDF seeVerde, RJ et al. 1301.6017GR test
    10. 10. From Verde & Matarrese 2009
    11. 11. Current obs. Constraint (Planck 2013)Verde, Peiris, Jimenez (2003) JCAPInflation is probably small field classBest limit ever?
    12. 12. Are neutrinos Dirac or Majorana?(in other words, origin of neutrino mass: Higgsmechanism or beyond the SM mechanism?)
    13. 13.  Behaves like radiation at T~ eV (recombination/decoupling) Eventually (possibly) becomes non-relativistic, behaves likematter Small interactions (not perfect fluid) Has a high velocity dispersion (is “HOT”)
    14. 14. A relict of the big bang, similar to theCMB except that the CvBdecouples from matter after2s (~ MeV) not 380,000 yearsAt decoupling they are still relativistic (mν << Τν) large velocity dispersions (1eV ~ 100 Km/s)Recall:T~1eV Matter-radiation equality,T=0.26eV Recombination60M nu/s/cm3from the sun, ~100 from CvB
    15. 15. Total mass >~1 eV become non relativistic before recombination CMBTotal mass <~1 eV become non relativistic after recombination:alters matter-radn equality but effect can be “cancelled”by other parameters DegeneracyAfter recombinationFINITE NEUTRINO MASSESSUPPRESS THE MATTER POWERSPECTRUM ON SCALES SMALLERTHAN THE FREE-STREAMINGLENGTHm =Σ 0 eVm =Σ 0.3 eVm =Σ 1 eVP(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 flavorNORMAL INVERTEDDEGENERATE∆matmo∆msol∆matmo∆msolTotal v mass increases
    17. 17. InvertednormaldegenerateThe problem issystematic errorsThis 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 realspace)
    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 rateLook at BBNNeff=3.045Standard:Neff around 3 to 4Systematics!Look at CMB:effects matter-radn equalityand so sound horizon at decoupling-> degeneracy with ωm and HAnisotropic stress,zeq on diffusion dampingFrom WMAP9: Hinshaw et al 2012WMAPACTSPT
    25. 25. WMAP only WMAP+H0+BAOThe adopted H0 value matters!For aficionados:Straight from the on-line LAMBDA cosmological parameters plotter
    26. 26. Verde, RJ, Feeney 2013 arXiv:1301.5341Planck2013WMAP9tU from subgiant HD140283, with veryprecise parallax, error budget dominatedby 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 arXivwith 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 Etheringtonrelation:?If photon number conservation is violated, there will bea mismatch in the above due to a non-trivial “opacity”:This can happen if photons are converted to ALPs along line ofsight
    31. 31. Measure from SN observationsCan constrain jointly ALP coupling and cosmologicalparameters by using SN and H(z) (or BAO) data.Any ALP coupling to photons via orwill produce non-trivial opacity.Predict from H(z) dataconstrain
    32. 32. Run likelihood analysis for flat ΛCDM models inConstrain opacity parameter(s) by marginalising over cosmologies:•For ALPs:•For MCPs:Initial SN flux mix: Photon-axion conversionprobabilityRate of
    33. 33. SN only SN + H(z)No photon-axion mixingFlux thermalised at SN:no propagation effectRapid photon-axion thermalizationFits SNae w/o Λ(Csaki et al 2002)Ruled out by H(z)
    34. 34. Dramatic improvement on these constraints expected withfuture BAO (notably EUCLID) and SN missionsMini-Charged ParticlesSimple AxionsOpacity
    35. 35. • Vast quantity of high quality cosmo data fastapproaching: CMB, BAOs, Gravitational waves, 21cm,...• Fruitful interplay between HEP/cosmo theory andcosmological 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 andastrophysics better understood

    ×