After being “away” a few weeks where I used this blog as a conference diary (see TMCC2021 and A (Hubble) Tension Headache), the usual arXiv posts return, covering primordial black holes as (not) dark matter, difficulties in constructing working and realistic early dark energy models, and biases to parameter constraints from the effect of baryonic feedback on the gravitational lensing of the CMB. Enjoy the read!
#1 2103.04995: Eliminating the Remaining Window for Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter from the Dynamics of the Cold Kuiper Belt by Amir Siraj and Avi Loeb
Primordial black holes (PBHs) are a well-known and well-motivated dark matter (DM) candidate. Yet, if we assume a monochromatic PBH distribution (i.e. a delta function at some mass value - which might not be well-motivated or even realistic, but that’s a different story), there are very few windows where PBHs could constitute the entirety of the DM - in windows other than these, a mixed DM scenario is required, such as the one I discussed in my 2020 Week 45 post. It is worth mentioning that the existence of most of these windows is debated, as debated are several constraints across the whole mass spectrum. Leaving these discussions aside, one such window is the so-called asteroid/sub-lunar window, for PBH masses between 10^17 and 10^23 g. This is the window labelled by “A” in the figure below, taken by the excellent PBH review 2006.02838 by Carr and Kühnel. Needless to say, there is strong interest in either probing or closing this window.
In this week’s paper, Siraj and Loeb close this window. Their argument is based on the so-called kernel population of the cold population of Kuiper belt objects (KBO). KBOs inhabit the Kuiper Belt (no surprise there…), a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System which somewhat resembles the asteroid belt, while being far wider and more massive. The classical Kuiper Belt is made up of two separate populations. One of them is the cold population, which in itself contains the so-called kernel population. This is made up of a concentration of KBOs with semi-major axes ~44-44.5 AU, and a uniform distribution of eccentricities from 0.03 to 0.08. Siraj and Loeb argue that, if DM were constituted by PBHs in the asteroid/sub-lunar window, the resulting gravitational perturbations these would impart on the kernel population of the KBO cold population would be too large, resulting in an eccentricity excitation too large to explain the observed eccentricity distribution. Within this mass range, PBHs can constitute at most a fraction <0.36±0.07 of the DM. If correct, these results close the asteroid/sub-lunar window once and for all, and argue in favor of at least ~2/3 of the DM being most likely in the form of particles. The review of Carr and Kühnel argues for the existence of two other windows, of which one in the solar mass range (which could explain LIGO’s detections). I know that the latter is rather debated, so (given my limited expertise on PBHs) I will not attempt to argue whether Siraj and Loeb’s very interesting results have really dealt the final blow to PBHs constituting the entirety of the DM.
Note: this preprint appears to now have been retracted? The arXiv comments say: “KBO limit had to be modified to the diffusion regime which weakened significantly the constraints”. So it looks like the asteroid/sub-lunar window remains open after all?
#2 2103.04999: No H_0 Assistance from Assisted Quintessence by Vivian Sabla and Robert Caldwell
Early dark energy (EDE) is among the “least unlikely” (verbatim from the Hubble Hunter’s Guide) attempts to solve the Hubble tension and, at least judging by the the number of works dealing with EDE which appear on the arXiv every day, one of the most popular. I personally don’t think EDE can solve the H0 tension, mainly because of well-known problems when confronted against large-scale structure (LSS) data which I discussed in my 2020 Week 12 and Week 26 posts. Nonetheless, I think EDE is still a very interesting (class of) model(s) worth considering (and of course, my opinion is irrelevant!). From the theoretical point of view, one of the biggest stumbling blocks towards constructing a realistic model of EDE is not dissimilar to the coincidence problem plaguing usual DE models, including the cosmological constant (which already has many problems of its own): why should EDE come to dominate just prior to recombination, before dying off quickly? The solution posited by Sabla and Caldwell (this is the same Caldwell who first coined the term quintessence in astro-ph/9708609) is based on the so-called assisted quintessence (AQ) scenario, which features multiple scaling scalar fields. A scaling behavior is a particular case of a tracking behavior, where the fields have the same equation of state as the background. Within this scenario, EDE and DE are due to one and the same phenomenon, with EDE corresponding to the thaw and activation of a scaling field, while DE is the cumulative effect of a series of EDE fields (I wonder if such a scenario would arise naturally for example in the context of the string axiverse).
At the background level things work well and AQ EDE can in principle solve the Hubble tension if certain parameters are well chosen. However, once perturbations are included, “scaling also leads to the demise of the scenario”, verbatim from the abstract. The reason is subtle, due to pressure fluctuations driving the growth of the heat flux on subhorizon scales, which in turn sets off a cascade of effects resulting in the Hubble tension actually being exacerbated. The authors propose a few fixes to these problems, none of which appears particularly compelling. The valuable lesson mentioned in the abstract is that if EDE does play a role in resolving the Hubble tension, it will have to have more structure than basic scenarios that have been considered, and one may ultimately have to abandon the idea to use a scalar field. I wonder if in this sense something along the lines of the proposal of chain EDE by Freese and Winkler in 2102.13655 might work (modulo the fact that the model still uses a scalar field, and the cosmological constant problem persists at late times).
#3 2103.05582: Baryonic feedback biases on fundamental physics from lensed CMB power spectra by Fiona McCarthy, Colin Hill, and Mat Madhavacheril
We are used to thinking about the CMB as a clean and linear probe, where one can use linear perturbation theory to model the CMB power spectra, quite unlike the LSS. This is…mostly true, but only on angular scales >10 arcmin, or roughly multipoles ell<3000. Beyond ell=3000, lensing becomes extremely important, and the linear picture starts to break down. At this point, the CMB power spectra are influenced by the matter distribution at low redshifts, or more precisely by a redshift-weighted projected version of the line-of-sight matter distribution (baryons and DM). Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask oneself whether uncertainties in the matter distribution, particularly pertaining to non-linearities and baryonic effects, play an important role in interpreting CMB power spectra measurements on sufficiently small scales, and what are the potential biases one incurs in if these effects are neglected, or conversely if and how these effects can be mitigated.
In this week’s paper, McCarthy and collaborators address this question, focusing on future Stage-3 and Stage-4 experiments such as the Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 respectively, and focusing on parameters such as the effective number of relativistic species Neff, the DM density Omegach2, and the Hubble constant H0. Focusing on the most pessimistic scenario (i.e. the model and survey where these parameters would be biased the most), the largest bias one could incur in is ~1.6σ for H0, ~2.0σ for Omegach2, and ~1.2σ for Neff. For all the talk about doing precision cosmology, these biases are huge. Some mitigation strategies are discussed, which include: throw away all TT data at ell>3000 (funders aren’t going to like that! Why ask for an expensive toy if you aren’t even going to enjoy it?), marginalize over parameters describing baryonic feedback processes, or try to delens (i.e. undo the effect of lensing) TT and EE as much as possible, which for the regime in question would require the use of external tracers (and is likely to not be 100% effective anyway). A by-product of this paper is that analyses of future data will require Boltzmann solvers such as CAMB and CLASS to be run at much higher numerical precision settings than is currently standard, else one would incur in biases due to wrong theoretical predictions. This, for a change, is easy to address, as the numerical precision is typically controlled by a flag in the configuration files of these codes. I should also mention that Colin Hill gave two excellent talks about (among other things which included EDE and future CMB missions) this paper at TMCC2021 (link to video) and A (Hubble) Tension Headache (link to video).