This week’s entry is dedicated to the H0 tension and attempts to solve the latter through early dark energy (possibly going beyond General Relativity), as well as to how a mysterious phenomenon known as skyquakes could be connected to an exotic model of dark matter known as axion quark nuggets. I hope this post will provide you a bit of entertainment (hopefully at home) in this time of uncertainty due to COVID-19.
#1 2003.07355: Early Dark Energy Does Not Restore Cosmological Concordance by J. Colin Hill et al.
The H0 tension is a recurring theme in this arXiv column, and for very good reasons. At this point we have all the reason to believe there is truly something under this tension whereas, up to a few years ago, it could easily have been a fluke. To re-iterate a very important point concerning the H0 tension, let me shamelessly self-plagiarize what I wrote in my earlier Week 8 and Week 9 posts, namely that there is a general understanding within the community that a solution to the H0 tension likely has to come from early (i.e. pre-recombination) physics which lowers the sound horizon at last-scattering by about 9%, rather than late-time physics which increases the distance to last-scattering (e.g. phantom dark energy), for a comprehensive discussion see e.g. the Hubble hunter's guide by Knox and Millea. The reason is that an inverse distance ladder constructed from BAO and SNe data and analyzed in a quasi-model-independent way leaves little room for deviations from LCDM in the late-time expansion rate H(z), see e.g. 1806.06781. One of the most promising solutions was proposed by Marc Kamionkowski’s group in 1811.04083, and envisages a phase of early dark energy (EDE) behaving as a cosmological constant at early times, before redshifting away faster than radiation, before recombination. This reduces the sound horizon enough to raise H0 in the low 70s (but doesn’t solve the tension completely, at most it brings it to the 2-2.5 sigma level).
The earlier conclusions of 1811.04083, besides CMB data, only mostly “background” data in the form of BAO and SNe to reach the conclusion that EDE is a decent solution to the H0 tension. However, in order to maintain a good fit to CMB data, the introduction of EDE requires shifts in other parameters, notably the amount of dark matter (DM), OmegaCDM. The reason is that EDE makes the growth of perturbations at the time of the CMB less efficient, which can be compensated by increasing OmegaCDM. However, while EDE then dies off, the large amount of DM remains and enhances structure formation at late times. The resulting prediction is a higher value of sigma8 and an enhancement of power in the matter power spectrum on small scales. This is expected to worsen the mild sigma8 tension between CMB and large-scale structure (LSS) probes and, more importantly, can be probed with “non-background” LSS probes such as galaxy power spectrum and cosmic shear measurements. This is what Hill and collaborators do, most notably making use of data from the Dark Energy Survey. These measurements, in an attempt to “pull” sigma8 down towards lower values, inevitably also reduce the amount of EDE compatible with data, and hence lower H0. Their conclusion is best summarized in the final sentence of their abstract, namely that EDE is, “at best, no more likely to be concordant with all current cosmological data sets than LCDM, and appears unlikely to resolve the H0 tension“. It looks like this paper might be dealing the final blow to EDE, and I am sure there will be much talk among the community about these results in the next days: it will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
#2 2003.06396: Gravity in the Era of Equality: Towards solutions to the Hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions by Miguel Zumalacarregui
Since this is another H0 tension paper, you might as well copy-paste the first paragraph from my discussion on the previous paper by Hill et al. here :) the only difference is that this week’s paper attempts to increase the pre-recombination expansion rate (and hence decrease the sound horizon at last-scattering) by using modifications to Einstein’s gravity, instead of through “dark energy” in the proper sense. Zumalacarregui works within the context of so-called Galileon theories, a subclass of Horndeski gravity (the most general 4D scalar-tensor theory with second-order equations of motion, thus avoiding the Ostrogradsky ghost) realizing a Galilean symmetry. What Zumalacarregui is basically trying to do is to get an effective EDE component by modifying gravity. He considers essentially three different types of mechanisms, dubbed imperfect dark energy at equality (IDEE), enhanced early gravity (EEG), and late-universe phantom expansion (LUPE). I won’t discuss LUPE further as it is already severely constrained by distance ladder measurements, but IDEE and EEG are interesting attempts to get an EDE component by playing around with the Galileon field initial velocity and initial value respectively. Important to note is that these mechanism need not operate separately and can operate together, with or without an additional cosmological constant, and with or without massive neutrinos (for why one wants massive neutrinos in Galileon models as to not overshoot H0 and actually pull the H0 problem the other way round, see for instance 1707.02263 - I shared an office with the first author while she worked through this excellent paper throughout the first year of her PhD!).
While extremely well written, the heart of this paper is inevitably very technical and complex. Nonetheless, the busy reader can get a lot out of it by reading the introduction, digesting Fig. 1, and cross-matching the figure with Tables II and III. Long story short is that none of these mechanisms (IDEE, EEG, and LUPE) really solves the H0 tension: those which apparently do either have a bad chi2, or are severely constrained by precision gravity tests. But, in my opinion, that is not the point of this paper. The true message I got out of Zumalacarregui’s paper is that there is plenty of room to try and solve the H0 tension, and in particular construct viable effective EDE models, by going beyond General Relativity. Two comments in closing. The first one is that the concerns raised by Hill et al. in the paper I discussed above, that is, that attempts at solving the H0 tension through EDE fail when non-background LSS data is taken into account, might hold here as well. The second is that, as Zumalacarregui discusses in detail in the paper, the interpretation of SNe data is far from straightforward given that the strength of gravity (and hence the Chandrasekar mass) varies locally and might depend on redshift and host properties. These are all things to keep in mind if one wants to try and construct realistic models to solve the H0 tension beyond General Relativity, something which in my opinion is definitely worth pursuing.
#3 2003.07363: Axion Quark Nuggets. SkyQuakes and Other Mysterious Explosions by Dmitry Budker, Victor Flambaum, and Ariel Zhitnitsky
Ever heard of skyquakes before today? If so, don’t worry, neither had I :) According to Wikipedia, skyquakes are “unexplained reports of a phenomenon that sounds like a cannon, trumpet or a sonic boom coming from the sky”. They have been recorded for over 200 years in various different countries across very different environmental features, from India to the USA, from Japan to Italy. What about axion quark nuggets (AQNs)? I have to admit I had from time to time seen this term when skimming the arXiv, but never really got around to reading more about what AQNs are until now, intrigued by how they could ever be connected to skyquakes. The AQN model was first proposed Zhitnitsky in hep-ph/0202161 to address the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem without making use of baryogenesis in the proper sense. What could happen is that the unobserved antimatter could actually make up the DM in the form of very dense nuggets of antiquarks and gluons which however are not in the “usual” hadronic phase, but in a more exotic color superconducting phase, the QCD analog of Cooper pairs of electrons in ordinary superconductors. However, on its own this configuration would be unstable, and needs a stabilizing force. This can be provided by axion domain walls. Thus, the AQN model is effectively a model which can explain the apparent matter-antimatter asymmetry and DM through a charge segregation process which segregates most of the antimatter into DM, while requiring the existence of axions as a solution to the strong CP problem, but not requiring them to be the DM! Sounds very interesting, and it turns out that not only the model actually works and has been studied in quite some detail in the past years, but it could also solve some interesting puzzles, including possibly explaining the DAMA/LIBRA results of which I wrote in my Week 6 and Week 11 posts (the AQN model parameters were fixed several years ago, and with these parameters one is able to solve a number of unrelated puzzles beyond DAMA/LIBRA, including the primordial Li problem, the excess of the galactic diffuse emission, the solar corona puzzle, and so on). If you still think AQNs are a bit crazy, do not forget that charge segregation is a very generic feature in many complex systems.
What could AQNs possibly have to do with skyquakes? When traversing the Earth’s atmosphere, the antimatter hidden in the AQNs could annihilate with atmospheric material and release a significant amount of energy. In this week’s paper, Budker and collaborators revisit the AQN model in light of one particular skyquake event recorded on July 31, 2008, by the Elginfield Infrasound Array (ELFO) in Ontario. This event is particular because it is the only properly recorded skyquake event, with the recordings completely excluding a more mundane meteor explanation. Budker and collaborators estimate the overpressure and frequency one would expect for the event, consistently with a host of external constraints on AQNs, and find excellent consistency with the event recorded by the ELFO. They then propose ways to search for future AQN signals, for instance by using Distributed Acoustic Sensing. For anyone skeptical about AQNs, it is worth reading the second-to-last paragraph of the paper (“Why should one take this model seriously?”). This is not the first paper to link DM to unexplained energetic, catastrophic, or would-be catastrophic events, such as cancer (see 1509.05139), the Tunguska event (see hep-ph/0107132 by my MSc advisor Robert Foot), or comet impacts (see 1403.0576, which may or may not be connected to dinosaurs). What is sure is that this was a very entertaining read! As Tommaso Dorigo wrote in his blog, while AQNs are bold and speculative, the thing with bold and speculative claims is that “the odds that they turn out to describe reality is maybe small, but their entertainment value is large”.