This week I cover a proposal to confirm the possible Dirac nature of neutrinos exploiting a subtle correlation between cosmological and terrestrial measurements, how to determine the sound horizon and H0 from BAO independently of the details of recombination, and a possible interpretation of the recent detection of the stochastic gravitational wave background at nHz frequencies by NANOGrav as being due to cosmic strings. Enjoy and have a nice weekend!
#1 2009.07852: Unraveling the Dirac Neutrino with Cosmological and Terrestrial Detectors by Peter Adshead et al.
The question of whether neutrinos are their own antiparticle, i.e. of whether they are Dirac (“no”) or Majorana (“yes”), is one of the biggest unanswered questions in neutrino physics.The reason why it is so hard to distinguish Dirac vs Majorana neutrinos is known as the “Majorana-Dirac confusion theorem”, which I discussed in my Week 13 entry. As is well known, cosmology is sensitive to the neutrino mass Mnu and effective number of relativistic species Neff. On the other hand, terrestrial beta decay experiments such as KATRIN are also expected to measure the (effective electron) neutrino mass through the through the shift in the endpoint of the electron spectrum from beta decay. At first glance one would say it is impossible to say anything about the neutrino Dirac vs Majorana nature from these quantities alone. This week’s paper by Adshead and collaborators actually shows that the reality might not be so bleak, and that it might be possible to use these observations to tell whether neutrinos are Dirac particles.
To reach this more optimistic conclusion, some assumptions are needed. What is being assumed is that the sterile states which one is forced to introduce in the Dirac case were once thermalized in the early Universe. This assumption is actually justified in many extensions of the Standard Model, such as the two discussed in this paper: Dirac leptogenesis and a model where the U(1)’ symmetry associated to Baryon-minus-Lepton number is gauged (typically referred to as U(1)_{B-L} models). If this is the case, the sterile states will contribute to Neff and Mnu as measured by cosmology, so that the latter is really an “effective” sum of the neutrino masses, which will not necessarily correspond to the same quantity as determined by beta decay experiments. The idea the paper proposes is then to search for 1) a mismatch between Mnu as measured by cosmology and beta decay (or more generally terrestrial) experiments, and 2) correlations between this mismatch and Neff. The correlation is encapsulated by Eq.(8) and Fig. 1 and, if detected, could help determine that neutrinos are Dirac particles. The idea is really neat, though one should always keep in mind that it does rely on a few assumptions: if the sterile states never reached thermal equilibrium in the early Universe, which is far from unlikely, then the whole argument breaks down.
#2 2009.08455: Recombination-independent determination of the sound horizon and the Hubble constant from BAO by Levon Pogosian, Gong-Bo Zhao, and Karsten Jedamzik
Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) distance and expansion rate measurements play a key role in stabilizing possible solutions to the H0 tension, something which is at the core of the inverse distance ladder argument according to which a solution to the H0 tension lies in pre-recombination physics. In a nutshell, the reason is that BAO measurements constrain the product rd*H0, with rd the sound horizon at baryon drag - a high H0 therefore inevitably requires a low rd, which can essentially only be achieved by tweaking pre-recombination physics. A very nice representation of this is given in Fig. 1 of the Hubble Hunter’s guide 1908.03663 (for the record, I would really recommend anyone interested in the H0 tension to read this paper very carefully, and digest every single sentence - it might take a while, but it is definitely worth it!). One can break this rd-H0 degeneracy in BAO data by either calibrating the BAO ruler, e.g. directly through a prior on rd or H0, or by using other data - such as CMB data - which determine rd. But many of these strategies do require, more or less implicitly, to assume a model for recombination. This is not completely satisfactory as one would like, in the context of the H0 tension, to make statements which are as model-independent as possible. The question Pogosian and collaborators therefore address is: what is the cleanest way of breaking the rd-H0 degeneracy in BAO data, and hence determine rd and H0 separately, making the least amount of assumptions about how recombination proceeded?
The key equations of this paper in my opinion are Eq.(7) and Eq.(8), which are essentially two different ways of expressing the size of the acoustic feature in BAO measured perpendicularly to the line-of-sight. The former makes the origin of the rd-H0 degeneracy clear, whereas the latter nicely shows why an independent measurement of Omegam*h^2 can break this degeneracy. This is visually represented in the right panel of Fig. 1, although it is clear that the degeneracy is not completely broken. What cosmological observations can measure Omegam*h^2 making the least amount of assumptions about recombination? Two nice examples are CMB lensing and galaxy weak lensing (cosmic shear) - with regards to CMB lensing there are indeed some similarities between this work and the earlier 2007.04007, although the latter explicitly focuses on the projected scale of equality. Pogosian and collaborators then study various combinations of BAO and datasets which can determine Omegam*h^2 independently of details of recombination, finding consistently that BAO prefer a somewhat lower rd and higher H0 compared to Planck data assuming LCDM. The errors are still quite large and make these inferences of H0 still consistent with the Planck inference, and in mild tension with the local measurement. Because of this, it is fair to say that this paper does not shed much light on the H0 tension, but it does clarify a rather simple idea which will be much more useful with future BAO data, for instance coming from DESI.
#3 2009.06607: Has NANOGrav found first evidence for cosmic strings? by Simone Blasi, Vedran Brdar, and Kai Schmitz
Besides its being intrinsically interesting, this paper is particularly important for me as without it (and other 3 papers which I will come back to later) I would not have found out about what I believe is a really exciting discovery from last week, which I completely missed on the arXiv (otherwise it would easily have made it into my Week 37 entry), and which I believe has not received enough media attention (probably overshadowed by Venus). I am talking about the results of the NANOGrav collaboration presented in 2009.04496. NANOGrav is a pulsar timing array experiment whose goal is to detect a stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) at nHz frequencies by looking at the correlations between pulsar timing residuals. At such frequencies, one would especially expect a SGWB coming from merging supermassive black hole binaries. The exciting thing is that of course NANOGrav did detect a signal! As I’ve written many times, these excesses (or unexpected detection) are more often than not (at least more often than anybody would like to admit) the bread-and-butter of phenomenologists, and the race to find plausible interpretations for this signal is on. Now, before going on, I should point out that there are reasons to be skeptical that the NANOGrav detection is a genuine one. The strength of the detected signal is in tension with previous upper limits, something which the collaboration attributes to different choices of priors in the statistical analysis. Most importantly, no detection of a spatial quadrupole has been found, something which is hard to reconcile with a genuine SGWB within General Relativity. Overall, the collaboration cannot conclusively exclude that systematics, such as pulsar spin noise or solar system effects, might be responsible for, if not all, at least part of the signal.
With all these caveats in mind, it is still very interesting to look for compelling theoretical explanations for the observed signal. One such candidate is that of a network of cosmic strings (CSs), vortex-like topological defects arising from phase transitions in the early Universe which spontaneously break an Abelian gauge symmetry, which is instead restored at the core of the CSs. In this week’s paper, Blasi and collaborators revisit the generation of a SGWB from a CS network, and in Fig. 2 show the region of CS tension-CS loop size parameter space required to explain the NANOGrav detection. I am not enough of an expert on CSs to comment on whether this region of parameter space is reasonable, but one important point to note from Fig. 3 is that if indeed CSs are responsible for the NANOGrav detection, then the associated SGWB signal should be detectable over a wide range of frequencies by a bunch of other GW experiments. Hence this explanation can be confirmed (or at least not killed) or disproven in the near future. As a further comment, it is interesting to note that there have been at least 3 other papers proposing theoretical interpretations for the NANOGrav detection: a further one based on CSs (2009.06555, although I believe the main difference here is that the CS loop size is fixed), and two based on primordial black holes (2009.07832 and 2009.08268). The conclusions are all quite similar: these explanations hold and, if they are correct, lead to detectable signatures in the near future. On a final note, you reader might be wondering if the simplest explanation for this signal might not be a SGWB generated by inflation. Unfortunately it doesn’t quite work as it would require an extremely blue spectrum of tensor modes (which in itself would already violate the tensor consistency condition - not a huge show-stopper, mind you), and would be in strong tension with e.g. BBN (assuming you extrapolate the tensor power spectrum as being a pure power-law up to interferometer scales, something which is most likely not justified even in the simplest models of inflation).