After disappearing for a week, this week I cover three papers discussing why reducing the sound horizon is necessary but not sufficient to solve the Hubble tension, how to probe gravitational waves using astrometry, and whether unparticles might have something to do with dark energy. As of this week I’ve also decided to start including plots from the respective papers, where necessary, in my summaries, as a good plot is worth a thousand words. Enjoy!
#1 2010.04158: Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon can not fully resolve the Hubble tension by Karsten Jedamzik, Levon Pogosian, and Gong-Bo Zhao
This is the second time this trio of authors appears in my blog, the first being a mere 3 weeks ago in my Week 38 entry, again for a sound horizon-related paper. It’s fair to say there is an almost consensus that a viable solution to the H0 tension, i.e. one that at the very least fits CMB, BAO, and uncalibrated SNe data (Pantheon), should reduce the sound horizon through pre-recombination physics, whereas fully post-recombination solutions are disfavored. This is what an inverse distance ladder constructed out of BAO and Pantheon data teaches us. But is this enough? In recent months we have begun to appreciate the constraining power of large-scale structure (LSS) data in the form of full-shape galaxy power spectrum from galaxy redshift surveys, or cosmic shear measurements from weak lensing surveys. Since one shouldn’t cherry-pick data, a satisfactory solution to the H0 tension should fit all data at once: at the very least CMB, BAO, SNe, cosmic shear, and galaxy power spectrum. This week’s paper answers the question I highlighted in italics above, namely: is it enough to reduce the sound horizon to solve the H0 tension?
The answer, as Jedamzik and collaborators find, is obviously “No”. To see why, it is instructive to look at the figure below, which is Fig. 1 from their paper. Both CMB and BAO data are described by a specific degeneracy direction in the rd-H0 plane, with rd the sound horizon at baryon drag (obviously in the case of the CMB there is more to just this degeneracy! - more precisely this degeneracy is related to the position of the first acoustic peak, which contains a good amount, but not all, of the information of the CMB). From this figure it is clear that to solve the H0 tension and be consistent with BAO one needs to reduce the sound horizon. So far so good. But this has to be done while simultaneously increasing the physical matter density Ωmh2, as we see from comparing the solid red, dashed blue, and dotted green lines, each describing the first peak rd-H0 degeneracy for different fixed values of Ωmh2.
But what does this effect have on weak lensing and galaxy clustering data? For weak lensing, the result is shown in Fig. 2 (not shown here), and as you might have guessed it leads to the cosmic shear/S8 tension being exacerbated. Something very similar would happen with galaxy clustering data as well. Fig. 3 is very instructive, showing how many popular early-time solutions which reduce the sound horizon also either exacerbate the cosmic shear tension, or are in tension with BAO data, with the only notable exception being the interacting neutrino model of 1902.00534, which however features enormous uncertainties on the resulting cosmological parameters and, most importantly, appears to be in tension with polarization data and has so far not even gone close to finding a convincing underlying particle physics model which isn’t ruled out by particle physics constraints. This week’s paper sort of generalizes a result which had been in the air for a while for the specific case of early dark energy, as I discussed in both my Week 12 and Week 26 entries. Note that early-time solutions also usually run in trouble with polarization data as it is hard to keep both the acoustic scale and the damping scale fixed at the same time, due to the different way these two quantities respond to changes in the early expansion rate. The problem highlighted in this week’s paper is a problem these models will face even before running into trouble due to changes in the damping scale. As a side note, I’m still trying to wrap my head around why the figure above looks different from Fig. 1 of the Hubble Hunter’s guide 1908.03663 by Knox and Millea, which also has rd-H0 contours colored by Ωmh2, although variations in Ωmh2 in that case seem to move one in a direction nearly orthogonal to the one shown here. I’d be grateful if someone could kindly clarify this to me - if possible, please leave a public comment to this post! [POST-PUBLICATION EDIT: it looks like the difference is due to Knox & Millea working within ΛCDM and considering the effect of changing Ωmh2 on both rd and the angular diameter distance DA, whereas here rd is being treated as an independent parameter, so that changes in Ωmh2 only affect DA. The point is that of making a statement which is completely independent of the details of recombination. Thanks Levon Pogosian for the clarification!]
#2 2010.02218: Gravitational Wave Detection with Photometric Surveys by Yijun Wang et al.
Anybody who has ever been mildly interested in gravitational waves (GWs) has likely seen this plot or something analogous, with the sensitivity curves for various experimental setups as a function of frequency. And if you look carefully, you can’t help but notice that frequency gap in the range of about 10^-8 Hz to 10^-5 Hz, between interferometers and pulsar timing arrays (PTAs - such as NANOGrav which I covered in my Week 38 entry). Of course, it would be nice to be able to measure GWs across as wide a frequency range as possible, as even for a single given source the frequency of the emitted GWs rapidly changes during the inspiral-merger-ringdown phase. So the question is: can we think of a smart way to close the gap?
In this week’s paper, Wang and collaborators look at GW astrometry as a possibility for closing the gap. Astrometry is in essence is the branch of astronomy dealing with precise measurements of the positions and movements of stars and other celestial bodies (think of GAIA). The idea here is then similar to that of PTAs: if I can measure the positions and velocities of celestial bodies to exquisite accuracy, I will be able to find out if a given celestial body has been perturbed by a passing GW, possibly looking for correlations across neighboring bodies as done for instance with PTAs. The idea is not completely new, and was discussed at least as far back as 1009.4192. The rest of the paper is then devoted to showing that the Roman Space Telescope’s (formerly WFIRST) Exoplanet MicroLensing (EML) survey will be able to do so in principle, provided the GW scientific output of photometric surveys is maximized following recommendations provided in Section IV (for the record, the required astrometric accuracy we are talking about is of order ~0.1 mas or better). The plot below shows that, if these conditions are met, GW astrometry will close the gap between PTAs and interferometers, allowing us to probe a so far unexplored frequency region of the GW spectrum.
#3 2010.02998: Emergent dark energy from unparticles by Michal Artymowski, Ido Ben-Dayan, and Utkarsh Kumar
This paper might sound a bit crazy to some, but I actually found it really entertaining. So, first of all, what the hell are unparticles (they can’t be that crazy if they’ve got their Wikipedia page, right)? Unparticles were first introduced by Howard Georgi in hep-ph/0703260. The best way to describe unparticles would be as “scale-invariant stuff which yet is not massless”. Normally, “scale-invariant stuff” has to be massless, because a mass term in the Lagrangian of whatsoever particle will break scale invariance (this is simply because a mass term necessarily contains a scale in it - the mass scale of the particle in question!). On the other hand, if we think of particles as being quanta with a definite mass, we realize that “scale-invariant stuff which yet is not massless” cannot have a definite mass (in some way it has a continuous spectrum of mass) and hence cannot be a particle as per above. Hence, unparticles! In the scenario Georgi cooked up, the UV sector of the theory contains the usual Standard Model fields and the so-called Banks-Zaks (BZ) fields of a theory with a nontrivial IR fixed point. The two sets of fields can talk to each other via higher-dimensional operators, which thus allow in principle for the detection of unparticles (which, needless to say, has not occurred).
Of course, you will now be asking whether this can have anything whatsoever to do with reality. In this week’s paper Artymowski and collaborators show that unparticles, crazy as it might seem, might be an interesting dark energy (DE) candidate. Candidate here is used in a loose sense, since usually “candidate” makes one think of a specific new degree of freedom, whereas here DE is really the result of the collective behavior of a new sector. More precisely, a broken conformal field theory near its conformal fixed point. As is shown, such a sector should gradually reach some asymptotic temperature, at which point an asymptotic de Sitter phase (effectively a DE-dominated era) is reached precisely due to this macroscopic emergent behavior. The authors then argue that it is possible for the model to give some amount of dark radiation in the early Universe (which can help with the H0 tension), while a naturally built-in tracker behavior keeps the model safe from fine-tuning issues. Being free from a fundamental scalar, the theory also naturally avoids issues pertaining to the swampland conjecture, and obviously does not require an explicit cosmological constant. I think this model is definitely less crazy than it seems at first glance, and it is definitely worth exploring further. Of course, data should have the final say as to whether this model describes reality. In this sense, extra contributions to Neff, as well as deviations in σ8 and the growth index, appear to be the most promising avenues towards distinguishing this model from ΛCDM.