This week’s entry deals with new measurements of the Deuterium-to-Helium-3 cross-section with extremely important implications for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, and two papers on axion-photon conversion (and vice-versa) in astrophysical environments. A heads-up that next week’s blog installment will likely be cancelled due to personal reasons (see here). Enjoy!
#1 Nature 587 (2020) 210: The baryon density of the Universe from an improved rate of deuterium burning by Viviana Mossa et al. (corresponding authors Carlo Gustavino and Sandra Zavatarelli)
This paper is somewhat of an exception within my blog, as it goes somewhat beyond the “arXiv” bit in the blog title since, as far as I know, this paper is not (yet) available on arXiv but only on Nature’s website. For this reason, I also apologize in case you can’t access the paper’s full-text. I’m obviously not allowed to post the version I have access to, but I recommend trying Sci-hub (I won’t post the website, as various versions thereof are regularly taken down, but you can easily find it).
With these introductory remarks made, this week’s paper deals with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), or the process occurring a few minutes after the Big Bang within which light elements were forged. Conversely, observations of the abundances of light elements today, provided we are observing them in as pristine a state as possible, allow us to constrain the physics of the very early Universe. In particular, observations of the relative abundances of Helium-4 and Deuterium (D) with respect to Hydrogen allows to constrain the baryon physical energy density Obh2, and the effective number of relativistic species Neff. D plays a very important role in BBN. One of the key processes within the whole chain of BBN reactions is D fusion into Helium-3 (3He) upon absorption of a proton, a reaction usually referred to as D(p,γ)3He. However, the cross-section of D(p,γ)3He at BBN energies, or equivalently its so-called S-factor, is subject to large systematic uncertainties, particularly at high energies, and disagrees with ab-initio theoretical calculations. Therefore, the whole picture remained cloudy for a long time, making BBN predictions of the primordial D abundance, for want of a better word, unsatisfactory.
How this week’s paper comes in is through a much better measurement of the D(p,γ)3He S-factor. One of the difficulties in doing so, besides the fact that Deuterium fusion is a very rare process, is contamination by cosmic rays. To address this problem, improved S-factor measurements were obtained at the Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics (LUNA) in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory. With new LUNA data, Mossa and collaborators were able to improve our theoretical understanding of BBN and reach a more robust estimate of Obh2 using the observed D abundance from astronomical observations. For reference, the previous inference without LUNA data is Obh2=0.02271±0.00062, whereas the new inference is Obh2=0.02233±0.00036. Not only has the uncertainty improved by almost a factor of 2, but the new value is basically in perfect agreement with the value inferred from Planck CMB data, which gives Obh2=0.02236±0.00015 (the old value was also in agreement, albeit being a bit larger) - if you can, have a look at Figure 2 of the paper. This consistency suggests, in short, that nothing terribly funny happened during BBN. I’m sure these new measurements will be extremely interesting for many researchers, ranging from particle physicists, to cosmologists, astronomers, stellar physicists, and finally nuclear physicists.
#2 2001.05378: Transient Radio Signatures from Neutron Star Encounters with QCD Axion Miniclusters by Tom Edwards, Bradley Kavanagh, Luca Visinelli, and Christoph Weniger (alphabetical)
Axions are one of the leading candidates for making up the dark matter (DM) in the Universe. A vast experimental program has been set up in recent years to try and detect them, ranging from laboratory to cosmological to astrophysical searches. In particular, one very interesting class of searches proposed for the first time in 0711.1264, and which gained significant interest in recent years, involves conversion of axions into photons in the magnetospheres of neutron stars (NSs), which leads to an observable radio signal. This week’s paper focuses on a related scenario, but with an important twist. In the scenario where the Peccei-Quinn symmetry is broken after the end of inflation, the so-called “post-inflationary scenario”, large isocurvature fluctuations in the axion density field are produced. These will later be the first to collapse into tiny bound and extremely overdense structures which are now referred to as axion miniclusters (AMCs), first studied in 1988 by Hogan and Rees. What happens then if NSs encounter AMCs? One would expect that as the axions making up the AMC fall towards the NS magnetosphere, they too are resonantly converted into photons, leading to an observable radio signature. Can this be observed and used to detect axions? This is the question the (3/4 former) Amsterdam group sets up to address in this week’s paper and, with a few caveats, the answer is “Yes”.
As always, while the idea looks deceivingly simple, the devil lies in the details. There are a lot of uncertainties. Just to mention a few: how do the AMC profiles look like (e.g. power-law or NFW)? Assuming that axions make up the entirety of the DM, what fraction of them is residing in AMCs (this is a huge open question in the axion field, and obviously not one that is addressed here - I believe they assume 100%)? In the center of miniclusters one would expect axion stars (see e.g. 1710.08910) to form: how can one model them (or get away with not modelling them)? These and other questions are the devilish details I was mentioning previously, and they are to some extent dealt with in the paper, either trying to bypass or “average out” the corresponding uncertainty. One key uncertainty, however, is how much tidal interactions with stars can strip AMCs, since the latter are significantly more diffuse than stars. This question is addressed in great detail in the companion paper 2011.05377 by Kavanagh et al., which I won’t cover here. The key result in this week’s paper is the plot I attach below, which shows that in principle AMC-NS encounters can lead to radio signals lasting between a day and a few months, with a strength typically a bit lower than the sensitivity of current and future radio telescopes such as the VLA or the SKA, but potentially observable, with the “typically” and “potentially” bits associated to the AMC density profile-related uncertainty (see power-law vs NFW below). There are many more follow-up avenues, e.g. understanding in detail the bandwith of the signal, and modelling the NS magnetospheres in a realistic way - therefore, a non-detection of such signals can not yet be used to rule out regions of axion parameter space until the uncertainties associated to these important issues are further addressed. Overall, this was a really cool paper which and I am extremely happy that it has finally seen the light, after having seen it in the making and heard about it for more than a year.
#3 2011.05993: Constraints on Axions from Cosmic Distance Measurements by Manuel Buen-Abad, JiJi Fan, and Chen Sun (alphabetical)
For the first time, two axion papers in the same week! As already discussed above, axion-photon couplings can lead to axion-photon conversion (and viceversa) within various astrophysical environments. The previous paper considered the magnetospheres of NSs, but such conversions can also occur in galaxy clusters, Type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa), and so on. Any such conversion would in general lead to photon flux non-conservation, with important consequences. Recall that photon flux conservation is essentially the milestone underlying the so-called “Etherington distance-duality relation” (EDDR). The EDDR is simply the statement that at a given redshift z, the angular diameter distance D_A(z) and the luminosity distance D_L(z) are related by the well-known formula D_L(z) = (1+z)^2*D_A(z). Therefore, axion-photon coupling would in general lead to EDDR violations, for instance SNeIa at high-z could be dimmer than SNeIa at low-z. In the past people have combined D_A and D_L measurements to try and constrain violations of the EDDR, usually parametrizing the former relation via something like D_L(z) = (1+z)^(2+ε)*D_A(z), with ε a small parameter quantifying the amount of EDDR violation. In this week’s paper, Buen-Abad and collaborators revisit this issue using a wide selection of D_A and D_L measurements, and clarifying a subtle issue concerning the previous parametrization.
The issue I mentioned is that whether or not D_A and D_L are affected by axion-photon conversion depends crucially on the specific dataset in question, and more specifically how the distance measurement is obtained from the corresponding observations. For instance, BAO D_A measurements are purely geometrical, i.e. do not rely on any sort of brightness measurements (unlike SNeIa D_L measurements). However, cluster D_A measurements do instead rely on brightness measurements, more precisely their X-ray surface brightness. Therefore, one would expect them to be impacted by axion-photon couplings, despite measurements of the same quantity from BAO is not impacted. As a consequence, in general it might be misleading to encode photon-axion coupling-induced EDDR violation in a single function of z such as ε(z), let alone a single constant parameter ε! With these extremely important caveats in mind, this week’s paper considers a wide range of D_A and D_L measurements, from SNeIa (uncalibrated or not), clusters, strong lenses, BAO, and CMB. The key results are in the figure below, which gives upper limits on the axion-photon coupling as a function of axion mass. The paper discusses the impact of various assumptions on their results, e.g. how the intracluster medium is modelled (see blue vs red curve), whether they are considering early- or late-time measurements (see dashed vs solid curves, i.e. basically the impact of the Hubble tension - or more precisely lack of impact), and others. There is some dependence on these assumptions, but overall the results seem to robustly exclude axion-photon couplings larger than order ~10^-12 GeV^-1 for a wide range of axion masses. One interesting part of this paper was actually Appendix A, where they examined in more detail the possibility of solving the Hubble tension using “axion brightening”, i.e. using axion-photon conversion to make SNeIa far away from us brighter than expected. The Hubble hunter’s guide by Knox & Millea had actually already provided a handwavy argument against such a solution in Section IV.A.2, whereas this week’s paper provides a more rigorous (but still short) argument for why this wouldn’t work, even when trying to behave as “bold model builders” and introducing more fancy ingredients such as photon-dark photon-axion mixing and associated conversion. However, I am 100% sure that even bolder model builders will be able to find loopholes within these arguments!
