This week’s entry looks at the first measurement of the cosmic birefringence angle from the CMB, the generation of large primordial non-Gaussianity from Higgs-induced modulated reheating, and a quasi-model-independent inference of the Hubble constant and the late-time expansion. Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers!
#1 2011.11254: New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data by Yuto Minami and Eiichiro Komatsu
Does the Universe as a whole violate parity? In other words, does it treat left- and right-handed fields differently? Given that the weak force violates parity - left-handed lepton fields belong to SU(2) doublets while right-handed lepton fields are SU(2) singlets, and vice-versa for the corresponding antiparticles - it wouldn’t be surprising if the Universe as a whole did too. One interesting possibility in this sense is a Chern-Simons-like coupling of an axion field to the electromagnetic field-strength tensor times its dual, symbolically φF*~F, where ~F is the dual of F. This type of coupling leads to an interesting phenomenon known as cosmic birefringence, the cosmological analogue of the birefringence phenomenon which we probably at some point all admired in sapphire crystals. For this particular type of coupling, cosmic birefringence rotates the CMB linear polarization plane by an angle β which is determined by the line-of-sight integral, from the large-scale-structure surface to us, of the time derivative of the axion field. The question of whether the Universe is behaving as a huge sapphire crystal is then tantamount to determining whether β is non-zero. One interesting signal of these types of parity-violating interactions would be non-zero correlations between temperature and B-mode polarization <TB>, as well as E- and B-mode polarization <EB>. Due to symmetry, these correlators would otherwise be identically zero if parity is conserved.
So why not just go and measure β in the data? The problem is that in order to do so reliably, one must also reliably know one’s detector absolute polarization angle α. A mis-determination of α might lead to a spurious detection of non-zero β. To put it differently, CMB measurements are only sensitive to α+β. It’s sort of like having an algebraic system of two unknowns but only one equation. To make progress, therefore, one needs to close the system by specifying an additional equation which breaks the degeneracy between α and β. Here’s where the work by Minami and Komatsu enters. An interesting side story is that, while Komatsu has been a leader in cosmology ever since the time of WMAP, Minami is mostly an experimental particle physicist, who has worked (I believe) on the ATLAS experiment (however, in Komatsu’s words, he is the “Samurai” who did most of the hard work behind this paper). Their method, which I will describe shortly, has been progressively developed in a series of papers in the last years: 1904.12440 focused on auto-frequency power spectra over the full sky, whereas 2003.03572 extended this to the more realistic case of partial sky coverage, and finally 2006.15982 included also cross-frequency spectra. So what is the idea behind this method? In other words, how are Minami and Komatsu closing the previous set of equations? The idea is that, since the amount of cosmic birefringence depends on the path length of photons in question, one should study two systems with very different path lengths. More precisely, if we look at something (again in Komatsu’s words) “in our backyard” such as Galactic foregrounds, we would expect these to only be rotated by α. In other words, foregrounds we usually think of as being a problem can actually be turned into a calibrator for the CMB detector absolute polarization angle.
With this information, and with α+β measured from the CMB, one can actually disentangle α and β, and check whether the latter is consistent with something non-zero, as Minami and Komatsu do in this week’s paper, published in PRL. The key result is in the plot below, with the marginalized constraint on β reading β=0.35±0.14 deg, a non-zero detection at about 2.4σ. The safest and most politically correct way of commenting this result is to borrow David Spergel’s words (which apparently he uses whenever journalists ask him about a possible tantalizing result) and say that this is “Interesting, if true”. In addition, a 2.4σ detection is hardly something to get excited about - at the same time, 5σ tensions all once started as 2σ ones (just think about the H0 tension 5 years ago), so I think it is still worth keeping an eye on this, which the press is clearly doing. Implications for a Chern-Simons-like coupling are given in Eq.(5), and I suspect very strongly this will lead to an industry of axion phenomenology ambulance chasing papers in the next months. A paper along these lines, which however I would not place within the ambulance chasing category, already appeared as 2011.11894. If you enjoyed this synopsis, I recommend you watch Yuto and Eiichiro’s (well, mostly Eiichiro’s) talk on Shaun Hotchkiss’ Cosmology Talks Youtube channel. And regardless, if you are a regular reader who enjoys my blog, you would most likely also enjoy Shaun’s channel so I recommend you subscribe anyway :)
#2 2011.11649: Primordial non-Gaussianity from the Effects of the Standard Model Higgs during Reheating after Inflation by Aliki Litsa et al.
This is somewhat of a follow-up paper which the same group (minus Litsa in the first paper from almost 3 years ago) has been developing in two papers: 1712.03791 and 2009.14218. The cool idea here is to try and probe Higgs dynamics using cosmological observations, in particular the CMB. The key idea is that if the Higgs is a spectator field during inflation, i.e. if it is light and not driving inflation, it can acquire large field values <H> from random quantum fluctuations. These field values can be different across different causal patches. Since the mass of Standard Model (SM) particle i, m_i, goes like y_i*<H>, with y_i the relevant Yukawa coupling, this means that the SM fields effectively acquire space-dependent masses. This might prevent reheating from occurring in certain patches, or at least delay it, since in order for reheating to occur the inflaton has to decay into (pairs of) SM particles, which can only occur the inflaton mass is larger than (twice) the mass of the SM particle in question. This type of behavior, with inhomogeneous reheating caused by the probabilistic dynamics of a light scalar field, is called modulated reheating. The assumptions underlying these studies are that: there are no additional fields beyond the SM particles besides the inflaton; the Higgs is not the inflaton; the inflaton has to perturbatively decay to SM particles coupled to the Higgs via a Yukawa coupling; the Higgs field PDF is given by Eq.(2); and the renormalization group (RG) running of the SM Yukawas between the electroweak scale and the scale of inflation is negligible. Other than these assumption, this paper is rather general in that it remains agnostic as to the underlying inflation model, as long as the Higgs field is indeed a true spectator.
The earlier 2009.14218 showed that this type of inhomogeneous reheating can lead to large temperature fluctuations which can be larger than those at the ~10^-5 level observed in the CMB sky, and hence CMB temperature anisotropies can exclude part of the relevant parameter space. In this week’s paper, Litsa and collaborators instead show that the same mechanism can, unsurprisingly, lead to a significant amount of non-Gaussianity. Therefore, constraints on non-Gaussianity from the CMB (and, I would add, from the large-scale structure, for instance through the induced scale-dependent bias on large scales) can be used to constrain Higgs dynamics during inflation. The paper focuses on non-Gaussianity of the local type, i.e. parametrized by the amplitude f_NL. Therefore, if future experiments were to convincingly measure non-Gaussianity of the local type, and detect non-zero tensor modes so that we might pin down the scale of inflation, the results of this paper would allow one to say something about the reheating temperature and the Higgs self-coupling λ, which is itself an extremely important parameter for determining whether the Higgs potential is stable, metastable (the most likely possibility), or unstable, modulo significant uncertainties on the top quark mass. And, of course, one could extend this study to include new particles beyond the SM, which might affect the RG running of λ. If you enjoyed this synopsis, you will probably also enjoy Aliki Litsa’s excellent talk on the same topic at Cosmology from Home, which you can find here.
#3 2011.10559: A look at the Hubble speed from first principles by Fabrizio Renzi and Alessandra Silvestri
It has become rather clear that the ongoing Hubble tension requires us to look at the issue with eyes which are as model-independent possible. Given the important role of BAO data in the problem, basically restricting the viability of late-time solutions, it would also be desirable to look at the problem with eyes which are as calibration-indepedent as possible. Model-independence and calibration-independence often go hand in hand, as calibrating BAO basically means giving a prior on the sound horizon at last scattering, which itself, to some extent, has to rely on a model for the pre-recombination Universe. In this week’s paper, Renzi and Silvestri propose a minimal method for getting the Hubble constant H0 out of late-time datasets bypassing any model-dependent calibration. They only assume that the Etherington distance-duality relation (EDDR) is valid. I covered what the EDDR is in my Week 46 entry, and it basically amounts to the relation between angular diameter and luminosity distance, following from the conservation of photon flux - this relation is quite general and holds in many models, but can be violated e.g. in models of modified gravity or models where photons can convert to other particles such as axions (again, see my Week 46 entry for one such example).
The key equation in this paper is Eq.(5), or equivalently Eq.(7) which I have given above. There is absolutely nothing new about this equation, which is none other than a tautological identity of the form x = x*(y/y)*(z/z). However, this way of writing it is quite illuminating, as it shows that one can get H0 in an almost model-independent way by using: uncalibrated SNeIa which give H0*d_L; uncalibrated BAO which give H(z)*d_A; and cosmic chronometers that, by measuring the absolute scale of H(z), calibrate everything in a cosmology-independent way. Again, the only important assumption is that the EDDR holds, which is the reason the factor of 1/(1+z)^2 appears in front. Using these three datasets and Gaussian process regression, Renzi and Silvestri infer H0 while at the same time reconstructing the dark energy density and the expansion rate. Unsurprisingly, no huge deviation from LCDM is found, with the Hubble constant being inferred to be H0~69.5±1.7 in the usual units. There are, however, weak hints of deviations from LCDM (at the 1σ level, so nothing to get excited about), at redshift ~2. This is is line with previous studies on the matter, including 1701.08165, 1803.02474, 1807.03772, 1808.06623, and especially the recent 2011.07140 which shares many similar features with this week’s paper (additionally looking at the very interesting dark energy sound speed) among the others. The paper then goes on to argue that these results support the possibility that the H0 tension might be due to a SNeIa calibration offset of order ~0.2 mag: while probably Adam Riess’ group would beg to differ, this view has been supported by George Efstathiou in his entertaining 2007.10716, which I really recommend digesting (or alternatively watch his APCTP lecture here). Weak deviations from LCDM at late times, of the type Renzi and Silvestri infer, would then fix the remaining weak tension between Planck and TRGB-calibrated SNeIa (although I would like to point out that, if we believe the TRGB-calibrated H0, then the H0 tension is so weak to the point that there is basically no H0 tension to begin with). Overall this was a very interesting paper, although it is worth keeping in mind the caveat that all results depend on the assumption of the EDDR and hence should really be referred to as quasi-model-independent.