The common denominator between the 3 papers I selected this week is that they all are, to some extent, provocative, although related to completely different topics (respectively the Hubble tension, hints for dark matter in low-threshold direct detection experiments, and the need to move beyond archaic units in cosmology). I won’t say anything more to not spoil the fun, so enjoy reading!
#1 2002.06044: Is there an early Universe solution to the Hubble tension? by Chethan Krishnan et al.
Let me start off by saying that, while some might perceive this paper as controversial, I enjoyed it because it proposes a different and potentially fruitful way of thinking about the H0 tension. Two preliminary remarks are required to understand the background. The first is 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 by about 9% (in the form for instance of early dark energy), rather than late-time physics which increases the distance to last-scattering (e.g. phantom dark energy), for a comprehensive discussion see this paper 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. this paper. The second is an intriguing observation made in Appendix A and in particular Fig. A1 of the XIIIth H0LiCOW paper (recall H0LiCOW measures H0 from time delays of strongly lensed quasars, see my fourth column entry), where the team found a trend of the inferred value of H0 decreasing with lens redshift, with a nearly 2 sigma significance. No obvious systematic which could explain this observation was found. In this week’s paper, Krishnan et al. ask whether a similar trend can be found in low-redshift measurements such as BAO and SNe. In principle, there would be no reason at all to expect such a trend to be there if it were just systematics in H0LiCOW’s measurements.
Krishnan et al. take a bunch of low-redshift data including BAO, SNe, cosmic chronometers (CC), and distances to megamasers, bin them in a non-uniform way, and infer H0 from each bin assuming LCDM. And, surprise, the result is exactly the same trend found by H0LiCOW, see their Fig. 2 (if you aren’t surprised, you should be). If LCDM were the correct description of the Universe at low redshifts, such a trend should not be seen, and the slope of the H0 vs z line (be careful that by H0 I really mean “the value of H0 inferred from the given bin”) should be consistent with 0. While I found this to be an interesting and original analysis, which could open new perspectives on how to think about the H0 tension, there are a few loose ends worth tying up. The reliability of CC data and whether their error bars might be underestimated has been put into question several times, as we might not understand galaxy formation well enough. In this paper, the use of CC data is crucial as it allows one to calibrate BAO and SNe data. However, one could have done the same calibration using a prior on the sound horizon at baryon drag, rd, from Planck, without having to use CC. The authors say that the trend they find cannot be explained by playing with rd, which would only “raise and lower the trend”. It is not obvious to me how this is the case, and the only way to find out would be to use a few different priors on rd and see whether the trend persists (I have encourated the authors to do so). The most interesting question is what on Earth could be responsible for the trend found both by H0LiCOW and this week’s paper? I have asked the authors but they have preferred not to provide spoilers :) So I eagerly await for ref. [34] to appear, which I hope will be soon!
#2 2002.06937: A Dark Matter Interpretation of Excesses in Multiple Direct Detection Experiments by Noah Kurinsky et al.
When thinking about dark matter (DM) direct detection experiments, we are used to the usual plot in the cross-section versus mass (sigma-m) plane, with most experiments probing the >GeV mass region, and bounds becoming crappier around a few GeV or so. However, there is very good reason for wanting to go after light DM with mass of 1 GeV or less (asymmetric DM in connection to baryogenesis is a very good motivation for example, since in these scenarios the DM and proton mass scales are naturally very close), and in recent years the sigma-m plane has started to expand to the left, towards <1 GeV, mostly thanks to advances in heat and charge detectors. What is not so widely known (in fact, I would say almost unknown) is that many of these experiments pushing towards the low-mass region (just to mention a few, EDELWEISS, SENSEI, DAMIC) have seen excesses at low energy which could tentatively be attributed to DM, although a more mundane explanation in terms of unmodeled background cannot be excluded. While none of these collaborations have publicly given weight to these hints, excesses and tensions are the bread and butter of theorists and phenomenologists :) (just think of the H0 tension in cosmology or the 750 GeV excess a few years ago). The intriguing thing is that the excesses related to low-threshold semiconductor experiments seem to more or less consistently point towards excess rates of about 10 Hz/kg, whereas lower excess rates are observed by low-threshold non-semiconductor detectors. In addition, these semiconductor experiments are subject to really different conditions (location, depth, temperature), so a priori there would be no valid reason to expect them to have seen excesses at similar levels. The first thought of our inner theorist is that this might be DM!
In this week’s paper, Kurinsky et al. try to reconcile all these hints in a framework where DM scatters exciting semiconductor plasmons, or more precisely bulk plasmons, coherent excitations between electrons and ions. They construct two types of scenarios which could do this: #1 where plasmons are excited indirectly through phonons following nuclear scattering by DM, and #2 where plasmons are excited directly by a fast DM sub-component (requiring a velocity larger than 10^-2). They then construct two realistic models which could do the job, both based on an U(1) extension of the SM, thus featuring a dark photon (DP; the gauge boson of this new interaction). U(1) extensions are ubiquitous in many beyond the SM scenarios, often appearing out of realistic string constructions, so the assumption of an extra U(1) sector is one of the simplest ones one can make when constructing DM models. The difference between the two scenarios is the mass of the DP: in the first case one needs a heavy DP (so DM effectively has contact-type interactions with nuclei), whereas in the second case one needs a light DP, making DM millicharged. If the scenario proposed by the authors is correct, there should be a number of testable predictions in the near future (nicely outlined in the conclusions), the one which I found most interesting being a possible daily modulation signal in detectors made of anisotropic materials, and large plasmon-phonon couplings if the first scenario is the correct one. One reason why I really enjoyed reading this paper is its intrinsically multidisciplinary nature, at the intersection of particle physics and condensed matter physics. We are used to seeing work at the interface of particle physics, cosmology, and astrophysics (I myself work in this area), but interactions between particle physics and condensed matter are not yet so common, and it looks like increasing these might really be beneficial towards uncovering the nature of DM. The second reason I really enjoyed reading this paper is that I (and many others) was not aware of these tentative excesses (some aren’t even reported in papers but just in conference slides), and the authors do a great job at summarizing them. It is worth noting that the short comment 2002.08893 appeared today criticizing Kurinsky et al.’s results, claiming that they used unphysical ionization yields for plasmon excitations, and also criticizing the phonon-based secondary plasmon excitation mechanism. I don’t know enough about plasmons to comment on whether these concerns are legitimate, but it will be interesting to see the reaction of the community, or even a possible response to the comment by Kurinsky et al. themselves.
#3 2002.07829: Let us bury the prehistoric h: arguments against using h^1*Mpc units in observational cosmology by Ariel Sánchez
Anyone who has taken a cosmology class at some point might have been confused by the funny units cosmologists use especially when discussing large-scale structure (LSS) clustering. Instead of expressing distances purely in Mpc or related units, often the combination Mpc/h (or suitable powers thereof) appears, where h (“little aitch”) is the dimensionless Hubble parameter, such that H0=100×h km/s/Mpc. There were historical reasons for doing this, as there used to be a time when we weren’t sure whether H0 was 50 or 100 km/s/Mpc (despite the H0 tension nowadays, we know that H0 is about 70 km/s/Mpc), and factoring out h allowed one to bypass this uncertainty. Moreover, at a time when LSS clustering data was limited to very low redshifts, expressing distances in Mpc/h allowed us to express distances completely independently of any fiducial cosmology choice (essentially because for z<<1 the distance-redshift relation reduces to d being approximately z/H0). However, might these funny units actually be problematic with current data, and is it time to remove h altogether and express distances in Mpc and power spectra in Mpc^-3? This is the question Sánchez, an expert in LSS clustering (he has led many analyses within the BOSS collaboration) sets out to answer in this weeks’s paper. It is also very interesting to read what inspired the title of this paper (see footnote 1), an argument I can definitely sympathize with given that my native language (Italian) also has this confusing silent h!
Sánchez presents three basic arguments for wanting to move beyond Mpc/h distance units. Perhaps the most convincing one is related to sigma8, a measure of the clumpiness of the LSS, defined by the rms variance of the matter density field on a 8 Mpc/h scale: sigma8 governs the amplitude of the matter power spectrum P(k), and it is customary to compare it across different probes (e.g. CMB vs LSS). There is a mild disagreement between early- and late-time measurements of sigma8 (dubbed unsurprisingly the “sigma8 tension”) between CMB, galaxy clustering, cluster counts, and cosmic shear measurements. What Sánchez correctly points out is that comparing sigma8 across these different probes is not exactly comparing apples to apples: because each of these probes indicates slightly different values of H0 (and hence h), 8 Mpc/h means something different in each case. In other words, we are comparing the amplitude of clustering on (slightly) different scales. Sánchez instead proposes to use a quantity called sigma12, defined identically as sigma8, only on a scale of 12 Mpc which crucially is independent of h and hence identical across whatever probe one chooses. It is very interesting to see Fig. 2, where re-expressing the usual sigma8-Omegam constraints in terms of sigma12-omegam appears to reduce the disagreement between different probes. Sánchez also makes the argument that redshift-space distortion (RSD) probes, which usually constrain the product of sigma8 times the growth rate keeping h fixed, might be quoting misleading constraints (see Fig. 3). While I overall agree with the arguments, I found the paper to be perhaps slightly unbalanced towards the disadvantages of having h-related units (of course, at the same time it would probably have been hard to fit both advantages and disadvantages in a PRL draft). In fact, besides the historical reason that we didn’t know H0 that well, there is another good reason for keeping h in our units when discussing LSS clustering. The evolution of a mode with wavenumber k depends on how far inside the Hubble radius this mode is, that is, on the ratio k/aH (with a the scale factor and H the Hubble rate), which naturally leads one to consider the power spectrum as a function of the dimensionless quantity k/a0H0 (with a0 usually set =1), i.e. in units of Mpc/h. I personally am looking forward to see if and how the community will react to this interesting and to some extent provocative paper. We discussed this paper today at our journal club at KICC and the decision of whether to keep h or not was put to the vote. Needless to say the leavers team (“let’s abandon h”) of which I am part outnumbered by far the remainders team (rings a bell, anyone?).