1 / 27

Neutrino Models of Dark Energy

Neutrino Models of Dark Energy. LEOFEST Ringberg Castle April 25, 2005. R. D. Peccei UCLA. Neutrino Models of Dark energy. Observational Surprises Theoretical Considerations The FNW Scenario Two Illustrative Examples Discussion and Future Directions. Observational Surprises.

leroy
Download Presentation

Neutrino Models of Dark Energy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Neutrino Models of Dark Energy LEOFEST Ringberg Castle April 25, 2005 R. D. Peccei UCLA

  2. Neutrino Models of Dark energy • Observational Surprises • Theoretical Considerations • The FNW Scenario • Two Illustrative Examples • Discussion and Future Directions

  3. Observational Surprises • In the late 1990s two groups [Supernova Cosmology Project and High-z Supernova Team] using supernovas as standard candles set out to measure the Universe’s deceleration parameter • Expected qo=1/2, found qo -1/2. Universe’s expansion is accelerating, not decelerating!

  4. Early data interpreted acceleration as being due to a cosmological constant and found, in an assumed flat Universe [=1], that   0.7 and M0.3

  5. The WMAP experiment, measuring the angular dependence of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background in the last year confirmed this result with much more accuracy, finding:  = 1.02 ± 0.02 Flat Universe  = 0.73 ± 0.04 Dark energy M = 0.27 ± 0.04 Matter B = 0.044 ± 0.004 Baryons Most matter is not baryonic, but some form of non-luminous matter- Dark Matter Equation of state of dark energy gives  < -0.78

  6. Theoretical considerations • A significant challenge is to try to understand from the point of view of particle physics the Dark Energy in the Universe • Einstein’s equations determine H and the Universe’s acceleration once , p,k, and  are specified.

  7. In a flat Universe [k=0], as predicted by inflation and confirmed observationally by WMAP, the Universe accelerates if  > 4GNmatter , or, if =0,a dominant component of the Universe has negative pressure and  +3p < 0. The observed acceleration is evidence for this Dark Energy It is convenient to set =0 and write the first Einstein equationsimply as: H2 = 8GN/3 + 8GNdark energy/3. Then using an equation of state: =p/ , the pure cosmological constant case, where the density is a pure vacuum energy density, corresponds to = -1: dark energy= -p dark energy= vacuum constant

  8. The Hubble parameter now Ho=(1.5 ± 0.1) 10-33 eV is a tiny scale. We know that, at the present time, Ho2 gets about 30% contribution from the first term and 70% from the second term, while -1< =p/ <-0.8. What is the physics associated with this dark energy? If indeed one has a cosmological constant, so that dark energy= vacuum=Eo4, then Ho GNEo2  Eo2/ MP gives Eo  2 10-3 eV. What physics is associated with this very small scale? All particle physics vacuum energies are enormously bigger [e.g. for QCD: EoQCD ~QCD  1 GeV]

  9. The FNW Scenario • Can one understand dark energyas arising dynamically from a particle physics scale? • A very interesting suggestion along these lines has been put forward recently by Fardon, Nelson and Weiner. • Coincidence of having in present epoch odark energy omatter is resolved dynamically if the dark energytracks some component of matter • Easy to convince oneself that the best component of matter for dark energy to track are the neutrinos

  10. If indeed dark energy tracks then can perhaps also understand scale issue: Eo~ 2 10-3 eV  m~ vF2 /MN ~ 10-1 -10 -3 eV In FNW picture neutrinos and dark energy are coupled. In NR regime examined by FNW dark =mn+ dark energy (m) with the neutrino masses being fixed by minimizing the above n+ 'dark energy (m) = 0 Thus neutrino masses are variable depending on the neutrino density: m= m(n). This is the principal assumption of FNW

  11. One can compute the equation of state for the dark sector by looking at energy conservation equation  dark / t=-3H(dark + pdark)= -3Hdark ( +1) (*) and in NR limit one finds  +1= m n/ dark = m n/ [m n + dark energy] We see that if   -1 the neutrino contribution to dark is a small fraction of dark energy. Further, we expect from (*) that, if  does not change much with R, dark~R -3(1+ ). But n ~R-3,sofrom the equation of state the neutrino mass must be nearly inversely proportional to the neutrino density: m ~ R-3  ~ n   n -1

  12. I have examined this scenario for neutrinos of arbitrary velocity obtaining an important result: FNW scenario  Running cosmological const. In general, dark =+ dark energy (m) where  =T4F() with = m /T and Stationarityw.r.t. mvariations implies T3 F() /   +  dark energy / m=0

  13. Using the conservation of energy equation one can show that, in the general case, the equation of state is given by  +1= [4-h()] /3 dark (**) where h()=  [ F() / ] / F() In the non-relativistic limit ( = m /T >>1) where =mn, one can check that h()  1 so that (**) indeed reduces to the FNW equation  +1= m n/ dark However, working out the (**) expression, using that ( +1) dark = pdark+dark, one finds a surprise

  14. The equation of state becomes p+pdark energy + dark energy = [1-h()] /3 but [1-h()] /3=[T4/32] = p Hence, it follows that pdark energy + dark energy = 0. which implies that dark energy = -pdark energy  V(m) and one sees that the dark energy is just a “running” cosmological constant!

  15. This result perhaps is not so surprising, since we assumed dark energy (m), so that all T-dependence comes through m(T) If, however, dark energy = K(T) + V(m) one finds a modified equation of state +1= {[4-h()] +T  K(T) / T }/3 dark One deduces from the above that pdark energy + dark energy = (T/3)  K(T) / T

  16. However, pdark energy = K(T) -V(m) and thus one finds that K(T) = (T/6)  K(T) / T Thus one deduces that K(T) = Ko (T/To )6 which is the behavior you expect from a free massless scalar field Although one can choose Ko small enough so that K is negligible compared to V in the present epoch, in earlier times K(T) totally dominates and distorts the evolution of the Universe Therefore, FNW scenarioconsistent only if K=0 i. e.running cosmological constant

  17. Two Illustrative Examples • FNW scenario is characterized by 2 equations: T3 F() /   +  V(m) / m=0 [1]  +1= [4-h()] / 3 [1 + V(m) /T4F() ] [2] • [1] determines m(T), while [2] determines the evolution of equation of state (T) for any given potentialV(m) • Studied two examples: Vp(m) ~ m- ; Ve(m) ~ exp[ /m]

  18. General assumptions and features: omatter= 0.3 c ; Vo= 0.63 c ;  = 0.07 c ; o= - 0.9c =2.46 10-11 eV4 ; To = 1.9 oK; mo = 3.09 eV Then Vp(m) = 0.63 c (m/ mo ) –1/9 Ve(m) = 0.63 c exp{1/9 [(mo /m)-1]} For both potentials can show that (T)  o as T  To Nonrelativistic limit and (T)  1/3 for T >> To Relativistic limit

  19. However, models differ on where NR/Rel. transition occurs and in dependence of mon T: Power-law potential = m(T*) /T*=1 at T*=3.06 10-3 eV  20 To m(T) 1.12 10-5eV / T(eV)0.95 Relativistic regime Exponential potential = m(T*) /T*=1 at T*=4.57 10-2 eV  300 To m(T) 0.028 eV /[ 1+0.16 lnT(eV)]Rel. regime Note that NR/Rel. transition occurs much later than for fixed mass neutrinos, where Tfix*=3.09 eV

  20. Behavior of m / mowith T for the two different potentials is shown below. Here z=T/To-1 Exponential Potential Power-law Potential

  21. Different behaviour ofm(T ) implies different evolution of (T) from o to 1/3 Power-law Potential Exponential Potential

  22. Other significant difference is in behavior of potentials with temperature. In both cases, V is only important in the NR regime In relativistic regimedark sector is always dominated by neutrino contribution, rather than by the running cosmological constant. One finds  = (72/120)T4=1.48 1010 c [T(eV)]4 while Vp= 2.52 c[T(eV)]0.105 and Ve  4.33 10 4c[T(eV)]2

  23. Below we show the behaviour of various components of the Universe’s energy density in units of /c. Here solid=matter; dashed=neutrinos; dotted=dark energy Exponential Potential Power-lawPotential

  24. Discussion and Future Directions • Speculative idea of tying the dark energy sector with the neutrino sector gives rise to appealing idea of a running cosmological constant V(m), but requires bold new dynamics • However, scenario does not explain the dark energy scaleEo~ 2 10-3 eV, which is “put in by hand” (thru m~ 3 eV) as boundary condition in present epoch: V Eo4f(T/To) • Also difficult to imagine that arunning cosmological constantwould depend only on the neutrino mass scale. More likely: V(mi) , with all masses being environment dependentmi =mi(T)

  25. Old idea of RDP, Sola` and Wetterich may be worth reviving: cosmological constant changes as function of a dynamical dilaton field- the cosmonS S  S +M Dilatations Cosmoncouples to anomalous energy momentum trace and adjusts its VEV to zero in same way axion which couples to FF* adjusts  to zero Equation M  / S | S=So= 0 is analogue of FNW equation and should set <>|S=So= 0, fixing the VEV of the full traceT , which is the cosmological constant: <T[So(T)]>

  26. Effectively, at each temperature scale the cosmon would find a new minimum So(T),and the cosmological constant would obtain a different value: <T[So(T)]> Even in this scheme, however, it is difficult to understand why the cosmological constant is so small now. In QCD for instance, <T>QCD = < >QCD + mq<qq> QCD Naively, even if < >QCD were to vanish, what remains is still of O(0.1 GeV)4. However, mq is itself the result of another VEV, coming from the electroweak theory, so perhaps it cannot be treated as a hard mass. Correct conclusion to draw is that there is still much to understand in this difficult problem!

More Related