1: %original susana 4/7
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[12pt]{aastex}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: %\usepackage{astrons}
7: %
8: % Commands for typsetting nucleidic symbols
9: %
10: \newcommand{\Hy}{\ensuremath{\null^1{\rm H}}}
11: \newcommand{\De}{\ensuremath{{\rm D}}}
12: \newcommand{\D}{\ensuremath{\null^2{\rm H}}}
13: \newcommand{\Tr}{\ensuremath{{\rm T}}}
14: \newcommand{\T}{\ensuremath{\null^3{\rm H}}}
15: \newcommand{\Het}{\ensuremath{\null^3{\rm He}}}
16: \newcommand{\He}{\ensuremath{\null^4{\rm He}}}
17: \newcommand{\Be}{\ensuremath{\null^7{\rm Be}}}
18: \newcommand{\Lis}{\ensuremath{\null^6{\rm Li}}}
19: \newcommand{\Li}{\ensuremath{\null^7{\rm Li}}}
20:
21: \newcommand{\OmegaM}{\Omega_{m}}
22: \newcommand{\OmegaR}{\Omega_{r}}
23: \newcommand{\OmegaL}{\Omega_{\Lambda}}
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \title{{\bf Time variation of the electron mass in the early universe and the Barrow-Magueijo model}}
29:
30: \author{Claudia G. Sc\'{o}ccola \altaffilmark{1,2,a}}
31: \email{cscoccola@fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar}
32: \and
33: \author{Mercedes E. Mosquera \altaffilmark{1,a}}
34: \email{mmosquera@fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar}
35: \and
36: \author{Susana J. Landau \altaffilmark{1,3,b}}
37: \email{slandau@df.uba.ar}
38: \and
39: \author{H\'ector Vucetich \altaffilmark{1,b}}
40: \email{vucetich@fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar}
41:
42: \altaffiltext{1}{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'{o}micas y
43: Geof\'{\i}sicas. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Paseo del
44: Bosque S/N 1900 La Plata, Argentina}
45: \altaffiltext{2}{Instituto de Astrof{\'\i}sica La Plata}
46: \altaffiltext{3}{Departamento de F{\'\i}sica, FCEyN, Universidad de
47: Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria - Pab. 1, 1428 Buenos Aires,
48: Argentina}
49:
50:
51: \altaffiltext{a}{fellow of CONICET}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{b}{member of the Carrera del Investigador Cient\'{\i}fico y Tecnol\'ogico, CONICET}
54:
55: \keywords{primordial nucleosynthesis, cmb, varying fundamental constants}
56:
57: \begin{abstract}
58: We put limits on the time variation of the electron mass in the early
59: universe using observational primordial abundances of $\De$,
60: $\He$ and $\Li$, recent data from the Cosmic Microwave Background and
61: the 2dFGRS power spectrum. Furthermore, we use these constraints
62: together with other astronomical and geophysical bounds from the late
63: universe to test Barrow-Magueijo's model for the variation in
64: $m_e$. From our analysis we obtain $-0.615 < G\omega/c^4 < -0.045 $ (3$\sigma$
65: interval) in disagreement with the result obtained in the original
66: paper.
67: % from data supporting the weak equivalence principle.
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72: \label{Intro}
73: Time variation of fundamental constants over cosmological time scales
74: is a prediction of theories that attempt to unify all fundamental
75: interactions like string derived field theories
76: \citep{Wu86,Maeda88,Barr88,DP94,DPV2002a,DPV2002b}, related
77: brane-world theories \citep{Youm2001a,Youm2001b,branes03a,branes03b},
78: and Kaluza-Klein theories \citep{Kaluza,Klein,Weinberg83,GT85,OW97}.
79: In order to study the possible variation in the fine structure
80: constant or the electron mass, theoretical frameworks based on first
81: principles, were developed by different authors
82: \citep{Bekenstein82,Bekenstein2002,BSM02,BM05}.
83:
84: The predicted time behaviour of the fundamental constants depends on
85: which version of the theories is considered. Thus, bounds obtained
86: from astronomical and geophysical data are an important tool to test
87: the validity of these theories. In a previous work \citep{Mosquera07},
88: we have analyzed the variation in the fine structure constant in the
89: context of Bekenstein model. In this paper, instead, we study the
90: variation in the electron mass ($m_e$) in the context of the
91: Barrow-Magueijo model \citep{BM05}. Note that $m_e$ is not a
92: fundamental constant in the same sense as the fine structure constant
93: is. Hence, it could be argued that constraints on the time variation of
94: the Higgs vacuum expectation value ($<v>$), rather than $m_e$, are
95: more relevant. Moreover, the possibility of a time variation of the
96: vacuum expectation value of a field seems more plausible than the time
97: variation of a gauge coupling constant. However, in the context of the
98: Barrow-Magueijo model, the relevant fundamental constant is $m_e$ and
99: thus we will focus on its possible variation. The
100: joint variation in the fine structure constant and $<v>$ in the early universe will be
101: analyzed in a forthcoming paper.
102:
103: Constraints on $m_e$ variation over cosmological
104: time scales are available from astronomical and local methods. The
105: latter ones include geophysical methods (analysis of natural
106: long-lived $\beta$ decayers in geological minerals and meteorites) and
107: laboratory measurements (comparisons of different transitions in
108: atomic clocks). The astronomical methods are based mainly in the
109: analysis of spectra from high redshift quasar absorption systems.
110: Bounds on the variation in $m_e$ in the early universe can be obtained
111: using data from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation and
112: from the abundances of light elements. These bounds are not as
113: stringent as the mentioned above but they are important because they
114: refer to a different cosmological epoch.
115:
116: In this paper, we perform a careful study of the time variation of
117: $m_e$ in the early universe. First, we use all available abundances of
118: $\De$, $\He$ and $\Li$, the latest data from the CMB and the 2dFGRS power spectrum to put
119: bounds on the variation in $m_e$ without assuming any theoretical
120: model. Afterward, we use these bounds and others from astronomical
121: and geophysical data, to test Barrow-Magueijo theory.
122:
123: In section \ref{nucleo}, we use the abundances of the light elements
124: to put bounds on $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$, where
125: $\left(m_e\right)_0$ is the present value of $m_e$, allowing the
126: baryon to photon density $\eta_B$ to vary. In section \ref{cmb}, we
127: use the three year WMAP data, other CMB experiments and the power
128: spectrum of the final 2dFGRS to put bounds on the variation in $m_e$
129: during recombination, allowing also other cosmological parameters to
130: vary. In sections \ref{quasars}, \ref{geo} and \ref{clocks} we
131: describe the astronomical and local data from the late universe. In
132: section \ref{modelo}, we describe the Barrow-Magueijo model, and
133: obtain solutions for the scalar field that drives the variation in
134: $m_e$, for the early and late universe. In section \ref{resultados}
135: we show our results. Finally, in section \ref{resumen} we discuss the
136: results and summarize our conclusions.
137:
138: \section{Bounds from BBN}
139: \label{nucleo}
140: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is one of the most important tools to study the early universe. The
141: baryon to photon ratio $\eta_B$ or equivalently
142: the baryon asymmetry $\eta_B \equiv \frac{n_B - n_{\bar{B}}}{n_\gamma}$ can be determined by comparison
143: between theoretical calculations and observations of the abundances of
144: light elements. An independent method for determining $\eta_B$ is
145: provided by data from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
146: \citep{wmapest,wmap3,Sanchez06}. Considering
147: the baryon density from WMAP results, the predicted abundances are
148: highly consistent with the observed $\De$ but not with all $\He$ and
149: $\Li$. Such discrepancy is usually ascribed to non reported
150: systematic errors in the observations of $\He$ and $\Li$. However, if
151: the systematic errors of $\He$ and $\Li$ are correctly estimated, we
152: may have insight into new physics beyond the minimal BBN model.
153:
154: In the currently most popular particle physics models, the lepton and
155: baryon numbers are comparable. In this case, any asymmetry between
156: neutrinos and antineutrinos will not have a noticeable effect on the
157: predictions of BBN. However, observational data do not imply that the
158: lepton asymmetry should be connected to the `tiny' baryon asymmetry
159: $\eta_B$. Moreover, a small asymmetry between electron type
160: neutrinos and antineutrinos can have a significant impact on BBN since the
161: $\nu_e$ affect the inter-conversion of neutrons to protons changing the
162: equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio from $(n/p)^0_{eq}=e^{-\frac{\Delta
163: m}{T}}$ to $(n/p)_{eq}=(n/p)^0_{eq} e^{-\xi_e}$ where $\xi_e $ is the
164: ratio of the neutrino chemical potential to the temperature.
165: Consequently, the $\He$ abundance changes. In contrast, the $\De$
166: abundance is insensitive to $\xi_e \neq 0$. Consistent with the BBN
167: and CMB data, values of $\xi_e$ in the range
168: $-0.1 < \xi_e < 0.3$ are permitted
169: \citep{Barger03,Steigman05,Steigman06}. In this work, however, we
170: assume $\xi_e \simeq 0$ and attribute the discrepancies described
171: above to time-variation of $m_e$ or $<v>$.% constants.
172:
173: We considered available observational data on $\De$, $\He$ and
174: $\Li$. For $\De$, we used the values reported by
175: \citet{pettini,omeara,kirkman,burles1,burles2,Crighton04,omeara06,oliveira06}.
176: For $\He$, the available observations are reported by
177: \citet{PL07,izotov07}.
178: %For $\Het$ there is only one measurement \citep{Bania}.
179: For $\Li$, we considered the results from
180: \citet{ryan,bonifacio1,bonifacio2,bonifacio3,Asplund05,BNS05,bonifacio07}.
181: For the discussion about
182: the consistency data check, we refer the reader to an earlier work
183: \citep{Mosquera07}.
184:
185: We modified numerical code of Kawano \citep{Kawano88,Kawano92} in
186: order to allow $m_e$ to vary. The code was also updated with the
187: reaction rates reported by \citet{Iguri99}. The main effects of the
188: possible variation in $m_e$ in the physics of the first three minutes
189: of the universe are changes in the weak rates, in the sum of electron
190: and positron energy densities, in the sum of electron and positron
191: pressures, and in the difference of electron and positron number
192: densities (see appendix \ref{correccion} for details).
193: %In Table \ref{abundancia-tabla}, we show the primordial abundances of $\De$,
194: %$\He$ and $\Li$, both in the standard model and when the value of $m_e$
195: % at BBN is changed by $10 \%$.
196: If $m_e$ takes a lower value than the present one, the primordial abundances are
197: higher than the standards. The change is more important for $\He$ and
198: $\Li$ abundances, where a variation of $10 \%$ in $m_e$
199: leads to a change of $7.4 \%$ and $8.5 \%$ in the abundances, while the
200: effect on the $\De$ abundance is tiny ($1.5 \%$).
201: %\begin{table}[h!]
202: %\begin{center}
203: %\caption{Primordial abundances of $\De$ (in units of $10^{-5}$), $\He$ and $\Li$
204: %(in units of $10^{-10}$) when $m_e$ or the
205: %Higgs vacuum expectation value is allowed to vary, $\eta_B$ is fixed
206: %at WMAP estimation }
207: %\label{abundancia-tabla}
208: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
209: %\hline
210: %$\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$&$\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}
211: %$&$\De \, [10^{-5}]$ & $\He $ & $\Li\, [10^{-10}]$ \\ \hline
212: %$---$&$---$& $2.569$ &$0.2477$ &$4.514$ \\ \hline\hline
213: %$-0.10$&$---$& $2.595$ &$0.2651$ &$4.937$ \\ \hline
214: %$0.10$&$---$&$2.509$&$0.2283$ &$4.148$ \\ \hline \hline
215: %$---$&$-0.10$&$1.953 $ & $0.1342$ &$2.970$ \\ \hline
216: %$---$&$0.10$&$3.421$ & $0.3589$ &$5.217$ \\ \hline
217: %\end{tabular}
218: %\end{center}
219: %\end{table}
220:
221: We computed the light nuclei abundances for different values
222: of $\eta_B$ and $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ and performed
223: the statistical analysis to obtain the best fit values for these
224: parameters.
225: % twice, once with the high value of $\He$ and the other time with the low value of $\He$.
226: There is no good fit for the whole data
227: set even for $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0} \neq 0$. However,
228: reasonable fits can be found excluding one group of data at each time
229: (see table \ref{me-tabla}). Figures \ref{contnucleo2} and
230: \ref{contnucleo3} show the confidence contours
231: and 1 dimensional Likelihoods for different groups of data.
232: \begin{table}[h!]
233: \begin{center}
234: \caption{Best fit parameter values and $1 \sigma$ errors for the BBN constraints on
235: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ and $\eta_B$ (in units of $10^{-10}$).}
236: \label{me-tabla}
237: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
238: \hline
239: & $\eta_B\pm \sigma $&$\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}\pm
240: \sigma$&$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
241: $\De + \He + \Li$ & $4.237_{-0.097}^{+0.047}$& $-0.036_{-0.007}^{+0.010}$ & 9.33
242: \\ \hline
243: $ \He +\Li $ & $3.648_{-0.124}^{+0.128}$& $-0.055_{-0.008}^{+0.010}$& 1.00
244: \\ \hline
245: $\De + \Li$ & $5.399_{-0.213}^{+0.287}$& $0.653_{-0.045}^{+0.051}$&1.01 \\
246: \hline
247: $\De + \He $ & $6.339_{-0.355}^{+0.376}$ &
248: $-0.022 \pm 0.009$& 1.01 \\ \hline
249: \end{tabular}
250: \end{center}
251: \end{table}
252: %\begin{table}[h!]
253: %\begin{center}
254: %\caption{Best fit parameter values and $1 \sigma$ errors for the BBN constraints on
255: %$\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ and $\eta_B$ (in units of $10^{-10}$) using \citet{olive97}.}
256: %\label{me-tabla2}
257: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
258: %\hline
259: %& $\eta_B\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}\pm \sigma $&$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
260: %$\De + \Het + \He + \Li$ & $4.335^{+0.128}_{-0.050} $& $0.069^{+0.009}_{-0.012} $ & 6.94
261: %\\ \hline
262: %$\Het + \He +\Li $ & $3.864^{+0.090}_{-0.088} $& $0.046^{+0.012}_{-0.011}$& 0.83
263: % \\ \hline
264: % $\De + \Het + \He $ & $6.267^{+0.410}_{-0.351} $ &
265: %$0.071^{+0.012}_{-0.011} $& 0.78 \\ \hline
266: %\end{tabular}
267: %\end{center}
268: %\end{table}
269: \begin{figure}[h!]
270: \begin{center}
271: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig1a.eps}
272: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig1b.eps}
273: \end{center}
274: \caption{$1 \sigma$, $2 \sigma$ and $3 \sigma$ likelihood contours for
275: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ vs $\eta_B$ and 1 dimensional Likelihood
276: using $\He +\Li$ data (left) and all data (right) }
277: \label{contnucleo2}
278: \end{figure}
279: \begin{figure}[h!]
280: \begin{center}
281: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig2a.eps}
282: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig2b.eps}
283: \end{center}
284: \caption{$1 \sigma$, $2 \sigma$ and $3 \sigma$ likelihood contours for
285: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ vs $\eta_B$ and 1 dimensional
286: Likelihood using $\De + \Li$ data (left) and $ \De + \He $ (right)}
287: \label{contnucleo3}
288: \end{figure}
289: We obtained that for $\De + \He$ the value
290: of $\eta_B$ is coincident with WMAP estimation and there is no
291: variation in $m_e$ within $3 \sigma$. Moreover, the other groups of data prefer values far from WMAP
292: estimation, and for $\De + \Li$, the result is consistent with
293: variation in $m_e$ within $6 \sigma$.
294:
295: As pointed out in the introduction, in the standard model, $\De$,
296: $\He$ and $\Li$ abundances considered separately predict very different values for the baryon
297: density. Therefore, when the three abundances are fitted together, an
298: intermediate value of $\eta_B$ is obtained, but the value of $\chi^2$
299: is too high. Only when two abundances are considered, we obtain a
300: reasonable fit. Furthermore, a high variation in $m_e$
301: which affects mostly the $\Li$ abundance is needed to fit $\De$ and
302: $\Li$ together. On the other hand, $\De$ and $\He$ are marginally
303: consistent with WMAP estimation and therefore no variation in $m_e$ is
304: needed to fit both data at the same time. Finally, in order to fit the
305: abundances of $\He$ and $\Li$, a variation in $m_e$ is needed since
306: both quantities are affected when $m_e$ is allowed to vary.
307: %If we consider the low values of $\He$, the results
308: %vary in the sign of the variation but all results are consistent with
309: %no variation of $m_e$ within $6 \sigma$. Finally, it is important to mention
310: %that the results obtained considering all data but $\Het$ (for both
311: %groups of data) are equal to the results obtained considering all data.
312: %
313: %Therefore, in order to test Barrow-Magueijo model, we consider two
314: %cases:
315: %\begin{enumerate}
316: %\item [1)] result obtained using $\De$ +$\Het$ + $\He$ and the
317: %value of \citet{PL07,izotov07} for $\He$,
318: %
319: %\item [2)] result obtained using $\De$ +$\Het$ +
320: %$\He$ and the value of \citet{olive97} for $\He$.
321: %\end{enumerate}
322:
323: As mentioned in the introduction, in this paper we limit ourselves to
324: the context of the Barrow-Magueijo model of a varying $m_e$. However,
325: in more general classes of theories (Kaluza-Klein,
326: Strings, GUTs, etc), the underlying fundamental constant is the Higgs
327: vacuum expectation value. The dependence of the primordial abundances
328: on the Higgs vacuum expectation value has been analyzed by
329: \citet{YS03}. Semi-analytical analysis have been performed by some of
330: us in earlier works \citep{Chamoun07}. Besides changes in $m_e$, a
331: possible variation in $<v>$ modifies the values of the
332: following quantities: the Fermi constant $G_F$, the neutron-proton
333: mass difference $\Delta m_{np}$, and the deuterium binding energy
334: $\epsilon_D$ . The dependence of these quantities with $<v>$ have been
335: described in an earlier work \citep{Chamoun07} (see appendix
336: \ref{correccion} for details). We modified numerical code of Kawano in
337: order to allow $<v>$ to vary.
338: %Table \ref{abundancia-tabla} shows the primordial abundances of
339: %$\De$, $\He$ and $\Li$, both in the standard model and when the value
340: %of $<v>$ at BBN is changed by $10 \%$.
341: The abundances of the primordial elements are much higher than the
342: standard value if the Higgs vacuum expectation value during BBN is
343: larger than the current value. %From table \ref{abundancia-tabla} it follows that a
344: A variation of $10 \%$ in $<v>$ leads to a change of $45
345: \%$, $25 \%$ and $29 \%$ in the $\He$, $\Li$ and $\De$ abundances
346: respectively. Since $\De$ is a residual of $\He$ production, a great
347: change in $\He$ also leads to an important change in $\De$. The
348: changes in the abundances are greater than in the case where only $m_e$ is allowed to vary.
349:
350: In the case of $<v>$ , we performed the same analysis for the same
351: groups of data we considered for $m_e$. As in the case of $m_e$,
352: variation there is no good fit for the whole set of data. However,
353: reasonable fits can be found excluding one group of data at each time
354: (see table \ref{v-table}). Figure \ref{contnucleo4} shows the
355: confidence contours and 1 dimensional Likelihoods for different groups
356: of data.
357: \begin{table}[h!]
358: \begin{center}
359: \caption{Best fit parameter values and $1 \sigma$ errors for the BBN constraints on
360: $\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}$ and $\eta_B$ (in units of $10^{-10}$).}
361: \label{v-table}
362: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
363: \hline
364: & $\eta_B\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
365: $\De + \He + \Li$& $4.275 \pm 0.097 $& $0.006\pm 0.002$ & 9.27 \\ \hline
366: $\He+\Li$ & $3.723^{+0.132}_{-0.124}$& $0.008\pm 0.001$& 1.00 \\ \hline
367: $\De+\Li$ & $5.139_{-0.231}^{+0.242} $& $-0.138_{-0.009}^{+0.015}$& 1.01 \\ \hline
368: $\De+\He$& $6.324_{-0.285}^{+0.374}$ & $0.004 \pm 0.002$& 1.04 \\ \hline
369: %& $\eta_B\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
370: % $\De + \Het + \He + \Li$& $4.355_{-0.100}^{+0.063} $& $0.075\pm 0.040$ & 6.69 \\ \hline
371: % $\Het+\He+\Li$ & $4.000^{+0.120}_{-0.080}$& $0.085^{+0.020}_{-0.023}$& 3.20 \\ \hline
372: % $\De+\Het+\Li$ & $4.753_{-0.514}^{+0.253} $& $-0.359_{-0.010}^{+0.012}$& 1.02 \\ \hline
373: % $\De+\Het+\He$& $6.413_{-0.324}^{+0.418}$ & $0.105_{-0.068}^{+0.061}$& 1.01 \\ \hline
374: \end{tabular}
375: \end{center}
376: \end{table}
377: %\begin{table}[h!]
378: %\begin{center}
379: %\caption{Best fit parameter values and $1 \sigma$ errors for the BBN constraints on
380: %$\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}$ and $\eta_B$ (in units of $10^{-10}$) using \citet{olive97}.}
381: %\label{v-tableol}
382: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
383: %\hline
384: %& $\eta_B\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}\pm \sigma$&$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
385: % $\De + \Het + \He + \Li$& $4.236_{-0.048}^{+0.100} $& $-0.095_{-0.009}^{+0.012}$ & 7.63\\ \hline
386: % $\Het+\He+\Li$ & $3.819^{+0.136}_{-0.129}$& $-0.076^{+0.015}_{-0.011}$& 1.01 \\ \hline
387: % $\De+\Het+\He$& $6.268_{-0.487}^{+0.448}$ & $0.357_{-0.020}^{+0.019}$& 0.88\\ \hline
388: %\end{tabular}
389: %\end{center}
390: %\end{table}
391:
392: %Considering the high values of $\He$,
393: We obtain that for $\De + \He$ the value of $\eta_B$ is consistent
394: with WMAP estimation and there is no
395: variation in $<v>$ within $3 \sigma$. Moreover, the other groups of
396: data prefer values not consistent with WMAP results. For $\De + \Li$,
397: the result is consistent with variation in $<v>$ within $6 \sigma$.
398: The results are similar to those obtained in the case where $m_e$ is
399: the varying constant: % in that we obtain
400: i) no reasonable fit for the three
401: abundances; ii) $\De$ and $\He$ can be well fitted with null $<v>$
402: variation; iii) $\De$ and $\Li$ need a huge variation in order to
403: obtain a reasonable fit. However, the bounds on variation in $<v>$ are
404: more stringent than the bounds obtained when only $m_e$ was
405: allowed to vary (see table \ref{me-tabla}). This could be explained
406: since variations in $<v>$ lead to greater changes in the theoretical
407: abundances than variation in $m_e$. %(see table \ref{abundancia-tabla}).
408: %If we consider the low values of $\He$, we find that
409: %the only group of data that provides a value of the baryon density
410: %consistent with the WMAP results is $\De +\Het +\He$ and the result shows variation of
411: %$<v>$ within $10 \sigma$.
412: \begin{figure}[h!]
413: \begin{center}
414: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig3a.eps}
415: \includegraphics[scale=0.57,angle=0]{fig3b.eps}
416: \end{center}
417: \caption{$1 \sigma$, $2 \sigma$ and $3 \sigma$ likelihood contours for
418: $\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}$ vs $\eta_B$ and 1 dimensional
419: Likelihood using $\De + \Li$ (left) and $\De + \He$ (right)}
420: %data of \citet{izotov07,PL07} (left) and \citet{olive97} (right)}
421: \label{contnucleo4}
422: \end{figure}
423:
424: \section{Bounds from CMB}
425: \label{cmb}
426: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation provides valuable
427: information about the physical conditions of the universe just before
428: decoupling of matter and radiation, and thanks to its dependence upon
429: cosmological parameters, it allows their estimation. Any change in
430: the value of $m_e$ affects the physics during
431: recombination, mainly the redshift of this epoch, due to a shift in
432: the energy levels and in particular, the binding energy of hydrogen.
433: The Thompson scattering cross section, which is proportional to
434: $m_e^{-2}$, is also changed for all particles. Therefore, the CMB
435: power spectrum is modified by a change in the relative amplitudes of
436: the Doppler peaks, and shifts in their positions (see appendix
437: \ref{apendice_recombinacion} for details). Changes in the
438: cosmological parameters produce similar effects. In
439: the recombination scenario, the only effect of varying $<v>$ is a
440: change in the value of $m_e$. Previous analysis of the
441: CMB data including a possible variation in $m_e$ have been performed by
442: \citet{YS03,KS00}. In this paper, we use the WMAP 3-year temperature
443: and temperature-polarization power spectrum \citep{wmap3}, and other
444: CMB experiments such as CBI \citep{CBI04}, ACBAR \citep{ACBAR02}, and
445: BOOMERANG \citep{BOOM05_polar,BOOM05_temp}, and the power spectrum of
446: the 2dFGRS \citep{2dF05}. We consider a spatially-flat cosmological
447: model with adiabatic density fluctuations. The parameters of our model
448: are:
449: \begin{equation}
450: P=(\Omega_B h^2, \Omega_{CDM} h^2, \Theta, \tau_{re}, \frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}, n_s, A_s)
451: \end{equation}
452: where $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ is the dark matter density in units of the
453: critical density, $\Theta$ gives the ratio of the comoving sound
454: horizon at decoupling to the angular diameter distance to the surface
455: of last scattering, $\tau_{re}$ is the reionization optical depth, $n_s$
456: the scalar spectral index and $A_s$ is the amplitude of the density
457: fluctuations.
458:
459: We use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to explore the parameter
460: space because the exploration of a multidimensional parameter space
461: with a grid of points is computationally prohibitive. We use the
462: public available CosmoMC code of \citet{LB02} which uses CAMB
463: \citep{LCL00} and RECFAST \citep{recfast} to compute the CMB power
464: spectra, and we have modified them in order to include the possible
465: variation in $m_e$ at recombination. We ran eight different chains. We
466: used the convergence criterion of \citet{Raftery&Lewis} to stop the
467: chains when $R-1 < 0.0044$ (more stringent than the usually adopted
468: value). Results are shown in table \ref{tablacmb} and figure
469: \ref{resulcmb}. Figure \ref{resulcmb} shows a strong degeneracy
470: between $m_e$ and $\Theta$, which is directly related to $H_0$, and
471: also between $m_e$ and $\Omega_B h^2$, and $m_e$ and $\Omega_{CDM}
472: h^2$.
473: \begin{table}
474: \begin{center}
475: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
476: \caption{Mean values and errors for the main and derived parameters including $m_e$ variation
477: ($H_0$ is in units of $\rm km \, \, s^{-1} \, \, Mpc^{-1} $).}
478: \label{tablacmb}
479: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
480: %\hline
481: \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
482: Parameter & Mean value and $1\sigma$ error &&Parameter & Mean value and $1\sigma$ error\\
483: \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
484: $\Omega_B h^2$ & $0.0217 \pm 0.0010$&&%$_{-0.0010}^{+0.0010}$ &&
485: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ & $ 0.1006_{-0.0086}^{+0.0085}$
486: \\
487: \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
488: $\Theta$ & $1.020\pm 0.025$&&%$_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ &&
489: $\tau_{re}$ & $0.091_{-0.014}^{+0.013}$
490: \\
491: \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
492: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ & $-0.029\pm 0.034$&&%$_{-0.034 }^{+0.034}$ &&
493: $n_s$ & $0.960\pm 0.015$%$_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$
494: \\
495: \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
496: $A_s$ & $3.020\pm 0.064$&&%$_{-0.064}^{+0.064}$ &&
497: $H_0$ & $ 68.1_{- 6.0}^{+ 5.9}$
498: \\
499: \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
500: \end{tabular}
501: \end{center}
502: \end{table}
503:
504: \begin{figure}[h!]
505: \begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=-90]{fig4.eps}
506: %\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=-90]{plot_emasa_v30_ByN_paper.eps}
507: \end{center}
508: \caption{Marginalized posterior distributions obtained with CMB data,
509: including the WMAP 3-year data release plus 2dFGRS power
510: spectrum. The diagonal shows the posterior distributions for
511: individual parameters, the other panels shows the 2D contours for
512: pairs of parameters, marginalizing over the others.}
513: \label{resulcmb}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: We have also performed the analysis considering only CMB data. The
517: strong degeneracy between $m_e$ and $H_0$ made the chains cover all
518: the wide $H_0$ prior, making it impossible to find reliable mean
519: values and errors. Hence, we added a gaussian prior to $H_0$, which
520: was obtained from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project
521: \citep{hst01}, and chose the values of the mean and errors as those
522: inferred from the closest objects in that paper, so we could neglect
523: any possible difference between the value of $m_e$ at that redshift
524: and the present value. In this way, we post-processed the chains and
525: found limits that are consistent with those of the first analysis,
526: revealing the robustness of these bounds. However, the most stringent
527: constraints were obtained in the first analysis (see figure
528: \ref{individuales}).
529: %In this way, we post-processed the chains, but
530: %when comparing with the results presented above, we found that the
531: %most stringent constraints were obtained in the first analysis (see
532: %figure \ref{individuales}).
533: \begin{figure}[h!]
534: \begin{center}
535: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{fig5a.eps}
536: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{fig5b.eps}
537: \end{center}
538: \caption{1$\sigma$, and 2$\sigma$ confidence levels contours obtained with CMB
539: data with and without data of the 2dFGRS power spectrum.}
540: %the 2dFGRS power spectrum.
541: %Likelihood contours obtained with CMB data with and without data of
542: %the 2dFGRS power spectrum.
543: \label{individuales}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546: Finally, we comment that {\it Planck} will be the first mission
547: to map the entire CMB sky with mJy sensitivity and resolution better
548: than 10' \citep{Planck06}. Such resolution
549: will allow to see into the damping tail of the anisotropy spectrum,
550: around the third and fourth peaks, with a precision almost only
551: limited by cosmic variance \citep{White06}. This will enable a
552: very precise estimation of the baryon-to-photon ratio from the
553: relative height of the peaks in the spectrum.
554: %referencia para el satelite Planck: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=Planck
555:
556: \section{Bounds from Quasar Absorption Systems}
557: \label{quasars}
558: Quasar absorption systems present ideal laboratories to search for any
559: temporal variation of the fundamental constants over cosmological time
560: scales. In particular, a method for constraining the variation in $\mu
561: =\frac{m_p}{m_e}$ was developed by \citet{VL93}. It is based on the
562: fact that wavelengths of electron-vibro-rotational lines depend on the
563: reduced mass of the molecules, with different dependence for different
564: transitions. In such way, it is possible to distinguish the
565: cosmological redshift of a line from the shift caused by a variation
566: in $\mu$. The rest-frame laboratory wavelength, $\lambda_i^0$, can be
567: related to those in the quasar absorption system, $\lambda_i$, as
568: $\frac{\lambda_i}{\lambda_i^0} = (1 + z_{abs}) (1 + K_i \frac{\Delta
569: \mu}{\mu})$, where $z_{abs}$ is the absorption redshift and $K_i$ is
570: the coefficient which determines the sensitivity of the wavelength
571: $\lambda_i$. Using observations from ${\rm H}_2$ absorption systems at
572: high redshift and laboratory measurements, several authors obtained
573: constraints on $\mu$ \citep{P98,LE02,Ivanchik03,Ivanchik05}. The most
574: up-to-date available measurements for each redshift are listed in
575: table \ref{molecular} and will be considered to test Barrow-Magueijo
576: model.
577: \begin{table}[h!]
578: \begin{center}
579: \caption{The table shows the absorption redshift, the value of
580: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ with its
581: corresponding error (in units of $10^{-5}$),
582: and the reference obtained comparing molecular and laboratory wavelengths.}
583: \label{molecular}
584: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
585: \hline
586: Redshift & $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}\pm
587: \sigma$ & Reference \\
588: \hline
589: 2.8 & $-6.25 \pm 13.70 $ & \citet{P98}\\\hline
590: 3.02 & $-1.40 \pm 0.83 $ & \citet{Ivanchik05}\\\hline
591: 2.6 & $ -2.11 \pm 1.39$ & \citet{Ivanchik05} \\\hline
592: \end{tabular}
593: \end{center}
594: \end{table}
595:
596: Another method for constraining variation in fundamental constants is
597: based on the comparison between the hyperfine 21 cm absorption
598: transition of neutral hydrogen $(\nu _a)$ and an optical resonance
599: transition $(\nu _b)$. The ratio $\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_b}$ is proportional
600: to $x=\alpha ^2g_p\frac{m_e}{m_p}$ where $g_p$ is the proton $g$
601: factor \citep{Tzana07}. Thus, a change of this quantity will result in
602: a difference in the redshift measured from 21 cm and optical
603: absorption lines as $\frac{\Delta
604: x}x=\frac{z_{opt}-z_{21}}{\left(1+z_{21}\right) }$. Since we are
605: working in the context of the \citet{BM05} model, the only fundamental
606: constant which is allowed to vary is $m_e$. Table \ref{opticoradio}
607: shows the bounds obtained by \citet{Tzana07} combining the
608: measurements of optical and radio redshift. This method has the
609: inconvenience that it is difficult to determine if both radio and
610: optical lines were originated at the same absorption system. Thus, a
611: difference in the velocity of the absorption clouds could hide a
612: variation in $x$.
613: \begin{table}[h!]
614: \begin{center}
615: \caption{The table shows the absorption redshift, the value of
616: $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ with its
617: corresponding error (in units of $10^{-5}$), obtained comparing radio
618: and molecular redshifts \citep{Tzana07}.}
619: \label{opticoradio}
620: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
621: \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
622: Redshift & $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}\pm \sigma$
623: &&Redshift & $\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}\pm \sigma$ \\
624: \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
625: 0.24 & $1.21 \pm 2.10$ && 1.78 & $ -2.59 \pm 0.90$ \\ \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
626: 0.31 & $-0.61 \pm 4.27$ && 1.94 & $ 3.30 \pm 0.44$ \\ \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
627: 0.40 & $ 3.22 \pm 3.15$ && 2.04 & $ 5.20 \pm 2.76$ \\ \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
628: 0.52 & $-2.95 \pm 1.05 $ && 2.35 & $ -2.54 \pm 1.82$ \\ \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
629: 0.52 & $ 0.26 \pm 3.67 $ \\\cline{1-2}
630: \end{tabular}
631: \end{center}
632: \end{table}
633:
634: \section{Bounds from Geophysical Data}
635: \label{geo}
636: The half-life of long-lived $\beta $ decayers has been determined
637: either in laboratory measurements or by comparison with the age of
638: meteorites, as found from $\alpha $ decay radioactivity analysis.
639: The most stringent bound on the variation in the half life, $\lambda$,
640: proceeds from the comparison of $^{187}\rm{Re}$ decay in the Solar
641: System formation and the present \citep{Olive04b}:
642: $\frac{\Delta \lambda}{\lambda} = (-0.016 \pm 0.016) $.
643: \citet{SV90} derived a relation between the
644: shift in the half-life of long lived $\beta $ decayers and a possible
645: variation between the values of the fundamental constants values now.
646: In this paper, we only consider $m_e$ variation and
647: therefore $ \frac{\Delta
648: \lambda}{\lambda} = a \frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$, where $a=-600$ for $^{187}\rm{Re}$.
649:
650: \section{Bounds from Laboratory}
651: \label{clocks}
652: Comparison between frequencies of different atomic transitions over
653: time are useful tools to put stringent bounds on the variation in
654: fundamental constants at present. In particular, the hyperfine
655: frequency of cesium can be approximated by $\nu_{{\rm Cs}} \simeq g_{{\rm Cs}}
656: \frac{m_e}{m_p} \alpha^2 R_y F_{{\rm Cs}} (\alpha)$ (where $g_{{\rm Cs}}$ is the
657: nuclear $g$ factor, $R_y$ is the Rydberg constant expressed as a
658: frequency and $F_{{\rm Cs}}(\alpha)$ is a dimensionless function of
659: $\alpha$ and does not depend on $m_e$ at least at first order), while
660: optical transition frequencies can be expressed as
661: $\nu_{opt} \simeq R_y F(\alpha)$. %where $F(\alpha)$ does not depend on $m_e$ at least at first order.
662: Several authors \citep{Bize03,Fischer04,Peik04} have measured different optical
663: transitions and compared them with the frequency of the ground state
664: hyperfine splitting in neutral $^{133}{\rm Cs}$. These measurements can be
665: used to constrain the variation in $\frac{\dot m_e}
666: {\left(m_e\right)_0}$. Constraints from different experiments are
667: listed in table \ref{table-clocks}.
668: \begin{table}[h!]
669: \begin{center}
670: \caption{The table shows the compared clocks, the value of
671: $\frac{\dot m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}$ with its corresponding error
672: (in units of $10^{-15}$), the time interval for which the variation was measured and the reference.}
673: \label{table-clocks}
674: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
675: \hline
676: Frequencies & $\frac{\dot m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0} \pm \sigma
677: \left[10^{-15} \rm{yr}^{-1}\right]$ &
678: $\Delta t [\rm{yr}]$& Reference \\ \hline
679: Hg$^{+}$ and Cs & $ 0.2 \pm 7.0 $ & 5 & \citet{Fischer04}\\\hline
680: Yb$^+$ and Cs & $1.2 \pm 4.4 $ & 2.8 & \citet{Peik04}\\\hline
681: Hg$^+$ and Cs & $ 0 \pm 7 $ & 2 & \citet{Bize03} \\\hline
682: \end{tabular}
683: \end{center}
684: \end{table}
685:
686: \section{The Model}
687: \label{modelo}
688: We now analyze the Barrow-Magueijo model for the variation in
689: $m_e$. We solve the equation of the scalar field $(\phi)$ that drives
690: the variation in $m_e$ in this model. We consider that the variations
691: in $\phi$ are small and they do not produce significants contributions to
692: the Friedmann equation. As we did in a previous work
693: \citep{Mosquera07}, we build a piecewise approximate solution by
694: joining solutions obtained by keeping only some terms of the Friedmann
695: equation, relevant in the following domination regimes: a) radiation
696: and matter, and b) matter and cosmological constant. In such way,
697: solution a) can be applied to nucleosynthesis and recombination of
698: primordial hydrogen whereas solution b) is appropriate for quasar
699: absorption systems, geophysical data and atomic clocks.
700:
701: Defining the variable $\vartheta$ as $\rm{d}\vartheta=
702: d\tau/$$a$, where $\tau=H_0 t$, and $t$ is the cosmic time, the
703: expression for the scale factor in the radiation and matter regime is:
704: \begin{eqnarray}
705: \label{adeambos}
706: a_{RM}(\vartheta) &=&\frac{ \Omega_m}{4} \vartheta^2 + \sqrt{\Omega_r} \vartheta
707: \end{eqnarray}
708: and the relationship between $\tau$ and $\vartheta$ is:
709: \begin{eqnarray}
710: \label{tdeambos}
711: \tau(\vartheta)&=&\frac{\Omega_m}{12} \vartheta^3
712: +\frac{ \sqrt{\Omega_r}}{2}\vartheta^2
713: \end{eqnarray}
714:
715: The solution for the scale factor in the matter and cosmological
716: constant regime can be written as:
717: \begin{eqnarray}
718: \label{amyc} a_{MC}(\tau) &=& \left(
719: \frac{\Omega_m}{\Omega_\Lambda}\right)^{1/3} \left[ {\rm sinh}
720: \left( \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda} \left(\tau-\tau_0 \right)+
721: \sinh^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{\Omega_\Lambda}{\Omega_m}}
722: \right)\right]^{2/3}
723: \end{eqnarray}
724: where $\tau_0= H_0t_0$, and $t_0$ is the age of the universe. To
725: obtain the last solution we have considered that the scale factor
726: must be a continuous and smooth function of time.
727:
728: In the Barrow-Magueijo model, $m_e$ is controlled by a
729: dilaton field $\phi$ defined by $m_e=(m_e)_0\exp (\phi)$, and variations
730: in $m_e$ occur no sooner the universe cools down below $m_e$
731: threshold. The minimal dynamics for $\phi$ is set by the
732: kinetic Lagrangian
733: \begin{equation}
734: \mathcal{L}_{\phi }={\frac{\omega }{2}}\partial _{\mu }\phi \partial ^{\mu
735: }\phi
736: \end{equation}
737: where $\omega$ is a coupling constant. From this Lagrangian, the
738: equation of motion of the scalar field can be derived as:
739: \begin{equation}
740: (\dot{\phi}a^{3}\dot{)}=-M\exp [\phi ] \label{eqM}
741: \end{equation}
742: with $M\simeq \rho_{e0}a_0^3 c^4 /\omega$. This is a second order
743: equation for $\phi$, with the boundary condition $\phi_0=0$. If the
744: mass variations are small, $e^\phi \simeq 1$ can be set to obtain an
745: analytical expression for $\phi$.
746: %, and the equation can be integrated. In solving this equation, we do not set to
747: %zero the first integration constant, which will be called $A$ in the
748: %rest of the paper, so the model has two independent parameters to be
749: %constrained by the observational and experimental bounds on the value
750: %of $\Delta m_e/(m_e)_0$ at different cosmic times described in the
751: %previous sections.
752:
753: For convenience, we define $\beta= \frac{1}{4} \OmegaM
754: \OmegaR^{-1/2}$, $\xi= \OmegaM \OmegaR^{-3/4}\OmegaL^{-1/4}$,
755: $\gamma=\OmegaL^{1/2}\OmegaM^{-1/2}$ and
756: \begin{eqnarray}
757: f(\xi) &=& \frac{2+(\xi-2)\sqrt{1+\xi}}{\xi^2} \nonumber \\
758: C &=& \sinh^{-1}{\xi^{-1/2} - f(\xi)}
759: \end{eqnarray}
760: Provided $\phi= \ln (m_e/(m_e)_0)\simeq \Delta m_e/(m_e)_0$, the
761: expressions for the variation in $m_e$ in the two regimes
762: are:
763: \begin{itemize}
764: \item for $\tau<\tau_1$ (where $\tau_1$ is defined by
765: $a_{RM}(\tau_1)=a_{MC}(\tau_1)=\left(\frac{\Omega_r}{\Omega_\Lambda}\right)^{1/4}$, see
766: \citet{Mosquera07}):
767: \begin{eqnarray}
768: \frac{\Delta m_e}{(m_e)_0}(\vartheta)&=& \frac{2}{3} \frac{M}{H_0^2}
769: \frac{1}{\OmegaM}\left[ -2 \ln \left(\frac{2(\beta \vartheta + 1)}{1+\sqrt{1+\xi}} \right)
770: +\frac{1}{\beta\vartheta +1} -\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1+\xi}} +
771: \frac{2}{3}f(\xi)\sqrt{1+\xi}\right. \nonumber \\
772: && \hskip 2cm\left. +\frac{1}{4}\ln \left(\frac{\OmegaL}{\OmegaR}\right)
773: -\frac{2}{3} \left( \sinh^{-1}\gamma - C \right)
774: \frac{\sqrt{1+\gamma^2}}{\gamma} \right] \nonumber \\
775: &&+ \frac{A}{H_0}
776: \frac{\OmegaM}{\OmegaR^{3/2}} \left[ \frac{1}{2}\ln
777: \left(\frac{\beta \vartheta +1}{\beta \vartheta}\right)
778: + \frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+\xi} -1}{\sqrt{1+\xi} +1}\right)
779: -\frac{1}{4\beta \vartheta} -\frac{1}{4(\beta \vartheta +1)}
780: \right. \nonumber \\
781: &&\hskip 2cm \left. + \frac{\left( \xi - \frac{2}{3}\right)\sqrt{1+\xi} +
782: \frac{2}{3}\frac{\sqrt{1+\gamma^2}}{\gamma}}{\xi^2} \right]
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: The relationship between $\tau$ and $\vartheta$ is given by Eq.(\ref{tdeambos}).
785: \item for $\tau>\tau_1$
786: \begin{eqnarray}
787: \frac{\Delta m_e}{(m_e)_0}(\tau) &= &\phi_0 +
788: \frac{M}{H_0^2}\, \frac{2}{3\OmegaM}\left[ \sqrt{\OmegaL} \tau \coth
789: \left( C + \frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\OmegaL}\tau \right) - \frac{2}{3} \ln \left[\sinh \left( C +
790: \frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\OmegaL}\tau \right) \right] \right.
791: \nonumber\\
792: && \hskip 2.5cm\left. + \frac{2}{3} \left(
793: \ln\gamma - \frac{\sqrt{1 + \gamma^2}}{\gamma} \left[ C + \ln
794: \left(\gamma + \sqrt{1+\gamma^2}\right) \right]\right) \right] +
795: \nonumber\\
796: && +
797: \frac{A}{H_0}\,\frac{2\sqrt{\OmegaL}}{3\OmegaM}\left[-\coth\left(C +
798: \frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\OmegaL}\tau \right) + \frac{\sqrt{1 +
799: \gamma^2}}{\gamma} \right]
800: \end{eqnarray}
801: \end{itemize}
802: where $A$ is an integration constant.%, as said before.
803:
804: \section{Results}
805: \label{resultados}
806: The model described in section \ref{modelo} predicts the variation in
807: $m_e$ as a function of time, and has two independent
808: dimensionless parameters $M/H_0^2$ and $A/H_0$. We do not fix $A/H_0$
809: to zero as previous works did \citep{BM05}. To constrain these
810: parameters, we use the data described in the previous sections. We
811: perform a $\chi^2$ test to obtain the best fit parameters of the
812: model. In order to obtain the parameters consistently with our
813: assumption that the energy density of the field $\phi$
814: $\left(\epsilon_\phi = \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\omega}{2}\dot
815: \phi^2\right)$ can be neglected in the Friedmann equation, we add to
816: the $\chi^2$ expression, a term that controls that the contribution of
817: $\phi$ to the Friedmann equation will be less important that the
818: radiation term, right after $m_e$ threshold is crossed.
819: %In section \ref{nucleo} we obtained two distinct constraints for the BBN
820: %epoch, therefore, we decided to perform two statistical analysis.
821: The result of the statistical analysis shows that there is no good
822: fit for the whole data set. We repeat the
823: analysis excluding one group of data at each time. We found that
824: reasonable fits can be obtained excluding the quasar at $z=1.94$ of table
825: \ref{opticoradio} and that the data from nucleosynthesis is crucial to
826: determine the value of $A/H_0$. Besides, the group of data from table
827: \ref{molecular} is important to determine the value of $M/H_0^2$.
828: The results are shown in table \ref{table-results}.
829: %The best fit values are nearly the same for $M/H_0^2$ in each case, but are very
830: %different for the $A/H_0$ parameter, since this parameter dominates
831: %the behavior at early times.
832: \begin{table}[h!]
833: \caption{The table shows the best fit parameters of the model %, for the two distinct cases
834: (excluding entry 7 of table \ref{opticoradio}). The value for the
835: $M/H_0^2$ parameter is in units of $10^{-6}$, and the value for
836: the $A/H_0$ parameter is in units of $10^{-13}$.}
837: \begin{center}
838: \label{table-results}
839: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
840: %\hline
841: % parameter & $G\omega /c^4$ & $M/H_0^2 $ & $A/H_0$ & $\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
842: %case 1 & $-0.336_{-0.093}^{+0.097}$ & $-7.30_{-2.02}^{+2.10}$ &
843: % $3.60_{-1.50}^{+1.44}$ & 1.14 \\ \hline
844: %case 2 & $-0.327_{-0.089}^{+0.082}$ & $-7.50_{-2.03}^{+1.88}$ &
845: % $-11.3_{-1.86}^{+1.77}$ & 1.17 \\ \hline
846: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
847: \hline
848: $M/H_0^2 $ & $A/H_0$ & $G\omega /c^4$ &$\frac{\chi^2_{min}}{N-2}$ \\ \hline
849: $-7.30_{-2.02}^{+2.10}$ &
850: $3.60_{-1.50}^{+1.44}$ & $-0.336_{-0.093}^{+0.097}$ & 1.14 \\ \hline
851: \end{tabular}
852: \end{center}
853: \end{table}
854:
855: Since the Barrow-Magueijo model is written in terms of the coupling constant
856: $\omega$, we derive its best value from the previous constraints.
857: Since $M\simeq \rho_{e0}a_0^3 c^4/\omega$ %, and taking $a_0=1$,
858: we obtain the following relationship:
859: \begin{equation}
860: \frac{G \omega}{c^4}= \frac{3}{8\pi} \ \left(1 - \frac{f_{{\rm He}}}{2}\right)\ \Omega_b\ \frac{m_e}{m_p}
861: \ \left(\frac{M}{H_0^2}\right)^{-1}
862: \end{equation}
863: where $f_{{\rm He}}$ is the fraction of the total number of baryons in the
864: form of ${\rm He}$, and can be written as a function of the total observed
865: mass abundance of ${\rm He}$ ($M_{{\rm He}}/M_{\rm H}$). According to the values of $M/H_0^2$ from table
866: \ref{table-results} and using $f_{{\rm He}}=0.19$ (taking
867: $M_{{\rm He}}/M_{\rm H}=0.24$), we obtain the bounds on the dimensionless quantity
868: $\frac{G \omega}{c^4}$ presented in table \ref{table-results}.
869:
870: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
871: \label{resumen}
872: In this paper, we have put limits on the time variation in the
873: electron mass at primordial nucleosynthesis time using observational
874: primordial abundances of $\De$, $\He$ and $\Li$, and we have
875: analyzed in detail the consequences of considering different groups of
876: data. We have also considered the variations in $<v>$ during BBN and
877: analyzed the differences with the variations in $m_e$ during the same epoch.
878: Additionally, we have used the three year data from the Cosmic
879: Microwave Background and the final 2dFGRS power spectrum to obtain
880: bounds on the variation in $m_e$ at recombination, and an
881: estimation of the cosmological parameters. Together with other bounds
882: on the variation in the late universe, that come from quasar
883: absorption systems, half-life of long-lived $\beta$ decayers, and
884: atomic clocks, we put constraints on the Barrow-Magueijo model for the
885: variation in $m_e$. We have improved the solutions by
886: taking into account the detailed evolution of the scale factor and
887: the complete solution for the scalar field that drives the variation
888: in $m_e$.
889:
890: In the original paper \citep{BM05} some approximations in the evolution of the
891: scale factor are assumed with the consequent simplification in the
892: solution for the scalar field. Another improvement of our derivation
893: is that we have not neglected the first integration constant, which is
894: the most contributing part in the early universe. In fact, integrating
895: Eq.(\ref{eqM}) once, we can write:
896: \begin{equation}
897: \dot{\phi}a^{3}=-M\left( t - \frac{A}{M}\right) %= -M\left( t +6.32\times10^{-8} H_0^{-1}\right)
898: =-M\left( t + 8.47\times 10^{2} {\rm yr} \right) \label{eqM2}
899: %\dot{\phi}a^{3}=-\frac{M}{H_0^2}\left(H_0^2 t -H_0 \frac{A/H_0}{M/H_0^2}\right)
900: %=-\frac{M}{H_0^2}\left( t + 8.47\times 10^{2} {\rm yr} \right) \label{eqM2}
901: \end{equation}
902: where we have used the best fit values for the parameters $M/H_0^2$
903: and $A/H_0$, and $h=0.73$. Note that the second term in the right hand
904: side of Eq.(\ref{eqM2}) is dominant in the early universe, in
905: particular, during nucleosynthesis.
906:
907: \citet{BM05} presented a bound of $ G|\omega| > 0.2$ (with $c=1$). They
908: obtained such constraint using bounds from quasars at $z\sim 1$, whereas
909: we use all the available bounds on the variation in $m_e$ at different
910: cosmological times. In appendix \ref{apendice} we briefly discuss the
911: difference in both analysis. From data supporting the
912: weak equivalence principle, they obtain $G|\omega| > 10^3$ while we obtain
913: $-0.615 < G\omega/c^4 < -0.045 $ (3$\sigma$ interval) using data from different
914: cosmological time scales. More research both on time variation
915: data and on the bound from WEP is needed to understand this
916: discrepancy.
917:
918: Finally, we remark that, %we would like to comment on the sign of $\omega$, since
919: at 2$\sigma$, the value of $\omega$ is negative. This should not be
920: surprising. Indeed, negative kinetic terms in the Lagrangian have
921: already been considered in k-essence models with a phantom energy
922: component \citep{caldwell02}.
923:
924: \section*{{\bf Acknowledgements}}
925: Support for this work was provided by Project G11/G071, UNLP and PIP
926: 5284 CONICET. The authors would like to thank Andrea Barral, Federico
927: Bareilles, Alberto Camyayi and Juan Veliz for technical and
928: computational support. The authors would also like to thank Ariel
929: Sanchez for support with CosmoMC. MEM wants to thank Sergio Iguri for
930: the helpful discussions. CGS gives special thanks to Licia Verde and
931: Nelson Padilla for useful discussion. SJL wants to thank Luis Chimento
932: for useful discussions.
933:
934: \appendix
935:
936: \section{Physics at BBN}
937: \label{correccion}
938: In this appendix we discuss the dependences of the physical quantities
939: involved in the calculation of the abundances of the light elements
940: with $m_e$ and variation in the Higgs vacuum
941: expectation value. We also discuss how this quantities are changed within the Kawano Code.
942:
943: \subsection{Variation in the electron mass}
944: A change in the value of $m_e$ at the time of primordial
945: nucleosynthesis with respect to its present value affects derived
946: physical quantities such as the sum of the electron and positron
947: energy densities, the sum of the
948: electron and positron pressures and the difference of the electron and positron
949: number densities. In Kawano's code, these quantities are calculated as follows:
950: \begin{eqnarray}
951: \label{rhoe}
952: \rho_{e^-}+ \rho_{e^+}&=& \frac{2}{\pi^2} \frac{\left(m_e
953: c^2\right)^4}{\left(\hbar c \right)^3} \sum_n (-1)^{n+1} {\rm ch}
954: \left(n\phi_e\right) M(nz)\\
955: \label{pe}
956: \frac{p_{e^-}+ p_{e^+}}{c^2}&=& \frac{2}{\pi^2} \frac{\left(m_e
957: c^2\right)^4}{\left(\hbar c \right)^3} \sum_n \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{nz} {\rm ch}
958: \left(n\phi_e\right) N(nz)\\
959: \label{ne}
960: \frac{\pi^2}{2}\left[\frac{\hbar c^3}{m_e c^2}\right]^3
961: z^3\left(n_{e^-}-n_{e^+}\right)&=& z^3 \sum_n (-1)^{n+1}{\rm
962: sh}\left(n\phi_e\right) L(nz)
963: \end{eqnarray}
964: where $z=\frac{m_e c 2}{k T_\gamma}$, $\phi_e$ is the electron
965: chemical potential and $L(z)$, $M(z)$, and $N(z)$ are related to the modified Bessel function
966: %\begin{eqnarray}
967: %L(z)&=& z^{-1}K_2(z)\\
968: %M(z)&=& z^{-1}\left[\frac{3}{4} K_3(z)+\frac{1}{4} K_1(z)\right]\\
969: %N(z)&=& z^{-1}\left[\frac{1}{2} K_4(z)+\frac{1}{2} K_2(z)\right]
970: %\end{eqnarray}
971: \citep{Kawano88,Kawano92}. In order to include the variation in $m_e$
972: we replace, in all the equations, $m_e$ by
973: $\left(m_e\right)_0 \left(1+\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0} \right)$.
974: The change in these quantities, due to a change in $m_e$,
975: affects their derivatives and the expansion rate through the
976: Friedmann equation.
977: %\begin{eqnarray}
978: %H^2&=&\frac{8 \pi}{3} G\left(\rho_T +\frac{\lambda}{3}\right)
979: %\end{eqnarray}
980: %where $G$ is the Newton's constant, $\lambda$ is the cosmological constant and
981: %\begin{eqnarray}
982: %\rho_T &=&\rho_\gamma+\rho_{e^-}+ \rho_{e^+}+\rho_\nu+\rho_b
983: %\end{eqnarray}
984: The $n \leftrightarrow p$ reaction rates and the other weak decay
985: rates are changed if $m_e $ varies with time. The total $n\rightarrow p$
986: reaction rate is calculated by:
987: %\begin{eqnarray}
988: %\label{lambdanp}
989: %\lambda_{n\rightarrow p}=
990: %K \int_{m_e}^{\infty} {\rm d}p_e\frac{E_\nu^2
991: % p_e^2}{\left(1+e^{E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{-E_\nu/T_\nu
992: % -\xi_l}\right)}% \nonumber \\&&
993: %+ K \int{m_e}^{\infty}{\rm d}p_\nu \frac{E_e p_e p_\nu^2}{\left(1+e^{-E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{E_\nu/T_\nu -\xi_l}\right)}
994: %K \int_{m_e}^\infty {\rm
995: % d}E_e\frac{E_e\left(E_e+\Delta m_{np}\right)^2
996: % \sqrt{E_e^2-m_e^2}}{\left(1+e^{E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{-\left(E_e+\Delta
997: % m_{np}\right)/T_\nu -\xi_l}\right)}
998: %\nonumber \\
999: %&&+ K \int_{m_e}^\infty {\rm d}E_e\frac{E_e\left(E_e-\Delta
1000: % m_{np}\right)^2 \sqrt{E_e^2-m_e^2}}{\left(1+e^{-E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{\left(E_e-\Delta
1001: % m_{np}\right)/T_\nu -\xi_l}\right)}
1002: %\label{lambdapn}
1003: %\lambda_{p\rightarrow n}&=& K \int_{m_e}^\infty {\rm d}E_e\frac{E_e\left(E_e-\Delta m_{np}\right)^2
1004: %\sqrt{E_e^2-m_e^2}}{\left(1+e^{E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{-\left(E_e-\Delta m_{np}\right)/T_\nu +\xi_l}\right)}
1005: %\nonumber \\
1006: %&&+ K \int_{m_e}^\infty {\rm d}E_e\frac{E_e\left(E_e+\Delta m_{np}\right)^2
1007: %\sqrt{E_e^2-m_e^2}}{\left(1+e^{-E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{\left(E_e-\Delta m_{np}\right)/T_\nu +\xi_l}\right)}
1008: %\end{eqnarray}
1009: %where the subscripts $e$ and $\nu$ denote the quantities associated
1010: %with the electron and neutrino respectively, $K$ is a normalization
1011: %constant proportional to $G_F^2$, $E_e = \left(p_e^2 +
1012: %m_e^2\right)^{1/2}$, and
1013: %$E_e$ and $E_\nu$ are related by:
1014: %\begin{eqnarray}
1015: %E_\nu-E_e&=&\Delta m_{np} \, \,\, \, \, \,{\rm for \, the \, first \,
1016: % integral}\\
1017: %E_e-E_\nu&=&\Delta m_{np}\, \,\, \, \, \,{\rm for \, the \, second \,
1018: % integral}
1019: %\end{eqnarray}
1020: %{ o expresion alternativa
1021: \begin{eqnarray}
1022: \label{lambdanp}
1023: \!\!
1024: \lambda=
1025: K \int_{m_e}^{\infty} \frac{ {\rm d}E_e \, \, E_e
1026: p_e \left(E_e + \Delta
1027: m_{np}\right)^2}{\left(1+e^{E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{-\left(E_e + \Delta m_{np}\right)/T_\nu-\xi_l}\right)}% \nonumber \\&&
1028: + K \int_{m_e}^{\infty} \frac{{\rm d}E_e \, \, E_e p_e \left(E_e - \Delta m_{np}\right)^2}{\left(1+e^{-E_e/T_\gamma}\right)\left(1+e^{\left(E_e - \Delta m_{np}\right)/T_\nu -\xi_l}\right)} \,\,
1029: \end{eqnarray}
1030: where $E_e$ and $p_e$ are the electron energy and momentum respectively, $\Delta m_{np}$ is the neutron-proton mass difererences, $K$ is a normalization
1031: constant proportional to $G_F^2$, and $E_e = \left(p_e^2 +
1032: m_e^2\right)^{1/2}$.
1033: %$E_e$ and $\Delta_{np}$ are related to $E_{\nu}$ by:
1034: %\begin{eqnarray}
1035: %E_\nu-E_e&=&\Delta m_{np} \, \,\, \, \, \,{\rm for \, the \, first \,
1036: % integral}\\
1037: %E_e-E_\nu&=&\Delta m_{np}\, \,\, \, \, \,{\rm for \, the \, second \,
1038: % integral}
1039: %\end{eqnarray}
1040:
1041: It is worth to mention that the most important changes in the
1042: primordial abundances (due to a change in $m_e$) arrives from the
1043: change in the weak rates rather than the change in the expansion rate
1044: \citep{YS03}.
1045:
1046: \subsection{Variation in the Higgs vacuum expectation value}
1047: If the the value of $<v>$ during BBN is different than its present value,
1048: the electron mass, the Fermi constant, the neutron-proton mass difference and the
1049: deuterium binding energy take different values than the current ones. The electron mass
1050: is proportional to the Higgs vacuum expectation value.
1051: %\begin{eqnarray}
1052: %\frac{\Delta m_e}{\left(m_e\right)_0}&=&\frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}
1053: %\end{eqnarray}
1054: The Fermi constant is proportional to $<v>^{-2}$ \citep{dixit88}. This dependence affect the
1055: $n\leftrightarrow p$ reaction rates since $K\sim G_F^2$.
1056: The neutron-proton mass difference changes by \citep{Epele91b}
1057: \begin{eqnarray}
1058: \frac{\delta \Delta m_{np}}{\Delta m_{np}} &=&1.587 \frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}
1059: \end{eqnarray}
1060: affecting $n\leftrightarrow p$ reaction rates (see
1061: Eq.(\ref{lambdanp})) and the initial neutrons and protons abundances:
1062: \begin{eqnarray}
1063: Y_n= \frac{1}{1+e^{\Delta m_{np}/T_9 +\xi}}\hskip 2cm
1064: Y_p= \frac{1}{1+e^{-\Delta m_{np}/T_9 -\xi}}
1065: \end{eqnarray}
1066: where $T_9$ is the temperature in units of $10^9 \,{\rm K}$.
1067: In order to include these effects we replace $\Delta m_{np}$ by $\Delta
1068: m_{np}\left(1+\frac{\delta \Delta m_{np}}{\Delta m_{np}}\right)$.
1069: The deuterium binding energy must also be corrected by
1070: %begin{eqnarray}
1071: $\frac{\Delta \epsilon_D}{\epsilon_D} =k \frac{\Delta <v>}{<v>_0}$
1072: %end{eqnarray}
1073: where $k$ is a model dependent constant. In this work we assume,
1074: following \cite{Chamoun07}, $k=-0.045$.
1075: This correction affects the initial value of the deuterium abundance.
1076: %\begin{eqnarray}
1077: %Y_d&=&\frac{Y_n Y_p e^{\epsilon_D/T_9}}{0.471\times 10^{-10}T_9^{3/2}}
1078: %\end{eqnarray}
1079: Once again we replace $\epsilon_D$ by
1080: $\epsilon_D \left(1+\frac{\Delta \epsilon_D}{\epsilon_D}\right)$ in
1081: the code.
1082:
1083: \section{Physics at recombination epoch}
1084: \label{apendice_recombinacion}
1085: During recombination epoch, the ionization fraction, $x_e$, is determined by the balance
1086: between photoionization
1087: and recombination. The recombination equation is
1088: \begin{equation}
1089: -\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{n_e}{n}\right) = C \left( \frac{\alpha_c
1090: n_e^2}{n} -\beta_c \frac{n_{1s}}{n} e^{-(B_1 - B_2)/kT} \right)
1091: \end{equation}
1092: where
1093: \begin{equation}
1094: C= \frac{\left(1 + K \Lambda_{2s,1s} n_{1s}\right)}{\left(1
1095: + K (\beta_c + \Lambda_{2s,1s}) n_{1s}\right)}
1096: \end{equation}
1097: is the Peebles factor, which inhibits the recombination rate due to
1098: the presence of Lyman-$\alpha$ photons. The redshift of these photons
1099: is $K = \frac{\lambda_\alpha^3 \ a}{8 \pi \dot a}$, with
1100: $\lambda_\alpha = \frac{8 \pi \hslash c}{3 B_1}$, and
1101: $\Lambda_{2s,1s}$ is the rate of decay of the $2s$ excited state to
1102: the ground state via 2-photon emission, and scales as $m_e$.
1103: Recombination directly to the ground state is strongly inhibited, so
1104: the \emph{case B} recombination takes place. The \emph{case B}
1105: recombination coefficient $\alpha_c$ is proportional to
1106: %$\alpha^3 m_e^{-3/2}$.
1107: $ m_e^{-3/2}$. The photoionization coefficient depends on $\alpha_c$,
1108: but it also has an additional dependence on $m_e$,
1109: \begin{equation}
1110: \beta_c = \alpha_c \left(\frac{2 \pi {m_e} k
1111: T_m}{h^2}\right)^{3/2} e^{-B_2 / kT_m}
1112: \nonumber
1113: \end{equation}
1114: The most important effects of a change in $m_e$ during
1115: recombination would be due to its influence upon Thomson scattering
1116: cross section $\sigma _T = \frac{8\pi \ \hbar ^2c^2}{3\
1117: m_e^2}\alpha^2$, and the binding energy of hydrogen $B_1={1\over2}\ \alpha^2 m_e c^2$.
1118:
1119: \section{Different limits on $G\omega$}
1120: \label{apendice}
1121: In this appendix we compare the limits obtained by \citet{BM05} on $G
1122: \omega$ with our bounds.
1123: %Some confusion may arise, due to the fact that the analyses are
1124: %different.
1125: We stress that we have performed a $\chi^2$ using
1126: all available observational and experimental data, while \citet{BM05}
1127: consider $|\frac{\Delta \mu}{\mu}|<10^{-5}$ for data at redshift of
1128: order 1. Moreover, most exact individual bounds from quasar
1129: absorption systems are not consistent with null variation at least at
1130: $1\sigma$.
1131:
1132: Let us consider for example the last entry of table
1133: \ref{molecular}: $-3.5 \times 10^{-5}< \frac{\Delta \mu}{\mu} < -0.72
1134: \times 10^{-5} $. Using the same approximation as \citet{BM05}, we
1135: find that $-0.28 < G \omega < -0.05 $ for this measurement which is of
1136: the same order of magnitude as obtained considering all data.
1137:
1138:
1139: \bibliography{bibliografia4}
1140: \bibliographystyle{astron}
1141:
1142: \end{document}
1143: