1:
2:
3: % add refs to Tritium and beta decay for direct mass limits
4: % explain that neutrinos heavier than cosmologically allowed range
5: % are too heavy to be HDM
6: %Also add delta m^2 refs
7: % mention lyman alpha forest, DLAS, sigma_8 constraints
8: % ~30eV is cosmological bound for pure HDM closing universe
9:
10:
11:
12: \section{Is Cold+Hot Dark Matter Compatible with a Cosmological Constant?}
13:
14:
15: The conflict between the $\Lambda$CDM model favored by direct
16: observations of cosmological parameters (especially
17: the recent Type Ia supernovae results) and the current set of
18: structure formation observations that we have found motivates us to
19: explore whether there is a simple way to reconcile $\Lambda$CDM with
20: those observations.
21: We start with a version of $\Lambda$CDM which is in
22: good agreement with all direct parameter observations, with $\Omega_m=0.4$,
23: $\Omega_b=0.04$, and $h=0.7$.
24: Figure \ref{fig:lchdm00}
25: shows the $\Lambda$CDM power spectrum compared
26: with observations of Large-Scale Structure and CMB anisotropy.
27: The problem of the peak location and shape of the matter power spectrum
28: versus the data is the same as that identified in the preceding chapter;
29: the era of matter-radiation equality occurs later in this $\Lambda$CDM
30: model than the data appears to prefer, and improving this requires increasing
31: $\Omega_m$ which is the opposite of what direct parameter observations
32: recommend.
33:
34:
35: One can pose the following question: does adding a hot component improve the
36: marginally acceptable LSS fit?
37: We find that as
38: HDM is added, the combined fit to CMB and LSS deteriorates
39: (see Figures \ref{fig:lchdm05} and
40: \ref{fig:lchdm10}).
41: This occurs because adding HDM reduces the power on physical
42: scales shorter than the neutrino free-streaming length,
43: which
44: exacerbates
45: the mismatch in peak locations that occurs for pure CDM low-density models.
46: A blue tilt of the
47: primordial power spectrum ($n=1.3$)
48: is necessary to counteract the damping
49: of small-scale perturbations by free-streaming of the
50: massive neutrinos, which makes the peak of the model fall
51: even farther below that of the data unless $n>1$.
52: Even with this best-fit value of $n$, the
53: fit to the data is worse than with no HDM, because
54: CMB observations disfavor such a high value of $n$.
55: For a higher HDM fraction, an even higher value of $n$ is required
56: ($n=1.5$ for the $\Omega_\nu=0.10$ model of Figure \ref{fig:lchdm10}),
57: leading to an even worse fit to the data.
58: $\Lambda$CHDM has also been explored by
59: \citet{valdarninikn98} and \citet{primackg98} with different analysis
60: methods and significantly smaller data compilations.
61:
62:
63: \section{Limits on the Neutrino Mass}
64:
65:
66: Neutrino masses imprint a distinct signature on $P(k)$,
67: the reduction in power on scales larger
68: than the free-streaming length of
69: 41 Mpc ($m_\nu$/30eV)$^{-1}$ \citep{bondes80}.
70: Present cosmological bounds on the mass of a light neutrino are
71: stricter than those from laboratory experiments; a 30eV neutrino
72: would lead to $\Omega_\nu=1$, so for a universe at less than
73: critical density the neutrinos must all be lighter than this.
74: The exception to this is if the neutrino is so massive
75: that it was non-relativistic during matter-radiation equality, i.e.
76: Cold Dark Matter.
77: For massive CDM neutrinos, the abundance drops enough to no longer overclose
78: the universe; however,
79: laboratory limits rule out the possibility of an electron
80: neutrino more massive than 15eV \citep{primackg98}.
81: The shape of the radiation power spectrum of CMB anisotropies
82: \citep{dodelsongs96}
83: and of
84: the matter power spectrum from large-scale structure are both sensitive
85: to the mass of neutrinos, and
86: the LSS probe may potentially
87: be more powerful \citep{huet98}.
88: There is more dynamical
89: range available in probing $P(k)$ with
90: LSS on the neutrino free streaming scale,
91: where the primary signature should be present.
92: Even current data is sensitive to a neutrino
93: mass of around an eV;
94: we find that the fit changes significantly between 0.1 and 1 eV.
95: While there are
96: considerable systematic uncertainties in this approach, it is promising as a
97: complement to the direct evidence for mass difference between neutrino
98: species from SuperKamiokande \citep{fukudaetal98} and the solar neutrino
99: problem \citep{bahcallks98},
100: and is already beginning to conflict with results from
101: LSND
102: \citep{athanassopoulosetal96} that require a large mass difference.
103:
104:
105:
106: We have assumed here that
107: $\Lambda$CDM is the correct model of structure formation and
108: that the primordial power spectrum is well-described by a power-law.
109: Our limits on the neutrino mass are based upon an attempt to search
110: the reasonable parameter space around this fiducial model to
111: produce the best fit possible to the data for a given neutrino
112: mass. Since disagreement with CMB data is the main problem once
113: a blue tilt is considered, we have tried to alleviate this by
114: adding a significant tensor component or early reionization. Each of these
115: effects reduces the small-scale CMB power relative to COBE scales, which
116: helps to reconcile $n>1$ with the CMB data. However, no parameter
117: combination helps enough to make $\Lambda$CHDM a better fit than
118: the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model, and this allows us to set
119: upper limits on the neutrino mass.
120: For $n=1$ we find that $\Omega_\nu<0.05$ i.e.
121: the mass of the most massive neutrino must be 2 eV or less (the limit is
122: tighter, of course, if there are at least 2 massive neutrinos with nearly
123: equal masses). For a scale-free primordial power spectrum, there is more
124: freedom to increase $n$ to counteract the effect of HDM but this leads to
125: conflict with CMB anisotropy observations, limiting $\Omega_\nu<0.1$ i.e.
126: the mass of the most massive neutrino must be 4 eV or less. This is
127: compatible with the recent claim by
128: \citet{crofthd99}
129: that the Lyman $\alpha$
130: forest power spectrum limits the neutrino mass to 3 eV or less, but our method
131: appears more robust as the normalization of the Lyman $\alpha$
132: forest power spectrum is quite uncertain and it covers a more narrow
133: range of scales than our large-scale structure compilation. Future constraints
134: from combining CMB and large-scale structure are discussed by \citet{huet98}
135: and a more speculative method using weak gravitational lensing surveys
136: is presented by
137: \citet{cooray99}
138: .
139:
140: \cleardoublepage
141: \begin{figure}[htb]
142: %\figurenum{1}
143: %\epsffile{lchdm00_ebb.ps}
144: \centerline{\psfig{file=lchdm00.ps,width=6in}}
145: \caption{Constraints from LSS and CMB on $\Lambda$CDM model.}
146: \label{fig:lchdm00}
147: \end{figure}
148:
149: \cleardoublepage
150: \begin{figure}[htb]
151: %\figurenum{2}
152: \centerline{\psfig{file=lchdm05.ps,width=6in}}
153: \caption{$\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_\nu=0.05$.}
154: \label{fig:lchdm05}
155: \end{figure}
156:
157: \cleardoublepage
158: \begin{figure}[htb]
159: %\figurenum{3}
160: \centerline{\psfig{file=lchdm10.ps,width=6in}}
161: \caption{$\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_\nu=0.10$ and $n=1.5$.}
162: \label{fig:lchdm10}
163: \end{figure}
164:
165:
166:
167: %\cleardoublepage
168: %\begin{figure}[htb]
169: %\figurenum{1}
170: %\epsffile{lchdm00_ebb.ps}
171: %\centerline{\psfig{file=tlchdm_cmb.ps,width=6in}}
172: %\caption{Constraints from CMB on $\Lambda$CHDM model with tensor
173: %perturbations.}
174: %\label{fig:tlchdm_cmb}
175: %\end{figure}
176:
177: %\cleardoublepage
178: %\begin{figure}[htb]
179: %%\figurenum{1}
180: %%\epsffile{lchdm00_ebb.ps}
181: %\centerline{\psfig{file=n15tlchdm10.ps,width=6in}}
182: %\caption{Constraints from LSS and CMB on $\Lambda$CHDM model with
183: %tensor perturbations.}
184: %\label{fig:tlchdm10}
185: %\end{figure}
186:
187: %%\cleardoublepage
188: %\begin{figure}[htb]
189: %%\figurenum{1}
190: %%\epsffile{lchdm00_ebb.ps}
191: %\centerline{\psfig{file=tau05n15lchdm10.ps,width=6in}}
192: %\caption{Constraints from LSS and CMB on reionized $\Lambda$CHDM model}
193: %\label{fig:taulchdm10}
194: %\end{figure}
195:
196:
197: