1: \section{Note added in proof}
2:
3: After completion and submission of this review, the Wilkinson
4: Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Science Team issued a most
5: impressive set of data on the cosmic temperature angular power
6: spectrum and the temperature-polarization angular power spectrum
7: \cite{wmap}. Analysis of the data by the WMAP team has
8: strengthened the notion that a Standard Model in Cosmology is
9: emerging. Indeed, a flat universe filled with vacuum energy, dark
10: matter, baryons and structure arisen from a nearly scale-invariant
11: spectrum of primordial fluctuations seems to fit not only the WMAP
12: high precision data but also smaller scale CMB data, large scale
13: structure data, and Supernova Ia data. Furthermore, it is fully
14: consistent with a much wider set of astronomical data such as the
15: baryon to photon ratio derived from observations of D/H in distant
16: quasars, the Hubble parameter measurement by the HST Key Project,
17: the size of mass fluctuations obtained from galaxy clusters
18: studies, and the inferred ages of stars \cite{spergel}.
19:
20: As was stated in Section 6, neutrino mass has an impact on
21: cosmological and astrophysical observables, notably on the
22: suppression of power at low scales of the matter density
23: perturbation spectrum (see Section 6.3). This is in fact the key
24: ingredient in the determination of neutrino mass bounds from
25: cosmology, as neutrinos with masses of the order of $1$ eV are
26: easily mistaken at recombination for cold dark matter and thus
27: have small influence on the CMB. Hence the new WMAP data
28: \cite{wmap,spergel} permits an improvement of these bounds only
29: indirectly, as the parameters that define the overall cosmological
30: picture become more precise. So, in order to constrain neutrino
31: masses beyond what was reached in previous analysis (see Section
32: 6.5) the WMAP team undertook a study of their data combined with
33: other CMB data that explore smaller angular scales (ACBAR
34: \cite{kuo} and CBI \cite{pearson}) and, most importantly, with the
35: large scale structure 2dFGRS data, and with the power spectrum
36: recovered from Lyman $\alpha$ forest measurements. As a result of
37: their analysis they find:
38: \begin {equation}
39: \sum_i m_{i}<0.71\,\mathrm{eV} \qquad (95\% \, \mathrm{C.L.}) \, ,
40: \end {equation}
41: which implies, for 3 degenerate neutrino species, $m_{i}<0.23$ eV
42: . This is about a factor three better than the bounds (6.8) and
43: (6.9) (which, moreover, had to assume strong priors on the Hubble
44: constant and the matter density). The precise role played by
45: priors in lifting degeneracies among cosmological parameters when
46: using WMAP data to constrain neutrino masses has been analyzed in
47: \cite {1} and \cite {2}. Two priors turn out to be particularly
48: important: the prior on the matter density $\Omega_{m}$ (not
49: surprisingly, because the suppression of growth of matter
50: fluctuations at small scales depends on the ratio
51: $\Omega_{\nu}/\Omega_{m}$) and the prior on the Hubble parameter
52: $h$. Hence, the WMAP results (where only flat models and $h>0.5$
53: were allowed) $\Omega_{m}h^2=0.14\pm 0.02$ and $h=0.72\pm 0.05$
54: \cite{spergel} are crucial in setting the neutrino mass limit given above. In
55: their study, the authors in \cite {1} include an analysis of the
56: 2dFGRS data complemented with simple gaussian priors from WMAP
57: \cite{spergel} that leads to the following bound:
58: \begin {equation}
59: \sum_i m_{i}<1.1\,\mathrm{eV} \qquad (95\% \, \mathrm{C.L.}) \, .
60: \end {equation}
61:
62: In \cite {2} Hannestad performs a search for neutrino mass bounds
63: in three stages. In his most conservative analysis, where only
64: WMAP data and 2dFGRS are being used, he obtains
65: \begin {equation}
66: \sum_i m_{i}<2.12\,\mathrm{eV} \qquad (95\% \, \mathrm{C.L.}) \, .
67: \end {equation}
68: In a second stage, he includes extra CMB data from the compilation
69: in \cite {3} that incorporates data at large $l$'s. He finds the
70: considerably more restrictive limit:
71: \begin {equation}
72: \sum_i m_{i}<1.20\,\mathrm{eV} \qquad (95\% \, \mathrm{C.L.}) \, .
73: \end {equation}
74: The reason for improvement can be traced to the fact that the
75: scales probed by the CMB data at high $l$'s \cite {3} overlap
76: significantly with the scales under scrutiny in the 2dFGRS survey.
77: As a consequence a normalization of the 2dFGRS power spectrum from
78: the CMB data is possible. In the final analysis Hannestad adds the
79: constraints on $h$ from the Hubble Space Telescope key project HST
80: \cite{freedman} and the constraints on matter density from the
81: SNIa project \cite{perlmutter}. As a result, the bound on the
82: total neutrino mass is,
83: \begin {equation}
84: \sum_i m_{i}<1.01\,\mathrm{eV} \qquad (95\% \, \mathrm{C.L.}) \, .
85: \end {equation}
86:
87: We see from these numbers that neither \cite {1} nor \cite {2} can
88: match the limit obtained by the WMAP team, a fact that the authors
89: in these latter studies attribute mainly to not using Ly$\alpha$
90: data whereas the WMAP team does. Given that the extraction of the
91: matter power spectrum from the Ly$\alpha$ forest involves complex
92: numerical simulations, both \cite {1} and \cite {2} argue that one
93: is on a safer position if these data are not used.
94: