the universe is expanding
DESCRIPTION
The Universe is expanding. The Universe is filled with radiation. The Early Universe was Hot & Dense. The Early Universe was a Cosmic Nuclear Reactor!. Neutron Abundance vs. Time / Temperature. p + e n + e …. Rates set by n. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
• The Universe is expanding
• The Universe is filled with radiation
• The Early Universe was Hot & Dense
The Early Universe was a
Cosmic Nuclear Reactor!
Neutron Abundance vs. Time / Temperature
p + e n + e …
(n/p)eq BBN “Begins”
Decay
“Freeze – Out” ? Wrong!
Rates set by n
Statistical Errors
versus
Systematic Errors !
History of n measurements
885.7 0.8 sec
BBN “Begins” at T 70 keV
when n / p 1 / 7
Coulomb Barriers and absence of free
neutrons terminate BBN at T 30 keV
tBBN 4 24 min.
Pre - BBN Post - BBN
Only n & p Mainly H & 4He
Baryon Density Parameter : B
Note : Baryons Nucleons
B nN / n ; 10 B = 274 Bh2
Hubble Parameter : H = H(z)
In The Early Universe : H2 α Gρ
(ηB not predicted (yet) by fundamental theory)
“Standard” Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
(SBBN)
An Expanding Universe Described By
General Relativity, Filled With Radiation,
Including 3 Flavors Of Light Neutrinos (N = 3)
The relic abundances of D, 3He, 4He, 7Li are
predicted as a function of only one parameter :
* The baryon to photon ratio : B
10
More nucleons less D
Evolution of mass - 2
More nucleons less mass - 3
Two pathways to mass - 3
Two pathways to mass - 7
For η10 ≥ 3, more
nucleons more mass - 7
BBN abundances of masses – 6, 9 – 11
Abundances Are Very Small !
n / p 1 / 7 Y 2n / (n + p) 0.25
All / most neutrons are incorporated in 4He
Y is very weakly dependent on the nucleon abundance
Y 4He Mass Fraction
Y 4y/(1 + 4y)
y n(He)/n(H)
YP DOES depend on the competition between Γwk & H
BBN Abundances of D, 3He, 7Li
are RATE (DENSITY) LIMITED
D, 3He, 7Li are potential BARYOMETERS
SBBN – Predicted Primordial Abundances
7Li 7Be
4He Mass Fraction
Mostly H & 4He
• 4He (mass fraction Y) is NOT Rate Limited
• Expansion Rate Parameter : S H´/ H
S H´/ H (´ / )1/2 (1 + 7N / 43)1/2
where ´ + N and N 3 + N
• 4He IS n/p Limited Y is sensitive to the
EXPANSION RATE ( H 1/2 )
• S2 (H/ H)2 = G/ G 1 + 7N / 43
* S may be parameterized by N
The Expansion Rate Parameter (S)
Is A Probe Of Non-Standard Physics
• 4He is sensitive to S (N) ; D probes B
NOTE : G/ G = S2 1 + 7N / 43
N ( - ) / and N 3 + N
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN)
An Expanding Universe Described By
General Relativity, Filled With Radiation,
Including N Flavors Of Light Neutrinos
The relic abundances of D, 3He, 4He, 7Li are
predicted as a function of two parameters :
* The baryon to photon ratio : B (SBBN)
* The effective number of neutrinos : N (S)
N = 2, 3, 4
4He is an early – Universe Chronometer
(S = 0.91, 1.00, 1.08)
Y 0.013 N 0.16 (S – 1)
Y vs. D / H
0.23
0.24
0.25
4.0 3.0 2.0
YP & yDP 105 (D/H)P
D & 4He Isoabundance Contours
Kneller & Steigman (2004)
Isoabundance Contours for 105(D/H)P & YP
yDP 105(D/H)P = 46.5 (1 ± 0.03) D-1.6
YP = (0.2386 ± 0.0006) + He / 625
y7 1010(7Li/H) = (1.0 ± 0.1) (LI)2 / 8.5
where : D 10 – 6 (S – 1)
He 10 + 100 (S – 1)
Li 10 – 3 (S – 1)
Kneller & Steigman (2004) & Steigman (2007)
Post – BBN Evolution
• As gas cycles through stars, D is only DESTROYED
• Stars burn H to 4He (and produce heavy elements)
4He INCREASES (along with CNO …)
• As gas cycles through stars, 3He is DESTROYED ,
PRODUCED and, some 3He SURVIVES
• Cosmic Rays and SOME Stars PRODUCE 7Li BUT,
7Li is DESTROYED in most stars
DEUTERIUM Is The Baryometer Of Choice
• The Post – BBN Evolution of D is Simple :
As the Universe evolves, D is only DESTROYED
* Anywhere, Anytime : (D/H) t (D/H) P
* For Z << Z : (D/H) t (D/H) P (Deuterium Plateau)
• H and D are observed in Absorption in High – z,
Low – Z, QSO Absorption Line Systems (QSOALS)
• (D/H) P is sensitive to the baryon density ( B
− )
“Measure” ( D / H ) P
Use BBN ( D / H ) P vs. 10 to constrain B
Infer B (B) at ~ 20 Min.
Predict (D/H)P
Ly - Absorption
Observing D in QSOALS
Observations of Deuterium In 7
High - Redshift, Low - Metallicity QSOALS
(Pettini et al. 2008)
log (D/H) vs. Oxygen Abundance
Where is the D – Plateau ?
log(105(D/H)P) = 0.45 ± 0.03
log (D/H) vs. Oxygen Abundance
10 (SBBN) = 5.81 ± 0.28
Caveat Emptor !
3He/H vs. O/H
No Clear Correlation With O/H
Stellar Produced ?
3He Consistent With SBBN
3He Observed In Galactic H Regions
(3He/H)P for B = B(SBBN + D)
Oxygen Gradient In The Galaxy
More gas cycled through stars
Less gas cycled through stars
3He Observed In Galactic HII Regions
SBBN
No clear correlation with R
Stellar Produced ?
More gas cycled through stars
Less gas cycled through stars
The 4He abundance is measured via H and He
recombination lines from metal-poor, extragalactic
H regions (Blue, Compact Galaxies).
Theorist’s H Region Real H Region
In determining the primordial helium abundance,
systematic errors (underlying stellar absorption,
temperature variations, ionization corrections,
atomic emissivities, inhomogeneities, ….)
dominate over the statistical errors and the
uncertain extrapolation to zero metallicity.
σ (YP) ≈ 0.006, NOT < 0.001 !
Note : ΔY = ( ΔY / ΔZ ) Z << σ (YP)
Izotov & Thuan 2010
4He Observed in Low – Z Extragalactic H Regions
YP(IT10) = 0.2565 ± 0.0010 ± 0.0050
YP = 0.2565 ± 0.0060
Aver, Olive, Skillman 2010
Izotov & Thuan 2010
YP(IT10) = 0.2565 ± 0.0010 ± 0.0050
YP(AOS10) = 0.2573 ± 0.0028 ± ??
For SBBN (N = 3)
If : log(D/H)P = 0.45 ± 0.03
η10 = 5.81 ± 0.28 YP = 0.2482 ± 0.0005
YP(OBS) − YP(SBBN) = 0.0083 ± 0.0060
YP(OBS) = YP(SBBN) @ ~ 1.4 σ
But ! Lithium – 7 Is A Problem
[Li] ≡ 12 + log(Li/H)
[Li]SBBN = 2.66 ± 0.06
Where is the Lithium Plateau ?
Asplund et al. 2006
Boesgaard et al. 2005
Aoki et al. 2009
Lind et al. 2009
SBBN
Li/H vs. Fe/H
For BBN (with η10 & N (S) as free parameters)
BBN Abundances Are Functions of η10 & S
SBBN Predictions Agree With Observations Of
D, 3He, 4He, But NOT With 7Li
YP vs. (D/H)P for N = 2, 3, 4
N 3 ?
But, new (2010) analyses now claim
YP = 0.257 ± 0.006 !
Isoabundance Contours for 105(D/H)P & YP
YP & yD 105
(D/H)
4.0 3.0 2.0
0.24
0.25
0.26
YP & yD 105
(D/H)
0.26
0.25
0.24
Isoabundance Contours for 105(D/H)P & YP
4.0 3.0 2.0
log(D/H)P = 0.45 ± 0.03 & YP = 0.2565 ± 0.0060
η10 = 6.07 ± 0.34 & N = 3.62 ± 0.46
N = 3 @ ~ 1.3 σ
2.6 2.7 2.8
Lithium Isoabundance Contours
[Li]P = 12 + log(Li/H)
2.6 2.7 2.8
Even for N 3 , [Li]P > 2.6
[Li]P = 12 + log(Li/H)
Lithium – 7 Is STILL A Problem
[Li] ≡ 12 + log(Li/H)
[Li]BBN = 2.66 ± 0.07
BBN
[Li]OBS too low by ~ 0.5 – 0.6 dex
* Do the BBN - predicted abundances agree with
observationally - inferred primordial abundances ?
• Do the BBN and CMB values of B agree ?
• Do the BBN and CMB values of S (N) agree ?
• Is SBBN = SCMB = 1 ?
BBN (~ 3 Minutes) , The CMB (~ 400 kyr) ,
LSS (~ 10 Gyr) Provide Complementary Probes
Of The Early Evolution Of The Universe
CMBΔT
Δ
ΔTrms vs. Δ : Temperature Anisotropy Spectrum
CMB Temperature Anisotropy Spectrum
(T2 vs. ) Depends On The Baryon Density
The CMB provides an early - Universe Baryometer
10 = 4.5, 6.1, 7.5
V. Simha & G. S.
10 (CMB) = 6.190 ± 0.145 (Komatsu et al. 2010)
For N = 3 , is B (CMB) = B (SBBN) ?
10 (SBBN) = 5.81 ± 0.28
SBBN & CMB Agree Within ~ 1.2 σ
CMB Temperature Anisotropy Spectrum
Depends On The Baryon Density
Likelihood Distributions For η10
SBBN CMB
At BBN, With η10 & N As Free Parameters
η10 (BBN) = 6.07 ± 0.34
At REC, With CMB (WMAP 7 Year Data) + LSS
η10 (REC) = 6.190 ± 0.145
η10 (BBN) & η10 (REC) Agree
η10 (REC) − η10 (BBN) = 0.12 ± 0.37
Likelihood Distributions For η10
BBN CMB
CMB Temperature Anisotropy Spectrum
Depends on the Radiation Density R (S or N)
The CMB / LSS is an early - Universe Chronometer
N = 1, 3, 5
V. Simha & G. S.
At BBN, With η10 & N As Free Parameters
N(BBN) = 3.62 ± 0.46 N(BBN) = 3 @ ~ 1.3 σ
At REC, With CMB (WMAP 7 Year Data) + LSS
N(REC) = 4.30 ± 0.87 N(REC) = 3 @ ~ 1.5 σ
N(BBN) & N(REC) Agree
N (REC) − N (BBN) = 0.68 ± 0.98
BBN CMB
Likelihood Distributions For N
Likelihood Distributions For N
BBN CMB
N = 3
SBBN IS Consistent With D, 3He, 4He
And Agrees With The CMB + LSS + H0
CONCLUSION # 1
(But , Lithium Is A Problem !)
• Post – BBN Decay of Massive Particles ?
• Annihilation of Dark Matter Relics ?
• Li depleted / diluted in Pop Stars ?
Non - standard BBN (N ≠ 3, S ≠ 1) With
10 = 6.07 ± 0.34 & N = 3.62 ± 0.46
IS Consistent With D, 3He, & 4He
And With The CMB + LSS (But, 7Li ?)
CONCLUSION # 2
BBN + CMB Combined Can Constrain
Non-standard Cosmology & Particle Physics
Entropy (CMB Photon) Conservation
* In a comoving volume, N = NB / ηB
* For conserved baryons, NB = constant
* Comparing ηB at BBN and at Recombination
N (REC) / N (SBBN) = 0.94 ± 0.05
N (REC) / N (BBN) = 0.98 ± 0.06
Comparing BBN And The CMB
Variation of the Gravitational Constant
Between BBN, Recombination, and Today ?
G / G = S2 = 1 + 7N / 43
G (BBN) / G0 = 1.10 ± 0.08
G (REC) / G0 = 1.21 ± 0.14
“Extra” Radiation Density ?
Example : Late decay of a massive particle
Recall that : ρR / ρ R = S2 1 + 7N / 43
In the absence of the creation of new
radiation (via decay ?), S (BBN) = S (REC)
Comparing N at BBN and at Recombination
N (REC) − N (BBN) = 0.68 ± 0.98
For N ≈ 3, BBN (D, 3He, 4He)
Agrees With The CMB + LSS
CONCLUSIONS
BBN + CMB + LSS Constrain
Cosmology & Particle Physics
(But , Lithium Is A Problem !)
CHALLENGES
• Why is the spread in D abundances so large ?
• Why is 3He/H uncorrelated with O/H and / or R ?
• What (how big) are the systematic errors in YP ?
Are there observing strategies to reduce them ?• What is the primordial abundance of 7Li (6Li) ?
We (theorists) need more (better) data !
e Degeneracy (Non – Zero Lepton Number)
For e = e / kT 0 (more e than anti - e)
n / p exp (− m / kT − e )
n / p YP
Lepton Asymmetry
YP probes e (Lepton Asymmetry)
yDP 105(D/H)P = 46.5 (1 ± 0.03) D-1.6
YP = (0.2386 ± 0.0006) + He / 625
y7 1010(7Li/H) = (1.0 ± 0.1) (LI)2 / 8.5
where : D 10 + 5 e / 4
He 10 – 574 e / 4
Li 10 – 7 e / 4
Kneller & Steigman (2004) & Steigman (2007)
Isoabundance Contours for 105(D/H)P & YP
4.0 3.0 2.0
0.24
0.25
0.26
YP & yD 105
(D/H)
log(D/H)P = 0.45 ± 0.03 & YP = 0.2565 ± 0.0060
η10 = 5.82 ± 0.28 & e = − 0.036 ± 0.026
4.0 3.0 2.0
0.24
0.25
0.26
Isoabundance Contours for 105(D/H)P & YP
YP & yD 105
(D/H)
Likelihood Distribution for ξe
BBN
2.6 2.7 2.8
Lithium Isoabundance Contours[Li]P = 12 + log(Li/H)
2.82.6 2.7
[Li]P = 12 + log(Li/H)
Even for e 0 , [Li]P > 2.6
Lithium – 7 Is STILL A Problem
[Li] ≡ 12 + log(Li/H)
[Li]BBN = 2.66 ± 0.07
BBN
[Li]OBS too low by ~ 0.5 – 0.6 dex
BBN (D, 3He, 4He) Agrees With
The CMB + LSS (For N ≈ 3 & e ≈ 0)
CONCLUSIONS
BBN + CMB + LSS Combined Can Constrain
Non-Standard Cosmology & Particle Physics
(But, 7Li is a problem)