4.7 Article

Massive neutrinos in cosmology: Analytic solutions and fluid approximation

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 81, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123516

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Texas Advanced Research Program [003658-0005-2006]
  2. NASA [NNX08AM29G, NNX08AL43G]
  3. NSF [AST-0807649]
  4. NASA [98407, NNX08AM29G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0807649] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We study the evolution of linear density fluctuations of free-streaming massive neutrinos at redshift of z < 1000, with an explicit justification on the use of a fluid approximation. We solve the collisionless Boltzmann equation in an Einstein de-Sitter (EdS) universe, truncating the Boltzmann hierarchy at l(max) = 1 and 2, and compare the resulting density contrast of neutrinos delta(fluid)(nu) with that of the exact solutions of the Boltzmann equation that we derive in this paper. Roughly speaking, the fluid approximation is accurate if neutrinos were already nonrelativistic when the neutrino density fluctuation of a given wave number entered the horizon. We find that the fluid approximation is accurate at subpercent levels for massive neutrinos with m(nu) > 0.05 eV at the scale of k less than or similar to 1.0h Mpc(-1) and redshift of z < 100. This result validates the use of the fluid approximation, at least for the most massive species of neutrinos suggested by the neutrino oscillation experiments. We also find that the density contrast calculated from fluid equations (i.e., continuity and Euler equations) becomes a better approximation at a lower redshift, and the accuracy can be further improved by including an anisotropic stress term in the Euler equation. The anisotropic stress term effectively increases the pressure term by a factor of 9/5.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available