4.7 Article

Cosmological lepton asymmetry with a nonzero mixing angle θ13

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023517

关键词

-

资金

  1. PRIN-INAF grant Astronomy Probes Fundamental Physics''
  2. Italian Space Agency through the ASI contract Euclid-IC [I/031/10/0]
  3. Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare I.S. FA51
  4. PRIN Fisica Astroparticellare: Neutrini ed Universo Primordiale'' of the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universita e Ricerca
  5. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universit e della Ricerca (MIUR) through the PRIN grant Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry, Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the LHC Era'' [PRIN 2008NR3EBK-005]
  6. Multidark (MINECO) [CSD2009-00064, PROMETEO/2009/091]
  7. EC contract UNILHC [PITN-GA-2009-237920]
  8. I3P-CSIC
  9. EPLANET
  10. Spanish-Italian MINECO-INFN agreement [AIC10-D-000543, AIC-D-2011-0689]
  11. [FPA2008-00319]
  12. [FPA2011-22975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the baryon asymmetry of the Universe is nowadays well measured by cosmological observations, the bounds on the lepton asymmetry in the form of neutrinos are still significantly weaker. We place limits on the relic neutrino asymmetries using some of the latest cosmological data, taking into account the effect of flavor oscillations. We present our results for two different values of the neutrino mixing angle theta(13), and show that for large theta(13) the limits on the total neutrino asymmetry become more stringent, diluting even large initial flavor asymmetries. In particular, we find that the present bounds are still dominated by the limits coming from big bang nucleosynthesis, while the limits on the total neutrino mass from cosmological data are essentially independent of theta(13). Finally, we perform a forecast for Cosmic Origins Explorer, taken as an example of a future cosmic microwave background experiment, and find that it could improve the limits on the total lepton asymmetry approximately by up to a factor 6.6.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据