4.8 Article

Upper Bound of Neutrino Masses from Combined Cosmological Observations and Particle Physics Experiments

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.081301

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science without Borders CNPq Brazil fellowships
  2. Royal Astronomical Society
  3. United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  4. European Community through the Data Learning on Manifolds and Future Challenges grant within the H2020 Framework Program of the European Commission [665044]
  5. Royal Society
  6. European Research Council [FP7/291329]
  7. United Kingdom Science and Technology Research Council (STFC) [ST/M001334/1]
  8. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [6655919]
  9. Brazilian funding agency FAPESP
  10. STFC [ST/R000476/1, ST/M001334/1, ST/J004847/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the impact of prior models on the upper bound of the sum of neutrino masses, Sigma m(v). Using data from the large scale structure of galaxies, cosmic microwave background, type Ia supernovae, and big bang nucleosynthesis, we argue that cosmological neutrino mass and hierarchy determination should be pursued using exact models, since approximations might lead to incorrect and nonphysical bounds. We compare constraints from physically motivated neutrino mass models (i.e., ones respecting oscillation experiments) to those from models using standard cosmological approximations. The former give a consistent upper bound of Sigma m(v) less than or similar to 0.26 eV (95% CI) and yield the first approximation-independent upper bound for the lightest neutrino mass species, m(0)(v) < 0.086 eV (95% CI). By contrast, one of the approximations, which is inconsistent with the known lower bounds from oscillation experiments, yields an upper bound of Sigma m(v) less than or similar to 0.15 eV (95% CI); this differs substantially from the physically motivated upper bound.

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

4.8
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