4.7 Article

Flavor versus mass eigenstates in neutrino asymmetries: implications for cosmology

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 77, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5147-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEC (EC) Grants [SEV-2014-0398, FPA2014-54459]
  2. FEDER (EC) Grants [SEV-2014-0398, FPA2014-54459]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEOII/2013/017]
  4. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Elusives ITN agreement [674896]
  5. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme under InvisiblesPlus RISE [690575]
  6. U.S. National Science Foundation [NSF-PHY-1417317]
  7. University of Valencia
  8. Research Base Construction Fund Support Program - Chonbuk National University
  9. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2017R1D1A1B06035959]
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  11. Division Of Physics [1417317] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1D1A1B06035959] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We show that, if they exist, lepton number asymmetries (L-alpha) of neutrino flavors should be distinguished from the ones (L-i) of mass eigenstates, since Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) bounds on the flavor eigenstates cannot be directly applied to the mass eigenstates. Similarly, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) constraints on the mass eigenstates do not directly constrain flavor asymmetries. Due to the difference of mass and flavor eigenstates, the cosmological constraint on the asymmetries of neutrino flavors can be much stronger than the conventional expectation, but they are not uniquely determined unless at least the asymmetry of the heaviest neutrino is well constrained. The cosmological constraint on L-i for a specific case is presented as an illustration.

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