4.7 Article

Strengthening the bound on the mass of the lightest neutrino with terrestrial and cosmological experiments

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.123508

关键词

-

资金

  1. RWTH Aachen University [jara0184]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [KA 4662/1-1]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP180102209, FL180100168, CE200100008, FT190100814]
  4. Swedish Research Council Contract [638-2013-8993]
  5. Gonville & Caius Research Fellowship
  6. George Southgate visiting fellowship
  7. Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute
  8. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  9. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creationand Trade (MEDJCT)
  10. Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development
  11. Province of Ontario through MEDJCT
  12. Australian Research Council [FL180100168, FT190100814, CE200100008] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The upper limit on the mass of the lightest neutrino has been determined using recent cosmological and terrestrial data. These results are more robust than previous limits and constrain the mass of the lightest neutrino to be barely larger than the largest mass splitting. Impacts of realistic mass models and different sources of N-eff have been shown.
We determine the upper limit on the mass of the lightest neutrino from the most robust recent cosmological and terrestrial data. Marginalizing over possible effective relativistic degrees of freedom at early times (N-eff) and assuming normal mass ordering, the mass of the lightest neutrino is less than 0.037 eVat 95% confidence; with inverted ordering, the bound is 0.042 eV. These results improve upon the strength and robustness of other recent limits and constrain the mass of the lightest neutrino to be barely larger than the largest mass splitting. We show the impacts of realistic mass models and different sources of N-eff.

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