Difference between revisions of "UMICH-2015: Neutrino and Light Relativisic Species break-out session 1"
From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:: Is it a good direct probe of BSM physics (as in the case of neutrino masses) | :: Is it a good direct probe of BSM physics (as in the case of neutrino masses) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:PhaseShift.png]] | ||
; Forecasts for CMB Stage IV | ; Forecasts for CMB Stage IV | ||
Revision as of 19:22, 19 September 2015
Return to Neutrino and Light Relativisic Species sessions page
- Clear science target - A massless field in thermal equilibrium with the Standard model leads to ΔNeff > 0.027
- For thermal decoupling above 100 GeV
- Real scalar - ΔNeff = 0.027
- Weyl fermion - ΔNeff = 0.047 (Dirac - 0.094)
- Vector field - ΔNeff = 0.054
- With 106 detectors and fsky = 0.75, forecasts of σNeff =0.013
- (see e.g. arXiv:1402.4108).
- Model independent theory motivation - Is this realistic experimentally?
- What are the trade-offs for other science goals to achieve this sensitivity
- What is missing from the forecast that could significantly reduce the sensitivity?
- More general science targets -- axion-like particles, late decays of massive fields (before, during or after BBN), decaying Dark matter
- How well can be break degeneracies?
- E.g. Want to separate NeffCMB from Yp
- Forecasts with both varying give σNeff = 0.048 and σYp = 0.0027 (see arXiv:1508.06342)
- In principle allows us to distinguish effects at recombination from changes to BBN
- What role does CMB lensing play?
- For Neff, delensing E-modes improves constraints significantly (sharpens peaks - improves phase shift measurement)
- Can it help break degeneracies in other models (e.g. decaying dark matter) ?
- Is it a good direct probe of BSM physics (as in the case of neutrino masses)
- Forecasts for CMB Stage IV
- Planck 2015 versus forecasts with 2 different marginalizations (see arXiv:1508.06342)
