Planck and the local Universe: Quantifying the tension

Verde, Licia; Protopapas, Pavlos; Jiménez, Raúl

doi:10.1016/j.dark.2013.09.002

Cited by 121 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Combining CMB datasets with external information on the Hubble parameter allows one to break the geometric degeneracy between H0 and the neutrino mass parameter (Komatsu et al 2009) 2012; Efstathiou 2013) compared to CMB or BAO measurements, including the low redshift H0 constraints usually does not lead to a detection of the neutrino mass (see e.g. Hou et al 2012;Verde, Protopapas & Jimenez 2013;Riemer-Sorensen, Parkinson & Davis 2013;de Putter et al 2014;Zheng et al 2014). Sanchez et al (2013) reported an upper limit on the neutrino mass of mν < 0.23 eV (95% c.l.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: signs of neutrino mass in current cosmological data sets

Beutler

Saito

Brownstein

et al. 2014

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

125

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the cosmological implications of the latest growth of structure measurement from the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) CMASS Data Release 11 with particular focus on the sum of the neutrino masses, m ν . We examine the robustness of the cosmological constraints from the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) scale, the Alcock-Paczynski effect and redshift-space distortions (D V /r s , F AP , f σ 8 ) of Beutler et al. (2013), when introducing a neutrino mass in the power spectrum template. We then discuss how the neutrino mass relaxes discrepancies between the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and other low-redshift measurements within ΛCDM. Combining our cosmological constraints with WMAP9 yields m ν = 0.36 ± 0.14 eV (68% c.l.), which represents a 2.6σ preference for non-zero neutrino mass. The significance can be increased to 3.3σ when including weak lensing results and other BAO constraints, yielding m ν = 0.35 ± 0.10 eV (68% c.l.). However, combining CMASS with Planck data reduces the preference for neutrino mass to ∼ 2σ. When removing the CMB lensing effect in the Planck temperature power spectrum (by marginalising over A L ), we see shifts of ∼ 1σ in σ 8 and Ω m , which have a significant effect on the neutrino mass constraints. In case of CMASS plus Planck without the A L -lensing signal, we find a preference for a neutrino mass of m ν = 0.34 ± 0.14 eV (68% c.l.), in excellent agreement with the WMAP9+CMASS value. The constraint can be tightened to 3.4σ yielding m ν = 0.36 ± 0.10 eV (68% c.l.) when weak lensing data and other BAO constraints are included.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: signs of neutrino mass in current cosmological data sets

Beutler

Saito

Brownstein

et al. 2014

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

125

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recent results of the Planck experiment [1,2] generated lively discussions [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] on the value of the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom N eff before photon decoupling (see [15][16][17]), which gives the energy density of radiation ρ R through the relation ρ R = 1 + 7 8 4 11…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Light sterile neutrinos in cosmology and short-baseline oscillation experiments

Gariazzo

Giunti

Laveder

2013

J. High Energ. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze the most recent cosmological data, including Planck, taking into account the possible existence of a sterile neutrino with a mass at the eV scale indicated by short-baseline neutrino oscillations data in the 3+1 framework. We show that the contribution of local measurements of the Hubble constant induces an increase of the value of the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom above the Standard Model value, giving an indication in favor of the existence of sterile neutrinos and their contribution to dark radiation. Furthermore, the measurements of the local galaxy cluster mass distribution favor the existence of sterile neutrinos with eV-scale masses, in agreement with short-baseline neutrino oscillations data. In this case there is no tension between cosmological and short-baseline neutrino oscillations data, but the contribution of the sterile neutrino to the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom is likely to be smaller than one. Considering the Dodelson-Widrow and thermal models for the statistical cosmological distribution of sterile neutrinos, we found that in the Dodelson-Widrow model there is a slightly better compatibility between cosmological and short-baseline neutrino oscillations data and the required suppression of the production of sterile neutrinos in the early Universe is slightly smaller.

show abstract

“…We have two data sets and we want to test whether we can describe them with the same set of parameters or not, within a given model. Based on the outcome of such operation we shall take a decision about combining them [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Let us now consider two data sets D 1 and D 2 and a model M. The two competing hypotheses that we want to compare are:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are cosmological data sets consistent with each other within theΛcold dark matter model?

Raveri

2016

Phys. Rev. D

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a complete and rigorous statistical indicator to measure the level of concordance between cosmological data sets, without relying on the inspection of the marginal posterior distribution of some selected parameters. We apply this test to state of the art cosmological data sets, to assess their agreement within the ΛCDM model. We find that there is a good level of concordance between all the experiments with one noticeable exception. There is substantial evidence of tension between the CMB temperature and polarization measurements of the Planck satellite and the data from the CFHTLenS weak lensing survey even when applying ultra conservative cuts. These results robustly point toward the possibility of having unaccounted systematic effects in the data, an incomplete modelling of the cosmological predictions or hints toward new physical phenomena.Our present understanding of the universe is based on the combination of several different cosmological observations that are joined in order to exploit their complementary sensitivities to distinct characteristics of our universe. Several supernovae (SN) surveys are added together, in a single catalogue, to measure the expansion history at late times. Different Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) surveys provide independent measurements of a cosmological standard ruler at several times. Large scale structure and weak lensing surveys measure the correlation of galaxies and weak lensing shear in many different redshift bins. These are combined together to get tomographic information on the clustering of cosmic structures. At last, measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) are reaching an extraordinary level of sensitivity, that allows to measure the CMB temperature fluctuations along with CMB polarization and lensing. These data are then joined together to exploit CMB sensitivity to both early and late times cosmology. In the future, cosmological studies are going further in this direction. Wide large scale structure surveys, like Euclid [1], will combine maps of galaxies at several different redshifts, that will be joined with measurements of the CMB from the Planck satellite [2] and sub-orbital experiments. The observational efforts, that are driving cosmology toward a phase of extremely accurate, large scale, measurements, will all be joined together to learn all possible information about the initial conditions and the evolution of our universe. In this program, however, a problem arises. How can we be sure that the data sets, that we will be collecting, form a coherent picture, when interpreted within a model? How do we quantify the agreement between them, to be aware of the possible presence of unaccounted systematic effects or hints toward new physical phenomena? Testing the agreement between data sets, in a rigorous way, that goes beyond the comparison of the marginal distribution of some parameters, is critical in answering these questions. The posterior of the model parameters is, in fact, not guaranteed to show tensions due to the marginalizatio...

show abstract

Planck and the local Universe: Quantifying the tension

Cited by 121 publications

References 33 publications

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: signs of neutrino mass in current cosmological data sets

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: signs of neutrino mass in current cosmological data sets

Light sterile neutrinos in cosmology and short-baseline oscillation experiments

Are cosmological data sets consistent with each other within theΛcold dark matter model?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About