English

Cosmological Constraints on Invisible Neutrino Decays Revisited

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology 2020-01-20 v2 Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics High Energy Physics - Experiment

Abstract

Invisible neutrino decay modes are difficult to target at laboratory experiments, and current bounds on such decays from solar neutrino and neutrino oscillation experiments are somewhat weak. It has been known for some time that Cosmology can serve as a powerful probe of invisible neutrino decays. In this work, we show that in order for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis to be successful, the invisible neutrino decay lifetime is bounded to be τν>103s\tau_\nu > 10^{-3}\,\text{s} at 95\% CL. We revisit Cosmic Microwave Background constraints on invisible neutrino decays, and by using Planck2018 observations we find the following bound on the neutrino lifetime: τν>(1.30.3)×109s(mν/0.05eV)3\tau_\nu > (1.3-0.3)\times 10^{9}\,\text{s} \, \left({m_\nu}/{ 0.05\,\text{eV} }\right)^3 at 95%95\% CL. We show that this bound is robust to modifications of the cosmological model, in particular that it is independent of the presence of dark radiation. We find that lifetimes relevant for Supernova observations (τν105s(mν/0.05eV)3\tau_\nu \sim 10^{5}\,\text{s}\, \left({m_\nu}/{ 0.05\,\text{eV} }\right)^3) are disfavoured at more than 5σ5\,\sigma with respect to Λ\LambdaCDM given the latest Planck CMB observations. Finally, we show that when including high-\ell Planck polarization data, neutrino lifetimes τν=(216)×109s(mν/0.05eV)3\tau_\nu = (2-16)\times 10^{9}\,\text{s} \, \left({m_\nu}/{ 0.05\,\text{eV} }\right)^3 are mildly preferred -- with a 1-2 σ\sigma significance -- over neutrinos being stable.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1907.05425,
  title  = {Cosmological Constraints on Invisible Neutrino Decays Revisited},
  author = {Miguel Escudero and Malcolm Fairbairn},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05425},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

9 pages, 6 figures, 2 tables. v2: updated analysis with Planck legacy data and BAO data, new results are in good agreement with the Planck 2015 analysis. References and minor clarifications added. Conclusions unchanged. Matches the published version