The cosmic nuclear reactor was active for a brief epoch in the early
evolution of the universe. As the Universe expanded and cooled the
nuclear reactor shut down after ~ 20 minutes, having synthesized
in astrophysically interesting abundances only the lightest nuclides
D, 3He, 4He, and 7Li. For the standard
models of cosmology and
particle physics (SBBN) the relic abundances of these nuclides depend
on only one adjustable parameter, the baryon abundance parameter
B
(the post-e ± annihilation value of the baryon
(nucleon) to photon ratio). If the standard models are the
correct description of the physics controlling the evolution
of the universe, the abundances of the four nuclides should be
consistent with a single value of
B
and this baryon
density parameter should also be consistent with the values
inferred from the later evolution of the universe (e.g., at present
as well as ~ 400 kyr after BBN, when the relic photons left
their imprint on the CBR observed by WMAP and other detectors).
There are, however, two other particle physics related cosmological
parameters, the lepton asymmetry parameter
e
and the expansion rate parameter S, which can affect the
BBN-predicted relic abundances. For SBBN it is assumed that
e
= 0 and S = 1.
Deviations of either or both of these parameters from their
standard model expected values could signal new physics beyond
the standard model(s).
The simplest strategy is to test first the predictions of SBBN.
Agreement between theory and observations would provide support
for the standard models. Disagreements are more difficult to
interpret in that while they may be opening a window on new physics,
they may well be due to unaccounted for systematic errors along
the path from observations of post-BBN material to the inferred
primordial abundances. Subject to this latter caveat, the
confrontation between theory and data can provide useful limits
to (some of) the parameters associated with new physics which
complement those from high precision, terrestrial experiments.
In the comparisons presented below, the abundances (and their
inferred uncertainties) presented in
Section 3 are adopted and
compared to the BBN predictions described by the simple fits from
Section 2.2. For 4He the
SSBN range in
B
favored by the adopted primordial abundance lies outside the range of
validity of the simple fit; for 4He and SBBN, the best fit
and uncertainty in
B
is derived from the more detailed BBN calculations.
While not all models of new physics proposed in the literature can
be tested in this manner, this approach does offer the possibility
of constraining a large subset of them and of providing a useful
framework for understanding qualitatively how many of the others
might affect the BBN predictions.
The discussion in Section 3 identifies a
set of primordial abundances. Since these choices are certainly
subjective and likely to change as more data are acquired, along with a
better understanding of and accounting for systematic errors, the analytic
fits presented in Section 2.2 can be
very useful in relating
new conclusions and constraints to those presented here. The
abundances and nominal 1
uncertainties adopted here are:
yD = 2.6 ± 0.4, y3 = 1.1 ±
0.2, YP = 0.241 ± 0.004,
and yLi = 2.34-0.25+0.29
([Li]P = 2.37 ± 0.05).
YP
0.254 is
adopted for an upper bound (at ~
2
) to
the primordial 4He mass fraction. The corresponding SBBN values
of the baryon density parameter are shown in
Figure 12, along with that inferred from the
CBR and observations of Large Scale Structure
[2]
(labelled WMAP).
![]() |
Figure 12. The SBBN values for the early
universe (~ 20 minutes) baryon abundance parameter
|
As Figure 12 reveals, the adopted relic
abundances of D and 3He are consistent with the SBBN predictions
(D
= 6.1 ± 0.6,
3He = 6.0 ± 1.7) and
both are in excellent agreement with the non-BBN value
[2]
(
WMAP = 6.14 ±
0.25). If the most recent deuterium abundance determination in a high
redshift, low metallicty QSOALS
[18]
is included in estimating the
relic D abundance, the mean shifts to a slightly lower value
(yD = 2.4
± 0.4), corresponding to a slightly higher estimate for the baryon
density parameter
(
D
= 6.4 ± 0.7), which is still
consistent with 3He and with WMAP. Were it not for the very
large dispersion among the D abundance determinations (see
Section 3.1), the formal
error in the mean (~ 5%) could have been adopted for the uncertainty
in yD, leading to a ~ 3% determination of
D,
competitive with that from WMAP. Due to the very large observational
and evolutionary uncertainties associated with 3He, its
abundance
mainly provides a consistency check at present. Since the variations
of its predicted relic abundance with S and
e
are similar to those for D, 3He will not add new information
to that from D in the comparisons to be discussed below.
In addition to the successes of D and 3He,
Figure 12 exposes
a tension between WMAP (and D and 3He) and the adopted
primordial abundances of 4He and 7Li. The
1 range determined from
4He is low: 2.2
He
4.3; however, the
2
range
is much larger: 1.7
He
6.4, encompassing the
WMAP-inferred baryon density. The 7Li inferred baryon density
is also low
(
Li
= 4.5 ± 0.3) and here the adopted errors appear
to be far too small to bridge the gap to D and WMAP. These tensions may
be a sign of systematic errors introduced when the observational data is
used to derive the inferred primordial abundances or, it could be a signal
of new physics beyond the standard models of cosmology and particle physics.
As identified above, the SBBN abundances of D and 3He are in
agreement
with each other and with the non-BBN estimate of the baryon density
parameter from Large Scale Structure and the CBR. However, while the
inferred primordial abundance of 4He is less than
2 away from
the SBBN-predicted value, that of lithium differs from expectations by
a factor of ~ 2 (or more). It is unlikely that this
conflict can be resolved through a non-standard expansion rate (S
1) or a non-zero lepton number
(
e
0). The reason is that
in the S -
B
and
e
-
B
planes the isoabundance curves for D and 7Li are very nearly
parallel (see eqs. 16 & 23 in
Section 2.2 and Figs. 1 & 2 from
Kneller & Steigman
[9]),
so that once yD is constrained, there is very little
freedom to modify yLi.
This may be seen by combining eqs. 16 & 23 to relate
Li
to
D,
![]() |
(27) |
Thus, for
D
6 and |S -
1|
0.1,
|
e|
0.1,
Li
D
6, so that
yLi
4 ([Li]P
2.6).
Nonetheless, a non-standard physics explanation of the lithium conflict is not ruled out. Indeed, there are models where late-decaying, massive particles reinitiate BBN, modifying the abundances of the light nuclides produced during the first 20 minutes. For an extensive, yet likely incomplete list (with apologies) of references, see Ref. [36] and further references therein. In such models it is quite possible to reduce the original BBN abundance of 7Li to bring it into agreement with the value inferred from the observational data [34, 35, 36, 37]. However, it is found that when the many new parameters available to these models are adjusted to achieve this agreement, the modified relic abundance of 3He is much too large (see, e.g., Ellis, Olive, and Vangioni [40]).
The difficulty in reconciling the observed and predicted relic abundances
of 7Li suggests that the problem may be in the stars. It is
not at all
unexpected that the very old halo stars where lithium is observed will
have modified their original surface abundances, 7Li in
particular (see Pinsonneault et al.
[39]
and Charbonnel and Primas
[38]
for discussions and many additional references). While there is no dearth of
physical mechanisms capable of destroying or diluting surface lithium,
many of which are supported by independent observational data, the challenge
has been to account for the required depletion (factor of 2 - 3) while
maintaining a negligible dispersion
( 0.1 dex) among
the "Spite plateau" lithium abundances.
Another possibility for reconciling the observed and predicted relic
abundances of 7Li lies in the nuclear physics. After all,
given the
estimates of uncertainties in the cross sections of the key nuclear
reactions leading to the production and destruction of mass-7, the
BBN-predicted abundance of 7Li is the most uncertain (~ 10-20%)
of all the light nuclides. Perhaps the conflict between theory and
observation is the result of an error in the nuclear physics. This
possibility was investigated by Cyburt, Fields, and Olive
[41]
who noted that some of the same nuclear reactions of importance in BBN,
play a role in the standard solar model and are constrained by its
success in accounting for the observed flux of solar neutrinos. While
the uncertainty of a key nuclear reaction
(3He(,
)7Be)
is large (~ 30%), it is far smaller than the factor of ~ 3
needed to reconcile the predicted and observationally inferred abundances
[41].
Considering the current state of affairs (no successful resolution based
on new physics; possible reconciliation based on stellar astrophysics),
7Li is not used below where the adopted relic abundances of D
and 4He are employed to set constraints on S and/or
e.
4.3. Non-Standard Expansion Rate: S
1
(
e
= 0)
If the lepton asymmetry is very small, of order the baryon asymmetry,
then BBN depends on only two free parameters,
B
and S (or N
).
Since the primordial abundance of D largely probes
B
while that of 4He is most sensitive to S (see
Fig. 2 and eqs. 16 & 20), for
each pair of yD and YP values (within reason)
there will be a corresponding pair of
B
and S values.
For the D and 4He abundances adopted above
(yD = 2.6 ± 0.4, YP = 0.241 ±
0.004) the best fits for
B
and S, shown in Figure 13, are for
10
= 5.9 ± 0.6 and S = 0.96 ± 0.02; the latter corresponds
to N
= 2.5 ± 0.3.
These values are completely consistent with those inferred from the
joint constraints on S and
B
from WMAP
[42].
![]() |
Figure 13. The D and 4He
isoabundance curves in the S -
|
As expected from the discussion in
Section 2.2, the lithium abundance is
largely driven by the adopted deuterium abundance and is little affected
by the small departure from the standard expansion rate. For the above
best fit values, yLi = 4.3 ± 0.9 ([Li]P
= 2.63-0.10+0.08). This
class of non-standard models (S
1), while reconciling
4He with
D and with the CBR, is incapable of resolving the lithium conflict.
4.4. Non-Zero Lepton Number:
e
0 (S = 1)
While most popular extensions of the standard model which attempt to
account for neutrino masses and mixings suggest a universal lepton
asymmetry comparable in magnitude to the baryon asymmetry
(e
~ O(
B)
10-9) 6, there
is no direct evidence that nature has made
this choice. Although the CBR is blind to a relatively small lepton
asymmetry, BBN provides an indirect probe of it
[43].
As discussed in Section 1.3 &
Section 2, a lepton asymmetry can change
the neutron to proton
ratio at BBN, modifying the light element yields, especially that of
4He. Assuming S = 1 and allowing
e
1, BBN now depends
on the two adjustable parameters
B
and
e
which may be constrained by the primordial abundances of D and
4He. Given the strong dependence of YP on
e
and of yD on
B,
these nuclides offer the most leverage. In
Figure 14
are shown the D and 4He isoabundance curves (i.e., the
fits from Section 2.2) in the
e -
B
plane, along with the best fit point (and its
1
uncertainties)
determined by the adopted primordial abundances. The best fit baryon
abundance,
10
= 6.1 ± 0.6 is virtually identical to the SBBN (and WMAP)
value. While the best fit lepton asymmetry,
e
= 0.031 ± 0.018, is non-zero, it differs from zero by less than
2
(as it should
since the adopted value of YP differs from the SBBN expected
value by less than 2
).
![]() |
Figure 14. The D and 4He
isoabundance curves in the
|
As expected from the discussion above for S
1 and in
Section 2.2, here,
too, the lithium abundance is largely driven by the adopted deuterium
abundance and is little affected by the small lepton asymmetry allowed
by D and 4He. For the above best fit values, the predicted
lithium abundance is virtually identical to the SBBN/WMAP and S
1 values:
yLi = 4.3 ± 0.9 ([Li]P =
2.64-0.10+0.08). A lepton asymmetry which
reconciles 4He with D cannot resolve the lithium conflict.
4.5. An Example: Alternate Relic Abundances for D and 4He
It is highly likely that at least some of the tension between D and
4He is due to errors associated with inferring their primordial
abundances from the current observational data. As a result, in
the future the abundances adopted here may be replaced by revised
estimates. This is where the simple, analytic fits derived by KS
[9]
and presented in Section 2.2 can be of
value to those who lack an in-house BBN code. Provided that the
revised abundances lie in the ranges 2
yD
4 and 0.23
YP
0.25, these fits will provide quite accurate, back
of the envelope estimates of
B,
S,
e,
and of
yLi. As an illustration, let's revisit the discussion in
Section 4.3 & Section 4.4, now
adopting for D the weighted mean deuterium
abundance which results when the most recent determination
[18]
is included, yD = 2.4 ± 0.4 (see
Section 3.1), along with, for
4He,
the helium abundance derived by applying the OS mean offset to the
IT-inferred primordial value (see eq. 25) without the
icf-correction, YP = 0.2472 ± 0.0035 (see
Section 3.3). These
alternate abundances correspond to
D
6.5 ± 0.7 and
He
5.5 ± 2.2.
For e
= 0, the new values for the expansion rate factor
and the baryon density parameter are S = 0.991 ± 0.022
(N
= 2.9 ±
0.3) and
10
= 6.4 ± 0.6. While the
N
estimate is
entirely consistent with
N
= 3, the
corresponding
~ 2
upper bound
(N
3.5) still excludes
even one extra light scalar. The baryon density parameter is
slightly higher than, but entirely consistent with that inferred
from the CBR. As anticipated from the previous discussion, the
predicted lithium abundance hardly changes at all, but it does
increase slightly to further exacerbate the conflict with the
observationally inferred value, yLi
4.9 ± 1.1
([Li]P = 2.69-0.11+0.09).
For S = 0, the new values for the lepton asymmetry parameter
and the baryon density parameter are
e =
0.007 ± 0.016 and
10 =
6.5 ± 0.7. The former is consistent with no lepton
asymmetry (i.e., with
e ~
O(
B)) and the latter
is slightly higher than, but still entirely consistent with the
baryon density parameter inferred from the CBR. As expected,
here, too, the predicted lithium abundance increases slightly
from the already too large SBBN value, yLi
4.9 ± 1.1
([Li]P = 2.69-0.11+0.09).
4.6. Other Non-Standard Models
Although the parameterization of BBN in terms of S and
e
explored in
the previous sections encompasses a large set of non-standard models of
cosmology and particle physics, it by no means describes all interesting
extensions of the standard model. As already mentioned, there is a class
of models where BBN proceeds normally but a second epoch of early universe
nucleosynthesis is initiated by the late decay of a massive particle
[40].
Despite the fact that such models have many more free parameters, such as
the mass, abundance, and lifetime of the decaying particle, the constraints
imposed by the observationally inferred relic abundances of D,
3He, 4He, and 7Li are sufficiently
strong to challenge them (see, e.g., Ellis, Olive & Vangioni
[40]).
There are other models which cannot be simply described by the
{B,
S,
e}
parameter set. In most cases they introduce several free
parameters in addition to the baryon density parameter. Since there are
only four nuclides whose relic abundances are reasonably constrained, the
leverage of BBN on these models may be limited in some cases. A case in
point is the class of models where the universe is inhomogeneous at BBN
(IBBN); see the recent article by Lara
[44]
and the extensive
references to earlier work therein. In IBBN the geometry of the
inhomogeneities (spheres, cylinders, ...) is important, as are the
scales of the imhomogeneities and their amplitudes (density contrasts).
Nonetheless, even with all these adjustable parameters, except when
they take on values indistinguishable from SBBN, IBBN models predict
an excess of lithium (even more of an excess than for SBBN). This is
inevitable since in IBBN 7Li is overproduced in the low
nucleon density
regions and 7Be is overproduced in the high density regions (see
the multi-valued lithium abundance curve in
Fig. 1).
6 By charge
neutrality the
charged lepton excess is equal to the proton excess which constitutes
0.6 87% of the
baryon excess. Therefore, any significant lepton asymmetry
(
e
>>
B)
must be hidden in the unobserved relic neutrinos.
Back.