702 G.G. Raffelt / New Astronomy Reviews 46 (2002) 699–708Fig. 1. Power spectrum of the galaxy distribution function measured by the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. The solid l<strong>in</strong>e is the theoreticalprediction without neutr<strong>in</strong>o dark matter (Vn 50), the dashed l<strong>in</strong>e for Vn 50.01, and dot-dashed for Vn50.05. The other cosmological2parameters are V 50.3, V 50.7, h 5 0.70, and V h 5 0.02. [Figure from Elgaroy et al. (2002) with permission.]M L BSky Survey will have greater sensitivity to the a hot dark matter component can be related to eachoverall shape of PGal(k) on the relevant scales, other if the cosmic neutr<strong>in</strong>o density nnis known.allow<strong>in</strong>g one to disentangle more reliably the impact However, the cosmic neutr<strong>in</strong>o background cannot beof b and V on P (k). It is foreseen that one can measured with foreseeable methods so that onen Mreach a sensitivity of om | 0.65 eV (Hu et al., depends on <strong>in</strong>direct arguments for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g nn.n1998).Even if we accept that there are exactly three0For a degenerate neutr<strong>in</strong>o mass scenario the limit neutr<strong>in</strong>o flavors as <strong>in</strong>dicated by the Z decay widthof Eq. (4) corresponds to a limit on the overall mass and that they were once <strong>in</strong> thermal equilibrium doesscale of m , 0.8 eV, far more restrictive than the not fix nn. Each flavor is characterized by annlaboratory limit Eq. (2). However, the KATRIN unknown chemical potential mnor a degeneracyproject for improv<strong>in</strong>g the tritium endpo<strong>in</strong>t sensitivity parameter jn 5 mn/T, the latter be<strong>in</strong>g a quantityis foreseen to reach the 0.3 eV level (Osipowicz, <strong>in</strong>variant under cosmic expansion. While the ob-2001), similar to the anticipated sensitivity of future served baryon-to-photon ratio suggests that the decosmologicalobservations. If both methods yield a generacy parameters of all fermions are very small,positive signature, they will mutually re-enforce each for neutr<strong>in</strong>os this is an assumption and not another. If they both f<strong>in</strong>d upper limits, aga<strong>in</strong> they will established fact.be able to cross-check each other’s constra<strong>in</strong>ts.In the presence of a degeneracy parameter jnthenumber and energy densities of relativistic neutr<strong>in</strong>osplus anti-neutr<strong>in</strong>os <strong>in</strong> thermal equilibrium are3. How many neutr<strong>in</strong>os <strong>in</strong> the universe? 2 433z3 2ln(2) jnjn6nn 5 Tn]] 2 F1 1]]] 1]]1O(jn) G,The laboratory limits or future measurements of2p 3z3 72 z3mnand the cosmological limits or future discovery of (5)
4 ]]F ]S]D ]S]DGG.G. Raffelt / New Astronomy Reviews 46 (2002) 699–708 7032 2 47p 30 j 15 jwith<strong>in</strong> about 1%. In that case the relation between Vnnnrn 5 Tn1 1 1 . (6) and mnis uniquely given by the standard expression120 7 p 7 pEq. (1).Therefore, if chemical potentials are taken to be the The approach to flavor equilibrium <strong>in</strong> the earlyonly uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty of the cosmic neutr<strong>in</strong>o density, nnuniverse by neutr<strong>in</strong>o oscillations and collisions wascan only be larger than the standard value. In this recently studied by Lunard<strong>in</strong>i and Smirnov (2001),sense the structure formation limits on the hot dark Dolgov et al. (2002), Wong (2002), and Abazajian etmatter fraction provide a conservative limit on the al. (2002). Assum<strong>in</strong>g the atmospheric and solarneutr<strong>in</strong>o mass scale mn. Conversely, a laboratory LMA solutions, an example for the cosmic flavorlimit on mndoes not limit the hot dark matter evolution is shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. 2. The detailed treatmentfraction while a positive future laboratory measure- is rather complicated and <strong>in</strong>volves a number ofment of mnprovides only a lower limit on Vn. subtleties related to the large weak potential causedBig-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is affected by rnby the neutr<strong>in</strong>os themselves as they oscillate. The<strong>in</strong> that a larger neutr<strong>in</strong>o density <strong>in</strong>creases the primor- <strong>in</strong>trigu<strong>in</strong>g phenomenon of synchronized flavor oscildialexpansion rate, thereby <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g the neutron- lations (Samuel, 1993; Pastor et al., 2001) plays anto-proton freeze-out ratio n/p and thus the cosmic important and subtle role.helium abundance. Therefore, the observed helium The practical bottom l<strong>in</strong>e, however, is ratherabundance provides a limit on rnwhich corresponds simple. Effective flavor equilibrium before n/pto some fraction of an effective extra neutr<strong>in</strong>o freeze-out is reliably achieved if the solar oscillationspecies. In addition, however, an electron neutr<strong>in</strong>o parameters are <strong>in</strong> the favored LMA region. In thechemical potential modifies n/p ~ exp(2jn e). De- LOW region, the result depends sensitively on thepend<strong>in</strong>g on the sign of jn ethis effect can <strong>in</strong>crease or value of the small but unknown third mix<strong>in</strong>g angledecrease the helium abundance and can compensate Q13. In the SMA and VAC regions, which are nowfor the r effect of other flavors (Kang and Steig- heavily disfavored, equilibrium is not achieved.nman, 1992). If jn eis the only chemical potential, Therefore, establish<strong>in</strong>g LMA as the correct solutionBBN provides the limitof the solar neutr<strong>in</strong>o problem amounts <strong>in</strong> our context2 0.01 , j , 0.07. (7)n eInclud<strong>in</strong>g the compensation effect, the only upperlimit on the radiation density comes from precisionmeasurements of the power spectrum of the temperaturefluctuations of the cosmic microwave backgroundradiation and from large-scale structure measurements.A recent analysis yields the allowedregions (Hansen et al., 2002)2 0.01 , j , 0.22 , uj u , 2.6 , (8)nenm,tto count<strong>in</strong>g the number of cosmological neutr<strong>in</strong>osand thus to establish<strong>in</strong>g a unique relationship betweenthe neutr<strong>in</strong>o mass scale mnand the cosmicneutr<strong>in</strong>o density Vn. A f<strong>in</strong>al confirmation of LMA isexpected by the Kamland reactor experiment (Shirai,2002) with<strong>in</strong> the next few months of this writ<strong>in</strong>g.4. Z-burst scenario for the highest-energycosmic rays<strong>in</strong> agreement with similar results of Hannestad The number density and mass of cosmic back-(2001) and Kneller et al. (2001). ground neutr<strong>in</strong>os is also relevant for the propagationHowever, the observed neutr<strong>in</strong>o oscillations imply of extremely high-energy (EHE) neutr<strong>in</strong>os that maythat the <strong>in</strong>dividual flavor lepton numbers are not be produced by hitherto unknown astrophysicalconserved and that <strong>in</strong> true thermal equilibrium all sources at cosmological distances. Assum<strong>in</strong>g thatneutr<strong>in</strong>os are characterized by one s<strong>in</strong>gle chemical21 22neutr<strong>in</strong>os with energies <strong>in</strong> the 10 –10 eV range arepotential jn. If flavor equilibrium is achieved before somewhere <strong>in</strong>jected <strong>in</strong> the universe, and assum<strong>in</strong>gn/p freeze-out the restrictive BBN limit on jn ethat the cosmic background neutr<strong>in</strong>os have <strong>masses</strong> <strong>in</strong>applies to all flavors, i.e. ujnu , 0.07, imply<strong>in</strong>g that the neighborhood of 1 eV, the center-of-momentum0the cosmic number density of neutr<strong>in</strong>os is fixed to energy is <strong>in</strong> the neighborhood of the Z boson mass.