Problem in Dodelson Modern Cosmology

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" concerning the treatment of non-relativistic neutrinos and their energy density in the context of cosmological perturbations. Participants explore the implications of assuming non-relativistic conditions and the mathematical challenges associated with calculating temperature fluctuations of neutrinos.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the energy density of non-relativistic neutrinos can be expressed as ρ = mν n, and suggests calculating mν n0 x under perturbation conditions.
  • Another participant clarifies that the problem refers to neutrinos with non-zero mass, noting that in the early universe, neutrinos were highly relativistic.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the assumption of non-relativistic neutrinos, indicating that they are definitely non-relativistic today but questions their status in earlier conditions.
  • One participant discusses the complexity of calculating x, which relates to the monopole expansion of neutrinos' temperature fluctuations, and notes that the governing equations are not solvable without additional information about metric fluctuations.
  • Mathematical expressions are provided, including an integral representation for x and a differential equation for N(x, p, t), highlighting the challenges in solving these equations without further context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the assumption of non-relativistic conditions for neutrinos in different contexts, with some asserting that they can be treated as non-relativistic today while others remain uncertain about earlier epochs.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions made about the state of neutrinos and the dependence on specific definitions and conditions in cosmological models. The solvability of equations presented is contingent on additional information that is not currently available.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Could you please confirm my idea of how to deal with the problem question in the attachment?
In case of a non-relativistic neutrino, the energy density will be given by:
[itex]\rho = m_{\nu} n[/itex]
And if we adopt a perturbation, then [itex]n \rightarrow n_{0} [1+ x ][/itex]
So in general what he asks from us is to calculate:
[itex]m_{\nu} n_{0} x[/itex]
?
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 652
Space news on Phys.org
ChrisVer said:
Could you please confirm my idea of how to deal with the problem question in the attachment?
In case of a non-relativistic neutrino, the energy density will be given by:
[itex]\rho = m_{\nu} n[/itex]
And if we adopt a perturbation, then [itex]n \rightarrow n_{0} [1+ x ][/itex]
So in general what he asks from us is to calculate:
[itex]m_{\nu} n_{0} x[/itex]
?

It's been a while so I don't know offhand, but let me just state that the problem is talking about a neutrino with non-zero mass, not a non-relativistic neutrino. In the early universe, neutrinos were still highly relativistic.
 
it's the last phrase- assume it non relativistic...
It's OK I don't seek for a solution, I just want to see if I have grasped the idea. Because I don't have a closed form for that [itex]x[/itex] which happens to be the monopole expansion of the neutrinos' temperature fluctuation.
[itex]x= \frac{3}{4 \pi} \int dΩ N(x,\hat{p}^{i},t ) \equiv 3 N_{0} (x,t)[/itex]

and on the other hand, the equation for [itex]N(x,\hat{p}^{i},t )[/itex] is not solvable without having again any information about the fluctuations of the metric...
in Fourier Space ([itex]\mu[/itex] the cosine between k,p ... [itex]\Psi,\Phi[/itex] the time and spatial fluctuations of metric, dots for the conformal time derivatives) :
[itex]\dot{N} + \frac{p}{E} i k \mu N + \dot{\Phi} + \frac{E}{p} i k \mu \Psi =0[/itex]
which I don't think is solvable without knowing anything about the variables appearing.
 
Last edited:
ChrisVer said:
it's the last phrase- assume it non relativistic...
It's OK I don't seek for a solution, I just want to see if I have grasped the idea. Because I don't have a closed form for that [itex]x[/itex] which happens to be the monopole expansion of the neutrinos' temperature fluctuation.
[itex]x= \frac{3}{4 \pi} \int dΩ N(x,\hat{p}^{i},t ) \equiv 3 N_{0} (x,t)[/itex]

and on the other hand, the equation for [itex]N(x,\hat{p}^{i},t )[/itex] is not solvable without having again any information about the fluctuations of the metric...
in Fourier Space ([itex]\mu[/itex] the cosine between k,p ... [itex]\Psi,\Phi[/itex] the time and spatial fluctuations of metric, dots for the conformal time derivatives) :
[itex]\dot{N} + \frac{p}{E} i k \mu N + \dot{\Phi} + \frac{E}{p} i k \mu \Psi =0[/itex]
which I don't think is solvable without knowing anything about the variables appearing.
Hmm, maybe you're right. I'm still unsure whether or not they can be assumed as non-relativistic for a), but clearly they are non-relativistic for b) (which makes sense, as they are definitely non-relativistic today).

I could probably figure it out if I had my copy of Dodelson in front of me (sadly, it's packed away at the moment). But hopefully somebody else here can help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K