Problem in Dodelson Modern Cosmology

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 4K views
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: 661
Astronomy 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.