text:
# A New Angle on Gravitational Clustering

## 1. Standard Formulation of Gravitational Instability

Assuming the initial velocity field is irrotational, gravitational instability can be described completely in terms of the density field and the velocity divergence, $`\theta 𝐯`$. Defining the conformal time $`\tau =𝑑t/a`$ and the conformal expansion rate $`d\mathrm{ln}a/d\tau `$, the equations of motion in Fourier space become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\text{k})}{\tau }}+\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k_1d^3k_2[\delta _\mathrm{D}]\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k}_1)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\text{k}_2)},`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k})}{\tau }}+\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\text{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k_1d^3k_2[\delta _\mathrm{D}]\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k}_1)\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\text{k}_2)},`$ (2)
where $`[\delta _\mathrm{D}]=\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}_{12})`$, k is a comoving wave number, and

$$\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)\frac{\text{k}\text{k}_1}{k_1^2},\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\frac{k^2(\text{k}_1\text{k}_2)}{2k_1^2k_2^2}.$$
(3)
Equations (1) and (2) are valid in an arbitrary homogeneous and isotropic universe, which evolves according to the Friedmann equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\tau )}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}^2(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}a^2(\tau ),`$ (4)
$`(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^2(\tau )=k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}a^2(\tau ),`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, the spatial curvature constant $`k=1,0,1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}<1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}>1`$, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2/(3^2)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, the perturbative growing mode solutions are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\text{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a^n(\tau )\delta _n(\text{k}),`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`(\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a^n(\tau )\theta _n(𝐤).`$ (7)
Modelling the matter as pressureless non-relativistic ‘dust’, an appropriate description for cold dark matter before shell crossing, the fluid equations of motion determine $`\delta _n(\text{k})`$ and $`\theta _n(\text{k})`$ in terms of the linear fluctuations,

$`\delta _n(\text{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3q_1\mathrm{}d^3q_n[\delta _\mathrm{D}]_nF_n^{(s)}(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)\delta _1(\text{q}_1)\mathrm{}\delta _1(\text{q}_n)},`$ (8)
$`\theta _n(\text{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3q_1\mathrm{}d^3q_n[\delta _\mathrm{D}]_nG_n^{(s)}(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)\delta _1(\text{q}_1)\mathrm{}\delta _1(\text{q}_n)},`$ (9)
where $`[\delta _\mathrm{D}]_n\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{q}_1\mathrm{}\text{q}_n)`$. The functions $`F_n^{(s)}`$ and $`G_n^{(s)}`$ are constructed from the mode coupling functions $`\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)`$ and $`\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)`$ by a recursive procedure (Goroff et al. 1986),

$`F_n(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_m(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_m)}{(2n+3)(n1)}}[(2n+1)\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)F_{nm}(\text{q}_{m+1},\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)`$ (10)
$`+2\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)G_{nm}(\text{q}_{m+1},\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)],`$
$`G_n(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_m(\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_m)}{(2n+3)(n1)}}[3\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)F_{nm}(\text{q}_{m+1},\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)`$ (11)
$`+2n\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)G_{nm}(\text{q}_{m+1},\mathrm{},\text{q}_n)]`$
(where $`\text{k}_1\text{q}_1+\mathrm{}+\text{q}_m`$, $`\text{k}_2\text{q}_{m+1}+\mathrm{}+\text{q}_n`$, $`\text{k}\text{k}_1+\text{k}_2`$, and $`F_1=G_11`$). In Eqs.(8-9), $`F_n^{(s)}`$ and $`G_n^{(s)}`$ are the symmetrized version of $`F_n`$ and $`G_n`$, respectively.

From these perturbative solutions a number of important results have been derived in the literature, most of them regarding the tree-level (leading-order) behavior of correlation functions, e.g. Fry (1984), Goroff et al. (1986), Bernardeau (1992,1994). Loop calculations have been attempted only in some particular cases (Scoccimarro & Frieman 1996; Scoccimarro 1997, Scoccimarro et al. 1998); although in the spherical collapse approximation a number of useful results have been obtained (Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998; Gaztañaga & Fosalba 1998).

## 2. Field Theory Approach

### 2.1. Integral Form of the Equations of Motion

The equations of motion can be rewritten in a more symmetric form by defining a two-component “vector” $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)`$, where $`a=1,2`$, $`z\mathrm{ln}a`$, and:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)(\delta (\text{k},z),\theta (\text{k},z)/),$$
(12)
which for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ leads to the following equations of motion (we henceforth use the convention that repeated Fourier arguments are integrated over)

$$_z\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_b(\text{k},z)=\gamma _{abc}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\mathrm{\Psi }_b(\text{k}_1,z)\mathrm{\Psi }_c(\text{k}_2,z),$$
(13)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 3/2& 1/2\end{array}\right],$$
(14)
and $`\gamma _{abc}`$ is a matrix given by

$`\gamma _{121}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}_{12})\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1),`$ (15)
$`\gamma _{222}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}_{12})\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2),`$ (16)
and zero otherwise. The somewhat complicated expressions for the PT kernels recursion relations in the previous section can be easily derived in this formalism. The perturbative solutions read

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{nz}\psi _a^{(n)}(\text{k}),$$
(17)
which leads to

$$(n\delta _{ab}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab})\psi _b^{(n)}(\text{k})=\gamma _{abc}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\psi _b^{(nm)}(\text{k}_1)\psi _c^{(m)}(\text{k}_2).$$
(18)
Now, let $`\sigma _{ab}^1(n)n\delta _{ab}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}`$, then we have:

$$\psi _a^{(n)}(\text{k})=\sigma _{ab}(n)\gamma _{bcd}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\psi _c^{(nm)}(\text{k}_1)\psi _d^{(m)}(\text{k}_2),$$
(19)
where

$$\sigma _{ab}(n)=\frac{1}{(2n+3)(n1)}\left[\begin{array}{cc}2n+1& 2\\ 3& 2n\end{array}\right].$$
(20)
Equation (19) is the equivalent to the Goroff et al. (1986) recursion relations, Eqs. (10-11), for the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order Fourier amplitude solutions $`\psi _a^{(n)}(\text{k})`$. It turns out to be convenient to write down the equation of motion Eq. (13) in integral form. Laplace transformation in the variable $`z`$ leads to:

$$\sigma _{ab}^1(\omega )\mathrm{\Psi }_b(\text{k},\omega )=\varphi _a(\text{k})+\gamma _{abc}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{\Psi }_b(\text{k}_1,\omega _1)\mathrm{\Psi }_c(\text{k}_2,\omega \omega _1),$$
(21)
where $`\varphi _a(\text{k})`$ denote the initial conditions, that is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z=0)\varphi _a(\text{k})`$. Multiplying by the matrix $`\sigma _{ab}`$, and performing the inversion of the Laplace transform we finally get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)=g_{ab}(z)\varphi _b(\text{k})+_0^z𝑑z^{}g_{ab}(zz^{})\gamma _{bcd}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\mathrm{\Psi }_c(\text{k}_1,z^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_d(\text{k}_2,z^{}),$$
(22)
where the linear propagator $`g_{ab}(z)`$ is defined as ($`c>1`$ to pick out the standard retarded propagator, Scoccimarro 1998)

$$g_{ab}(z)=_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}\sigma _{ab}(\omega )\mathrm{e}^{\omega z}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^z}{5}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 3& \hfill 2\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 2\end{array}\right]\frac{\mathrm{e}^{3z/2}}{5}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2& \hfill 2\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 3\end{array}\right],$$
(23)
for $`z0`$, whereas $`g_{ab}(z)=0`$ for $`z<0`$ due to causality, $`g_{ab}(z)\delta _{ab}`$ as $`z0^+`$. The first term in Eq. (23) represents the propagation of linear growing mode solutions, where the second corresponds to the decaying modes propagation. If we assume that the initial conditions are set in the growing mode, then $`\varphi _a(\text{k})=\delta _1(\text{k})(1,1)`$ and the second term in Eq. (23) does not contribute upon contraction with $`\varphi _b(\text{k})`$. Consistently with this, we can neglect subdominant time dependences in the non-linear term in Eq. (22), which amounts to setting the initial conditions at $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Then, the equations of motion in integral form reduce to:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)=\mathrm{e}^z\varphi _a(\text{k})+_{\mathrm{}}^z𝑑z^{}g_{ab}(zz^{})\gamma _{bcd}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\mathrm{\Psi }_c(\text{k}_1,z^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_d(\text{k}_2,z^{}).$$
(24)
As it stands, this integral equation can be thought as an equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)`$ in the presence of an “external source” $`\varphi _a(\text{k})`$ with prescribed statistics. In particular, if we assume that the initial conditions are Gaussian; then the statistical properties of $`\varphi _a(\text{k})`$ are completely characterized by its two-point correlator

$$\varphi _a(\text{k})\varphi _b(\text{k}^{})=\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}+\text{k}^{})u_{ab}P(k),$$
(25)
where $`P(k)`$ denotes the initial power spectrum of density fluctuations and $`u_{ab}=1`$ for growing-mode initial conditions. From Eq. (24), it is easy to verify that the ansatz in Eq. (17) leads to the recursion relations in Eq. (19).

Equation (22) has a simple interpretation. The first term corresponds to the linear propagation from the initial conditions, whereas the second term contains information on non-linear interactions (mode-mode coupling). This corresponds to all the interactions between waves that happen at time $`z^{}`$ (with $`0z^{}z`$) characterized by $`\gamma _{bcd}`$ and then propagated forward in time from $`z^{}`$ to $`z`$ by the propagator $`g_{ab}(zz^{})`$. We can also write down the general solution as a perturbation series,

$$\psi _a^{(n)}(\text{k},z)=\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}_{1\mathrm{}n})_a^{(n)}(\text{k}_1,\mathrm{},\text{k}_n;z)\delta _1(\text{k}_1)\mathrm{}\delta _1(\text{k}_n),$$
(26)
where the kernels satisfy the usual recursion relations

$$_a^{(n)}(z)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0^z𝑑sg_{ab}(zs)\gamma _{bcd}(\text{k},\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)_c^{(m)}(s)_d^{(nm)}(s).$$
(27)
Interactions modify the linear propagator, leading to propagator renormalization, so that the non-linear propagator defined by

$$G_{ab}(k,z)\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}^{})\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)}{\delta \varphi _b(\text{k}^{})}_c,$$
(28)
reads

$$G_{ab}(k,z)=g_{ab}(z)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n(z)d^3q_1P_1\mathrm{}d^3q_nP_n\frac{\overline{}_a^{(2n+1)}}{u_b},$$
(29)
where $`\overline{}_a^{(2n+1)}=_a^{(2n+1)}(\text{k},\text{q}_1,\text{q}_1,\mathrm{},\text{q}_n,\text{q}_n)`$, $`A_n(z)(2n1)!!\mathrm{exp}[(2n+1)z]`$, and we defined $`\varphi _b(u_1,u_2)\delta _1(\text{k})`$. Similarly the vertex is renormalized by non-linear interactions as well,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abc}(\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2,z)\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}\text{k}_{12})G_{bd}^1G_{ce}^1\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Psi }_a(\text{k},z)}{\delta \varphi _d(\text{k}_1)\delta \varphi _e(\text{k}_2)}_c,$$
(30)
and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abc}=\gamma _{abc}+\mathrm{corrections}`$.

The calculation of correlation functions can be written down in terms of Feynman diagrams (Figs. 1-2). We assign a solid line to each propagator, Eq. (23), a crossed circle represents the two-point correlator in the initial conditions, Eq. (25), and a solid circle represent the vertex, Eqs. (15-16). In this representation, loop corrections can be divided into two general classes, those which renormalize the propagator, and those which renormalize the vertex. For example, in the calculation of the one-loop power spectrum there are two contributions, $`P^{(1)}=\delta _1\delta _3+\delta _2\delta _2_c`$ (where $`\delta _i`$ denotes the ith order solution in PT); the $`\delta _1\delta _3_c`$ term corresponds to renormalizing the propagator (first one-loop term in Fig. 1), whereas the $`\delta _2\delta _2_c`$ term denotes the irreducible one-loop power spectrum (second one-loop term in Fig. 1). By irreducible, we mean that this contribution cannot be separated into two connected diagrams by cutting one internal propagator line, unlike the $`\delta _1\delta _3_c`$ contribution.

For the bispectrum, the 4 one-loop terms can be divided in a similar fashion. The $`\delta _4\delta _1^2_c`$ corresponds to vertex renormalization (first one-loop term in Fig. 2), the $`\delta _3\delta _2\delta _1_c`$ correspond to power spectrum (second one-loop term in Fig. 2) and propagator renormalization (third one-loop term in Fig. 2), and the $`\delta _2^3_c`$ gives the irreducible one-loop bispectrum (last term in Fig. 2). This formalism can also be extended to include non-Gaussian initial conditions, see Scoccimarro (1998) for a general discussion and the specific example of Zel’dovich approximation initial conditions, relevant to transients in N-body simulations.

## 3. One-Loop Propagator and The Non-Linear Power Spectrum

As an example, we calculate the one-loop propagator, $`G_{ab}^{(1)}`$

$$G_{ab}^{(1)}(k,z)=g_{ab}(z)+\mathrm{exp}(3z)d^3qP(q)\frac{_a^{(3)}}{u_b}(\text{k},\text{q},\text{q};z),$$
(31)
If we take the $`k0`$ limit, we find that (keeping only the fastest growing term)

$$G_{ab}^{(1)}(k,z)=g_{ab}(z)\sigma _v^2\mathrm{exp}(3z)\left[\begin{array}{cc}9/50& 61/1050\\ 3/25& 61/1575\end{array}\right],$$
(32)
where $`\sigma _v^2P(q)d^3q/q^2`$. Since the correction is negative, this tends to make the non-linear growth smaller than in linear theory, particularly for linearly decaying modes, which decay faster than in the linear case. The correction to $`g_{ab}`$ can be rewritten in terms of a correction to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}`$, using that

$$(_zG_{ab})G_{bc}^1=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ac},$$
(33)
so that

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}k^2\sigma _v^2\mathrm{exp}(7z/2)\left[\begin{array}{cc}28/375& 28/375\\ 4/75& 4/75\end{array}\right].$$
(34)
In order to see the role of decaying modes in the standard solutions of non-linear PT, let’s consider the usual second-order PT kernel (e.g. relevant for the calculation of the skewness and bispectrum). In our notation, the second-order kernel can be written as

$$_1^{(2)}(\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)=_0^z𝑑sg_{1b}(zs)\gamma _{bcd}\mathrm{exp}(2s)(1,1)_c(1,1)_d,$$
(35)
where we assumed linear growing mode initial conditions. Since $`g_{1b}\gamma _{bcd}=g_{11}\gamma _{121}+g_{12}\gamma _{222}`$, and using Eq. (23) we have for the fastest growing contribution to 2nd-order PT

$`_1^{(2)}(\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2z)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{35}}\right)\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{35}}\right)\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\right]`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2z)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}}\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\right].`$
It is crucial to note here that the 4/35 contributions come from linearly decaying modes; that is, after scattering, waves are not in linearly growing modes anymore, and this type of amplitude propagated into the present time contributes 4/35 to the amplitudes of second-order PT kernels. That means that if we are using the kernels to calculate one-loop corrections, which are important at intermediate $`k`$’s, one could use the approximation in Eq. (34) to improve the propagator in Eq. (35); in this case this corresponds to supressing the linearly decaying mode contribution to the propagator. As a result, the 2nd-order PT kernel at intermediate scales would look more like

$$_1^{(2)}(\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)=\mathrm{exp}(2z)\left[\frac{3}{5}\alpha (\text{k},\text{k}_1)+\frac{2}{5}\beta (\text{k}_1,\text{k}_2)\right].$$
(37)
This means that a simple way of improving one-loop corrections in PT, is to use the kernels obtained by ignoring the linearly decaying modes contributions. This has the effect of incorporating higher-order loop corrections (those corresponding to propagator renormalization, although only approximately since we don’t use the full one-loop propagator) in the usual formulation of PT.

If we supress linearly decaying mode contributions for the third-order kernel and use this to calculate one-loop corrections to the power spectrum, we find the results in Figs.3-4. The solid lines in Fig. 3 show the standard (top) and “improved” (bottom) calculations of the non-linear power spectrum, whereas the dashed line shows the fitting formula for the non-linear power spectrum. The three-remaining solid lines (which extend up to $`k3`$ h/Mpc) denote the measurement in N-body simulations of the density power spectrum, the velocity divergence power spectrum and the velocity vorticity power spectrum, as labeled. We see that the vorticity power spectrum is certainly negligible at large scales, and it does not become significant until scales of order $`k2`$ h/Mpc. At small scales, we find that the vorticity spectrum is roughly twice that of the divergence, as expected if the velocity field has equal power in all directions relative to k.

Note that the “improved” calculation is somewhat smaller than the standard one-loop calculation, as expected since the contribution from propagating linearly decaying modes has been suppressed. Overall the agreement with the N-body results is better. In Fig. 4 we show the ratio of our predictions for different models to the non-linear fitting formula, the horizontal dashed lines show the expected accuracy of the latter. We see that the “improved” calculations (solid) stay within the non-linear fitting formula accuracy up to $`k5`$ h/Mpc, whereas the standard one-loop calculation (dashed) overestimates the non-linear power spectrum at scales smaller than the non-linear scale, $`k0.3`$ h/Mpc. The improvement is thus quite significant, although we have included the effects of propagator renormalization in a crude way.

Unlike the velocity divergence, which can be calculated in one-loop PT in analogous fashion to the density power spectrum, understanding the vorticity power spectrum is considerably more complicated because vorticity is generated by shell-crossing, an effect which is negelected in the formulation of PT (see e.g. Pichon & Bernardeau, 1999). However, we can understand approximately the scaling with redshift and scale from simple considerations. After shell-crossing, vorticity develops because what we see is the mass average of different streams, each with its own (irrotational) velocity field. Thus, vorticity can be thought as coming from the vorticity of the mass-weighted velocity field, i.e.

$$\text{w}f_v(\tau )\times [(1+\delta )\text{v}],$$
(38)
where $`f_v(\tau )`$ is the fraction of volume that undergoes shell-crossing at time $`\tau `$. We can then write the vorticity power spectrum ($`\text{w}(\text{k})\text{w}(\text{k}^{})P_w(k)\delta _\mathrm{D}(\text{k}+\text{k}^{})`$)

$$P_w(k)f_v^2(\tau )\frac{|\text{k}\times \text{q}|}{q^4}\left[P_\theta (|\text{k}\text{q}|)P_\delta (q)P_x(|\text{k}\text{q}|)P_x(q)\right]d^3q,$$
(39)
where $`P_\theta (k)`$ is the velocity divergence power spectrum and $`P_x(k)`$ is the power spectrum of the density-velocity divergence cross-correlation. The simplest approximation would be to use linear PT (although it is unlikely to be valid for each flow at the scales of interest); however, since $`P_\theta =P_\delta =P_x`$ in linear PT, this contribution vanishes. Thus, the leading-order contribution to $`P_w(k)`$ comes from one-loop PT,

$$P_w(k)f_v^2(\tau )k^2\frac{d^3q}{q^2}a^6|kq|^{2n+3}q^na^6f_v^2k^{3n+6}.$$
(40)
Thus, we expect a strong time and scale dependence for the vorticity power spectrum. The latter is in reasonable agreeement with Fig. 3, the time dependence is more difficult to test due to the unknown dependence coming from $`f_v^2(\tau )`$.

## 4. Conclusions

We described a new approach to gravitational instability in large-scale structure, where the equations of motion are written and solved as in field theory in terms of Feynman diagrams. The basic objects of interest are the propagator (which propagates solutions forward in time), the vertex (which describes non-linear interactions between waves) and a source with prescribed statistics which describes the effect of initial conditions. Loop corrections renormalize these quantities, in particular, decaying modes are supressed in the one-loop propagator compared to linear PT. We used this to construct the PT kernels and calculate “improved” loop corrections, these include effects beyond standard one-loop PT calculations, leading to better agreement with N-body simulations for the evolution of the power spectrum. We also consider the role of vorticity creation due to shell-crossing and show using N-body simulations that at small (virialized) scales the velocity field reaches equipartition, i.e. the vorticity power spectrum is about twice the divergence power spectrum. We also sketched a derivation of the time dependence and scaling of the vorticity power spectrum.

Our calculations are only a first attempt to include the effects of propagator renormalization, more work is needed to confirm that the results presented here are indeed robust to a more careful treatment. We have also neglected vertex renormalization. On the other hand, it seems that this approach can lead to useful insights into the nature of non-linear corrections and perhaps give us a more accurate way to calculate clustering statistics in the transition to the non-linear regime. Our results on the vorticity from numerical simulations suggest that there is a significant range of scales until the assumption of irrotational fluid breaks down. We hope that by using these techniques we can finally answer the question: “Why does PT work so well?”

## 5. Acknowledgements

I thank Francis Bernardeau and Dmitry Pogosyan for useful discussions.

## References

Bernardeau, F., 1992, The Gravity-Induced Quasi-Gaussian Correlation Hierarchy, ApJ 392: 1-14.

Bernardeau, F., 1994, The Effects of Smoothing on the Statistical Properties of Large-Scale Cosmic Fields, A&A 291: 697-712.

Fosalba, P. & E. Gaztañaga, 1998, Cosmological Perturbation Theory and the Spherical Collapse Model - I. Gaussian Initial Conditions, MNRAS 301: 503-523.

Fry, J.N., 1984, The Galaxy Correlation Hierarchy in Perturbation Theory, ApJ279: 499-510.

Gaztañaga, E. & P. Fosalba, 1998, Cosmological Perturbation Theory and the Spherical Collapse Model - II. Non-Gaussian Initial Conditions, MNRAS 301: 524-534.

Goroff, M. H., B. Grinstein, S.-J. Rey & M. B. Wise, 1986, Coupling of Modes of Cosmological Mass Density Fluctuations, ApJ 311: 6-14.

Pichon, C. & F. Bernardeau, 1999, A&A 343, 663-681

Scoccimarro, R. & J.A. Frieman, 1996, Loop Corrections in Non-Linear Cosmological Perturbation Theory, ApJS 105, 37-73

Scoccimarro, R., 1997, Cosmological Perturbations: Entering the Non-Linear Regime, ApJ 487, 1-17

Scoccimarro, R., S. Colombi, J.N. Fry, J.A. Frieman, E. Hivon & A. Melott, 1998, Non-Linear Evolution of the Bispectrum of Cosmological Perturbations, ApJ 496, 586-604.

Scoccimarro, R., 1998, Transients from Initial Conditions: A Perturbative Analysis, MNRAS 299: 1097-1118.


format: text

text:
# August 2000 Active-Sterile neutrino oscillations and BBN+CMBR constraints

## I Introduction

The standard big bang model is a simple and testable theory of the evolution of the Universe. One of the quantitative tests of standard big bang cosmology lies in its predictions of the primordial abundance of light elements. Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (SBBN) contains essentially just one free parameter, the baryon to photon ratio at the time of BBN $`\eta `$, while it predicts the primordial nuclear abundances of several light elements. Each measurement of a primordial abundance, that has to be inferred from observations at the present time, provides in principle a measurement of $`\eta `$. The success of the theory relies on the consistency of the values for $`\eta `$ that can be deduced from different nuclear abundances.

In recent years two different measurements of the Helium abundance have been given. A first group  finds ***Where not otherwise indicated, all errors are meant at 68% c.l. ‘low’ values $`Y_p=0.234\pm 0.003`$, while a second group  finds ‘high’ values $`Y_p=0.244\pm 0.002`$, which are mutually compatible at about $`2.5\sigma `$ level only.

The SBBN provides numerically a relation $`Y_p(\eta )`$. A linear expansion gives A neutron life time $`\tau _n=887sec`$ has been used. Here and everywhere $`\eta `$ is expressed in unit of $`10^{10}`$. The central value for $`\eta =5`$ has been updated according more recent analysis . Note that this expression is accurate to within 0.001 for $`3<\eta <10`$ while is less accurate for $`\eta 3`$.:

$$Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )=0.2467+0.01\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\eta }{5}\right).$$
(1)
In this way for the low value of $`Y_p`$ one obtains $`\eta _{SBBN}^{{}_{}{}^{4}He}=1.5\pm 0.4`$, while for the high value of $`Y_p`$ one obtains $`\eta _{SBBN}^{{}_{}{}^{4}He}=3.9\pm 0.8`$.

Meanwhile, the value $`(D/H)_5=3.39\pm 0.25`$ $`(D/H)_5=10^5(D/H)`$. has been deduced  for the primordial deuterium abundance from observations toward two high redshift quasars. Deuterium is an ideal ‘baryometer’  which gives an accurate measurement of baryon abundance in the context of SBBN. Indeed one finds $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)_{SBBN}^{D/H}=0.019\pm 0.0024`$ (95% cl)  and from the simple relation $`\eta 273\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, this corresponds to $`\eta _{SBBN}^{D/H}=5.2\pm 0.65`$ (95% cl) §§§In a very recent analysis even smaller errors are found: $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)_{SBBN}^{D/H}=0.019\pm 0.0018`$ (95% cl) and correspondingly $`\eta _{SBBN}^{D/H}=5.2\pm 0.5`$ (95% cl).. This value is clearly not consistent with the $`\eta `$ value obtained from low Helium values although it is consistent with the $`\eta `$ value from the high Helium value.

On a new front, two balloon experiments provided the first accurate measurements of acoustic peaks in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) anisotropies  and from these observations it has been possible to infer a value for the baryon to photon ratio. The BOOMERanG experiment finds $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)_{CBR}=0.036_{0.005}^{+0.006}`$  while the MAXIMA experiment finds $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)_{CBR}=0.031_{0.006}^{+0.007}`$ . These two independent measurements are in quite good agreement and seem to exclude the presence of large systematic errors. A combined analysis of the two gives the result $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)_{CBR}=0.033\pm 0.005`$  that corresponds to $`\eta _{CBR}=9.0\pm 1.4`$. This value is higher than the BBN predictions (given above) from the inferred values from both Deuterium and Helium. These discrepancies may be due to systematic errors but it is also interesting to consider possible explanations in terms of non standard physics. One possibility is that BBN and CMBR are probing different quantities, as they involve different physical mechanisms and at different times (see for example ). Instead we will consider this discrepancy as a hint for non standard BBN.

We will consider two view points: 1) The discrepancy is between CMBR and Helium while the discrepancy between CMBR and Deuterium is due to systematic uncertainties. This is plausible because it is very difficult to identify ‘clean’ absorption systems providing reliable measurements for deuterium and the quoted results that we used were derived from only two such measurements. 2) The discrepancy between deuterium and CMBR as well as the discrepancy between Helium and CMBR are both real and due to non standard physics Note that we will neglect from our analysis measurements of 7Li abundance. This because in recent years various analysis conclude that there is still a big uncertainty on the level of depletion of the primordial abundance to the values that we currently observe (for a recent review see )..

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the possible explanations for these discrepancies in terms of active-sterile neutrino oscillations in the early Universe.

At the present time there is very strong evidence for neutrino oscillations coming from atmospheric, solar and the LSND experiment (for a review, see e.g. Ref.). The atmospheric neutrino anomaly can be solved (most simply) via approximately maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations or via $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ oscillations  (where $`\nu _s`$ represents a hypothetical sterile neutrino). On the other hand, the observed solar flux deficit (about $`50\%`$ of the expected value) suggests approximately maximal $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillations or approximately maximal $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations (see e.g. Ref. and references there-in). Finally, the LSND experiment implies the existence of small angle $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations with $`\delta m^21eV^2`$. The combination of these three neutrino anomalies suggests the need for at least one sterile neutrino. Perhaps the most elegant solution to these neutrino anomalies poses that each neutrino is maximally mixed with a sterile partner (with small mixing between the generations). Of course, there are many other possibilities. In any case, for illustrative purposes we will focus on the simple case of $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations in isolation and discuss some of the other possibilities qualitatively where appropriate.

Ordinary-sterile neutrino oscillations have remarkable implications for the early Universe. In particular, ordinary-sterile neutrino oscillations can generate large neutrino asymmetries in the early Universe (see also Ref.), so large in fact as to imply significant modifications to BBN. In the simple scenario of $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations in isolation, large $`\nu _e`$ asymmetry is directly produced, while, in three (or more) meutrino mixing scenarios an $`\alpha `$-neutrino asymmetry ($`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$) could be first generated by $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ oscillations and then converted into an electron neutrino asymmetry by a $`\nu _\alpha \nu _e`$ oscillations . Focusing on the simple case of direct production, we will find the values of mixing parameters which might explain the possible discrepancies in SBBN. Interestingly, it turns out that the suggested parameter space implies a $`\nu _e`$ with mass $`1eV`$ which is close to the current experimental bound. Furthermore it is also consistent with the measurements of the LSND experiment and thus can be potentially tested in the near future at mini-Boone.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In section II we briefly discuss the relation between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ inferred from X-ray measurements in galaxy clusters and the value suggested by CMBR. Interestingly both are consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$. In section III we show how the $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillation generated $`L_{\nu _e}`$ can reconcile the high $`\eta _{CBR}`$ with the BBN $`Y_p`$ results (case 1 above). In section IV we briefly examine ways in which the discrepancies between Deuterium, Helium and CMBR may both be reconciled (case 2 above). In section V we will present a new possible phenomenological scenario, in which large scale inhomogeneities in the nuclear abundances are admitted. Also in this case active-sterile neutrino oscillations may provide a viable theoretical model. We conclude in section VI.

## II Cosmic concordance or discordance?

In this section we make some comments on the previous indications of a ‘baryon catastrophe’ from X-ray measurements in galaxy clusters and how it might be related to the inferred values of the baryon number from CMBR observations. Recall it is possible to estimate the baryon to total mass ratio in clusters of galaxies from X-ray measurements  obtaining (at 1$`\sigma `$) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^{\frac{3}{2}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=(0.05\pm 0.01)`$  (this is confirmed also by measurements based on the SZ effect that give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=(0.06\pm 0.006)`$ ). If one imposes that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ and using a lower limit on $`h>0.5`$ finds immediately that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2>0.035`$, much bigger than the upper bound that is deduced in a SBBN, both from Deuterium and Helium abundance (but consistent with CMBR as we will discuss in a moment). This ‘baryon catastrophe’ in SBBN was ‘solved’ by assuming that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ can be much less than 1 which implies that we need to give up the inflationary paradigm ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$) or to admit the presence of a large cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. In this way, using the SBBN value, previously given, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ from Deuterium abundance, one can infer a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.45\pm 0.15`$. This picture has been supported by the discovery of an acceleration expansion from SNe Ia , that also points to the existence of a large cosmological constant term, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Roughly these measurements provide the constraint, in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.3\mathrm{\Omega }_m+0.4\pm 0.2.$$
(2)
After the SN results, the first accurate CMBR measurements of the first acoustic peak position seem to confirm the idea of a flat Universe . In this case one immediately deduces from Eq.(2) a value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.25\pm 0.1`$ in very good agreement with galaxy cluster measurements when the SBBN value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ is assumed: three independent methods match each other, with good accuracy, in a region around the point $`(0.3,0.7)`$, in the plane $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (‘cosmic concordance’ ).

It is clear however that if one now uses the new CMBR estimation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, then from galaxy clusters one obtains that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.8\pm 0.3`$ suggesting ‘cosmic discordance’ (albeit only mildly) between galaxy cluster measurements and SNe type Ia. Moreover now the existence of a cosmological constant is not required any more from galaxy clusters . This seems to be suggested also from a recent analysis of CMBR data when a large neutrino asymmetry is allowed . Thus, overall things are not so clear at the moment. It has also been argued in Ref. that the Supernovae evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is not yet compelling. Whether or not a large cosmological constant exists needs to be confirmed independently, perhaps by future analysis from the planned satellite experiments, MAP and PLANCK will help. In the meantime, for people with the theoretical prejudice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is negligible, there is now some good news since X-ray measurements from galaxy clusters and the CMBR results are both consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$.

## III CMBR anisotropies and Helium observations

Even assuming the high value for the Helium abundance, the resulting value of $`\eta `$ and that one deduced from CMBR differ at about 3$`\sigma `$ level.

Let us consider the situation from a formal point of view that will be useful for further developments. In the SBBN picture the experimental constraint $`Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )=Y_p^{exp}`$ gives a measurement of $`\eta =\eta _{SBBN}^{{}_{}{}^{4}He}`$, as we observed in the introduction. However CMBR gives an independent measurement of $`\eta `$ and, assuming it to be a reliable one, provides a simple test for SBBN as now one has to satisfy the constraint $`Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta _{CBR})=Y_p^{exp}`$. Present measurements do not pass this test and thus SBBN is somewhat discrepant with Helium and CMBR observations.

Taking this as a hint for new physics, it suggests that we need to modify SBBN introducing a new parameter $`X`$. It is clear that, if in the physical ranges of values for $`X`$, all values of $`Y_p`$ are possible (with $`\eta =\eta _{CBR}`$), then it is always possible to find a value for $`X`$ satisfying the test $`Y_p(\eta _{CMBR},X)=Y_p^{exp}`$ in the non standard BBN model.

It has been known for a long time that this ‘game’ can be performed allowing a modification of the standard particle content before the BBN epoch . This modification can be parametrized with the (extra) number of (light) neutrino species :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho =\underset{X}{}N_X^\rho 3,\mathrm{with}N_X^\rho \frac{120}{7\pi ^2}\frac{\rho _X+\rho _{\overline{X}}}{T_\nu ^4},$$
(3)
($`X=\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau +\mathrm{new}\mathrm{particle}\mathrm{species}`$), where $`T_\nu T_dR_d/R`$ is a fiducial temperature of ideal neutrinos that would instantaneously decouple at $`T_dm_e/2`$ (but also $`T_dm_\mu /2`$), without sharing any entropy release, from electron-positron annihilations, with photons Note that with this definition, in the standard model of particle physics one finds that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ is not exactly zero, due to the fact that actually neutrinos are slightly reheated during electron-positron annihilations (see  and references therein)..

With this extra parameter, the SBBN prediction for $`Y_p`$ is modified and approximately the change is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p(\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho )\frac{1}{6}Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )\left(1\frac{Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )}{2}\right)\frac{m_nm_p}{T_\mathrm{f}^{n/p}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N^\rho }{N_{\mathrm{st}}^\rho }0.012\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho ,$$
(4)
where $`T_\mathrm{f}^{n/p}0.75\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the freezing temperature of neutron to proton ratio in the standard case, while $`N_{\mathrm{st}}^\rho =43/8`$ is the number of particle species and again the last expression has been evaluated for $`\eta _{CBR}9`$.

It has also been known for a long time  that the standard prediction for the neutron to proton ratio is modified if one allows the electron neutrino and anti-neutrino distributions in momentum space to deviate from the standard case in which the thermal equilibrium distributions with zero chemical potentials are assumed \**\**\**Electron neutrino and anti-neutrinos distributions are directly involved in determining the rates of the $`\beta `$-reactions ($`n+\nu _ep+e^{}`$, $`n+e^+p+\overline{\nu }_e`$) responsible for the final value of the neutron to proton ratio together with the neutron decay.. In this case an infinite number of new non standard parameters, the values of the extra numbers of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos in each quantum state for any momentum, can be virtually introduced. However, in realistic models, usually the deviations depend on a finite number of parameters.

A particularly simple model  is obtained when the distributions depend only on the neutrino degeneracy $`\xi _e`$, playing the role of a new parameter $`X`$. This has to be generated earlier than the BBN epoch and it is usually assumed that it is generated also before electron neutrino chemical decoupling so that $`\xi _e+\overline{\xi }_e=0`$. This corresponds to having a neutrino asymmetry given by:

$$L_{\nu _e}\frac{n_{\nu _e}n_{\overline{\nu _e}}}{n_\gamma }=\frac{\pi ^2}{12\zeta (3)}\left(\xi _e+\frac{\xi _e^3}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(5)
In this case the modification of the SBBN prediction \[see eq.(1)\] for $`\xi _e1`$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p(\eta ,\xi _e)Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )\left(1\frac{Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta )}{2}\right)\xi _e0.22\xi _e,$$
(6)
where the last expression has been calculated for $`\eta _{CMBR}9`$. Thus values $`\xi _e0.035`$ and $`\xi _e0.08`$ can easily solve the discrepancy between CMBR observations and high and low Helium values respectively.

More generally one can allow a deviation from the standard prediction for the Helium abundance due both to a modification of the expansion rate and to distortions of the electron neutrino and anti-neutrino distributions. In this case one can distinguish two different contributions to the variation of the Helium abundance compared to the standard case:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p=\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^{f_{\nu _e}}.$$
(7)
Note that this distinction is not ambiguous as it could appear. One can in fact always calculate at any instant the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ from the eq. (3) and from that deduce the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^\rho `$ defined as the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p`$ when the standard electron neutrino and antineutrino distributions are assumed. Afterwards one can calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^{f_{\nu _e}}\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^\rho `$. It will prove to be convenient to define also a total effective number of neutrino species $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ that combines both the effect of a modification of the expansion rate and that one due to the distortions of electron neutrino and anti-neutrino distributions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}},\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p^{f_{\nu _e}}}{0.012}$$
(8)
With these definitions, the procedure to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ and the specific contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ is particularly simple if one uses the linear expansion (4): $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }Y_p/0.012`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p/0.012\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ ††††††Of course the choice to describe results in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p`$ or of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ is simply a matter of taste. One can say that in the first case the astrophysical point of view is more emphasized than that one of particle physics or vice versa in the second case. In this paper we clearly prefer the second one..

In the case of an electron neutrino asymmetry created before the electron neutrino chemical decoupling ($`\xi _e+\overline{\xi }_e=0`$) it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}18\xi _e`$ ‡‡‡‡‡‡We remind that this is valid only for $`\xi _e1`$. Note also that for large neutrino asymmetries ($`\xi _e,\xi _\mu ,\xi _\tau \stackrel{>}{}0.5`$) these would also give a non negligible contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$. In order to reconcile the discrepancy between the Helium abundance measurements and the CMBR observations, a negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ is required. More precisely, imposing the constraint $`Y_p(\eta _{CBR},\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu )=Y_p^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, one finds:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1.5\pm 0.4\mathrm{for}Y_p^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.234\pm 0.003,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0.7\pm 0.3\mathrm{for}Y_p^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.244\pm 0.002.`$ (10)
One could simply hypothesis that a large pre-existing asymmetry exists, however a more subtle (and testable as we will show) possibility is that light sterile neutrinos exist. Naively, such neutrinos might be expected to lead to a positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ as they would simply generate a positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$, however it has been shown that due to the dynamical generation of $`L_{\nu _e}`$ by the oscillations themselves, there will be also an important contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ and the total effective $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ can be negative if $`L_{\nu _e}>0`$ \**\**\**The problem to get a number of effective neutrinos less than three is not new. It also arises in order to alleviate the tension between Deuterium measurements and low values of Helium abundance (‘BBN crisis’) . Also in that case the same non standard solutions can be invoked. Rounding up the usual suspects, we have a $`\mathrm{MeV}\tau `$ neutrino decaying prior to the onset of BBN , the existence of a large electron neutrino asymmetry  and active-sterile neutrino oscillations , that we are re-considering in this new context..

This contribution cannot be expressed in terms, for example, of the final asymmetry by a simple relation as in the case of a pre-existing asymmetry. This is because the asymmetry is generated, in the interesting cases, below the chemical decoupling temperature and even below the thermal decoupling temperature and thus is changing during the time near the freezing of the neutron to proton ratio. Moreover, as the thermal equilibrium assumption is not satisfied anymore, the electron neutrino distribution will deviate from equilibrium and this effect has also to be included. Thus the results can be only calculated numerically.

The sign of $`L_{\nu _e}`$ cannot be predicted because it depends on the sign and magnitude of the initial lepton number asymmetries. For the purposes of this paper, we assume that it is positive since we need to generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0`$. The simplest example of neutrino oscillation generated $`L_{\nu _e}`$ is the direct production of $`L_{\nu _e}`$ by $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations. In this case we can ignore the oscillations involving $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ provided that either their masses are very small (so that the largest $`|\delta m^2|`$ belongs to the $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations and the other oscillations have $`|\delta m^2|`$ much less than $`1eV^2`$) or that they do not mix with the $`\nu _e,\nu _s`$ (i.e. the $`\nu _e,\nu _s`$ decouple from the $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ in the neutrino mass matrix). In this way the mixing is simply described by two parameters, the difference of squared eigenstate masses $`\delta m^2`$ and the mixing angle in vacuum, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$.

In Figure 1 we solve the quantum kinetic equations for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^8`$ and $`\delta m^2/eV^2=0.25,0.5,1.0,2.0,4.0.`$ (For details of the numerical procedure see Ref.). Let us now discuss the behaviour exhibited in this figure. As already discussed in detail in previous publications  the evolution of lepton number can be separated into three distinct phases. At high temperatures the oscillations are damped and evolve so that $`L^{(e)}\eta `$ (where $`L^{(e)}2L_{\nu _e}+L_{\nu _\mu }+L_{\nu _\tau }+\eta `$, and $`\eta `$ is related to the baryon asymmetry). In this region the resonance momentum for neutrino oscillations is approximately the same as anti-neutrino oscillations. If $`\delta m^2<0`$ (which means that the mass eigenstate which is mainly $`\nu _s`$ is lighter than the mass eigenstate which is mainly $`\nu _e`$) then at a certain temperature, $`T_c`$, which is given roughly by,

$$T_c15\left(\frac{\delta m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0}{\text{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\text{MeV},$$
(11)
exponential growth of neutrino asymmetry occurs (which typically generates a neutrino asymmetry of order $`10^5`$, as shown in figure 1). Taking for definiteness that the $`L_{\nu _e}`$ is positive, the anti-neutrino oscillation resonance moves to very low values of $`p/T0.3`$ while the neutrino oscillation resonance moves to high values $`p/T\stackrel{>}{}10`$ (see Ref. for a figure illustrating this). The subsequent evolution of neutrino asymmetries, which is dominated by adiabatic MSW transitions of the antineutrinos, follows an approximate $`1/T^4`$ behaviour until the resonance has passed through the entire distribution. The final asymmetry generated is typically in the range $`0.23\stackrel{<}{}L_{\nu _e}\stackrel{<}{}0.37`$. Because the oscillations are dominated by adiabatic MSW behaviour it is possible to use a relatively simple and accurate formalism to describe the evolution of the system at ‘low temperatures’, $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c/2`$. In fact, we only need to know the values of the oscillation resonance momentum at $`TT_c/2`$. Previous numerical work has already shown that by $`TT_c/2`$, neutrino asymmetry is generated such that $`0.2\stackrel{<}{}p/T\stackrel{<}{}0.8`$ (the precise value depends on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0,\delta m^2`$). Furthermore the subsequent evolution is approximately insensitive to the initial value of $`p/T`$ in this range.

For full details of the evolution of $`L_{\nu _e}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ in this model see Ref.. The evolution of the momentum distribution of electron neutrinos is also computed and fed into a BBN code (that is solved concurrently) which allows us to compute $`Y_p`$ for each choice of $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$. Particularly simple results are obtained when the constraint $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0\sqrt{(|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2)}\stackrel{<}{}2.5\times 10^6`$ is imposed. This corresponds to having $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho \stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ prior the onset of the neutrino asymmetry generation . Moreover, for the interesting values $`|\delta m^2|100\mathrm{eV}^2`$, most of the generated neutrino asymmetry and its associated sterile neutrino production, occurs below chemical decoupling so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ remains negligible. In this way the only significant contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ derives from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ part which arises from the depletion of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ states as the MSW resonance passes creating $`L_{\nu _e}`$ in the process. For $`\delta m^21eV^2`$, the large neutrino asymmetry is generated provided that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0\stackrel{>}{}few\times 10^{10}`$  (which is essentially the adiabatic condition for this system). With these two constraints on mixing parameters, the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ is practically independent of $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0`$ and thus we have a full correspondence $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \delta m^2`$. The result is given in Figure 2. From this figure we can translate the constraint $`Y_p(\eta _{CBR},\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu )=Y_p^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ \[see Eq.9\], into a sort of ‘measurement’ of $`\delta m^2`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =1.5\pm 0.4,\delta m^2=2.5\pm 1.0eV^2,`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =0.7\pm 0.3,\delta m^2=0.8\pm 0.5eV^2.`$ (13)
These values of $`\delta m^2`$ are interesting from several points of view. They imply that $`m_{\nu _e}1eV`$ (assuming $`m_{\nu _s}m_{\nu _e}`$) which is close to the present experimental limit. Furthermore, if $`m_{\nu _e}`$ is heavier than the $`\nu _\mu `$ state then the LSND $`\delta m^2`$ , $`\delta m_{lsnd}^2`$ is, approximately, the same as the $`\delta m^2`$ for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations. Thus, if this simple scenario is the cause of the BBN discrepancy it can be potentially tested in the near future at mini-Boone.

Above we have discussed things in the model where $`L_{\nu _e}`$ is produced directly. It is also possible to produce $`L_{\nu _e}`$ indirectly. E.g. if $`\nu _\tau `$ is the heaviest neutrino and oscillations between $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ generate a large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ some of which is transferred to $`L_{\nu _e}`$ by $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillations. The indirect mechanism typically generates a smaller $`L_{\nu _e}`$ leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ in the range $`0.7\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \stackrel{<}{}0`$ if $`L_{\nu _e}>0`$. Models with three sterile neutrinos (such as models with mirror neutrinos) have also been studied. These models can also accommodate negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ in the range $`1.5\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \stackrel{<}{}0`$ if $`L_{\nu _e}>0`$. In fact it is fair to say that a deviation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ from zero is a generic consequence of models with light sterile neutrinos if one of the active neutrinos has mass in the eV range.

## IV ‘Just so’ BBN ?

We want now to include the Deuterium observations in our analysis. In this case the discrepancy between CMBR and nuclear abundances observations, becomes even more puzzling. In the SBBN $`(D/H)(\eta )\eta ^{1.7}`$  and this means that having $`\eta _{CBR}9`$ corresponds to $`(D/H)_51.5`$, a quantity about half the measured one. One could hope that, within the model of $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 1`$ discussed in the previous section, choosing the values of $`\delta m^2`$ able to reconcile CMBR and Helium observations, it would also be possible to satisfy the constraint $`(D/H)(\eta _{CBR},\delta m^2)=(D/H)^{exp}`$. This is however not the case as the negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ leaves almost unchanged the standard value corresponding to $`\eta _{CBR}`$. Thus the only way out is to enlarge the space of parameters in the model of BBN. This can be done allowing also a non zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$. This possibility has also been studied for a long time  and recently reproposed in  to solve the BBN-CMBR discrepancy. In this way the problem is now to find values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ that satisfy simultaneously the constraints:

$`Y_p(\eta _{CMBR},\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}})`$ $`=`$ $`Y_p^{\mathrm{exp}},`$ (14)
$`(D/H)(\eta _{CMBR},\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}})`$ $`=`$ $`(D/H)^{\mathrm{exp}}.`$ (15)
In a recent analysis , in which a pre-existing electron neutrino asymmetry is assumed, the authors find that to reduce the discrepancy within a $`2\sigma `$ level, a range of values $`1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho \stackrel{<}{}11`$ and correspondingly $`0.07\stackrel{<}{}\xi _e\stackrel{<}{}0.43`$ must be chosen.

As we said in the previous section, it is not possible to make a straightforward comparison with the active-sterile neutrino oscillations, as the effect of the generation of a neutrino asymmetry is not easily related. However we can make some qualitative comments. It is quite easy to have marginal consistency at the $`2\sigma `$ level by just modifying the constraints imposed on the mixing parameters to solve the discrepancy of CMBR with the Helium abundance alone. In fact simply increasing the mixing angle, with a fixed $`\delta m^2`$, such that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0\sqrt{(|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2)}\stackrel{>}{}2\times 10^5`$, one gets a $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho \stackrel{>}{}0.6`$. It is likely that the values for $`\delta m^2`$ found in the previous section will be slightly increased as a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ is now required to satisfy also the constraint from the Helium abundance \*†\*†\*†It must be said that increasing the mixing angle there is a region where at the onset of the asymmetry generation rapid oscillations are found  (see also Ref.). It is still an issue whether this is a real feature if the solutions or just simply an effect due to numerical inaccuracy. However if this effect would really exist, it is possible that the sign of the asymmetry could be randomly determined in different points of the space with the creation of lepton domains . This would spoil the effect that we want to get, as in this case negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ would not be allowed. In any case at the high values of mixing angles that we are requiring in order to have $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 1`$ (of course $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ cannot be too close to one otherwise this will suppress the final neutrino asymmetry), there are surely no rapid oscillations .. Therefore, within the framework of active-sterile neutrino oscillations, the search for the suitable values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^{f_{\nu _e}},\mathrm{\Delta }N^\rho `$ is translated in a search for the right $`\delta m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$ values.

It is clear however that allowing for the existence of just one sterile neutrino species, values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 5`$, required to have a best fit, are not possible. In this case one has necessarily to assume the existence of more than one light sterile neutrino species. One amusing possibility is the idea that a mirror world exists where every particle has a corresponding mirror particle (see also Ref. and references there-in). The main theoretical motivation for this theory is that it allows parity and time reversal to be exact unbroken symmetries of nature. In the context of this theory, it is usually assumed that the temperature of the mirror particles is less than the ordinary ones in the early Universe. However, it is possible that interactions between the ordinary and mirror worlds may be strong enough to thermalize the mirror particles such that $`T_{mirror}=T_{ordinary}T`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 6.14`$. To reconcile BBN with such a large value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ requires a large $`\xi _e0.4`$ pre-existing asymmetry. (It needs to be pre-existing because if $`T_{mirror}=T`$, then there are equal densities of ordinary and mirror neutrinos which means that one cannot generate significant asymmetries). Alternatively, if $`0.7T<T_{mirror}<T`$, then $`1.5\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho \stackrel{<}{}6.14`$. In this case neutrino oscillations can generate a significant $`\nu _e`$ asymmetry which may potentially lead to a model consistent with BBN for a range of parameters\*‡\*‡\*‡ It may also be possible for $`T_{mirror}>T`$, with large $`L_{\nu _e}`$ generated by $`\nu _\tau ^{}\nu _e`$ oscillations, leading to a consistent model for a range of parameters..

While such possibilities are interesting and testable, it may however seem surprising that nature should have large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ which roughly cancel A model employing a decaying Mev $`\tau `$ neutrino has also been recently proposed to get a ‘just so’ BBN scenario .. Maybe the discrepancy will be alleviated from more precise measurements of $`\eta `$ from CMBR and a mild compensation with one or two extra neutrino species and a not too big neutrino asymmetry would be perhaps reasonable. From this point of view a crucial test in the future will be provided when CMBR will also be able to measure $`N_\nu ^\rho `$, while at the moment it only provides a rather poor upper limit $`N_\nu ^\rho 13`$ . It is however possible to imagine a different kind of solution within non standard BBN models that circumvent the requirement of a fine tuned solution. We now turn our attention to one idea in this direction.

## V Inhomogeneous nuclear abundances ?

CMBR measures the baryon abundance on the whole observable universe with a comoving size of $`6000\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}h^1`$ and this would correspond to a SBBN prediction of $`Y_p0.25`$ and $`(D/H)_51.5`$. The Deuterium measurement is deduced from two Lyman absorption systems at $`z_{\mathrm{abs}}3`$, corresponding to comoving distances of about $`2000\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$. The size of these systems is approximately equal to the comoving size of galaxies ($`100\mathrm{K}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$). Primordial Helium abundance values are deduced from ionized gas surrounding hot young stars at distances within $`100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ around us. It is then possible to imagine that an inhomogeneous electron neutrino asymmetry could be the reason for the apparent discrepancies between Deuterium and CMBR as well as between Helium and CMBR. The quantities $`Y_p^{SBBN}(\eta _{CBR})0.25,D/H^{SBBN}(\eta _{CBR})1.5`$ provide us the values of the nuclear abundances as they would be in absence of neutrino asymmetry. This would mean that in the absorption systems that we observe, a large negative neutrino asymmetry is needed to change $`(D/H)_5`$ from $`1.5`$ to $`3`$. On the other hand to explain values of $`Y_p`$ less than $`0.25`$ in our surroundings, as we already discussed at length, a positive neutrino asymmetry is required. Note that a hint of the presence of inhomogeneities in Deuterium abundances comes from the observation of Deuterium in a $`z_{\mathrm{abs}}=0.701`$ toward QSO 1718+4807 where it was found $`(D/H)_5=25\pm 5`$ . Other authors repeated the analysis and, even though they confirm an high value, they arrive at a much looser bound, $`(D/H)_5=857`$, concluding that the determination of $`D/H`$ from QSO 1718+4807 is uncertain  They observe in fact that in this case the spectra of the Lyman series lines is missing. This is needed to determine the velocity distribution of the Hydrogen and these measurements with the high value assume a single velocity component.. Using a more elaborate model for the velocity distribution inside the absorber, a third group finds $`(D/H)_5=4.14.7`$, in any case still higher than the value, $`3.3\pm 0.25`$ deduced from the two cleanest absorption systems. Another system gives a result $`(D/H)_5<6.7`$ . In a recent review the possibility of high amplitude inhomogeneities with an equal proportion of low values $`(D/H)_53`$ and high values $`(D/H)_510`$ is excluded . However it cannot be excluded that rare peaks with $`(D/H)_510`$ are present and in any case inhomogeneities with values changing in the range $`(D/H)_5=14`$ cannot be excluded at the moment. The possibility for Deuterium abundance inhomogeneities has already been explained with the presence of inhomogeneous electron chemical potential , an interpretation that could be now enforced by CMBR data.

Active-sterile neutrino oscillations can give rise to an inhomogeneous field of electron neutrino asymmetry when the presence of small inhomogeneities in the baryon number is assumed . In this case, the generated neutrino asymmetry can have an inverted sign in points where the baryon number is lower than the average value. Large scale inhomogeneities in the electron neutrino asymmetry might be expected to generate inhomogeneities in the energy densities that would leave an imprint in the CMBR anisotropies that we do not observe. However in the case of active-sterile neutrino oscillations, inhomogeneities in the electron neutrino asymmetry would be compensated by inhomogeneities in the sterile neutrino asymmetry in a way that the energy density remains homogeneous and the mechanism is not constrained by CMBR. There is one difficulty however due to the fact that one has to require the simultaneous presence of large scale regions with positive electron neutrino asymmetry and negative neutrino asymmetry. It has been shown  that domains with inverted sign bigger than $`10\mathrm{K}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ cannot be generated. In this case even though at the onset of BBN one would get values of abundances in regions with positive electron neutrino asymmetry and also in regions with negative neutrino asymmetry, later on astrophysical processes, like supernovae explosions, would mix the different elements leading to approximately homogeneous values for the abundances.

One way to circumvent this is to assume the existence of two scales. On small scales (less than the diffusion length at the time of freezing of neutron to proton ratio, $`100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$) baryon number inhomogenities have to be present. On large scales, as big as required by Deuterium observation, the amplitude of these inhomogeneities has to change such that only in the regions where it is large enough a structure of small scale lepton domains with both signs can form. Neutrino diffusion would afterwards make them merge such that, in these regions, electron neutrino asymmetry is diluted to negligible values prior to the freezing of the neutron to proton ratio. On the contrary in the regions where domains did not form, a non zero electron neutrino asymmetry, with the normal sign, would be present .

In this way one can easily get a field of neutrino asymmetries with values changing between zero and some maximum values. This means that it would be easily possible to accommodate CMBR with only Deuterium observations (in this case the normal sign should be positive) or with only Helium observations (in this case the normal sign should be negative).

If we want to accommodate both Deuterium, Helium and CMBR then we need domains with both positive and negative signs on scales larger than 10 Kpc. However, as we mentioned earlier, this violates the bound from Ref.. Actually, the conclusion that domains with inverted sign on scales larger than $`10\mathrm{K}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ cannot be obtained relies on a simplified assumption for which domains with inverted sign cannot merge with each other. This is what would happen in the presence of a simple spectrum of baryon inhomogeneities with just two characteristic scale lengths as we just described : one is the scale of small lepton domains ($`100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$) and one is a scale that modulates the amplitude of baryon inhomogeneities in a way that in some regions lepton domains can form and in some others cannot. However in a realistic spectrum of baryon fluctuations with a random presence of Fourier components things can be much different and one cannot exclude a priori that in some regions, small inverted sign lepton domains can occupy most of the space and they can merge with each other to form very large domains with a scale higher than about $`100\mathrm{K}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$, both with positive and negative sign. These very large scale domains would give rise to inhomogeneities in the nuclear abundances that could not be washed out by astrophysical processes and would survive until the present. \*∥\*∥\*∥We have to mention that in another alternative model proposed in  the simultaneous presence of regions with positive neutrino asymmetry together with regions with negative neutrino asymmetry is a natural consequence. Here of course we are concentrating our attention on active-sterile neutrino oscillations, but the consideration that CMBR could be pointing to the presence of large scale inhomogeneities in the nuclear abundances has a general validity. A clear signature of this mechanism would be the detection of high values of Helium ($`0.30`$) in the regions where Deuterium is also measured with a value $`(D/H)_53`$ while if some peaks with $`(D/H)_510`$ really exist, here the Helium abundance should be even at level of $`Y_p0.50`$ . However these measurements at large distances seem, at the present, to be quite challenging. Anyway when more measurements from Lyman absorption systems will be available, a clear signature of inhomogeneities could be possible. On the other hand if observations will exclude Deuterium abundance inhomogenities in the range $`(D/H)_5=14`$ or larger, then an explanation of the BBN-CMBR discrepancy in terms of a spatially variating electron neutrino asymmetry, as we are proposing, would be ruled out.

## VI Conclusions

We have discussed the discrepancy between the inferred baryon number density, $`\eta `$ from recent CMBR measurements and the value inferred from standard big bang nucleosynthesis. This discrepancy may be due to some type of systematic error or may hint at new physics. We have explored one possible explanation in terms of active - sterile neutrino oscillations. We focussed on the simplest example to illustrate this possibility, and that is the direct production of $`L_{\nu _e}`$ by $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations. Within the context of this model, we have shown that $`\delta m^21eV^2`$ is required to solve the discrepancy between CMBR and Helium measurements and this would suggest that the electron neutrino mass is about 1 eV. This is a particularly interesting value, since it is right near the boundary of current experimental measurements. While we focussed on the largest discrepancy between $`\eta _{SBBN}^{{}_{}{}^{4}He}`$ and $`\eta _{CBR}`$, we also discussed the $`\eta _{SBBN}^{D/H}`$ and $`\eta _{CBR}`$ discrepancy, and its implications for models with sterile neutrinos. In particular, we looked at two possible scenarios. The first one, would reconcile the deuterium discrepancy with a large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$, while still needing a $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ of the opposite sign to reconcile the Helium measurements. We also proposed a second scenario in which we argue that an inhomogeneous electron neutrino asymmetry could exist which solves these discrepancies. For both of them we showed how active-sterile neutrino oscillations can provide a viable theoretical framework.

Clearly things will soon become more interesting as more accurate measurements of CMBR and light element abundances are done, and also, as we learn more about neutrinos from current and future experiments. Thus, it seems that large neutrino asymmetries, as generated from active - sterile neutrino oscillations offer an exciting interconnection between the rapidly developing fields of neutrino physics and early Universe cosmology.

Acknowledgements We thank X-G. He, S. Hansen, M. Lusignoli, R. Volkas and the anonymous referee for comments on the paper. We also wish to thank G. Steigman who pointed out a wrong quotation, in a earlier version, for the value of the predicted primordial Helium abundance in SBBN.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: Evolution of $`L^{(e)}=2L_{\nu _e}+\eta `$ for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^8`$ and, from left to right, $`\delta m^2/eV^2=0.25,0.5,1.0,2.0,4.0`$ obtained from numerically solving the quantum kinetic equations. The initial $`L_{\nu _e}=0`$ is taken and $`\eta =5\times 10^{10}`$ is assumed. Of course the low temperature evolution is approximately independent of these values.

Figure 2: Change in the effective number of neutrinos for BBN, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ versus $`\delta m^2`$ for the case $`L_{\nu _e}>0`$.