Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Primordial nucleosynthesis for the new cosmology: Determining uncertainties and examining concordance

Open access
Cyburt, Richard H.·2004·Physical Review D

Abstract

Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have a long history together in the standard cosmology. BBN accurately predicts the primordial light element abundances of deuterium, helium and lithium. The general concordance between the predicted and observed light element abundances provides a direct probe of the universal baryon density. Recent CMB anisotropy measurements, particularly the observations performed by the WMAP satellite, examine this concordance by independently measuring the cosmic baryon density. Key to this test of concordance is a quantitative understanding of the uncertainties in the BBN light element abundance predictions. These uncertainties are dominated by systematic errors in nuclear cross sections, however for helium-4 they are dominated by the uncertainties in the neutron lifetime and Newton's G. We critically analyze the cross section data, producing representations that describe this data and its uncertainties, taking into account the correlations among data, and explicitly treating the systematic errors between data sets. The procedure transforming these representations into thermal rates and errors is discussed. Using these updated nuclear inputs, we compute the new BBN abundance predictions, and quantitatively examine their concordance with observations. Depending on what deuterium observations are adopted, one gets the following constraints on the baryon density: ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\mathrm{B}}{h}^{2}=0.0229\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.0013$ or ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\mathrm{B}}{h}^{2}{=0.0216}_{\ensuremath{-}0.0021}^{+0.0020}$ at 68% confidence, fixing ${N}_{\ensuremath{\nu},eff}=3.0.$ If we instead adopt the WMAP baryon density, we find the following deuterium-based constraints on the effective number of neutrinos during BBN: ${N}_{\ensuremath{\nu},eff}{=2.78}_{\ensuremath{-}0.76}^{+0.87}$ or ${N}_{\ensuremath{\nu},eff}{=3.65}_{\ensuremath{-}1.30}^{+1.46}$ at 68% confidence. Concerns over systematics in helium and lithium observations limit the confidence constraints based on this data provide. BBN theory uncertainties are dominated by the following nuclear reactions: ${d(d,n)}^{3}\mathrm{He},$ $d(d,p)t,$ $d(p,\ensuremath{\gamma}{)}^{3}\mathrm{He},$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\ensuremath{\alpha},\ensuremath{\gamma}{)}^{7}\mathrm{Be}$ and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}{(d,p)}^{4}\mathrm{He}.$ With new nuclear cross section data, light element abundance observations and the ever increasing resolution of the CMB anisotropy, tighter constraints can be placed on nuclear and particle astrophysics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.70.023505

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cyburt, R. H.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2004-07-23
Volume
70
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2132614018
Cited by
294
References
5
FWCI
13.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.