text:
# Conference Summary

## 1. Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are of wide interest in the astronomical community both as laboratories where baryons and dark matter can be conveniently studied and, through their statistical properties at various look-backtimes, as tracers of cosmic structure and evolution. The Local Organising Committee wisely narrowed the topics of this meeting to four broad themes and so I will organise my summary remarks under these headings.

First I think I should address the plea ”Why bother to study clusters?”, raised provocatively by Colin Norman at one stage during the proceedings111Fortunately, I have forgotten to which speaker he made this remark!. We have learnt enough about clusters and the growth of structure to know that two of the traditional motivations require much more careful consideration.

For years on time allocation committees, I read observers repeat a mantra in the first sentence of their proposals: “Clusters of galaxies represent the largest bound structures in the Universe..” in justification of their role as tracers of large scale structure. A number of speakers at this meeting reminded us that clusters no longer uniquely occupy this role. We have other tracers of large scale structure and, moreover, it seems we need to be much clearer of what exactly we mean by a cluster before we can convincingly use them as cosmological probes.

A second, traditional, motive for studying clusters has been observational convenience, e.g. in studying constituent populations such as galaxies at various look-back times. At first sight, it’s an attractive proposition for an observer to study a few rich clusters at various redshifts each containing hundreds of accessibly-luminous galaxies and then to “join the results” in a timeline to make some evolutionary claim. But, at most redshifts of interest, we can expect to find a wide range of overdensities represented (groups, merging systems, virialised clusters). Put simply, rich cluster A at $`z`$=1.2 is unlikely to evolve into rich cluster B at $`z`$=0.5 and neither may necessarily become a present-day Coma.

Both these worries indicate a high degree of rigour is needed in using clusters. We need very large samples spanning ranges of mass at any redshift of interest and perhaps it would be foolish to adopt one single selection criterion for their study. A similar “panchromatic” theme has emerged over the past decade in understanding how to address the question of evolution using samples of galaxies.222Witness the controversy surrounding the use of UV/optical and far-infrared probes of the cosmic star formation history. No single technique wins: several are required.

The motivation for studying clusters that emerged at this meeting focused broadly along the following themes:

* Testing gravitational instability by measuring the number density of massive clusters at high redshift, viz. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_{cluster},z)`$.
* Breaking degeneracies in estimates of the the cosmological parameters by examining the local population of clusters as a probe of the mean mass density and the normalisation of the mass power spectrum, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\sigma _8`$.
* Verifying hierarchical structure and the nature of the dark matter and keeping those theorists in check who predict a universal mass profile with central cusps, $`\rho _M(r)r^{1.5}`$.
* Determining the origin of the heating of the intracluster medium, its enrichment history and examining whether non-gravitational processes are involved.
* Examining the history of spheroidal galaxies and role of the environment, for example in understanding the origin of the morphology-density relation and the destiny of the infalling component of gas-rich field galaxies.

Let me make a disclaimer in what follows. I am not an expert in any of the areas I was asked to summarise and so I submit these concluding remarks only as someone who tried to listen carefully to most talks, dutifully avoiding the lunchtime mountain hikes to make sense of what I heard333I apologise if I missed some talks but I tried to secure powerpoint files or transparencies for most of those.. With $``$70 talks and $``$80 posters, inevitably I have had to be very selective in discussing results.

If one could summarise the meeting in two paragraphs, I would say the following:

* There is an explosion of terrific data, from large surveys (X-ray and ground-based) which offer qualitatively new ways in which we find and do statistical studies of clusters, and also in resolved data within clusters which opens up new opportunities for understanding the detailed astrophysics of dense environments.
* The subject is moving from exploratory surveying to detailed astrophysics. As part of this “growing up” there is a need to admit defeat on some of the old methods and to embrace new ones, particularly on the statistical questions. For many years cluster workers had something of a monopoly in the study of early galaxies and large scale structure, but it is time to take advantage of other datasets being delivered and view cluster astrophysics as only one part of a larger body of information.

## 2. Searching for Distant Clusters

During the first part of our meeting we listened to progress made in finding clusters, mostly (but not exclusively) at high redshift. We heard about a bewildering number of deep surveys (MACS, REFLEX, WARPS, LCDCS, EIS, RDCS to name but a few..Figure 1) each requiring significant follow-up with the world’s most powerful facilities. Excellent reviews of this active field have been given by Borgani (2001) and Borgani & Guzzo (2001).

The motivation is a sound one: testing gravitational instability in the context of a known cosmological model, or alternatively, by assuming a structure formation model such as CDM, constraining the cosmological parameters. The fraction of collapsed large massive structures ($`M10^{14}M_{}`$) at, say, $`z`$1 for a given cosmology is one of the most robust predictions of the dark matter models (Figure 2). The necessary ingredients are a large well-defined sample and robust estimates of the cluster masses.

An additional motivation for locating high $`z`$ clusters, is to undertake evolutionary studies. For galaxies, this is less appealing now we can find statistically-complete field samples at similar redshifts by independent photometric means (Adelberger 2000, Daddy et al 2001, McCarthy et al 2001), many of which are extensive enough for locating clustered objects in a self-consistent way. Marc Postman stressed the dangers here by contrasting differences found between conclusions drawn from galaxies studied in the X-ray selected CNOC and optically-selected Morphs samples. If clusters are found by a manner which relates to the properties of their constituent galaxies (e.g. by only searching for ones with prominent red sequences as discussed by Mike Gladders, or finding ones associated with powerful radio galaxies as reviewed by Philip Best), one can get different views of what is going on in dense regions.

The quest for high $`z`$ clusters has a chequered history. Most of the early work was motivated by a quest for the deceleration parameter based on brightest cluster galaxies (Gunn & Oke 1975, Kristian et al 1976). Denis Zaritsky gave us a new twist to this story with his evidence for varying accretion onto brightest cluster galaxies in the Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey (see also Aragón-Salamanca et al 1998). Claims for number evolution in cluster counts with redshift have also swung to and fro over the years. Until recently only a handful of optical or X-ray selected clusters were available444On more than one occasion, challenges to a standard paradigm have been made on the basis of the existence of a single high $`z`$, assumed massive, cluster.. The most exciting aspect about this meeting is the enormous advance in the numbers of distant clusters.

So how best to find distant clusters? Marc Postman nicely summarised the various search techniques, their advantages and biases. The most useful techniques are those that minimise projection effects. Faint X-ray surveying in the 0.1-10 keV range is cerainly an expensive method in telescope time (but good things don’t come cheap): the background is low, we expect $`L_xn_e^2`$ and thus, so long as massive clusters have hot intracluster media, this is the method of choice. Kathy Romer emphasized how, even with the higher EPIC background, XMM promises to extend the depth of the ROSAT surveys to mean redshifts well beyond $`z`$1.

Whilst we have yet to reap the benefits of SZ effect as a survey tool, James Bartlett showed us that this method has the great advantage of being distance independent (modulo evolution) with a signal $`n_e`$. Instruments such as Planck Surveyor, and the proposed Arcminute Microkelvin Imager which Rüdiger Kneissl described, should also readily probe beyond $`z`$1.

In a similar category to the SZ effect is weak lensing. As this technique wasn’t explicitly reviewed at the meeting, I reproduce the nice discovery of a $`z`$=0.28 cluster by Wittman et al (2001) in Figure 3. Although lensing offers the most direct route to the total mass, it still suffers from projection effects, the effect of the mass sheet degeneracy555Mass estimates based on weak shear of a background population are insensitive to an additional unclustered component of dark matter. and, as a high density of background galaxies is needed, the technique will most likely be limited to the study of clusters with 0.1$`<z<`$0.8.

Concerning the optical searches, Marc showed us, from the analysis of Goto et al (in preparation) how, even locally within the SDSS, changing the search algorithms can deliver very different samples. This is worrying to me as I imagine this kind of uncertainty can only be worse in faint surveys. While smart ideas such as “matched filters” designed to minimise projection and maximise contrast, are of course to be welcomed there is a natural concern that, like Maximum Entropy restoration techniques, such methods work reliably only when we have a clear idea of what we are searching for. Do we?

The Red Cluster Sequence method described by Mike Gladders seems the most promising of the optical methods. Indeed the authors claim it to be “comparable or superior to X-ray methods” (Gladders & Yee 2000) - a bold assertion! Certainly panoramic detectors sensitive in $`R`$ and $`z^{}`$ make this a much more efficient way to locate red colour-magnitude sequences to $`z`$1 and, at CFHT, there is the prospect of coupling lower $`z`$ detections with weak lensing constraints to directly get masses. Simulations suggest this search technique should be complete to $`z`$1, even allowing for some dispersion and bluing in the color-magnitude relation. Unless there is a (perverse) population of massive clusters devoid of a uniform population of spheroidals, the technique seems a sound one.

But the next thorny issue is how to get a reliable mass, the second important requirement to test Figure 2 and one worth thinking about before embarking on any time-consuming survey! The mass of a distant cluster has traditionally been inferred from the X-ray luminosity (assuming a $`L_xT_x`$ relation), an optical richness (very crude) or a velocity dispersion based on a few members. Clearly none of these is really adequate. This is, I think, where the X-ray surveys win hands down even if “smart” algorithms rescue the optical searches. We can fully expect, with adequate investment, X-ray temperatures for large numbers of distant clusters in the coming years. Brian Holden showed new Chandra data that indicates little evolution in the $`L_xT_x`$ relation to $`z`$0.8. Whilst assumptions are necessary to link $`T_x`$ and virial mass (Voit 2000), the prospects look good, particularly with cross-checks from the SZ effect. Lauro Grego showed us the promise of deriving masses independently from her interferometric SZ techniques.

The major problem in my opinion is that the optical searchers have no real route to cluster mass (except by recourse to independent X-ray techniques or perhaps weak lensing over a limited $`z`$ range); projection also remains an issue. Multiple systems, often separated by only modest velocity differences, would be very hard to detect without a huge spectroscopic investment. A good example in showing the pitfalls is the cluster surrounding the $`z`$=1.206 galaxy 3C324 (Smail & Dickinson 1995, Figure 4) now known from spectroscopic evidence to consist of two components separated by only $`\delta z`$0.06. Although radio-selected, not only would its richness have been overestimated without careful spectroscopy, it seems unlikely the Red Sequence method applied to a similar system at any redshift would be able to photometrically-separate the two systems.

In the case of the local X-ray cluster data essential as a basis for all high $`z`$ comparisons, Luigi Guzzo and Hans Böhringer demonstrated the remarkably precise cluster luminosity function obtained from the REFLEX survey. Few would disagree that this is a major achievement in the subject not just in statistical terms but also because of the considerable care taken to ensure homogeneity in the survey.

Turning then to the cosmological results and necessarily being somewhat selective, Harald Ebeling (MACS) and Piero Rosati (RDCS) discussed a fairly modest decline in the abundance of massive clusters to $`z`$1 (Figure 5); this is a fairly convincing conclusion for $`z<`$0.5 but beyond I suspect there is still some room for manoever. Qualitatively, this is similar to the 4.7$`\sigma `$ decline claimed by Gioia (2001) in her NEP sample (not discussed at this meeting). Stefano Borgani has modelled the decline with redshift in the RDCS-3 sample with available $`L_xT_x`$ data and claims the data is consistent with popular choices of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$3).

Can we say there is “concordance” between the observers? Not yet but good progress is being made. Most of any agreement refers to evolution in luminous, presumed massive, clusters. A number of niggly issues remain including the effects of incompleteness, cosmic variance for the smaller field surveys, AGN/cooling flow contamination, and how to compare surveys with minimal $`L_x,z`$ overlap. For example, at the lower luminosities probed by the WARPS survey, the situation is quite unclear with some arguing for no evolution at all. Much of the dispersion in the inferred evolution arises from uncertainties in the number of local massive clusters against which comparisons are needed. WARPS and RDCS appear to disagree on the “local” abundance to an extent that seriously affects their respective analyses. However, the prospects for extending these tests to higher redshift and clarifying the temperatures with Chandra appear very promising, even before the new XMM surveys are underway.

As an outsider to the subject of distant X-ray cluster surveys, I was struck in both Harald and Marc Postman’s reviews of the large number of competing surveys underway. If the labour involved in constructing these surveys was not enough, remember that the time required to fully exploit them is even larger. For example, the construction of Ebeling’s ROSAT-based MACS sample of 840 clusters involved two colour CCD imaging and spectroscopic verification of a significant sample. To exploit all 109 clusters beyond $`z>`$0.3 with multi-slit spectrographs, a weak lensing deep imaging study, Sunyaev-Zel‘dovich (SZ) detections and other applications would require almost dedicated access to a huge range of facilities (a tall order even by Harald’s standards!). When one realizes this is just one of the many ambitious surveys we heard about with more in the pipeline, I worry has the planning of all these surveys seriously taken into account the necessary investment for a full exploitation?

## 3. Mapping Large Scale Structure with Clusters

Bob Nichol gave us a very balanced review of the changing role of clusters as new probes of large scale structure became available. He also posed some controversial questions, e.g: “in the era of galaxy and lensing surveys, who needs clusters?” He also stressed many of the complications that arise from the frequent merging of clusters on our assumption of relaxed systems in virial equilibrium.

I think it fair to say the traditional role of using clusters selected in various way (optically from the Abell/ACO catalogues or from X-rays) as the most efficient way to get to the mass power spectrum $`P(k)`$ on large scales is being overtaken by the large redshift surveys. In the era of 2dF and SDSS, huge volumes populated by over 100,000 galaxies are publically available666See http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/ & http://archive.stsci.edu/sdss/edr\_main.html. and delineate the power spectrum more reliably than the earlier Abell/ACO cluster samples whose integrity is still being debated. In the case of the X-ray cluster samples, Luigi Guzzo’s analysis of the REFLEX survey is comparable in importance to 2dF and SDSS at the time of writing. A particularly impressive achievement in that sample is the detection of infall in the $`\xi _v(\sigma ,\pi )`$ plane convincingly demonstrating the quality of the sample. However, the redshift surveys are continuing apace and from them one can create far more reliable spectroscopically-based cluster samples. Of particular interest is the volume to $`z`$0.55 probed by SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies survey. The message is clear: wholesale galaxy mapping has arrived..use the data!

Bob drew attention to possible “baryon wiggles” in both the power spectrum of Abell/ACO clusters seen by Miller et al (2001) and referred to one tentatively in the 2dF data (Percival et al 2001). It must be remembered that, in such plots, the redshift-space power spectrum is significantly affected by aliasing introduced by the window function of the survey volume. Without careful simulation of this effect it is very hard to be sure whether bumps are artefacts or genuine baryon oscillations. Neither the REFLEX not the 2dF surveys claim to have detected these features. Indeed, the 2dF team estimates unless the baryon density is much higher than expected, they will remain undetected in the completed SDSS survey.

Elena Pierpaoli described a second aspect of local cluster statistics, namely constraining the amplitude of the mass power spectrum. The abundance of clusters of known mass provides a joint constraint on the variance, $`\sigma _8`$ on 8$`h^1`$ Mpc scales and the mean mass density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ in a form dependent on $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.5}`$. By adding X-ray temperature measurements and improving the mass-$`T_x`$ connection, an improved constraints has been determined. In the past year, the same constraint has also been probed in a completely independent way via weak lensing studies of randomly-chosen fields (so called “cosmic shear” surveys) (eg. van Waerbeke et al 2001, Bacon et al 2000, 2001 in prep.). Reassuringly both methods get fairly similar answers with $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.6}`$=0.40-0.50 although it is important to remember that cosmic variance and the redshift distribution of the background faint galaxies may affect uncertainties in the lensing estimates777Since the conference, estimates about 20% lower for the combination of $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ have been published, both from cluster studies and large scale structure results. Lahav et al (astro-ph/0112162 gives a good summary)

The weak lensing results are independent of any assumed cluster population and do not rely on Gaussian fluctuations in the mass spectrum. Accordingly, comparisons of lensing and cluster-based methods are an important way to verify the assumptions we may take for granted, not only in the cosmological framework but also in cluster physics.

## 4. Physical Processes Within Clusters

We had an interesting session on the internal mass distributions within cluster where Andrea Biviano gave a very comprehensive review of years of effort invested in estimating orbital anisotropies and mass distributions in clusters. The number of clusters which have been comprehensively surveyed spectroscopically is increasing rapidly and the new field surveys (SDSS, 2dF) will generate lots more. Cluster galaxy dynamics will remain a critical tool in determining the orbital anistropy of cluster galaxies of different types. As Andrea showed, there is convincing evidence that spheroidal galaxies retain an isotropic velocity field, consistent with their long-standing membership, whereas late type systems show a detectable radial anisotropy reflecting their continuous infall.

The peripheries of clusters at moderate redshifts are largely unstudied regions important in linking cluster-based environmental evolution to that in field galaxies. Tommaso Treu and Taddy Kodama described complementary dynamical/HST and photometric imaging programs to address this question. Kodama finds a potentially important result whereby the colours of field galaxies undergo a sharp transition from blue-to-red at some galaxian surface density, presumably reflecting some process associated with their arrival at the cluster. Treu is embarking on a longer term project to understand the mechanistic details of infall in a single well-studied cluster. Both routes are important ones to pursue.

Andrea was cautious about deriving mass profiles from galaxy velocities. This has been a long standing problem in individual clusters, even Coma, because of the inevitable degeneracies arising from unknown orbital anisotropies as a function of radius. If a functional form is adopted for the mass profile (e.g. NFW), solutions can be found but the present motivation is surely to determine these forms directly, as is possible in a more competitive way with X-ray data in the inner regions and weak lensing to the periphery. Steve Allen showed how much progress has been made in reconciling strong lensing and X-ray based mass estimates following improved Chandra data on 7 clusters and found no significant deviations from the universal mass profile seen in numerical simulations.

In an effort to overcome some limitations, it has become common practice to co-add data from many clusters in the hope of improving signal to noise and erase asymmetries. Peter Katgert and Roland van der Marel showed us results from coadded samples based on the ENACS and CNOC surveys respectively, and concluded mass traces light to a reasonable approximation. However, is a composite cluster really a physical entity? A number of critics were unconvinced because of the dangerous effect one or two “complex” systems might have on the final conclusion. Even with a substantial number of redshifts, it seems one has to be cautious in interpreting dynamical data in terms of a simple gravitational potential.

A salutory lesson can be learnt from the comprehensive survey of the regular cluster Cl0024+16 (see Treu et al, Metevier et al, these proceedings) by Czoske et al (2001). For many years this was regarded as a classic regular virialised system at $`z`$=0.4 and its mass profile even formed the basis for promoting self-interacting dark matter as discussed by Oleg Gnedin. However, when 650 redshifts were gathered (of which 295 are members), Czoske et al resolved a foreground system (whose mass was initially thought to be quite modest but now is claimed to be significant) undergoing an end-on merger with the main body of the cluster (Figure 6). This discovery may explain its low X-ray luminosity c.f. the original high velocity dispersion. With less than 100 member velocities, Cl0024+16 would surely have been considered a representative cluster for coaddition but now we know it is a more complex beast. Bootstrap-style experiments might be helpful to clarify the robustness of the coaddition procedure.

Soon after the first X-ray detections of hot gas from the intracluster medium (ICM) were detected, it was realised that most of the baryons in clusters are in gaseous form. Assuming an isothermal distribution, the surface brightness profiles offer a valuable probe of cluster mass disribution, and the X-ray morphology indicates the evolutionary state. Clusters are expected to continuously assemble in popular hierarchical models and we can expect to directly witness this growth via shock heating events.

XMM and Chandra are transforming this field and this conference has provided one of the first opportunities for us to discuss the assumptions made in analysing earlier data. Monique Arnaud illustrated some of this progress in her excellent review. Although merging substructures produce shock-heating Chandra reveals unforeseen complexities, for example in the “cold fronts” seen in some clusters which suggest the associated timescales may have been underestimated. Monique demonstrated several lines of evidence for the continuing assembly of clusters (X-ray substructure, anisotropic accretion etc). However, even in the well-studied case of the outskirts of the Coma cluster, Uli Briel demonstrated significant uncertainties in understanding the merger timescales involved. Such data are thus illustrative of hierarchical assembly but may not give us the needed quantitative verification of mass assembly.

The most striking aspect of the new high quality data is the growing evidence for non-gravitational processes in understanding the physics of the ICM. Whilst temperature profiles obtained with ASCA and BeppoSAX were often discrepant (as discussed by De Grandi), the XMM data gives reasonable support to the assumption of isothermal cores. However, the expected self-similar “scaling laws” between the gas mass, virial radius and X-ray temperature, e.g. in $`L_xT^2`$ are not obeyed. The steep $`L_xT`$ relation implies non-gravitational processes, almost certainly associated with additional heating mechanisms.

Theoretical explanations for the steep $`L_xT`$ relation were the subject of almost an entire afternoon session. There was a bewildering number of ideas. Fabio Governato reviewed for us how feedback heating can be incorporated in numerical simulations and showed that a steep relation cannot be easily explained via conventional heating sources such as supernovae. Paolo Tozzi demonstrated that, with an energy of 1-2 kev/baryon, AGN are a promising possibility but it seems there is no obvious evidence for heating from these sources. Peter Thomas from the VIRGO consortium can predict the slope but only at the expense of a strong evolution in the relationship. Uros Seljak gave us an analytical model based on a universal gas profile where departure from self-similarity arises from a temperature-dependent hot gas fraction.

Perhaps that glass of wine at lunchtime was not a good idea but this was a confusing session for me. Unlike observers who compare ASCA/BeppoSAX/XMM temperature profiles, worrying about sensitivity, psf and background differences, when it comes to numerical simulations, I am puzzled that there appears to be no necessity to inter-compare results. Surely this is a first step in convincing anyone of the believability of a particular simulation?

Additional physical complexities in the inner cool cores of clusters were reviewed by Andy Fabian. In the physical environment of a dense cluster core, hot gas is able to cool radiatively in a timescale of less than $`10^{910}`$ years and a stable flow of cooling gas to the cluster centre is expected. Almost 50% of all X-ray clusters show some signs of the associated temperature gradient implying mass inflow and deposition rates of 10-100 $`M_{}`$ yr-1. However, XMM spectra show no sign of the expected Fe XX lines of radiative cooling in the 13-18 Å range. Hans Böhringer also discussed additional temperature diagnostics unaffected by absorption effects. Either the gas is not cooling radiatively or there is perhaps is a balancing effects from a hitherto-unidentified heating mechanism. And there are serious duty cycle issues concerned with preventing cooling beyond 2-3 kev.

As usual, Andy had no shortage of ideas for resolving the puzzle, the most intriguing from my perspective being the hypothesis of a starkly bimodal metallicity distribution which has the desired effect of suppressing the amount of cooling witnessed through the diagnostic iron lines. Like most conference participants I suspect, I have little idea where this additional complexity in the ICM physics is taking us. The Chandra images of the Perseus cluster discussed by Schmidt (with such enthusiasm!) show holes in the X-ray emission where the gas appears hotter and more metal rich. Dynamical complexities were introduced by Ettori in the wealth of data he presented for Abell 1795. A number of speakers introduced magnetic fields associated with radio polarisation (in the case of Abell 2255 discussed by Govoni), radio sources (although as Fabian remarked the gas is not obviously hotter in these regions) or in explaining the survival of cold clouds with associated fronts (Arnaud).

I think we can be optimistic that there is a lot to learn which will assist in the entire interplay between gas cooling, star formation and enrichment. Many years ago at a conference I attended in Cambridge, Andy claimed confidently that cooling flows provided a key mechanism for the formation of giant elliptical galaxies. Although cooling flows remain controversial, Andy can still assert (as Richard Bower emphasised independently) that the physics of gas cooling in cluster cores will tell us much about feedback and star formation: still key ingredients in galaxy formation.

## 5. Evolution of Galaxy Populations within Dense Environments

On the last day, Pieter van Dokkum surveyed the literature on the role that clusters continue to play in our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution. There is a subtle shift of emphasis however. Rather than being “laboratories of convenience” 888Perhaps there is a better terminology here!, galaxies in clusters are now being studied alongside equivalent field populations and as likely successors to well-studied Lyman break galaxies at $`z>`$2.

Most of the discussion, by van Dokkum, Rosati & Kelson, concentrated on the role of very distant ($`z>`$0.5) clusters, largely in terms of differentiating stellar ages and the ages of mass assembly of giant ellipticals. Our large telescopes are being flexed to their limits to secure impressive fundamental plane data (to $`z=`$1.2 in 12 hour Keck exposures!) which continues to support the notion that old stellar populations in at least some fraction of the data. That the stars in ellipticals may be older than the assemblies in which they now reside is illustrated in the red mergers seen in the well-studied X-ray luminous cluster MS1054 ($`z`$=0.83). Pieter posed the question of how common such a system might be and gave some new examples of red mergers in other clusters. It is good to see some progress in separating the ages of stars from those of the accumulated mass that makes up giant ellipticals.

The biases introduced not only in selecting galaxies within clusters (by HST morphology, by colour or infrared magnitude) but also by how the clusters themselves were selected (X-ray, optical..) continue to worry me. D. Fadda also reminded us how gas rich and dusty systems may be common even in dense clusters. As remarked earlier, it is hard to know what errors are made by connecting data at different redshifts to delineate an evolutionary picture. One suspects we are reliant either on theoretical modelling (heaven forbid!) or comparative field samples. Beyond $`z>`$0.5 this will be some time coming although a number of speakers alluded to the upcoming Keck and VLT spectroscopic surveys.

It is now 20 years since Alan Dressler published his quantitative study of the morphology-density relation in a nearby sample of 55 rich clusters (Dressler 1980). Pieter and Bianca Poggianti urged us to go back and improve the local samples now we have panoramic CCD cameras and multi-object spectrographs so we can be sure of the local fractions (Figure 7). A key issue here is the origin of S0s; the Morphs team (Dressler et al 1997) proposed their recent demise from gas stripping and tidal effects and presented a strong claim for an evolving E/S0 fraction with lookback time. Pieter urged us to be much more cautious in differentiating Es and S0s; with resolved spectroscopy of $`z>`$0.5 galaxies feasible on many telescopes, this appears to be a profitable route in conjunction with HST data.

## 6. Parting Thoughts

This has been a fascinating meeting and we have a lot to be thankful for. Foremost we have amazing observational facilities capable of finding clusters and studying them to great depths in complementary ways. We now can resolve clusters at the arcsec level in X-rays and locate their concentrated masses with S-Z and weak lensing techniques. We can also locate local clusters as byproducts in the comprehensive redshift surveys being undertaken. Instead of viewing these as competing techniques we should exploit them all as complementary probes to check our physical assumptions.

We also have the opportunity to learn new physics in the cluster cores from the paradoxes emerging from the steeper $`L_xT`$ relations and the absence of lines of radiative cooling in those with temperature gradients. It should perhaps be no surprise that simple gravitational physics is not enough to explain what we see. The fall-out in our understanding of galaxy and cluster formation from resolving this paradox could be a big one.

As the concluding speaker I want to thank Drs Mardirossian and Mezzetti for all the necessary arrangements here at beautiful Sesto Pusteria and to the Organising Committee for their hard work. We should in particular thank Stefano Borgani for his obvious insight in constructing a thoughtful scientific program and amazing energy he and his colleagues invested in making this a great meeting!


format: text

text:
# Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Calculation11footnote 1Talk given at ”Matter in the Universe”, ISSI Bern

## 1 Introduction

Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is among the main observational evidence for big bang. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provided us with the temperature scale of the early universe, and allowed the calculation of the primordial nuclear abundances produced in the big bang. The four light isotopes, $`\mathrm{D}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ are mainly produced in the big bang, and the calculated abundances agree fairly well with astronomical observations.

Standard big bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN) has a single free parameter, the baryon-to-photon ratio,

$$\eta \frac{n_b}{n_\gamma }=10^{10}\mathrm{}10^9,$$
(1)
which is related to the present baryonic contribution to the critical density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ via the Hubble constant $`H_0h100`$ km/s/Mpc by

$$\eta _{10}10^{10}\eta =274\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2.$$
(2)
For decades, BBN has provided the best determination of the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. The agreement with observations is obtained in the range $`\eta _{10}=1.5\mathrm{}6`$. Despite optimistic claims from time to time, BBN has not really progressed towards a much more precise determination of $`\eta `$. Observers claim higher precision from determinations of primordial abundances of single isotopes, but disagree with each other or, within the context of SBBN, with primordial abundances of other isotopes. Difficult questions about systematic errors in observations and chemical evolution relating the present abundances to primordial abundances have prevented further progress.

During the past year, a competing method for estimating the amount of baryonic matter has appeared. In the angular power spectrum of the anisotropy of CMB, the relative heights of the even and odd acoustic peaks are sensitive to the baryon-to-photon ratio. The first preliminary estimates from the Boomerang  and Maxima-1  experiments appeared to be in conflict with BBN, giving a higher baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.03`$, or $`\eta _{10}8`$ . The Boomerang collaboration has since revised their estimate downward, to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}`$ , which agrees with SBBN, but the Maxima-1 estimate has been revised upward to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0325\pm 0.0125`$ ($`95\%`$ c.l.) . With the coming satellite experiments CMB may surpass BBN as the method for estimating $`\eta `$. BBN will then become a tool for understanding the astrophysics of chemical evolution, by telling us the primordial abundances.

While SBBN is simple and natural, and is at present in reasonable agreement with observations, there is interest in studying nonstandard variants of BBN. For one thing, BBN is a sensitive probe of the physics of the early universe. If we change something about our assumptions regarding the conditions in the early universe, or the physics relevant at that time, we are likely to change the primordial abundances and ruin the agreement with observations. Thus for many things BBN provides the strongest constraint.

On the other hand, from time to time there have been suggestions for disagreement between the estimated primordial abundances of the different isotopes, and/or other ways of estimating $`\eta `$. If such disagreements persist, nonstandard BBN (NSBBN) may be the solution.

I shall begin with a review of the physics of SBBN, and then discuss a few NSBBN scenarios.

## 2 Physics of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

In the early universe the temperature is falling as the universe expands. The time scale depends on the number of particle species which are relativistic at that time. In the standard case these are electrons, positrons, photons, and 3 species of neutrinos.

There is lots of radiation and very little matter. The amount of baryonic matter is not known exactly, and is given by $`\eta `$, the only free parameter in SBBN.

Weak reactions are converting neutrons into protons. At first the reaction rate is high enough to maintain the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio

$$\left(\frac{n}{p}\right)_{\mathrm{eq}}=e^{(m_nm_p)/T\xi _e},$$
(3)
which is falling with temperature. Here $`\xi _e\mu _{\nu _e}/T`$ is the electron neutrino degeneracy parameter ($`\mu _{\nu _e}`$ is the electron neutrino chemical potential). For $`\xi 1`$, we have roughly

$$\xi \frac{n_\nu n_{\overline{\nu }}}{n_\gamma }.$$
(4)
In SBBN we assume homogeneous conditions with $`\xi _e0`$.

At a temperature of about $`T0.8`$ MeV the neutrinos decouple and after that the neutron abundance evolves via free neutron decay

$$np+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e.$$
(5)
Nuclear reactions begin by neutrons and protons producing deuterium. This reaction keeps the deuterium abundance close to its equilibrium value. Because of the large amount of photons in the background radiation and the low binding energy, $`B_d=2.22`$ MeV, of deuterium, the deuterium abundance does not become large until the temperature has fallen to about $`70`$ keV. Only then can the nuclear reactions proceed beyond deuterium.

As the temperature falls further the Coulomb barrier shuts down the nuclear reactions. Because of the short time and bottlenecks due to the lack of stable nuclei at masses $`A=5`$ and $`A=8`$, the reactions do not proceed beyond $`A=7`$.

There are 10 important reactions which take nucleosynthesis beyond deuterium:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}d(p,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}\hfill & d(d,p)t\hfill & d(d,n){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}\hfill & {}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(n,p)t\hfill \\ t(d,n){}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}\hfill & {}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(d,p){}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}\hfill & {}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha ,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}\hfill & t(\alpha ,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}(n,p){}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}\hfill & {}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(p,\alpha ){}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Afterwards tritium $`\beta `$-decays into $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ becomes $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ by electron capture.

Since $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ has the highest binding energy per nucleon (for $`A7`$), almost all neutrons end up incorporated in $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$. Thus the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance $`Y_p`$ is determined by the neutron fraction at nucleosynthesis time. This in turn is determined by the competition between the weak reaction rates and the rate at which the temperature falls due to the expansion of the universe. A higher baryon density causes nucleosynthesis to take place at a higher temperature, when there are more neutrons left. Thus $`Y_p`$ increases with $`\eta `$.

A higher $`\eta `$ means more efficient nuclear burning to $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, leaving less of the “impurities”, $`\mathrm{D}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. There is also less directly produced $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, but a higher density allows more $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ to be produced, so that the final primordial $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance has a more complicated dependence on $`\eta `$ (see figure 1).

## 3 Accuracy of Nucleosynthesis Yields

The accuracy of the SBBN calculation of produced primordial abundances depends on how accurately the various thermonuclear reaction rates are known. These rates cannot be calculated from first principles at present, and are thus based on laboratory measurements. BBN codes make use of compilations of these rates . The Caughlan&Fowler  1988 compilation was updated on some key BBN rates by Smith et al. . The latest compilation is by the NACRE collaboration .

For BBN, the most significant difference between the new NACRE rates and the older rates is that deuterium production is now higher. With the NACRE rates, the O’Meara et al.  result $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=3.0\pm 0.4\times 10^5`$ corresponds to $`\eta _{10}=5.9\pm 0.5`$ instead of $`\eta _{10}=5.6\pm 0.5`$ obtained with the older rates.

Based on how accurately the reaction rates are known, Cyburt et al.  have estimated the accuracy of SBBN yields in the range $`\eta _{10}=1\mathrm{}10`$ to be better than $`0.3`$ % for $`Y_p`$, $`3`$$`7`$ % for D, $`3`$$`10`$ % for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`12`$$`19`$ % for $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$.

## 4 Observations

I shall leave the more detailed discussion of the observations relating to primordial abundances to other participants of this workshop, and just list various recent results in the literature.

For $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, Olive et al.  combined results of different observers and estimated a primordial abundance $`Y_p=0.234\pm 0.003`$. Izotov&Thuan  used their own large set of observations to arrive at $`Y_p=0.244\pm 0.002`$. The errors are $`1`$-$`\sigma `$ statistical errors. There has been much recent discussion of possible systematic errors. Peimbert et al.  have recently measured the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance in the SMC, whose proximity allows a better control of systematic errors. They obtained $`Y=0.2405\pm 0.0018`$ for the SMC, and from this they estimate $`Y_p=0.2345\pm 0.0026`$ for the primordial abundance. Thuan&Izotov  have now refined their estimate to $`Y_p=0.2443\pm 0.0015`$. After discussing various systematic effects, they conclude that because of systematic errors this could be an underestimate by $``$ 2–4%.

The observed deuterium abundance in the local interstellar medium is $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=1.50\pm 0.10\times 10^5`$ , but there is evidence for local variations . For example, Sonneborn et al.  have recently reported $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=2.18_{0.31}^{+0.36}\times 10^5`$ along one line of sight. Since deuterium is destroyed in stellar processes, its primordial abundance should be greater than the local abundance.

The most promising method of obtaining the primordial deuterium abundance is the measurement of $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ from Lyman-series absorption by high-redshift clouds. Based on three such measurements and upper limits from others, O’Meara et al. obtain $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=3.0\pm 0.4\times 10^5`$. Measurements on one such system suggest a higher deuterium abundance, possibly larger than $`10^4`$ . Recently, the deuterium in two more such systems has been observed , supporting the low $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ of O’Meara et al. .

The estimates for the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance are based on the rather uniform abundances in population II halo stars. Bonifacio&Molaro  obtained $`\mathrm{log}_{10}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.80\pm 0.012\pm 0.05`$ and Ryan et al.  obtained $`\mathrm{log}_{10}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.88`$ for the mean abundance. This measured abundance is close to the minimum $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ from SBBN (see figure 1). It may be depleted somewhat from the primordial abundance by stellar processing. Pinsonneault et al.  estimate $`\mathrm{log}_{10}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.65\mathrm{}9.25`$ for the primordial abundance. The observed $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ may also include a galactic contribution, so that the primordial abundance could be even lower. For the primordial abundance Ryan et al.  estimate $`\mathrm{log}_{10}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=10.04`$$`9.72`$ and Suzuki et al.  estimate $`\mathrm{log}_{10}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.97\mathrm{}9.77`$.

Comparing these estimates for primordial abundances to the SBBN yields (figure 1) we see that there is some tension between $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$, which favors a higher baryon density, and $`Y_p`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}`$, which favor a lower baryon density. The best estimate from CMB now agrees with the high $`\eta `$ from $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$. Thuan&Izotov  now conclude that their value for $`Y_p`$ is in good agreement with this when one allows for the systematic error. If one accepts the Thuan&Izotov  result for $`Y_p`$ the remaining disagreement is with the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$. Possibly $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ processing is not yet understood well enough, and the tighter limits above are too stringent.

## 5 Nonstandard BBN

There are many proposed possible modifications to SBBN. I shall go over just a few of these NSBBN scenarios.

A higher energy density at a given temperature would lead to faster expansion in the early universe. This would be caused by the presence of additional relativistic particle species, e.g., additional neutrino species. The shorter time scale would mean that there are more neutrons left at nucleosynthesis time, and thus more $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is produced. This is the most important effect. Since a higher $`Y_p`$ tends to lead to worse agreement with observations, BBN sets an upper limit to the speed-up possible. This upper limit is usually parameterized in terms of the effective number of (light) neutrino species $`N_\nu `$. Different authors get different upper limits depending on the observational constraints chosen. Two recent results are $`N_\nu <3.2`$ by Burles et al.  and $`N_\nu 4`$ by Lisi et al. .

The effect on other isotopes is roughly that their abundance curves vs. the baryon density are shifted towards higher $`\eta `$. The higher density compensates for the shorter time available. This is a smaller effect than the effect on $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$.

A large neutrino degeneracy, $`\xi 0`$, would increase the energy density in neutrinos at a given temperature, also leading to a speed-up of the expansion rate. If the degeneracy is in electron neutrinos, a much larger effect is that $`\xi _e0`$ shifts the balance of weak reactions (see eq. 3). If $`\xi _e>0`$, so that there are more electron neutrinos than electron antineutrinos, we get less neutrons and thus a lower $`Y_p`$. Since this has a large effect on $`Y_p`$ but a small effect on the other isotopes, we can use $`\xi _e`$ to “dial in” a desired value of $`Y_p`$, as $`\xi _e`$ is otherwise unobservable.

One can combine the above scenarios by having both a significantly faster expansion rate and $`\xi _e>0`$, so that the effects on $`Y_p`$ cancel each other to keep it in the observational range, while the effect of the speed-up on the other isotopes remains . If one wants to use neutrino degeneracy only to achieve this speed-up, this scenario requires $`|\xi _\mu |\xi _e`$ or $`|\xi _\tau |\xi _e`$. This way larger $`\eta `$ are allowed than in SBBN. However, since one is relying on a small effect, the large effects having cancelled each other, this scenario requires a very large speed-up for a significant effect. A large $`N_\nu `$ leads to other cosmological effects which put limits to this scenario. In particular, the recent CMB anisotropy results place an upper bound to $`N_\nu `$ . When the CMB constraints are combined with this BBN scenario  the conclusion is that the upper limit to $`\eta _{10}`$ can be raised from the SBBN $`\eta _{10}<6`$ to $`\eta _{10}7\mathrm{}8`$ only .

## 6 Inhomogeneous BBN

Another way to modify SBBN is to relax the homogeneity assumption, and allow $`\eta `$ to be a function of position at nucleosynthesis time. In the usual kind of inhomogeneous BBN (IBBN), the baryon density is positive, $`\eta >0`$, everywhere, but one can also consider the possibility of having antimatter regions, where $`\eta <0`$. This latter case I call antimatter BBN (ABBN), and I discuss it in the next section.

The crucial question in IBBN is the distance scale $`r`$ of the inhomogeneity. If the mechanism causing the inhomogeneity is connected with inflation, inhomogeneity at any scale could be produced. The observed isotropy of the CMB, however, requires $`\eta `$ to be highly homogeneous at distance scales larger than about 10 Mpc. Thus IBBN cannot be used to explain, e.g., different deuterium abundances at different high-redshift Lyman-absorbers.

In the usual IBBN scenarios one assumes a much smaller distance scale of the inhomogeneity, so that while $`\eta `$ is inhomogeneous at nucleosynthesis time, the matter from different regions gets mixed later, resulting in a homogeneous baryon density with homogeneous abundances, which however are different from the SBBN abundances for the same $`\eta `$.

In the simplest version of IBBN, each small region undergoes SBBN with its own baryon-to-photon ratio, and one gets the final abundances by averaging over the SBBN abundances over the distribution in $`\eta `$. Leonard&Scherrer  have shown that this way one can relax, or even remove, the observational lower limit to $`\eta `$, but the upper limit to $`\eta `$ remains unchanged.

If the mechanism producing the inhomogeneity was not connected with inflation, causality requires the distance scale to be smaller than the horizon at that time. A favorite candidate for producing the inhomogeneity has been the QCD phase transition at $`T150`$ MeV, when the horizon was about $`1`$ pc (comoving). The order of the phase transition is not known, but if it was of first order, it would have proceeded through nucleation of bubbles of hadronic matter in the ambient quark-gluon plasma. Near the end of the transition there would have been shrinking droplets of quark-gluon plasma, where much of the baryon number would have been concentrated due to the difficulty of baryon number crossing the phase boundary. This way very high density contrasts could be produced. The relevant distance scale is close to the neutron diffusion scale at nucleosynthesis time. An inhomogeneity of this scale would produce a strongly inhomogeneous neutron-to-proton ratio due to neutron diffusion out of the high-density regions, leading to a drastic change in BBN . In the first papers the effect was overestimated; for more accurate calculations see, e.g., . A more extensive list of references is given in the review articles by Reeves  and Malaney&Mathews  and in, e.g., . For a range of distance scales one can get less $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and more $`\mathrm{D}`$ than in SBBN, favoring a higher $`\eta `$. One can also get some reduction in the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield, but not much. Because of the large number of parameters in the scenario, quantitative results are not easily summarized. The IBBN scenario is contrasted with recent observations in  and .

The properties of the QCD phase transition can be estimated by lattice QCD calculations. While a distance scale interesting for IBBN can not be ruled out, unfortunately a too small distance scale appears more likely.

## 7 BBN with Antimatter Regions

We do not know the origin of the baryoasymmetry, $`\eta >0`$, of the universe. Theories of baryogenesis try to explain this excess of matter over antimatter and to predict (postdict) the observed value of $`\eta `$. While the simplest models usually lead to a homogeneous $`\eta `$, in many baryogenesis models the baryon density may come out inhomogeneous, and in some regions the asymmetry may have the opposite sign, so that after local annihilation we end up with regions of antimatter .

Annihilation will then proceed at the matter-antimatter boundary. The smaller the antimatter regions the sooner they are completely annihilated. From the spectrum of the CMB we know that there was no major annihilation going on close to recombination time, and the observed cosmic diffuse gamma ray radiation puts tight limits on annihilation after recombination. This leaves us three possibilities not in contradiction with observations: 1) the antimatter regions annihilated well before recombination time, 2) the amount of antimatter was much less (a factor of about $`10^6`$ or less) than the amount of matter, or 3) the antimatter regions are separated by large distances, comparable to the present horizon, or larger.

The first possibility leads to an interesting NSBBN scenario, antimatter BBN (ABBN) . We consider antimatter regions which are larger than $`10^5`$ pc but smaller than $`100`$ pc (comoving). These annihilate after $`T=1`$ MeV, but before recombination, and the annihilation process can significantly affect nucleosynthesis, or modify the abundances afterwards. Since in the end we have complete annihilation of the antimatter, we need to assume an excess of matter over antimatter, so that the antimatter/matter ratio $`R<1`$.

Antimatter regions smaller than $`10^{2.5}`$ pc annihilate before nucleosynthesis, when the temperature of the universe is $`T=1`$ MeV–$`70`$ keV. The mixing of matter and antimatter is due to (anti)neutron diffusion, and therefore the annihilation is preferably on neutrons. This reduces the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ production. The observational lower limit to $`Y_p`$ therefore provides an upper limit to the amount of antimatter $`R`$.

Larger antimatter regions survive until nucleosynthesis, which consumes the free neutrons. This stops further annihilation for a while. There is then a second burst of annihilation well after nucleosynthesis, when proton diffusion becomes effective, at $`T<3`$ keV. The annihilation process then changes the nuclear abundances through several mechanisms.

Gamma rays from annihilation photodisintegrate nuclei. The major effect is the production of $`\mathrm{D}`$ and especially $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ from photodisintegration of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$.

Antiproton annihilation on helium nuclei produces $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, $`\mathrm{D}`$, protons and neutrons. These nuclear remnants have high energies, and the energetic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ lead to nonthermal production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ by the endoergic reaction $`t(\alpha ,n){}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$.

Thus $`\mathrm{D}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundances are increased over the SBBN yields. There is no big effect on $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$.

At $`T<1`$ keV, the energy released in annihilation does not get fully thermalized, but results in a distortion of the CMB spectrum. Since no such distortion has been observed, CMB places constraints an the amount of antimatter annihilating below $`T1`$ keV, but before recombination. Near $`T1`$ keV the universe is still strongly radiation dominated, so the energy release in annihilation is small compared to the energy in the background radiation. As the temperature falls, the matter-to-radiation energy ratio increases. Therefore the limits from CMB to the amount of antimatter become progressively stronger for larger distance scales, for which the annihilation occurs later. For scales smaller than $`1`$ pc, we get, however, a stronger limit from $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ overproduction.

Since ABBN reduces $`Y_p`$ and increases $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$, it allows for a larger baryon density, at least from those observational constraints. The constraint from $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, however, remains essentially unchanged.

## 8 Conclusions

Standard BBN is compelling in its simplicity. While there is controversy among the observers and some apparent discrepancy between the estimated primordial abundances of the different isotopes and SBBN, these are probably not serious, and most likely represent difficulties in making observations and estimating primordial abundances based on observed ones. SBBN is thus not in trouble. Unfortunately, because of these difficulties, it is not able to pin down the baryon-to-photon ratio very precisely. It is somewhere in the range $`\eta _{10}=1.5`$$`6`$, or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.005`$$`0.022`$. The high redshift deuterium measurements point towards the upper end of this range, $`\eta _{10}5`$$`6`$, or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.02`$.

The recent estimates from CMB anisotropy, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}`$ from Boomerang  and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0325\pm 0.0125`$ ($`95\%`$ c.l.) from Maxima-1  also favor this upper end of the range. We are eagerly waiting for more precise CMB measurements in the coming years.

While standard BBN is in good shape, there is interest in studying nonstandard BBN: to assess the robustness of SBBN, to constrain possibilities for nonstandard physics or cosmology, and to be ready to provide relief if observational discrepancies turn out to be serious for SBBN.

We discussed here four NSBBN scenarios: 1) electron neutrino degeneracy, 2) electron neutrino degeneracy combined with a speed-up of the expansion rate due to extra energy density, 3) inhomogeneous BBN, and 4) antimatter BBN. All these scenarios are able to relieve the tension between the $`\mathrm{D}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ observations. The three last ones may also allow a larger baryon density than SBBN, but with some difficulty: 2) is constrained in that respect by other cosmological constraints and 3) and 4) cannot do much for the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ constraint.

I thank Elina Sihvola for permission to reproduce figures from .


text:
# Baryon Oscillations in the Large Scale Structure

## 1. Introduction

There is now increasing evidence for the presence of oscillations in the angular power spectrum of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. The matter power spectrum of the large scale structure also contains a signature of baryons in the form of oscillations; the amplitudes of oscillations, however, are significantly lower with fluctuations at the level of $``$ 5% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM with widths of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }k0.02`$ h Mpc-1. For an unambiguous detection, 3d surveys should have resolution scales greater than $`L2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ 300 h-1 Mpc in all three dimensions. In 2d, oscillations can also be detected via the projected power spectrum. The 2d power spectrum requires no precise redshifts and can be constructed with halos detected in upcoming wide-field lensing and SZ surveys.

Following our suggestions that the angular power spectrum of halos can be used as a probe of cosmology (Cooray et al. 2001), projected oscillations provide a new cosmological test; this is similar to the measurement of the angular diameter distance to the last scattering surface using the first acoustic peak in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum.

## 2. Halo Clustering as a Probe of Distance

The angular power spectrum of halos in a redshift bin is a projection of the the halo number density power spectrum

$$C_l^i=𝑑zW_i^2(z)\frac{H(z)}{d_A^2(z)}P_{hh}(\frac{l}{d_A};z),$$
(1)
where $`W_i(z)`$ is the distribution of halos in a given redshift bin normalized so that $`𝑑zW_i(z)=1`$, $`H(z)`$ is the Hubble parameter, and $`d_A`$ is the angular diameter distance in comoving coordinates. Note that $`W_i(z)`$ comes directly from the observations of the number counts as a function of redshift.

The underlying linear power spectrum of density fluctuations, traced by halos, contains two physical scales: the horizon at matter radiation equality $`k_{\mathrm{eq}}=\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0^2(1+z_{\mathrm{eq}})}\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, which controls the overall shape of the power spectrum, and the sound horizon at the end of the Compton drag epoch, $`k_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2)`$, which controls the small wiggles in the power spectrum. The angular or multipole locations of these features shift in redshift as $`l_{\mathrm{eq},\mathrm{s}}=k_{\mathrm{eq},\mathrm{s}}d_A(z_i)`$. We propose the following test: measure $`C_l^i`$ in several redshift bins and, using the fact that $`l_{\mathrm{eq},\mathrm{s}}`$ scales with $`d_A(z_i)`$, constrain the angular diameter distance as a function of redshift. Unlike the case with CMB, we can use tracers over a wide range in redshift and measure the distance as a function of redshift, or redshift bin.

The test can be affected by two ways: (1) non-linearities generally erase the baryon oscillations and at $`z<1`$ oscillations are generally affected. At low redshifts, one can use the test with the overall shape defined by $`k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. (2) The tracer bias can be scale dependent, but for mass selected catalogs via lensing or SZ, bias can be studied with simulations.

### Acknowledgments.

Author thanks Wayne Hu and collaborators, regrets lack of references, and thanks Fairchild foundation and the DOE for funding.

## References

Cooray, A., Hu, W., Huterer, D., & Joffre, M. 2001, ApJ, 557, L7.