CosmoCoffee

Authors in these papers vary one of the parameters fixed by the standard theory, namelly c_vis^2 which equals to 1/3 in the standard theory, but the value of 0 would mean no anisotropies in neutrino background...

Very interesting! I would like to know, why plot of probablity of c^2 marginalised over everything isn't included? I'd like to see it all the way up to c^2=1 (I know you say that it "doesn't produce any relevant constraint), but it would still be interesting to see where it peaks... Judging from fig2 it seems it probably peaks above 0.3... Any commets, Alessandro?

Hi Anze,
Thanks for your nice comments ! Yes you are right, we should include also a Figure with the countours up to 1. It indeed peaks for higher values of 1/3 but not in such a relevant way to exclude c_vis=0.333 (is quite flat). Since the motivations for c_vis=1 are not clear or a bit too exotic (at least to us) we put the prior c_vis<0.34. Higher values of c_vis would have excluded c_vis=0 even more (which is the point of our paper) but if you don't have a clear physical motivation for it, this can bias your result.

Cheers
Ale

It would be interesting to see the likelihood contours in [tex]N_\nu-c_s[/tex] plane. The standard model result (3-1/3) probably falls well within the allowed region. But how well can we do in the future [e.g. with weak lensing]? It would also be interesting to see how complementary CMB and LSS constraints are in this plane. Of course this bears on the question of whether or not the CNB can ever be detected. I seem to remember some papers on this, but I don't think ever with this 2D plane as the battleground.