Issue 
A&A
Volume 520, SeptemberOctober 2010



Article Number  A112  
Number of page(s)  6  
Section  Cosmology (including clusters of galaxies)  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201014825  
Published online  12 October 2010 
Effect of the variation of the Higgs vacuum expectation value upon the deuterium binding energy and primordial abundances of D and ^{4}He
M. E. Mosquera^{1,2}  O. Civitarese^{2}
1  Facultad de Ciencias Astronómicas y Geofísicas, Universidad
Nacional de La Plata, Paseo del Bosque, 1900 La Plata, Argentina
2  Department of Physics, University of La Plata, cc 67, 1900 La
Plata, Argentina
Received 19 April 2010 / Accepted 5 July 2010
Abstract
Aims. We calculate the constraints on the time
variation of the Higgs vacuum expectation value from Big Bang
Nucleosynthesis.
Methods. Starting from the calculation of the
deuterium bindingenergy, as a function of the pionmass and using the
NNReid 93 potential, we calculate the abundances of primordial D and ^{4}He
by modifying Kawano's code. The Higgs vacuum expectation value (v)
and the baryon to photon ratio
enter the calculation as free parameters. By using the observational
data of D and ^{4}He, we set constraints on
and on the variation of v, relative to a constant
value of .
Results. Results are consistent with null variation
in v and
for the early universe, within 6.
Conclusions. We obtained a linear dependence of
upon v and found that the bestfitvalue of the
variation of v is null within 6.
Key words: primordial nucleosynthesis  cosmological parameters  cosmology: theory
1 Introduction
One of the most powerful tools to study the early Universe is the Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Since BBN is sensible to parameters such as the fine structure constant, the electron mass, the Higgs vacuum expectation value (v), the deuterium binding energy , among others, it is an important test to set constraints on deviations from the standard cosmology, and on physical theories beyond the standard model (SM). There are some theories which allow fundamental constants to vary over cosmological times scales (Damour et al., 2002a; Gleiser & Taylor, 1985; Barr & Mohapatra, 1988; Maeda, 1988; Brax et al., 2003; Klein, 1926; Palma et al., 2003; Kaluza, 1921; Wu & Wang, 1986; Overduin & Wesson, 1997; Damour & Polyakov, 1994; Weinberg, 1983; Youm, 2001a; Damour et al., 2002b; Youm, 2001b). The time variation of fundamental constants (e.g. the fine structure constant, the electron mass, the Planck mass), was studied in Ichikawa & Kawasaki (2004); Campbell & Olive (1995); Yoo & Scherrer (2003); Chamoun et al. (2007); Cyburt et al. (2005); Bergström et al. (1999); Landau et al. (2008); Mosquera et al. (2008); Coc et al. (2007); Müller et al. (2004); Landau et al. (2006); Nollett & Lopez (2002); Ichikawa & Kawasaki (2002).
The deuterium binding energy plays a crucial role in the reaction rates involved in the formation of primordial elements during the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). All the primordial abundances would be different from the BBN predictions if the deuterium was deeply or weaklybound in that epoch (e.g. the abundance of deuterium depends exponentially on ). In Flambaum & Shuryak (2003,2002); Dmitriev & Flambaum (2003); Dmitriev et al. (2004); Berengut et al. (2010) the variation of as function of the quark masses was studied and the authors applied their results to set constraints using data from cosmological epochs. In Flambaum & Wiringa (2007) the dependence of nuclear binding on hadronic mass was studied. In Yoo & Scherrer (2003) the dependence of the deuterium binding energy on the Higgs vacuum expectation value was considered using the results of Beane & Savage (2003); Epelbaum et al. (2003). In the same work, was represented as a linear function of v and this dependence was used to set constraints on the variation of the Higgs vacuum expectation value during cosmological times. Dent et al. (2007) studied the dependence of the primordial abundances with several parameters such as , neutron decay time, , , the average nucleon mass, the neutronproton mass difference and D, T, ^{3}He, ^{4}He, ^{6}Li, ^{7}Li, and ^{7}Be binding energies, and found that the deuterium and lithium abundances are strongly dependent on the Higgs vacuum expectation value. However, in Dent et al. (2007), the variations of the binding energies are assumed to obey a linear dependence on the pion mass, as given by Beane & Savage (2003).
In this work, we calculate the dependence of the deuterium binding energy with the pionmass, using an effective nucleonnucleon interaction. There exist several nucleonnucleon effective potentials (Nagels et al., 1977; Reid, 1968; Nagels et al., 1975; Wiringa et al., 1995; Machleidt et al., 1987; Stoks et al., 1994; Lacombe et al., 1980); for the sake of the present calculation we have chosen the Reid 93 potential (Stoks et al., 1994). Following Berengut et al. (2010), we assume is constant, that is, we measure all dimensions in units of . After determining the dependence of on the dimensionless parameter , we concentrate on the calculation of BBN observables, like the abundances of deuterium (D) and helium (^{4}He), to determine their sensitivity upon and . Hereafter, the relative variations and might be understood as the relative variations and , where , respectively. We actually determine BBN abundances, after calculating the Dbinding energy, as a function of , through the variation of the pion mass. In this aspect, our attempt differs from the one of Dent et al. (2007), where the variation of the binding energies of the nuclei involved in BBN is taken in a parameter form.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we discuss the dependence of the deuterium binding energy with the pionmass. In Sect. 3, we calculate the primordial abundances and obtain constraints on the variation of the deuterium binding energy and on the Higgs vacuum expectation value. Our conclusions are presented in Sect. 4. The details of the formalism, concerning the calculation of various quantities which are needed to computed BBN abundances, are presented in Appendix A.
2 Dependence of the deuterium binding energy with the pionmass
We are interested in the effects on the deuteriumbindingenergy due to the change of the pionmass; a change which is related to the variation of v. Assuming that the pionmass acquires different values in different epochs of the Universe, some observables, such as the primordial abundances, might differ from their values predicted by the Standard Model (Sarkar, 1996).
The variation of v produces different effects on the mass of different mesons, namely: lightmesons, like the pion, are effected more drastically than heavier mesons (Flambaum & Wiringa, 2007).
The Reid potential represents the nucleonnucleon interaction through the onepion exchange mechanism (OPE) and a combination of central, tensor and spinorbit functions with cutoff parameters (nonOPE) (Stoks et al., 1994). The Reid 93 potential is the regularized version of the Reid 68 potential (Reid, 1968). The regularization is made to remove the singularities at the origin, by introducing a dipole formfactor in the Fourier transformation that leads from the momentumspace potential to the configurationspace potential (Stoks et al., 1994).
The OPE contribution to the Reid 93 potential is then written
as^{} (Stoks
et al., 1994)
=  
where and are the mass of the neutral and charged pion respectively. The nonOPE contribution are written
=  
=  
= 
where , , and are the central, tensor and spinorbit contribution to the potential respectively (Stoks et al., 1994).
Indeed, by multiplying the pionmass by a constant factor (which is the same for charged and neutral pion), while keeping the scaling masses and at a fixed value (Flambaum & Wiringa, 2007), the pionmass can be varied to affect OPE vertices of the NN potential. Although OPE is not the unique mechanism where the pionmass appears explicitly, it is the only mechanism accounted for by the Reid 93 potential. Neither the twopion exchange nor the heavymesonexchange mechanisms appear explicitly in this potential.
The effects on the potential due to the change of the pionmass are noticeable (Flambaum & Wiringa, 2007). Therefore one might expect that both, the binding energy and the D groundstate wave function would be affected by changes in . The deuteron wave function can be written as a finite set of Yukawatype functions (Krutov & Troitsky, 2007; Lacombe et al., 1981) because of the functional structure of the potential.
After modifying the Reid potential, to take into account the variation of the pionmass (as said before affecting only the OPE terms), we calculate the deuterium wave function and the deuterium binding energy for different values of the pionmass, by solving the corresponding radial Schrödinger equation. With the obtained wave function, for each value of the pionmass, we have calculated the deuterium binding energy and cast the results as a function of the relative variation . If we call the relative variation of the deuterium binding energy (quantities with subindex 0represent the actual values of the mentioned quantity), we found that the dependence of the variation of the deuterium binding energy on the variation of the pionmass can be fitted by the straightline . To put this result in perspective, one can compare it with the values reported by Beane & Savage (2003); Flambaum & Shuryak (2002); Yoo & Scherrer (2003); Epelbaum et al. (2003), where the same dependence yields values in the interval (18, +3). As a consequence of this effect the deuterium binding energy would be dependent on v, since . A comparison of the previous and our results is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: Dependence of upon the relative change of the pion mass , from the work of Flambaum & Shuryak (2002) (grey area) and our calculated value (dotted line). 

Open with DEXTER 
The effect of these dependencies upon the BBN abundances will be discussed later on (see Sect. 3).
3 Big Bang nucleosynthesis
The standard model of the BBN has only one freeparameter: the baryon to photon ratio , which is determined by the comparison between observed primordial abundances and theoretical calculations, or by the analysis of the cosmic background data (Spergel et al., 2003,2007). The theoretical abundances are consistent with the observed abundance of deuterium but they are not entirely consistent with the observed abundance of ^{4}He. In Table 1 we present the theoretical abundances of D and ^{4}He calculated in the standard model by using Kawano's code (Kawano, 1992,1988). If the Higgs vacuum expectation value v changes with time, while is fixed, this discrepancy might eventually be reconciled. In order to calculate the primordial abundances of D and ^{4}He, for variable deuterium binding energy, we modify the numerical code developed by Kawano (1992,1988), as explained in Appendix A.
Table 1: Theoretical abundances in the standard model.
To set bounds on the variation of the deuterium binding energy and on the variation of v we have used the deuterium primordial abundance reported by Levshakov et al. (2002); Pettini & Bowen (2001); Ivanchik et al. (2010); O'Meara et al. (2006); Kirkman et al. (2003); Burles & Tytler (1998b); O'Meara et al. (2001); Burles & Tytler (1998a); Pettini et al. (2008) (see Table 2). Regarding to the ^{4}He primordial abundance, in the literature, there have been two different methods to determine it that yield quite different results (Izotov et al., 1994; Peimbert, 2002; Izotov et al., 1997; Thuan & Izotov, 2002; Izotov et al., 2006; Thuan & Izotov, 1998; Olive et al., 1997; Izotov & Thuan, 2004; Luridiana et al., 2003; Peimbert et al., 2002). Since 2007, new atomic data were incorporated to the calculations of the ^{4}He primordial abundance, a quantity that depends on the HeI recombination coefficients. Therefore, new calculations were performed using the new atomic data, resulting into higher values of the ^{4}He abundance (Izotov & Thuan, 2010; Izotov et al., 2007; Aver et al., 2010; Peimbert et al., 2007). In order to study the variation of or v we only consider the latest ^{4}He data, reported by Izotov & Thuan (2010), Aver et al. (2010, see Table 3#. Regarding the consistency of the data, we have followed the treatment of Yao et al. (2006) and increase the observational error by a factor (see below).
Table 2: Deuterium observational abundances .
Table 3: ^{4}He observational abundances .
We have computed light nuclei abundances, and performed the statistical analysis using observational data, to obtain the best fit of the deuterium binding energy, the Higgs vacuum expectation value and the baryon to photon ratio. We have considered the following cases:
 i)
 variation of , by keeping fixed at the WMAP value;
 ii)
 variation of and ;
 iii)
 variation of v and keeping fixed at the WMAP value, and;
 iv)
 variation of both v and .
3.1 Constraints on
We have computed the theoretical primordial abundances for
different values of the deuterium binding energy, by keeping
fixed at the WMAP value
(Spergel et al., 2007).
We have found the
bestfitparameter value using a test and the
observational data. The results are
=  
=  1.79 ,  (1) 
where is the lowest value of and N is the number of data . We found variation of the deuterium binding energy even at the level of six standard deviations . The result can be explained since an increase in the deuterium binding energy leads to a larger initial abundance of deuterium. The abundance of ^{4}He is larger since the production of this nuclei starts sooner and the final deuterium abundance is decreased (Yoo & Scherrer, 2003).
The next step was to consider the baryon to photon ratio as an
extra parameter to be fixed. Therefore, we have computed the
theoretical primordial abundances for different values of the
deuterium binding energy and of the baryon to photon ratio. Using
the data on D and ^{4}He, we have performed a test to
find the bestfitparameter value
=  
=  
=  0.90 .  (2) 
The value of agrees with the value obtained by WMAP (Spergel et al., 2007) within three standard deviation . For this case, we found null variation of the deuterium binding energy at the level of 6. The result is presented in Fig. 2, for three values of the deviation, that is at one, two and three . In the same Figure we show the onedimensional likelihood, for and .
Figure 2: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, . 

Open with DEXTER 
3.2 Constraints on v
Next, we have studied the variation of the Higgs vacuum expectation value and of the baryon to photon ratio.
If the Higgs vacuum expectation value varies with time, the effects upon BBN are not only the ones due to the variation of the deuterium binding energy but also those due to the variation of the electron mass , the neutronproton massdifference and the Fermi constant (see Appendix A, for details).
We have considered the baryon to photon ratio fixed at the WMAP value, and have computed the light abundances for different values of v. Once again, we performed a test to obtain the bestfit value. The results of our analysis are shown in Table 4, (where , is the value of the binding energy during BBN, v_{0} is the present value of v) for fixed at the WMAP value (Spergel et al., 2007), for three different values of .
Table 4: Best fit parameter value and 1 errors constraints on .
We found variation of v at the level of six standard deviations , for all the dependencies of the deuterium binding energy with the pionmass. The first two rows of Table 4 indicate that there is not a good fit for and .
Finally, we have performed the calculation of the primordial abundances and found the best fit of v and simultaneously. The results are given in Table 5, for three different values of .
Figure 3: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, , using . 

Open with DEXTER 
Figure 4: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, , using . 

Open with DEXTER 
Table 5: Best fit parameter value and 1 errors constraints on and .
We found null variation of v at , and for , and respectively. Meanwhile, the value for agrees with the value of WMAP at , and for , and respectively. However, there is not a good fit if . In Figs. 3 and 4 we present the corresponding likelihood contours for and respectively.
4 Conclusion
In the first part of this work we have studied the dependence of the deuterium binding energy as a function of the pionmass, which is ultimately a function of the Higgs vacuum expectation value. For the analysis, we used the Reid 93 potential to represent the nucleonnucleon interaction. It is found that the binding energy depends linearly on the pionmass, and that the calculated value lies in the range obtained by various authors, e. g. Flambaum & Shuryak (2002). Our result for the slope of the functional dependence of vs. the variation of (3.65), may reduce the uncertainties associated to it, since in other works (Beane & Savage, 2003; Yoo & Scherrer, 2003; Epelbaum et al., 2003) a domain was reported. Next, we have calculated primordial abundances of BBN and focused on the discrepancy between standard BBN estimation for ^{4}He and D and their observational data. We found that, by allowing variations of either or v, this discrepancy is not solve.
AcknowledgementsThis work has been partially supported by the National Research Council (CONICET) of Argentina (PIP 5145, PIP 11220080100740).
Appendix A: Modifications to Kawano's code
In this Appendix we discuss the dependence on the Higgs vacuum expectation value of the different physical quantities involved in the calculation of primordial abundances.
If during BBN v acquires a value different than the value at the present time, then the electron mass, the Fermi constant, the neutronproton mass difference and the deuterium binding energy would also take different values (Landau et al., 2008).
A change in the electron mass affects the sum of the electron
and
positron energy densities, the sum of the electron and positron
pressures and the difference of the electron and positron number
densities. These quantities are calculated in Kawano's code
(Kawano, 1992,1988)
as:
where , is the electron chemical potential and L(z), M(z) and N(z) are combinations of the modified Bessel function K_{i}(z) (Kawano, 1992,1988). In order to include the variation in we replace, in all the equations, by , and consider
The
reaction rates and the weak decay rates of
heavy nuclei are also modified if the electron mass varies with
time. The
reaction rate is calculated by
where is a normalization constant proportional to , and are the electron energy and momentum respectively , and are the photon and neutrino temperature and is the ratio between the neutrino chemical potential and the neutrino temperature. This normalization constant is obtained at a very low temperature and for no variation of v.
The Fermi constant is proportional to v^{2} (Dixit & Sher, 1988), affecting the reaction rate, since .
The neutronproton mass difference changes by (Christiansen et al., 1991)
=  (A.2) 
affecting reaction rates (see Eq. (A.1)), Qvalues of several reaction rates (e.g. , ) and the initial neutrons and protons abundances:
=  
=  (A.3) 
where T_{9} is the temperature in units of . In order to include these effects we replace by . We have also modified the masses of the light nuclei (Flambaum & Wiringa, 2007) affecting the Qvalues and the reverse coefficient of the reactions that involve neutrons.
The deuterium binding energy must be corrected by
=  (A.4) 
where is a model dependent constant. In the present work this constant is found to be . This correction affects the initial value of the deuterium abundance
=  (A.5) 
where is in MeV, and the Qvalues of several reactions, such as d from its reverse reaction. Once again we replace by in order to modify the code.
References
 Aver, E., Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. D. 2010, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 5, 3 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Barr, S. M., & Mohapatra, P. K. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 38, 3011 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Beane, S. R., & Savage, M. J. 2003, Nucl. Phys. A, 713, 148 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Berengut, J. C., Flambaum, V. V., & Dmitriev, V. F. 2010, Phys. Lett. B, 683, 114 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Bergström, L., Iguri, S., & Rubinstein, H. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 45005 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Brax, P., van de Bruck, C., Davis, A.C., & Rhodes, C. S. 2003, Astrophys. Space Sci., 283, 627 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Burles, S., & Tytler, D. 1998a, ApJ, 499, 699 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Burles, S., & Tytler, D. 1998b, ApJ, 507, 732 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Campbell, B. A., & Olive, K. A. 1995, Phys. Lett. B, 345, 429 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Chamoun, N., Landau, S. J., Mosquera, M. E., & Vucetich, H. 2007, J. Phys. G Nucl. Phys., 34, 163 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Christiansen, H. R., Epele, L. N., Fanchiotti, H., & García Canal, C. A. 1991, Phys. Lett. B, 267, 164 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Coc, A., Nunes, N. J., Olive, K. A., Uzan, J.P., & Vangioni, E. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 023511 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Crighton, N. H. M., Webb, J. K., OrtizGil, A., & FernándezSoto, A. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1042 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. 2005, Astropart. Phys., 23, 313 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Damour, T., & Polyakov, A. M. 1994, Nucl. Phys. B, 95, 10347 [Google Scholar]
 Damour, T., Piazza, F., & Veneziano, G. 2002a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 081601 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Damour, T., Piazza, F., & Veneziano, G. 2002b, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 046007 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Dent, T., Stern, S., & Wetterich, C. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 063513 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Dixit, V. V., & Sher, M. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 1097 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Dmitriev, V. F., & Flambaum, V. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 063513 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Dmitriev, V. F., Flambaum, V. V., & Webb, J. K. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 063506 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Epelbaum, E., Meißner, U., & Glöckle, W. 2003, Nucl. Phys. A, 714, 535 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Flambaum, V. V., & Shuryak, E. V. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103503 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Flambaum, V. V., & Shuryak, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 083507 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Flambaum, V. V., & Wiringa, R. B. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 76, 054002 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gleiser, M., & Taylor, J. G. 1985, Phys. Rev. D, 31, 1904 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ichikawa, K., & Kawasaki, M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 123511 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ichikawa, K., & Kawasaki, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 123506 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ivanchik, A. V., Petitjean, P., Balashev, S. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1583 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 2004, ApJ, 602, 200 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 2010, ApJ, 710, L67 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Lipovetsky, V. A. 1994, ApJ, 435, 647 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Lipovetsky, V. A. 1997, ApJSS, 108, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Blecha, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 71 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Stasinska, G. 2007, ApJ, 662, 15 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kaluza, T. 1921, Sitzungber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.K, 1, 966 [Google Scholar]
 Kawano, L. 1988, Fermilab Report No. fERMILABPUB88034A [Google Scholar]
 Kawano, L. 1992, Fermilab Report No. fERMILABPUB92004A [Google Scholar]
 Kirkman, D., Tytler, D., Suzuki, N., O'Meara, J. M., & Lubin, D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Klein, O. 1926, Z. Phys., 37, 895 [Google Scholar]
 Krutov, A. F., & Troitsky, V. E. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 76, 017001 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lacombe, M., Loiseau, B., Richard, J. M., et al. 1980, Phys. Rev. C, 21, 861 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lacombe, M., Loiseau, B., Mau, R. V., et al. 1981, Phys. Lett. B, 101, 139 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Landau, S. J., Mosquera, M. E., & Vucetich, H. 2006, ApJ, 637, 38 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Landau, S. J., Mosquera, M. E., Scóccola, C. G., & Vucetich, H. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 083527 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Levshakov, S. A., DessaugesZavadsky, M., D'Odorico, S., & Molaro, P. 2002, ApJ, 565, 696 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Luridiana, V., Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Cervi no, M. 2003, ApJ, 592, 846 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Müller, C. M., Schäfer, G., & Wetterich, C. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083504 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Machleidt, R., Holinde, K., & Elster, C. 1987, Phys. Rep., 149, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Maeda, K. 1988, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 31, 243 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mosquera, M. E., Scoccola, C., Landau, S., & Vucetich, H. 2008, A&A, 478, 675 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Nagels, M. M., Rijken, T. A., & de Swart, J. J. 1975, Phys. Rev. D, 12, 744 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Nagels, M. M., Rijken, T. A., & de Swart, J. J. 1977, Phys. Rev. D, 15, 2547 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Nollett, K. M., & Lopez, R. E. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 063507 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Olive, K. A., Steigman, G., & Skillman, E. D. 1997, ApJ, 483, 788 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O'Meara, J. M., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 718 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O'Meara, J. M., Burles, S., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, L61 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Overduin, J. M., & Wesson, P. S. 1997, Phys. Rep., 283, 303 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Palma, G. A., Brax, P., Davis, A. C., & van de Bruck, C. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 123519 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Luridiana, V. 2002, ApJ, 565, 668 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Peimbert, M. 2002, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis. Conf. Ser., ed. W. J. Henney, J. Franco, & M. Martos, 12, 275 [Google Scholar]
 Peimbert, M., Luridiana, V., & Peimbert, A. 2007, ApJ, 666, 636 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Pettini, M., & Bowen, D. V. 2001, ApJ, 560, 41 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Pettini, M., Zych, B. J., Murphy, M. T., Lewis, A., & Steidel, C. C. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1499 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Reid, Jr., R. V. 1968, Ann. Phys., 50, 411 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Sarkar, S. 1996, Rep. Progr. Phys., 59, 1493 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Doré, O., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Stoks, V. G. J., Klomp, R. A. M., Terheggen, C. P. F., & de Swart, J. J. 1994, Phys. Rev. C, 49, 2950 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Thuan, T. X., & Izotov, Y. I. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 84, 83 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Thuan, T. X., & Izotov, Y. I. 2002, Space Sci. Rev., 100, 263 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Weinberg, S. 1983, Phys. Lett. B, 125, 265 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Wiringa, R. B., Stoks, V. G. J., & Schiavilla, R. 1995, Phys. Rev. C, 51, 38 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Wu, Y., & Wang, Z. 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 1978 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Yao, W. M., et al. 2006, J. Phys. G, 33, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Yoo, J. J., & Scherrer, R. J. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 043517 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Youm, D. 2001a, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 125011 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Youm, D. 2001b, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 085011 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Footnotes
 ... as^{}
 We adopt natural units through the text, unless indicated.
All Tables
Table 1: Theoretical abundances in the standard model.
Table 2: Deuterium observational abundances .
Table 3: ^{4}He observational abundances .
Table 4: Best fit parameter value and 1 errors constraints on .
Table 5: Best fit parameter value and 1 errors constraints on and .
All Figures
Figure 1: Dependence of upon the relative change of the pion mass , from the work of Flambaum & Shuryak (2002) (grey area) and our calculated value (dotted line). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 2: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, . 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 3: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, , using . 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 4: 1, 2 and 3 likelihood contours for and , and onedimensional likelihood, , using . 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Copyright ESO 2010
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.