N_eff — counting cosmic neutrinos in the microwave background
The Standard Model predicts that exactly three neutrino species were in thermal contact with the cooling plasma of the early universe and decoupled at T ≈ 1 MeV. Each species contributes to the radiation density on equal footing with the photon up to a calculable temperature ratio, and the total relativistic content at recombination shows up as an effective number of neutrino species: N_eff. The Planck satellite, combined with baryon-acoustic-oscillation data, measures N_eff = 2.99 ± 0.17. The Standard-Model prediction including small finite-temperature QED corrections is 3.044. The cosmological count and the laboratory count of light neutrino species agree to within a few percent. No fourth thermalised species is allowed.
At temperatures above about one electronvolt, the universe was a hot opaque plasma of photons, electrons, positrons and the three neutrino species. The neutrinos were in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the plasma through weak interactions until the temperature dropped to about 1 MeV — at which point the weak rates fell behind the Hubble expansion and the neutrinos decoupled. A short time later, at temperatures around 0.5 MeV, electrons and positrons annihilated into photons. The annihilation reheated the photon bath relative to the already-decoupled neutrinos by the well-known factor T_γ/T_ν = (11/4)^(1/3) ≈ 1.401. By the time recombination set in at z ≈ 1100 the universe contained the photons of the cosmic microwave background plus a cosmic neutrino background colder by that factor, and the energy density of each component was a fixed multiple of the photon density.
The radiation density of the universe at recombination is conventionally written as
ρ_rad = ρ_γ · [1 + (7/8) · (4/11)^(4/3) · N_eff].
If N_eff = 3 — three Standard-Model neutrino flavours at the predicted temperature ratio — the bracket equals about 1.69, the cosmological radiation density takes its Standard-Model value, and the expansion-history-dependent imprint on the CMB power spectrum has its Standard-Model shape. The Standard-Model prediction including small finite-temperature QED corrections, residual neutrino-electron scattering at the decoupling boundary, and the slow finite-mass effect from the heaviest neutrino is N_eff = 3.044, with about 0.5% theoretical precision. Any additional relativistic species that was in thermal equilibrium at the relevant epoch — a sterile neutrino, an axion, a dark-sector vector boson — adds to the count of N_eff. Any species that decoupled earlier and was colder than the neutrinos when e⁺e⁻ annihilation happened contributes less, weighted by (T_X/T_ν)⁴, but still adds something.
How the CMB measures it
The CMB encodes N_eff through three handles. The most direct is the expansion rate before recombination: a higher N_eff means a hotter, denser radiation bath, a larger Hubble parameter at fixed matter density, and a faster expansion that translates into a smaller sound horizon at decoupling and a corresponding shift of the CMB acoustic peaks toward higher multipoles. The second handle is the silk-damping scale, which sets the high-ℓ tail of the temperature spectrum and depends on the ratio of damping length to sound horizon — both quantities depending on N_eff but with different sensitivities, so the ratio breaks the degeneracy with other parameters. The third handle is the imprint on the matter power spectrum from neutrino free-streaming, which has been probed by baryon acoustic oscillations measured at low redshift.
The Planck 2018 release, combined with the DR1 BAO data from the BOSS galaxy survey, gave N_eff = 2.99 ± 0.17 in a flat-ΛCDM cosmological model. Updated Planck constraints with the lensing reconstruction and ACT and SPT small-scale temperature and polarisation measurements have pulled the central value to 2.97 ± 0.15 and made the constraint less ΛCDM-dependent. None of the updates moves the central value away from the Standard-Model expectation by more than half a sigma. The interactive below shows the constraint as a Gaussian likelihood on the N_eff axis and lets you slide the additional relativistic contribution ΔN_eff = N_eff − 3.044 against it.
Slide the predicted N_eff and watch the red dashed line walk past the green Standard-Model marker and the blue Planck likelihood. At ΔN_eff = 0 the red line sits on top of the green line and inside the bulk of the Planck Gaussian — the data and the prediction agree. At ΔN_eff = 1, the value a fully thermalised sterile neutrino would add, the prediction sits at 4.04, well outside the 2σ region of Planck. The simplest eV-scale sterile hypothesis that the gallium anomaly and the LSND/MiniBooNE excesses point to is therefore in serious tension with cosmology — even though the laboratory experiments cover entirely different observables.
What it does and does not constrain
The N_eff constraint is a count of thermalised light species, weighted by their temperature ratio to the photons at recombination. It does not directly limit sterile neutrinos that decoupled too early to thermalise or whose mixing with active flavours is too small to bring them into thermal equilibrium before BBN. The standard rough boundary is sin²2θ ≳ 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ for an eV-scale sterile, depending on Δm² and assumed lepton asymmetry; below this threshold the sterile never thermalises and the cosmological count of species is unaffected. The catch is that the sterile parameter regions that the gallium and LSND anomalies pick out have sin²2θ well above this threshold by orders of magnitude. For the simplest single-sterile-flavour models that fit those anomalies, thermalisation is unavoidable and N_eff would have to land near 4. That it does not is the most powerful single statement cosmology can make against the simplest interpretation of the short-baseline hints.
The N_eff constraint also bounds dark-radiation models in which a dark-sector light particle carries some fraction of the universe's energy density. Many beyond-Standard-Model scenarios — light axions thermalised at high temperature, sterile photons of a dark-sector U(1), light right-handed neutrinos with sufficient mixing — leave their fingerprint here. The fact that the measurement is now better than a percent on the SM prediction makes N_eff one of the cleanest cosmological tests of fundamental physics available.
For the cosmological neutrino background itself — the bath of relic neutrinos that the N_eff measurement counts indirectly — see the cosmic neutrino background and why we haven't detected it yet; for the laboratory programme that counts light neutrino species through a different mechanism, see how many neutrino flavours — the LEP measurement that pinned the answer; for the most recent short-baseline anomaly that the cosmological count disfavours, see BEST and the gallium anomaly that refuses to leave.
Keep reading
Gargamelle — the bubble chamber that proved the weak neutral current
The Glashow-Weinberg-Salam unified electroweak theory of 1967-68 predicted a brand-new interaction mediated by the Z boson — a neutral current that would let a muon neutrino scatter off a quark or an electron without changing flavour, leaving no charged lepton in the final state. The W and Z bosons themselves were too heavy to be produced at any 1970s accelerator, but the predicted scattering signature was within reach of a large neutrino-beam bubble chamber. In March 1973 the Gargamelle collaboration at CERN published 102 events from the heavy-liquid chamber consistent with neutral-current hadronic scattering and zero events of any other plausible origin. Electroweak unification was confirmed ten years before the W and Z were directly produced.
MiniBooNE — eighteen years of a 4.8σ excess that nobody could explain cleanly
Built specifically to test the LSND appearance signal at a different baseline and a different energy, the MiniBooNE detector at Fermilab ran from 2002 to 2017 and never returned a clean answer. It saw an excess of electron-like events at low reconstructed neutrino energies — 4.8σ in the final 2018 analysis, the largest persistent low-energy excess in the neutrino sector. But the spectral shape did not cleanly match the LSND-implied sterile oscillation prediction, the spatial distribution was suspicious, and the dominant rival explanation involved misidentified neutral-current single-photon events that the mineral-oil Cherenkov detector could not separate from genuine electrons. Eighteen years after the first beam exposure and three years after MicroBooNE's LArTPC tested the electron interpretation, the central question of MiniBooNE — what produced the excess — has no single accepted answer.
Heavy neutral leptons — the GeV-scale sterile neutrinos hiding in collider data
The eV-scale sterile-neutrino saga of LSND, MiniBooNE, BEST and PROSPECT is one half of the sterile-neutrino landscape. The other half lives at much higher masses: the right-handed neutrinos predicted by the type-I seesaw mechanism, with rest masses that can plausibly fall anywhere between 100 megaelectronvolts and 10¹⁵ gigaelectronvolts depending on the underlying scale. If the masses sit in the GeV-to-TeV regime, the same particles are within experimental reach of the LHC and of dedicated beam-dump experiments. ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, FASER, NA62 and the planned SHiP have been searching for these heavy neutral leptons since the early 2010s. None has been found. The exclusion contours now cover most of the parameter space in which a low-scale seesaw with thermal leptogenesis would naturally live.
@misc{blog-neff-cmb-counting-cosmic-neutrinos,
author = {Tomás Linhares},
title = {N_eff — counting cosmic neutrinos in the microwave background},
howpublished = {\\url{https://neutrino-research.com/blog/neff-cmb-counting-cosmic-neutrinos}},
year = {2029},
publisher = {Neutrino Research Hub},
note = {Accessed 2026-11-04}
} Tomás Linhares (2029). N_eff — counting cosmic neutrinos in the microwave background. Neutrino Research Hub. https://neutrino-research.com/blog/neff-cmb-counting-cosmic-neutrinos
Tomás Linhares. "N_eff — counting cosmic neutrinos in the microwave background." Neutrino Research Hub, 2029, https://neutrino-research.com/blog/neff-cmb-counting-cosmic-neutrinos.
Last updated: