4.0 Article

Measurement of the electron antineutrino mass in tritium beta decay in the Troitsk nu-mass experiment

Journal

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 464-478

Publisher

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S1063778812030027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Headquarters of the Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [93-02-03903-a, 96-02-18633-a, 02-00459-a, 05-02-17238-a]
  3. International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) [1076]
  4. program for support of leading scientific schools [65038.2010.2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The results obtained in the Troitsk nu-mass experiment by measuring the electron-antineutrino mass in tritium beta decay are presented. The facility used consists of a gaseous windowless tritium source and an electrostatic electron spectrometer involving an adiabatic magnetic collimation. Runs in which measurement conditions were reliably established were thoroughly selected in analyzing data obtained from 1994 to 2004. All known systematic effects were taken into account. For the square of the electron-antineutrino mass, the treatment of measured spectra yielded the following result: m (nu) (2) = -0.67 +/- 1.89(stat.) +/- 1.68(syst.) eV(2). The use of the Bayesian method and the Feldman-Cousins unified approach made it possible to obtain the following upper limits on the mass: m (nu) < 2.12 eV (at a 95% C.L.; Bayesian method) and m (nu) < 2.05 eV (at a 95% C.L., Feldman-Cousins method). At the same time, an estimation of the sensitivity limit without allowance for negative values of the square of the mass leads to m (nu) < 2.2 eV (at a 95% C.L.). Measured spectra were analyzed for the possible existence of an additional structure (step) in the electron spectrum near the boundary energy. The conclusion drawn from this analysis was that, within the existing statistical errors, there are no reasons for introducing such a feature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available