4.6 Article

Sense and sensitivity of double beta decay experiments

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/06/007

关键词

double beta decay; neutrino experiments; neutrino properties

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) [CSD2008-0037, FPA2009-13697-C04-04, RYC-2008-03169]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The search for neutrinoless double beta decay is a very active field in which the number of proposals for next-generation experiments has proliferated. In this paper we attempt to address both the sense and the sensitivity of such proposals. Sensitivity comes first, by means of proposing a simple and unambiguous statistical recipe to derive the sensitivity to a putative Majorana neutrino mass, m(beta beta). In order to make sense of how the different experimental approaches compare, we apply this recipe to a selection of proposals, comparing the resulting sensitivities. We also propose a physics-motivated range (PMR) of the nuclear matrix elements as a unifying criterium between the different nuclear models. The expected performance of the proposals is parametrized in terms of only four numbers: energy resolution, background rate (per unit time, isotope mass and energy), detection efficiency, and beta beta isotope mass. For each proposal, both a reference and an optimistic scenario for the experimental performance are studied. In the reference scenario we find that all the proposals will be able to partially explore the degenerate spectrum, without fully covering it, although four of them (KamLAND-Zen, CUORE, NEXT and EXO) will approach the 50 meV boundary. In the optimistic scenario, we find that CUORE and the xenon-based proposals (KamLAND-Zen, EXO and NEXT) will explore a significant fraction of the inverse hierarchy, with NEXT covering it almost fully. For the long term future, we argue that Xe-136-based experiments may provide the best case for a 1-ton scale experiment, given the potentially very low backgrounds achievable and the expected scalability to large isotope masses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据