Reevaluation of 2005 measurement deepens mystery of neutron lifetime discrepancy

Dec 06, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Reevaluation of 2005 measurement deepens mystery of neutron lifetime discrepancy
Credit: APS/Joan Tycko

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers from a variety of institutions in the U.S. has reevaluated a measurement made of the lifetime of a neutron back in 2005 and in doing so has reduced the uncertainty of the accuracy of the measurement made—unfortunately it's also led to an increase in the lifetime that was being measured. This, the researchers note in their paper published in Physical Review Letters, only increases the discrepancy between it and lifetime measurements made using another technique.

Neutrons normally exist inside the nucleus of an atom. If the nucleus is stable, the lifetime of the neutron is theoretically forever. Outside of a nucleus, however, things are very different. Due to interactions with other bits of matter, neutrons decay to other particles after about 15 minutes. Physicists and other scientists would like to nail down that decay to a very precise number—doing so would help in developing theories about what occurred just after the Big Bang, for example. The problem is, scientists currently have just two different ways to measure the decay and the answers the two return differ by so much that either the measuring techniques have to be improved, or the theories changed to reflect a different reality. Current research is leaning, quite naturally, towards the first approach.

The two different types of measuring techniques are: the bottle method (trapping some neutrons in a bottle and counting how many are left after some time has passed) and the beam method (creating a beam of and then counting how many decay over a period of time over a given distance). Until this latest research effort, the most using both techniques were performed in 2005. A team in the U.S. worked on the beam method while a team in Russia worked on the bottle method. Unfortunately, the two measurement results differed from one another by eight seconds. In this new effort, the researchers sought to improve the accuracy of their measurement, which they assumed would narrow the gap between the two results. Things didn't work out that way. Instead, the team did get a more accurate result (from ±3.2s to ±1.9s), but they also got a different lifetime measurement—one that was 3.8σ, instead of 2.9σ, the measurement found in 2005.

This new result hasn't caused physicists to revisit physics theories just yet, instead, most believe the problem is still in the accuracy of measurement—it needs to be below 1s for both before such measurements can be taken seriously. That means, someone will have to redo the bottle method, even as others continue to refine the beam method.

Explore further: Experiments on neutron-rich atomic nuclei could help scientists to understand nuclear reactions in exploding stars

More information: Improved Determination of the Neutron Lifetime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222501 (2013) prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i22/e222501

Related Stories

More precise measurements of the W boson

Dec 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The W boson is one of the very few major building blocks of matter," Dmitri Denisov tells PhysOrg.com. "It is a member of a family of particles that is the most fundamental in nature. The W boson is res ...

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

5 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

barakn
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2013
but they also got a different lifetime measurement—one that was 3.8σ, instead of 2.9σ, the measurement found in 2005

Sounds like the author Bob Yirka is confused and thinks that sigma is a unit of time. It actually means standard deviations, and thus the sentence might have been intended to mean "but they also got a different lifetime measurement—one that was 3.8 standard deviations, instead of 2.9 standard deviations, from the bottle method."
Bugmenots
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2013
Makes you wonder how many minor theories out there predicted, beforehand, that neutrons can have these different lifetimes depending on the differences between the experiments, like force fields, altitude, distance from the sun...
Jitterbewegung
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2013
"Due to interactions with other bits of matter, neutrons decay to other particles after about 15 minutes. "

What is this interaction with other bits of matter called?
I've heard of beta decay and the other one but not this interaction stuff.
barakn
not rated yet Dec 10, 2013
Probably virtual particles popping out of nowhere.