No evidence of the double nature of neutrinos

Jun 04, 2014
This image shows the insertion of the EXO-200 detector into the cryostat 650 meters below ground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad (New Mexico). Credit: SLAC

After two years of searching for a special radioactive decay that would provide an indication of new physics beyond the standard model, an experiment deep under ground near Carlsbad has so far found no evidence of its existence. If this decay indeed exists, its half-life must be more than a million-billion times longer than the age of the universe.

Neutrinos are tiny, neutral elementary particles that, contrary to the standard model of physics, have been proven to have mass. One possible explanation for this mass could be that are their own antiparticles, so-called Majorana particles.

Though experimental evidence for this is still lacking, many theoretical extensions of the of physics predict the Majorana nature of neutrinos. If this hypothesis proves to be true, many previously unanswered questions about the origin of our universe and the origin of matter could be answered.

650 meters of shielding

In the EXO-200 experiment (Enriched Xenon Observatory), which is operated in the U.S. state of New Mexico, 650 meters below the earth's surface, scientists are looking for the evidence. Physicists from the research group of Professor Peter Fierlinger of the Excellence Cluster Universe at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen are major contributors to this experiment.

The most sensitive method to experimentally verify the Majorana question is the search for a process called "neutrinoless double-beta decay". This process is a special that may only occur if neutrinos are their own antiparticles.

Unprecedented accuracy

The EXO-200 experiment has searched for these decays over several years. From the fact that not one of these decays has been detected, the scientists can now deduce a lower limit for the half-life of the decay of at least 1025 years – around one million-billion years more than the .

One half of the time projection chamber before being inserted in the xenon vessel. The time projection chamber detects both light and electrons that have been knocked loose from xenon atoms. Credit: Courtesy EXO-200 Collaboration

"Although this measurement attains unprecedented accuracy, the question about the nature of neutrinos can still not be answered," says Dr. Michael Marino, member of the research group of Professor Peter Fierlinger and responsible for the analysis of the now published data. "That's why this open issue remains one of the most exciting questions in physics."

This result demonstrates the high sensitivity of the detector and also the future potential of this method. Hence the EXO-200 measurements are also the basis for a much larger future experiment that finally could confirm or refute the Majorana nature of neutrinos."

The EXO-200 experiment uses liquid xenon that was enriched to 80.6 percent of xenon-136 in Russian centrifuges. Xenon-136 is an isotope that is allowed by theory to undergo neutrinoless double-beta decay. The experiment's location in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 650 meters below ground provides shielding against radioactive decays and cosmic radiation.

EXO-200 is a collaboration of research groups from Canada, Switzerland, South Korea, Russia and the USA; the Technische Universitaet Muenchen is the only German partner.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: J. B. Albert, et.al., The EXO-200 Collaboration: Search for Majorana neutrinos with the first two years of EXO-200 data, Nature, Adv. online publication, June 5, 2014. DOI: 10.1038/nature13432

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Muon makes tracks in EXO-200 detector

Feb 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Enriched Xenon Observatory-200, a prototype observatory that will search for exotic decays of fundamental particles of matter, passed a significant if unofficial milestone last month: ...

Physicists close in on a rare particle-decay process

Jun 04, 2012

In the biggest result of its kind in more than ten years, physicists have made the most sensitive measurements yet in a decades-long hunt for a hypothetical and rare process involving the radioactive decay ...

How slow is slow? EXO knows

Sep 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Cooks think of watched pots. Handymen grumble about drying paint. Kids dread the endless night before Christmas morning.

News about ghost particles

Jul 17, 2013

(Phys.org) —Neutrinos are the most elusive particles having extremely weak interactions with all other particles. They have rather unusual properties and are even expected to be identical with their own ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2014
"half-life of the decay of at least 1025 years" (Obviously, the author has seen a 10 and a small superscript 25 on his own screen.)

How hard could it be for professional writers to learn to write 10e25 instead?

This would survive all kinds of text transfers between computer architectures, display systems, and authoring software.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
Or even 10^25 ??
RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2014
Compare the amount of evidence required to kill off a theory that physics likes compared to those that they don't like...would 1,000:1 be a fair number?

No evidence whatsoever of any manifestation of SUSY, but money is continually wasted on it.

The article is copied from here where the superscript is still in evidence. The copy process dropped some of the formatting.
https://www.tum.d...e/31558/
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2014

No evidence whatsoever of any manifestation of SUSY, but money is continually wasted on it.

Well maybe the physicists and their funders are just trying to mimic their philosophy that all everything is irrational. (Except soliciting money...)
Teper
Jun 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kelman66
not rated yet Jun 09, 2014
Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Beautiful. Snipping this for future use. Cheers
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
@kelman66
this may have been relevant 100 years ago, but not today with the advent of the internet and the spread and sharing of information so readily. now, when new science is found, discovered, or when new hypothesis are put out for review, the world can literally chime in and scientists from every nation can sound off on the relevance or legitimacy of it within days, whereas in the past it might take months just for a reply to a specific question.

Given the advances today, I would say that Planks comment is outdated as well as untrue. Science advances at the speed of recognition anymore. See http://phys.org/n...urt.html for proof
George_Rajna
Jun 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.