Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Uncovering multiple CP-nonconserving mechanisms of (ββ)0ν decay

Amand Faessler1, A. Meroni2,3, S. T. Petcov2,3,4,*, F. Šimkovic5,6, and J. Vergados7

  • 1Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Tuebingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
  • 2SISSA, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy
  • 3Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste, Via Valerio 2, 34126 Trieste, Italy
  • 4IPMU, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
  • 5Department of Nuclear Physics and Biophysics, Comenius University, Mlynska dolina F1, SK-842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia
  • 6Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia
  • 7Theoretical Physics Devision, University of Ioannina, GR-451 10 Ioannina, Greece

  • *Also at: Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria

Phys. Rev. D 83, 113003 – Published 7 June, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.113003

Abstract

We consider the possibility of several different mechanisms contributing to the (ββ)0ν-decay amplitude in the general case of CP nonconservation: light Majorana neutrino exchange, heavy left-handed and heavy right-handed Majorana neutrino exchanges, lepton charge nonconserving couplings in supersymmetry theories with R-parity breaking. If the (ββ)0ν decay is induced by, e.g., two “noninterfering” mechanisms (light Majorana neutrino and heavy right-handed Majorana neutrino exchanges), one can determine |ηi|2 and |ηj|2, ηi and ηj being the two fundamental parameters characterizing these mechanisms, from data on the half-lives of two nuclear isotopes. In the case when two “interfering” mechanisms are responsible for the (ββ)0ν decay, |ηi|2 and |ηj|2 and the interference term can be uniquely determined, in principle, from data on the half-lives of three nuclei. Given the half-life of one isotope, the “positivity conditions” |ηi|20 and |ηj|20 lead to stringent constraints on the half-lives of the other (ββ)0ν-decaying isotopes. These conditions, as well as the conditions for constructive (destructive) interference are derived and their implications are analyzed in two specific cases. The experimental limits on neutrino masses obtained in the H3 β-decay experiments can constrain further the multiple mechanisms of (ββ)0ν decay if one of the mechanisms involved is the light Majorana neutrino exchange. The measurements of the half-lives with rather high precision and the knowledge of the relevant nuclear matrix elements with relatively small uncertainties is crucial for establishing that more than one mechanism are operative in (ββ)0ν decay. The method considered by us can be generalized to the case of more than two (ββ)0ν-decay mechanisms. It allows us to treat the cases of CP conserving and CP nonconserving couplings generating the (ββ)0ν decay in a unique way.

Article Text

References (48)

  1. B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1957); [Sov. Phys. JETP6, 429 (1957)]; Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34, 247 (1958); [Sov. Phys. JETP 7, 172 (1958).
  2. Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870 (1962).
  3. B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53, 1717 (1967) [Sov. Phys. JETP 26, 984 (1968)].
  4. S. M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Rev. D 64, 053010 (2001).
  5. K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010).
  6. C. E. Aalseth et al., Phys. At. Nucl. 63, 1225 (2000).
  7. C. Arnaboldi et al. (CUORICINO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 78, 035502 (2008).
  8. A. S. Barabash (NEMO Collaboration), J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 173, 012008 (2009).
  9. F. Šimkovic et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 055501 (2009).
  10. H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 100, 309 (2001).
  11. H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2409 (2001).
  12. H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., Phys. Lett. B 586, 198 (2004).
  13. F. Avignone, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 143, 233 (2005).
  14. S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov, and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. B 524, 319 (2002); S. Pascoli and S. T. Petcov, 544, 239 (2002); 580, 280 (2004); Phys. Rev. D 77, 113003 (2008); S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov, and T. Schwetz, Nucl. Phys. B734, 24 (2006); see also, e.g., S. T. Petcov, Physica Scripta T121, 94 (2005).
  15. J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2951 (1982); E. Takasugi, Phys. Lett. B 149, 372 (1984).
  16. S. M. Bilenky and S. T. Petcov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 671 (1987).
  17. F. Šimkovic, J. D. Vergados, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. D 82, 113015 (2010).
  18. F. Šimkovic, G. Pantis, J. D. Vergados, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C 60, 055502 (1999).
  19. V. A. Rodin, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. C 68, 044302 (2003); Nucl. Phys. A766, 107 (2006); A793, 213(E) (2007).
  20. S. M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 94, 495 (1980).
  21. J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980); M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Phys. Lett. B 102, 323 (1981).
  22. F. Šimkovic, A. Faessler, V. A. Rodin, P. Vogel, and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C 77, 045503 (2008).
  23. A. Halprin, P. Minkowski, H. Promakoff, and S. P. Rosen, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2567 (1976).
  24. S. Antusch, J. P. Baumann, and E. Fernandez-Martinez, Nucl. Phys. B810, 369 (2009); S. Antusch et al., J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2006) 084.
  25. R. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981); V. Tello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151801 (2011).
  26. Y. Zhang et al., Nucl. Phys. B802, 247 (2008).
  27. A. Halprin, S. T. Petcov, and S. P. Rosen, Phys. Lett. B 125, 335 (1983).
  28. R. Mohapathra, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3457 (1986).
  29. J. D. Vergados, Phys. Lett. B 184, 55 (1987).
  30. M. Hirsch, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and S. G. Kovalenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 17 (1995); Phys. Rev. D 53, 1329 (1996).
  31. A. Faessler, S. G. Kovalenko, F. Šimkovic, and J. Schwieger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 183 (1997); A. Faessler, S. G. Kovalenko, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D 58, 115004 (1998).
  32. A. Wodecki and W. A. Kamiński, Phys. Rev. C 59, R1232 (1999); A. Wodecki, W. A. Kamiński, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D 60, 115007 (1999).
  33. G. Prézeau, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034016 (2003).
  34. A. Faessler, S. Kovalenko, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D 58, 055004 (1998).
  35. M. Hirsch and J. W. F. Valle, Nucl. Phys. B557, 60 (1999); M. Hirsch, J. C. Romao, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 486, 255 (2000).
  36. M. Hirsch, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and S. G. Kovalenko, Phys. Lett. B 372, 181 (1996); 381, 488(E) (1996).
  37. H. Päs, M. Hirsch, and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Phys. Lett. B 459, 450 (1999).
  38. A. Faessler, Th. Gutsche, S. Kovalenko, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D 77, 113012 (2008).
  39. A. Faessler, S. Kovalenko, F. Šimkovic, and J. Schwieger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 183 (1997); Phys. At. Nucl. 61, 1229 (1998).
  40. A. Faessler, S. Kovalenko, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D 58, 115004 (1998).
  41. D. S. Delion, J. Dukelsky, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2340 (1997); F. Krmpotić et al., Nucl. Phys. A637, 295 (1998).
  42. M. K. Cheoun, A. Bobyk, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, and G. Teneva, Nucl. Phys. A561, 74 (1993).
  43. F. Šimkovic, A. Faessler, H. Müther, V. Rodin, and M. Stauf, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055501 (2009).
  44. V. Lobashev et al., Nucl. Phys. A719, C153 (2003).
  45. K. Eitel et al., Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 143, 197 (2005).
  46. S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov, and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. B 524, 319 (2002).
  47. S. M. Bilenky and S. T. Petcov, arXiv:hep-ph/0405237.
  48. Amand Faessler, G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. M. Rottuno, and F. Šimkovic, arXiv:1103.2504.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation