SciPost Submission Page
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Overview
by L. Cardani
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Laura Cardani |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12828v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2018-10-31 01:00 |
| Submitted by: | Cardani, Laura |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | The 15th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (TAU2018) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay is a hypothesised nuclear process in which two neutrons simultaneously decay into protons with no neutrino emission. The prized observation of this decay would point to the existence of a process that violates a fundamental symmetry of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and would allow to establish the nature of neutrinos. Today, the lower limits on the half-life of this process exceed 10$^{25}$-10$^{26}$ yr. I will review the current status of the searches for Double Beta Decay and the perspectives to enhance the experimental sensitivity in the next years.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2018-12-10 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1810.12828v1, delivered 2018-12-10, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.731
Strengths
This is a very complete review.
Weaknesses
There a few sentences that are not 100% correct and some sentences could use some corrections for understanding or grammar.
Report
Please see attach comments.
Requested changes
Please see attached comments.
Author: Laura Cardani on 2018-12-19 [id 392]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2018-12-10)I thank the Referee for reading carefully my proceeding and improving its quality. I attach my answers to his/her questions: 1) about the schedule of NEXT-100: I wrote "The first mile-stone of the NEXT collaboration should have been the operation of NEXT-100, [..] nevertheless..." and the Referee asked if now NEXT-100 is delayed. I did not mean that NEXT-100 is delayed (even if I have not found recent talks/papers about the status of this project, and the website is not updated, so I can not state that it is on schedule...). I just meant that this step should have been the next step of the collaboration. Nevertheless, they decided to run a medium-scale project before NEXT-100, called NEW (or NEXT-WHITE) and they are now publishing the results obtained with NEW and not with NEXT-100. 2) about AMoRE, the Referee observed (correctly) that they are preparing a 200 kg experiment. I did not mentioned it before because I think it is not going to happen in the immediate future (they are still working on the kg scale), but I understand the point of the Referee, so I added a sentence to clarify that this is not a small R$\&$D, but a part of a long-term plan. Best regards Laura