Talk:Double beta decay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would like to make a few comments about double beta decay page: 1) I do not completely agree that double beta decay was discovered in 1986; it has been seen before in geochemical experiments. In 1986, M. Moe discovered two-neutrino mode of 82Se in direct measurement with TPC at UC Irvine. 2) 48Ca, 96Zr can also decay via a single beta decay and it has been seen recently. 3) For more details, please visit Pritychenko 00:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't know about observation of single beta for 48Ca and 96Zr, could you please provide the references? --V1adis1av 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

About the neutrinoless double beta decay[edit]

I don't agree when you say that an neutrino is an Majorana particle, indeed, in 1955 Davis used and reaction with an neutrino and 37Cl wich produces and electron an 37Ar, this is a clasical proof that the neutrinos are Dirac particles. I saw a reference in Wong pp. 202-203. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory information about Ca-48[edit]

The text states that single beta decay of Ca-48 is possible but the entry for Ca-48 states that double beta decay is the only possible decay mode for this nuclide. (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Xenon contradicts the neutrinoless measurement with germanium.[edit]

The latest results from the xenon expriments [1] [2] are in tension with the claimed measurement from Heidelberg-Moscow. This is no longer stated on this page. Surely this wants to be said somewhere on this page. Before reinserting this, I was wondering whether there was a reason to delete this. Yes I understand that to refute the measurement can only be achive via a germainium detector but the comparision with xenon shows that with all know nuclear models that the clamed measurement is extremely unlikely to be correct.Dja1979 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The double +/- error or margins of error in the half life chart is very confusing[edit]

I cannot sort out what the poster means by the doubled sets +/- in the half life chart. Is the first referencing, margin of error and the second a confidence interval? That doesn't make much sense to me. Plus, I am not aware of such usage in scientific publications. More frustrating, is that the reference cited just previous to the chart is closed access, and the abstract, as is usual, reveals little. Of course closed access is symptomatic of current subscriber funded journal system, yet open access, save a few highly reliable forums, can be notoriously unreliable. But I digress. The double errors should definitely be disambiguated and attached to a reference which is open to the public, that way it can be investigated further if so desired. Moreover, this so called "double error" must not be in common usage (or a valid term for the thing) as Google reveals nothing, nor do the top results for "margin of error." I will be adding a please clarify tag as soon as I figure out how, which as a new Wikipedian (on the editing side) may take a second. I am genuinely interested in the meaning of this, as knowledge of error formatting beyond the confidence bars on a graph and the plus minus sign would be useful in my future work. That is, should this prove a genuine notation rather than a copy editing issue. inthedryer (talk) 8:54, 17 December 2013 (EST)

There are two different types of error associated with the measurement. There is the statistical error, which is the error associated with the amount of data collected and then there is the systematic error. The systematic error is the error associated with the technique (experiment) used. They are usually quoted separately, as they are unrelated, and gives the reader a quick idea on whether the number can be improved by just waiting and taking more data, or whether a new technique for analysing the data/new experiment is needed. It is standard to report results in this way, at least in particle physics.Dja1979 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for the clarification. Now that it is explained, it makes sense. Also, the footnote is very well written. inthedryer (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Searches for neutrinoless decay[edit]

I've tried to update the experiment list and determine the status of the collorations and which have major results and deserve their own articles.

I'd like a dediiated page for neutrinoless decay, which could go into the search history, status, and plans in detail.

  • MOON seems to have faded away, but it seems no one announces when science collaborations definitely end. MOON-1 prototype happened and people are still working on Mo, so I kept it in the proposed list.
  • DCBA, COBRA are clearly running, but no major results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetraveler3.14 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)