Neutrino Masses

Neutrino Masses

Christian Weinheimer, Kai Zuber
Institut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
Wilhelm-Klemm-Str. 9, D-48149 Münster, Germany
E-mail: weinheimer@uni-muenster.de
Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden,
Zellescher Weg 19, D-01069 Dresden, Germany
E-mail: zuber@physik.tu-dresden.de
Abstract

The various experiments on neutrino oscillation evidenced that neutrinos have indeed non-zero masses but cannot tell us the absolute neutrino mass scale. This scale of neutrino masses is very important for understanding the evolution and the structure formation of the universe as well as for nuclear and particle physics beyond the present Standard Model. Complementary to deducing constraints on the sum of all neutrino masses from cosmological observations two different methods to determine the neutrino mass scale in the laboratory are pursued: the search for neutrinoless double -decay and the direct neutrino mass search by investigating single -decays or electron captures. The former method is not only sensitive to neutrino masses but also probes the Majorana character of neutrinos and thus lepton number violation with high sensitivity. Currently quite a few experiments with different techniques are being constructed, commissioned or are even running, which aim for a sensitivity on the neutrino mass of O(100) meV. The principle methods and these experiments will be discussed in this short review.

1 Introduction

The various experiments with atmospheric, solar, accelerator and reactor neutrinos provide compelling evidence that neutrino flavor states are non-trivial superpositions of neutrino mass eigenstates and that neutrinos oscillate from one flavor state into another during flight. By these neutrino oscillation experiments the neutrino mixing matrix containing the mixing angles as well as the differences between the squares of neutrino masses can be determined [1].

The value of the neutrino masses are very important for astrophysics and cosmology to describe the role of neutrinos in the evolution of the universe. Although neutrinos are very light they may contribute significantly to the mass density of the universe: With 336 neutrinos per cm left over from the big bang they are about a billion times more abundant than atoms. On the other hand the values and the pattern of the neutrino masses are very important for nuclear and particle physics, since they are a very sensitive probe for physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics at large scales: Since neutrinos are neutral there is the possibility that neutrinos are their own antiparticles and, additionally, so-called Majorana mass terms originating from large scales could play the dominant role in describing neutrino masses [2].

Clearly, neutrino oscillation experiments prove that neutrinos have non-zero masses, but they – being a kind of interference experiment – cannot determine absolute masses. Therefore, we need other ways to determine the absolute value of the neutrino masses. Three methods are sensitive to the values of the neutrino mass eigenstates and their mixing angles in different ways:

1.1 Neutrino mass from cosmology

The relic neutrinos would have smeared out fluctuation on small scales, depending on their mass. By analysing the power spectrum of the universe limits on the sum of the three neutrino mass states, e.g.  eV [3], have been obtained which are to some extent model and analysis dependent.

1.2 Neutrino mass from neutrinoless double -decay ()

Figure 1: Normal double -decay with the emission of two antineutrinos (left) and neutrinoless double -decay (right). The diagrams are shown for the case of a decay.

Some even-even nuclei can only decay via double -decay into a nucleus with higher binding energy. This 2 order week process has been proposed more than 70 years ago [4] and has been experimentally confirmed for around a dozen of nuclei since more than 20 years (see figure 1 left). If – in the case of a -decay – the electron antineutrino going out at one vertex is absorbed at the other vertex as neutrino (see figure 1 right) the double -decay will be neutrinoless. It would violate lepton number conservation by two units. Therefore, neutrinoless double -decay is forbidden in the Standard Model of particle physics. It could exist only, if the neutrino is its own antiparticle (“Majorana-neutrino” in contrast to “Dirac-neutrino”). Secondly, the left-handedness of neutrinos and the right-handedness of antineutrino in charge current weak interactions provide a obstacle for neutrinoless double -decay. A finite neutrino mass is the most natural explanation to produce in the chirality-selective weak interaction a neutrino with a small component of opposite handedness on which this neutrino exchange subsists. Then the decay rate will scale with the absolute square of the so called effective neutrino mass, which takes into account the neutrino mixing matrix :

(1)

In case of neutrinoless double -decay the neutrino mixing matrix also contains 2 so-called Majorana-phases in addition to the normal CP-violating phase . The latter is important for neutrino oscillation whereas the former do not influence neutrino oscillation but . A significant additional uncertainty entering the relation of  and the decay rate comes from the uncertainties of the nuclear matrix elements of the neutrinoless double -decay [5].

In case of decays there are two alternative processes including one or two electron capture (EC) processes: and ECEC. However, the modes involving positrons are phase-space suppressed and only six possible emitters are known. Since in case of neutrinoless double -decay the inner neutrino propagator is not observable the exchange could subsists on a completely different particle allowing this lepton number violating process, e.g. a particle from theories beyond the Standard Model, which leads to a very interesting interplay with new LHC data [6], because at the TeV scale their contribution to double beta decay can have a similar amplitude then the light neutrino exchange. Among others there are heavy Majorana neutrinos, right-hand W-bosons and double charged higgs boson, which are getting constrained by measurements of ATLAS and CMS [7, 8, 9, 10]. But there is a general theorem, that there will be always a Majorana neutrino mass term in case neutrinoless double -decay will observed [11]. Diagrams like the one shown in fig. 1 right can also occur for other out-going leptons in theories beyond the Standard Model [12].

There are many recent reviews on neutrinoless double -decay and neutrinoless double -decay searches, e.g. [6, 13].

1.3 Neutrino mass from direct neutrino mass determination

The direct neutrino mass determination is based purely on kinematics or energy and momentum conservation without further assumptions. In principle there are two methods: time-of-flight measurements and precision investigations of weak decays. The former requires very long baselines and therefore very strong sources, which only cataclysmic astrophysical events like a core-collapse supernova could provide. From the supernova SN1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud upper limits of 5.7  (95 % C.L.) [14] or of 5.8  (95 % C.L.) [15] on the neutrino mass have been deduced, which depend somewhat on the underlying supernova model. Unfortunately nearby supernova explosions are too rare and seem to be not well enough understood to compete with the laboratory direct neutrino mass experiments.

Therefore, the investigation of the kinematics of weak decays and more explicitly the investigation of the endpoint region of a -decay spectrum (or an electron capture) is still the most sensitive model-independent and direct method to determine the neutrino mass. Here the neutrino is not observed but the charged decay products are precisely measured. Using energy and momentum conservation the neutrino mass can be obtained. In the case of the investigation of a -spectrum usually the “average electron neutrino mass squared”  is determined [16]:

(2)

This incoherent sum is not sensitive to phases of the neutrino mixing matrix in contrast to neutrinoless double -decay.

In -decay  e.g. the outgoing electron is sharing the decay energy with the outgoing electron antineutrino. Therefore the shape of the -spectrum near its endpoint , i.e. the maximum energy of the electron in case of zero neutrino mass, is sensitive to the neutrino mass as shown in figure 2. A recent review about this topic is reference [17].

Figure 2: Expanded -spectrum of an allowed or super-allowed -decay around its endpoint  for (red line) and for an arbitrarily chosen neutrino mass of 1 eV (blue line). In the case of tritium -decay, the gray-shaded area corresponds to a fraction of of all tritium -decays.

1.4 Comparison of the different neutrino mass methods

Figure 3: Observables of neutrinoless double -decay  (open blue band) and of direct neutrino mass determination by single -decay  (red) versus the cosmologically relevant sum of neutrino mass eigenvalues for the case of normal hierarchy (left) and of inverted hierarchy (right). The width of the bands/areas is caused by the experimental uncertainties () of the neutrino mixing angles [1] and in the case of  also by the completely unknown Majorana-CP-phases. Uncertainties of the nuclear matrix elements, which enter the determination of  from the measured values of half-lives or of half-live limits of neutrinoless double -decay, are not considered.

Figure 3 demonstrates that the different methods are complementary to each other and compares them. It shows, that the cosmological relevant neutrino mass scale has a nearly full correlation to  determined by direct neutrino mass experiments. The observable of neutrinoless double -decay, the effective neutrino mass , does not allow a very precise neutrino mass determination, e.g. to determine , due to the unknown CP and Majorana phases and the uncertainties of the nuclear matrix elements [5]. In the case of normal hierarchy and small neutrino masses the effective neutrino mass  even can vanish (see figure 3 left), which is not possible in the case of inverted hierarchy (see 3 right). On the other hand the combination of all three methods gives an experimental handle on the Majorana phases. As already mentioned in addition the exchange of SUSY particles may be the dominant process of neutrinoless double -decay, which would spoil the whole information on the neutrino mass. Nevertheless, the search for the neutrinoless double -decay is the only way to prove the Majorana character of neutrinos and one of the most promising ways to search for lepton number violation.

This article is structures as follows: Section 2 reports on the various searches for neutrinoless double -decay. In section 3 the neutrino mass determination from tritium and  -decay as well as from  electron capture are presented. The conclusions are given in section 4.

2 Search for neutrinoless double decay

There are 35 double -decay isotopes with the emission of two electrons, the strong dependence of the phase space with the Q-value only makes 11 of them (Q-value larger than 2 MeV) good candidates. For most of them the normal double -decay with neutrino emission has been observed. For neutrinoless double -decay there is only one claim for evidence at by part of the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration [18, 19], all other experiments so far set upper limits. A couple of experiments with sensitivity O(100) meV are being set up to check this claim or started data taking recently. Common to all these experiments is the use of ultrapure materials with very little radioactivity embedded in a passive and an active shield placed in an underground laboratory. Most of them are using isotopical enriched material as well.

Isotope nat. abund. Q-value Experiment
(%) (keV)
Ca 0.187 4262 0.84 CANDLES
Ge 7.8 2039.006 0.050 GERDA, MAJORANA
Se 9.2 2997.9 0.3 SuperNEMO, LUCIFER
Zr 2.8 3347.7 2.2 -
Mo 9.6 3034.40 0.17 AMoRE, LUMINEU, MOON
Pd 11.8 2017.85 0.64 -
Cd 7.5 2813.50 0.13 COBRA, CdWO
Sn 5.64 2292.64 0.39 -
Te 34.5 2527.518 0.013 CUORE
Xe 8.9 2457.83 0.37 EXO, KamLAND-Zen, NEXT
Nd 5.6 3371.38 0.20 SNO+, MCT
Table 1: The table shows the eleven candidate isotopes with a Q-value larger than 2 MeV. Given are the natural abundances and Q-values as determined from precise Penning trap measurements. The last column shows the experiments addressing the measurement of the corresponding isotope. For some experiments only the ”default” isotope is mentioned as they have the option of exploring several ones. Several additional research and development projects are ongoing.

The most important signature of neutrinoless double -decay is, that the sum of the energy of both decay electrons (in case of double decay, positrons for double decay) is equal to the -value of the nuclear transition. The current proposed or running double beta search experiments are given in Table. 1.

Neutrinoless double -decay is also sensitive to different scenarios with sterile neutrinos [20]. The sum in equation (1) will then run over more than 4 neutrino mass states and the corresponding mixing matrix elements. The experimental approaches can be classified into two methods (see Figure 4) [21]:

Figure 4: Two different experimental configurations in search for the neutrinoless double -decay.

2.1 “Sourcedetector” configuration

In the “sourcedetector” configuration the double -decay nuclei are part of the detector, which measures the sum of the energy of both -electrons. The experimental implementation of these calorimeters are semiconductors (e.g. isotopes: Ge, Cd, experiments: GERDA, MAJORANA, COBRA), cryo-bolometers (e.g. isotope: Te, Se, experiments: CUORE, LUCIFER) and liquid scintillators (e.g. isotope: Ca, Xe, Nd, experiments: EXO-200, SNO+, NEXT, KamLAND-Zen, CANDLES). In general, this method allows more easily to install a large target mass.

Currently the most sensitive limits come from the EXO-200 and KamLAND-Zen experiment using a large amount of enriched Xe. EXO-200 is a liquid Xenon TPC with a fiducial target mass of 80 kg installed at the WIPP in New Mexico, USA. Coincident drifted charge and scintillation light read-out allows to improve the energy resolution and to reduce the background. EX0-200 gave a half-life limit on neutrinoless double -decay [22] of

(3)

The KamLAND-Zen-experiment uses the KamLAND-detector, which was built for long baseline reactor neutrino oscillation measurements, in which a nylon-based inner balloon of 3 m diameter was inserted. This balloon is filled with 13 t of Xenon-loaded liquid scintillator. The scintillation light coming from decays in this balloon is detected by the photomultipliers surrounding the KamLAND-detector. For the neutrinoless double -decay search a fidcuial volume with 2.70 diameter containing 179 kg of Xe was used yielding a half-life limit [23] of

(4)

Both the EXO-200 and the KamLAND-Zen results exclude the claimed evidence of part of the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration for a large part of matrix element calculations.

The GERDA experiment [24] at the Gran Sasso underground laboratory is being proceeded in two phases with the option of a third phase together with the MAJORANA experiment [25]. GERDA uses enriched Germanium111The enrichment of the double -decay isotope Ge is about 86 %. The total mass of the phase 1 detectors amounts to 18 kg. embedded in a shielding cryostat filled with liquid argon, which itself sits in a water veto tank (see figure 5). This new shielding technique allowed to improve the background rate compared to the Heidelberg Moscow experiment by an order of magnitude. For a second phase point contact BEGe detectors for optimized pulse shape analysis are currently produced aiming for another factor 10 in background reduction.

The GERDA experiment has started data taking in November 2011 and first new results in form of a new 2 double -decay half-life have been obtained [26]. The GERDA collaboration just recently unblinded their phase I data with a total accumulation of 21.6 kg yr [27]. The number of events agrees well with the background expectation. The experiment sets an lower limit at 90 % C.L. of the neutrinoless double -decay half-life of

(5)

by GERDA data alone and of

(6)

by using data from former Germanium experiments in addition. With its about an order of magnitude lower background compared to previous Germanium experiments the GERDA experiment clearly disfavors the claim by part of the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration.

Figure 5: View of the GERDA LAr cryostat within the water shielding which is instrumented as muon veto (Courtesy of the GERDA collaboration).

Recently a revived interest for neutrino less double electron capture [28] has been grown due to potential resonance enhancement with an excited state of the daughter nucleus [29, 30]. Due to the sharpness of the resonance a major action was taken with Penning traps to provide better atomic masses and indeed some systems like Gd seem to fulfill the requirement for resonance enhancement (f.e. [31]). There is still a lack of understanding what the signal of neutrino less double EC to the ground state could be.

2.2 “Sourcedetector” configuration

In the this configuration the double -decay source is separated from two tracking calorimeters, which determine direction and energy of both -electrons separately (e.g. isotope Se, Mo, experiments: NEMO3 and its much larger successor SuperNEMO, ELEGANT, MOON).

By this method the most sensitive limit comes from the NEMO3 experiment [32] in the Modane underground laboratory LSM. NEMO3 was using thin source foils of a total area of 20 . These foils contained 7 kg of the double -decay isotope Mo and 1 kg of the double -decay isotope Se. The foils were surrounded by a tracking chamber in a magnetic field composed of 6400 drift cells working in Geiger mode and calorimeter made out of 1940 plastic scintillators. The recent upper limits on neutrinoless double -decay from NEMO3 are [32]:

Although it requires much larger detectors to accumulate similar large target masses as in the “sourcedetector” case, there is the advantage, that the independent information of both electrons allows to study double -decay processes with 2 neutrinos in detail. In case neutrinoless double -decay would be detected, the angular correlation of both electrons will allow to draw some conclusion on the underlying process 222A theorem by Schechter and Valle [11] requests the neutrinos to have non-zero Majorana masses, if neutrinoless double -decay is proven to exist, but the dominant process could still be different, e.g. based on other BSM physics like right-handed weak charged currents, which would show a completely different angular distribution of the two electrons with respect to a neutrino mass term..

3 Direct neutrino mass experiments

The signature of a non-zero neutrino mass is a tiny modification of the spectrum of the -electrons near its endpoint (see Figure 2), which has to be measured with very high precision. To maximize this effect, emitters with low endpoint energy (e.g.  keV,  keV) are favored [33].

3.1 “Sourcedetector” configuration: Tritium decay experiments

Tritium is the standard isotope for this kind of study due to its low endpoint of 18.6 keV, its rather short half-life of 12.3 y, its super-allowed shape of the -spectrum, and its simple electronic structure. Tritium -decay experiments using a tritium source and a separated electron spectrometer have been performed in search for the neutrino mass for more than 60 years [16, 17] yielding a sensitivity of 2 eV by the experiments at Mainz [34] and Troitsk [35]. The huge improvement of these experiments in the final sensitivity as well as in solving the former “negative “ problem with respect to previous experiments is mainly caused by the new spectrometers of MAC-E Filter type and by careful studies of the systematics.

To further increase the sensitivity to the neutrino mass down to 200 meV by a direct measurement the KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino experiment KATRIN [36, 37] is currently being set up at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology KIT. Since  is the observable, this requires an improvement by two orders magnitude compared to the previous tritium -decay experiments at Mainz and Troitsk. The KATRIN design is based on the successful MAC-E-Filter spectrometer technique combined with a very strong windowless gaseous molecular tritium source [37]. Figure 6 illustrates the whole 70 m long setup.

Figure 6: Schematic view of the 70 m long KATRIN experiment consisting of calibration and monitor rear system (yellow), windowless gaseous -source (a), differential pumping and cryo-trapping section (b), small pre-spectrometer (c) and large main spectrometer (d) and segmented PIN-diode detector (e). Not shown is the separate monitor spectrometer (Courtesy of the KATRIN collaboration).

The windowless gaseous molecular tritium source (WGTS) essentially consists of a 10 m long tube of 9 cm diameter kept at 30 K. Molecular tritium gas injected in the middle of this tube is freely streaming to both ends of the beam tube. The tritium gas is pumped back by huge turbo-molecular pumps placed at pump ports intersected with straight sections. The -electrons are guided by superconducting solenoids housing the beam tubes. A so-called WGTS demonstrator has been set up to prove that the new concept of the ultra-stable beam-pipe cooling works: gaseous and liquid neon is sent through two tubes welded onto the beam tube. By stabilizing the pressure of this two-phase neon the temperature of the beam tube can be stabilized well below the requirement of [38]. The input pressure is chosen to obtain a total column density of  molecules/cm allowing a near maximum count rate at moderate systematic uncertainties [39]. Currently the WGTS demonstrator is being upgraded into the full WGTS.

The electron guiding and tritium retention system consists of a differential and a cryogenic pumping unit. It has been demonstrated that the tritium flow reduction by the differential pumping is about as large as expected by Monte Carlo simulations [40]. Inside the differential pumping sections Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance Penning traps will be installed to measure the ion flux from the tritium source [41]. Ions will be ejected from the beam by a transverse electric field. The principle of the cryogenic pumping section based on argon frost at  K has been demonstrated in a test experiment [42]. The overall tritium reduction amounts to .

A pre-spectrometer will transmit only the interesting high energy part of the -spectrum close to the endpoint into the main spectrometer [43], in order to reduce the rate of background-producing ionization events therein. The big main spectrometer is of MAC-E-Filter type as the pre spectrometer. It is essentially an electric retarding spectrometer with a magnetic guiding and collimating field [44]. In order to achieve the strong energy resolution of 1:20,000 the magnetic field in the analyzing plane in the centre of the spectrometer has to be 20,000 times smaller than the maximum magnetic field of 6 T provided by the pinch magnet. Due to conservation of the magnetic flux from the WGTS to the spectrometer it needs to have a diameter of 10 m in the analyzing plane. To avoid background by scattering of -electrons inside the spectrometer extreme requirements for the vacuum pressure of  mbar are necessary [45]. The -electrons which have enough energy to pass the MAC-E-Filter are counted with a state-of-the-art segmented PIN detector. The spatial information provided by the 148 pixels allow to correct for the residual inhomogeneities of the electric retarding potential and the magnetic fields in the analyzing plane. Active and passive shields minimize the background rate at the detector.

Of crucial importance is the stability of the retarding potential. KATRIN is using a twofold way to achieve the necessary redundancy: A custom-made ultra-high precision HV divider [46] developed together with the PTB Braunschweig and a state-of-the-art 8.5 digit digital voltmeter measure directly the retarding voltage. In addition the retarding voltage is applied to a third MAC-E-Filter, the so-called monitor spectrometer reusing the former MAC-E-Filter at Mainz. The line position of ultra-stable electron sources based on the isotope  [47] is continuously compared to the retarding voltage of the main spectrometer. Both methods reach the required ppm precision.

The sensitivity limit of 200 meV on the neutrino mass for the KATRIN experiment is based on a background rate of  cts/s, observed under optimal conditions at the experiments at Mainz and Troitsk using similar MAC-E-Filters. To reach this low background rate with the so much larger KATRIN instrument requires new methods. At Mainz the main residual background originated from secondary electrons ejected from the walls/electrodes on high potential by passing cosmic muons or by s from radioactive impurities. Although there is a very effective magnetic shielding by the conservation of the magnetic flux, small violations of the axial symmetry or other inhomogeneities allowed a fraction of about of these secondary electrons to reach the detector and to be counted as background. A new method to reject these secondary electrons from the electrodes has been developed and successfully tested at the Mainz spectrometer [48]: nearly mass-less wires are installed in front of these electrodes, which are put on a more negative electrical potential than the electrode potential by -100 V to -200 V. For KATRIN a double layer wire electrode system consisting of 248 modules with 23440 wires in total has been developed, which should reduce the secondary electron background by a factor 100 [55]. Its installation (fig. 7) has been completed in early 2012.

Other relevant background sources are decays of radioactive atoms in the spectrometer volumes, e.g. the fast decaying radon isotope Rn from emanation out of the non-evaporable getter pumps [50] or small amounts of tritium originating from the WGTS [51]. They create electrons, which might be stored by the magnetic mirror effect and/or by the negative potentials of the two MAC-E-Filters or within the non-avoidable Penning trap between the pre and the main spectrometers. For these backgrounds new methods have been developed to avoid storage of electrons or to eject them [52, 53, 54].

Figure 7: Wire electrode system inside the KATRIN main spectrometer during installation, photo: M. Zacher.

Since the KATRIN experiment will investigate only the very upper end of the -spectrum, quite a few systematic uncertainties will become negligible because of excitation thresholds. Others systematics like the inelastic scattering fraction or the source intensity will be controlled very precisely by measuring the column density online by an angular-selective electron gun [55, 56], by keeping the temperature and pressure within the tritium source at the per mille level constant [39] and by determining the tritium fraction of the gas in the source by laser Raman spectroscopy to the sub per mille level [57]. An important consistency check of the correct systematic corrections will be comparison of the endpoint energy  fitted from the -spectrum with a precision value derived from ultra-high precision ion cyclotron resonance mass spectroscopy in a multi-Penning trap setup measuring the He-H mass difference [58] with the final goal to use the measured -value in the neutrino mass fit. KATRIN’s sensitivity will allow to fully investigate the quasi-degenerate neutrino mass regime to distinguish between different neutrino mass models as well as to fully investigate the cosmological relevant neutrino mass range, where neutrino masses would shape significantly structure formation. In addition, the KATRIN experiment will be sensitive to contributions to sterile neutrinos [59, 60, 61] as suggested by the so-called reactor anomaly.

The commissioning of the KATRIN spectrometer and detector system has started in May 2013. The tritium source as well as the electron transport and tritium elimination section will be put into operation in 2014. First tritium data with the full KATRIN setup are expected for 2015.

There is also R&D on rather different approaches, like Project-8, which wants to measure the endpoint spectrum of tritium -decay by detecting the radio emission of coherent cyclotron radiation from a KATRIN-like tritium source [62, 63]. Its main idea is that the cyclotron frequency scales inversely with , only the radiated power but not the frequency depends on the angle of the emitted -electron w.r.t. the magnetic field. Measuring the -spectrum by synchrotron radiation has the principle advantage that the radiofrequency photons can leave a tritium source, which is already opaque for electrons thus allowing much larger source strengths. Currently the Project-8 collaboration is investigating, whether this very low intensity coherent cyclotron radiation can be detected.

3.2 “Sourcedetector” configuration: Re -decay and Ho electron capture experiments

3.2.1 Re -decay experiments

Compared to tritium the isotope  has a 7 times lower endpoint energy of 2.47 keV resulting in a 350 times higher relative fraction of the -spectrum in the interesting endpoint region. Unfortunately  exhibits a very complicated electronic structure and a very long half life of  y. This disadvantage can be compensated by using it as -emitter in cryo-bolometers, which measure the entirely energy released in the absorber, except that of the neutrino.

A cryo-bolometer is not an integral spectrometer like the MAC-E-Filter but measures always the entire -spectrum. Pile-up of two random events may pollute the endpoint region of a -decay on which the neutrino mass is imprinted. Therefore cryo-bolometers with mg masses are required to suppress pile-up by 4 or more orders of magnitude. Unfortunately large arrays of cryo-bolometers are then required to reach the necessary sensitivity to the neutrino mass. Another technical challenge is the energy resolution of the cryo-bolometers. Although cryo-bolometers with an energy resolution of a few eV have been produced with other absorbers, this resolution has not yet been achieved with rhenium.

Two groups have started the field of  -decay experiments: The MANU experiment at Genoa was using one metallic rhenium crystal of 1.6 mg working at a temperature of 100 mK and read out by Germanium doped thermistor. The environmental fine structure was observed for the first time giving rise to a modulation of the shape of the -spectrum by the interference of the out-going -electron wave with the rhenium crystal [64]. The spectrum near the endpoint allowed to set an upper limit on the neutrino mass of  eV [65]. The MiBeta collaboration at Milano was using 10 crystals of AgReO with a mass of about 0.25 mg each [66]. The energy resolution of a single bolometer was about 30 eV. One year of data taking resulted in an upper limit of  eV [66].

Both groups are now working together with additional groups in the MARE project [67] to further the development of sensitive micro-calorimeters investigating the  -decay. MARE consists of two phases [68]: MARE-1 aims to investigate alternative micro-calorimeter concepts to improve the energy resolution, to shorten the rise time of the signals and to develop possibly a multi-plexing read-out. A summary of the sensitivity reach dependent on these detector properties can be found in [69]. Among these possible technologies for MARE are transition edge and neutron-doped thermistors for the temperature read-out, but also new technologies based on magnetic micro-calorimeters [70]. These new dectectors are being tested in medium-size arrays with up to 300 cryo-bolometers enabling MARE-1 to reach a sensitivity to the neutrino mass of a few eV. After selection of the most successful technique a full scale experiment with sub-eV sensitivity to the neutrino mass will then be set up in MARE phase 2 comprising about 50000 detectors.

3.2.2 Ho electron capture experiments

MARE is not only aiming at the  -decay but also wants to investigate the electron capture of , triggered by the persisting difficulties with superconducting metallic rhenium absorbers coupled to the sensors [71]. The isotope  could be implanted into well-suited cryo-bolometers. The very upper end of the electromagnetic de-excitation spectrum of the  daughter Dy looks similar to the endpoint spectrum of a -decay and is sensitive to the neutrino mass [72]. Additionally, the ECHO collaboration has been set up to investigate the direct neutrino mass search with  implanted in magnetic micro-calorimeters [73]. In these detectors, the temperature change following an energy absorption is measured by the change of magnetization of a paramagnetic sensor material (Au : Er) sitting in an external magnetic field. This change of magnetization is read out by a SQUID. A first  spectrum has been presented [70]. Again large efforts are been undertaken to develop a multi-plexing read-out technology to allow the run large arrays of these magnetic micro-calorimeters.

4 Conclusions

The absolute neutrino mass scale is addressed by three different methods. The analysis of large scale structure data and the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation are very sensitive but model dependent. The search for neutrinoless double -decay requires neutrinos to be their own antiparticles (Majorana neutrinos) and is measuring a coherent sum over all neutrino masses contributing to the electron neutrino with unknown phases. Therefore – even without the contribution of other beyond the Standard Model physics processes – the value of the neutrino mass cannot be determined very precisely. On the other hand the discovery of neutrinoless double -decay would be the detection of lepton number violation, which would be an extraordinary important discovery. A few double -decay experiments of the second generation like EXO-200, KamLAND-Zen and GERDA phase I have already delivered exciting new data; much more, e.g. from these and other experiments, will come in the near future. Among the various ways to address the absolute neutrino mass scale the investigation of the shape of -decay spectra around the endpoint is the only real model-independent method, independently of other beyond the Standard Model physics processes. The KATRIN experiment is being setup at Karlsruhe and will start data taking in 2015, whereas the MARE experiment is commissioning a small array of detectors starting MARE phase 1 and ECHO is developing a new technology of electron capture experiments. The latter field of cryogenic calorimeters is also driven by the field of astronomy, where arrays of cryogenic bolometers with O(1000) pixels have been established already. From both laboratory approaches, the search for neutrinoless double -decay and the direct neutrino mass determination, we expect in the coming years sensitivities on the neutrino mass of O(100) meV.

5 Acknowledgments

The work of the authors is supported by the German Ministery for Education and Research BMBF and the German Research Society DFG.

6 Bibliography

References

  • [1] G.L. Fogli et al., “Global analysis of neutrino masses, mixings and phases: entering the era of leptonic CP violation searches”, arXiv:1205.5254v3
  • [2] R. N. Mohapatra, A. Y. Smirnov, “Neutrino Mass and New Physics”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 56 (2006) 569
  • [3] K.N. Abazajian et al., “Cosmological and Astrophysical Neutrino Mass Measurements”, Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 177
  • [4] M. Goeppert-Mayer, Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 512
  • [5] F. Simkovic et al., Phys. Rev. C79 055501 (2009)
  • [6] W. Rodejohann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 20 1833 (2011)
  • [7] ATLAS-collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-115 (2011)
  • [8] G. Aad et al., ATLAS-collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 2244 (2012)
  • [9] S. Chatrchyan et al., CMS-collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 2189 (2012)
  • [10] S. Chatrchyan et al., CMS-collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 717 109 (2012)
  • [11] J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25, 2951 (1982)
  • [12] K. Zuber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys 48, 223 (2002)
  • [13] B. Schwingenheuer, “Status and prospects of searches for neutrinoless double beta decay”, Annalen d. Physik, (2013)
  • [14] T.J. Loredo and D.Q. Lamb, “Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN 1987A”, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 063002
  • [15] G. Pagliarolia, F. Rossi-Torresa and F. Vissania, “Neutrino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission”, Astropart. Phys. 33 (2010) 287
  • [16] E.W. Otten and C. Weinheimer, “Neutrino mass limit from tritium beta decay”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 71 (2008) 086201
  • [17] G. Drexlin, V. Hannen, S. Mertens, C. Weinheimer, ‘Current Direct Neutrino Mass Experiments”, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013, 293986 (2013)
  • [18] H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., Phys. Lett. B 586, 198 (2004)
  • [19] H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006) 1547
  • [20] J. Barry, W. Rodejohann, H. Zhang, JHEP 1107, 091 (2011)
  • [21] A. Guiliani, Acta Phys. Polnica 41 Issue 7, 1447 (2010)
  • [22] M. Auger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 032505 (2012)
  • [23] A. Gando et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 062502 (2013)
  • [24] K.-H. Ackermann et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73 2330 (2013)
  • [25] C. E. Aalseth et al. [MAJORANA Collaboration], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 203, 012057 (2010) [arXiv:0910.4598 [nucl-ex]].
  • [26] M. Agostini et al., J. Phys. G40, 035110 (2013)
  • [27] M. Agostini et al. (GERDA collaboration), arXiv:1307.4720, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
  • [28] J. Bernabeu, A. De Rujula, C. Jarlskog, “Neutrinoless double electron capture as a tool to measure the electron neutrino mass”, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 15
  • [29] Z. Sujkowski, S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C 70 052501 (2004)
  • [30] M. I. Krivoruchenko, F. Simkovic, D. Frekers and A. Faessler, “Resonance enhancement of neutrinoless double electron capture”, Nucl. Phys. A 859 (2011) 140
  • [31] S. Eliseev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 052504 (2011)
  • [32] L. Simard, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042011 (2012)
  • [33] C. Weinheimer, “Direct neutrino mass measurements”, Hyperfine Interactions, DOI 10.1007/s10751-013-0808-7
  • [34] C. Kraus et al., Eur. Phys. J. C40, 447 (2005)
  • [35] V.N. Aseev et al., “Upper limit on the electron antineutrino mass from the Troitsk experiment”, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 112003
  • [36] A. Osipowicz et al. (KATRIN Collaboration), arXiv:hep-ex/0109033
  • [37] J. Angrik et al. (KATRIN Collaboration), KATRIN Design Report 2004, Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZ Karlsruhe 7090, http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/berichte/FZKA7090.pdf
  • [38] S. Grohmann et al., “Precise temperature measurement at 30 K in the KATRIN source cryostat”, Cryogenics 51, 8 (2011) 438-445
  • [39] M. Babutzka et al., “Monitoring of the operating parameters of the KATRIN Windowless Gaseous Tritium Source”, New Journal of Physics 14 (2012) 103046
  • [40] S. Lukic et al., “Measurement of the gas-flow reduction factor of the KATRIN DPS2-F differential pumping section”, Vacuum 86 (8)(2012) 1126–1133.
  • [41] M. Ubieto-Díaz et al., “A broad-band FT-ICR Penning trap system for KATRIN”, Int. J. of Mass Spect. 288 (2009) 1–5
  • [42]  O. Kazachenko et al., “TRAP - a cryo-pump for pumping tritium on pre-condensed argon”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 587 (2008) 136
  • [43] M. Prall et al., “The KATRIN Pre-Spectrometer at reduced Filter Energy”, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 073054
  • [44] A. Picard et al., “A solenoid retarding spectrometer with high resolution and transmission for keV electrons”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 63 (1992) 345
  • [45] X. Luo, L. Bornschein, C. Day, J. Wolf, “KATRIN NEG pumping concept investigation”, Vacuum 81 (2007) 777
  • [46] T. Thümmler et al., “Precision high voltage divider for the KATRIN experiment”, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 103007
  • [47] M. Zboril et al., “Ultra-stable implanted 83Rb/83mKr electron sources for the energy scale monitoring in the KATRIN experiment”, JINST 8 (2013) P03009
  • [48] B. Flatt, Voruntersuchungen zu den Spektrometern des KATRIN-Experiments, PhD Thesis in German language, Mainz University, 2005
  • [49] K. Valerius, “The wire electrode system for the KATRIN main spectrometer”, Progr. Part. and Nucl. Phys. 64(2) (2010) 291–293
  • [50] F.M. Fränkle et al., “Radon induced background processes in the KATRIN pre-spectrometer”, Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 128-134
  • [51] S. Mertens et al., “Background due to stored electrons following nuclear decays in the KATRIN spectrometers and its impact on the neutrino mass sensitivity”, acc. for publ. in Astropart. Phys. (2012)
  • [52] M. Beck et al., “Effect of a sweeping conductive wire on electrons stored in a Penning-like trap between the KATRIN spectrometers”, Eur. Phys. J. A 44 (2010) 499
  • [53] B. Hillen , Untersuchung von Methoden zur Unterdrückung des Spektrometeruntergrunds beim KATRIN Experiment, PhD thesis in German language, University of Münster, 2011
  • [54] S. Mertens et al., “Stochastic Heating by ECR as a Novel Means of Background Reduction in the KATRIN Spectrometers”, acc. for publ. in J. of Instr. (2012)
  • [55] K. Valerius et al., “Prototype of an angular-selective photoelectron calibration source for the KATRIN experiment”, J. of Instr. 6 (2011) P01002
  • [56] K. Hugenberg [KATRIN Collaboration], An Angular Resolved Pulsed Uv Led Photoelectron Source For Katrin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 64 (2010) 288
  • [57] M. Sturm et al., “Monitoring of all hydrogen isotopologues at tritium laboratory Karlsruhe using Raman spectroscopy”, Laser Phys. 20 (2010) 493-507
  • [58] K. Blaum, Novikov Yu. N. and G. Werth, “Penning traps as a versatile tool for precise experiments in fundamental physics”, Contemp. Phys., 51: 2 (2010) 149 — 175
  • [59] A. Sejersen-Riis and S. Hannestad, “Detecting sterile neutrinos with KATRIN like experiments”, JCAP (2011) 1475
  • [60] J. A. Formaggio and J. Barrett, “Resolving the Reactor Neutrino Anomaly with the KATRIN Neutrino Experiment”, Phys. Lett. B 706 1 (2011) 68–71
  • [61] A. Esmaili and Orlando L. G. Peres, “KATRIN Sensitivity to Sterile Neutrino Mass in the Shadow of Lightest Neutrino Mass”, arXiv:1203.2632 [hep-ph]
  • [62] B. Monreal and J. Formaggio, “Relativistic cyclotron radiation detection of tritium decay electrons as a new technique for measuring the neutrino mass”, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 051301(R)
  • [63] J. Formaggio, “Project 8: Using Radio-Frequency Techniques to Measure Neutrino Mass”, arXiv:1101.6077v1 [nucl-ex] (2011)
  • [64] F. Gatti et al., “Detection of environmental fine structure in the low-energy beta-decay spectrum of Re-187”, Nature 397 (1999) 137
  • [65] F. Gatti, “Microcalorimeter measurements”, Nucl. Phys. B - Proc. Supp. 91 (2001) 293
  • [66] M. Sisti et al., “New limits from the Milano neutrino mass experiment with thermal microcalorimeters”, Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 520 (2004) 125-131
  • [67] A. Monfardini et al., “The microcalorimeter arrays for a rhenium experiment (MARE): A next-generation calorimetric neutrino mass experiment‘‘, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 559 (2006) 346
  • [68] A. Nucciotti, “The MARE Project”, J. of Low Temp. Phys. 151 (2008) 597–602
  • [69] A. Nucciotti, E. Ferri, O. Cremonesi, ‘Expectations for a new calorimetric neutrino mass experiment”, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 80
  • [70] P.C.-O. Ranitzsch et al., “Development of metallic magnetic calorimeters for high precision measurements of calorimetric Re and Ho spectra”, J. of Low Temp. Phys. 167 (2012) 1004
  • [71] E. Ferri, “MARE-1 in Milan: Status and Perspectives”, J. of Low Temp. Phys. 167 (2012) 1035
  • [72] A. De Rujula, A new way to measure neutrino masses”, Nuclear Physics B, vol. 188, no 3. (1981) 414
  • [73] L. Gastaldo et al., “Characterization of low temperature metallic magnetic calorimeters having gold absorbers with implanted Ho ions”, arXiv:1206.5647
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
186204
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description