Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Double beta decay

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text. 1991 Rep. Prog. Phys. 54 53 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/54/1/002) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 144.82.108.120 This content was downloaded on 30/11/2013 at 17:47

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Rep. Prog. Phys. 54 (1991)53-126. Printed in the UK

Double beta decay

T Tomoda
Paul Schemer Institute, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland

Abstract
Recent developments in the theoretical investigation of nuclear double-beta decay are reviewed. In particular, the neutrinoless mode is discussed in detail, since it is sensitive t o lepton number violation as predicted by gauge theories beyond the standard model and it is expected to give important information on the nature of the nenhinos and the weak interaction. Various approximations made in the theoretical treatment of neutrinoless and two-neutrino double beta decay are examined, and the present limits on the effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino as well as the coupling constants of the right-handed leptonic current are presented. This review was received in July 1990.

0034-4885/91/01W53+'74$14.00 @ 1991 I O P Publihing Ltd

53

54

T Tomoda

Contents

Page
1. Introduction

2. Majorana neutrinos 2.1. Majorana neutrinos and their C P properties 2.2. Phase conventions 2.3. Types of neutrino mass matrix 3. Theoretical description of pp decay 3.1. The effective Hamiltonian 3.2. 2upp decay 3.3. Ovpp decay 3.4. p@decay of a single hadron in the nucleus 3.5. Ovpp decay involving Higgs bosons 4. Nuclear structure calculations 4.1. Common features 4.2. Nuclear models 5 . pp decay rates and constraints on lepton number violation 5.1. O+ -+ O+ Ou and 2u pp decay 5.2. O+ 2+ Ou and 2v pp decay 5.3. OuppM decay 6. Summary Acknowledgments Appendix 1. Electron wavefunctions and phase space integrals Appendix 2. Neutrino propagation functions References

55 59 59 62 62 65 65 68 73 84 87 89 89 91 96 96 114 116 116 118 118 121 122

Double beta decay

55

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
There has been a growing interest in nuclear double-beta (pp) decay in recent years. This is the process in which an atomic nucleus with Z protons decays to another one with two more (or less) protons and the same mass number A , by emitting two electrons (or positrons) and, usually, other light particles such a s neutrinos:

( A ,Z ) + ( A , Z

+ 2) + 2er + anything.

(1.1)

In order to study pp decay, it is necessary to choose those nuclei in which other decay modes, especially single P decay and electron capture, are energetically forbidden or strongly suppressed by selection rules. There are some thirty even-even nuclei which satisfy this condition for P-p- (electron emitting pp) decay, and several candidate nuclei for P+of decay (table 1). A typical case of the 0-P- decay 76Ge-76Se is illustrated in figure 1.
I

Table 1. Double beta transitions for naturally occurring p a r a t isotopes. The Q valuer ofthe decaye (O+ O+) and thenatural abundances P of the parent isotopes are taken from Wapstraand Audi (1985) and Ledererand Shirley (1978), respectively.

0-0- transition
$gCazs

'tCazs

$OZn,o
38G:,44

!'Sere -+ !:Krrr "Sers -+ !iKrrs tiKrso 3 !tSrrs i t Z r s r + u'Mo52

YtZr56

YiMosa

:tRusr looMo~g t '::Ru~e 'ZRuao -+ l:;Pd58 l:ZPdsr -+ C : ! , 'd s 2 : ; C 'd s , ':,'Sner ':tCdes + ':,6Snss
'"Sn7z
$0 'Sn,,
-+

--

+ h e 3 8

Q p s (keV)
987 f 4 4271 f 4 1001 3 2039.6 f 0.9 130 f 9 2995 f 6 1256 f 5 1145.3 f 2.5 3350 f 3 112 f 7 3034 f 6 1299 f 4 2013 f 19 534 f 4 2802 f 4 364 f 4 2288.1 f 1.6

P (%)
0.0035 0.187 0.62 7.8 49.8 9.2 17.3 17.4 2.8 24.1 9.6 18.7 11.8 28.7 7.5 4.56 5.64 31.7

0-0- transition
130Te7g
'"Xes0 '!$Xes2 ':iCesr

Qss( k W

p
34.5 10.4 8.9 11.1 17.2 5.7 5.6 22.6 21.8 14.9 12.6 28.6 41.0 7.2 6.9 100 99.275

';Ti26

!Se42

't:Ndse ',"Ndss 'i!Ndeo 'i:Smsz

leoGdss 'Erioz

-+ -+

';;Xe76 '2iBa7s

!!MOW

'F

'FYblos ';~WII~
';;Oa~ls

';;Ptizo '::Hg~z,

'&?Te70

'z'Te72

Z2:Thirz
zi:Ulre

-+

,2533 f 4 847 f 10 ':,6Baso 2479 f 8 't:Ndaz 1417.6 f 2.5 'izSmar 56 f 5 ',',8Smsa 1928.3 f 1.9 '&?Smas 3367.1 f 2.2 'i:Gdso 1251.9 f 1.5 'fiDya( 1729.5 f 1.4 ' ~ ~ Y b i o o 653.9 f 1.6 ',';Hfior 1078.8 f 2.7 ' ~ ~ O s i i o 490.3 f 2.2 '92Pt11, 417 f 4 'ijHgiis 1048 f 4 z:;Pblzz 416.5 f 1.9 Z2:Uiro 858 f 6 z : f P ~ ~ r r 1145.8f 1.7

'!!Te7~

'!;Xerr

868

f4

P+P+ tramition
"Kq2
C :' d S s

Q p e (keV)
833 677 734

P (%)
0.356 5.5 1.25

P+P+ transition
'z:Xero 'g,OBarr
1;i~ere

~ ~ R u ~ z
'izPd6o

--

::Serr

f8 f8

f8

Qss (keV)
821.6 f 2.4 538 f 8 366

(%I
0.096 0.106 0.190

'&?Te7z

'JoXers
$~aso

f 50

56

T Tomoda

c
Y

5'

Figure 1. PP decay of " G e . T h i s is expected to take place as successive virtual p transitions via excited states in the intermediate oddcdd nucleus "As to the ground (Ot) or excited (2+)state in "Se. (Adapted from Ledererand Shirley 1978.)

The principal current interest in pp decay originates in its ability to test the symmetry properties of the standard model of the electroweak interaction (Glashow 1961, Weinberg 1967, Salam 1968) such as lepton number conservation, masslessness of the neutrinos and non-existence of right-handed weak currents. In many gauge theories beyond the standard model, however, none of these symmetries are exact and they are violated t o some degree depending on the model. Double beta decay is expected to yield information on the degree of violation and t o set important constraints on the models. Double beta decay can be classified into various modes according to the light particles besides the electronst associated with the decay. Independently of the possible violation of the above symmetries, the 2u (twwneutrino) mode

( A ,Z ) + ( A ,Z + 2) + 2e-

+ 26.

(1.2)

(see figure 2 ( a ) ) is expected to be observed for those nuclei previously mentioned. This decay mode was considered first by Goeppert-Mayer (1935) shortly after Fermi's theory (1934) of p decay appeared. We note that the neutrino emitted in the process (1.2) is an (electron-)anli-neulrino which is defined as the neutral lepton accompanying the neutron @ decay n
-+

p +e-

+ 17.

(1.3)

According to our standard knowledge, this particle is different (Davis 1955) from an (electron-)neutrino which is defined as the particle that causes inverse @ decay

However, due to the maximal violation of parity in weak interaction (Lee and Yang 1956, Wu el al 1957) it is actually the (almost) opposite helicity of 6. with respect to Y that is responsible for the absence of the reaction (1.4) by an incident 6.. The

t Since P+p+

decay is unfavourable because of the Coulomb repulsion of the positrons by the nudeus.

we concentrate in the present review on the electron emitting case.

Double bela decay

57

possibility still exists that there might be a small admixture of positive (negative) helicity component in U ( V ) which has evaded detection by experiments of the Davis type. Therefore the neutrinos of (1.3) and (1.4) might be different helicity states of an ideniical particle. A spin-; fermion which is identical to its own anti-particle is called a Majorana particle (Majorana 1937, Racah 1937), as opposed to a Dirac particle which is not. If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, /3/3 decay without neutrinos in the final state
(A,Z)

( A , Z + 2)

+ 2e-

(1.5)

can take place (Furry 1939) in addition to the ordinary 2u mode. A process in which the neutrino emitted by a neutron is absorbed by another in the nucleus is called a Ov mode (neutrinoless mode, figure 2 ( b ) ) and violates the lepton number conservation law by two. It is clear from the previous argument that the helicity mismatching between the emitted and absorbed neutrinos should be incomplete for this mode to occur. This is realized if (i) the neutrino has a non-vanishing mass; and/or (ii) the neutrino together with the electron can form a right-handed leptonic charged current and couple weakly to the hadronic current. Without any of these conditions a Majorana neutrino is equivalent (Ryan and Okubo 1964) to a two-component Weyl neutrino, which represents half the degree of freedom of a Dirac neutrino (a projection onto a space with left-handed'chirality), and there will b e no Ovpp decay.
101

Ibl

Figure 2. Two-nucleon mechanism for ( a ) tw-neutrino and ( b ) neutrinoless PP decay as well as ( c ) neutrinoless PP decay with Majoron emission.

In the standard model of the electroweak interactions, the neutrinos are regarded
as massless Dirac particles (or more precisely, Weyl particles) with only left-handed coupling. This is, however, an input rather than a prediction of the model. In order to

understand many input assumptions of the standard model which seem to be rather arbitrary, grand unified theories have been developed (for a review, see Langacker 1981). In the simplest theory based on the group SU(5) (Georgi and Glashow 1974) the neutrinos are predicted to have the same property as in the standard model. Since B - L (baryon number minus lepton number) is an exact global symmetry of the SU(5) model, the neutrinos cannot have Majorana masses and Ovpp decay is forbidden. In grand unified theories based on larger groups SO(10) (Georgi 1975, Fritzsch and Minkowski 1975), E(6) (Giirsey el a/ 1976), etc , B - L is a local symmetry and can be broken spontaneously. The neutrinos are predicted to be Majorana particles in order to avoid acquiring masses comparable with those of quarks or charged leptons (Yanagida 1979, Gell-Mann et a1 1979, Witten 1980). These theories predict neutrino masses roughly in the range of 10-5-1 eV and also the existence of right-handed currents.

58

T Tomoda

There is also a possibility that B - L is a global symmetry broken spontaneously in the low energy regime (Chikashige el ol 1980, 1981, Gelmini and Roncadelli 1981). In such a case, not only the neutrinos acquire Majorana masses but also a massless Nambu-Goldstone boson appears (called a Majoron). This couples to the Majorana neutrinos and gives rise to a neutrinoless pp decay accompanied by Majoron emission (OvPPM)

(A,Z)

( A , Z + 2) +2e- +MO

(1.6)

shown in figure 2(c) (Georgi e t al 1981). Since the OvBP decay amplitude is proportional to the Majorana neutrino mass or the coupling constants of the right-handed leptonic current, experimental information on Ou decay is expected t o be useful for judging which specific gauge model is correct. In particular for the question whether the neutrino is a Majorana or a Dirac particle, Oupp decay is considered to be the most sensitive way of distinguishing between these two possibilities. For a reliable deduction of the neutrino mass or right-handed current admixtures from experimental data, it is necessary to examine critically various approximations, both in the derivation of the transition operators and in their evaluation using specific nuclear models. This is the main subject which will be discussed in detail in the present review. Experimental methods for detecting p.0 decay fall into three categories: (i) direct detection of electron or positron pairs associated with pp decay; (ii) geochemical measurement of the amount of daughter nuclei accumulated in a geologically old ore; and (iii) radiochemical measurement of the amount of daughter nuclei accumulated under laboratory conditions. (For a detailed description of these methods, see for instance Avignone and Brodzinski 1988, Kirsten 1983, Levine et Q / 1950, respectively. A cosmochemical measurement using a meteorite as a sample (Marti and Murty 1985) is a variant of (ii).) Kinematic data on the electrons or positrons obtained by the first method provide information on the mechanisms of pp decay. With the sum energy spectrum of electrons, one can distinguish (see figure 3 in section 3.2.1) among various modes (2up@,Oupp, OuPPM, etc ). With the single-electron energy spectrum and the angular correlation of two electrons one can distinguish (see figure 18 in section 5.1) between Oupp decays due to a finite Majorana mass and the right-handed leptonic current, and in the latter case, between decays due to its coupling to the left-handed and right-handed hadronic currents. Clearly one can only determine the total pp decay rate by the second and the third methods. We will see in section 5 that, in spite of this disadvantage, the total decay rates obtained by the geochemical method yield very stringent limits on Oupp and OuppM decays. Since the first attempt by Fireman (1948), strenuous efforts have been made by many experimentalists to observe pp decay. Inghram and Reynolds (1950) found the first evidence of pp decay in lsaTe by the geochemical method and obtained the balflife 1.4 x loz1 y. Recently Elliott el a1 (1987a) succeeded in identifying 2upp decay of %je by a direct detection of two simultaneously emitted electrons using a time projection chamber. The half-life of the decay was found t o be (1.1+:::) X lozo y, indicating the extreme difficulty of the experiment. Searches for Oupp decay have also been undertaken by many groups and lower bounds on the half-lives of order lo2 - loz4 y have been obtained.

Double beta decay

59

Reflecting the long history and the importance of the field, many review articles have been published which partly or extensively deal with pp decay (Primakoff and Rosen 1959, 1981, Fiorini 1972, Bryman and Picciotto 1978, Zdesenko 1980, Kirsten 1983, Boehm and Vogel 1984, Haxton and Stephenson 1984, Doi el al 1985, Vergados 1986, Avignone and Brodzinski 1988, Caldwell 1988, Faessler 1988, Lazarenko 1966, Muto and Klapdor 1988b). The readers are referred to these reviews especially for t h e topics which are not covered in the present article. This review is organized as follows. In section 2 the basic properties of Majorana neutrinos and their relation to Dirac and pseudo Dirac neutrinos are summarized. Section 3 is devoted to a formal description of pp decay. In section 3.1 an effective Hamiltonian for the nuclear weak interaction is introduced and the orders of magnitude of the leading-order and recoil terms obtained by non-relativistic reduction of the O+ and O+ 2+ 2vpp decay nuclear currents are discussed. The formulae for O+ rates are given in section 3.2. In section 3.3 we discuss Oupp decay in detail. The decay rate formulae for Ot Ot and O+ + 2+ transitions including the recoil terms of the nuclear currents are presented and the orders of magnitude of various contributions t o the decay rate are estimated. In section 3.4 00 decay due to single hadron transitions such as n- A++(1232) or T- + T+ in the nucleus is discussed, and in section 3.5 Ovpp decay with Majoron emission as well as that involving a doubly charged Higgs boson is considered. Section 4 deals with the forma,l aspects of nuclear structure calculations for the transition matrix elements. The closure approximation and the short-range correlations between nucleons are discussed in section 4.1, and the methods of pp decay calculations using nuclear models-the shell model, the quasiparticle random phase approximation and the projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method-are presented in section 4.2. In section 5 calculated 2v and Oupp decay rates are compared with experimental data. From experimental upper bounds on O+ O+ and O+ + 2+ Ovpp decay rates, constraints on the quantities which characterize lepton number violation such as the effective masses of light and heavy neutrinos, and the coupling constants for the right-handed leptonic current are deduced (sections 5.1 and 5.2). Limits on the effective neutrino-Majoron coupling strength are presented in section 5.3. A summary of the present review is given in section 6. The natural units ( h = c = 1) and the Bjorken-Drell conventions (1965) for the metric and Dirac matrices are used unless otherwise specified.

2. Majorana neutrinos

I n this section the basic properties of Majorana neutrinos and their relation t o Dirac and pseudo Dirac neutrinos are summarized. For more comprehensive discussions, readers are referred to the papers by Case (1957), Bilenky and Pontecorvo (1978), Schechter and Valle (1980), Cheng and Li (1980), Bernahh and Pascual (1983), Doi et al (1983b, 1985), Kayser (1984) and Bilenky and Petcov (1987).

2.1. Majorana neutrinos and their CP properties

Let us assume that there are n generations of charged leptons as well as left- and

60

T Tomoda

right-handed neutrinos:

and that their charged current weak interaction is given by

&(Z)

= -[/7'(1

ZJZ

- 7s)VLwL; + h"(1+ys)&W&,]

4- HC

(2.2)

where WL; and W;,, are the gauge boson fields which mediate left- and right-handed interactions. We assume that the n x n mass matrix for the charged leptons has already been diagonalized. Choosing the phases of the charged lepton fields appropriately, and assuming CP invariance of the Lagrangian & ( z )

(cP)cC,d=, t)(cP)-1 = Lee(-=, t )

(2.3)

where C and P are charge conjugation and space inversion operators, we obtain the uniform CP transformation property for all the components of V L and uk

where ( a ) ' = CO?, etc with the charge conjugation matrix C = C' = -C-' = -CT, CyTC-1 = -Y'. The most general mass term for the neutrinos h a s the form
(2.5)

with the 2n x 2n mass matrix M O which can be assumed to be symmetric without loss of generality

Here the n x n submatrix Mk gives Dirac mass terms which conserve lepton number, whereas M L and M i are responsible for Majorana mass terms which violate lepton number conservation. Assuming CP invariance also for rCm(z),we obtain Mot = M O from (2.4). Together with MOT = MO, it means that M O is a real symmetric matrix. O with a real orthogonal matrix 0, We can diagonalize M
M O = OUTMS0,

(2.7)

where M j k = Sjkmj,Sjk = 6 j b S j with mj 2 0 and Sj = 2cl. The Lagrangian Lm now takes the form

cm --~ z TMN

(2.8)

Double beta decay with the Majorana neutrino field N given by

61

where A is a diagonal matrix of arbitrary phases A,k = SjkAj, lAjl = 1. N satisfies the Majorana condition N = A2SNC (2.10) i.e. Nj is identical to its charge-conjugate field N ; up to a phase. CP transformation on N is given by (CP)N(z,t)(CP)-' = iSy'N(-z,t).
as

(2.11)

The field Nj (2) can he expanded in terms of plane wave solutions of the Dirac equation N j ( z ) = C Jd m p [ uips , e-ip'+ ~ j , , and it follows from (2.11) that

+ AjSj(ujp.)ceiP'l.a lP.+l

(2.12)

= isjQj-ps (2.13) for the annihilation operator of the Majorana neutrino with mass m j , 3-momentum p and spin projection s. We see that S , (or more precisely, iSj) is the intrinsic C P parity of the Majorana neutrino Nj (Wolfenstein 1981b, Bernabhu and Pascual 1983, Kayser 1984). It should be noted that the relationship (2.13) is free from the arbitrary phase X j . Since the field Nj(z) can create and annihilate the same particle, we have two types of neutrino propagators (2.14a) (T[Nj(z)&(y)l) = i S d z - Y; mj)Sjk
(CP)Qj,,(CP)-' (2,146) (T[Nj(z)NF(y)]) = iSF(z - y;mj)CTX:Sj6ja where & ( I ; m) is the usual Feynman propagator for a spin-i particle with mass m. The current neutrinos q.and v k appearing in C , , are related to the Majorananeutrino N by (2.15) "UNL vk=VN, where NL,R = PL,RN with
(2.16)

and the n x 2n matrices U and V are given by

(2.17)

From (2.146)-(2.17) we obtain the propagators of the lepton number violating type for the current neutrinos

We note these are free from the arbitrary phases X j , as they should be

62

T Tomoda

2.2. Phase conuentions

As stated before, A is a n arbitrary phase matrix. There are two conventions (Kayser 1984) for fixing A which often appear in the literature.

Convention 1 . A = 1 (Wolfenstein 1981b). (i) U, V are real and given by (VUS) = O uT

(2.19)

(ii) T h e Majorana condition and the propagator of the second type (2.146) are dependent on the C P parity S :

N = SNC
(T[Nj(z)NF(y)]) = iSF(z - y; m,)CTS,6,,.

(2.20) (2.21)

Convention 2. A2S = 1 (Schechter and Valle 1980, Doi et a1 1981a), or to be more definite
A; =

(:.

s i = +1 s i = -1

(2.22)

(i) Uij,

K j

are real for S, = +1 and pure imaginary for S j = -1, and (2.23)

: ( ) = OVTA*
forms independent of the C P parity S:

is a unitary matrix. (ii) T h e Majorana condition and the propagator of the second type take the simple

(2.24)

(2.25)

2.3. Types of neutrino mass malriz

In the previous discussion we assumed only C P invariance so Chat the mass matrix was a general real symmetric matrix. Now let us turn to a few special cases.
2.9.1. Dirac and pseudo Dirac neutrinos.

: = M i = 0 in equation (2.6), the If M

mass matrix (2.26) can be diagonalized with (2.27)

Double beta decay

63

where A, B are n x n real orthogonal matrices which transform the general real matrix ML to a non-negative diagonal matrix M I :
O T BMD A =MI.

(2.28)

The 271 x 2n diagonal matrices M and S are given by (2.29) and correspondingly we write (2.30) Equation (2.29) shows that we have obtained pairwise degenerate Majorana neutrinos with opposite C P parity. Now we introduce $; ( i = 1 , . . . ,n) which is a linear combination of the degenerate Majorana neutrinos NI; and Nil;:

Then its charge conjugate field @ is given by

= & ( S ~ A ; * A ~+ Ns~ ~ ~ A ; ~ ~ A ~ ~ N ~

= &(A;NI - A ~ N I I )
i.e. @ is a Combination of N I and NII orthogonal to written as

(2.32)

+, The m a s Lagrangian can be

(2.33)

L , =-

~ X M-~ ~ N % ~ M

~ N ~ ~

=-*MI$
and the propagators for $ are given by (T[$j(z)$k(~)l) = iSF(z - ~ ; m j ) & j k (T[$j(~)+z(y)]) = iSF(z - y;mj)CTi[A;(S~A:)A; = 0.

(2.34a)

+ A;~(SIIA:I)A;II~~~~*
(2.34b)

We see that $1 represents a Dirac neutrino with m a s mj and that it is formed from two degenerate Majorana neutrinos with opposite C P parity. The contributions from these two Majorana neutrinos cancel each other exactly in the propagator (2.346) of the lepton number violating type. The current neutrinos & and uk are related t o $L,R(z) = YS)$ by

VL = B

(2.35)

and we obtain from (2.34), (2.35) clearly

( T [ v ~ ~ ) v & L (= Y) (T[&(Z)V'&(Y)l) I)
i.e. the total lepton number is conserved

= (T[U~LL(~)V'&L(Y)I) =0

(2.36)

64

T Tomoda

Q ,

A Dirac neutrino can also he formed by a combination of Q, and (U$ instead of and v k (Konopinski and Mahmoud 1953). Let us consider a twc-generation case with only left-handed neutrinos and assume that the mass matrix is given by
O m

o).

(2.37)

This M i has a structure similar t o that of (2.26) and it is diagonalized by a Dirac neutrino $ = v , ~ ( v , , ~ ) 'Since . Le - L, (electron number minus muon number) is conserved in this case, Ovpp decay is forbidden ((T[ve~(z)vTL(y)]) = 0) but p- - + e + conversion on nuclei

p-

+ ( A ,Z)

e+

+ ( A ,Z - 2)

(2.38)

0). is allowed ( ( T [ U ( Z ) ~ ~ ~ ( Y# )] ) A pair of Majorana neutrinos with opposite C P parity is called a pseudo Dirac neutrino when their masses are approximately but not exactly degenerate (Wolfenstein 1981a, Petcov 1982, Valle 1983, Doi et al 1983b). In such a case their contribution to (2.18) is non-vanishing hut strongly suppressed.

2.9.2. The seesaw mechanism. For simplicity let us consider the one-generation case in which MO is assumed to be given by (2.39) with
mR

> ImDI. This MO can be diagonalized with

cos@ -sin0
mD ;;tan 20 = mR

(2.40)

yielding

The current neutrinos are expressed in terms of mass eigenstate neutrinos as

VL=

U;=

X;COS@NIL+X;~~~@N~L X;sin0Nl~fX~cos0N~~

(2.42)

In left-right symmetric grand unified theories such as those based on the group representations SO(10) or E(G), the neutrinos are treated on the same footing as other fermions. Consequently under minimal assumptions, a neutrino would acquire a Dirac mass of the same order as those of other fermions, which clearly contradicts the experimental limits on the neutrino masses. A mass matrix of the type (2.39) was introduced as a remedy for such a situation. The left-handed neutrino V L of equation (2.42) consists mainly of the Majorana neutrino N1 with mass ml % mL/mR. As mR becomes larger, ml becomes correspondingly smaller (called a seesaw mechanism, Yanagida 1979, Gell-Mahn et a/ 1979). One would get ml 1 eV for mo 1-103 MeV and mR 103-109 GeV.

Double beta decay

65

3. Theoretical description of
9. I . The effective Hamiltonian

fifi decay

In the previous section we assumed the charged current interaction for leptons of the form (2.2). The relevant part for decay can he written as
9 = -[J[wc,, jkw;,,] HC 2Jz where the left- and right-handed leptonic currents are given by
&c(z)

(3.1)

J[ = eY(l - 75)VeL

$ = w(1 + 7 5 ) &

(34

with the electron field e and the current electron-neutrino fields (see (2.15))
(3.3)

Here N i is a Majorana neutrino field with mass mi. One should remember that a Dirac neutrino can also be expressed as a superposition of Majorana neutrinos as in (3.3). In the following we adopt convention 2 for the choice of the arbitrary phases X i (see equations (2.22)-(2.25)). The gauge bosons WL and WR are related to the mass eigenstates W I and W, (with masses M I and M2) by

(2)
where

cos< = (-sinC

sinC cost) ( $ 1 )

(3.4)

and in general C # 0. Adding left- and right-handed nuclear currents J [ , R ~ to ~ ~ 8 ~ c is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa the leptonic counterparts jL,Rin (3.l), where B angle, we can write the effective weak interaction Hamiltonian for decay due to W boson exchange in the form (Bhg el al 1977, Doi el al 1983a)

Hw = ( G C O S ~ C / ~ ) ( J L ~ K J~[L ~ , , J ; ~rlj~,,J[

+ X~RJ;~)+ HC

(3.5)

We use in the following G = 1.16637 x lo- GeV-2, cosBc = 0.9737 (Particle Data Group 1984) and regard the coupling constants K , 7 and X as small parameters (< 1). Assuming that the nucleons in a nucleus behave in the same way as free nucleons (impulse approximation), we write the nuclear currents in terms of a nucleon field li, = (Z) as

J[~(z)= Il(z)r+(gvr - igwuypv

- gAY75 + g P y d ) + ( ~ )
(3.7)
- gpy5qP)+(+)

J;(z) = 4 ( z ) ~ + ( g v y - iyw~qy+YAY%

66

T Tomoda
. t

where T+ = + ( T I + i n ) converts a neutron into a proton, q, = p, - p ; , = ia, - (-ia,) is the 4-momentum transfer, and gv, S A , gw and g p are the vector, axial vector, weak magnetism and pseudoscalar form factors (see e.g. Commins and Bucksbaum 1983). The first two of these at q2 = 0 are

and gw(0) is given by the (well tested) conserved vector current (CVC) hypothesis as

gw(0)= 2M

60

KO

= 3.70

(3.9)

where M and K O are the mass and the isovector anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon. Their q2 dependence can he well approximated by

(3.10)
with A

1 GeV. The pseudoscalar form factor gp is given by

(3.11)

assuming the partially conserved axial vector current (PCAC) hypothesis. By the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation (1950), the nuclear currents (3.7) are reduced to the nou-relativistic form (Rose and Osborn 1954, Riar 1966)
A

.JLt(z)

=
"=l
A

726(z - P")
k=O.l,-..

[ g V V ( ' ) p

+g w W ( ' ) ' - gAA(k)P- g p P ( k ) " ] ,

(3.12)

J$(z) =
"=l

r26(2 - 7 " )
k = O , l , ...

[gvV(k)p+ g w " ' ) ' '

+ g,A(k)P f gpP(')p]n

where k indicates the order in 1/M. The terms up to order l / M Z are listed in table 2. The momenta p , and p ; should be interpreted as -iB/aT, standing to the right and left, respectively, of 6(z - rn) in equation (3.12). It follows in the case of small energy transfer < < A ) that

(3.13)

and so on. The length A-' represents the finite extension of the nucleon. The momentum transfer q at a weak interaction vertex is equal to the sum of the momenta of the electron and the neutrino leaving the vertex. In the case of 2vPP decay the momenta of both the electrons and neutrinos are restricted by the Q-value, and they are typically of the order of 1 MeV. Consequently one has to take into account only the leading terms V ( O ) ' = 1 and A(') = U . In the case of Oup@ decay, however,

Double beta decay

67

Table 2. Non-relativistic reduction of the nuclear currents. The time and spatial components of the t e m defined in (3.12) are listed according to the order kin 1/M. Here qo = po - p a , q = p - p', 4 = p + p', where p" and p'p are the initid and final 4-momenta of a nucleon. w is the Pauli spin matrix.

p is estimated to be of order

the neutrino emitted by one nucleon is absorbed by another. Its typical momentum 1/F" 100 MeV, where PNN 2 fm is the mean internucleon distance, so that the recoil terms in (3.12) become much larger than in the case of single p or 2vPP decay. Substituting the estimates

(3.14)

into the various terms of equation (3.12) we obtain the estimates listed in table 3. In the theoretical description of Ovpp decay in section 3.3 the recoil terms of order q / M or Q / M

C" = A!$'

+ PL).U " / 2 M Dn = V;) + (gw/gv)W;') = [p,+ p; - i p p u n x ( p , - p ; ) ] / 2 M

= (P"

(3.150)
p 1 p = KO

+ 1 = 4.70

(3.156)

will be retained. Compared with the leading terms V(')' = 1 and A(') = U ,these terms have a different property under parity transformation, and consequently they enter into Ovpp decay amplitudes in a different manner. The recoil term D, for iustance, does not give simply an approximately 25% correction to the decay amplitudes. As will be shown later, it gives the dominant contribution to Ot Ot Ov@odecay due to the interaction proportional to 7 in (3.5), which represent,s the coupling of the right-handed leptonic current to the left-handed nuclear current. T h e recoil terms A(')' and V(')were taken into account in the formalism for O+ -+ O+ OvPP decay by Doi et a1 (1983a), and then Tomoda et al (1985) included also'the weak magnetism term W('). One sees from table 3 that the spatial component of the pseudo-scalar term g p P f l ) may be even larger than the term gvD. Its effect is, however, to give a correction of x (-30%) -10% to the leading term gAA('), where the factor comes from the angle average. If the recoil term C should become important, we

68

T Tomoda

would have to include also the time component of the pseudoscalar term gPP(')O. We will neglect the recoil terms associated with gp in the following. The finite extension of the nucleon represented by the q2 dependence of the form factors will also be neglected unless the effective twonucleon transition operators for Ovpp decay become short-ranged (see (3.69), (3.70)).
Table 3. Order of magnitude of the t e r m of the nuclear currents (3.12) for the c ~ s e of virtu$ emission of neutrino with lpvl p 100 MeV.
N Y

k=O

k=l

k=2

9.2. 2uPp decay

The Zupp decay (figure Z ( Q ) ) is described as a second-order process in the effective weak interaction (3.5). Since those processes which involve only left-handed currents clearly give the dominant contribution, we neglect right-handed currents in the case of Zupp decay. The differential decay rate is given by

(3.16)
where

x P-P(Ni,Nj)l
X

~Pzb:(Y)YV(1

- YS)N~~l,,(ll)~~,s;(z)Yr(l - r5)%rr(z), 1 +WI + E N- EI

(3,17)

Here eps(z) and Njrs(z)are the wavefunctions of the emitted electron and the Majorana neutrino Niof mass m i , with energy, momentum and spin projection ( z , P ,s)

Double beta decay

69

and (w, k , s ) , respectively, and normalized as

(3.18)

The operator P(I1, /z) interchanges the particles Il and /2. The initial, intermediate and final nuclear states and their energies are labelled by I, N and F. The summation &,in is taken over the spin projections of the electrons, the neutrinos and the final nuclear state, and taken over those light neutrino species the emission of which is kinematically allowed. We assume in the following that the masses of these light neutrinos are all much smaller than the Q-value of the pp decay
Q p p = Er - Ep

- 2771,

(3.19)

and that ~i,jlUeiUejlz 1. (In the oue-generation example given in section 2.3.2, ~;,jlUe;Uejlz= IUe1I4 = COS*B with IS1 << 1.) We expand the electron and neutrino wavefunctions in terms of the solutions of the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates (see appendix l ) , and consider only Swave states ((A1.2) and a corresponding expression for neutrinos) for the four emitted leptons since they have by far the largest amplitudes near the nuclear surface. The radial wavefunctions are then expanded in powers of r and the leading constant terms (A1.6) are retained (Doi el a/ 1983a). The error in such an approximation is $(p,sR) and can safely he neglected, where R is the nuclear radius and pee the effective momentum of the leptons at the nuclear surface (pee 3Zcr/2Rfor electrons and pefi = k 1 MeV for neutrinos). The total angular momentum of four S-wave leptons can be 0, 1 or 2, and is on the other hand equal to the angular momentum transfer from the nucleus. Therefore both Oc -+ Of and Ot + 2+ 214B decays of practical interestt can be treated under the present assumptions (see, however, the discussion following equation (3.37)). Far the nuclear current JL we take into account only the dominant terms V()O = 1 and A() = 0 (see section 3.1). Combined with the assumption of S-wave leptons, they yield operators which describe virtual Fermi or Gamow-Teller transitions. Since the isospin of the final nuclear state differs from that of the initial nucleus by two for any pp decay of practical interest, the contribution of successive Fermi transitions, which comes only from isospin mixing effect, can be safely neglected.

3 . Z . f . Ot -+ O+ 2upp decay. The differential rate for Ot + O+ 2vpB decay is given by (Primakoff and Rosen 1959, Konopinski 1966, Doi el a/ 1981b, 1983a, Haxton el a/ 1982a)
dWz. = (a()
t Transitions to

+ a()cosBl~)lli~ydwl dwadrl drzdcosS12

(3.20)

1+ s t a t e will not be considered in the present review since the lowest 1t state in the final nucleus of any pp decay candidate lies much higher than the first excited 2+ state.

(3.21)

The phase-space factors j!:) and j i ; ) are the products of electron radial wavefunctions given by (A1.9) and (A1.lO) in appendix 1. Since the typical nuclear excitation energy EN- E 1 (- 10 MeV) due to the Gamow-Teller operator r+u is usually much larger than the lepton energies (- 1 MeV), ICN and LN can be approximated as
(3.24)

and similarly for L N , where WOis t h e total released energy

WO = Qpp

+ 2m,

= Er

- EF

(3.25)

and ( I C N ) , (LN) are defined as ICN. LN of equation (3.22) with ENreplaced by some average energy ( E N ) of the intermediate nuclear states. Using this approximation, we can write the half-life in the factorized form (Doi et a / 1985)

[r:/z(o+ + o+)]- = WZ
where

FZlMZ~IZ

(3.26)

(3.27)

is the nuclear transition amplitude and

(3.28)

Double beta decay

71

the lepton phasespace integral. Fz, is not very sensitive to the choice of the actual value of (EN)since the dependence of the integrand is largely compensated by that of the factor outside the integral. If ENin equation (3.27) is also replaced by a n average value (EN), the summation over the intermediate nuclear states can be completed to give (Primakoff and Rosen 1959)

(3.29)
with

(3.30)
where

(3.31)
This closure approximation has been used frequently in the literature. Formally the approximation is always valid if ( E N )is de$ned by equations (3.27) and (3.29). In practice, however, it is rather difficult to estimate (EN) correctly without precise knowledge about the value of Mz, which is just the quantity to be calculated. This is the case especially when cancellation occurs among the terms under the summation in equation (3.27) (see section 4.1). Figure 3 shows the differential decay rates dWzu/dfl and dWz,/dT.,,, where T,,, = 1 + c2 2m,, obtained by conditional integrations in (3.28), compared to the corresponding spectra of Ovpp and OvpPM decay. The different characteristics of these spectra are useful for distinguishing among the different decay modes.

3.2.2. O+ -+ Z+ Zvgo decay. The half-life for Of 2+ 2vPp decay is given by equations analogous to (3.26)-(3.28) (Molina and Pascual 1977, Doi et a l 1981b, Haxton and Stephenson 1984):

[r$(o+

-+

2t)l-I x F ; ~ ~ J A & ; + ~ ~

(3.32)

with the nuclear transition amplitude

(3.33)
and the lepton phase-space integral

Fl;

= 2(4Wo + (EN)
In 2

f l ( y ) ( ( K ~) ( L N ) ) ~ Wd Zu , i dwz drl drz.

(3.34)

In the closure approximation, equation (3.33) is reduced to

(3.35)

72

T Tomode
E
101

B'Sed'KrlO~l

2
T ., (MeV1

F i g u r e 3. ( a ) Single-electron SpectNm for pp decay of "Se. The full curve was calculated by integration except ti in (3.28)and normalized to the central value of the . 1x ' 0 1 y. The brokencurve shows the experimental 2v half-life (Elliott el D I 1987a) 1 result of an analogous calculation using (3.94) for Ovpp decay with Majoron emission with a normalization to the experimental bound ( M o e et ai 1988) ?OuM > 1 . 6 X 10'' y 1/2 and magnified by a factor 10. (See figure 18 for the case of OvOP decay.) ( b ) Sum energy spectra of the two emitted electrons for ZvPp, OvDBM and OYPP decay of 8 z S e . The differential rates dW/dTaumwith T,um= (1 LZ - 2m.c' for the first t w o modes were calculated analogously to ( G ) . The vertical line at Qop = 2.995 MeV indicates the position of an expected peak for 0u.PP decay.

where

with c 3 denoting a spherical tensot product (Edmonds 1957). In contrast to equation (3.21) or (3.28) for Ot + Ot decay, the Ot -+ 2+ phase space integral (3.34) contains only the digerenee - L N , which becomes much smaller than the sum KN LN due to cancellation. The ratio

(3.37)

Double beta decay

$ x 0.52/102 , . -1/800 for the typical case of the deis estimated to be of order cay 76Ge+76Se(2:). This means a further suppression of Oc + 2+ 2vpp decay 0' which is already unfavoured because of its smaller &-value compared with Ot decay. Since the leading S-wave contribution is suppressed, P-wave leptons may give a comparable contribution (Doi el 01 1985). In fact the decay amplitude for the process in which electrons and neutrinos are emitted in the combination S;/,P; 2S; zP;12, S;12P;/,S;12Pg,2 or P;,2Pj12S;,2S~ is associated with the sum IC, k h e suppression factor due t o a P-wave to d w a v e ratio is estimated to be 4aZ x ?gR (1/8) x (1/120) 1/960 for the 76Ge decay, which should be compared with the factor . - 1/800 estimated previously.

73

+ LN.

3.3. OvBP decay Since the first formulation by Furry (1939), the theory of Ouop decay has been developed (Primakoff and Rosen 1959, Molina and Pascual 1977, Doi el a l 1981c, 1983a, Haxton and Stephenson 1984, Tomoda et 01 1986) in accordance with the progress in our understanding of the weak interaction. Here we follow mainly the notation adopted by Tomoda e l al (1986). First we rewrite the Hamiltonian density (3.5) into the following form
2"

HW= (G COSSc/JZ) C [ j ~ i p j [ , !
i=l

+ j R i @ j : i ] + HC

(3.38)

where j & are the left- and right-handed leptonic currents formed out of the electron and maSs eigenstate neutrino fields e and N;:
jLi = ey @ (1 - Y S ) N L

& = ey@(l+ Y5)NiR

er

(3.39)

and

jLki are the nuclear currents coupled to these leptonic currents: JRi -" - V .(U['+ q J [ ' ) . .fL! = Liei(JLt +
KJ$)

(3.40)

The term n J [ ' will be neglected in the following since K enters into pp decay amplitudes always in the combination 1 & K and we expect 1 ~ << 1 1. The differential 0vp.O decay rate is given by (3.41) with

(3.42) where P, (a =L, R) is the projection operator (2.16), and the summation is taken over the spin projections of the electrons (si, s ; ) and the final nuclear state.

zapin

74

T Tomoda

Other notations are the same as in the case of 2v@@ decay (see the paragraph below equation (3.17)). Note that e p s ( z ) and Nik,(Z) are the wavefunctions which are used to expand the field operators e and Ni. The summation of the numerator of the last factor in equation (3.42) over the neutrino spin yields (cf also (2.18))

E,

1 4Pp,,;(y)y,Pp-(wyo 2w

- k.7

+ m;)e"'("-")P

aypez,s;(z).

(3.43)

Using the anticommutation relations of y-matrices and P,Pp = 6,pP,, we obtain

decay amplitude contains a factor proportional to This equation shows that the Ov@@ (i) the neutrino mass for the processes involving only the left- or right-handed leptonic current ((e@)= (LL) or (RR)); and (ii) the neutrino energy or momentum for those involving both the left- and righthanded leptonic currents ((a@) = (LR) or (RL)). The contribution from the processes exclusively due to the right-handed leptonic current ((.@) = (RR)) will be neglected in the following since it is of second order in the small coupling constants X and 0. (See, however, the discussion about the contribution of heavy neutrinos in equations (3.76) and (3.77).) In contrast to the case of 2upp decay, the neutrinos in Ovp@ decay are virtual particles exchanged between nucleons and their typical energy is much larger than the typical excitation energy of the intermediate nuclear states (see (3.14)):
w

100 MeV

>> EN- E,

k2/M

10 MeV.

(3.45)

Therefore the variatioii of EN in the energy denominator can be safely neglected (Primakoff and Rosen 1959). Replacing EN by an 'average' (EN), and using the closure relation EN IN)(NI = 1, we can complete the summationover the intermediate nuclear states. In this closure approximation, equation (3.42) now reads

x Paype;,,;(~)

(3.46)

where A, = E , + (EN) - E,. The second term in the square bracket of this equation results from the antisymmetrization of t h e outgoing electrons. We see that the effect of the antisymmetrization is constructive for the terms proportional to mi or E . 7 , and destructive for that proportional t o wyo. Integrating these terms over the neutrino momentum k we obtain the neutrino propagation functions H ( r ) , H ' ( r ) = (d/dr)H(r) and 2 ( r ) given in appendix 2. For the electron wavefunctions (see appendix 1) we take into account S I / Z (g-1, f1) and PI/* (gl, f-1) waves for O+ 4 O+, and SlI2 and P3/2 (g-2, f2) waves for Ot 2+ Ov@@decay, respectively, As for the nuclear currents (3.40), we include the recoil terms A(')O = C and V(')+ (gW/gv)W(') = D (see equations (3.15)) in addition to the lowest order terms V(')O = 1 and A(') = b .

Double beta decay

75

3.9.1. O+ + O+ O v p p decay. The differential rate for O+ -+ O+ Ovpp decay with the energy of the 'first' electron 1 and the angle between the two emitted electrons eI2 is given by (Doi el a / 1983a, Tomoda et nl 1986)

(3.47)

where

(3.49)

The phase-space factors (= fill) are the products of electron radial wavefunctions given in appendix 1, and Xi are the following combinations of nuclear matrix elements

(3.50)

where
(m,) =

C"iu:i
i

(A) = AX'UeiVi
i

(3.51)

(7) = VZ'UeiVei

The amplitude X2 which represents the contribution of the processes involving solely right-handed leptonic current ((ap) = (RR) in (3.42)) has been neglected as mentioned before (see, however, (3.76) and (3.77)). The summation in equation (3.51) should be taken over those light neutrinos (mi << 100 MeV) for which the approximation w ~3 l k l holds. Since for heavier neutrinos the dependence of the propagation functions H ( r ) etc on the mass mi cannot be neglected, it is impossible to factor out these from the summation over neutrino species in equation (3.51). The contribution of heavier neutrinos will be discussed later (see (3.71)-(3.77)). We assume C P invariance so that X and 7 are real. Then ( m u ) , (A) and (0) are also real since Uei and V i' are both real or both pure imaginary depending on the C P parity of the mass-eigenstate neutrino N , (see (2.22), (2.23)). If all the neutrinos are massless, we clearly have (m,) = 0, and also (A) = (7) = 0 from the unitarity of (2.23) so that there will he no Ovpp decay. It should be also

76

T Tomoda

noted, however, that even if mi # 0 for any i, the effective electron-neutrino mass (mu) can be much smaller than any mi when the contributions of neutrinos with opposite CP parity cancel each other. On the other hand, if (A) # 0 and/or ( q ) # 0, there will be a finite probability for Ovpp decay, and this in turn induces a finite mass (m,) even if (m,) = 0 at a tree level (Schechter and Valle 1982, Nieves 1984, Takasugi 1984). However, since the Ov decay rate can still be expressed in terms of (my), (A) and (q), we consider these as independent parameters in the following. The nuclear matrix elements M,$;) and x in equations (3.50) are given by:
MGT (04

- (H(r1z)m - b z )

(3.520) (3.526)

and their combinations

f+ = i r . k ~

G T

x i = -XF
Here

(3.53)

f (ZXGT 1 , - 2xk).

(3.54)

with 6 = a/lal for any vector Q, (012) has been defined by equation (3.31), and H(r) etc are given in appendix 2. One obtains from (A2.8) the following useful relations (Tomoda et a/ 1986)
(3.55)

(3.560) (3.56b)

Insofar as we restrict ourselves t o the case where a t least one of the electrons is emitted
in an S1/2 wave, there is no contribution which is first-order in the other recoil term C (3.150) to Ot -+ O+ decay, under the present assumption of the closure approximation.

Double beia decay

77
f1,

Integrating equation (3.47) over

we obtain
(3.57)

where the numerical coefficient was introduced for convenience (see (3.59)) and
(3.58)

(3.62)

defined analogously to (3.58). The angular correlation between the outgoing electrons is represented by the ratio
(3.63)

whereas the single electron spectrum is obtained by integrating (3.47) over cosBI2:

dwo, dci

- 2Q(o)(fl)Wov(fl).

(3.64)

The quantities d i ) defined by (3.49) are expressed analogously to (3.60) with the replacement of Fjl) by fji)in (3.61).

78

T Tomoda

3.3.2. Recoil malriz elements in O i -t O i Ou,f?P decay. The nuclear matrix element Mk(0) (3.52f) which originates from the recoil term of the nuclear vector current, can be decomposed into central, tensor, momentum-dependent and spin-orbit parts (Tomoda el a1 1986):
(3.65)

(3.66)

Here

HRC(r)

and HRT(T) are given by

(3.67~) (3.676)

where A = (a/&), the closure energy A is defined by (A2.2), and equation (A2.7) was used. The operator S , in (3.66) has been defined by (3.54), and P,, and l,, are the CM momentum and relative orbital angular momentum of the nucleons n and
In:

Prim = P

+P ,

k m

= rnm x 5(pn 1 -P~).

(3.68)

In the above derivation we neglected the q 2 dependence of the form factors (i.e. the finite extension of the nucleon). Since this approximation is not justified when the resulting two-body operators are short-ranged, we take into account (3.10) at both ends of the neutrino propagator and replace the 6-function and l/r2 in equation (3.67a) by

A -and
ul(r,A)=

641r

e-Ar[i

+ A?- + ~(A?-)21

(3.69)

(3.70)

respectively. For all the other transition operators of equation (3.52) we neglect the nucleon finite size effects since they are relatively long-ranged or do not contribute very much to the total Ovpp decay rate.

Double beta decay

79

3.3.3. U + -+ 0 ' OuPP decay mediated by heavy neutrinos. Let us now consider the contribution of heavy neutrinos with mi >> A 1 GeV. For these neutrinos, A (<A < w ) in the energy denominator in equation (A2.1) can be neglected. Taking into account the finite extension of the nucleon, we obtain (Vergados 198213)
H(r) zz 4am;'uo(r, A)
(3.71)

to leading order in A/mi, where UO has been defined by (3.69). The amplitude X I of equations (3.50) acquires an additional contribution

where

(3.74)
and the summation should be taken over heavy neutrinos with mi >> 1 GeV. The Contribution (3.72) can be taken into account in the previous formulae such as equation (3.60) with the replacement (mv)
+

C y

(mu)

+ d((m;'))(XFh

- XGTh)/(XF

- 1).

(3.75)

If the mass of some neutrino happens to lie in the range 100 MeV mi 2 1 GeV, its contribution cannot be written in a factorized form as in equation (3.50) or (3.72) because the neutrino propagation function then depends on the neutrino mass mi in a more complicated way. We will not discuss such a case further. The contributions of heavy neutrinos to the right-handed current processes proportional to X or 1 1 will also be neglected since they are of order m;' instead of my'. For heavy neutrinos we usually expect IcTeil < 1 , whereas V.i is of order 1 for some i. (Ue2 = sine, Vez = cos8 with 16' < 1 in the one-generation example given in section 2.3.2.) Therefore the Contribution of the process due to right-handed leptonic current interaction at both ends of the neutrino propagator (a= = R in (3.43)) may became important (Mohapatra 1986) although the decay amplkude is second order in A, 7. If all other contributions considered so far are negligibly small, the decay rate is given by replacing (mu) with d((m;'))R[(A where

+ 7)'XFh

- (A - 7)*XGThl/(XF - 1)

(3.76)

(3.77)
and the summation is taken over heavy neutrinos as in (3.74)

80

T Tomoda

9.9.4. Rough eslimation of O c -+ O t OuPP decay amplitude (Tomoda et al 1985). We can regard the OvBP decay amplitude as consisting of the contributions from a neutrino propagator, electron wavefunctions and nuclear currents. Table 4 schematically shows the factor decomposition of the partial decay amplitudes @Xj (see equation (3.49)) into these contributions. S i and Pi in this table denote the radial and PI/? wavefunctions of electrons at the nuclear surface (see appendix 1):
Si

= &.;)(E;,

R)
(6i.R . )

or
or

f:-)(~i, -f!;)(Ei,R)

R)

i = 1,2
i = 1,2.

P ; = g i(-)

(3.78)

(a) The numerator of the neutrino propagator consists of three terms mi, w y Qand E . 1 (see equation (3.46)). As mentioned earlier, the contribution of the wyo term gets suppressed due t o the antisymmetrization of the outgoing electrons:

(W Az)-'

- (W+ A i ) - '

for the typical values of w s zk 100 MeV and 1 - 2 1 MeV. In the case of the k. 7 term, the negative parity of k has to be compensated with either an electron P-wave or the nucleon recoil current D.
O+ OvPP decay amplitudes into various contributions. Only the relative magnitudes are 8iv.n for each column. Here w and k are the energy and the momentum of the virtual light neutrinos, k = JkIc z w, and L, the merges of the emitted electrons. The unit vectors i l z and P + n , which originate from the momentm k of the neutrino ( f i 2 ) and the electmn P-wave ( i i z and Ft12), are included in the contributions of the nudear currents in order to show has been omitted in their way of coupling to U and D . The common factor the last column. See text for the definition of Sj and P i .

~ i (:A i

- Az)/w2 = (1- FZ)/W' (l/lOO)w-'

Table 4. Factor decomposition of the Ot

~t.2

Type o f matrix element

(a) Neutrino propagator

(b) Electron wavefunctions

(c) Nuclear currents

(b) An electron P-wave has a n amplitude $a2 + $ ( E f m,)R relative to an Swave at the nuclear surface (see (A1.7)). In the typical case of %e decay we have +a2 and j ( c f n,)R m.R &, This means that the P-wave to S-wave ratio is enhanced by an order of magnitude due to the Coulomb attraction. If one uses plane waves multiplied with the Fermi function, this enhancement cannot be taken into account and the Contribution of the matrix element Xs (x'p) is underestimated.

- -

Double beta decay

Table 5. Order of magnitwits of the various contributions to the O+ + O+ decay amplitudes. Only the relative magnitudes are given for each column.
Type of matrix element
(a)Neutrino propagator

81
OuPP

(b) Electron wadunctions

( c ) Nuclear currents

Product of

(4x(b)xl(c)l

If one uses plane wave8 multiplied by thc Fermi function

On the other hand the dominant aZ terms cancel each other in the phase-space factor associated with X4 ( x ) G ~ , ~ , and ~ ) , we have

Thus the radial wavefunctions of P-wave electrons are smaller at the nuclear surface than those of S-wave electrons by a t least an order of magnitude. (c) We expect that the nucleons in relative S-states give the most important coutributions to the nuclear matrix elements in the case of O+ O+ Ovpp decay. This means the dominance of spin-singlet (S = 0) states since the two nucleons which exchange a virtual neutrino are both initially and finally in isospin-triplet (T = 1) states. Therefore we expect u1 u2 - 3 and I S 1 2 1 << 1. The nuclear current contribution becomes small also in the case of the X , ( 2 ; ) term because the operator ul - u2 has a non-vanishing matrix element only between S = 0 and S = 1 states. We obtain I(u1 - u z ) . ( i l z x i + l z ) l 0.3 by comparison of the calculated nuclear matrix elements x'p and xbT of table 12 assuming r12 2 fm and r+12 2R 10 fm. The last entry in the table is the contribution of the nuclear recoil current D . Neglecting the non-central parts, its magnitude is estimated to be 1612. ( ~ X iD2 - 0 2 x Di)l 2 p p k l ~ .1u 2 ( / 3 M 1. Table 5 summarizes the estimated order of magnitudes for the quantities of table 4. ALthough the estimation has been made for the case of "Ge decay, these numbers are not expected to change very much for other parent nuclei of practical interest. We see from table 5 that the processes involving P-wave electrons (Xq and X5 terms) are not important in the case of O+ i Of Oupp decay and that the X s and X s terms are dominant (11(X) and SOO(0)) for the decay caused by the right-handed leptonic current coupled t o right- and left-handed nuclear current, respectively. From these estimates we expect that the following four parameters correspond roughly to the same Ov,B,B

82

T Tomoda

decay probability: (m,)

1 eV

((m;'))
(A)

(q)

GeV-'
(3.79)

1.5 X 3 x 10-8,

9.9.5. O+ + 2+ Ovpp decay. Since the combination of an SI/? and a P3lz electron yields the total angular momentum of 2 with the lowest single-electron orbital angular momenta, it gives the dominant contribution to O+ + 2+ Ovpp decay. For the contribution of neutrino propagator and the nuclear currents, the following two cases have to be considered separately. First, in the processes caused by the right-handed leptonic current, the k ' 7 term in the neutrino propagator combined with the lowest order nuclear current terms V(O)' = 1 and A(') = U compensates the negative parity of a P-wave electron, and gives the dominant contribution (Molina and Pascual 1977, Doi et QI 1981c, Haxton and Stephenson 1984). Second, in the processes due to a finite mass of the neutrino, the negative parity of the electron system has to be compensated with the nuclear recoil-current terms C or D . The half-life for 0' -+ 2+ Ovpp decay is given by

(3.80)

where F,* are the phase-space integrals obtained by replacing fji) in equation (3.62) with the combination fj* ( A l . l l ) of electron wavefunctions. The nuclear matrix elements Ma (U = A, q , m) are defined by
(3.81)

Double beta decay with

83

(3.83)

Here h,, = -rnmH'(rnm). Possible contributions of heavy neutrinos have been neglected. Similarly to the case of O+ -+ 0'' decay, we can estimate the relative order of magnitude of various contributions to the decay amplitude. Table 6 gives the summary of the estimation, where only the contributions of M I , M4 and the second term of M, in equations (3.82) were considered for simplicity. As we see by comparing the last columns of tables 5 and 6, O+ 2+ OuPP decay has different relative sensitivities to the parameters (m"), (A) and (7) from those of Oc i O+ decay. We expect that the following three parameters correspond roughly to the same Ot i 2+ Ovpp decay probability:

(m,)/m,

13 eV

(A)

1.5 x

(7) 3 x

(3.84)

i.e. O+ + 2+ decay is relatively more sensitive t o (A) and less sensitive to (m,) compared with O+ -+ Ot decay. Therefore experimental dataon Ot 2+ decay would be useful for determining which of the parameters is responsible for 0vPp decay. Of course the absolute Ot 2+ decay rate for a given parameter (e.g. (A)) becomes much smaller than that of Ot i Of decay since (i) the &-value is smaller; (ii) O+ 2+ decay necessarily involves a P3/2 wave electron whose amplitude at 1/80 of an S-wave amplitude; and the nuclear surface is p R / 3 m,R (iii) the nuclear matrix elements M I and (gv/g~)'M4 are smaller by $ than their O+ + O+ counterparts M$!!)& and M$!;)& as we will see in section 5.2.

- - -

Table 6. Order of magnitudes of the various contributions to lhe O+ , 2+ OuPP decay amplitudes. Only the relati- magnitudes are given for each column.
Type of

mat. el.

(a) Neutrino propagator

(b) Electron wavefunctions

1 1
1

(c) Nuclear currents

0.5RAgV
g2

Product of (4x (b)x ( c )

MW
M A M n

(m)lm
200(X)

200(rl)

9* +R1.

0.6(mu)/m.
IOO(X)

gv

5Wrl)

84

Tomoda

3.4. pp decay of a single hadron in the nucleus In the preceding subsections we discussed pfl decay in which two successive virtual decays of d- to u-quarks take place in different nucleons. Clearly this is the only possibility if we restrict the degree of freedom of a nucleus t o that of nucleons, In actual nuclei, however, virtual mesons are exchanged and nucleons can be excited to isobars. Then it is also possible for successive d-quark decays to occur in a single baryon or meson in the nucleus. Let us consider such cases in the following.
3.4.1. N A tmnsation. The first example is the pp transitions between the nucleon and the A isobar (1232 MeV) shown in figure 4. These processes can cause nuclear Ovpp decay via virtual excitation of the A isobar as depicted in figure 5 (Primakoff and Rosen 1969). Neutrinoless pp decay due to this mechanism (referred to as the A mechanism) is on the one hand suppressed by the large m m difference between the nucleon and the A isobar, but on the other hand enhanced because of the shorter distance over which the virtual neutrino has to travel. In the case of 2 4 0 decay, however, the contribution of an analogous processes is expected to be negligible since there is no advantage in the small distance between two decaying d-quarks. Assuming that the baryons can be well described by the non-relativistic constituent quark model (Kokkedee IQGQ),we can reinterpret the transition operators derived in the previous subsections as acting on quarks in a baryon. Suppose such an operator has the form
(3.85)

where C~,?~:a:jh') and A(A2), with rank A I and Az coupled t o a total rank A, act. on the internal and center-of-mass coordinates of a baryon, i.e. they consist of pi - ~ j p;-p,, LT,, uj, and T ~ + T ? + T Q ,p, + p 2 + p , , respectively. Inorder for the operator (3.85) to contribute t o a O+ -+ J" nuclear transition in the A mechanism, the following two selection rules must be satisfied: (i) the operator Q$') has a rank XI = 1 or 2 in spin space, a rank zero in orbital space, and a positive parity ?rl = +; and (ii) A = J , and the parity i ~ of 2 A(Az) is equal to r. In earlier treatments of the A mechanism (Primakoff and Rosen 1969, Smith et 01 1973, Picciotto 1978, Halprin et a l 1976) these selection rules were not taken into account until Doi et a l (1981b) paid attention to the first rule. Haxton el al (1981) then argued that a O+ -+ O+ transition is strictly forbidden regardless of the choice of the weak interaction Hamiltonian if the second rule is also taken into account. Certainly the operators (3.82) cannot contribute to a O+ O+ transition even if they are interpreted as acting on quark degrees of freedom, and none of the operators in (3.52) contain a component of the form (3.85) with A 1 = A2 = 1or 2, and TI = az = However, including the Contribution of electrons emitted in a n SllZ and a P 1 / 2 wave as well as the recoil currents of quarks, we obtain an operator of the form

+.

(3.86) where L is the orbital angular momentum of the baryon. After taking the matrix element between the internal wavefunctions of the nucleon and the A isobar, we obtain

Double beta decay

85

from equation (3.86) an operator proportional to (X)[T=2S + ( 7 t ) = 2 S t ]L, . where S is the transition spin (Sugawara and von Hippel 1968) and 7 the transition isospin of rank 2 (Tomoda 1988). This clearly contributes to O+ -+ O+ Oup@decay in the A mechanism. We obtain also similar contributions proportional to (m,) and (v) if we avoid the closure approximation. However, these contributions due to the A mechanism are not expected to be important since the O+ -+ O+ Ou@@ decay in the two-nucleon mechanism is dominated by processes involving only S,lZ electrons.

Figure 4. Ov,30 transitions between nucleon and A isobar

Figure 5. Nuclear 0 4 3 decay via virtual excitation of A isobar ( A mechanism).

The situation is quite different in the case of O+

2f transitions. The operator

(3.87)
(see equations (3.83)), when acting on quarks, satisfies both of the selection rules above, and yields an operator proportional to 7 = 2 S (Tt)p=*S, where S is the transition spin of rank 2 (Tomoda 1988), after taking the matrix element between the internal wavefunctions of the nucleon and the A isobar. The processes of figure 5 can be described by the effective operator acting on the nucleons n and m

where VAN is the strong interaction potential for the NN- AN transition and 6m the mass difference between the A isobar and nucleon. The explicit form of the effective operator was derived by Tomoda (1988) using a one-boson (T p ) exchange potential for VAN.

86

Since the isospin of the A isobar is larger than $, a within the isospin multiplet AA+ or A' A t t is also possible (Haxton and Stephenson 1984). As shown in figure 6, a transition of this type necessitates virtual excitation of A in both the initial and final nuclei so that its contribution is expected to be much less than that of figure 5. A potentially favourable case is the short-ranged Ot Ot OvPP process due to the effective mass ((m;')) or ( ( m ; ' ) ) ~of heavy neutrinos. While the operators appearing in equations (3.73), interpreted as acting on quarks (with gA + l , A co), cannot contribute to the NH A transition because of the first selection.rule above, they can cause A ++ A transition and contribute to the process of figure 6.

flp transition like those of figure 4 but

3.4.2. A

T Tomoda
A tmnsition.

P
l

P
I

. . . . .

Figure 6. OvPO decay involving A

A transition.

3.4.3. rs+ Imnsition.. Figure 7 ( a ) shows another example of pP transition within an isospin multiplet and contribute to nuclear PP decay through the diagram 7 ( b ) . The processes of figures 6 and 7 ( b ) were considered previously by Pontecorvo (1968) in the context of a hypothetical superweak interaction. Vergados (1982a) derived effective two-nucleon operators which describe the process offigure 7 ( b ) mediated by virtual heavy neutrinos and calculated the nuclear matrix elements for the O+ Ot Oupp decay of 4aCa. Assuming the non-relativistic quark model for the pion, he found that the Contribution of the diagram 7 ( b ) was comparable to that of the conventional 2N mechanism (figure 2 ( b ) ) .

M ^

"*

w_

TI-

Figure 7. ( a ) Ov4O transitions between T - and st. to Ov transition of pion exchanged between nucleons.

(a)

Nuclear O@P decay due

In relation to the discussion in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, it should be mentioned that there are processes involving the A isobar which can contribute to O+ Ot (0) . Oupp decay (figures 8 ( d ) and ( e ) ) . Fazely and Liu (1986, 1987) estimated ANN . A$A : R ~ [ A A A = ] 1 : -2 : -3, where AgA and AA& denote respectively the
+

&A,

Double beta decay

87

contribution of figures 8(a), (b)+(c) and (d)+(e) to the amplitude for Oupp decay due to the right-handed coupling (7). If O+ O+ Ovpp decay is really dominated by the processes of figures 8 ( d ) and ( e ) , the transition amplitude might he related model independently to that of pion double-charge exchange reaction. However, according to the re-examination by Tomoda (1987), the above ratio is ACA : A$A : AAA = 1 : -0.54 : (-0.15- 0.018i) for O u decay due to ( q ) ;and AgA : A$A : AAA = 1 : -0.15 : (-0.006- 0.001i) for that due to (mv). Thus the contribution of figures 8(d) and ( e ) does not seem t o be important (see also Watanabe and Toki 1986).

Figure 8 . Two-nucleon and A processes for O+

indicate the strong interaction.

O+ OvPP decay. The broken liner

3.5. Ovpp decay involving Higgs bosons

9.5.1. Oupp decay with Majoron emission. Chikashige e l a1 (1980, 1981) introduced singlet Higgs boson with lepton number L = -2 which couples to a rightan S u ( 2 ) ~ handed neutrino. Since B - L is a global symmetry of this model, its spontaneous breakdown not only gives Majorana masses to the neutrinos hut also produces a Nambu-Goldstone boson (Nambu 1960, Goldstone 1961). This massless neutral boson associated with the spontaneous breakdown of global B - L symmetry was called a Majoron (MO). The coupling of the Majoron to the usual fermions is weak in their original model since it is mediated only through the small admixture of the righthanded neutrino in the light mass-eigenstate neutrino. The interaction of a Majoron with light neutrinos can be much larger in the model by Gelmini and Roncadelli (1981) who considered an S u ( 2 ) ~ triplet Higgs boson coupled to left-handed neutrinos. In this cme neutrinoless pp decay accompanied by a Majoron emission (OuppM) shown in figure Z(C) may well compete with ordinary Oupp or 2vpp decay as was discussed by Georgi el a1 (1981) and later by Doi el al in more detail (1985, 1988). Let us assume that the interaction of a Majoron & with Majorana neutrinos Ni (i = I , . . . , 2 n ) is given by

(3.89)
where gij are the coupling constants, and a possible scalar coupling has been neglected. The decay rate formula for the Majoron emhting process involving light neutrinos

88
(mi

T Tomoda

<< 100 MeV) can be easily obtained from that for an ordinary Oupp process due to the effective mass (m,) by the substitution

-+ i(gM), and i.e. (mu)

Here q is the 3-momentum of the Majoron, and k the 4-momentum of the neutrino in the sense of covariant perturbation theory. The small 4-momentum transfer (q,q)to the Majoron has been neglected in the neutrino propagators, and the approximation eiq'- = 1 for the Majoron wavefunction has been used (qr 2m,R & for a typical case of 76Ge decay). The effective Majoron neutrino coupling constant (gM) is defined

- -

by

(3.92) with the summation taken over light neutrinos. We see from equation (3.90) that the nuclear matrix elements for the Ou,OPM decay are the same as those of the ordinary Ovpp decay due to (mu). T h e half-life is given by
[r:/"2M(o+
+

xij

O+)]-' = l(gM)12(Mg4))2(xF - I)'FM

(3.93)

with the phase space integral

3.5.2. Oupp decay medtated by 0 doubly charged Higgs boson. As a possible mechanism which could contribute to Oupp decay, Moliapatra and Vergados (1981) considered the process shown in figure 9 which involves the decay of a doubly charged member of a triplet Higgs boson H-- into two electrons. They derived an effective two-nucleon operator for this process and calculated the rate far the case of 4aCa, which turned out to be comparable with the experimental bound on the ObPP decay.

Figure 9. 0u.P.P decay mediated by a doubly charged H i g p boson.

Double beta decay

89

Based on the same assumption Haxton e l a1 (1982b), however, obtained an effective operator which is different from that of the previous authors mainly by an overall factor of 1/4r. Their shell model calculation gave a rate three orders of magnitude smaller than that obtained by Mohapatra and Vergados. Furthermore, since the singly charged Higgs boson Q- in figure 9 should actually be a physical Higgs boson, which is predominantly the member H- of the triplet and couples with quarks only through a small admixture of the charged member of the doublet, the contribution of figure 9 will be highly suppressed (Wolfenstein 1982, Schechter and Valle 1982). In view of both of these suppression factors, the Ovpp decay involving a doubly charged Higgs boson seems to be unimportant although such a suppression might be avoided by introducing other types of coupling or more complicated Higgs sectors (Schechter and Valle 1982, Picciotto and Zahir 1982, Escobar and Pleitez 1983).

4. Nuclear structure calculations

This section deals with the formal aspects of nuclear structure calculations for the pp transition matrix elements. The results of numerical calcnlations will be given in section 5.
4.1. Common features
4.1.1. Closum opprozimotion. The closure approximation was used frequently in the literature. It facilitates numerical calculcations considerably since in this approximation one needs only the wavefunctions of the initial and final nuclear states of pp decay. While it is expected to be good in the case of Oupp decay (see (3.45)), its validity is not trivial in the case of 2vpp decay. Formally the approximation is always valid if (EN)is defined by equating the right-han sides of equations (3.27) and (3.29), I.e.

(4.1)
If it is possible t o calculate the right-hand side of this equation, which is just the decay amplitude M,,, there is actually no need to invoke the closure approximation. In practice, however, it may be technically difficult to perform an explicit summation especially in the case of a large-scale calculation. Then it becomes necessary to estimate the energy (EN)which satisfies (4.1) as well as possible. Vergados (1976) estimated it by
(4.2)

This (EN)is the energy expectation value for the Gamow-Teller collective state

Nr+alOf), where N is a normalization constant. It can be calculated relatively

easily but tends to overestimate the correct value of the closure energy because of the larger weight for higher-lying states.

90

T Tomoda

To improve upon this method Haxton and Stephenson (1984).estimated (EN)from the E--weighted sum:

and instead of performing a shell-model calculation, which is just as difficult as the calculation of the right-hand side of (4.1), they used the parametrization of GamowTeller (GT) strength distribution made in statistical studies of 13 decay by the Waseda group (Takahashi and Yamada 1969, Koyama e l a l 1970, Takahashi 1971). One can also think of using the GT fl+ strength I(1;11r-ul10$)12 with respect to the final nuclear state in equations (4.2) or (4.3) instead of the 0- strength from the initial state. It would give a smaller value for (EN)since the G T pt strength is usually distributed at lower energies than the p- countrrpart. Any of these methods will fail badly if there occurs a considerable cancellation among the terms under the summation in the right- and/or left-hand side of (4.1). It is therefore desirable to avoid the closure approximation in the case of 2u decay whenever possible (Huffman 1970, Skouras and Vergados 1983, Grotz et a/ 1983, Tsuboi el a/ 1984).
4.1.2. Short-range correlalions. Nuclear models employed in @@ decay calcnlations are usually based on the independent particle picture. While long-range correlations are taken into account by mixing of hasis states within their model spaces, the short-range repulsive correlations due to the nucleon hard care are absent in the model wavefunctions. Their effect is especially important for the calculation of matrix elements such as X G T ~ , F and ~ , & since the range of the relevant operators is of the order of the hard core radius. An approximate way t o correct for this is to multiply two-nucleon wavefunctions by a correlation function f(l.1 - r2I) when we calculate transition matrix elements. This amounts to the replacement

(ppJpll~(J)(lnnJn) (ppJpllfUcJ)fllnnJ)

(4.4)

in equation (4.24) etc below. As a form of f ( r ) , a simple step function with the hard core radius (Halpriu e l a l 1976, Vergados 1981) or a more realistic one (Miller and Spencer 1976)
f(r)

= 1 - e-nrD(l - br2)

(4.5)

with a = 1.1 fm- and b = 0.68 fm-2 has been used frequently in the literature (e.g. Haxton e l al 1982a, Vergados 1983, Tomoda el al 1986, Engel et a/ 1988, Muto el a l 1989b). A more fundamental approach was undertaken by Wu el a l (1985), who derived the effective transition operator f U f for the case of 4aCa decay. Their results using the Reid and Paris potentials show weaker correlations than the phenomenologically determined f ( r ) of (4.5).

Double beta decay

91

4.2. Nuclear models 4.2.1. Shell model. The nuclear shell model has a nice feature that it can provide us
with microscopic wavefunctions which have a given set of quantum numbers such as parity, angular momentum and isospin corresponding to the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian. These wavefunctions automatically include any correlations caused b y the interaction part of the Hamiltonian provided that the model space is taken t o he large enough. This last condition, however, is often difficult to satisfy. In the case of P P decay, 4aCa is probably the only nucleus which can be treated in the conventional shell model reasonably well. As one goes to heavier nuclei the number of basis states increases explosively. Although it is not conceivable that all of these are equally important, it is difficult to select important ones without the knowledge about 'true' wavefunctions. An assumption of weak coupling between the proton and neutron systems gives a possible way to truncate the huge model space t o a tractable one. In order to treat the lza'lsaTedecays, Vergados (1976) assumed a weak coupling limit, i.e. complete decoupling of the proton and neutron systems. Thus each nucleus was described by a single product o f proton and neutron wavefunetions. Proton-neutron correlations can, in principle, be taken into account if linear combinations of product wavefunctions are used. For the description of 'Qe, "Se and 1za/130Tedecays, Haxtou e l a l (1981, 1982a, 1984) first solved the eigenvalue equation to obtain t h e lowest fifty states for each of the pure proton and neutron systems. Then the Hamiltonian including the proton-neutron interaction was diagonalized in the space spanned by the products of these proton and neutron wavefunctions. As we will see in section 5, the nuclear matrix elements for 0" decay are not very sensitive to proton-neutron correlations and expected to be calculated reasonably well by these wavefunctions. In the case of 2u decays, however, the proton-neutron correlations are essential and the weak coupling scheme does not give reliable results.

4.2.2. Quasiparticle random phase npprortmataon. The quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA) (Baranger 1960) has been widely used for various excitation modes in even-even nuclei. Halbleib and Sorensen (1967) applied this formalism to a proton-neutron mode (excitation from even-even to odd-odd nuclei) for the calculation of Gamow-Teller decays. The QRPA phonons for a proton-neutron mode with angular momentum and parity J" are defined by

where the subscript p or n denotes the quantum numbers, except the z-component of angular momentum, of a proton or neutron state. The tildes indicate the time reversal rij, = (-l)j+"'aj-,,, and the quasiparticle creation operator ~ j , t is related to the nucleon operators cj,t, ?jm by the Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation (Bogoliubov 1958, Valatin 1958) ajm+ = ujcjm t

+ vjcj,. -

(4.7)

The coefficients u j and u j (uj, v j 2 0, + U : = 1) can be interpreted as vacancy and occupation amplitudes, respectively, and are determined in the same way as in the BcS

92

T Tomodn

theory of superconductivity (Bardeen et a/ 1957), i.e. by minimizing the expectation value of the nuclear Hamiltonian in the quasiparticle vacuum with fixed average proton and neutron numbers. The forward- and backward-going amplitudes zpn,i and ypn,i as well as the energy eigenvalues w i are obtained from the QRPA equation

[ -"B

-BA]

[ ;]

[ 61
JIVlp'n'-'J)

(4.8)

with the submatrices A and El defined by

A p , , p w = 6pn,p,n~(<p 6")

+ + (upv,up,vn, + vPu,vp,u,r)(pn-'

+ (upu,up~u,r+ upvnvp,vn,)(pnJ(V(p'n'J)
Bpn,p~n, = +(upvnvp,u,, + upu,up~v,.)(pn-'JIVIp''-'J)

(4.9Q)

( U ~ U ~ V ~ ~vPvnup,u,r)(pnJIVIp'n'J) U , ~

(4.96)

where the particle-hole (ph) matrix element (pn-'JIVlp'n'-'J) of the nucleonnucleon interaction V is related t o the particle-particle (pp) one, (pn'JlVlp'nJ), by the angular momentum recoupling:
(4.10)

The state with the excitation energy wi is expressed as IJ:) = (i-J")t(O&pA) where loaRpA) is the ground state of the reference even-even nucleus with the property ri*lO$mA) = 0 (for any i) and written explicitly (Sorensen 1961) as =N e x p { $ m
p"p'"'

Z F , , , p , n t [ [ a @ , '

@ [an,t ~aa,,+](J)](o))jO~~,).

(4.11)

Here is the BCS ground (0-quasiparticle) state, and the matrix 2 is given by

a normalization constant,

2 = Yx-1

(4.12)

where X and Y are square matrices with elements zpn,iand yPnj, As will be seen below, the RPA-type ground state correlations play an important role in suppressing p+ transitions. In order to apply the QRPA formalism to pp decay calculations, we solve the BCS and QRPA equations based on the initial as well as the final even-even nucleus. The amplitude for O+ + O+ Zvpp is given (Civitarese et a / 1987, see also Huffman 1970, Grotz and Klapdor 1985b, Vogel and Fisher 1985) by (cf (3.27))

(4.13)

Double beta decay

93

with
( 1 f b + d l O , + ) = C(P((r+a((n)(upu,lpn,j
pn

+ "pUnYp",j) +G
~ G v ~ ~ . ~ )

(4.14a) (4.14b)

(0,+ IIr+ W I I Q ) = C(PIIr+aIIn)(vpu,Zp,,k

pn

where we omitted the superscript ltin the QRPA amplitudes zpn,jand yp,,j, and the barred quantities indicate that quasiparticles and phonons are defined with respect to the final ground state 0;. The overlaps (J; 1 JT) between two J' states belonging to two different sets {IJ;)} and { I J ; ) ) are given by
(4.15)

In the case of Ov@ decay, virtual excitation of intermediate states with J" has t o be also taken into account. We define ( 0 1 2 ) by
(012)

# 1+

(o;ll[cP,'
pp"' JrjkJ'

@ ~"~l(J)llJ;)(J;IJ~)(J;ll[~P'

@ EJJ)II0:)

x (-l)"tP'tJtJ'(2J'+

1)

[z,

;,}

(pp'J'(r;r$Olzlnn'J')
(4.16)

where the last factor on the right-hand side is a non-antisymmetrized two-body matrix element. We obtain this form from (3.42) after integration over z, and k,with the operator Olz dependent on the energy E ( J T ) of the individual state IJ,"). It reduces t o ( 0 1 2 ) = ( O f i f E,,,, r$r~O,,lOf) (equation (3.31)) ifwe replace the energy E(J;) by some average ( E N )and if both sets of the intermediate states {IJ;)) and {IJ;)} are complete (closure approximation). The matrix elements of the one-body transition densities in QRPA are given analogously to (4.14) by
(JJ[CP+

@ E"I'J'll0:)

=m(upunz;;,j

(o;ll[cp' @ E " ] ' q J ; )

+ upunyp,,j) J" = m(ijptl"i;i,h + cpv"V;;,k).

(4.170) (4.176)

Equation (4.16) with (4.17) will be used (Tomoda and Faessler 1987, see also Engel et al 1988) for the calculation of Ov matrix elements such as (3.52) and (3.73). It is possible t o deal with 0 1 2 dependent on the individual energy E(J;) and test the validity of the closure approximation in the case of OvPP decay. Since this will turn out t o be reliable enough as expected, we usually replace E(J;) by some average ( E N ) to simplify numerical calculations. The Gamow-Teller operator in (4.14) connects only single-particle states with the same orbital quantum numbers. Under the usual situation of open-shell nuclei with large neutron excess, the product upun which contributes to (4.14) can be large (- 1) for a pair of orbitals with high occupation by neutrons and low occupation by protons (see figure 10). In contrast, vpun is always small (< 1) since the orbitals occupied by protons are occupied by neutrons as well. Combining this with the property that

94

T Tomoda

the backward-going amplitude y is in general smaller than the forward-going one z, we see that the P-t transition matrix elements (4.14a) are dominated by the first term in the parentheses. In contrast to this, the first and the second terms in the P+t matrix elements (4.146) are generally both small and can be of the same order. The first and second terms vanish in the limit of no pairing correlations ( f i P U , = 0) and no RPA-type ground-state correlations ( t j = O), respectively, indicating the sensitivity of the P+ transitions to these correlations.

Figure 10. Schematic representation of the occupation amplitudes for proton (up) and neutron (U") as well as the products uv with ZL = (1 - " ' ) ] I 2 The , broken lines correspond to Lhe case of smaller pairing correlations, and the horizontal lines show
the proton and neutron Fermi levels.

For the important single-particle orbitals between the proton and neutron Fermi levels, up and U, are of order 1 while u p , U , < 1. Therefore the ph (particle-hole) interaction (O(1)) dominates over the pp (particle-particle) interaction (O(uZ,) or O(u;)) in the submatrix A (4.90). O n the other hand the products of the uu factors in the submatrix B are all of the same order (O(vpun)), and inclusion of pp interaction affects B substantially. It enhances B in the case of 1+ mode since the ph interaction is repulsive while the pp interaction i s attractive. (It can be shown that the relation
(pn- JI V1p'd-l J ) =

'

-(pn JI V Ip'n' J )

(4.18)

holds exactly for the special case of a local potential without spin-isospin dependence.) The lower half of the QRPA equation (4.8) can be cast into the form
y

= -(A

+ w)-'Bz.

(4.19)

The backward-going amplitude y becomes larger for larger E, and since A is positive definite and the matrix elements of B are largely positive, the elements of y tend to have the sign opposite to that of the dominant elements of I (Vogel and Zirnbauer 1986). Therefore the effect of the terms involving y in (4.140) and (4.146) is to hinder the GT transitions. Since the contributions of the two terms in (4.14b) are of the same order as previously mentioned, the degree of hindrance in the P+ amplitudes is sensitive to the magnitude of the submatrix B, and this in turn depends crucially
t' 0 refers t o e* emitting (virtual) transition of an
even-even nudeus.

Double beta decay

95

on the inclusion and the strength of PP interaction (Vogel and Zirnbauer 1986). As we will see in section 5, almost complete cancellation between these two contributions seem to occur in actual nuclei.

4.2.3. Pmjected Har2ree-Foc~-Bogoliubou method. The two important aspects of open-shell nuclei, pairing correlation and quadrupole deformation, can be taken into account by a quasiparticle vacuum state I@) satisfying aula) = 0 for any a,where the quasiparticle creation operator aut is defined by
(4.20)
which is a generalization of (4.7). For simplicity we assume that this transformation does not mix: (i) protons and neutrons; (ii) states of different parities; and (iii) states of different angular momentum projection on z-axis (axial symmetry). The quasiparticle vacuum I@)is a superposition of states not only with different proton and neutron numbers, as in the spherical BCS vacuum, but also with different total angular momentum. We project out a state with given proton (Z) and neutron (N) numbers, angular momentum J , and its z-component M=O (Schmid et a l 1984): I Z N J , M = 0) = NP:&l@)

(4.21)

where N = (@lPf&l@)-1/2 is a normalization factor, and the projection operator is given by

PF$K = /dfiDfiK(fi)k(fi)
with

(4.22)

D ? i K ( f i )=

(2?r)28?r2 exp[-i(+pZ

21

+1

+ +nN)lDLK(fl)
(4.23)

e(6) = exp[-i(4,fip
d 6 = d+p d& dQ.

+ +,fin)lR(n)

Here Np(fin) is a proton (neutron) number operator, k(n) and D L K ( Q )are the Itation operator and the D-function (Edmonds 1957) in the ordinary three-dimensional space. The coefficients of the quasiparticle transformation in (4.20) are determined by minimizing the expectation value of the nuclear Hamiltonian (ZNJMIHIZNJM) (variation after projection). The matrix element of any two-body operator U() for Of written as (Tomoda e l al 1986)

-+

Jf pp decay can be

(4.24)

96

T Tomoda

where (pp'JpllU(J)llnn'Jn) is an antisymmetrized two-body matrix element. The matrix elements of two-body transition density are calculated as

(JF+II[[cp' @ c ~ , ~ ] ( @~[En ~ )@ E n , ] ( J ' ) ] ( J ) l l O ~ )

= NFNJ

1 fi

d D $ i (fi) (@FI@,( fi) 1Or)

x (pmpp'mp,1JpMp)(nmnn'mn,1J,

- M.)(-l)Jn+M=(JpMp J,M. IJO)

(4.25)

where Z and N are the proton and neutron numbers of the initial state and (4.26)

(4.27) obtained from (4.20) was used in deriving (4.25),where U and V are the quasiparticle transformation matrices for I@p). The present method is especially suited for treating heavier deformed nuclei using realistic interactions and a large number of single particle orbitals. We can also apply it without any difficulty to the calculation of O+ 2+ transitions, which is not trivial in the QRPA approach. On the other hand it will overestimate 2u decay rates for the same reason a s in the weak coupling shell model.

5.

pp decay rates and constraints

5.1. U+

on lepton number violation

O+

Ou

and 2u p@ decay

The first calculation of the nuclear matrix elements for pp decay was reported more than thirty years ago by Beliaev and Zakhar'ev (1958), who used shell-model wavefunctions to calculate the 2vpp decay rate of 4aCa. This nucleus, which is the lightest &? decay candidate except for 46Caand has a large Q value ( & p ~ = 4.272 MeV), has appeared frequently in the literature on p/3 decay. Khodel (197Oa, b, 1974, see also Fayans and Khodel 1977) calculated the Ou as well as 2v decay matrix elements of this nucleus treating the vertex renormalization in the theory of finite Fermi system (Migdal 1967). While counter experiments only set limits on pp decay of 48Ca (see e.g. Bardin et a1 197O), occurrence of 1 3 0 decay in l3'Te became more and more evident by geochemical measurements (Inghram and Reynolds 1950, Takaoka and Ogata 1966, Gerling et al 1967, Kirsten et a1 1968). The 2v matrix element for this nucleus was calculated by Huffman (1970) in the QRPA. The Gamow-Teller ( G T j interaction, i.e. the isospin flip part of
XU1: U z T i . 2 2

(5.1)

Double beta decay

97

with a constant x, was used as the effective N N interaction and only the particlehole matrix elements were retained in ( 4 . 9 ~ ) and (4.9b). For the calculation of Mz,, he approximated (O$llr+ulll:) by ( O ~ ~ ~ r + in u (4.13) ~ ~ l ~ so) that all the barred quantities in (4.14) and (4.15) were replaced by those without bars ((1:llf) = 6kj). His matrix element IMz,l = 0.204 MeV- and the phasespace integral Fz. = 1.27 x lo- y- MeV2 of table 25 (appendix 1) give = 1.9 x 10 Y, which is two orders of magnitude shorter than the limit from the geochemical data 1.5 x 10 y < r,p < 2.75 x 10 y (Kirsten e l QI 1986). (It should he noted that the phase-space integral of Primakoff and Rosen (1959) used by Huffmau was underestimated by a factor of about five for the 130Te decay (Haxton et a / 1982a) due t o the non-relativistic approximation for the Coulomb correction.) The p/3 decay of 12a/13aTeas well as 46Ca w a s investigated by Vergados (1976) = 0.0388 MeV- for using the shell model. He obtained a much smaller value JMz,~ the I3Te decay from IM,$?$)I= 0.248 and A = 12.8 MeV (see (3.29), (A2.2)) in the closure approximation. The model space used in his calculation, however, seems to have been too small. There the weak coupling limit, i.e. a complete decoupling of proton and neutron systems, was assumed, and the seniority-zero wavefunction in the Ohll/z shell w a s used for the neutron system.

.I/Z

Table 7. Nuclcar matrix elements calcukted in the shell modcl and closurc energies A for O+ + O t 2 v and Ov@P decay (Haxton and Stephenson 1984).

Mg;)

0.222
0.005
(fm-)

1.278

0.016
0.411 -0,200 1.141 -0.231

0.938 0.011

1.474
0.013

1.483
0.014
0.413 -0.225 1.179 -0.271

XF

X+

xF
X? XP
~~

0.115 -0,149 1.087 -0,155 -0.110 -0.191

0.331 0.412 -0.177 -0.225 1.142 1.175 -0.204 -0.272

-0.021
0.441

-0.013
0.269

-0.030

-0.025
0.2% 13.28

0.337
12.54

(MeV)

7.72

9.41

10.08

A series of more systematical shell-model calculations of Ov and 2v matrix elements were performed by Haxton et a/ (1981, 1982a, h, 1984). They took (Of7/2. Of5/2, 1 ~ 3 j 2~ , PI/z). (Of5/z, 1 ~ 3 /~~ P ,I / Z Og9p) , and (Og7/2, &/z, &/Z, 2 s 1 p Ohii/z) single particle orbitals for the calculation of 48Ca, 76Ge/Se and 12d/130Tedecays, respectively, and used the effective interaction of Kuo and Brown (1968) modified to reproduce the spectra of the neighbouring nuclei in the respective region better (McCrory et a/ 1970, Baldridge and Vary 1976). The Coulomb interaction between protons was also included. Except for the case of 4dCa, the model spaces were truncated under the assumption of weak coupling of the proton and neutron systems (see section 4.2.1). The calculated 2v and Ov matrix elements (both in the closure approximation) as well as the closure energies A are listed in table 7. The 2v matrix element Mg$) for the 4Ca decay is much smaller than those for other nuclei (see also Vergados (1976), Skouras and Vergados (1983)), and can be interpreted (Zamick and Auerbach 1982) as due to the Lawson-Nilsson I< selection rule (Lawson 1961). The double Fermi matrix

98

T Tomodo

elements M p ) are defined by replacing U I . 6 2 with 1 in the definition (3.30) of M&?;), and can have non-vanishing values due t o isospin mixing. The second line of the table shows that they are in fact small enough to be safely neglected. The dependence on nuclei is weaker for the Ov matrix element M,!$,) than for M&?;). (For instance of *Ca is not so strongly suppressed because the Ov transition operator has a radial dependence.) Concerning other Ov matrix elements (relative to M,!$,)) we see that xLT s 1, and except for those of4Ca, XF = xk w -f(gv/gA) = -0.21 and I& << 1 (cf (3.56), section 3.3.4). The 2v half-lives calculated with Mg,) and A of table 7 are compared with recent experimental data in table 8. The calculated 2v half-life for 13Te is two orders of magnitude too short as in Huffmans result. The discrepancy for lighter nuclei is not so large but ( T $ ~ ) ~is ~ still I a factor five shorter than ( T $ ~ )in~ the ~ ~ case of Se decay.
Table 8. Half-lives for 2vPP decay, experimental hounds on OuPP decay, and
COR

straints on the effective neutrino mass and the right-handed current couplings. Calculated values are due to Haxton and Stephenson (1984).

>3b >5.OC
9 f l d

1 . 3 0 ~ 0 . 0 5 e t>5t 1.2*O.lt
1,03t0.33d

1.5 <

T,,~

< 2.75t

1.8i0.7it

0.75i0.03ft

1,1t0.8h
-0.3

-0.42

I(mv)l (ev)

I(V

1(8)1

<39.8 <3.5 x 10-5 <5.1 x

<1.2 12.0 x 10-6 C3.0 x

<5.7 <6.4 x 10-6

0.0 x

< 5.7 < 2.4 x 1 0 - ~ < 2.8 x

t Geochemical data (total PP

a

t Cosmochemical data (totd PP decay half-life).

* Ratio of the total PP decay half-lives, Rr = ( 7 1 / 2 ( 1 2 8 T e ) / ~ 1 / 1 ( 1 3 0 T ~ ) ) .
Bardin el ol (1970), Avignone e t n l (1986), Vuilleumier of of (1988), d Vasenko el al (1990), e Kirsten et a! (1986), Lin et ol (1988a), g Murty and Marti (1987). Elliott et ol (1987a), Lin el 01 (1988b), CaldweU cl al (1989), M o e c f al (1988), Kirsten et ol (1983a, b).

decay half-life).

The lower half of the table lists the limits on the effective neutrino mass (m,) and the right-handed coupling constants (A), (7) deduced from recent experimental bounds on the Ov decays, or on the ratio of the total pp decay half-lives (for 12a/130Te),using the matrix elements of table 7 and the approximation (see (3.56))
? G T % ~

ZF~XF.

(5.2)

The constraints on the parameters (mu),(A), etc characterizing lepton number violation given in the present review refer to those values obtained by keeping those other than the constrained one equal to zero. If more than one parameter are allowed to have non-vanishing values at the same time, the absolute limits become somewhat larger

Double beta decay

99

(less stringent) because of the interference terms in (3.60). In view of the discrepancy between the calculated and experimental 2v decay rates, Haxton and Stephenson considered a possible suppression of Ov matrix elements by the same amount as for the 2v ones. If this is the case, the limits deduced from 76Ge and '%e decays should be multiplied by a factor -2. Those deduced from the i2a/i30Te ratio remain the same if all the Ov and 2v matrix elements for these two nuclei are reduced by the same factor (i.e. by a factor -IO), which is not obvious when there occurs a large suppression. The discrepancy in the 2v decay rates remained a serious problem. It was even larger when the amplitudes Mz, were calculated without invoking the closure approximation. The shell model calculations for 4aCa (Skouras and Vergados 1983, Tsuboi e l a1 1984) and the calculation for heavier nuclei in the BCS model with particle-number projection (PBCS) (Grotz and Klapdor 1986) showed that the closure energies A estimated by Haxton el a1 using (4.3) were a factor -2 too large.
Table 9. Half-lives for ZwOO decay calculated in the PBCS method (Klapdor and Grotz 1984). Collective Ah excilation and the ground state correlation due to quadrupole-quadrupole interaction were also taken into accwnt.

Pairing
+Ah

+ VGT

1.3 1.9

0.051 0.072
0.15

0.062
0.087

+VQQ

2 . 2

0.57

0.015 0.020 0.12

In investigating the mechanism of suppression of Zvpp decay, Klapdor and Grotz (1984) applied the pairing-plus-quadrupole model with residual proton-neutron forces by Halbleib and Sorensen (1967) to the calculation of 2v decay rates, taking into account also particle-number projection and isobar-hole (Ah) excitation. The G T interaction (5.1) was first diagonalized in the 2qp (two quasiparticle) space for the intermediate 1+ states, and the Oqpf4qp space for the initial and final O+ states. Apart from the number projection, these are part of the contributions included in the QRPA treatment of Huffman (1970), in which (6qp, lOqp, . . .) and (8qp, 12qp, . . .) components are also included in 1+ and O+ states, respectively. The closure approximation was avoided by the explicit treatment of the 1+ states. The calculated half-lives are given in the first line of table 9. The half-life for 130Te was similar to Huffman's value. It increased -30% by taking into account the excitation of collective A h states. In the next step they considered the ground state correlation due to quadrupole (2+) mode. This induces 4qp components of the type

and consequently, by recoupling the angular momenta

in the ground states of the initial and final nuclei, which add constructively to the components of the same type induced by the GT interaction. The half-life for 13'Te increased further by a factor 6 so that it became shorter than the geochemical limit by one order of magnitude instead of two.

100

T Tomoda
Table 10. Nuclear matrix elements for Ot method (Grotz and Klapdor 1985a).

Ot OuOO decay calculated in the P B C S

A & ? . )
XF

(fm-)

1.02 -0.24

0.79 0.83 -0.23 -0.24

0.78 -0.24

Whether there is a similar suppression for the Ou mode is an interesting and important issue. In subsequent work, Grotz and Klapdor (1985a) calculated the Ou matrix elements M:!) and XF (table 10) employing essentially the same wavefunctions (without the A h components) as for the 2u matrix elements above. They found that the correlations (both in the Ot and 1+ states) affected the Ou matrix elements only weakly. The total effect of the correlations was to reduce M:;) by 20% from the pure BCS result.

Table 11. Recoil matrix elements for the Ot

to

Ot OYOP decay of G e (Tomoda et al 1986). Here m$$ and mg; denote the contributions of the t e a proportional

A in

(3.67),and

xk = (gv/s~)M$~)/M&). The effects of the short-range

correlations (in columns (2)and (3)) and the finite extension of the nudeon for mg4 and mg& (in column ( 3 ) ) were also taken into account.
(1) Point noSRC

(2)Point

(3)Extended

SRC
0
1.629 -0.163 1.466 -0.535

SRC
-24.26 1.77
-0.16 -22.66

-71.60 3.10 -0.20 -68.70 -0.647

0.003 -0.004 -0.649 0.653 0.116 -68.58 78.82

0,003

-0.004 -0.537 0.576 0.097 1.603 -2.271

-0.537 0.576 0.097

-22.52 31.92

In all the calculations mentioned above, only the contributions from the leading terms V() = 1 and A() = U in the weak nuclear currents were included. This is justified in the case of O+ + O+ Oupp decay due to ( m u )or (A). However, in the case of decay due to the effective right-handed current coupling ( q ) ,the recoil term D (3.156) in the nuclear vector current has t o be taken into account. The form of the recoil matrix element M: (3.525) was derived by Doi e t al (1983a) without, however, the weak magnetism term W(O). The dramatic effect of the recoil term remained unknown until Tomoda el al (1985, 1986) gave a rough estimate (section 3.3.4) and calculated (0) . including also the weak magnetism term which is dominant the matrix element MR in D . They used projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wavefunctions (section 4.2.3) for the initial and final Of states of the 76Ge decay. The single-particle orbitals

Double beta decay

101

(OfF/2r1p3l2,lp1l2,Og9/2) were included and the modified surface delta interaction with the parameters by Didong et a1 (1976) was used as the effective N N interaction. They first calculated xk (3.529) with the original form of H R C ( r ) of ( 3 . 6 7 ~ ) (Tomoda et a1 1985) and obtained xk = 78.8 (column (1) of table 11). Since the finite extension n g A of the zerwrange of the nucleon was neglected in this calculation, the contribution r part of (3.67a) was completelysuppressed and the matrixelement became xk = -2.27 when the short-range correlations were taken into account by the prescription (4.4) and (4.5) (column (2) of the table). T h e pz dependence (3.10) of the form factors was taken into account in their subsequent work (Tomoda et a / 1986). With the replacement of the first and second terms of equation (3.67a) by (3.69) and (3.70), the recoil matrix element did not get reduced so drastically by the short-range correlations, and xk = 31.9 was obtained (column (3) of table 11). This table also shows that the contributions from the third term in (3.670) and all the non-central operators are small and cancel one another almost completely, i.e.

Mp"'

mfg

RC '

(5.3)

O+ OvOP decay of ' B G e . The value4 in the columns (1)-(3) were calculated by Tomoda el a / (1986), (1) without the finite extensionof the nucleon and the shor&rangecorrelations,(2) with the finite d ! a the short-range correlations, (3) same M (2) but extension of the nucleon for with A = 4.71 MeV instead of A = 9.41 MeV for the others. The values in the column (4) were obtajned by Haxton and Stephenson (1984) with the approximation ~ G = T 1 and i~= XF.

Table 12. Nuclear matrix elements for the O+

xk

(1) Point noSRC

(2) Extended SRC

(3) Extended

(4) HS84

SRC half A
0.609

~ G T

itF

XDT

xP

XT xP XR
*t

2-

x;
XXGTh XFh

0.694 -0.217 0.875 -0.186 1.125 -0.249 -0.021 -0.223 78.8 0.689 -1.061 0.665 -0.168

0.563 -0,219 0.857 -0.182 1.143 -0.255 -0.026 -0.218 31.9 0.675 -1.039 0.687 -0.178 5.06 x 104 -1.05 X 10'

-0.222 0.910 -0.198

1.091

0.411 -0.200

1.000
-0.200 1.141 -0.231 -0.013 0.269

-0.245 -0.027 -0.205 30.5 0.712 -1.107 0.663 -0.172 4.67 X 10' -0.97 x 104

0.800 -1.200 0.637 -0.175

a

-a

* xGTh - xpll

6 x 10' from figure 14 of Tomoda e l a l 1986

Table 12 gives all the nuclear matrix elements (3.52), (3.73) and their combinations (3.53) for the 0 v p p decay of %e. The numbers in the column (2) were calculated with the short-range correlations and in the case of xk also with the effect of the finite nucleon size. The numbers in column (3) were obtained with the smaller closure energy A and are seen to be close t o those in column (2). This is the case also for xk

102

T Tomoda

in spite of its explicit dependence on A through the second and third terms in (3.67a) and (3.676) since the contributions from these terms are small. The insensitivity to A supports the closure approximation in the case of OvOp decay. The column (4) gives the values obtained by Haxton and Stephenson (1984), making the approximation (5.2). While most of their matrix elements except xk are not very different from those of the column (Z), we note the difference in the sign of 2 ; . We compare in table 13 the relative magnitudes of the contributions of the matrix elements given in the column (2) of table 12 to the Oupp decay amplitude (see (3.49), . . were (3.50), (3.58), (3.59) and (3.62)). The values for the phase space integrals F (0) 3! taken from table 25. We see t h a t 2- = f~ - ~ G gives T the dominant contribution to Oupp decay due to the right-handed coupling (A). In the case of Ou decay due to the other right-handed coupling ( q ) , the dominant contribution would be given by jj+ = 2~ ~ G if T one neglected the recoil matrix element xk and calculated the electron phase space integrals using plane waves multiplied by the Fermi function as in the calculation by Haxton and Stephenson (1984). The decay amplitude associated with xp becomes an order of magnitude larger by treating the Coulomb correction to the P-wave electron properly. This was found by Doi el a/ (1983a, c , 1985) and called the P-wave effect. Once the recoil matrix element xk is included, this overwhelms the P-wave effect and gives the dominant contribution which is another order of magnitude larger than that of &, I t should be noted that the rough estimates given in table 5 (section 3.3.4) agree well (within -25%) with the calculated amplitudes of table 13.

Table 13. Analysis of the contributions to the amplitude for the O+ O+ 0 4 0 decay of 76Ge. The numerical values given in the right column have been multiplied by a common factor so as to facilitate a comparison with table 5. Piutial amplitude Relative magnitude

* If the electron wavefunctions are approximated by plane waves multiplied with the
Fermi function.

Table 14 gives the constraints on the neutrino mass and the right-handed coupling y (Caldwell constants deduced from the recent experimental bound r$2 > 1.1 x e l a/ 1989). The numbers in column (1) were obtained by using the matrix elements of column (2) of table 12 and the phase-space integrals of table 25. The values in 20% due to the column (2) of table 14 show t h a t the bound on (A) changes by approximations (5.2), and the limit on ( q ) becomes an order of magnitude less stringent by neglecting xk. This limit is softened another order of magnitude if one uses plane waves multiplied with the Fermi function for the emitted electrons (column (3)). The

Double beta decay

103

limits in this column are comparable to those of Haxton and Stephenson (1984) given in column (4), and the remaining differences can be ascribed to the difference in the nuclear wavefunctions. (The 2u matrix element M g , ) = 1.727 obtained in the projected HFB method was also 30% larger than the shell model result.)

Table 14. Constraints on the effective masses of light and heavy neutrhos and the right-handed current coupling constants deduced from the experimental bound (Caldwell et nI 1 9 s ) (T,";~)..~ > 1.1 x IO2' y for the OvPP decay of "Ge. The constraints in the column (1) are obtained using the nuclear m a t r i x elements given in the column (2) of table 12 and the phase space integr& of table 25, (2) same BP (1) but with the indicated approximations, (3) same aa (2) but using plane w a v e multiplied by the Fermi function for the electron ph-e space integrals. The numbers in the column (4) are the h u t s obtained by Haxton and Stephemson (1984) adapted to the n e w experimental data above.
(1) full (2) xk = 0
~ G = T1

(3) xk

=0

(4) HS84

~ G = T1

2F

=1

iF = 1
PW

I b ) l (ev) I(V 1h)I

l((m;'))l

(GeV-')

< 6.6 x

< 0.87 < 1.7 x < 2.0 x

< 0.87
i1.4 x I O ' i 3.1 X lo-' i 6.6 x IO@

< 0.87 < 1.4 x < 2.4 X lo-'

< 6.6 x

< 1.1 x lo-'

< 1.2 < 2.0 x < 3.0 x

One might be tempted to doubt the validity of the 1/M expansion (3.12) of the nuclear currents if one only pays attention to the fact that the recoil term gives the dominant contribution to the Ou decay due to (7).However, as we have seen already in tables 2-5, this is a consequence of the cancellation in the leading-order contribution (&))1/22+(q) (table 13), and does not mean any catastrophic growth of the higherorder terms in (3.12). In order to convince ourselves further, let us consider the contribution AX1 to the amplitude X1 (3.50) which is second-order in the recoil terms (3.15):

A x , = ((m,)/m.)[(H(rlz)C1C2) - (Sv/SA)'(H(rn)D1 .&)I F;: -((~,)/~,)(SV/SA)'(~~~,/~M)(MRC + MILT) (5.4)

where in going from the first to the second line we retained only the term proportional to the large factor pp in D . With the approximation MRC MRT% M$'") (see table 11), an inclusion of AX1 amounts to the replacement

XF - 1 + XF - 1 - (Sv/S~)(Ppme/2M)Xk

(5.5)

in equatiolis (3.50) and (3.61). For the matrix elements in column (2) of table 12, the last term on the right-hand side of (5.5) is -0.0325, i.e. less than 3% of the leading term X F - 1 = -1.219. This shows explicitly that the terms which are second-order in recoil momentum can safely be neglected. An important step forward in the understanding of the suppression of 2upp decay was made by Vogel and Zirnbauer (1986). They performed QRPA calculation using the zero-range spin-isospin interaction
gc1 . ~ Z T .I ~ 2 6 ( r 1 -

n)

(5.6)

104

T Tomoda

and retained in equations (4.9a) and (4.96)the particle-particle matrix elements which had been neglected in the previous calculations (Huffman 1970, Grotz and Klapdor 1985b, Vogel and Fisher 1985). They regarded the interaction strengths gpp and gph for the particle-particle (pp) and particle-hole (ph) matrix elements as independent parameters and fixed the latter at gph = 333 MeV fm3 to reproduce the excitation energy of the Gamow-Teller giant resonance (GTGR). The pp interaction strength gpp was determined so that the single 0'' decay rates of semi-magic neutron-deficient 'igDyaz, etc were reproduced, and found to nuclei with N = 50 or 82 such as be in the range 128-144 MeV fm3. They used an axial vector coupling constant gA = 1 instead of its free nucleon value 1.254 in order to take into account the effects (core polarization, Ah excitation, etc) neglected in the QRPA approach. The Zupp decay amplitude Mzu was calculated as the average of the two results: one obtained by replacing ( O $ ~ ~ r t u with ~~l( ~) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ as ' 'inuHuffman's ~ ~ I ~ work ) (1970) (see above), and another by replacing (lf(lr+u(lO:) with (lfllrtullO$). AS the first line of table 15 shows, the calculated amplitudes with gpp = 0 give similar 2v decay half-lives as those of Haxton and Stephenson (table 8) if one takes into account the factor g : = 2.44 adopted in the latter. As the value of gpp increases, the ground state correlations induced by the proton-neutron 1" mode get stronger and the destructive contribution of the second term in (4.14b) becomes larger. The amplitude Mzv vanishes at gpp 110 MeV fm3 and then grows with the opposite sign. The half-lives for gpp of the range 128-144 MeV fm3 previously mentioned are listed in the subsequent lines of table 15. We see that the calculated half-life for "2Se is now consistent with the experiment, while that for I3'Te is still an order of magnitude too short.
Table 15. Half-lives for 2v($3 decay calculated in QRPA with the strength gpp of the zero-range particleepartide interaction (Vogel and Zimbaua 1986).
9PP
7 6 ~ 82se

9Ezr (io18

looMO
y) (10'~ y)
4.1 37 2.8

ll6Cd

1 2 8 ~ ~ 130Te

'36Xe

(M~V rm3)
0 128 136
144
(T:~2)exp

(1020

y)

( i a 2 o y)

(ioz1 y)
0.075
1.9 0.34 0.093

(1024 y ) (ioz1 y)

(10'~ Y)

16 63

0.74
6.3

2.8
8.5

18 5.0

2.5 0.55
l.l'",:",b

0.32 o.5t

o.st
>6.4'

0.15 0.82 0.27 0.10 >Sdt

0,050
0.25
0.10 0.044

15 150 51 20
>8.4e

>9 ' 1

1.5

< r l p < 2.7Sd$

t Result based only on the initial O+ state because the final state solution is unstable. $ Geochemical data (total p p decay half-life). * Vesenko e l al (1990), bElliott e l al (19874, 'Ejiri el el (1989), dKirsten e l 01 (1986). 'Barabash Cf al (1989).
The p p and ph matrix elements are origindly related to each other by the simple angular momentum recoupling (4.10). Although in principle they undergo different renormalization in the nucleus, it is a little disturbing that there was a big difference between the pp and ph interaction strengths adopted in the work above (gpp = 0.4gph). A QRPA calculation for the 2 u p p decays of '%e, "Se and 1za/*30Tewith a more realistic interaction w a s performed by Civitarese et a/ (1987). T.hey used the nuclear matter G-matrix derived from the Bonn one-boson-exchange potential (Holinde 1981). In order to apply it to a finite nuclei, a relatively small (in absolute value) starting energy -25 MeV and a smaller Fermi momentum k p = 1.2 fm were used in solving the Bethe-Goldstone equation, and the strength parameters gFai,, g;air, gpp and gph

Double bela decay were introduced which renormalize the G-matrix elements in the following way:

105

gF,i,(ppOtlGlp'P'0+) gpp(Pn1+lGlP !nI 1 t )

O'IGln ,n I0 t) Sph(Pn-'ltIGlp'n'-'l+).

(5.7) The full 3 h w f 4 h w major oscillator shells and the space consisting of Ip+4hw+Oh+lf shells were used for A = 76/82 and A = 128/130 systems, respectively. The strengths for the pairing interaction were determined so as to reproduce the experimental oddeven mass difference for each nucleus and found to be in the range 0.93 gFair 1.13 and 1.05 5 g:air 5 1.20. The ph interaction strength was fitted to the excitation energy of the GTGR (Madey e l a/ 1986, 1989) with the resulting values gph = 1.0, 1.1 and 1.3 for A = 76,82 and 128/130, respectively. One can easily extend the calculation to the pp decays of looMo, '36Xe and '"Nd for which experimental data also exist. The strengths g F r : for the initial and final nuclei of these decays lie essentially in the same range previously given and gph is found to be 1.0, 1.3 and 1.0, respectively. The 2v amplitudes A42" calculated using (4.13)-(4.15) are shown in figure 11 as a function of gpp. The behaviour of these curves is similar t o that found by Vogel and Zirnbauer. However, in contrast t o their results, in which M2, vanish at gpp zz 3gph, 1 hfzu of figure 11 vanish at gpp z 1, i.e. at gpp zz gph within 30%. This is a nice feature of the calculation using a realistic interaction, the pp matrix elements of which are in general much weaker than the ph counterparts for gpp = gph. In the case of the interaction (5.6), however, the pp matrix elements are too strong for gpp = gph, since (5.6) is equivalent to the spin-isospin independent interaction -3g6(rl - r 2 )so that the pp matrix elements have the same magnitudes as their ph counterparts because of equation (4.18).

<

<

0.8

,
101

2 0

lbl

I.
00
02 04

06

08

10

12

0.0
gw

02

04

0,6

08

1.0

12

Figure 11. 2upp decay amplitudes MzV calculated in QRPA strength gpp of the particle-particle interaction.

IIS

a function of the

It is noted that the amplitudes MZ,at gpp = 0 in figure 11 are a factor 2 to 3 larger than the corresponding values calculated by Vogel and Zirnhauer. This is partly due

106

Tomodo

to the usage of (4.13)-(4.15) instead of their simplified treatment stated above. Also, the realistic interaction yields larger p- and fl+ strengths for low-lying I+ states than the zero-range interaction which gives the same excitation energy for the GTGR. This also results in a larger

00

02

0.4 9W

06

@.a

10

12

Figure 12. Closure enagy for the 2uBO decay of 'BGe. The true closurr energy A = $WO ( E N )- EJ calculated from the decay amplitude Mz, and the closure matrix element M ! $ ' a r e shown together with those estimated from E- and E-I.

weighted sum of the GT

0- st,rength.

Figure 12 shows for the case of '6Ge, the amplitude Mz., the closure matrix element

M g y ) = -4

C(O, +I lr+~ ~ ~ l ~ ) ( l ~ ~ l ~ ) ( l ~ ~ (5.8) ~ r + u ~ ~

j,k

and the closure energy A = $ W O ( E N ) - .EI defined so as to satisfy (3.29). The other two quantities ( E ) and (E-')-1 are the values of A calculated with (4.2) and (4.3), respectively. We see that the relation ( E ) > (E-')-' > A holds except in the neighbourhood of gpp = 1. Near gpp = 1, the true behaves singularly so that it can deviate from ( E ) or (E-')-' considerably. The contribution of the intermediate states lj' to the amplitude M2"(4.13) are shown in figure 13 together with the p- and the effective pf G T matrix elements. The arbitrary phases of the nuclear states have been chosen such that all the p- and the largest pt matrix elements for gpp = 0 are positive. For gPP= 0, the other pt matrix elements, and hence their products with the 0- counterparts, are largely positive. A s gpp increases, each p+ matrix element decreases and those which were already small for gpp = 0 change sign. For gpp= 1, the products of the p- and pt matrix elements divided by the energy denominator cancel one another almost completely to yield 2u decay amplitude close to zero. F i p r e 14 shows 2upp decay half-lives as a function of gpp. We see that all the experimental data are consistent with the calculated half-lives with gpp = 1. From another point of view, it is rather difficult to predict the half-lives since they are very sensitive to the value of gpp in the neighbourhood of gpp = 1. Some of the important low order diagrams contributing to 2upp decay are shown in figure 15. Figure 15(a) is the lowest order diagram, where a pair of quasiparticles

Double beta decay

107

$ 1 0
I

25 Y x

1 1 qrr:
1 0
01.

s
0 c

6-01

01-1

P-

W / E IMeV'I

P*

Figure 13. Contributionof intermediate I + statesofE2Brto theamplitude Mz, for the "Se decay calculated in QRPA with ( a ) gpp = 0 and ( b ) gpp = I . The symbols 4-, L3+ and E denote, respectively, ( l ~ ~ ~ ~ c,(O,'ll.t.lll:)(l:llr) t ~ ~ ~ O ~ ) , and :WO+ E , - EI in (4.13).

are created and annihilated subsequently by the GT operator. Figures 15(bl), (b2) and (cI)-(c4) are typical diagrams first order in the effective N N interaction V . In QRPA, ( b l ) and (b2) are due to the direct and exchange parts of the ph interaction with the first combination of the uu factors multiplying it in equation (4.9a). The remaining three combinations of the uu factors in (4.9a) are usually much smaller as was explained in section 4.2.2, and the corresponding diagrams are not shown here. Similarly, the diagrams ( c l ) and (c2) ((c3) and (c4)) are due to the direct and exchange parts of the ph (pp) interaction with the second combination of the respective uu factors in (4.96). (The equally important diagram corresponding to the first combinations of the uu factors in (4.9b) are not shown in figure 15.) In the PBCS approach by Klapdor and Grotz (1984), ( c l ) was taken into account explicitly by 4qp (four-quasiparticle) components in the final O+ state, and (cZ), (c3) by QRPA for like quasiparticle pairs (proton-proton and neutron-neutron) with a quadrupolequadrupole interaction (VQQ), while in Huffman's work the diagram (cZ)-(c4) were neglected. Table 16 summarizes the types of ground state correlation diagrams included by various authors with the respective interactions. A QRPA calculation similar to that of Civitarese et a/ above was performed by

108

T Tomodo

10"
0

1.0

00
g,,

10

00
9PP

10

00

1.0

Figure 14. Half-lives for 2 v P 0 decay calculated i n QaPA m a function of gDp. Exor, in the case of lower bounds, by perimental data are indicated by hatched aiei~l horizontal lines, and taken from ITEP-YP1; Vasennko et al (1990). C-N-S: Vdlew mier ef 01 (1988), USC-PNL: Avignone e t a / (19%). UCI: Elliott et a / (1987a), UMI: Lin e l 01 (1988a), UM2: Lin el al (1988b), MPIH: Kirsten et aI (19%), Osaka: Ejiri et 01 (1989). Baksanl: Barabash e t 01 (1989),Baksmz: KLmenlto r t DI ( 1 9 8 8 ) .

Muto and Klapdor (1988a). They used instead the effective interaction derived by Anantaraman ei a/ (1983) from the Paris potential (Lacombe el al 1980). The calculated 2u amplitudes M2"as a function of gpp were almost ,identical to those of Civitarese et a/ shown in figure l l ( a ) except that the former now vanished at 10% smaller values of gpp = 0.83-0.91. In order to fix gpp they fitted the pt decay rates of the neighbouring nuclei and found gpp = 0.77-0.93. Since each of the amplitudes Mzv vanished at some value of gpp in the allowed range, the corresponding calculated half-life lay in an interval extending to infinity with a lower bound. These lower bounds were consistent (see also Muto el a/ 1989a) with the experimental data. On the other hand an appreciably larger value of gpp 1.2 was required to reproduce P+ decay rates of semi-magic nuclei (see also Suhonen et a/ 1988), implying that the pp interaction strength determined in the work of Vogel and Zirnbauer was too large. We saw above that Zvpp decay was drastically suppressed due to the ground state

Double beta decay

109

F i g u r e 15. Low-order diagrams contributing to 2 v p p decay. Palticle-hole pairs coupled to J" = I + a r e created or annihilated by the Gamow-Teller operator T + U denoted by a wavy line with a cross. The circleo with a cross and a point. respectively, repreSent creation and annihilation of a Cooper pair, while the broken lines the interaction hetween partides and/or holes. ( a ) The lowest-order diagram. ( b l ) and (62) Forward-going diagram first-order in the dimct and exchange p a r k of ph interaction. ( e l ) and ( e 2 ) ( ( e 3 ) and ( c 4 ) ) Backward-going diagrams which are due to the ground state correlations i n the final state and first-order in the direct and exchange parts of ph (pp) interaction. T a b l e 16. Ground state correlation diagrams and effective interactions.

H*
( c l ) ph direct ( c 2 ) ph exchange ( c 3 ) pp direct ( c 4 ) pp exchange
VGT

KGb
VGT

VZFt
-3gphS -3gph6 -3gppS

CFTd$
SphG SphG sppG

VQQ VQQ -

-39~6

gwG

t 9pp

0.49ph.

tSpP=gph.

aHuffman (1970), bKlapdor and Grots (1984), 'Vogel and Zirnbauer (1986), dCivitarere e t al (1987).

correlations amplified by the pp interaction. The important problem of whether Oupp decay is equally suppressed by the above mechanism for 2v decay was investigated by Tomoda and Faessler (1967). They performed QRPA calculations using the same input parameters as used in the 2v case (Civitarese e t QI 1967) previously described. In order to evaluate the decay matrix elements by (4.16), the QRPA equation was solved for all possible multipolarities J" which can be formed with proton-neutron 2qp states, The values of gpp and gph were assumed to be independent of J". Figure 16 shows the matrix elements

M,$?$) = ( ~ ( r 1 2 ) 6 1 .6 2 )

Mp) =

(H(712))

(5.9)
62)

M p )= ( H R C ( r 1 2 ) f l l .

for the Oupp decay of 76Ge calculated as a function of gpp, where (012) is defined by (4.16), and the dominant first two terms in ( 3 . 6 7 ~ ) with the replacement by (3.69) and (3.70) are included in H R C ( r ) . Since the virtual neutrinos exchanged between nucleons have a large momentum of the order of 100 MeV, the angular momentum transfer can be also large and there are considerable contributions of the virtual single

110

T Tomodo

transitions through the intermediate nuclear states with J" # 1+ (J" # O+) for the matrix elements M t ? ) and M$o") (M;')). The contribution to M g , ) from intermediate 1+ states decreases as gpp increases, and vanishes at gpp 1 as in the On the other hand, the contributions from the case of the 2u decay amplitude M?". states with higher multipolarities such as 2-, 3+, 4- do not decrease so rapidly as that of 1+ states, reflecting the slow growth of ground state correlations induced by these higher multipolarity modes. After summing over all these contributions, the dependence of M t ; ) on gpp becomes much weaker than that of the 2u amplitude.
1.0

08

06

0.4

F 0 2
IL

00

-0.2

-0.4

02

04

06

08

10

I1.20 12

Figure 16. Matrix elements M,$,Ip and M p ' for the 0@3 decay of ' 6 G e calculated in QRPA as a function of gpp. The full curves are the results of summation oyer all J" in the intermediate nuclear states, whereas the broken curves r e p r e a t the contributions from the indicated J w ,

,(a") . ' The recoil matrix element MR IS dominated by the contribution from UO(T, A), the range of which is much shorter than that of H(r) involved in M&??), so that the fraction of the contribution from the intermediate states with higher multipolarities become larger. And even for t h e contribution of 1+ states, the cancellation between the two terms in (4.176) becomes incomplete because the virtual single p transitions which change the orbital quantum numbers become more important. Consequently Mk(0") decreases much more slowly than M$;) as a function of gpp. also shows a moderate decrease in magnitude after summing over all possible naturalparity intermediate states. The experimental data for t h e 2upp decays were consistent with the calculated 2u half-lives with gpp = 1 for '%e, "Se, 12s1130Te,136Xe, and gpp = 1.04 and 1.15 for laoMo and lsoNd, respectively. Table 17 gives the Oupp decay matrix elements calculated with these values of gpp and the closure energies A listed in table 25. T h e dependence on A is weak as we saw in table 12. It is also possible to treat 0 1 2 dependent on the energy of t h e individual state in evaluating (4.16). Such a calculation for 76Ge gives M t , ) = 0.351 and X F = -0.283 for gpp = 1, its compared

Mp)

Double beta decay

111

with M,${) = 0.330 and XF = -0.290 of table 17, showing the reliability of the closure approximation in the case of 0vPP decay. It should be noted that when the closure approximation is avoided, the two-body operator 0t2in (4.16) need not be symmetric under the interchange of the nucleons 1 and 2 (Doi el al 1985). The contribution of antisymmetric operators is, however, expected t o be small.
Table 17. Nuclear matrix elements for O+

O+ Ov&3 decay calculated in QRPA.

.')

Xk
XGTh (lo') X F h (io')

0.330 -0.290 0.951 -0.262 1.049 -0.318 -0.230 -0.485 70.3 10.93 -2.42

0.293 -0.286 0.952 -0.258 1.048 -0.314 -0.248 -0.525 71.2 11.10 -2.44

0.316 -0.334 0.968 -0.304 1.032 -0.363 -0.470 0.528 84.6 13.23 -3.04

0.246 -0.296 0.951 -0.266 1.049 -0.326 -0.226 -0.491 78.5 12.40 -2.74

0.212 -0.299 0.948 -0.268 1.052 -0.331 -0.231 -0.496 79.6 12.62 -2.79

0.117 -0.317 0.974 -0.285 1.026 -0.349 -0.221 -0.748 88.2 13.93 -3.09

0.312 -0.316 0.943 -0.280 1.057 -0.352 -0.333

0.626
72.2 11.51 -2.62

Table IS. Constraints on the effective neutrino mass and the right-handed current
couplings.

I(m~)l
"Ge "Se

l((K'))l (GeV-')

' M O
lZsTe "OTe
'3'Xe

< 1.4 < 5.8 < 5.1

< 1.4
<19 <10 <4.4

< 5.2 x lo-' < 2.1 x 10-7 < 1.6 X lo-'

< 4.5 x < 6.0 x < 3.1 x

< 1.6 x

10-8

IO-'
10-7 10-7

NU < 2.7 x lo-' < 7.7 X lo-' < 7.4 X lo-' < 6.5 X IO-' < 2.8 X
< 1.7 x < 5.4 x
10-5 10W6

l(41

(.P/',)..P

(Y)

< 1.6 x IO-' < 6.5 X lo-' < 5.8 X lo-' < 1.3 X lo-' < 1.9 X lo-'

> 1.1 x lo2'' > 1.8 X loZzb > 1 X IO2" > 5 x 1024dt > 1.5 X 1021at

< 1.0x 10-7

< 6.3 x

> 1.4 x
> 1.2 x

1022y
io22et

lsoNd

> 2.3 x loz1'

t Geochemical data (total Ofl decay half-life). 1 Different detection efficiencies for the decays d u e to neutrino
have been taken into account. * Caldwell et al (1989), Moe e l 01 (1988), (1989), Klimenko el al (1986).

mass and the right-handed current

'

Dieterle (1988),

Kirsten e t 01 (1986), e Bellotti el

a/

Table 18 lists the constraints on the effective light and heavy neutrino masses (m,) and ((m;')), as well as the right-handed coupling constants (A) and (11) deduced from the recent experimental bounds on Ov half-lives by employing the matrix elements of table 17 and the phase space integrals of table 25. Figure 17 shows the allowed regions for (m,) and ( q ) for several fixed values of (A) and ( ( m ; ' ) ) = 0 for the case of 76Ge and I2"Te. We see that the limits given in table 18 will be softened a little when these parameters are allowed to have non-vanishing values at the same time (cf the paragraph below (5.2)). Comparing the numbers listed in table 18, we obtain the most stringent limits I(m,)l < 1.4 eV from the 76Ge as well as lzaTe data, I((m;l))l< 4.5 x from the lzaTe data, and l(A)l < 2.7 x GeV-' and l(q)l < 1.3 x from the '%e data.

112

T Tomoda

Figure 17. Allowed regions for (m,) and (n) deduced from experimental bounds on Ovpp decay for several fixed values of (A). The experimental data me taken from Caldwll e l 01 (1989) ( 7 6 G e )and Kirrten e l a1 (1986) ("'Te). A possibleeontribution
of heavy neutrinos has been neglected.

Figure 18 shows the single electron spectra dWo,/drl (3.64) and the angular correlation coefficients u(c1) (3.63) for Ougp decay due to non-vanishing (mv), (A) and (7).The small difference in the case ( b ) between the QRPA and the projected HFB calculations stems mainly from the relatively large tensor matrix element x& in the former. The different characteristics for these three limiting cases provide a possibility to identify which of the parameters is responsible for Oupp decay. Experiments such as those with a time projection chamber (Elliott et a1 1987a, b, Wong el a1 1989) can, in principle, utilize this possibility. A similar calculation for Ovpp decay in QRPA was performed independently by Engel et a1 (1988) with a different conclusion. They used a spin-dependent zero-range interaction, which is more general than that used in their previous work (Vogel and Zirnbauer 1986). The pp interaction strength gip for channel spin S was determined so as to reproduce the pt decay rates of semi-magic nuclei as before, assuming the relation =0 . 6 g i ; ' , and was found to be in the range ';g : = (-390 to -432) MeV fm3, which agrees with the range obtained by Vogel and Zirnhauer when the equivalence of (5.6) with --3gS(q - vZ) is taken into account. The obtained 2v halflives were similar to those of their previous work. They calculated next the O u decay matrix elements M$,) and M g " ) using (4.16) but with the simplified procedure of replacing the final state by the initial state, or the other way around, described previously. The obtained limits on the neutrino mass are listed in table 19. We see that the limits corresponding to si;' of the above range are appreciably less stringent than those of table 18 especially for the case of lighter nuclei. First this is due to the way in which the value of gPP was determined. Since their gpp fitted to the p+ decay rates of semi-magic nuclei was too large, the contribution of the intermediate 1+ states to M,$,) changed sign and became comparable in magnitude to that calculated at gpp = 0, cancelling the contributions from higher multipolarity states considerably. Second they calculated both of the transition densities (4.17a) and (4.176) with the same O t state. Such a procedure yields smaller matrix elements already a t gpp = 0. Recently Muto el al (1989b) also performed QRPA calculations for Ovgp decay and came t o the same conclusion as Tomoda and Faessler (1987). They used the

Double beta decay

(m,)=l 40 eV (A)=O
(ll)=O

113

a -1

0 00

1 02

2 OL
E,

-merz IMeVl

F i g u r e 18. Singleelectron spectrum dWov/dcl and the angular correlation coeff the electmn energy c1 for the three limiting c-es of the ficient 01 as a function o O+ + O+ Oopp decay of "Ge (Qpe = 2.041 MeV). The non-vanishing parametem were chosen to reproduce the experimental lower bound on the half-life (Caldwell et al 1989) 1.1 x IO2' y with t h e matrix elements of table 17 (full curves). The broken curves in (a) are the result. obteined with (A) = 1.67 x I O ' and the matrix elements of the column (2) of table 12. A corresponding ealcuktion for the case of non-wishing ( q ) yields no significant difference, and the curves for non-vanishing (m,) with the above normalimtion procedure are independent of the nudear matrix elements.

Table 19. Constraints on the effective neutrino m a ~ obtained s by employing nudear matrix elements calculated in QRPA with the strength of the partide-particle interaction (Engel et af 1988).

$ ; '

&,='

(MeV fm3)

-390

-432

'OCe
82%

< 1.4

'OnMO
1ZSTe

< 7.2 < 3.9

< 5.0 < 25

< 14

< 11 < 50 < 3.0

<39

> 1.1 X IOz4'

> 1.8 x

> 1 x 102ZC
> 5 x 10Zrdt > 1 . 5 I~O Z l d t

I3OTe
33exe

< 0.86 < 2.2 < 12 < 29 < 7.9 < 21

< 28

> 1.4 X

IOzzc

t Geochemical data (total 00 decay half-life).

Caldwell e t of (1969), bMoe e t al (1988), 'Dietede (1988), dKirrten e t af (1986). CBellotti ct 01 (1989).

effective interaction derived from the Paris potential and determined the strength gpp as mentioned previously. The calculated nuclear matrix elements are listed in table 20. Although the values for Mj;O,"),~ G and T xk, which dominantly contribute to the decay rates, are close to those of table 17 except in the case of 'OoMo, there are some

114

T Tomoda

differences for other matrix elements. First we note xbT 5 $ and IxLl < for the 1 and IxLl > l x ~ l in tables 7, matrix elements in table 20 in contrast with xbT 12 and 17. This is due to the finite nucleon extension also being taken into account for the matrix elements other than xk in table 20. Second, x'p in table 20 are about f of those in table 17. And finally Mg?) for ' ' ' M O is about of that in table 17. The last feature is probably due to too large a value of gpp in their calculation, the usage of which yielded a 2v decay rate (Muto et a/ 1989a) several times larger than the experimental limit.
Table 20. Nuclear matrix elements for Ot
(Muto et ol 1989b).
+

Ot OvPP decay calculated in QRPA

M g , ) (fm-')
XF

~ G T

2F
XDT

xF
XT

xr XR

0.296 -0.389 0.966 -0.340 0.645 -0.351 -0.203 -0.176 90.6

0.273 -0.376 0.964 -0.330 0.662 -0.339 -0.277 -0.176 87.0

0.0685 -1.777 1.743 -1.596 -1.501 -1.522 -1.079 1.549 411

0.257 -0.382 0.970 -0.337 0.644 -0.340

-0.188

-0.156 89.9

0.205 0,0908 -0.392 -0.412 0,980 1.046 -0.348 -0.367 0.612 0.429 -0.345 -0.347 -0.230 -0.430 -0.155 -0.321 95.2 , 122.5

0.334 -0.428 0.989 -0.383 0.584 -0.374 -0.270 0.235 99.7

5.2. O+

Zt O v and 2 v pp decay

As we saw in section 3.2.2, Of -+ 2+ 2vpp decay is unfavourable because of the cancellation in the phase-space integral. In addition, shell-model calculations showed that the nuclear matrix element M & ? ; ; ,(3.36) was much smaller than the Ot + O+ counterpart M&??) (3.30) for the decays 4*Ca-+4dTi(2:) and 76Ge-+76Se(2:) (Haxton and Stephenson 1984, Vergados et a/ 1988). The resulting half-lives for these decays were 5.0 x loz6 y and 1.2 x 1030 y, respectively (Haxton and Stephenson 1984), which were seven and nine orders of magnitude longer than the corresponding calculated results for O+ O+ 2v transitions. In the case of O v p p decay, transitions to 2+ states are worth more attention since they have different sensitivities t o the parameters characterizing lepton number violation as compared with those between ground states (see section 3.3.5).

Table 21. Nuclear matrix elements for O+ + 2+ OvPP decay calculated by Haxton and Stephenson (1984) according to the quotation by Doi cl of (1985).

Nuclear matrix elements for O+ + 2 ' Ov decay of 4dCa and 76Ge in the twonucleon (2N) mechanism were calculated by Haxton and Stephenson (1984) using the

Double beta decoy

115

nuclear models mentioned in section 5.1. The results are listed in table 21. Using the phase space integrals of table 25 and the present limit l(q)l < 1.3 x 10Va (table 18) deduced from the geochemical bound on O+ -t O+ Ov decay of lzaTe, we obtain r:,& > 6.0 X loz9 Y, > 1.9 X IO3' y and > 1.7 x lo3' y, respectively, for these three decays. (The decay rates originally given by these authors seem t o be a factor 3 to 33 too large, and the half-lives calculated by Doi el al (1985) using the same matrix elements seem to be a factor 12 too short, assuming that the numbers given in table 21 are correct.) In view of the relatively high sensitivity of O+ -+ 2+ Ov decay due to (A) (section 3.3.5), it would be more useful to consider this contribution. The relevant matrix element M A , as well as Mq and M ; , for the decay '6Ge(O:) -+'6Se(2:) was calculated by Tomoda (1988) taking into account both the 2N and A mechanisms using projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wavefunctions obtained by the method described in section 4.2.3. The full 3hw+4hw major oscillator shells were included and the G-matrix derived from the Bonn potential (Holinde 1981), modified slightly to reproduce the experimental pairing gap and the excitation energy of the 2 : state, was used. Table 22 gives the calculated matrix elements M A , Mq and M; decomposed into various contributions. The numbers in the first seven lines are the contributions of the operators (3.83) for the 2N mechanism multiplied by the respective coefficients appearing in (3.820)-(3.82c). Upon summation they cancel one another considerably in the cases of M A and M;. The corresponding sum for Mq (= 12 x fm-') is not very different from that obtained by Haxton and Stephenson in.spite of considerable differences in individual contributions of MI to M4. M i and M i in the next two lines denote the contributions of the operator (3.88) for the A mechanism with one-pion and one-rho-meson exchange, respectively. While the A mechanism gives an 10% correction t o M,,, it gives the dominant contribution to M A because of the cancellation among the 2N matrix elements previously mentioned.

Table 22. Nuclear matrix elements for the Ouflp decay 76Ge(O:) ) : Z ( % ' in the two-nucleon and A mechanism calculated in the projected HFB method (Tomoda
1988).

Mi

9.91

9.91

M Z
M3

-3.60
-0.48 -6.16

-3.60
-0.48 6.16

8 . 2 3
-8.05

M4 M5 M6

0.77

0.44
1.60 -0.23

Mi
Sum (2N)
MA M4

1 2 . w
1.60 -0.23 1.37

0.18

0.18

Sum (A) Sum (ZNfA)

1.37

1.81

13.37

116

T Tomoda

The half-lives corresponding to the upper limits I(A)l < 2.7 x and I(?)] < (table 18) deduced from Ot -+ O+ Ov decay are r$,(Ot -+ 2+) > 9 . 0 loza ~ y and r;T2(Ot -+ 2') > 7.1 x 1031 y, respectively. Conversely, the experimental bound by Caldwell el a/ (1988) r$',(Ot -+ 2+) > 3 x y, gives the constraints

1.3~

I(A)( < 1.5 x

10-~

1(?)1 < 2.0 x

A similar effect of the A mechanism was found for Ot --t 2' Ov decay of 4aCa by Vergados e l al (1988). They performed a shell-model calculation with a single f,,, shell taking into account the admixture of A isobar explicitly in the initial and final nuclear wavefunctions. The calculated matrix elements are shown in table 23. We see that the contribution of the A mechanism is comparable to that ofthe 2N mechanism in the case of the O+ 2 : transition due to (A). The half-lives corresponding to the are T ~ " / " ~ ( O ~ 2:) > 2.7 x loz7 y and previously mentioned limit I(A)( < 2.7 x T$,(O+ 3 2;) > 5 . 0 ~ y, while those corresponding to the Limit I(?)\< 1 . 3 ~ are rp/"z(O+ 2 : ) > 1.2 x 1031 y and rp/2(Ot 2 : ) > 7.9 x IO3' y.

-+

Table 23. Nuclear matrix elements for OuPP decay of ' C a excited 2+ states i n "Ti (Vergados et af 1988).
M A

to

the first and second

(lor3 h-l)
: 2
2;
13.9

M?l
h-l)

MA
h - l )

2 ;
3.3

2 :
21.9

2: -7.0

2 ;

2N
A Sum

3.5 2.2
5.7

4.6 18.5

2.2 5.5

4.6
26.5

-7.0

-44.0
-44.0

5.3. OvppM decay

The nuclear matrix elements for O+ + O+ Ovpp decay with Majoron emission are the same as those for Ovpp decay due t o the effective neutrino mass.(m,), i.e. and XF. Using the phase space integrals FM of table 25 and the matrix elements of table 7 (for 4aCa) and table 17 (for all other nuclei), we obtain the constraints on I(gM)I listed in table 24 from the experimental bounds on the half-lives. The recent measurements of the width of the Zo-boson decay showed (Abrams et al 1989, ALEPH Collaboration 1989, DELPHI Collaboration 1989, L3 Collaboration 1989, OPAL Collaboration 1989) the number of light neutrino species to be three. This result rejects existence of the Majoron of the Gelmini-Roncadelli type, since the latter would contribute the equivalent of two additional neutrinos to the Zo width (Georgi el a/ 1981). Therefore the limits in table 24 would be useful if there exists a massless or light scalar particle which couples with neutrinos but not with the Zo-boson (Kotani 1990).
6. Summary

The current research of pp decay is mainly motivated with the sensitivity of the Ovpp decay to lepton number violation predicted in gauge theories beyond the standard

Double beta decoy

Table 24.

117

Constraints on the Majoron coupling constant. The nudear matrix elements of table 7 (for "Ca) and table 17 (for all other nuclei) were used.

''Ca
"Ge "Se

< 5.1 x lo-' < 3.7 x

looMo

< 2.1 x lo-* < 2.0 x lo-' < 2.3 x lo-' < 2.1 x lo-'

> 7.2 x

lozo*

> 1 x lozzb >1 . 6x lOZlc

> 5.1 x

lZsTe
I3OTe lsoNd

> 5 x lOZ'=t
> 1.5 x > 1.9 x > 1.3 x

IOZod

136xe < 1.0 x 10-3

< 1.6 x lo-'
* Barabash (1989),

10zl't

1oZ0f
1OZoS

t Geochemical data (total 00 decay half-life).

Vasenko sf af (1990), Moe e t o f (1988), Dietale (1988), E Klimenko cf a/ (1986). Kirsten el al (1986), Barabarh e t o f (1989),

model. In order to relate the Oupp decay rate to the quantities such as the Majorana neutrino masses and the coupling strengths of right-handed currents, a critical examination of various approximations made in the derivation of effective operators and in the evaluation of nuclear matrix elements is necessary. In the case of O+ O+ Oupb decay due t o the right-handed leptonic current coupled t o t h e left-handed nuclear current, the recoil term in the space component of nuclear vector current, which w a s neglected in earlier calculations, plays a decisive role. The decay amplitude involves a factor proportional to the energy or to the 3-momentum of the neutrino exchanged between nucleons. The contribution of the energy type is suppressed due to cancellation upon antisymmetrization of the emitted electrons. As for the Contribution of the neutrino momentum, its odd transformation property under space inversion has to be compensated either with a P-wave electron or with the space component of the nuclear vector current which appears as a recoil correction term. Since the latter can be combined with two S-wave electrons and the recoil current is large because the virtual neutrino can have a' large momentum of order 100 MeVC-', it gives the dominant contribution to the decay amplitude. The effective two-body transition operator due t o the recoil current would be zero-ranged in the limit of point nucleon. It is therefore important to take into account the finite extension of the nucleon and the short-range correlations appropriately. A numerical calculation including the recoil term yields Ov decay amplitude one to two orders of magnitude larger than the earlier calculations, depending on the way of the Coulomb correction made in the latter for P-wave electrons. Such a result cannot be taken at face value if a calculation using the same nuclear wavefunctions does not reproduce the 2u decay rates correctly. There was a long-standing difficulty that the calculated 2u decay rates were systematically one to two orders of magnitude larger than the total rates measured with the geochemical method. Recently it was found that the ground state correlations due to pairs of proton and neutron quasiparticles coupled t o J" = 1+ play an important role for the suppression of the 2u decay amplitude. Such correlations can he easily taken into account by employing the quasiparticle random phase approximation. It is essential to include the particle-particle component of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction which has been neglected in earlier treatments. A QRPA calculation using a realistic interaction can reproduce the experimental 2u decay rates although it is rather diffi-

118

T Tomoda

cult to really predict them since the calculated rates depend sensitively on the strength of the particle-particle component of the interaction. Fortunately, Ougp decay rates are not very sensitive to this strength and not very much reduced by the mechanism effective for the 2u mode. We can still consider Oupp decay as a very sensitive tool for testing lepton number violation. The present constraints deduced from the recent experimental data on Oupp decay are

I(m,)l < 1.4 eV I((m;'))l < 4.5 x

1(A)1 i 2.7 x
1(q)1 < 1.3 x

lo-' GeV-'

We have also seen that O+ + 2+ Ovpp decay has a different relative sensitivity t o these parameters as compared with transitions between ground states and would be useful for judging which of them is responsible for Oupp decay. The contribution of the single-baryon transitions, n+ A++ and A- - + p ,is important in contrast to the O+ decay. case of O+ Up to the present time no events have been assigned to Ovpp decay with any direct detection method in the laboratory. If Oupp decay is observed, it would have a profound consequence. We would like to encourage the experimentalists for further efforts.

Acknowledgments I would like t o thank Professors/Drs 0 Civitarese, A Faessler, F Griimmer, K W Schmid, J D Vergados for the collaboration on various problems of PP decay. Thanks are also due to Professors/Drs F T Avignone, D 0 Caldwell, M Doi, H Ejiri, K Gabathuter, W C Haxton, B Kayser, H V Klapdor, T Kotani, T T S Kuo, R Madey, 0 K Manuel, P Mennrath, M K Moe, R N Mohapatra, S P Rosen, E Takasugi, P Vogel for providing useful information hefore publication. I am also grateful to Professor M Locher for his support during the writing of this review. Last but not least I thank Drs C G Fasano, J Missimer and R Rosenfelder for critical reading of the manuscript and valuable comments. A p p e n d i x 1. Electron wavefunctions and phase space integrals In this appendix the basic properties of the relativistic wavefunctions of the electrons relevant for nuclear beta decay are summarized (for further details see for example the monograph by Rose (1961)), and the phase space integrals for Oupp, OuppM and Zupp decays are presented. We solve the Dirac equation for an electron in an electrostatic field generated by a total charge Z distributed uniformly in a sphere of the nuclear radius R = roA'la with rg = 1.2 fm The wavefunction epa(r)of an electron with (asymptotic) momentum p and spin projection s normalized a . s (3.18) can be expanded in terms of spherical waves
as

(Al.l)

Double beta decay

where

119

(A1.2)

(A1.3) (A1.4)
Here g!%--'(c,r) and ~ ! - ) ( E , P ) with t = are the radial wavefunctions of the 'large' and 'small' components which satisfy the boundary condition 'a plane wave plus incoming spherical waves' and are normalized in such a way that

&&$

I, = j f y = aZe/p, and A: is the phase shift. The radial where n = . t ( j + wavefunctions inside t,he nucleus can be well approximated by their leading terms in power series expansion in r and are given by
(A1.6)

i),

i,

(A1.7)

(A1.8)
for P112and Pal2 waves, respectively, where A , are normalization constants. In the limt of 2 -t 0, the radial wavefunctions become the spherical Bessel functions and A+,., -+ .-/ This is used for the case of neutrinos with a suitable change of variables. T h e electron phase-space factors (= f : : ? ) for O+ -+ O+ pp decay appearing in equations (3.21), (3.49), (3.62) and (3.94) are defined by

fji)

fp =

1j-1-112

+ lf1112 +

lf-1112

+ lfi-'Iz

lIf-I-1 fi? = 4 (a)

+f-l-'12 +Ifl' +fkl121

Double beta decay Here f""'=g!-)(fi,R)g!;)(z,R)

121

f",, = gi-)(el,R)j;T)(t2,R) etc

(A1.12)

should be i.e. a superscript n (a subscript n) in f",,, etc indicates that taken; a left (right) superscript or subscript in f",,, etc refers to the electron of the energy t l ( 6 2 ) . All the phase space factors (equations (A1.9) and (A1.10)) become independent of R in the limit of Z 0. The phase space integrals F$) (3.62), FM (3.94), Fz, (3.28), and Fj+ ((3.62) with the appropriate substitution by ( A l . l l ) ) , are listed in table 25.

(fi-))

Table 25. Phasespace integrds for OOp decay. I$', FM and F,, are the phase-space integrals for OvOOp, OvpOpM and 2vOp decay, respectively, for O+ O+ transitions. The Q values and the closure energies A for these t r a i t i o n s a r e also given. The next four entries Fj* (j = 1 , 2 ) are the phase-space integrals for Ovpp decay to the
2+ states with the excitation energies given in the last line.
48ca
7 8 ~ 8 Z s e~

~ 1 2 ~ 8 ~ 1 ~ 3 0 ~ 1 ~ 3 6 ~1 ~ 50~d

jk
11
33 44 55 66 13 16 14 34 15 56 49.06 321.0 54.40 30940 409.3 -18.67 -44.43 21.87 -119.4 358.4 -3557 303.1 10490 4.271 7.72 86.80 4.988 26.68 0.863 57.72 2.658 41.62 1.735 0.984 2.421 6.697 11.11 3.363 6241 59.90 -1.838 -9.843 2.581 -4.927 97.61 -611.3 12.60 34.70 2.041' 9.41 4.143 0.562 2.002 1.269 0.559 30.63 106.5 22.78 30940 262.1 -10.37 -35.13 12.95 -42.43 365.9 -2847 108.8 1151 2.995 10.08 29.90 6.40 17.36 11.69 0.777 57.60 209.7 44.02 74080 491.1 -19.72 -64.33 24.51 -83.05 760.2 -6030 216.1 250'2 3.034 11.2 92.51 22.65 56.45 39.05 0.540 2.701 0.8353 0.6946 4550 27.26 -0.3568 -5.725 0.7838 -0.5163 73.28 -352.2 1.451 0.2245 0.868 12.54 0.2328 0.0070 0.0513 0.0370 0.443 66.40 72.79 345.2 176.9 187.1 1600 42.46 45.64 305.1 104300 118800 650200 573.4 629.2 2898 -20.75 -22.43 -122.4 -81.15 -89.54 -337.0 27.29 29.79 150.2 -72.78 -77.33 -614.9 1062 1195 4858 -7734 -8644 -43400 194.0 207.3 1684 1275 31370 1270 2.533 2.479 3.367 13.28 13.1 13.7 69.44 36.09 926.2 14.06 6.075 285.2 39.04 18.72 612.0 26.62 12.60 448.3 0.536 0,819 0.334

(10-l~ y-1 f d )

FM

y-'
y-'

Fz, (lo-"

fmz) MeVZ)

80s (MeV)t
A
(MeV)$
y-l fmz)

FI+

Fi-

y '

fm')

Fz+ y - l fmz) Fzy-' fm') Ex(Zt) (MeV).

t Taken from Wapstra and Audi (1985). t Taken from Haxton and Stephenson (1984). Those for "'MO, 13=Xe and lsoNd are estimates by the systematics, A = 1.12A'Iz MeV, where A without a bar denotes the mass number. ' Taken from Ledera and Shirley (1978).
a

Ellis

et n l (1984).

A p p e n d i x 2. N e u t r i n o p r o p a g a t i o n f u n c t i o n s The integration over the neutrino momentum k in equation (3.46) yields three types of neutrino propagation functions. From the terms proportional to the neutrino mass mi we obtain (Greuling and Whitten 1960)

H(r) = $[H(r,Al)+H(r,Az)l

H(r,A)
(A2.1)

122
where

T Tomoda

A = ;(Ai
with WO = Qpp

+ A2)

= $WO + (EN)- EI

(A2.2)

+ 2m,
?l

= E, - E F . The function +(z) is defined by

(A2.3)

2 . d(z) = -[sinzci(z) -coszsi(z)]

where

are the cosine and sine integrals, and

+(I) has

the properties

d(Q= 1

=-m lim

+(z) = 0.

(A2.4)

In going from the third to the last line in equation (A2.1) we used w = 1121, neglecting the neutrino mass in comparison with the typical neutrino momentum k 100 MeV. The terms proportional t o k in equation (3.46) are related to the derivative of (A2.1)
- rH(r) e

a -r--H(r,A) 8r

a(&) =r

(A2.5)

where

4 . )= +(z)- zQ(.)
with the properties

(A2.6)

a(0) = 1

a-m

lim a ( . )

=0

a ( . ) = zd(z) - -.
?l

(A2.7)

Forthe contribution of the terms with w in the numerators in equation (3.46) we define H ( r ) (Tomoda e l a / 1986) by

1 -[AzH(r,Az)
2

- 1

-AIH(~,AI)I

e H(r,A)

-a +A zH(r,A)lA=j

= 2 H ( r , A ) + r--H(r,A). dr
It should be noted that in the limit of A
References
Abrams G S el d 1989 Phya. Rev. Left 63 2173 ALEPH Collaboration 1989 Phya. Lclt. 231B 519
-+

(A2.8)

0, H(r) = -rH(r) = k(r) = 1/r

Double beta decoy

123

Anantaraman N. Toki H and Bert& G F 1983 Nucl. Phya. A 398 269 Avignone F l ' 1 1 1 and Brodzinski R L 1988 Prog. Pari. Nucl. Phya. 21 99 Avignone F T 1 1 1 , Brodzinski R L, Evans J C Jr, Hensley W K. Miley H S and Reeves J H 1986 Phys. Rev. C 34 666 Baldridge W J and Vary J P 1976 Phys. Rsu. C 14 2246 Barabash A S 1989 Phya. L e t t . 216B 257 Barabash A S, Kuzminov V V, Lohasbev V M, Novihv V M, Ovminnihv B M and P o m s k y A A 1989 Phy.8. Leff. Z23B 273 Baranger M 1960 Phys. REV. 120 957 BardJ, Ceoper L N and Sdvieffer J R 1957 Phya. Rev. 108 1175 Bardin R K, Gallon P J, U h J D and W u C S 1970 N d . Phya. A 158 337 BCg M A B, Budny R V , Mohapatra R and Sirlin A 1977 Phys. Rev. Letf. 38 1252 Beliaev V B a n d Zakhar'ev B N 1958 Zh. Eksp. Tcor. Fiz. 34 508 (Engl. transl. Sou. Phya.-JETP T 347) Bellotti E, Cremonesi 0, Fiorini E, Gervasio G , Liguori C , Ragazzi S, Rossi L, Szarka J, Svenellati P P, Tabmlli T and Zanotti L 1989 Phys. Lelt. 221B 209 BernaKu J a n d Pmcual P 1983 Nucl. Phys. B 228 21 Bilenky S M and Petcov S T 1987 Rev. Mod. Phya. 59 671 Bilenky S M and Pontecorm B 1978 Phya. Rep. 41 225 Bjorken J D and Drell S D 1965 Relntivisfic Qlranlum Fields (New York: McGraw-Hill) Boehm F and Vogel P 1984 Ann. Rev. Nuel. Port. Sci. 34 125 Bogoliubov N N 1958 Nuovo Cimcnfo 7 794 Bryman D and Picciotto C 1978 Rev. Mod. Phys. 50 11 Caldwell D 0 1988 Nuel. Instrum. Mcthoda A 264 106 Caldwell D 0,Eisberg R M, Grumm D M, Withenll M S, Goulding F S and Smith A R 1987 Phys. Rev. Lefl. 59 419 Caldwell D 0, Eisberg R M, Goulding F S , Grumm D M, Sadoulet 8, Smith A R and Withenll M S 1988 Proe. dih Moriond Workahop on Sfh Force-Nmfrino Physics (Lrs Area) 23-30 January 19dd ed 0 F a d e r and J Tran Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontihres) p 39 Caldwell D 0, Eisberg R M, Goulding F S, Magnusson B, Sadoulet B, Smith A R a n d Witherell M S 1989 Prac. 9th Moriond Workshop o n Testa of Fundamenfa1 L a m in Physics (Lea Awa) 21-28 January I989 ed 0 Fackler and J Tran Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editiolu FrontiZres) p 249 Case K M 1957 Phya. Rev. 1OT 307 Cheng T P and Li L F 1980 Phya. Rev. D 22 2860 Chikashige Y,Mohapatra R N and Peccei R D 1980 Phya. Rev. Leff. 45 1926 -1981 Phya. Leff. 9 8 B 265 Civitarese 0, Faessler A and Tomods T 1987 Phys. L c f f . 194B 11 Commins E D and Bucksbaum P H 1983 Weak Inlcradions of Leptons end @arks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Davis R Jr'l955Phys. Rev. 9'1 766 DELPHI Collaboration 1989 Phya. Letf. 231B 539 Didong M, Miither H, Goeke K and Faessler A 1976 Phyr. Rev. C 14 1189 Dieterle B D 1988 Proe. dth Moriond Workshop o n 5 f h Force-Neutrino Physics (Le* Arcs) 23-30 January 1988 ed 0 F a d e r and J T r a n Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontihres) p 57 Doi M, Kotani T. Nishiura H, Okuda K and Takasugi E 1981a Phyr. L e u . 102B 323 -1981b Phya. Lelf. 103B 219 (E 1982 113B 513) -1981c Prog. Theor. Phya. 6 6 1739 (E 1982 68 347) Doi M, Kotani T , Nishiura H and Takasugi E 1983a Pmg. T h e w . Phys. 69 602 Doi M, Kenmoku M, Kotani T, Nishiura H, Okuda K and T a k u g i E 1983b Prog. Theor. Phyr. 70 1331 Doi M, Kotani T, Nirhiura H and Takasugi E 198% Pros. Theor. Phyr. T O 1353 Doi M, Kotani T and Takasugi E 1985 Prog. Theor. Phya. Suppl. 83 1 -1988 Phys. Rev. D 37 2575 Edmonds A R 1957 Angular Momentum in Quonlum Mechanics (Princeton: Princeton Univesity Press) Ejiri H, Kamada T, Kashitani A, Kishimoto T. Kohiki T, Ohsumi H, Okada K, Sano H, Shibata T , Shima T, Tanabe N, T a h u e j E, Tanaka J , Watanabe T a n d Yamamoto N 1989 Proc. X X I I I Yamado C m f . on Nuclear Weak Process and NuelcorSlrucftlre (Osaka) 12-15 June 1989 ed M

124

T Tomoda

Morita, H Ejiri, H O h t s u b a n d T Sato (Singapore: World Scientific) p 190 Elliott S R, Hahn A A and Moe M K 1987a Phys. Rev. Left. 59 2020 1987b Phys. Rev. C 36 2129 Ellis R J , Hall B J. Dyck G R. Lander C A, S h a m K S, Barber R C and Duckworth H E 1 9 8 4 Phys. Lcff. 136B 146 Engel J. Vogel P and Zirnbauer M R 1988 Phyb. Rev. C 37 731 Escobar C 0 and Pleitez V 1983 P h y s . Rev. D 28 1166 Faessler A 1988 Pmg. P o r t Nref. Phys. 21 183 Fayans S A and Khodel V A 1 9 7 7 J . Phys. G: N u c f . Phys. 3 359 Fazely A and Liu L C 1986 Phya. Rev. Left. 57 968 1987 Phys. Rev. L e f t 59 2384 Fermi E 1 9 3 4 Z. P h y r . 88 161 Fiorini E 1 9 7 2 Rcuisfa d e l Nuovo Cimenfo 2 1 Fireman E 1 9 4 8 P h y s . Rev. 74 1 2 3 8 Fddy L L and Wouthuysem S A 1950 P h y r . Rev. 78 2 9 Friar J L 1966 Nacl. Phya. 87 4 0 7 Fritzsch H and Minkowski P 1975 Ann. Phys., NY 93 193 Furry W H 1939 P h y s . REV.56 1184 Gell-Mann M, Ramond P and R Slansky 1979 Supcrgmuify ed P van Nieuwenhuizen and D 2 Freedman (Amsterdam: North Holland) p 315 Gelmini G B and Roncadelli M 1981 Phys. Leu. 9 9 B 4 1 1 Georgi H 1975 P o r t i e f e s and Fields (Wilfiamaburg) 1974, A l p Cmf. PIOC vol 2 3 ed C E Carlson (New York: American Institute of Physics) p 575 Georgi H and Glashow S L 1974 P h y a . Rev. LLtt. 32 4 3 8 Georgi H M, Glashow S L and Nussinov S 1981 Nucl. Phyr. B 193 2 9 7 Gerling E K , Shukdyukov Yu A a n d Ashkinadze G S h 1967 Yod. Fiz 6 311 (Engl. transl. 1968 So. J . Nul. Phys. 6 226) Glashow S L 1961 N d . P h y s . 22 579 Goeppert-Mayer M 1935 Phya. Rev. 48 5 1 2 Goldstone J 1961 Nuovo Cimrnfo 19 1 5 4 Greuling E and Whitten R C 1960 A n n . Phya., NY 11 510 Grotz K and Klapdor H V 1985a Phys. Lett. 153B 1 -1965b Phys. L e t t 157B 242 -1966 Nucl. Phys. A 460 395 Grate K , Klapdor H V and Metzinger J 1983 J. Phya. G: Nucl. Phys. 9 L169 Giirsey F,b o n d P and Sikivie P 1976 Phya. L e f t . 60B 177 Halbleib J A Sr and Sorensen R A 1967 Nrrcl. Phys. A 98 542 Halprin A, Minkowski P, Primakoff H and Rosen S P 1976 Phya. Rev. D 13 2 6 6 7 Haxton W C, Stephenson G J Jr and Strottman D 1981 P h y s . Rev. Left. 4T 153 -1 9 8 2 a Phys. Reu. D 25 2360 Haxton W C, Rosen S P and Stephenson G J Jr 1 9 8 2 b Phys. Rev. D 26 1805 Haxton W C and Stephenson G J Jr 1 9 8 4 Prop. P a r t . Nucf. Phys. 12 409 Holinde K 1981 Phys. Rep. 68 1 2 1 Huffman A H 1970 Phys. Re. C 2 742 Inghram M G and Reynolds J H 1950 Phys. Rev. 78 822 Kaysa B 1984 P h y s . Reu. D 30 1 0 2 3 Khodel V A 197Oa Yad. Fir. 12 916 (1971 Sou. J . Nucf. Phys. 12 499) -1970b Phyr. Left. 32B 583 -1 9 7 4 Yod. F$. 20 317 (1975 Sov. J . Nuel. Phya. 20 1 6 9 ) Kinten T 1983 Science Underground (Loa Afamoa) 1982, AIP Conf. Proc. vol 96 ed M M Nieto, W C Haxton, C M Hoffman, E W Kolb, V D Sandberg and J W Toevs (New York: American Institute of Physics) p 396 Kirsten T, Schaeffer 0 A , Norton E and Stoenna R W 1968 Phys. Rev. L e f t 20 1300 Kirsten T,Richter H and Jessberger E 1983a Phys. Re*. L r f f . 50 474 -1983b Z. P h y s . C 16 189 Kirsten T, Heusser E, Kaether D, Oehm J, P e d & E and Richter H 1986 Proc. Inf. Symp. on NwfLelrar Befa Decays and Neufrino (Osaka) 11-13 June 1986 ed T Kotani, H Ejiri and E Takaeugj (Singapore: World Scientific) p 81

Dovble beta decay

125

Klapdor H V and Grotz K 1984 Phys. Lett. 1 4 2 B 323 Klimenko A A, Osetrov S B. Pom-ky A A, Smolnikw A A a n d Vasilyev S I1986 Proc. I d . Symp. on Weak a n d E l e c t m m a g n e t i e Interactions in Nuclei (Heidelberg) 1-5 J d y 1986 e d H V Klapdor (Berlin: Springer) P 701 Klimenko A A. Kuz'minov V V, Lobashev V M, Novikov V M, Ovchinnikw B M, Osetrov S B, Pomansky A A, Pritichenko B V. Smol'nikov h A, Vasiliev S I and Barabash A S 1988 Proe. XVI INS Inl. Symp. o n Nelrtrino Mass and Related Topics (Tokyo) 16-18 March 1988 ed S Kato and T Ohshima (Singapore: World Scientific) p 170 Kokkedee J J J 1969 The Qaark Modcl (New York: Benjamin) Konopiniski E J 1966 Theory 01Beta Radioactivity (London: Oxford University Press) Konopiniski E J and Mahmoud H M 1953 Phys. Rev. 92 1045 K o t h T 1990 t o be published i n Proc. Thini Meeting on Phyaica at TeV Energy Scele (KEK) 28-30 September1989 ed K Hidaki and C S Lim (Tsukuba: KEK) p 38 Koyama S-I, Takahashi K and Yamada M 1970 P m g . Theor. Phyr. 44 663 K u o T T S and Brown G E 1968 Nucl. Phys. A 114 241 Lacombe M, Loiseau B, Richard J M, Vinh Mau R, C6tC J, Piri.5 P and de Tourreil R 1980 Phys. Rev. C 21 861 Langacker P 1981 Phya. Rep. 72 185 Lawson R D 1961 Phys. Rev. 1 2 4 1500 Lazarenko V R 1966 Lisp. Fiz. Nauk. 90 601 (1967 Sov. Phya. Lisp. 9 860) Lederer C M and Shirley V S (ed) 1978 T d l c o f l a o t o p e s , 7th cdn (New York: Wiley) Lee T D and Yang C N 1956 Phys. Reu. 104 254 Levine C A, Ghiorso A and Seaborg G T 1950 Phys. Re". 77 296 Lin W J, Manuel 0 K, Gumming G L, Krstic D and Thorpe R I 1988a Nucl. Phya. A 481 477 Lin W J, Manuel 0 K, Muangnoicharoen S and Thorpe R I1988h Nucl. Phyr. A 481 484 L3 Collaboration 1989 Phys. Lett. 2 3 1 B 509 Madey R, Anderson B D. Flanders B S and Watson J W 1986 Proc. Int. Symp. on Weak and Electmmognetic Interactions i n Nuclei (Heidelbeq) 1-5 July 1986 ed H V Klapdor (Berlin: Springer) p 280 Madey R, Flanders B S.Anderson B D. Baldwin A R, Watson J W, Austin S M, Foster C C , Klapdor H V and Grotz K 1989 Phys. Rev. C 40 540 MajorE 1937 Nuovo C i m c n t o 1 4 171 Marti K and Murty S V S 1985 Phya. Lett. 163B 71 McGrory J 8, Wildenthal B H and Halbert E C 1970 Phya. Rev. C 2 186 Migdal A B 1967 Theory of Finite Fermi S y s t e m s a n d Applications t o Atomic Nuclei (New York: Wiley) Miller G A and Spencer J E 1976 Ann. Phyr., NY 100 562 Moe M K, Elliott S R a n d Hahn A A 1988 Proc. 8 t h Moriond Workakop on 5th Force-Neutrino P h y s i c s (Le3 Arcs) 23-30 J a n v o r y 1988 ed 0 Fackler and J Tran T h a n h Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontikres) p 47 D 34 909 Mohapatra R N 1986 Phys. RLU. Mohapatra R N and Vergados J D 1981 Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 1713 Molina A and Pascual P 1977 NILOVO C i m c n t o A 4 1 756 Murty S V S and Marti K 1987 Ccochim. Coamoehim. A c t o 51 163 Muto K , Bender E a n d Klapdor H V 1989a Z. P h y r . A 334 177 -1989b 2.Phyr. A 3 3 4 187 Muto K and Klapdor H V 1988a P h y t . Lelt. ZO1B 420 -1988b N c d r i n o s ed H V Klapdor (Berlin: Springer) p 183 Nambu Y 1960 Phys. Rev. Left. 4 380 Nieven J F1984 Phyr. Lett. 1 4 7 B 375 OPAL Collaboration 1989 Phyr. Lett. 2 3 1 B 530 Particle Data Group 1984 Rcu. Mod. P h y r . 56 SI Petcov S T 1982 Phys. Lett. llOB 245 Picciotto C 1978 Con. J. Phya. 56 399 Picciotto C E and Zsbir M S 1982 Phyr. Rea. D 26 2320 Pontecorvo B 1968 Phys. Lett. 2 6 B 630 P r i m d o f f H and Rosen S P 1959 Rep. Prog. Phya. 22 121 ( E 1961 Proc. Phya. Soc. 7 8 464) -1969 Phya. Rev. 184 1925

126

T Tomoda

-1981 Ann.

Rev. Nocl. P e r t . Sci. 31 145 Racah G 1937 Nuovo Cimsnlo 1 4 322 Rose M E 1961 Relotiviatic Electron Theory (New York: Wiley) Rose M E and Osborn R K 1954 P h y r . Rev. 9 3 1315 Ryan C and Okubo S 1964 Nuovo C i m c n i o Suppl. 2 234 Salam A 1963 E l e m e n t a r y P o r t i c l c Theory ed N Svartbdm (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell) p 367 S c h c c h t a J and Valle J W F 1980 Phya. Rev. D 22 2227 1982 Phya. Rcu. D 25 2951 S M d K W, Griuruner F and Faessler A 1984 Nucl. Phya. A 4 3 1 205 Skouras L D and Vergados J D 1983 Phys. Rev. C 28 2122 Smith D, Picciotto C and Bryman D 1973 Phya. Lett. 4 6 B 157 Sorensen R A 1961 Nucl. Phya. 25 674 Sugawara H and von Hippel F 1968 Phyr. Rev. 172 1764 Suhonen J. Faessler A, Taigd T and Tomoda T 1988 P h y s . L d f . 202B 174 Takahashi K 1971 P w g . Theor. P h y i . 45 1466 Takaharhi K and Yamada M 1969 Prog. T h e m . Phys. 41 1470 T a b k a N and Ogata K 1966 2 . Noturforsch. A 2 1 84 T a h u g i E 1984 Phys. L e t t 1 4 9 B 372 Tomoda T 1987 Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 2383 1988 Nucl. Phys. A 484 635 Tomoda T and Faessler A 1987 Phys. Lett. 1 9 9 B 475 Tomoda T, Faessler A, Schnid K W and Gliimmer F 1985 Phys. Lett. 157B 4 1986 Nucl. Phya. A 452 591 Tsuboi T, Muto K and Horie H 1984 Phys. Leif. 1 4 3 B 293 Valle J W F 1983 Phys. Rev. D 27 1672 Valatin J G 1958 Nuovo C i m e n t o 7 843 Vase& A A, Kirpichnikov I V, Kuznetsov V A , Starmtin A S, Djanyan A G , Pogosov V S, Shacfiysisyan S P and Tamanyan A G 1990 Mod. P h y r . Ldi. A 5 1299 Vergadm J D 1976 Phys. Rev. C 13 865 1981 Phys. Reu. C 24 640 1982a Phya. Rev. D 25 914 1982b Phys. Lett. 109B 9 6 (E 1982 1 1 3 B 513) 1983 Nuel. Phys. B 218 109 1986 Phya. Rep. 1 3 3 1 Vergados J D, Faessla A and Tomoda T 1988 N d . Phys. A 490 556 Vogel P and Fisher P 1985 P h y s . Rev. C 32 1362 Vogel P and Zirnbauer M R 1986 Phya. Rev. Lett. 5 7 3148 Vuilleumier J-L 1988 Pioe. 8 t h M o r i o n d Workahog on 5 t h Force-Neutrino Physics ( L u A m ) 23-30 J a n a a r g 1988 ed 0 Fadderand J ?ian Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontibrer) p 25 Wapstra A H and Audi G 1985 Nucl. Phys. A 432 55 WatanabeMandTokiH 1986 Proc. h i . Symp. on Nuclear Beto Decoys and Neutrino (Osaka) 11-19 June 19d6 ed T Kotani, H Ejiri and E Takasugi (Singapore: World Scientific) p 212 Weinberg S 1967 Phys. Rev. Lett. 1 9 1264 Witten E 1980 Phys. Lcti. 9 1 B 81 Wolfenstein L 1981a Nucl. Phya. B 186 147 1981b P h y r . Lcft. 107B 77 1982 Phys. Reu. D 26 2507 Wong H T, Boehm F, Fisher P. Gabathuler K , Henrikson H E, Iqbal M Z , Mitchell L W, O'CallaghHay B M, Thomas J, Treichel M,Vuilleumier J-G and Vuilleumier J-L 1989 Proc. 9 t h Moriond W o r t r h o p D O Tests of F u n d a m e n t a l Laws in P h y r i c s (Ler Aics) 21-28 J o n u o v y 1989 ed 0 FscLler and J Tran Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontieres) p 231 Wu C S, Ambler E, Hayward R W, Hoppes D D and Hudson R P 1957 Phys. Rev. 105 1413 Wu H F,Song H Q, Kuo T T S, Cheng W K and Strottman D 1985 Phyr. Left. 1 6 2 B 227 Yanagida T 1979 Pmc. Workahog on Unified Theory a n d Baryon Number in fhc Univcrrc 1979 ed 0 Sawsda and A Sugamoto (Tsukuba: KEK) p 95 Z d c k L and Auerbam N 1982 Phya. Rcv. C 26 2185 Zdesenko Yu G 1980 Fiz. Elrm. Choatits At. Yadra 11 1369 (1980 Sou. J. P o r t . Nucl. 11 542)