Re: Query on Neutrinoless Double Beta decay.

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Robert B Zannelli wrote:

> In a message dated 4/6/02 2:20:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV
> writes:
>
> << I have a five cent bet with one of my colleagues that the claims of
>  neutrinoless double-beta decay will "go away".  The bet comes after my
>  reading of the paper.  My view is based on experience and intuition,
>  developed over a half-century of evaluating experimentalists' claims.
>
>  My advice.  A good experiment really grabs you when you look at the
>  experimental details.
>                                          Regards,
>                                                  Jack >>
> Jack I agree with you on this. However my opinion hardly carries the weight
> your does so it's nice to see you agree. It's also my opinion that this mode
> of decay will never be observed. This opinion is based on the ideas of Gerald
> L. Fitzpatrick which models flavor dynamics in terms of a lorenzian two
> space. The Scalar values in this two space are defined as global charges
> which in my opinion are always conserved except when flavor mixing occurs.
> For example, in neutrino mixing or in the case of Quarks, Cabibbo mixing. It
> is well known that if the Cabibbo angle were zero their could be no quark
> decays and since leptons have no exact analog to Cabibbo mixing they always
> conserve generation number when they decay.  His papers are available at LANL
> eprint for anyone interested. He is presenting these ideas at the next APS
> meeting May 17, 18 in British Columbia.
>
> Bob Zannelli
        I don't understand.  The issue is whether or not the electron
neutrino is, or is not, its own antiparticle.  Decay rates are readily
calculated in either event.  The reported experiment, done over a very
long period of time, seems to give a decay rate consistent with that for
which the neutrino is its own antiparticle.  Looking at the paper, I don't
find the reported decay rate to be very convincing.
        Is there compelling evidence for the Fitzgerald model that
distinguishes that model from the standard model (which does not comment
on the issue at hand)?
                                Regards,
                                        Jack

--
"But as much as I love and respect you, I will beat you and I will kill
you, because that is what I must do.  Tonight it is only you and me, fish.
It is your strength against my intelligence.  It is a veritable potpourri
of metaphor, every nuance of which is fraught with meaning."
                     Greg Nagan from "The Old Man and the Sea" in
                     <The 5-MINUTE ILIAD and Other Classics>