Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Inspection of the detection cross section dependence of the Gallium Anomaly

Published 19 Dec 2022 in hep-ph, hep-ex, nucl-ex, and nucl-th | (2212.09722v3)

Abstract: We discuss in detail the dependence of the Gallium Anomaly on the detection cross section. We provide updated values of the size of the Gallium Anomaly and find that its significance is larger than about $5\sigma$ for all the detection cross section models. We discuss the dependence of the Gallium Anomaly on the assumed value of the half life of ${}{71}\text{Ge}$, which determines the cross sections of the transitions from the ground state of ${}{71}\text{Ga}$ to the ground state of ${}{71}\text{Ge}$. We show that a value of the ${}{71}\text{Ge}$ half life which is larger than the standard one can reduce or even solve the Gallium Anomaly. Considering the short-baseline neutrino oscillation interpretation of the Gallium Anomaly, we show that a value of the ${}{71}\text{Ge}$ half life which is larger than the standard one can reduce the tension with the results of other experiments. Since the standard value of the ${}{71}\text{Ge}$ half life was measured in 1985, we advocate the importance of new measurements with modern technique and apparatus for a better assessment of the Gallium Anomaly.

Authors (4)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (27)
  1. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE), Phys. Rev. C73, 045805 (2006), nucl-ex/0512041 .
  2. M. Laveder, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 168, 344 (2007).
  3. C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22, 2499 (2007), hep-ph/0610352 .
  4. P. Anselmann et al. (GALLEX), Phys. Lett. B342, 440 (1995).
  5. W. Hampel et al. (GALLEX), Phys. Lett. B420, 114 (1998).
  6. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4708 (1996).
  7. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE), Phys. Rev. C59, 2246 (1999), hep-ph/9803418 .
  8. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE), Phys. Rev. C80, 015807 (2009), arXiv:0901.2200 [nucl-ex] .
  9. J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. C56, 3391 (1997), hep-ph/9710491 .
  10. C. Giunti and T. Lasserre, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 163 (2019), arXiv:1901.08330 [hep-ph] .
  11. B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys.Rept. 928, 63 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph] .
  12. V. Barinov et al. (BEST), Phys.Rev.Lett. 128, 232501 (2022a), arXiv:2109.11482 [nucl-ex] .
  13. V. Barinov et al. (BEST), Phys.Rev.C 105, 065502 (2022b), arXiv:2201.07364 [nucl-ex] .
  14. R. L. Workman (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022).
  15. A. P. Serebrov et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 032003 (2021), arXiv:2005.05301 [hep-ex] .
  16. V. Barinov and D. Gorbunov, Phys. Rev. D 105, L051703 (2022), arXiv:2109.14654 [hep-ph] .
  17. M. V. Danilov and N. A. Skrobova, JETP Lett. 112, 452 (2020).
  18. W. C. Haxton, Phys. Lett. B431, 110 (1998), nucl-th/9804011 .
  19. D. Frekers et al., Phys. Rev. C91, 034608 (2015).
  20. S. V. Semenov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 83, 1549 (2020).
  21. D. Krofcheck et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1051 (1985).
  22. D. Krofcheck,   (1987), phD Thesis, Ohio State University.
  23. J. N. Bahcall, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 881 (1978).
  24. M. Alanssari et al., Int. J. Mass Spectrometry 406, 1 (2016).
  25. G. Rudstam,   (1956), PhD Thesis, University of Uppsala.
  26. W. Hampel and L. Remsberg, Phys. Rev. C31, 666 (1985).
  27. G. D’Agostini, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A346, 306 (1994).
Citations (13)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.