Paper detail

Comparing radiative and recoil corrections in neutron beta-decay and inverse beta-decay

The inverse $β$-decay reaction, anti-nu_e + p --> e^+ + n, for low-energy anti-neutrinos coming from nuclear reactors is of great current interest in connection with high-precision measurements of the neutrino mixing angle $θ_{13}$. We have previously derived analytic expressions, up to next-to-leading order in heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory, for the radiative corrections (RCs) and the nucleon-recoil corrections both for this reaction and for the related neutron $β$-decay process. We investigate here the numerical consequences of these analytic expressions. We show that the recoil corrections are small for neutron $β$-decay, but for inverse $β$-decay, the recoil corrections are comparable in size to the RCs for typical energies of reactor anti-neutrinos, and they have opposite signs. It turns out that the RCs and the recoil corrections exhibit very different dependences on the neutrino energy.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.