What I'm missing in the article is actually the crucial point:
How do you distinguish between the "ordinary if rare" conventional double-beta (that has reproducibly been observed for Ge76 -> Se76 + 2β + 2 anti-ν) and the hypothetical neutrino-less one ?
In "ordinary" beta decay, the (anti)neutrino takes part of the decay energy and hence the energy spectrum of the electron emitted is "blurry". "ordinary double beta" would imply the same, both of the (seen) emitted electrons should show an energy spectrum.
If at least some of these double-betas were neutrinoless, the two electrons would take the entire decay energy.
If you observe a lot of double-beta, you should therefore see the "smooth" ordinary (non-neutrinoless) spectrum ... with an excess at the top end (neutrinoless).
Is that correct? I.e. we're basically trying to measure enough double beta to get an energy distribution spectrum, and then hope/expect to see a "majorana peak" at the top end?
How do you distinguish between the "ordinary if rare" conventional double-beta (that has reproducibly been observed for Ge76 -> Se76 + 2β + 2 anti-ν) and the hypothetical neutrino-less one ?
In "ordinary" beta decay, the (anti)neutrino takes part of the decay energy and hence the energy spectrum of the electron emitted is "blurry". "ordinary double beta" would imply the same, both of the (seen) emitted electrons should show an energy spectrum. If at least some of these double-betas were neutrinoless, the two electrons would take the entire decay energy. If you observe a lot of double-beta, you should therefore see the "smooth" ordinary (non-neutrinoless) spectrum ... with an excess at the top end (neutrinoless).
Is that correct? I.e. we're basically trying to measure enough double beta to get an energy distribution spectrum, and then hope/expect to see a "majorana peak" at the top end?