AG-2026.04-1257·hep-ph·cross-listed: physics.hist-ph
"Neutrinoless double beta decay" is the correct name for neutrinoless double beta decay
Authors
- James M. Cline
Abstract
Recently arxiv:2604.12897 urged that the terminology "neutrinoless double beta decay" should be changed to "Majorana double beta decay" to properly give credit to Majorana, and to focus on the positive aspects of the phenomenon -- supposed creation of matter in the laboratory -- rather than the negative: absence of something, embarrassment over false claims of detection, and a "sociology of suspicion." I argue that the current terminology is more accurate and descriptive, and that the claimed reasons for its adoption are lacking in credibility.
Submitted
19 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.17545
Summary
A physicist argues that 'neutrinoless double beta decay' is the correct name for this rare nuclear process, rejecting a recent proposal to rename it 'Majorana double beta decay' on both scientific and historical grounds.
- The current name accurately describes what happens physically—a nucleus undergoes double beta decay without emitting neutrinos—making it clearer and more descriptive than an alternative name.
- Renaming the phenomenon wouldn't actually give Majorana more credit, since the physics involves multiple contributions beyond Majorana's work, and terminology conventions don't typically serve as historical credit.
- This is a rare example of physicists debating nomenclature itself: the stakes are modest, but the disagreement highlights how scientific naming reflects both accuracy and sometimes unspoken values about what deserves emphasis.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.