Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "An Improved Limit on Pauli-Exclusion-Principle Forbidden Atomic Transitions"

See other formats







Noname manuscript No. 

(will be inserted by the editor) 

S.R. Elliott • B.H. LaRoque • V.M. Gehman 
M.F. Kidd • M. Chen 

An Improved Limit on Pauli-Exclusion-Principle 
Forbidden Atomic Transitions 

Received: date / Accepted: date 


pg Abstract We have examined the atomic theory behind recent constraints on the violation of the Pauli 

Exclusion Principle derived from experiments that look for x rays emitted from conductors while a 
large current is present. We also re-examine the assumptions underlying such experiments. We use the 
results of these studies to assess pilot measurements to develop an improved test of the Principle. We 

Qv present an improved limit of |/3^ < 2.6 x 10^"^^ on the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This limit is the best 

to date for interactions between a system of fermions and a fermion that has not previously interacted 
with that given system. That is, for systems that do not obviously violate the Messiah-Greenberg 
symmetrization-postulate selection rule. 

PACS ll.30.-j • 03.65.-W • 32.30.Rj 

1 Introduction 

O^ Pauli's original idea |46) for the exclusion principle was postulated to explain patterns in the periodic 

^ table. Recently there has been interest in theories that might permit a small violation of the Pauli 

Exclusion Principle (PEP). The introduction of Ref. |jjj provides a guide to the literature with regard 

' ! to both theory and experiment. 

#y^ Messiah and Greenberg described a superselection rule regarding the symmetrization postulate 

(SP) in 1964 39J by noting "In summary, for systems with a fixed number of particles, there is a 
superselection rule between symmetry types which permits one to insert SP in the quantum theory in 
a consistent way. However the postulate does not appear as a necessary feature of the QM description of 
nature." The paper by Amado and Primakoff [2] used different phrasing stating "Even if some principle 
permitted small mixed symmetry components in wave functions that are primarily antisymmetric, and 
kept them small, the symmetric world Hamiltonian would only connect mixed symmetry states to mixed 
symmetry states, just as it connects only antisymmetric states to antisymmetric states" . This argues 
that electrons or nucleons in higher orbits are forbidden from transitions to lower orbits regardless of 

S.R. Elliott • B.H. LaRoque ■ V.M. Gehman • M.F. Kidd 

Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 


M. Chen 

Department of Physics and Life Sciences, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 


V.M. Gehman 

present Address: Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720 

B.H. LaRoque 

Present Address: Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 

the PEP and although such studies still test other prohibited processes (e.g. electron or nucleon decay), 
they are not explicitly a test of the PEP. Subsequently a number of authors developed models that 
contained small violations of the PEP [551[?fl[251[2tlH51El[251[2^fr7] . but still experimental efforts must 
confront this constraint. The experiment of Ramberg and Snow [35] pioneered a technique intended to 
avoid the Messiah-Greenberg superselection rule by introducing new electrons into a system. These new 
electrons would supposedly not have an established symmetry with respect to the electrons already 
contained within the system, thus avoiding the constraint. To accomplish this, Ramberg and Snow 
(RS) ran a high electrical current through a Cu conductor and searched for evidence of x rays emitted 
by a PEP-forbidden transition during a capture of an electron onto a Cu atom. 

The parameter ^(3^ has become commonly used to define the probability for a symmetric component 
of a fermion system wave function in a mixed state or the probability that when fermions form a state, 
it is symmetric. However, it has been shown that small violations of the symmetry principle are outside 
the context of quantum field theory. The paper by Greenberg [55] gives a succinct summary of the 
theoretical situation. As a result, it is likely an over-simplification to compare this parameter as deduced 
from different systems directly and a wide variety of tests of the PEP are warranted. For example, 
the recent effort by the DAMA group [10,13 resulted in a strong constraint, but it is subject to the 
Messiah-Greenberg superselection rule. In Table [T] we summarize the previous experimental results. 
These tests include looking for forbidden transitions in atomic or nuclear systems as well as looking 
for atoms in Pauli-forbidden states. 

In Section [2l we discuss the concept of a new fermion and the assumptions underlying the various 
experimental results. Next in Section [3] we address atomic physics issues related to the capture of 
electrons in PEP violating processes and the impact on the derivation of limits. In Section |4] we 
summarize our experimental activities and our results. In particular, we find that Pb offers many 
advantages over Cu in a RS-style experiment. We describe searches for PEP- violating capture on 
atoms by electrons from three different origins. Finally we finish with some discussion. 

2 The New Electron Conundrum 

When a fermion initiates an interaction with a system, it will form a total wave-function that is 
antisymmetric in the interchange of any two identical fermions in the system. However, if the PEP is 
violated, then it is possible that on some rare occasions, the resulting wave-function may be symmetric. 
Once the symmetry of the system is established, however, the Messiah-Greenberg superselection rule 
indicates that the transition probability between the two symmetry states is zero. Therefore to avoid 
this constraint, we must search for processes where a new fermion interacts with a system containing 
identical fermions and forms a symmetric state. How we define the term new in this context relates 
to the assumptions under which any given test of the PEP is done. The Violation of Pauli exclusion 
principle (VIP) collaboration began a speculative discussion on this topic j9j. Here we expand on that 
discussion by classifying various levels of newness and state the underlying assumptions. This list is 
ordered in decreasing confidence that the fermion-system interaction is new. We define: 

— Type I interactions are between a system of fermions and a fermion that has not previously inter- 
acted with any other fermions. 

— Type II interactions are between a system of fermions and a fermion that has not previously 
interacted with that given system. 

^ Type HI interactions are between a system of fermions and a fermion within that given system. 

In the following paragraphs we expound on these definitions in the context of Table [Tl 

— Type-I Primordial System Formation: Soon after the Big Bang, when the particle content of the 
Universe was just coming into being, all fermions would be new fermions. If some fraction of them 
formed symmetric states, they might have survived until the present epoch. The standard of this 
type of test is a search for anomalous nuclear state ^Li |52| . The survival of an anomalous atomic 
state within a chemical environment over cosmic time scales seems less likely and we don't consider 
those as examples of this Type. 

— Type-la Recently Created Fermions Interacting with a System: The original experiment along 
this line was that of Goldhaber and Scharff-Goldhaber [23j where they searched for PEP violating 
capture of ^"^C /3 rays onto Pb atoms. The fundamental point being that the /3 particles were 

Table 1 A summary of previous limits on the Pauli Exclusion Principle. A indicates an atom where the inner- 
most shell has 3 electrons instead of 2. A indicates a nucleus with added nucleons in the ground state. The 
classification by Type is described in the text, ej refers to an electron that is part of a current, e7 refers to 
an electron within the Fermi sea of a metal, and Cpp refers to an electron produced by pair production. 

Process Type Experimental Limit 

^^2 limit 

Reference | 

Atomic Transitions 

p- +Pb^ Pb 


3 X 10-2 


e~j, + Ge'^ Ge 


1.4 X 10"^ 

This Work 

eJ +Cu^ Cu 


1.7 X 10-2« 


eJ + Cu — >• Cu 


4.5 X 10-2« 


eJ + Cu — >• Cu 


6.0 X 10-29 


eJ + Pb^ Pb 


1.5 X 10-2^ 

This Work 

eJ + Pb^ Pb 


2.6 X 10"^^ 

This Work 

I — >• J+x ray 


r > 2 X lO^'^sec 

3 X lO-*-! 


/ — >• J+x ray 


r > 4.7 X 10^°sec 

6.5 X 10-*'' 


Nuclear Transitions 

12^^12^7 + 7 


r > 6 X lO^V 

1.7 X lO"*"! 


12^^12 C + 7 


r > 4.2 X lO^^'y 


12^^12 C + 7 


r > 5.0 X 10'"y 

2.2 X 10"" 


16q^16 Q^^ 


r > 4.6 X lO^V 

2.3 X 10"" 


'''C ^^'' N + r + '^e 


r > 3.1 X lO^^'y 


'^C ^'''' N + r + '^e 


r > 3.1 X 10^'V 


^''c^'^ N + r + y. 


r > 0.97 X lO^^sec 

6.5 X lO"^"! 


^^C -^'''' B + I3+ + U, 


r > 2.6 X lO^^'y 


i2c7 V^ B + /3+ + z.. 


r > 2.1 X 10^°y 

2.1 X 10"^^ 


12^7^11 5 + p 


r > 8.9 X lO^V 

7.4 X lO-'^" 


2^Na^^^ Ne + p 


T > 7 X lO^-'y 





T > 9 X lO^-'y 





r > 5 X lO^^y 

2 X 10-55 




r > 5 X lO^'^y 

2 X 10-55 


neutron emission from Pb 


r > 1.0 X lO^^V 


12^^11 C + n 


r > 3.4 X lO^V 


i6o-^i^O + n 


r > 1.0 X lO^V 


i6o^i^O + n 


T > 3.7 X lO^V 


12^ ^8 ^-g ^ ^ 


r > 6.1 X lO^^y 


Na/I -^ Na/I -^ X 


r > 1.7x lO^V 

1.5 X 10-53 


Nuclear Reactions 

^''C + p^^^'C + p' 


1^(51°) <40/6/sr 


'-'C+p^'' B + a 




Anomalous Nuclear Structures 



< 2 X IQ-i'"'' 


'"Li/^Li, ^Li ^« Be + e- + i^^ 


< 2.1 X 10"^'^ 

< 5 X 10-33 


Anomalous Atomic Structures 


< 9 X 10-12 



< 2.5 X 10-12 



< 2 X 10-21 



<4x 10-1^ 

for H-like ions 


Search for [ls2s]]^^ti^y^So state in He 

= (0.2 + 5.0) X 10-'^ 


Neutrino Statistics 

'""Mo ^"™ Re + 2/3' +2 bosionic !?, | la | sin''x < 0.6 | 

m 1 

Astrophysics and Cosmology 

Solar burning and p-p bound state 


< 1.6 X 10-15 


Primordial nucleosynthesis and ^Li 


^-Li/^Li < 8 X 10-1** 

< 2 X 10-2» 


Supernova neutrons and anomal. nuclei 


O/O < 10-1* 

< lo-i'^ 


Neutrino stat. and primordial nucleosyn. 


"'He production 


Thermal evolution of the Universe 


< 10-15 - 10-1^ 


electrons that had no previous interaction with the target atoms. That experiment was the best 
example of this type prior to this work, although the limit is not very restrictive. Such recently- 
created fcrmions could also be produced by pair production or nuclear reactions. 
Type-II Distant Fermions Brought to Interact with a System: The Ramberg-Snow experiment is 
the classic example of this approach with the best previous limit by VIP. The current electrons 
through a conductor were assumed to have no previous contact with the target and therefore the 
experiment searched for PEP-violating transition x rays from that conductor. This assumption 
has some subtlety, however. The power supplies used by these experiments use AC current from 
modern power grids. Hence the electrons that comprise the current originate from the conduction 
electrons within the target sample and circuitry that joins the sample to the power supply. The 
electrons are recirculated through the power supply. Therefore one might assume the fraction of 
these electrons that are within the target to be less new than electrons that were originally part 
of the other circuitry. Using a battery to produce the electrons might be more in line with this 
category of new fermions, however it would be difhcult to sustain large current for an extended 
time with that technique. 

Corinaldesi 18J suggested that the anti-symmetry of half-integral spin particles under exchange 
is not a kinematic principle but rather the time-dependent consequence of interactions among the 
particles and a newly formed system may undergo PEP-violating transitions, whose probability 
decreases in time. Shimony [50' proposed an experiment to test this hypothesis using crossed Ne 
ion and electron beams. Although this proposal fits our definition of a Type II experiment, the 
added time-dependence is a twist. 

Type-IIa Nearby Fermions Brought to Interact with System: The electrons in the Fermi sea of a 
conductor will interact with a specific atom in that conductor rarely. Because the time scale for 
a given electron to interact with a given atom is long, one could argue that each interaction is a 
legitimate new test of the PEP. The Ramberg-Snow style experiments can all be analyzed this way. 
Although the Fermi sea electrons and the atomic system electrons are both systems that have been 
established as antisymmetric, the interaction of the two can be assumed to be a new interaction. 
Type-Ill Stable System Transition: The Reines-Sobel experiment, of which the DAMA result is 
the best to date, defines this model as an system of electrons in an established symmetry state. A 
search is conducted for a spontaneous PEP-violating transition of one of the electrons. There are 
also many examples of experiments looking for similar processes in nuclei. All violate the Messiah- 
Greenberg superselection rule. 

Type-IIIa Stable System Transition with Particle Transmutation: The search for /? decays that can 
only occur if the PEP is violated is an interesting case. Such decays take place in a localized anti- 
symmetric nuclear system, however the nucleon created in the final PEP-violating state changes 
charge. This begs the question: Is this a freshly created fermion interacting with a system with 
which it has had no prior contact? We argue that the answer is no, because since the fermions 
never leave the nucleus, the PEP test is on-going within a localized system. 

3 Atomic Theory 

The theory of the capture of a free electron onto an atom via a PEP violating process has not been 
studied well in the literature. To quantitatively describe this process requires an estimate of the prob- 
ability that it will be captured (Pcpt), a description of the cascade process and transition branching 
ratios as the electron proceeds toward the ground state, and finally the energies of x rays emitted dur- 
ing this cascade. The experimental searches for PEP violation in this report all relate to the capture 
of electrons by an atom. In this section therefore, we examine these atomic physics issues upon which 
our derived limits depend. 

3.1 The Capture Probability 

When an electron collides with an atom, the probability that it will be captured (Pcpt) was assumed 
by RS to be greater than 10% [48,. The VIP collaboration used the same estimate so results could be 

compared. Pcpt, however, likely depends on the atomic number of the target atom. To better understand 
the capture cross section, we considered previous calculations of muon capture and direct radiative 
recombination. The PEP-violating capture of an electron is analogous to the capture of a muon, if 
the muon mass was that of an electron. Previous estimates of the muon capture cross sections use the 
approximation that the muon mass is much greater than the electron mass and use classical equations 
of motion for the muon [30j . These assumptions will not be valid for particles with mass equal to that 
of the electron. In contrast, direct radiative recombination (DRR) cross sections calculated for electron 
capture on ions holds more promise. A modified Kramer's formula 536] has been shown to effectively 
reproduce the DRR cross section. The accuracy of this approach has been investigated and verified [S5] 
to low electron energies applicable to the Fermi sea in a metal. 

To estimate Pcpt^ we use the modified Kramer's formula of Ref. j36| and make two assumptions. 
First, we assume that this formula and its expression for the effective Z is a reasonable approximation 
for a neutral atom. [Zeff — \{Z -\- Z^on), where Zio^ is the ionization state of the atom and is equal 
to zero for a neutral atom.) Second, we calculate the total cross section by summing over all atomic 
levels (that is for all n), instead of only summing over open shell levels. This latter point simply states 
that a PEP-violating transition can be to any of the atomic shells. In our analysis, we search for 2-1 
transitions, therefore we calculate the partial cross section by summing over n > 2. The cross section 
is then given by: 

^ -^ Sir a^ Z^ff 

Z^ . . . 

where £"„ — (13.6 eV) "i^ is the binding energy of level n, and K is the incident electron energy. 

In Pb (Cu) the Fermi energy is 9.47 eV (7.0 eV) [MJ, and Eqn. [l] gives 1.2 x lO^^^cm^ (1.9 x 
lO^-'^^cm^). One can compare this to the cross section (ae) for an interaction between a conduction 
electron and an atom. The mean free path {fi) for an current electron in Pb (Cu) is 2.34xl0~^ cm 
(3.91 X 10~^ cm) and is determined by the resistivity of the metal and its Fermi energy. Using values of 

1.1 and the atomic density in the metal from Ref. [31], a cross section can be estimated for Pb (Cu) as 
(Te = 1-3 X 10~^^ cm^ (3.0 X 10~^* cm^). The ratio (an/o'e) of these two cross sections is an estimate 
of Pcpt with the result that P^pt = 0.009 (0.058) for Pb (Cu). 

3.2 The Cascade 

When an electron is captured, it cascades through the energy levels eventually emitting a K^ x ray as 
it reaches the ground state. Although higher order transitions such as K^ are possible, it is estimated 
that these transitions would have a reduced intensity as is seen in muonic x rays and in x ray emission 
during electron capture on ions. In the VIP analysis, the Cu Kq line is not resolved into the Kd and 
Kq,2 components and the corresponding forbidden lines blend into a lone peak 300 eV lower in energy 
(see Table [2]). However, the VIP analysis did not correct for the possible emission of a forbidden x ray 
that is the analog of the Kp . This would be a modest correction to their efficiency. 

3.3 The X-Ray Energies 

If a new electron makes a Pauli-forbidden transition in an atom, one would expect an x-ray emission 
similar to the K^ transition in the host material. However during this process the K shell contains 
2 electrons, unlike a commonplace K^ transition, and therefore the energy is shifted down somewhat 
due to the additional shielding of the nuclear charge. The energies of these transitions were calculated 
with an estimated accuracy of a few eV and are given for a few key elements in Table [2j These results 
are based on the Dirac-Hartree-Slater model with Breit interaction and QED corrections. These are 
relativistic jj configuration average calculations that include relaxation effects by performing separate 
self-consistent field calculations for initial and final states. The algorithm used to calculate these 
transition energies was modified to allow 3 electrons in Is shell. (See Ref. [5| for an independent 
estimate of the size of this shift for Cu atoms for which the calculation by one of us (M.C.) gives a 
similar result.) The estimated energy of the Pauli forbidden Kq,2 transition in Pb is then 71.6 keV and 
would appear just below the normal 72.8-keV Pb x ray. 

Table 2 The atomic transitions resulting from violation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, indicated by the 
column labeled forb.. For reference, the allowed transition energies are also quoted (allow.). Energies are in eV. 




Pb II 







Is - 2p3/2 K„i 
Is - 2pi/2 Ka2 

2p3/2 - 3s 
2pi/2 - 3d3/2 
2p3/2 - 3d3/2 

2pi/2 - 3s 

2p3/2 - 3d5/2 



















4 The Experiments 

In this work we investigate improving upon the RS technique by using Pb instead of Cu as the 
conductor. Pb has a higher resistivity which leads to more electron-atom collisions. It also produces 
higher-energy x rays, which are less attenuated by self-shielding, and populate spectra in a region of 
lower relative background. Finally, the increased separation between the Kq, emission from Pb and the 
PEP forbidden transition also results in a lower background under the searched-for peak. However, 
a result of the use of Pb is that the various possible PEP forbidden transitions are well separated in 
energy and do not blend. Hence the efficiency must be considered for each specific transition within 
the search. 

The recent use of p-type, point-contact Ge detectors (PPC) for dark matter and double beta decay 
searches [T] provide an opportunity for PEP-forbidden transition studies. These detectors have a much 
lower capacitance than the more commonly used semi-coax design and hence have excellent resolution 
at low energies even in sizable detectors. As a result, line features due to x-ray emission are well 
resolved. This permits a search for x-ray emission due to PEP-forbidden transitions. In our experiment 
we use a PPC built by ORTEC g^ as a prototype detector for the Majorana Demonstrator [351 
[29] . This detector is 53.7 mm long and 66.5 mm in diameter. It has a 3-mm diameter contact and a 
bevel on the edge of the contact end that is a 6 mm by 6 mm right triangle. The dead layer thickness 
(0.97 ± 0.03 mm) was determined by source studies similar to those described in Ref [16 . 

In this section, we consider two searches for PEP-violating capture on Pb and one on Ge. The 
first of the Pb experiments is a RS-style, Type II experiment using Pb instead of Cu. The second is 
an analysis of the same data but considering all the free electrons in the conductor as the interacting 
fermions. This is a Type Ila experiment by our nomenclature. Finally, we look at electrons from pair 
production capturing on Ge atoms; a Type la experiment. Each of these three searches is described in 
turn in subsections below. 

4.1 Current Through Lead 

The result of the VIP experiment is based on the RS concept and provides the best previous limit on 
Type I or II experiments. The VIP effort improved on the RS limit by using higher currents and lower 
background ^. 

In our work, a Pb cylinder 1.15 mm thick with an inner diameter of 11.25 cm surrounds the detector. 
The length of the Pb cylinder (D) is 8.89 cm. The ends of this Pb cylinder are attached to Cu rings 
with conductive epoxy and these rings provide electrical contact to the Pb. Figure [T] shows the key 
aspects of our experimental setup. The detector was surrounded by 5 cm of Cu and 5 cm of Pb as a 
shield. The experiment was conducted in a basement laboratory at 2260 m with minimal overburden. 

The current through the Pb conductor was 110 A at ^0.5 V. The system was current controlled and 
the actual voltage varied a few per cent with temperature. We collected 254 (258) hours of current-on 
(current-off ) data. The spectra were acquired using ORTEC NIM electronics read out using the ORCA 
data acquisition software [32] and are shown in Fig. [2] The FWHM of the lines in this energy region is 
about 1.15 keV for the detector used in this work. The detector resolution at low energies is moderately 
sensitive to electronic noise. The width of the Pb x-ray peaks increased by 7% when the current was 
on. This effect is also seen in the noise wall at low energies, which increases from 750 eV to 1000 eV 

Fig. 1 A photograph of the experimental setup with much of the shielding removed. The Pb conductor with 
its Cu contacts is shown surrounding the Ge detector. 


70 75 80 85 
Energy (keV) 


Fig. 2 The spectra of the data observed with the current on and off (top) and a difference spectrum between 
data taken with the current on and that taken with the current off (bottom). The two spectra in the top panel 
are very similar. The thick bar indicates the forbidden-transition region of interest. The four peaks are x rays 
originating from fluorescence of the Pb. 

with the current on. This small change in the spectrum does affect our analysis of the PEP forbidden 
peak as it increases the background in the region of interest and weakens the deduced constraint on 
i/3^. It also explains the structure in the difference spectrum of 

For easier comparison of our Pb data to the VIP Cu data, we sum the Kqi and Kq,2 lines, but 
exclude Kp and accept the additional efficiency penalty. To estimate the fraction of captured electrons 
that emit this Ka2 x ray, we assume that the forbidden emission spectrum mirrors that of the allowed 
emission. In the data, ^70% of the Pb x rays are K^ with the remaining being 3-1 or 4-1 transitions. 
(See Fig. [2]) 

Table 3 A summary of the contributions to the x-ray detection efficiency, etot is the product of tlie 3 efficiency 
factors given in the table. 








71.6 KeV 

73.7 keV 





Table 4 A summary of the detection rates in the two peaks. Columns 4 and 5 give the rates per hour with the 
current on (Ron) and off (Roff) respectively. The differential rates (SR) given in the final column include the 
x-ray detection efficiencies. Note that an excess is found between the current on and current off configurations. 
This excess is due to electronic noise originating from the power supply and is discussed in the text. 


Counts On 

Counts Off 

Rou (/h) 

Roff (/h) 

{SR) (/h) 


71.6 keV 

73.7 keV 



49.22± 0.44 



weighted Average 


Because the two PEP violating x rays are near the Pb Kq, lines, we chose our regions of interest to 
minimize the ratio, vB/ejioi, where B is the background within the window and ej^oi is the efficiency 
factor due to the fraction of the hne shape contained within the region of interest. In a flat background 
spectrum, a symmetric window of width 2.8cr is the optimum region-of-intcrest choice. For our data we 
calculate the optimum window taking into account the location and width of the neighboring peaks, 
whose tails can increase B if the region of interest is chosen too wide. The deduced region of interest 
(see Fig. [2]) for K„i is 73.395 - 74.066 keV with an efficiency of 0.811 and for K„2 is 71.295 - 72.002 
keV with an efficiency of 0.834. The relative probability of these two transitions is estimated to be ebb. 
= OAT and 0.23 respectively. The efficiency for detecting x rays from the Pb (e^;) was determined by 
simulation using the MaGe [14j framework developed by the Majorana and GERDA collaborations. 
The simulation was verified by comparing to source measurements using 7 rays from ^"^^Am and ^'^^Ba 
placed both inside and outside the Pb sheet. The simulation matched the measurements to 10% at all 
points close to the ROI. For 71.6 keV x rays emitted uniformly from the Pb cylinder ex was determined 
to be 0.0072. The contributions to the x ray efficiency are summarized in Table [31 

The number of counts observed with the current on (off) are given in Table [4] The differential rates 
{5R) are given by {Ron-Rof f) / ^tot- We then use the weighted average of the oi? results for the two 
lines in the determination of upper limit on the number of events that could be due to PEP violation. 
The previous work of RS and VIP used a 3-tT upper limit for the number of excess counts with the 
current on and for direct comparison we do the same here. It is clear that the positive excess shown in 
Table |4] is due to the electronic noise with the current on and is not a PEP-violation effect. Therefore, 
we emphasize here that we base our limit on the 3(7 variation from the excess to be as conservative as 
possible. Explicitly we calculate the upper limit based on N^^ = ((652-1-3 x 203) //i) (254ft,) (e^;) — 2307. 
We have incorporated the difference in live time in the subtraction. We include the factor ex in this 
expression so Nj,„ can be compared directly to VIP and RS. As a result, this factor also appears 
explicitly in Eqn. [5] 

The number of new electrons introduced into the metal is given by Nnew = (l/^) ^I'^t, where e 
is the electron charge, / is the current passed through the conductor during time At and the sum is 
over all measurement periods. The number of interactions (Nmt) by an individual electron transversing 
the metal is given by — , where D is the distance through the conductor the electrons travel. For Pb, 
Nint= 3x10^. The 3-sigma upper limit on ^/3^ from our work is then given by: 




^^ new^x^cpt^^ ii 

= 1.5 X 10"^"^. 


Table [5] summarizes the parameters for the 3 experiments of the RS genre. The reference for the 
latest VIP result [9] does not provide full detail for their preliminary results of the underground 
work as was done for their above ground studies. The underground runs include nearly a half year of 
current-on/off data. 

Table 5 A comparison of the experimental parameters. The values for the VIP above ground (AG) work and 
underground (UG) work are quoted separately. The value for N^a was not given by VIP (AG) and the value 
given is our estimate based on their limit for |/3^. In the final column, the limits on ^/3^ include our estimates 
of the new values of the Ramberg-Snow and VIP limits based on results of our work. Specifically, we used our 
values of Pcpt for these results. 


J Vneio 












< 2.9 X 10^^*= 







< 7.7 X 10"^* 







< 1.1 X 10"^* 

This Work 






< 1.5 X 10~^^ 

Table 6 Free electron analysis of the violation of PEP. As above, we estimated the limit on the number of 
x-rays detected in VIP-UG to be 500 based on their result. The paper itself did not provide that number 


Nc (/cm») 

V (cm^) 

Vf (cm/s) 



This Work 

8.41 X 10^^ 
1.33 X 10^^ 


1.57 X 10** 
1.83 X 10** 

1.03 X 10"* 
6.88 X 10*^ 

5x 10* 
1.64 X 10^ 

8.4 X 10"*^ 
2.6 X 10"^^ 

4.2 Free Electrons in a Metal 

The current through a conductor in a Ramberg-Snow style experiment is comprised of electrons from 
the circuit itself. Since the electrons originate from the conductor, one should consider whether the 
current is necessary. One aspect of metal conductors is that there are a large number of free elec- 
trons unlike insulators such as Nal or semi-conductors like Ge. The interaction of these free electrons 
with atoms in the metal can avoid the Messiah-Greenberg superselection rule under a specific set of 

A specific free electron in the metal interacts with a specific atom very rarely. The time frame is 
long enough that one might assume each such interaction is a new possibility to test the PEP. That is, 
the electron-atom system does not remember their previous interaction. For a given electron, the time 
between interactions is 1.3 x 10~^^ s (2. 5x10"^^ s) for Pb (Cu). With approximately an Avogadro's 
number of atoms in a sample, the time between collisions between a given electron and a given atom 
is tens to hundreds of years. 

If one analyzes the data ignoring the current and instead considers free electron collisions, a much 
improved constraint on PEP violation is found. The expression from Eqn. [2] can now be written. 


-J < 




where Nl^^"^ and Nll^ are given by 

etot Pr_r.fMZ'NlT 



jqfree ^ J^ y 


where N^ is the free electron density, V is the volume of the sample and Vf is the Fermi velocity of 
electrons in the metal. The factor -^ is the time between electron-atom collisions. 

In Table [6] we have calculated such a limit from our data using the sum of the current off and 
current on spectra. We added the two spectra, found the total number of counts in the two windows 
and used the square root of the number of counts as estimate of the l-a uncertainty. 

The results from Table [6] are very much more restrictive than for the Ramberg-Snow approach. 
Although the VIP-UG experiment has a lower background and a much longer run time, our Pb sample 
has a much larger volume and the time between collisions is much shorter resulting in a more restrictive 


Table 7 A summary of the limits from the DEP-SSE and SEP-MSE analyses. 

Peak Counts 

Echo Peak 
Region Counts 

(3 a limit) 




< 0.0014 

< 0.0015 








// \ 

// \ 

// 1 

/ I 

J \ 



^ VW.. , — . ...--1— 



:_ _ i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , 1 

SU 2(1 

5 21 

W 21 

tS 21(1(1 21(15 











' i . . . . 

< , , < 

. 1 . . 1 . . . . i . . . . i . . . . 


Software Energy [keV] 

Software Energy [keV] 

Fig. 3 The left panel shows a spectrum histogram near the single escape peak resulting from exposing our 
detector to a Th source. The higher curve is the whole data set and the lower curve shows the spectrum after 
implementing a waveform analysis to eliminate single site energy deposits within the crystal. The line is a fit 
through the data to determine peak strength. The right panel shows a similar plot of the region near the double 
escape peak, however the lower curve now excludes multiple site energy deposits. 

4.3 Electrons from Pair Production 

If a 7 ray reacts by pair production in the Ge detector, the electron produced is new to any atomic 
system and may violate the PEP as it slows down. If so it will capture and cascade to the K shell 
emitting 10.6 keV of energy that will sum with the initial energy deposit. Hence one can search for 
echos to the double escape (DEP) and single escape (SEP) peaks in the spectrum. 

We exposed the Ge detector described above for 3 weeks to a Th source and then searched for the 
peak echos related to the DEP and SEP from the 2.6-MeV 7 ray from ^°^T\. For the DEP, both of the 
annihilation 7 rays escape the detector and the PEP-violating low-energy x-ray emissions are part of 
the single site energy deposit (SSE). In contrast, the SEP is by its nature a multiple site energy deposit 
(MSE). Though counts in the full energy peak (FEP) can result from pair production events in which 
the annihilation gamma rays do not escape, most arise from multiple Compton scatters. Therefore, we 
do not consider the FEP in this analysis. So for each the DEP and SEP energy regions we search for 
a peak that is 10.6 keV above the pair production features. The spectrum near each of these peaks is 
shown in Fig. |3] and in neither case is there any indication of any peak echo. In this figure, the SEP 
(DEP) region of the spectrum is shown before any analysis cuts and after a cut to select for MSE 
(SSE) deposit events. Because the low-energy x rays are emitted internal to the crystal the efficiency is 
effectively 100% and the ratio of the events in any peak echo to the pair production peak is a measure 
of the violation of PEP. Any uncertainty in the efficiency or deviation from 100% would cancel in the 

All events were digitized and we could analyze the event waveforms to select out SSE and MSE 
events using an analysis similar to Ref. |15j . In neither case was any evidence seen and we estimated 
the upper limit on the existence of such a peak to be the square root of the number of counts in a 
window that has a width defined by the primary peak width. Table W\ summarizes the results of this 
Type la experiment. 

5 Discussion 

These exploratory experiments, conducted above ground with a detector inside a commercial cryostat, 
were able to produce competitive limits in i/3^ and one result that is the best current limit for our 
defined Type II interactions. The key advantages of our apparatus being the use of Pb and a P-PC Ge 


detector. There are a few obvious improvements that would enhance our work further. First, a helical 
wire of Pb instead of a cylinder could increase D significantly. Doing this would increase the resistance 
and hence might require a decrease in the current. Even so, this could lead to an increase in sensitivity. 
Second, switching to a low-background detector operated underground would improve the sensitivity 
significantly. Eliminating the electronic noise pick-up associated with the current would also improve 
the background. And finally a longer run time would be in order. Using a ^^^Th or ^32^ source would 
improve the peak-to-continuum ratio in our Th source data. 

The results using the free electron-atom collision rate in a conductor greatly improves the limit 
obtained on the PEP. This is due to the much larger number of individual tests of the PEP. The 
theoretical situation describing violations of PEP is still not entirely clear. Therefore, it is important 
to be clear about the assumptions that underly a test of the PEP. We have addressed this issue by 
categorizing the various experiments by Type defined as how new the fermion-system interaction can be 
assumed to be. We have also addressed a number of atomic physics issues related to these experiments. 

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Nuclear Physics under Contract No. 2011LANLE9BW. MHCs work was performed under the auspices of 
the U.S. Department of energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52- 
07NA27344. We thank Keith Rielage and Yuri Efremenko for a careful reading of the manuscript. We thank 
Larry Rodriguez and Harry Salazar for helpful technical discussions. We thank P. Vogel, R. Mohapatra, and 
O.W. Greenberg for useful discussions of the theory. 


1. Aalseth, C.E., et al.: Results from a Search for Light-Mass Dark Matter with a P-type Point Contact 
Germanium Detector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 131,301 (2011) 

2. Amado, R.D., Primakoff, H.: Comments on testing the Pauli principle. Phys. Rev. C 22, 1338 (1980) 

3. Arnold, R., et al.: Testing the Pauli exclusion principle with the NEMO-2 detector. Eur. Phys. J. A 6, 361 

4. Back, H.O., et al.: New experimental limits on violations of the Pauli exclusion principle obtained with 
the Borexino Counting Test Facility. Eur. Phys. J. C 37, 421 (2004) 

5. Barabash, A.: Experimental test of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (2009) 

6. Barabash, A.S., Kornoukhov, V.N., Yu. M. Tspenyuk, Chapyzhnikov, B.A.: Search for anomalous carbon 
atoms - evidence of violation of the Pauli principle during the period of nucleosynthesis. JETP Lett. 68, 
112 (1998) 

7. Baron, E., Mohapatra, R.N., Teplitz, V.L.: Limits on Pauli principle violation by nucleons. Phys. Rev. D 
59, 036,003 (1999) 

8. Bartalucci, S., et al.: New experimental limit on the Pauli Exclusion Principle violation by electrons. Phys. 
Lett. B 641, 18 (2006) 

9. Bartalucci, S., et al.: The VIP Experimental Limit on the Pauli Exclusion Principle Violation by Electrons. 
Found. Phys. 40, 765 (2009) 

10. Belli, P., et al.: New experimental limit on the electron stability and non-paulian transitions in Iodine 
atoms. Phys. Lett. B 460, 236 (1999) 

11. Bellini, G., et al.: New experimental limits on the Pauli forbidden transitions in ^^C nuclei obtained with 
485 days Borexino data. Phys. Rev. C 81, 034,317 (2010) 

12. Bernabei, R., et al.: Search for non-paulian transitions in ^^Na and ^^^I. Phys. Lett. B 408, 439 (1997) 

13. Bernabei, R., et al.: New search for processes violating the Pauli exclusion principle in sodium and in 
iodine. Eur. Phys. J. C 62, 327 (2009) 

14. Boswell, M., et al.: MaGe - a GEANT4-based Monte Carlo Application Framework for Low-background 
Germanium Experiments (2011) 

15. Budjas, D., Heider, M.B., Chkvorets, O., Khanbekov, N., Schonert, S.: Pulse shape discrimination studies 
with a Broad-Energy Germanium detector for signal identification and background suppression in the 
GERDA double beta decay experiment. JINST 4, P10,007 (2009) 

16. Budjas, D., Heisel, M., Maneschg, W., Simgen, H.: Optimisation of the MC-model of a p-type Ge- 
spectrometer for the purpose of efficiency determination. Appl. Rad. Isotopes 67, 706 (2009) 

17. C-K. Chow, Greenberg, O.W.: Quons in rclativistic theories must be bosons or fermions. Phys. Lett. A 
283, 20 (2001) 

18. Corinaldesi, E.: Model of a dynamical theory of the Pauli Principle. Supplemento al Nuovo Cimento 15, 
937 (1967) 

19. Deilamian, K., Gillaspy, J.D., Kelleher, D.E.: Small Violations of the Symmetrization Postulate in an 
Excited State of Helium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4787 (1995) 

20. Dolgov, A.D., Hansen, S.H., Yu. Smirnov, A.: Neutrino statistics and big bang nucleosynthesis. J. Cosm. 
Astropart. Phys. 6, 4 (2005) 

21. Ejiri, H., Toki, H.: Search for exotic nuclear transitions associated with nuclear instability. Phys. Lett. B 
306, 218 (1993) 


22. Elliott, S.R., et al.: Proceedings ol the Carolina International Symposium on Neutrino Physics, vol. 173. 
lOP Pubhshing, London (2010) 

23. Goldhaber, M., Scharff-Goldhaber, G.: Identification of Beta-Rays with Atomic Electrons. Phys. Rev. 73, 
1472 (1948) 

24. Govorkov, A.B.; Can the Pauli Principle be Deduced with Local Quantum Field Theory? Phys. Lett. A 
137, 7 (1989) 

25. Greenberg, O.W.: Particles with small violations of Fermi or Rose statistics. Phys. Rev. D 43, 4111 (1991) 

26. Greenberg, O.W.: Theories of Violation of Statistics. AIP Conf. Proc. 545, 113 (2000) 

27. Greenberg, O.W., Mohapatra, R.N.: Local Quantum field Theory of Possible Violation of the Pauli Prin- 
ciple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2507 (1987) 

28. Greenberg, O.W., Mohapatra, R.N.: Phenomenology of small violations of Fermi and Rose Statistics. Phys. 
Rev. D 39, 2032 (1989) 

29. Guiscppe, V.E., et al.: The Majorana Neutrinoless Double-beta Decay Experiment. Nucl. Sci. Symp. 
Conf. Rec. NSS'08 p. 1793 (2008) 

30. HaflF, P.K., Vogel, P., Winther, A.: Capture of negative muons in atoms. Phys. Rev. A 10, 1430 (1974) 

31. Haynes, W.M. (ed.): CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Internet Version, 91°* Edition (Internet 
Version 2011). CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Baco Raton, Florida, USA (2011) 

32. Howe, M.A., Cox, G.A., Harvey, P.J., McGirt, F., Rielage, K., Wilkerson, J.F., Wouters, J.M.: Sudbury 
Neutrino Observatory Neutral Current Detector Acquisition Software Overview. IEEE Transactions on 
Nuclear Science 51, 878-883 (2004) 

33. Ignatiev, A.Y., Kuzmin, V.A.: Is a weak violation of the Pauli Principle possible? Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 461, 
786 (1987) 

34. Javorsek II, D., et al.: New Experimental Test of the Pauli Exclusion Principle Using Accelerator Mass 
Spectrometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2701 (2000) 

35. Kekez, D., Ljubicic, A., Logan, R.A.: An upper limit to violations of the Pauli exclusion principle. Nature 
348, 224 (1990) 

36. Kim, Y.S., Pratt, R.H.: Radiative recombination of electrons with atomic ions: Cross sections and rate 
cocfHcients. Phys. Rev. A 27, 2913 (1983) 

37. Kishimoto, T., et al.: Search for violation of the Pauli principle through spontaneous neutron emission 
from lead. J. Phys. G 18, 443 (1992) 

38. Logan, R., Ljubicic, A.: Validity of the Pauli exclusion principle for nucleons. Phys. Rev. C 20, 1957 (1979) 

39. Messiah, A.M.L., Greenberg, O.W.: Symmetrization Postulate and Its Experimental Foundation. Phys. 
Rev. 136, R248 (1964) 

40. Miljanic, D., et al.: Test of the Pauli principle in nuclear reactions. Phys. Lett. B 252, 487 (1990) 

41. Nolle, E., et al.: Accelerator mass spectrometry for tests of the Pauli exclusion principle and for detection 
of beta beta decay products. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 17, S355 (1991) 

42. Novikov, V.M., et al.: Test of the Pauh Exclusion Principle for Atomic Electrons. Phys. Lett. B 240, 227 

43. Okun, L.B.: Possible violation of the Pauli principle in atoms. JETP Lett. 46, 529 (1987) 

44. Okun, L.B.: Tests of electric charge conservation and the Pauli principle. Physics Uspekhi 158, 293 (1989). 
Sov. Phys. Usp. 32 (1989) 543 

45. ORTEC: (2009). 801 South Illinois Avenue Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA 

46. Pauli, W.: Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronen- gruppen im Atom mit der Kom- 
plexstruktur der Spektren. Z.Phys. 31, 765 (1925) 

47. Plaga, R.: Violations of the Pauh Principle and the Interior of the Sun. Z. Phys. A 333, 397 (1989) 

48. Ramberg, E., Snow, G.A.: Experimental Limit on a Small Violation of the Pauli Principle. Phys. Lett. B 
238, 438 (1990) 

49. Reines, F., Sobel, H.W.: Test of the Pauli Exclusion Principle for Atomic Electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 
954 (1974) 

50. Shimony, A.: Proposed experiment to test the possible time dependence of the onset of the Pauli Exclusion 
Principle. Quan. Infor. Proc. 5, 277 (2006) 

51. Suzuki, Y., et al.: Study of invisible nucleon decay, n — > i/ui/, and a forbidden nuclear transition in the 
Kamiokande Detector. Phys. Lett. B 311, 357 (1993) 

52. Thoma, M.H., Nolle, E.: Limits on small violations of the Pauli exclusion principle in the primordial 
nucleosynthesis. Phys. Lett. B 291, 484 (1992) 

53. Zerrad, E., Hahn, Y.: Radiative Recombination at Low Energies. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 
59, 637 (1998)