Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T01:08:22.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

29.—The Possibility of Second-Class Currents in Gamow-Teller β-Decay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2012

D. H. Wilkinson
D. H. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Mirror Gamow-Teller β-decay takes place from members of isospin multiplets to a common final state or to final states that are mirrors of each other. It is found that in these cases the intrinsic speed of the positon emission is systematically lower, by 10–15 per cent, than that of the mirror negaton emission. This difference could be due to a fundamental weak interaction effect, a second-class term in the weak hadronie current, or to a failure of exact symmetry in the nuclear structure. The influence of binding energy differences is studied in the latter context and it is concluded that they cannot be responsible for the empirical asymmetry. The effects of changes of configurational mix across the multiplets is also considered; very few estimates have ben explicitly made but it would be surprising if this effect turned out to be of constant sign and magnitude over the wide range of A involved. No present firm conclusion can be made but none of the empirical evidence is inconsistent with the reality of a largely momentum-transfer-independent second-class current.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics , Volume 70 , 1972 , pp. 307 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

[1] For a discussion of these matters of isobaric analogue symmetry see Wilkinson, D. H., Rep. XV Solvay Conf., 1970, and also several chapters in Isospin in Nuclear Physics. (Ed. Wilkinson, D. H.). 1969.Google Scholar
[2] See Blin-Stoyle, R. J. and Freeman, J. M., 1970. Nucl. Phys., A150, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] See Wilkinson, D. H. and Macefield, B. E. F., 1970. Nucl. Phys., A158, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Abers, E. S., Dicus, D. A., Norton, R. E. and Quinn, H. R., 1968. Phys. Rev., 167, 1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Lee, T. D., 1971. Phys. Rev. Lett., 26, 801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Wilkinson, D. H., 1970. Nucl. Phys., A158, 476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Full references for the experimental data will not be given in this paper but they may be found in:Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D. H., 1970. Phys. Lett., 31B, 447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alburger, D. E. and Wilkinson, D. H., 1970. Phys. Lett., 32B, 190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D. H. and Alburger, D. E., 1970. Phys. Rev. Lett., 24, 1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D. H., Alburger, D. E., Goosman, D. R., Jones, K. W., Warburton, E. K., Garvey, G. T. and Williams, R. L. 1971. Nucl. Phys., A166, 661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, J. C., Esterl, J. E., Sextro, R. G. and Cerny, J., 1971. Phys. Rev., C3, 700Google Scholar
Alburger, D. E. and Wilkinson, D. H., 1971. Phys. Rev., C3, 1957; see also ref. [14].Google Scholar
[8]Weinberg, S., 1958. Phys. Rev., 112, 1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] We have followed Weinberg [8] in defining these currents. A later formulation by N. Cabibbo in Particle Symmetries, II, Brandeis University Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics 1965 (Gordon and Breach 1966) in terms of U rather than G is equivalent for our present purpose.Google Scholar
[10]Huffaker, J. N. and Greuling, E., 1963. Phys. Rev., 132, 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] For a review of the immediately-foregoing matters see Blin-Stoyle, R. J. and Nair, S. C. K., 1966,. Adv. Phys., 15, 493 and also Marshak, R. E., Riazzudin and Ryan, C. P., 1969. Theory of Weak Interactions in Particle Physics. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Lipkin, H. J., 1971. Phys. Lett., 34B, 202;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delorme, J. and Rho, M., 1971. Phys. Lett., 34B, 238;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenstein, L. and Henley, E. 1971. Phys. Lett., 36B, 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Lipkin, H. J., 1971. Phys. Rev. Lett., 27, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Wilkinson, D. H. and Alburger, D. E., 1971. Phys. Rev. Lett., 26, 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Peterson, R. W. and Glass, N. W., 1963. Phys. Rev., 130, 292;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, T. R., 1963. Phys. Rev., 130, 2388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Blin-Stoyle, R. J. and Rosina, M., 1965. Nucl. Phys., 70, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Wilkinson, D. H. 1971. Phys. Rev. Lett., 27, 1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Eichler, J., Tombrello, T. A. and Bahcall, J. N., 1964. Phys. Lett., 13, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Mafethe, M. E. and Hodgson, P. E., 1966. Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., 87, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Strubbe, H. J. and Callebaut, D. K., 1970. Nucl. Phys., A143, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Elton, L. R. B. and Swift, A., 1967. Nucl. Phys., A94, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Pinkston, W. T. and Satchler, R., 1965. Nucl. Phys., 72, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Prakash, A. and Austern, N., 1969. Ann. Phys., 51, 418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Cohen, S. and Kurath, D., 1965. Nucl. Phys., 73, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] This distribution served both 1p− and (2s, 1d)-shells which are rather similar; it is taken for the former from Cohen-Kurath (ref. 24) and for the latter from Towner, I. S. and Hardy, J. C., 1969. Nucl. Data Tab., 6, 153, and from the work of the Oak Ridge group, see e.g., Halbert, E. C., Mcgrory, J. B., Wildenthal, B. H. and Pandya, S. P., Adv. Nucl. Phys., 4, Ed. M. Baranger and E. Vogt (New York: Plenum Press). (The qualitative conclusions of the Monte Carlo study are completely insensitive to the assumed distribution.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Blin-Stoyle, R. J., Evans, A. J. and Khan, A. 1971. Phys. Lett., 36B, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Laverne, A. and Do Dang, G. In course of publication.Google Scholar