Beta Decay Questions: Help Understanding Angular Momentum

Starbug
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding some aspects of beta decay and I wondered if someone could help. (Perhaps this post belongs in the homework forum, but i don't have a specific question to do as such.) I'm not being helped by the fact that my general understanding of angular momentum is so poor, but anyway, as I understand it the selection rules for beta decay are

conservation of angular momentum:

<br /> \vec{J}_P = \vec{J}_D + \vec{L}_\beta + \vec{S}_\beta <br />

and parity

<br /> \pi_P = \pi_{D} (-1)^{L_\beta} <br />

Where L_\beta is the orbital angular momentum carried away by the lepton system. The transistion probability decreases rapidly with increasing L, and measurements of the comparitive half-life will allow us to classify a transition as (super-)allowed, first forbidden etc depending on L=0,1,... with log of the comparitive half life scaling about 4 units with each change in L.

S_\beta is the spin of the lepton system which must couple to 0 or 1. (Something I'm not quite sure about). Anyway if S=0 the transition is classified as Fermi, if S=1 is called Gamow-Teller.

What I'm struggling with is the quoted allowed values for the total angular momentum change. For an allowed Fermi transition the \Delta J is zero, and the 0+ to 0+ transition is called superallowed. For the allowed Gamow-Teller my book says that \Delta J can be zero or one, yet 0+ to 0+ can't be Gamow-Teller. I don't understand why the change can be zero, or for a zero change why it can't be Gamow-Teller if the initial or final state is 0. If I was asked to classify a 1+ to 1+ transition as Fermi or Gamow how would I do it?

Similarly for the first forbidden, Fermi transitions can be zero or one, but only one if it's from or to a zero state. Gamow transitions can be 0,1,2 but with a couple of disallowed possibilities, like 0- to 0+, 1/2+ to 1/2-, 1+ to 0-. I'm sure I've just missed something obvious but I can't make much sense of this at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does your book "invent" (give without any jusitification) those seletion rules,or it computes them using Wigner-Eckart's theorem...?In the latter case,i think there's not too much for debating.

Daniel.
 
It's very much an introductory course I'm doing so much of the rigorous maths was skated over, although some arguments were made for the reasonableness of the selection rules. The set of rules for total angular momentum change for allowed, first forbidden etc, though were just quoted, I got the impression they followed straightforwardly but can't really see it.
 
Here's the article (i don't have access into Prola,maybe u have).

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v59/i11/p908_1

And another one (maybe u have access into this one,too)

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0370-1298/65/10/303

and more here http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~rizvi/npa/week04.htm

Daniel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, that was most helpful.
 
Back
Top