Help Me Understand P-Violation from Lederman's Experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucretius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Lucretius
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
I just finished reading a book, The Quantum World, but have gone back and looked at some interesting and confusing parts again. One involving P-violation I cannot understand for the life of me and was hoping someone would help me be able to.

The author discussed an experiment by Leon Lederman and others, where they produced positive pion particles in a cyclotron. This particle subsequently decayed into a positive muon and it's neutrino form. The muon is experimentally shown to always be single-handed. The neutrino is of the same left-handedness as the muon.

This next part is what confuses me. He says that "if parity were conserved, half of the neutrinos created would be left-handed and half would be right-handed. Experiment indicates that they all were single-handed (meaniung that parity conservation is as totally violated as it could be!)

I don't get it. If the muon is experimentally shown to be single-handed, why is it a problem that it's neutrino is? Am I reading this wrong? Can the positive muon be both left and right-handed, but the neutrino is only left-handed, and that's the P-violation? I'd like to understand this experiment and it's conclusion of P-violation, but I simply don't with the wording given.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Check this link out.
http://ccreweb.org/documents/parity/parity.html
I was unablet to figure out (not on campus- so no access to online articles) which was the correct paper for the Lederman experiment. But a simple search on scholar.google.com should be able to allow you to track down the original article which should clear up any questions you have.
Cheers,
Ryan
 
If P were conserved, both the mu and the neutrino would have equally rlght and left helicity. Since the pion has spin zero, if the neutrino has only L helicity (violation of P), the muon must also have L helicity.
They talk about measuriing the helicity of the muon, because that is easier to do than for the neutrino.
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top