Graduate What Are the Missing Links in Enrico Fermi's Beta-Decay Theory?

Click For Summary
Enrico Fermi's 1933 beta-decay theory proposed it as a contact force without a mediator, a view that evolved with later theories suggesting mediating particles, such as those proposed by Yukawa for the Strong Force. The discussion highlights the transition from Fermi's model to the electroweak standard model, particularly the significance of parity violation discoveries in the 1950s and the development of the (V-A) structure of weak interactions. Fermi's theory was limited, failing to account for many weak decays, which led to the emergence of the Gamow-Teller theory. The challenges in understanding weak interactions were largely addressed with the completion of the standard model and the introduction of gauge bosons. The GIM mechanism further resolved issues related to strangeness-changing processes by predicting the charm quark, culminating in significant experimental confirmations in the 1970s.
Rob S
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
In 1933 Enrico Fermi published a paper on his theory of beta-decay. He describes it as a contact force, which means he didn't think there was a mediator as there was for the electrodynamic forces. Somewhere along the line, there must have been someone who suggested a mediating particle such as that proposed by Yukawa for the Strong Force. There is a hint that the Yang-Mill Theory inspired a mediator for the weak force, but I can find nothing until the unification of the electrodynamic and weak forces by Glashow, et al, in the 60s.

I'm looking for that missing link. Any clues would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think indeed that Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg had the idea to use "Higgsed" non-abelian gauge theories (1968) with massive vector-boson exchange to make the weak-interaction model renormalizable (although the renormalizability has been proven a bit later by 't Hooft and Veltman in 1971). Of course there's one important episode between Fermi's 1934 theory and the electroweak standard model: In the mid fifties parity violation by the strong interaction has been discovered (Wu's experiment, Ledermann et al's neutrino experiments), and then after some confusion due to the experimental difficulties the (V-A) structure of the exchange currents was established (among various other theorists this is one of the rare papers co-authored by Feynman and Gell-Mann).

A very good semi-popular book on this history is

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465063829/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
  • Like
Likes DarMM
Actually, Fermi modeled the weak interaction on what was known about the electromagnetic interaction and photon. He assumed it was a contact force because the range of the interaction was very short and therefore it would be, if nothing else, a useful approximation. That it was an approximation was either already obvious or became so, shortly thereafter as Fermi's theory not only didn't describe all weak nuclear decays, it didn't describe most weak nuclear decays. Very shortly after Fermi's theory came Gamow's and Teller's theory which described the decays that Fermi's did not. So, there are now two theories of beta decay, Fermi decay's, which describe coupling to S=0 and Gamow-Teller decays, coupling to S=1.

There was a lot of work done on trying to understand the weak interaction more fundamentally in terms of gauge bosons. Those difficulties were not overcome until the standard model was fairly complete. One of the biggest problems was that using three guge bosons, the Z describing neutral currents, led to predictions of strangeness changing that wasn't observed in experiments.

Here is one article I found on the subject:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0058
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Yep, and that was solved by the "GIM mechanism" (standing for Glashow, Iliopolous, and Maiani), predicting the 4th quark dubbed charm (1970), which was observed in terms of the ##J/\psi## meson in the "November Revolution 1974".
 
S. Weinberg "A Model of Leptons" PRL19, 21 p.1264 (1967).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 242 ·
9
Replies
242
Views
49K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K