0 views

Uploaded by Alexandra Veres

This is about EW

- Dfa
- 1006.2372
- annotated source list
- 22_forces
- 199613.pdf
- The Neutrino
- Special Relativity
- Fundamental Neutron Physics I
- IOP
- PHSV03I02P0116.pdf
- D. Hubert, A. Davour and C. de los Heros- Search for neutralino dark matter with the AMANDA neutrino detector
- Faculty Recruitment
- Giants 1 Inherit the Stars
- Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification
- m256.pdf
- Fission and Fusion
- Git Cheat Sheet
- Decision Trees and Random Forests
- 3.Unsupervised Learning
- ML workshop

You are on page 1of 6

Dr Emily Nurse

2017

1 Introduction

In this module we will discuss the electroweak interaction, which is a merged theory describing both the

theory of electromagnetic interactions and the weak interaction of nuclear decay. We will learn that the

separate weak and electromagnetic interactions are low energy manifestations of the electroweak theory. We

will go on to discuss the Higgs mechanism that provides mass to the fundamental particles, and the associated

Higgs boson, with particular emphasis on its recent discovery at the LHC.

Before all this we will learn about some unexpected asymmetries (parity and charge conjugation violation)

that were observed in the weak interaction in the 1950s, which were eventually explained by the spin structure

in the weak interaction. This will lead to a discussion of another subtle asymmetry in the weak interaction,

that is still being understood today (CP violation).

As described by the famous theorem of mathematician Emmy Noether, conservation laws in physics come

from symmetries seen in nature. For example, conservation of momentum comes from a symmetry of the

laws of physics under a spatial translation. Or put another way, from the fact that the laws of physics do not

change if we perform a spatial translation (e.g. you would get the same results if you performed an experiment

in London or in Chicago). Similarly, the conservation of angular momentum comes from symmetry of physical

laws under a rotation and the conservation of energy comes from symmetry of physical laws under a translation

in time (you would get the same results if you performed an experiment today or this time next year). These

are remarkable results that can be derived from Quantum Mechanics (see e.g. Section 4 in “Particle Physics”,

B. R. Martin and G. Shaw.) Richard Feynman discusses this principle in his usual accesible and enlightening

way in the Feynman lectures: http:www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_52.html

2.1 Parity

There is a conserved quantity known as parity that comes from a symmetry under space-inversion1 . This

means that the physical laws of a system do not change if the spatial co-ordinates are inverted: x ! x,

y ! y and z ! z, which is equivalent to a mirror reflection (x ! x and y ! y) together with a

rotation through 180 (z ! z). We can establish the e↵ect of space-inversion on the following kinematic

properties of a system:

1 Often “parity” is used to mean the symmetry as well as the conserved quantity. I prefer to call the symmetry space-inversion

to avoid this confusion (note that in the previous examples this would be like e.g. energy and time having the same name).

1

PHAS3224: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2017

2. The momentum vector p~ changes to p~.

~ (= ~r ⇥ p~) remains unchanged as both ~r and p~ change sign.

3. The angular momentum vector L

Parity is a discrete conserved quantum number and is equal to the eigenvalue of any wavefunction that is an

eigenstate of the space-inversion transformation, P̂ . We define the intrinsic parity of a particle by considering

the space-inversion operator acting on a particle at rest:

P̂ a = Pa a, (1)

where Pa is the particle’s intrinsic parity. Two successive space-inversion transformations take us back to

where we started:

P̂ P̂ a = P̂ Pa a = Pa2 a = a , (2)

so we can deduce that Pa = ±1. Intrinsic parities of particles are generally determined by experiment,

assuming that parity is conserved in interactions, together with the fact that a fermion and its antiparticle

must have opposite parities and a boson and its antiparticle must have the same parity.2 By considering a

multiparticle state with a wavefunction that is the product of single-particle wavefunctions3 , it is clear that

parity must be a multiplicative quantum number and the total parity of a system of particles a, b, ... with

L

orbital angular momentum is given by: Pa Pb ... ( 1) . The contribution to parity from the orbital angular

momentum comes from the consideration of the form of a wavefunction of a particle with definite angular

momentum and noting the fact that in spherical polar coordinates a space-inversion transformation implies:

r ! r, ✓ ! ⇡ ✓, ! ⇡ + .4

Conservation of parity in an interaction can be considered in one of two ways, which amount to the same

question:

1. Is the interaction invariant under the space-inversion transformation?

2. Is the total parity before the interaction equal to the total parity after the interaction?

Until the late 1950s it was believed, as we might intuitively expect, that all physical laws were invariant

under space-inversion and therefore conserved parity.

In 1949 Powell discovered two weakly decaying particles in cosmic ray showers that were known as the ✓+

and ⌧ + mesons. They had the same mass, charge and spin, so they looked much like the same particle. They

decayed weakly to two di↵erent final states: ✓+ ! ⇡ + ⇡ 0 and ⌧ + ! ⇡ + ⇡ 0 ⇡ 0 . While it is perfectly fine for one

particle to decay via di↵erent decay modes, these two final states have di↵erent parities. In order to see this

we use the experimentally determined fact that the intrinsic parity of both the charged and neutral pions

is 1, together with the fact that the orbital angular momentum in both cases is zero.5 The two particles

cannot then be the same particle if parity is conserved in the decay.

Inspired by this puzzle, in 1956 Lee and Yang surveyed the experimental evidence and suggested that

the weak interaction does not necessarily conserve parity (even though it had been a firm assumption by

physicists until this time).

2 If interested, a proof of why this is in e.g. “Modern Particle Physics”, M. Thomson.

3 This is only true if the particles are distinguishable.

4 For details see section 1.3.1 in “Nuclear and Particle Physics”, B. R. Martin.

5 If interested you can see a discussion of why this is in e.g. Section 6.6.1 of “Nuclear and Particle Physics”, B. R. Martin.

2

PHAS3224: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2017

The first evidence for parity violation in the weak interaction came one year later in 1957 by Wu and

collaborators. She studied the decay of polarised Cobalt-60: 60 Co ! 60 Ni* + e + ⌫¯e . In this reaction

a neutron from within the 60 Co nucleus is converted into a proton and an electron and antineutrino are

emitted. Polarised means that the 60 Co spins are all aligned. Wu measured the direction of the emitted

electrons with respect to the 60 Co spin direction and found that they were more likely to be travelling in

the direction opposite the nuclear spin. What does this tell us? Lets consider what a space-inversion (or

parity transformation) of this reaction would do. It would leave the spin of the nucleus unchanged (since

spin is an angular momentum), but it would reverse the direction of the emitted electrons. Space-inversion

symmetry (and consequently parity conversion) of this process would then imply that the electrons should be

emitted with equal probability aligned and anti-aligned with the nuclear spin. It is clear then that the results

of Wu’s experiments proved that parity violation exists in the weak interaction. This was a monumental

breakthrough in the understanding of the weak interaction.

These results solved the ⌧ ✓ puzzle. What we now know is that the ✓+ and ⌧ + mesons are in fact the

same particle (known as the charged kaon: K + ) which can decay to either ⇡ + ⇡ 0 or ⇡ + ⇡ 0 ⇡ 0 since parity is

violated in these weak decays. Note that the strong and electromagnetic interactions do conserve parity.

Charge conjugation is another important discrete symmetry. A transformation under the charge conjugation

operator, Ĉ, changes a particle, a, into an antiparticle, ā, together with a phase factor6 , Ca , specific to that

particle:

Ĉ a = Ca ā . (3)

We can see from Equation 3 that a is only a eigenstate of Ĉ if the particle is its own antiparticle: a = ā,

e.g. for the photon and the neutral pion. In these cases the eigenvalue, Ca , is known as the intrinsic C-parity

of the particle. If we apply the operator twice we should be back where we began, so if a = ā we obtain:

Ĉ Ĉ a = ĈCa a = Ca2 a = a leading to Ca = ±1. For interactions involving particles that are eigenstates

of the charge conjugation operator, the total C-parity before and after the interaction must be conserved

if the interaction is symmetric under a charge conjugation transformation. Said another way: the total C-

parity of an interaction is conserved if the interaction is symmetric under particle $ antiparticle exchange.

The C-parity of particles can be measured by assuming charge conjugation conservation in interactions. For

particles that are not their own antiparticles eigenstates of charge conjugation can only be formed by linear

combinations of a particle–antiparticle pair, e.g. p12 K 0 + K¯0 where K 0 = ds̄ and K¯0 = sd. ¯ It is worth

noting that in the case that a 6= ā the phase factor Ca in Equation 3 cannot be measured and can therefore

be set to 1 (see problem sheet 3). Just like parity, C-parity is a multiplicative quantum number. It turns

out, as we shall see in the next section, that the weak interaction is not invariant under a charge conjugation

transformation, however both the electromagnetic and strong interactions are.

6 A phase factor in quantum mechanics is defined as ei✓ , where ✓ is known as the phase. The absolute value of a phase factor

3

PHAS3224: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2017

In 1957 various experiments measured the angular distribution of electrons (positrons) from the decay of

polarised (anti)muons: µ ! e ⌫¯e ⌫µ or µ+ ! e+ ⌫e ⌫¯µ . These measurements showed it to be of the form:

✓ ◆

1 1

Re± (✓) = ± 1 ± cos ✓ (4)

2 µ 3

where Re (✓) is the rate of electrons from muon decay as a function of the angle between the muon spin

and the electron direction, ✓, Re is the same thing for positrons in antimuon decay, µ is the muon decay

rate constant and µ+ is the antimuon decay rate constant. The first thing to note from Equation 4 is the

di↵erence between the form of Re (✓) and Re+ (✓), seen immediately from the sign in front of the 13 cos ✓

term (positive for e+ and negative for e ). If charge conjugation were conserved, we would expect the form

of the two to be identical (as a charge conjugation transformation would just change the µ decay into a µ+

decay and vice versa). By inspecting Equation 4 we can also see that parity is violated in this decay. The

parity transformation implies that ✓ ! ⇡ ✓ and ! ⇡ + in spherical polar coordinates. If we consider

the muon spin to be aligned with the z-axis so that for a parity transformation, ✓ ! ⇡ ✓ in Equation 4,

such that 1 + 13 cos ✓ ! 1 13 cos ✓ and vice versa. We therefore conclude that parity is also violated in muon

and antimuon decay.

However, an important thing to note is that if we consider a charge conjugation transformation (C)

together with a parity transformation (P), we are back where we started, as the sign in front of 13 cos ✓

changes twice. This is telling us that even though the weak interaction violates C and P symmetries, it is

invariant under a combined CP transformation. While this is true to a good approximation, we will see later

that CP violation does exist at a small level in the weak interaction, and this is intimately linked to the

dominance of matter over antimatter in our Universe. We should also reiterate here that the individual C

and P symmetries are conserved in the electromagnetic and strong interactions.

The C and P violation that was observed experimentally in the 1950s is now explained within the Standard

Model by the spin structure of weak interactions. In order to understand this we will first introduce helicity,

which is defined as the projection of a particle’s spin on its direction of motion: H = ~s|~p.~p| , where ~s is the

particle spin and p~ is the particle momentum. Recall that the projection of a fermion’s spin on any chosen axis

can take two possible values: + 12 or 12 . Therefore, a fermion can either have a positive helicity: H = + 12 or

a negative helicity: H = 12 . A negative helicity means that the particle is left-handed. A positive helicity

means it is right-handed. It turns out that only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed antineutrinos interact

weakly. This is the origin of the observed parity violations in weak interactions, as we shall see. And in fact,

since neutrinos only interact via the weak interaction, it turns out that only left-handed neutrinos (⌫L ) and

right-handed antineutrinos (¯ ⌫R ) are observed in nature! This was proved in 1958 when Goldhaber measured

the helicity of the neutrino.

For any particle with non-negligible mass, such that v < c, it is always possible for an observer to

travel faster and overtake the particle. A left-handed particle would then appear right-handed. Therefore,

for fermions other than neutrinos we cannot say that they are 100% left or right-handed. For relativistic

⇣ 2 ⌘2

fermions with mass, the forbidden helicity states are suppressed by an approximate factor: ⇠ mc E , where

m is the fermion mass and E is the fermion energy. This is clearly a small number for relativistic fermions.

We can see that a parity transformation on a left-handed neutrino brings us to a right-handed neutrino

(the momentum changes direction and the spin remains unchanged). Since right-handed neutrinos do not

4

PHAS3224: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2017

exist it is clear that parity is violated. Similarly, charge conjugation transformation on a left-handed neutrino

turns it into a left-handed antineutrino, which also does not exist, demonstrating that charge conjugation

is also violated. However a combined CP transformation would change a left-handed neutrino into a right-

handed antineutrino, which does exist, so it appears CP can be conserved. We will see in the next sections

explicitly how the lack of the existence of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed antineutrinos led to the

observations in -decay and muon-decay that we have discussed.

We now revisit the parity violation observed in decay for Cobalt-60, where we saw that electrons were

preferentially emitted in the direction opposite the direction of the nuclear spin. 60 Co has a spin of 5

and 60 Ni* has a spin of 4. In order to conserve angular momentum, the spin of the produced electron and

antineutrino (both spin-1/2) must both be aligned with the nuclear spin. In order to conserve momentum

the electron and antineutrino will be travelling in opposite directions. In the case that the antineutrino is

in the direction of the nuclear spin and the electron is in the opposite direction, the antineutrino will be

right-handed and the electron will be left-handed in the massless limit, which is perfectly allowed. However,

the case where the electron is in the direction of the nuclear spin, and the antineutrino is in the opposite

direction, we are dealing with a left-handed antineutrino and a right-handed electron in the massless limit.

This configuration is forbidden by the spin structure of the weak interaction and leads to the observed

experimental results, where the electron is preferentially emitted in the direction opposite the nuclear spin.

We now revisit the parity violation observed in muon decay. This is a three body decay so the orientation

of the particles is not as simple, but if we look at the decays with the highest possible electron (or positron)

energies, then we are in a configuration where the electron (positron) is travelling back-to-back with the

neutrino and the antineutrino, which would then travel very close to each other. In this case, ensuring

momentum conservation, the energy of the electron/positron will be Ee ⇠ mµ /2. If we consider the two

possible cases where: (1) the electron travels in the direction opposite the spin of the decaying muon and

(2) the electron travels in the same direction of the decaying spin, we can convince ourselves (see lectures)

that there is only one possible spin alignment for each that does not involve either a right-handed neutrino

or a left-handed antineutrino. In order to conserve angular momentum, in case (1) the electron must have

negative helicity and in case (2) the electron must have positive helicity. In the relativistic limit case (2)

is suppressed. Since the mass of the electron is very small compared to the decaying muon, the relativistic

limit is a good approximation, and we come to the experimentally observed conclusion that electrons are

preferentially emitted in the direction opposite the muon spin. If we work through the same logic for antimuon

decay, we reach the opposite conclusion for the direction of the positrons, just as was observed experimentally.

Consider the charged pion decay process:

⇡ + ! `+ + ⌫ `

where `+ is a positron or an antimuon. Ignoring helicity suppression, we would expect these rates to be

similar, due to lepton universality (e.g. the coupling of the W + to the e+ ⌫e is the same as that to the µ+ ⌫µ ).

There are some expected di↵erences in the rates due to kinematic e↵ects. The smaller mass of the electron

with respect to the muon results in it having a larger momentum, and due to the density of states factor

5

PHAS3224: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2017

of the reaction rate, we would expect the rate to be just over two times that for the muons (see problem

sheet 3). Experimentally, however, the branching ratio to µ+ ⌫µ is (99.98770 ± 0.00004)% and that to e+ ⌫e is

(0.01230 ± 0.00004)%. This huge di↵erence in the branching ratios can be understood by helicity suppression

resulting from the spin structure of the weak interaction.

If you consider the process in the rest frame of the decaying ⇡ + , the `+ and the ⌫` would be produced back-

to-back, travelling in opposite directions in order to conserve momentum. Now, the ⇡ + is a spin-0 particle

and the `+ and the ⌫` fermions are both spin-1/2 particles. So, in order to conserve angular momentum, the

spins of the two particles must be anti-aligned. This gives two possible scenarios:

1. a left-handed ⌫` and a left-handed `+

2. a right-handed ⌫` and a right-handed `+

We know that 2. is forbidden, as right-handed neutrinos are not observed in nature. So the only way the

process can occur is via 1. But this involves a left-handed antiparticle, the `+ . If the `+ were massless,

this decay would not be possible. Since the charged leptons are not massless the decay is possible, but it is

⇣ 2 ⌘2

suppressed by the factor mc E , where m is the charged lepton mass and E is its energy. We can determine

the charged lepton’s energy in the rest frame of the ⇡ by conserving momentum and energy before and after

the decay to give: m⇡ c2 = E` + E⌫ and |p` |c = |p⌫ |c. The neutrino mass is negligible compared to the

2

energies giving: E⌫ = |p⌫ |c = |p` |c. Now write the expression: E`2 = p2` c2 + m2` c4 = m⇡ c2 E` + m2` c4 =

2 2 4 2 2 4

E` + m⇡ c 2m⇡ c E` + m` c and rearrange to give:

m2` + m2⇡ c2

E` = .

2m⇡

⇣ ⌘2

2m⇡ m`

This leads to a suppression factor of m2` +m2⇡

. Using m⇡ = 139.57 MeV/c2 , mµ = 105.7 MeV/c2 and

me = 0.51 MeV/c2 we can straightaway see that the muon is not highly relativistic in this decay, but the

✓ ◆2

me (m2µ +m2⇡ )

electron is. The ratio of the suppression factor for electrons to that for muons is mµ (m2 +m2 ) = 5.7⇥10 5 .

e ⇡

A detailed calculation, combined with the density of states factor mentioned above, leads to a ratio that is

in very good agreement with the experimentally determined branching ratios.

- DfaUploaded byMark Kaplan
- 1006.2372Uploaded byMatthew David Rizik
- annotated source listUploaded byapi-454724497
- 22_forcesUploaded byMizanur Rahman
- 199613.pdfUploaded byEstudante de Ciências
- The NeutrinoUploaded byAdnan Tyo
- Special RelativityUploaded bypraveshgtm
- Fundamental Neutron Physics IUploaded bybinifs
- IOPUploaded byLeonardo Martins Bianco
- PHSV03I02P0116.pdfUploaded byphysicsjournal
- D. Hubert, A. Davour and C. de los Heros- Search for neutralino dark matter with the AMANDA neutrino detectorUploaded byKdmds
- Faculty RecruitmentUploaded bybrijpankaj
- Giants 1 Inherit the StarsUploaded byHangTheBankers
- Baryogenesis Without Grand UnificationUploaded byLê Hoàng Minh
- m256.pdfUploaded byMansura Akter Susama

- Fission and FusionUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- Git Cheat SheetUploaded bykzelda
- Decision Trees and Random ForestsUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- 3.Unsupervised LearningUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- ML workshopUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- Yuval Noah Harari - SAPIENS - Az Emberiseg Rovid TorteneteUploaded byZsolnai Andrea
- 04 Phonons-Thermal PropertiesUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- Lattice DynamicsUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- DiffractionUploaded byAlexandra Veres
- Feynman-Leighton-Sands - Mai fizika 1.A mechanika törvényei-upByOM.pdfUploaded byAlexandra Veres

- MEITRACK MT90 User Guide V1.6Uploaded byMeitrack
- the Network Configuration Operators GroupUploaded byferro4u
- Site analysis formatUploaded byAnanthapadmanabhan Kizhakke Maliyeckal
- global warmingUploaded byPayal Maskara
- ButilhioscinaUploaded bykarylili
- DSI-DYWIDAG Geotechnical Product Range EnUploaded byzuccolo
- 06 Steel Chimney CodeUploaded byTuan Dang
- 45597369-TEMS-Investigation-9-0-Getting-Started-ManualUploaded byhoangtuna
- Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) _ ImacUploaded byPankaj Garg
- arendt on politicsUploaded byGeorge Khris Debbarma
- Personality Development & Communication Skills - I _dec2010Uploaded bypuruaggarwal
- ICAS-96Uploaded byGiannis Giorgos
- Srivaishnava WebsitesUploaded byezhilarasanmp
- SFM Session 7Uploaded byChienny Hocosol
- f322 mod2Uploaded byapi-275024237
- gtUploaded byjnav
- .NET Training GuidesUploaded byUmar Ali
- Lenth Method 1989Uploaded byJan Libbrecht
- Handbook Unimelb Edu AuUploaded byJigar Thakkar
- BCGUploaded byGary Thomas
- mUploaded byshefalirahul20
- BUC-lpodUploaded byJuan Eric Aabye
- PX M5S DatasheetUploaded bypdmnbrao
- Nokia Secret Codes 2Uploaded byHittesh Solanki
- Sol Mat HaeusslerUploaded bym1228m1228
- Aix CommandsUploaded byKondalu Katta
- ArchimedesUploaded byTbs Sisirakumara
- unpacking 5th grade writing standardsUploaded byapi-319949346
- Mobile communcatiomUploaded byabhi1984_lucky
- Schneider PM820 Reference ManualUploaded byAysu Özlem