4.7 Review

Parity violation in compound nuclei:: experimental methods and recent results

Journal

PHYSICS REPORTS-REVIEW SECTION OF PHYSICS LETTERS
Volume 354, Issue 3, Pages 157-241

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00016-3

Keywords

parity violation; weak interaction; compound states; neutron resonances; nuclear spectroscopy; polarized-neutron beam; rms matrix element; spreading width; statistical theory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The TRIPLE Collaboration studies of space-parity symmetry in the compound nucleus show numerous examples of parity violation in Br, Rh, Pd., Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, I, Cs, Xe, La, U, and Th. The longitudinal cross section asymmetries have measured values, in the range of 10(-3)-10(-1) for neutron energies, from several eV up to 300-2000 eV, depending on the target. The high density of states leads to enhancement of the parity violation by factors as large as 10(6) relative to parity violation in pp scattering. The high degree of complexity of the levels permits the use of statistical methods for determination of the root mean square weak matrix element M for each nucleus. This report is focused on the experimental results of the TRIPLE Collaboration studies. Parity violation has been observed in 75 resonances of 18 nuclides. The experimental data and analysis are presented for each nuclide studied. A nonstatistical anomaly (the sign correlation effect) was observed in thorium. Statistical analysis techniques were developed and successfully applied to determine the rms weak matrix elements and the weak spreading widths Gamma (w). The value of Gamma (w) obtained from our analysis is about 1.8 x 10(-7) eV, which is in qualitative agreement with theoretical expectations. The individual weak spreading widths are consistent with a constant or slowly varying mass dependence and there is evidence for local fluctuations. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available