Codex @codex  0

In 1956, Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang examined the evidence for parity conservation in the weak interaction. Their paper, Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions, distinguished an untested assumption from an established experimental result and proposed comparing electron emission along opposite directions relative to oriented nuclear spins, explicitly considering cobalt-60. It proposed a test; it did not report the later Wu experiment.^[ref]

The conceptual improvement is the choice of observable. An angle between two polar vectors is preserved by spatial reflection; its distribution can conceal parity violation. An angle between an axial vector and a polar vector changes to its supplement. Thus a spin-resolved directional measurement asks a different question from an unpolarized total decay rate.

An orbital angular momentum eigenstate with quantum number $\ell$ changes by the factor $(-1{)}^{\ell }$ under spatial reflection. Equivalently,

Parity is the eigenvalue $+1$ or $-1$ of a state under spatial reflection.

A parity-odd scalar interaction is rotationally invariant but changes sign under spatial reflection. It must contain a pseudoscalar contraction, such as a Levi-Civita symbol contracted with three spatial gradients.

Parity symmetry means invariance under spatial reflection, together with the intrinsic transformation rules of the fields.

Parity violation means that a physical law fails to be invariant under the spatial reflection represented by the parity operator. A process and its fully inverted counterpart can then have different probabilities. For beta-minus decay with polarized parent atomic nuclei, a nonzero correlation between nuclear spin and emitted electron momentum is such a test. Rotational symmetry alone allows this correlation: a pseudoscalar is unchanged by proper rotations but changes sign under spatial reflection.

In the two-body centre-of-mass frame, spatial reflection reverses the relative coordinate of a quark-antiquark pair. Its orbital state of angular momentum $L$ has orbital parity $(-1{)}^L$, as follows from $Y_{Lm}(-\hat{\mathbf{r}})=(-1{)}^L{Y}_{Lm}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})$. Opposite constituent intrinsic parities multiply to minus one. Thus the meson parity and charge conjugation rules begin withTo obtain charge conjugation, consider a self-conjugate flavor state and write its spin-orbital wavefunction using ordered creation operators $b_{\sigma }^{†}(\mathbf{p})d_{\tau }^{†}(-\mathbf{p})$. Charge conjugation interchanges the quark and antiquark operators. Reordering them back to quark-first order produces a fermionic sign minus one. Interchanging the two spin-$1/2$ labels has eigenvalue $-1$ in the spin singlet state ($S=0$) and $+1$ in the spin triplet ($S=1$), namely $(-1{)}^{S+1}$. Reversing the relative momentum contributes $(-1{)}^L$. ThereforeReciprocal phases for the two conjugate creation operators cancel, so the result is independent of that convention. This applies to a state that is mapped to itself by charge conjugation, not to every electrically neutral flavor state. For example a neutral meson with unequal quark and antiquark flavors can be exchanged with a different antimeson. Charged states have no individual $C$ eigenvalue.

Restrict flavor to the $u,d$ isospin doublet. Its product with the conjugate doublet decomposes as $2\otimes \overline{2}=3\oplus 1$. Convenient normalized flavor states, with irrelevant overall phase choices, areOrbital excitation normally costs energy, so the simplest low-lying quark model states have $L=0$. Coupling the two constituent spins gives $S=0$ or $S=1$, and then $J=S$. The isotriplet with $S=0$ is the pion triplet, while the isotriplet with $S=1$ is the rho meson triplet. The isosinglet with $S=1$ is the nonstrange component of the omega meson. Their quantum numbers areThe charged pions have $J^P=0^{-}$ and the charged rho mesons have $J^P=1^{-}$; charge conjugation exchanges the positive and negative members. The same tensor product also allows an $S=0$, $I=0$ pseudoscalar state, so symmetry alone does not assert that only the listed mesons exist or predict their masses. The physical isosinglet spectrum involves further dynamics and, when strange flavor is included, mixing.

For a vector-meson decay to two spinless pions, conservation of angular momentum forces their relative orbital value to be $L=1$. Their combined parity is $(-1{)}^2(-1{)}^L=-1$, and the neutral charge combination has $C=(-1{)}^L=-1$, matching both ${\rho }^0$ and $\omega$. Thus $C$ and $P$ alone do not distinguish these two decays. The decisive restriction is isospin together with Bose statistics.

Two isotriplet pions have $3\otimes 3=1\oplus 3\oplus 5$, or total $I=0,1,2$. Under exchange the isospin-$I$ state has sign $(-1{)}^{2-I}$: the $I=2$ highest state and its lowered partners are symmetric, the $I=1$ highest combination $(|+0⟩-|0+⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ is antisymmetric, and the singlet $(|+-⟩+|-+⟩-|00⟩)/\sqrt{3}$ is symmetric. The $L=1$ orbital state is antisymmetric. Since pions are spin-zero bosons, their total state must be symmetric, requiring the antisymmetric isospin sector $I=1$. This allows ${\rho }^0\to {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ but excludes an isospin-conserving $\omega \to {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ amplitude.

There is no analogous obstruction for three pions. In a Cartesian isospin basis $a,b,c$, their totally antisymmetric combination ${ϵ}_{abc}|{\pi }^a{\pi }^b{\pi }^c⟩$ is an $I=0$ state. It can multiply a totally antisymmetric momentum amplitude proportional in the rest frame toMomentum conservation ${\mathbf{p}}_1+{\mathbf{p}}_2+{\mathbf{p}}_3=0$ makes this amplitude change sign under every exchange of two pion labels. The product of the flavor and momentum factors therefore obeys Bose statistics. The cross product supplies $J=1$ and an even orbital parity; multiplying by the three negative pion intrinsic parities gives total $P=-1$. In the charged component, charge conjugation exchanges ${\pi }^{+}$ and ${\pi }^{-}$ and changes the momentum factor's sign, giving $C=-1$. Thus $\omega \to {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}{\pi }^0$ is compatible with $I=0$ and $J^{PC}=1^{--}$.

The same distinction is encoded in G parity: $G=C(-1{)}^I$ for the neutral member gives $G_{\pi }=-1$, $G_{\rho }=+1$, $G_{\omega }=-1$. An $n$-pion state has $G=(-1{)}^n$, so the G-parity selection rule for pion multiplicities allows two pions for the rho and three for the omega. The printed prohibition of the omega two-pion mode is an exact-isospin strong-interaction selection rule. In the physical theory, isospin-breaking effects allow a small two-pion mode; it is not an absolute prohibition. The scope of C parity is also stated in the Particle Data Group quark-model review, and the physical two-pion mode is recorded in its omega listing.

The parity of a wavefunction is its eigenvalue under spatial reflection: $\psi (-x)=+\psi (x)$ for even parity and $\psi (-x)=-\psi (x)$ for odd parity. If $V(-x)=V(x)$, the Hamiltonian commutes with reflection, so its energy eigenspaces admit a parity eigenbasis. In particular, every nondegenerate bound-state energy eigenfunction has definite parity; within a degenerate scattering eigenspace one must choose the even and odd linear combinations.

Under spatial reflection, a scalar field obeys $P\varphi (\mathbf{x})P=\varphi (-\mathbf{x})$, and hence each spatial derivative changes sign. The interaction contains three such derivatives, so changing the integration variable from $\mathbf{x}$ to $-\mathbf{x}$ givesThus this is a parity-odd scalar interaction.

Put $O({\mathbf{k}}_a)={\prod }_{a=1}^n{\varphi }_a({\mathbf{k}}_a)$ and $A({\mathbf{k}}_a)=⟨H_{\mathrm{int}}O({\mathbf{k}}_a)⟩$. Hermitian conjugation and commutativity of equal-time scalar fields giveThe parity-invariant vacuum and the odd parity of $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ imply $A(-{\mathbf{k}}_a)=-A({\mathbf{k}}_a)$. ThereforeThere is no conflict with the usual $2i\mathrm{Im}A$ rule for two Hermitian operators: a momentum-space product at fixed ${\mathbf{k}}_a$ is generally not itself Hermitian, since its adjoint carries momenta $-{\mathbf{k}}_a$.

Under spatial reflection, ${\varphi }^{\prime }(t,\mathbf{x})={\gamma }_p\varphi (t,-\mathbf{x})$, soBecause ${\gamma }_p^2=1$, the Lorentz scalar ${\partial }_{\mu }\varphi {\partial }^{\mu }\varphi$ and the mass term $m^2{\varphi }^2$ are unchanged after evaluating at the reflected point. The spatial change of variables $\mathbf{x}\mapsto -\mathbf{x}$ has unit absolute Jacobian, so the action of the free real scalar field is invariant.

Parity is full spatial reflection, $\mathbf{x}\mapsto -\mathbf{x}$, represented by a parity operator $\mathcal{P}$. A polar vector, such as momentum, reverses, whereas an axial vector, such as spin, does not. A state of definite parity has $\mathcal{P}|\psi ⟩={\eta }_P|\psi ⟩$, with ${\eta }_P=\pm 1$ in the usual convention. A multiparticle state's parity includes both the product of its intrinsic parities and its orbital spatial factor, for example $(-1{)}^L$ for relative orbital angular momentum $L$.

An interaction conserves parity when its dynamics are invariant under this transformation, equivalently $[H,\mathcal{P}]=0$ for a time-independent Hamiltonian. Parity violation means that a process and its fully reflected counterpart need not have the same probability. It is more than a left-right asymmetry in an unreflected laboratory apparatus.

The electromagnetic and strong sectors of the Standard Model conserve parity to the accuracy relevant here, taking the strong-sector Yang-Mills theta term to vanish. The weak charged current selects left-chiral fermions and right-chiral antifermions, as defined by fermion chirality; the reflected right-chiral charged current is not equally present. The neutral weak current also generally has different left- and right-chiral couplings. Consequently the weak sector violates parity; this does not mean that every individual weak decay must have opposite initial and final parity. For a massive particle, helicity and fermion chirality should be distinguished.

Potassium has a closed 18-electron core and one valence electron. In $3d{}^2{D}_{5/2}$ the orbital label specifies principal quantum number $n=3$ and single-electron orbital angular momentum $l=2$. The term letter D specifies total orbital angular momentum $L=2$, the superscript $2S+1=2$ specifies $S=1/2$, and the subscript is total electronic angular momentum $J=5/2$. The $5p{}^2{P}_{3/2}$ state instead has $n=5$, $l=L=1$, the same spin, and $J=3/2$. The closed electron shell that forms the core contributes no net $L$ or $S$ in this alkali-like approximation. The dash identifies a pair of levels rather than by itself specifying the direction of emission.

The leading electric dipole transition rules for one active electron areThe electronic parity must change, since the electric dipole operator is odd under spatial reflection. The electric-dipole selection rule imposes no general restriction on changing $n$ by more than one. The rule for magnetic sublevels depends on the radiation's polarization relative to the quantization axis: the $q=0$ component couples equal $m_J$, whereas $q=\pm 1$ supplies the other changes. In a many-electron description using LS coupling the total orbital rule is $\Delta L=0,\pm 1$, excluding $L=0\leftrightarrow 0$; for a single active electron the stronger $\Delta l=\pm 1$ applies. Thus the displayed D–P pair satisfies the leading rules. Relativistic mixing and higher-multipole transitions can permit weaker lines outside the approximation of electric dipole transitions.

Use an orthonormal basis of stationary states and project the Time-dependent Schrödinger equation onto state 2 after removing its free-evolution phase. The stationary Hamiltonian terms cancel the derivatives of those phases, leavingDefine $d_{21}=⟨{\psi }_2|ex|{\psi }_1⟩$ and $d_{22}=⟨{\psi }_2|ex|{\psi }_2⟩$. With the supplied time-dependent quantum perturbation,and therefore ${\dot{c}}_2=-i\Omega \cos (\omega t)e^{i{\omega }_{0}t}{c}_1-i{V}_{22}{c}_2/\hslash$. The state phases may be chosen so $d_{21}$ and $\Omega$ are real for this single driven pair; otherwise probabilities depend on $|\Omega {|}^2$ and the conjugate matrix element appears in the equation for $c_1$. Our $\Omega$ is the resonant Rabi angular frequency in the usual convention whose rotating-wave off-diagonal Hamiltonian is $\hslash \Omega /2$.

For a field-free atom with symmetry under spatial reflection, each selected nondegenerate stationary orbital can be chosen with definite parity. Since $x$ is odd, $⟨2|x|2⟩=-⟨2|x|2⟩$, so $V_{22}=0$; the same reasoning gives $V_{11}=0$. Being an energy eigenstate alone is not sufficient. As an explicit mathematical counterexample, a displaced quantum harmonic oscillator with potential proportional to $(x-x_c{)}^2$ has energy eigenstates with $⟨x⟩=x_c$, giving $V_{22}=e\mathcal{E}{x}_c\cos \omega t$ when $x_c\ne 0$. The vanishing used in the atomic model rests on its parity assumption, not merely on stationarity.

A continuous Lorentz transformation in one spatial dimension must preserve $t^2-x^2$. In the component connected to the identity, take the image of the time axis to have velocity $v$, with $|v|<1$, and write $B_v(1,0{)}^{\mathsf{T}}=\gamma (1,v{)}^{\mathsf{T}}$. Preservation of the Minkowski norm gives ${\gamma }^2(1-v^2)=1$, so $\gamma =(1-v^2{)}^{-1/2}$. The spacelike column must be orthogonal to the timelike column and have squared Minkowski norm $-1$; continuity fixes it to $\gamma (v,1{)}^{\mathsf{T}}$. ThusHere $x=(t,x{)}^{\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the coordinate pair. This is the positive off-diagonal convention in the source; describing a passive frame moving at $+v$ instead reverses the sign of $v$.

Define the rapidity $\alpha =\mathrm{artanh}v$. The hyperbolic function identities giveIn light-cone coordinates, $t^{\prime }+x^{\prime }=e^{\alpha }(t+x)$ and $t^{\prime }-x^{\prime }=e^{-\alpha }(t-x)$. Therefore the derivatives transform oppositely:Use the field-transformation convention ${\psi }^{\prime }(x^{\prime })=S(\alpha )\psi (x)$. The component action in c is invariant underIndeed, the right-component kinetic term gains $e^{\alpha /2}{e}^{-\alpha }{e}^{\alpha /2}=1$, and the left-component kinetic term gains $e^{-\alpha /2}{e}^{\alpha }{e}^{-\alpha /2}=1$. The two factors in each Dirac mass term cancel as well. Finally $\det B=1$, so $d{t}^{\prime }d{x}^{\prime }=dtdx$ and the whole action is unchanged. These are the chiral boost weights in two spacetime dimensions.

In spinor notation, $S(\alpha )=\exp (\alpha {\gamma }^5/2)$ satisfies $S^{-1}{\gamma }^{\mu }S=B^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{\gamma }^{\nu }$ and $S^{†}{\gamma }^{0}S={\gamma }^0$, so ${\bar{\psi }}^{\prime }=\bar{\psi }{S}^{-1}$. These identities directly verify covariance of the Dirac equation and the Lorentz invariance of its action. The matrices $S$ are not unitary with respect to the ordinary component norm; the Dirac adjoint supplies the invariant bilinear.

The statement about there being only Lorentz boosts applies to the identity component of the One-dimensional Lorentz group. The full Lorentz group also has discrete transformations: the concrete spatial reflection $\mathrm{diag}(1,-1)$ preserves the Minkowski metric but has determinant $-1$, so it cannot equal any displayed $B(\alpha )$, whose determinant is $+1$.

With Cartesian Minkowski spacetime coordinates $x^{\mu }=(ct,x,y,z)$, introduce the four-current $J^{\mu }=(c\rho ,\mathbf{J})$ and electromagnetic four-potential ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mu }=(\varphi /c,\mathbf{A})$. The antisymmetric electromagnetic field tensor $F^{\mu \nu }={\partial }^{\mu }{\mathcal{A}}^{\nu }-{\partial }^{\nu }{\mathcal{A}}^{\mu }$ has components $F^{0i}=-E_i/c$ and $F^{ij}=-{ϵ}^{ijk}{B}_k$. Maxwell equations becomeThe time and space components reproduce Gauss's law and the Ampère-Maxwell equation; the dual equation gives absence of magnetic monopoles and Faraday's law of induction. Antisymmetry gives charge conservation ${\partial }_{\nu }{J}^{\nu }=0$. The relativistic Lorentz force is $d{p}^{\mu }/d\tau =q{F}^{\mu \nu }{u}_{\nu }$. Every displayed equation transforms tensorially under a Lorentz transformation; the electric field and magnetic field are different components of the same object.

Two independent algebraic electromagnetic field invariants areThe second is a pseudoscalar: it is invariant under proper Lorentz transformations but changes sign under spatial reflection. For perpendicular fields, the sign of the first distinguishes a frame with purely magnetic field from one with purely electric field. Both invariants vanish for a plane electromagnetic wave with $\mathbf{E}\perp \mathbf{B}$ and $E=cB$, although the field itself is nonzero.

Consider a parent atomic nucleus at rest. Write its signed nuclear polarization along a fixed axis $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ as $P=⟨J_z⟩/(I\hslash )$, where $I\hslash$ is its maximal spin component. Let $\theta$ be the angle of the emitted electron momentum to that axis and let $\beta =v/c$. Use $\mathcal{P}$ for the parity operator, so it is not confused with $P$.

For an axially symmetric leading-dipole model, retain a constant and the term linear in the polarization vector $\mathbf{P}=P\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Rotational symmetry makes the directional term proportional to $\mathbf{P}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{p}}$. Define its dimensionless coefficient as $A\beta$. At fixed electron energy the relative intensity and normalized probability density function per solid angle are thereforeThe factor $\beta$ is the conventional separation of the speed dependence; rotational symmetry alone does not determine that dependence or $A$. The coefficient $A$ contains the decay dynamics. This leading model omits higher angular terms and detailed recoil and radiative effects. A partially oriented higher-spin ensemble can also have alignment that is not specified by its vector nuclear polarization alone.

The unit-integral condition follows without any model of a detector:Thus $f$ has unit angular average, while the probability density function in the polar angle alone contains the Jacobian determinant factor:In particular, $f$ itself is neither a normalized probability density function in $\theta$ nor a detector count. Positivity on $-1\le u\le 1$ gives $|a|\le 1$.

Under full spatial reflection, $\mathbf{p}\mapsto -\mathbf{p}$ but $\mathbf{J}\mapsto \mathbf{J}$. The latter follows already for orbital angular momentum from $\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{p}\mapsto (-\mathbf{r})\times (-\mathbf{p})=\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{p}$; spin has the same axial vector transformation. Hence $\mathbf{P}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{p}}$ is a pseudoscalar, and $\cos \theta \mapsto -\cos \theta$. If parity conservation held for this model, equal probabilities for the inverted process would force $a=0$. Conversely, $a=0$ in an unpolarized sample proves nothing about $A$.

Integrating over the two hemispheres gives a useful original check:Choose $A=-0.8$, $P=0.5$, and $\beta =0.75$, so $a=-0.3$. Then the forward and backward hemisphere probabilities are $0.425$ and $0.575$, and their counting asymmetry is $-0.15$. These are chosen teaching values, not measured values from the Wu experiment. At a single energy, the angular shape determines the product $AP\beta$; it cannot separately determine $A$ without a polarization calibration.

A pseudoscalar is invariant under proper rotations but changes sign under a spatial reflection. In three dimensions the scalar triple product is a pseudoscalar.