Parity Non-Conservation in Atomic Bismuth

  • P. E. G. Baird
Conference paper


Over the last year or so a number of developments have taken place in the search for parity non-conservation (PNC). in neutral weak current interactions both in atoms and in high energy physics experiments. Firstly, the recent announcement by(1) the S.L.A.C. group(1) that PNC has been detected in electron-proton and electron- deuteron scattering at energies around 20 GeV seems to support more or less unambiguously the Weinberg-Salam model(2) Secondly, new results have been obtained in the three atomic physics experiments working with bismuth vapour. In particular the Novosibirsk group(3) claim to have seen PNC at the level predicted by the Weinberg-Salam model (together with the atomic calculation of Novikov, Sushkov and Khriplovich(4)). The position is at present intriguing since experiments started several years ago at Oxford (648 nm transition in Bi) and Seattle (876 nm transition in Bi) and which were the first to reach the necessary sensitivity(5) have still failed to produce a result inconsistent with zero PNC. Thus a question mark still hangs over the atomic physics results, and the discrepancy between the Oxford and Novosibirsk results for the same atomic line must be resolved. It seems likely, however, that the situation will be clarified in the next few months as further refinements are made to the experiments with a corresponding reduction in the possible systematic error. Furthermore, experiments started more recently should also yield results(6).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G.Y. Prescott et al. Phys. Lett. 77B, 347, 1978CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Weinberg Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264, 1967 A. Salam Proc. 8th Nobel Symposium ed. N. Svartholm, Almkvist and Wiksell, Stockholm (1968)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.M. Barkov and M.S. Zolotorev Zh. Exkp. Teor. Fiz. Pis’ma 26, 379, 1978ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    V.N. Novikov, O.P. Sushkov and I.B. Khriplovich ZhETF 71, 1665, 1976Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.E.G. Baird et al., E.N. Fortson et al. Nature 264, 528, 1976CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Feinberg Nature 271, 509, 1978CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.R. Lewis and W.L. Williams Phys. Lett. 1942 59B, 70, 1975CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.W. Dunford, R.R. Lewis and W.L. Williams Submitted to Phys. Rev. A 1978Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.G. Drukarev and A.N. Moskalev ZhETF 73, 2060, 1977Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Bouchiat J. Phys. G 3, 183, 1977CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C.E. Loving and P.G.H. Sandars J. Phys. B 10, 2755, 1977ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.A. Bouchiat and C.C. Bouchiat Phys. Lett. 48B, 111, 1974CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.A. Bouchiat and L. Pottier Phys. Lett. 62B, 327, 1976CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Chu, E.D. Commins and R. Conti Phys. Lett. 60A, 96, 1977CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.E.G. Baird et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 798, 1977CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Novosibirsk experiment does not employ a Faraday modulator but simply uses the polarisers themselves to modulate the angle of rotation.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.J. Roberts et al Submitted for publication to J. Phys. BGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Mrozowski Phys. Rev. 62, 526, 1942CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 18a.
    S. Mrozowski,1942 Phys. Rev.69,169,1946CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    D.A. Landmann and A. Lurio Phys. Rev. Al, 1330, 1970Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    R.H. Garstang J. Res. Nat. Bureau of Standards 68A, 1, 61, 1946Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    M.J. Harris, C.E. Loving and P.G.H. Sandars to be published in J. Phys, B.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. E. G. Baird
    • 1
  1. 1.Clarendon LaboratoryOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations