Advertisement

Charge Symmetry Breaking at TRIUMF: Past, Present, and Future

  • C. A. Davis
  • R. Abegg
  • A. R. Berdoz
  • J. Birchall
  • E. B. Cairns
  • J. Campbell
  • K. Choi
  • G. H. Coombes
  • N. E. Davison
  • P. P. J. Delheij
  • P. W. Green
  • L. G. Greeniaus
  • D. C. Healey
  • E. Korkmaz
  • J. Li
  • C. A. Miller
  • S. A. Page
  • W. D. Ramsay
  • N. L. Rodning
  • A. M. Sekulovich
  • J. Soukup
  • G. M. Stinson
  • W. T. H. van Oers
  • G. D. Wait
  • J. Zhao
Conference paper

Abstract

The validity of charge symmetry has long been of fundamental interest and much circumstantial evidence has accumulated over the years favoring charge symmetry breaking (CSB) on the order of a fraction of a percent. Although low energy nucleon-nucleon scattering studies have shown a slight inequality of the nn and pp scattering lengths[1], it has proved very difficult to remove experimental and theoretical uncertainties to isolate charge symmetry breaking interactions unequivocally. Evidence of CSB is present in π scattering from 3 H and 3 He and in πd total and differential cross section measurements[2],[3],[4],[5]. The πd results have been interpreted in terms of mass splittings in the Δ system. Differences in the binding energies of mirror nuclei (the Nolen-Schiffer effect) hint at the presence of charge symmetry breaking terms in the interaction but, again, the isolation and removal of electromagnetic (EM) effects has proved difficult[6],[7].

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    O. Dumbrais et al., Nucl. Phys. B 216, 277 (1983).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. Balestri et al., Nucl. Phys. A 392, 217 (1983).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B.M.K. Nefkens et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 735 (1984).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Pedroni et al., Nucl. Phys. A 300, 321 (1978).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T.G. Masterson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 220 (1981).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    E.M. Henley and G.A. Miller, in Mesons in Nuclei, ed. M. Rho and D.H. Wilkinson, ( North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979 ), p. 406.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P.G. Blunden and M.J. Iqbal, Phys. Lett. B 198, 14 (1987).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Abegg et al., Phys. Rev. D 39, 2464 (1989);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. R. Abegg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2571 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [9]
    G.A. Miller, A.W. Thomas, and A.G. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2567 (1986);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. A.G. Williams, A.W. Thomas, and G.A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 36, 1956 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. [10]
    Lei Ge and J.P. Svenne, Phys. Rev. C 33, 417 (1986)Google Scholar
  13. Lei Ge and J.P. Svenne, Phys. Rev. C 34, 756 (1987).Google Scholar
  14. [11]
    M.J. Iqbal, R.M. Woloshyn, and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. C 36, 2442 (1987).Google Scholar
  15. [12]
    R. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 195, 121 (1987).Google Scholar
  16. [13]
    M. Beyer and A.G. Williams, Phys. Rev. C 38, 779 (1988).Google Scholar
  17. [14]
    M.J. Iqbal and J.A. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2259 (1988).Google Scholar
  18. [15]
    R. Abegg et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, A 234, 11 (1985);Google Scholar
  19. R. Abegg et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, A 234, 20 (1985).Google Scholar
  20. [16]
    P.P.J. Delheij, D.C. Healey, and G.D. Wait, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 264, 186 (1988);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. P.P.J. Delheij, D.C. Healey, and G.D. Wait, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Polarization Phenomena in Nuclear Physics - 1985 Google Scholar
  22. M. Kondo et al., J. Phys. Soc. J.n. Suppl. 55, 1090 (1986).Google Scholar
  23. [17]
    S.E. Vigdor et al., Polarization Phenomena in Nuclear Physics - 1980, AIPCP no. 69, 1455(AIP New York, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  24. [18]
    W.W. Jacobs, Proceedings of the Workshop on Spin and Symmetries, TRIUMF Report TRI-89–5 (Vancouver, 1989 );Google Scholar
  25. C. Bloch et al., IUCF Scientific and Technical Report 1988–89.Google Scholar
  26. [19]
    TRIUMF Experimental Proposal 369, spokespersons: L.G. Greeniaus and W.T.H. van Oers.Google Scholar
  27. [20]
    TRIUMF Experimental Proposal 565, spokesperson: C.A. Davis.Google Scholar
  28. [21]
    TRIUMF Experimental Proposal 368, spokesperson: L.G. Greeniaus.Google Scholar
  29. [22]
    C.Y. Cheung, E.M. Henley, and G.A. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1215 (1979); also, Nucl. Phys. A 348, 365 (1980).Google Scholar
  30. [23]
    J.A. Niskanen, M. Sebestyn, and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C 38, 838 (1988);Google Scholar
  31. J.A. Niskanen and M.J. Iqbal, Phys. Lett. B 218, 272 (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. A. Davis
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Abegg
    • 1
  • A. R. Berdoz
    • 2
  • J. Birchall
    • 2
  • E. B. Cairns
    • 3
  • J. Campbell
    • 2
  • K. Choi
    • 3
  • G. H. Coombes
    • 3
  • N. E. Davison
    • 2
  • P. P. J. Delheij
    • 1
  • P. W. Green
    • 3
  • L. G. Greeniaus
    • 1
    • 3
  • D. C. Healey
    • 1
  • E. Korkmaz
    • 3
  • J. Li
    • 3
  • C. A. Miller
    • 1
  • S. A. Page
    • 2
  • W. D. Ramsay
    • 2
  • N. L. Rodning
    • 3
  • A. M. Sekulovich
    • 2
  • J. Soukup
    • 2
  • G. M. Stinson
    • 1
  • W. T. H. van Oers
    • 2
  • G. D. Wait
    • 1
  • J. Zhao
    • 2
  1. 1.TRIUMFVancouverCanada
  2. 2.University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations