1
$\begingroup$

As it is well known, apart from +1 and -1 parities for particles and antiparticles, for intrinsic parity also defined "by convention" parity -1 for some symmetrical particles which are own antripartices. Such are, for example, photon and neutral pion.

From the point of view of physical meaning that is strong equivalent to statement that photon and neutral pion are antiparticles without particles, which severely violates real symmetry of that particles by convention for intrinsic parity.

Then, (surprisingly) in calculations on particle reactions that already violated by convention P-symmetry appeared to be violated again (of course) and physicists are making from it a big deal.

Explain, if you please, why?

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Cosmas Zachos, John Rennie, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Yashas Jun 2 at 8:31

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What interactions are you thinking about? What, exactly, do you construe parity violations as, and propose to understand about parity violation? $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos May 31 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ This is a question of entity of intrinsic parity concept and so, this is a question of consistency of P-symmetry considirations. One cannot have correct symmetry considerations basing on spoiled definition of what symmetry is. $\endgroup$ – coodan Jun 1 at 5:29
  • $\begingroup$ does your physics background include this basic definition of parity? hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/parity.html $\endgroup$ – anna v Jun 1 at 6:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, anna v, and that is what should be a partiry. And what was destroyed by assigning -1 partities for symmetrical particles which are own antiparticles by convention/definition. $\endgroup$ – coodan Jun 1 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ It is not convention for composite of quarks particles, hadrons, click on the "parities of particles". the beautiful su(3) representations validate the basic rules hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/haddia.html#c1 $\endgroup$ – anna v Jun 1 at 6:15

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.