Final States in Charmed Particle Decays

  • Jonathan L. Rosner
Part of the Studies in the Natural Sciences book series (SNS, volume 12)


It is shown how weak decays of charmed particles provide information on the isospin of the charm-changing weak interactions, multi-particle production, enhancement of nonleptonic weak interactions, unseen decay modes of known charmed particles and best ways in which to discover new ones, and possible new weak currents and new fermions.


Neutral Pion Weak Decay Semileptonic Decay Strange Particle Charm Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.J. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 33, 1404 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.-E. Augustin et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 33, 1406 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2, 1285 (1970).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The hadronic weak currents of Ref. 3 were first proposed by M. Gell-Mann and S.L. Glashow, 1961 (unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Letters 8, 214 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Z. Maki and Y. Ohnuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 32, 144 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Y. Hara, Phys. Rev. 134, B701 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. B.J. BjqSrken and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Letters 11, 255 (1964), in which “charm” is named.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    General quartet schemes for hadrons have been considered by the authors of Refs. 3, 4, as well as by Y. Katayama et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 675 (1962)Google Scholar
  10. P. Tarjanne and V.L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. Letters 11, 447 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Z. Maki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 31, 331–333 (1964)Google Scholar
  12. D. Amati, H. Bacry, J. Nuyts, and J. Prentki, Phys. Letters 11, 190 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 6.
    G. Goldhaber, F.M. Pierre, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 255 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 7.
    I. Peruzzi, M. Piccolo, G.J. Feldman, H.K. Nguyen, J.E. Wiss, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 569 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 8.
    G. Goldhaber, “Study of Charmed Mesons at SPEAR”, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory report LBL-5534, presented at 1976 SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics.Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    R. Schwitters, in Proceedings of Division of Particles and Fields American Physical Society Divisional Meeting, Brookhaven National Laboratory, October, 1976, edited by Ronald F. Peierls, Brookhaven Natl. Lab. report BNL-50598, February, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    J.E. Wiss, G. Goldhaber, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 1531 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 11.
    A description of tests for weak decays of heavy mesons is given by Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, Comments in Nuclear and Particle Physics, to be published. The most conclusive of these tests makes use of the Dalitz-plot analysis of Charles Zemach, Phys. Rev. 133, B1201 (1964), and has been used in Ref. 10 to infer that the D is decaying weakly.Google Scholar
  19. 12.
    S.L. Glashow, in Experimental Meson Spectroscopy -1974, edited by D.A. Garelick, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1974, p. 387.Google Scholar
  20. 13.
    Mary K. Gaillard, Benjamin W. Lee, and Jonathan L. Rosner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 277 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    A. De Rujula, Howard Georgi, and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D12, 147 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 15.
    O. Nachtmann and A. Pais, Phys. Letters 65B, 59 (1976).Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    Murray Peshkin and Jonathan L. Rosner, “Isospin Restrictions on Charge Distributions in Charmed Particle Decays,” Institute for Advanced Study report C00–2220–93, December, 1976, to be published in Nuclear Physics B.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    A. Pais and S.B. Treiman, “Charmed Meson Lifetime Ratios and Production in e+ -e Collisions, ”Rockefeller University report no. C00–2232B-112, to be published in Phys. Rev. D.Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    E. Fermi, Phys. Rev. 92, 452 (1953); 93, 1434 (E) (1954).Google Scholar
  26. 19.
    A. Pais, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 9, 548 (1960), Ibid., 22, 274 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 20.
    F. Cerulus, Nuovo Cimento (Suppl.) 15, 402 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 21.
    A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Letters 32, 1081 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 22.
    Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, to be published in Phys. Rev. D15 (1977).Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    E. Fermi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 5, 570 (1950).Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    Some early work in this area is reviewed by A. Jabs, Nucl. Phys. B34, 177 (1971)Google Scholar
  32. D.Q. Lamb, in Proceedings of the Colloquium on High Multiplicity Hadronic Interactions, Ecole Polytechnique, 1970, edited by A. Krzywicki et al., p. IV. 89.Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cimento (Suppl.) 3, 147 (1965)Google Scholar
  34. S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. D3, 2821 (1971)Google Scholar
  35. C.J. Hamer and S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. D4, 2125 (1971).Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    C.J. Hamer, Nuovo Cimento 12A, 162 (1972).Google Scholar
  37. 27.
    S.J. Orfanidis and V. Rittenberg, Nucl. Phys. B59, 570 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 28.
    B. Jean-Marie et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 291 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 29.
    Gary J. Feldman and Martin L. Perl, Phys. Letters 19C, 233 (1975).Google Scholar
  40. 30.
    G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo, and L. Maiani, Nucl. Phys. B88, 285 (1975); Phys. Letters 57B, 277 (1975).Google Scholar
  41. 31.
    R.L. Kingsley, S.B. Treiman, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Dll, 1919 (1975).Google Scholar
  42. 32.
    M.B. Einhorn and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D12, 2015 (1975); Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1114 (C) (1975).Google Scholar
  43. 33.
    J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B100, 313 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 34.
    K. Niu, E. Mikumo, and Y. Maeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 46, 1644 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 35.
    H. Sugimoto, Y. Sato, and T. Saito, Prog. Theor. Phys. 53, 1541(L) (1975), and In Proceedings of the 14th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Munich, Aug. 15–29, 1975, Max-Planck-Institut, 1975, paper no. HE5–6, p. 2427.Google Scholar
  46. 36.
    E.H.S. Burhop et al., Phys. Letters 65B, 299 (1976).Google Scholar
  47. 37.
    Early emulsion events, including those of Refs. 34 and 35, are discussed by K. Hoshino et al., in Proceedings of the 1975 Cosmic Ray Conference (op. cit. Ref. 35) papers no. HE 5–11, p. 2442, and HE 5–12, p. 2448, and by G.B. Yodh, in Proceedings of the 1975 Cosmic Ray Conference (op. cit. Ref. 35), P. 3936. The importance of asso- ciated production in reducing background from nuclear interactions is stressed by Yodh and in Ref. 38.Google Scholar
  48. 38.
    T.K. Gaisser and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D14, 3153 (1976).Google Scholar
  49. 39.
    E.G. Cazzoli et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 34, 1125 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 40.
    B. Knapp et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 882 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 41.
    B. Knapp, in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
  52. 42.
    S.J. Barish et al., to be published in Phys. Rev. D15 (1977).Google Scholar
  53. 43.
    A. De Rujula, Howard Georgi, and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 398, 785 (C) (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 44.
    A.W. Hendry and D.B. Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. D12, 2756 (1975).Google Scholar
  55. 45.
    Frederick J. Gilman, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
  56. 46.
    Frederick J. Gilman, in High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure - 1975 (AIP Conference Proceedings No. 26 ), edited by D.E. Nagle et al., New York, American Institute of Physics, 1975, p. 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 47.
    F. Vannucci et al., “Mesonic Decays of the 4)(3095),” SLAC and LBL report SLAC-PUB-1862, LBL5595, December, 1976, submitted to Phys. Rev.Google Scholar
  58. 48.
    M. Peshkin, Phys. Rev. 121, 636 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 49.
    I thank S. Nussinov for proofs of some special cases.Google Scholar
  60. 50.
    I thank A. Pais for a discussion of this point.Google Scholar
  61. 51.
    Using data quoted in Ref. 27 on up to 7-prong annihilations, I have checked that the sum of all pionic annihilations constructed with the help of tables of Ref. 19 is only about 2/3 of the actual total.Google Scholar
  62. 52.
    Gail Hanson et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1609 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 53.
    This possibility has been raised in Ref. 54 for decays of hadrons containing heavier quarks.Google Scholar
  64. 54.
    Robert N. Cahn and Stephen D. Ellis, “How to Look for b-Quarks”, Univ. of Michigan report 76.45, January, 1977 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, unpublished.Google Scholar
  66. 56.
    I thank C. Quigg for pointing out that Eq. (IV.5) entails P-(n) = c2n-1/[n:(n+l)!I1(2c)], where I1 is a modified Bessel function, and n = c I2(2c) /I1(2c) = c - 3/4 + 3/(32c) + 0(1/c2).Google Scholar
  67. 57.
    I thank D. Horn for a discussion of more general parametrizations, including the Gaussian distribution. A Gaussian would be suitable for describing the distribution if its center and width were fixed by the data. With present uncertainties in branching ratios (see Ref. 9), this is not possible.Google Scholar
  68. 58.
    Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, in progress.Google Scholar
  69. 59.
    The table of branching ratios for D -+ K7 + n7 inGoogle Scholar
  70. Ref. 13 contains an additional assumption which is not compatible with present data (see Refs. 6–10) or with the discussion of Sec. IV. A, namely, the fixing of c in Eq. (IV.5), and hence of n, a priori.Google Scholar
  71. 60.
    H. Meyer, these proceedings; W. Braunschweig et al., Phys. Letters 63B, 471 (1976)Google Scholar
  72. J. Burmester et al., Ibid. 64B, 369 (1976).Google Scholar
  73. 61.
    Gary J. Feldman, F. Bulos, D. Luke, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 38, 117 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 62.
    For further considerations, see M. Bourquin and J.-M. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B114, 334 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. I. Hinchcliffe and C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Nucl. Phys. B114, 45 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. V. Barger, T. Gottschalk, and R. J.N. Phillips, Phys. Letters 64B, 333 (1976), and Univ. of Wisconsin report C00–569, August, 1976, to be published, and M. Gronau et al., DESY report 76/62, November, 1976, to be published.Google Scholar
  77. 63.
    See, e.g., Frederick J. Gilman, in Proceedings of the 1975 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions et High Energies, Stanford University, August 21–27, 1975, edited by W.T. Kirk, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, Calif., 1975, p. 131, and H. Harari, Ibid., p. 317.Google Scholar
  78. 64.
    M.L. Perl et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1489 (1975); Phys. Letters 633, 466 (1976).Google Scholar
  79. 65.
    S. Nussinov, Institute for Advanced Study report C00–2220–85, September, 1976, to be published in Phys. Rev.Google Scholar
  80. 66.
    According to H. Lipkin (these proceedings), this singlet admixture may not have predictable effects.Google Scholar
  81. 67.
    These have been worked out by C. Quigg (private communication).Google Scholar
  82. 68.
    A.J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B109, 373 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 69.
    A.J. Buras and John Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B111, 341 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 70.
    The decimal factor is a phase space correction.Google Scholar
  85. 71.
    S.R. Borchardt and V.S. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 1287 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 72.
    G. Coremans-Bertrand et al., Phys. Letters 65B, 480 (1976).Google Scholar
  87. 73.
    I thank C. Quigg for checking the kinematic solutions.Google Scholar
  88. 74.
    The factor of 2 on the left of Eq. (VI.4) comes from our assumption of CP invariance, since only the sum for particles and antiparticles is quoted. Tests of CP invariance in decays of charmed particles are noted by A. Pais and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D12, 2744 (1975), and Maurice Goldhaber and Jonathan L. Rosner, to be published in Phys. Rev. D15 (1977). For an extensive review of a class of models for CP violation see H. Harari, “Beyond Charm”, lectures delivered at Les Houches Summer School, August, 1976, Weizmann Institute report WIS-76/54 PH, to be published.Google Scholar
  89. 75.
    H. Fritzsch, these proceedings.Google Scholar
  90. 76.
    R.M. Barnett, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
  91. 77.
    F. Gürsey, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
  92. 78.
    S.L. Glashow, these proceedings.Google Scholar
  93. 79.
    I. Karliner, Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 759 (0) (1976).Google Scholar
  94. 80.
    T.P. Cheng and Ling-Fong Li, “Nonconservation of Separate u-and e- Numbers in Gauge Theories with V+A Currents,” December, 1976, to be published; T.P. Cheng, these proceedings.Google Scholar
  95. 81.
    J.D. Bjorken and C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rev. D7, 887 (1973).Google Scholar
  96. 82.
    Since fK = 1.28 fv, these constants might indeed be increasing slightly with mass. The value of fF may be useful for distinguishing among quark models: see C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 53, 521 (1969). For an extreme view of symmetry-breaking effects, see J. Kandaswamy, J. Schechter, and M. Singer, Phys. Rev. D13, 3151 (1976).Google Scholar
  97. 83.
    The maximum in Fig. 5 occurs for mN = mF/1/3 = 1.16 GeV/c2.Google Scholar
  98. 84.
    A. Benvenuti et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 34, 4l9 (1975); Ibid., 34, 597 (1975); Ibid. 35, 1199 (1975); Ibid. 35, 1249 (1975); D. Cline, 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9).Google Scholar
  99. 85.
    B. Barish et al., Calif. Inst. of Technology report CALT 68–567, presented by O. Fackler at 1976 DPF Meeting (op. cit. Ref. 9).Google Scholar
  100. 86.
    Y.S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D4, 2821 (1971).Google Scholar
  101. 87.
    A. Pais and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D14, 293 (1976).Google Scholar
  102. 88.
    I am indebted to Arthur Halprin for suggesting this rest.Google Scholar
  103. 89.
    Note added: (I am indebted to S. Nussinov for discussions leading to the following remarks): An alternative version of the nonet ansatz, consistent with the 6 dominance assumption, is the following: if D° = oil -~ s u d ú - K° + (n or n’), the n and n’ must be produced through the u ú state, so that one finds the ratio listed in parentheses in Eq. (V.7). This then leads to the alternative conclusions in parentheses in Eqs. (V.8) and (V.9). Similarly if F+ = c s -} s u d g -3–7 + (n or n,), the n and n’ must be produced through the s g state, leading to a ratio of F (p+ ÷ T+n’)/F(F+ -3- î+n) which is l/4 that obtained in Ref. 32. The numbers in parentheses in Table VIII are based on the assumption that the n and n’ are produced via the s g state.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan L. Rosner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced StudyPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations