Few Body Systems and Nuclear Forces II pp 333-352 | Cite as

# Three-Body Phenomenology for Elementary Particle Systems

Conference paper

## Abstract

Today, and for the next several years, the few-body theorist who is willing to confront data directly, has a unique opportunity to make contributions of significance and broad interest in Elementary Particle Physics. The contributed works at this meeting, for the most part, have ignored such possibilities, and rather than review these papers (which speak clearly for themselves), I shall try to present, what I hope, are new horizons for many of you.

## Keywords

Partial Wave Dalitz Plot Partial Wave Analysis Baryon Resonance Phase Shift Analysis
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.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.D. J. Herndon, P. Söding, and R. J. Cashmore, Phys. Rev. D11, 3165 (1975).ADSGoogle Scholar
- See also B. H. Brandsen and R. G. Moorhouse, The Pion-Nucleon System (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1973). These authors give a detailed list of earlier references.Google Scholar
- 2.R. Aaron and R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1157 (1973). The “minimal” equations which implement both unitarity and subenergy analyticity have been discussed by I.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J. R. Aitchison, Phys. Rev. 137, B1070 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Aaron and R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. D13, 2581 (1976).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 3.These results are byproducts of the πN elastic scattering calculation described in R. Aaron and R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 1316 (1971). For more details of the calculation see.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Aaron, Modern Three-Hadron Physics, edited by A. W. Thomas (Springer, Heidelberg, W. Germany, 1976), Chap. 5. An expanded discussion of the physics of Fig. 1 appears in the Appendix of.Google Scholar
- R. Aaron et al., Phys. Rev. D16, 50 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 4.D. J. Herndon et al., Phys. Rev. D11, 3183 (1975). Hereafter referred to as BSC.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.R. Aaron, R. D. Amado and J. E. Young, Phys. Rev. 174, 2022 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.This work has been done in collaboration with R. S. Longacre at Northeastern University, and R. A. Arndt, D. C. Teplitz and V. L. Teplitz at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
- 7.Three-pion data: G. Ascoli et al., Phys. Rev. D7, 669 (1973).ADSGoogle Scholar
- Yu. M. Antipov et al., Nucl. Phys. B63, 153 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- K*K data: G. Otter et al., Nucl. Phys. B96, 365 (1975).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.J. Penegr, et al., “Evidence for Resonance Behavior of A
_{1}and A_{3}Mesons Coherently Produced on Nuclei,” paper submitted to the Budapest Conference, 1977.Google Scholar - 9.C. Baltay, C. V. Cautis and M. Kalekar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 591 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.M. J. Corden et al., Rutherford Laboratory Preprint No. RL-77-139/A.Google Scholar
- 11.Ph. Gavillet et al., Phys. Lett. 69B, 119 (1977) for K-mesons, and.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- A. Ferrer et al., Phys. Lett. 74B, 287 (1978) for π-mesons.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.SLAC-LBL Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1120 (1978)[τ → μυῡ and τ̄ → ῡ3π]. PLUTO Collaboration, DESY, H. Meyer, Meeting of the APS-DPF, Argonne 1977 [τ → eυῡ, τ̄ → ῡ3π].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.See, for example, H. J. Schnitzer, “Spin Structure in Meson Spectroscopy with an Effective Scalar Confinement of Quarks,” Brandeis Preprint (to be published in Phys. Rev. D).Google Scholar
- 14.L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 973 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.R. S. Longacre and R. Aaron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1509 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.R. Aaron, R. S. Longacre and J. E. Sacco, Northeastern University Preprint NUB #2340 (to be published in Annals of Physics, N.Y.).Google Scholar
- 17.J. B. Bronzan, Phys. Rev. 139, B751 (1965).ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 18.R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. 132, 485 (1963).ADSCrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 19.This result is consistent with that of other authors. See for example, R. L. Schult and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. D16, 62 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
- I. J. R. Aitchison and R. J. A. Golding, Phys. Lett. 59B, 228 (1975).Google Scholar
- 20.D. Morgan, Contribution to International Conference on High Energy Physics, Palermo, 1975.Google Scholar
- M. G. Bowler, M. A. V. Game, I. J. R. Aitchison and J. B. Dainton, Nucl. Phys. B97, 227 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J. L. Basdevant and E. L. Berger, Phys. Rev. D16, 657 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 21.I. J. R. Aitchison and M. G. Bowler, University of Oxford Preprint #24/77.Google Scholar
- 22.R. Arnowitt, M. H. Friedman and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. 174, 2008 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.H. J. Schnitzer and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 164, 1828 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.R. Aaron, H. Goldberg and R. S. Longacre, Northeastern University Preprint NUB #2350 (revised).Google Scholar
- 25.We interpret Soln E of Basdevant and Berger (Réf. 20) which contains two driving poles as being of this type, with the distant pole corresponding to a short range repulsion.Google Scholar
- 26.See Ref. 8. The conclusions of these authors disagree with ours. We believe that they are in error for two reasons: (1) They ignored the Deck mechanism altogether. (2) They used the 0 pir partial wave amplitude as a reference. As we have shown in Sec. I, this amplitude is small, varies rapidly over the Dalitz plot, and is poorly determined in partial wave analyses. Clearly, it is a poor choice for a reference amplitude!.Google Scholar
- 27.D. D. Brayshaw, SLAC-PUB-2094 (March, 1978).Google Scholar
- 28.H. J. Melosh, Phys. Rev. D9, 1095 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 29.F. J. Gilman, M. Kugler and S. Meshkov, Phys. Rev. D9, 715 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 30.D. Faiman and J. Rosner, Phys. Lett. 45B, 357 (1973).Google Scholar
- 31.For results of LBL-SLAC analysis see Ref. 4; the Saclay analysis is described by R. S. Longacre and J. Dolbeau, Nucl. Phys. B122, 493 (1977), and the Imperial College analysis by K. W. J. Parnham et al., submitted to the Topical Conference on Baryon Resonances, Oxford, July 1976. For a review and comparison of the LBL-SLAC, Saclay, and Imperial College analyses, see invited talk by K. W. J. Barnham presented at this conference.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.D. Faiman, Nucl. Phys. B109, 286 (1976). For a detailed comparison of the fitted amplitudes with theory, see R. S. Longacre and J. Dolbeau, Ref. 31.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.F. von Hippel and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D5, 624 (1972).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 34.J. Blatt and V. E. Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Wiley, New York, 1952), p. 361.MATHGoogle Scholar
- 35.R. S. Longacre, Northeastern University Preprint NUB #2356.Google Scholar
- 36.J. Orear, Cornell University Preprint #CLNS384.Google Scholar
- 37.M. G. Olsson and L. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1127 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.The spokesman for this experiment is G. A. Rebka.Google Scholar
- 39.R. Aaron and H. Goldberg (in preparation); see also, Ref. 24.Google Scholar
- 40.S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 188 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.D. Faiman, Nucl. Phys. B115, 478 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.See Ref. 41 for theoretical situation and R. S. Longacre and J. Dolbeau, Ref. 31, for experimental status.Google Scholar
- 43.A. B. Wicklund, ANL-HEP-CP-76-56; Aachen-Berlin-Bonn-CERN Collaboration, Bonn-HE-76-21; Bonn-Hamburg-Munich (MPI) Collaboration, MPI-PAE/Exp.E1.64.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1978