Recent Observations of Charmed Baryons and Their Implications for Hadronic Production Processes

  • F. Muller
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSB, volume 61)


Even though the first observation of possible charmed baryon production(1) was prior to the discovery of the charmed D-meson(2) very much less is known experimentally, about charmed baryons than about charmed mesons. This is due to the fact that charmed mesons — at least the lowest mass states D,D¥, G — have been extensively produced and studied at SPEAR and DORIS, while this is not yet the case for charmed baryons. Actually all the experimental evidences for charmed particles, mesons as well as baryons, not coming from e+e- collisions, have been up to this year either indirect (emission of prompt leptons in hadronic interactions) or scanty (a few events in emulsions or bubble chambers). After a critical review of the early results on charmed baryons, recent observations in neutrino and hadron interactions will be described and their bearing on our understanding of hadronic production processes will be discussed.


Decay Mode Bubble Chamber Strange Particle Charm Production Charmed Meson 
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).
    E.G. Cazzoli et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 34,1125 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (1a).
    E.G. Cazzoli et al.Some indirect corroboration is given by an event reported in S.J. Barish et al., Phys. Rev. D15,1 (1977).Google Scholar
  3. (2).
    G. Goldhaber et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37,255 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (2a). Rujula et al., Phys. ReviewD12,147 (1975)ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. (4).
    J.G. Körner et al.,DESY 18/53 (October 1978)Google Scholar
  6. (5).
    B. Knapp et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37,882 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (6).
    M.S. Atiya et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 43,414 (August 1979).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (7).
    W. Lockman et al.,UCLA-1109 (1977).Google Scholar
  9. (8).
    A. de Bellelon et al.,Nucl. Phys. B 109,129 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (9).
    M. Piccolo et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 39,1503 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (10).
    T. Ferguson et al.,SLAC PUB 208l (1978).Google Scholar
  12. (11).
    A.M. Cnops et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 42,197 (January 1979).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (12).
    C. Baltay et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 42,1721 (June 1979).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (13).
    C. Baltay et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 41,73 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (14).
    C. Angelini et al., Phys. Letters 84B,150 (June 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  16. (15).
    K.L. Giboni et al., Phys. Letters 85B,437 (August 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. (16).
    W. Lockman et al., Phys. Letters 85B,443 (August 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. (17).
    D. Drijard et al., Phys. Letters 85B,452 (August 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. (18).
    M.G. Albrow et al.,Nucl. Phys.B108,1 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. (19).
    The mass-resolution in the experiment of ref. 15,which uses the same magnet,is better,due to the addition of supplementary multŕwire proportional chambers.Google Scholar
  21. (20).
    S. Erham et al., Phys. Letters 85B,447 (August 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. (21).
    D. Drijard et al., Phys. Letters 81B,250 (February 1979).ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. (22).
    M. Schindler,private communication (August 1979).Google Scholar
  24. (23).
    G. Feldmann,remark at the Gordon Conference (August 1979).Google Scholar
  25. (25).
    W. Geist,CERN/EP 79–78 (July 1979).Google Scholar
  26. (26).
    H. Wachsmuth,CERN/EP 79–115 (Octoher 1979).Google Scholar
  27. (27).
    C.E. Carlson and R. Suaya,Phys. Rev. D14,3115 (1976).ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. (28).
    A.M. Georgi et al.,HUTP-78/A008 (1978).Google Scholar
  29. (29).
    F. Halzen and S. Matsuda,Phys. Rev. D17,1344 (1978).ADSGoogle Scholar
  30. (30).
    H. Fritzsch and K.H. Streng,Phys. Letters 78B,447 (1978).ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. (31).
    Point 2,which seems high,results from the observation of 5 prompt single electrons in a π-p experiment in BEBC. Their mean pT is .3 GeV/c,rather low compared to that expected from D Kev → or Kev decays. For comparison,point 11 was calculated using only electrons -with pT > .5 GeV/c; if the more numerous electrons with pT < . 5 GeV/c were attributed to charm,the cross-section would jump to 700 μb.Google Scholar
  32. (32).
    L. Van Hove,TH 2628-CERN (February 1979)Google Scholar
  33. (32a).
    L. Van Hove,J. Ranft,SLAC-PUB 2052 and KMU-HEP 79–03.Google Scholar
  34. (33).
    Gluoproduction (ref. 30) has kinematical characteristics similar to diffraction: if the gluon of proton 1 has momentum p→ξ,the baryonic system it forms with proton 2,of momentum -p→ has mass 2p√ξ . Since ξ is on the average small,this mass is comparable to a diffractive mass 2p √1 - x, with x > .8. The two processes can be distinguished only by dynamical properties (x and pT distribution,s dependence).Google Scholar
  35. (34).
    G. Gustalson and C. Peterson,Phys. Letters67B, 81 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Muller
    • 1
  1. 1.CERNGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations