Deeper Pathways in High-Energy Physics pp 489-534 | Cite as

# Final States in Charmed Particle Decays

Chapter

## Abstract

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.

## Keywords

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.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.J.J. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 33, 1404 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.J.-E. Augustin et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 33, 1406 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2, 1285 (1970).Google Scholar
- 4.The hadronic weak currents of Ref. 3 were first proposed by M. Gell-Mann and S.L. Glashow, 1961 (unpublished)Google Scholar
- M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Letters 8, 214 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Z. Maki and Y. Ohnuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 32, 144 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Y. Hara, Phys. Rev. 134, B701 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- B.J. BjqSrken and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Letters 11, 255 (1964), in which “charm” is named.Google Scholar
- 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
- P. Tarjanne and V.L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. Letters 11, 447 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Z. Maki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 31, 331–333 (1964)Google Scholar
- D. Amati, H. Bacry, J. Nuyts, and J. Prentki, Phys. Letters 11, 190 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.G. Goldhaber, F.M. Pierre, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 255 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.I. Peruzzi, M. Piccolo, G.J. Feldman, H.K. Nguyen, J.E. Wiss, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 569 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 10.J.E. Wiss, G. Goldhaber, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 1531 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 13.Mary K. Gaillard, Benjamin W. Lee, and Jonathan L. Rosner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 277 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.A. De Rujula, Howard Georgi, and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D12, 147 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.O. Nachtmann and A. Pais, Phys. Letters 65B, 59 (1976).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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 - 18.
- 19.
- 20.F. Cerulus, Nuovo Cimento (Suppl.) 15, 402 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Letters 32, 1081 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, to be published in Phys. Rev. D15 (1977).Google Scholar
- 23.E. Fermi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 5, 570 (1950).Google Scholar
- 24.Some early work in this area is reviewed by A. Jabs, Nucl. Phys. B34, 177 (1971)Google Scholar
- 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
- 25.R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cimento (Suppl.) 3, 147 (1965)Google Scholar
- S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. D3, 2821 (1971)Google Scholar
- C.J. Hamer and S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. D4, 2125 (1971).Google Scholar
- 26.C.J. Hamer, Nuovo Cimento 12A, 162 (1972).Google Scholar
- 27.S.J. Orfanidis and V. Rittenberg, Nucl. Phys. B59, 570 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.B. Jean-Marie et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 291 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Gary J. Feldman and Martin L. Perl, Phys. Letters 19C, 233 (1975).Google Scholar
- 30.G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo, and L. Maiani, Nucl. Phys. B88, 285 (1975); Phys. Letters 57B, 277 (1975).Google Scholar
- 31.R.L. Kingsley, S.B. Treiman, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Dll, 1919 (1975).Google Scholar
- 32.M.B. Einhorn and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D12, 2015 (1975); Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1114 (C) (1975).Google Scholar
- 33.J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B100, 313 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.K. Niu, E. Mikumo, and Y. Maeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 46, 1644 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 36.E.H.S. Burhop et al., Phys. Letters 65B, 299 (1976).Google Scholar
- 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 - 38.T.K. Gaisser and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D14, 3153 (1976).Google Scholar
- 39.E.G. Cazzoli et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 34, 1125 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.B. Knapp et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 882 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.B. Knapp, in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
- 42.S.J. Barish et al., to be published in Phys. Rev. D15 (1977).Google Scholar
- 43.A. De Rujula, Howard Georgi, and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 398, 785 (C) (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.A.W. Hendry and D.B. Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. D12, 2756 (1975).Google Scholar
- 45.Frederick J. Gilman, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 48.M. Peshkin, Phys. Rev. 121, 636 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.I thank S. Nussinov for proofs of some special cases.Google Scholar
- 50.I thank A. Pais for a discussion of this point.Google Scholar
- 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
- 52.Gail Hanson et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1609 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.This possibility has been raised in Ref. 54 for decays of hadrons containing heavier quarks.Google Scholar
- 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
- 55.Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, unpublished.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 58.Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and Jonathan L. Rosner, in progress.Google Scholar
- 59.The table of branching ratios for D -+ K7 + n7 inGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 60.H. Meyer, these proceedings; W. Braunschweig et al., Phys. Letters 63B, 471 (1976)Google Scholar
- J. Burmester et al., Ibid. 64B, 369 (1976).Google Scholar
- 61.Gary J. Feldman, F. Bulos, D. Luke, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 38, 117 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.For further considerations, see M. Bourquin and J.-M. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B114, 334 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- I. Hinchcliffe and C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Nucl. Phys. B114, 45 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 64.M.L. Perl et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1489 (1975); Phys. Letters 633, 466 (1976).Google Scholar
- 65.S. Nussinov, Institute for Advanced Study report C00–2220–85, September, 1976, to be published in Phys. Rev.Google Scholar
- 66.According to H. Lipkin (these proceedings), this singlet admixture may not have predictable effects.Google Scholar
- 67.These have been worked out by C. Quigg (private communication).Google Scholar
- 68.A.J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B109, 373 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.A.J. Buras and John Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B111, 341 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 70.The decimal factor is a phase space correction.Google Scholar
- 71.S.R. Borchardt and V.S. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 1287 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.G. Coremans-Bertrand et al., Phys. Letters 65B, 480 (1976).Google Scholar
- 73.I thank C. Quigg for checking the kinematic solutions.Google Scholar
- 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
- 75.H. Fritzsch, these proceedings.Google Scholar
- 76.R.M. Barnett, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
- 77.F. Gürsey, these proceedings, and in 1976 DPF Proceedings (op. cit. Ref. 9 ).Google Scholar
- 78.S.L. Glashow, these proceedings.Google Scholar
- 79.I. Karliner, Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 759 (0) (1976).Google Scholar
- 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
- 81.J.D. Bjorken and C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rev. D7, 887 (1973).Google Scholar
- 82.Since f
_{K}= 1.28 f_{v}, these constants might indeed be increasing slightly with mass. The value of f_{F}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 - 83.
- 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
- 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
- 86.Y.S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D4, 2821 (1971).Google Scholar
- 87.A. Pais and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D14, 293 (1976).Google Scholar
- 88.I am indebted to Arthur Halprin for suggesting this rest.Google Scholar
- 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