Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strong decay rates andSU 3. A comparison and critique

  • Published:
Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970)

Summary

A systematic comparison between the predictions of unbrokenSU 3 and experiment regarding strong decays of accepted and potential supermultiplets is presented. It is found that the accepted supermultiplets (J P=3/2+, 1−, 2+) are in reasonable agreement with predictions, while the hypothetical 3/2− and 5/2+ cases are not.

Riassunto

Si espone un confronto sistematico fra le predizioni della simmetriaSU 3 non infranta e gli esperimenti riguardanti i decadimenti forti dei supermultipletti accettati e potenziali. Si trova che i supermultipletti accettati (J P=3/2+, 1−, 2+) sono in ragionevole accordo con le previsioni, mentre non lo sono i casi ipotetici 3/2− e 5/2+.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. We consider two-body decays only. (One exception, namely the 3π decay of vector meson isosinglets is discussed in footnote (19)).

  2. For the 1−, 3/2+, 3/2− and 5/2+ cases, seeS. Glashow andA. Rosenfeld:Phys. Rev. Lett.,10, 192 (1963); andM. Gourdin:Erg. Exakt. Natur.,36, 1 (1964).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. For the 2+ case seeS. L. Glashow andR. H. Socolow:Phys. Rev. Lett.,15, 329 (1965).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. For vector mesons seeS. Okubo:Phys. Lett.,5, 165 (1963);J. J. Sakurai:Phys. Rev. Lett.,9, 472 (1962);M. Gell-Mann, D. Sharp andW. G. Wagner:Phys. Rev. Lett.,8, 261 (1962).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. One can of course consider potential meson supermultiplets as well. For example the set {B (1220), C° (1225), D (1280) and E (1415)} is a candidate for 1+ nonet status, and can be so accomodated provided D, E mixing is assumed. However, there are serious questions as to the nature of the B and C mass peaks. This, together with the fact that the decay modes are only very crudely known, makes any analysis highly problematical at the present time.

  6. M. Gell-Mann: CTSL-20 (1961);S. Okubo:Progr. Theor. Phys.,27, 949 (1962).

  7. See tables ofJ. J. De Swart:Rev. Mod. Phys.,35, 916 (1963). TheSU 3 factors are summarized in Tables II and III.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. A. J. Macfarlane andR. H. Socolow: Syracuse University Preprint NYO-3399-44 (1965).

  9. TheD/F ratio is described in Table III by the parameter α, where (1−α)/α=D/F For the 2+ decays α≡G/F in the notation of ref. (3) For the 2+ case see.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. This prescription is very close, but not identical to that used in the various references of footnote (2).For the 1−, 3/2+, 3/2− and 5/2+ cases, see.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. J. M. Blatt andV. F. Weisskopf:Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Reading, Mass., 1952), p. 361.

  12. R. E. Behrends andL. F. Landowitz:Phys. Rev. Lett.,11, 296 (1963)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. V. Gupta andV. Singh:Phys. Rev.,136, B 782 (1964);C. Beechi, E. Eberle andG. Morpurgo:Phys. Rev.,136, B 808 (1964);E. Johnson andE. McCliment:Phys. Rev.,139, B 591 (1965).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. In addition, the sum rules provided by brokenSU 3 are a priori more easily satisfied than the equalities provided in the present approach.

  15. A. H. Rosenfeld, A. Barbaro-Galtieri, W. H. Barkas, P. L. Bastien, J. Kirz andM. Roos:Rev. Mod. Phys.,37, 633 (1965).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Armenteros,et al.:Phys. Lett.,19, 75 (1965).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. J. Badier, M. Demoulin, J. Goldberg, B. P. Gregory, C. Pelletier, G. Rouge, M. Ville, R. Barloutaud, G. Levèque, C. Louedec, J. Meyer, P. Schlein, A. Verglas, D. J. Holthuizen, W. Hoogland, J. C. Kluyver andA. G. Tenner:Phys. Lett.,19, 612 (1965); Brookhaven National Laboratory-Syracuse University Collaboration (private communication).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. seeLondon et al. (ref. (20))

  19. S. Meshkov, G. A. Snow andG. B. Yodh:Phys. Rev. Lett.,12, 87 (1964).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. For a review of the situation, seeJ. Leitner:An Experimentalist's View of SU 3 , Syracuse University, ONR report ONR-tt-1 (unpublished). This statement depends upon the octet nature of the breaking interaction. Clearly, one can always fit the data with small additional terms if one allows all sorts of breaking, with concomitantly large number of parameters.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. L. O’Raifeartaigh

    Present address: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y.

    M. Goldberg, J. Leitner, R. Musto & L. O’Raifeartaigh

Authors
  1. M. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Leitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Musto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. O’Raifeartaigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work was supported by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research.

Traduzione a cura della Redazione

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldberg, M., Leitner, J., Musto, R. et al. Strong decay rates andSU 3. A comparison and critique. Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 45, 169–178 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02738084

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02738084

Keywords

Search

Navigation