2
$\begingroup$

$\omega(782)$

Here it says this decay mode is a violation of C-parity. I don't understand how that works.

So $\omega$ has $C=-1$ and $J=1$ and $\pi^0$ has $C=1$ and $J=0$, that means the orbital angular momentum of final state is $L=1-0=1$. Consider C-parity of final state we get $C=(-1)^L=-1$. This seems to agree with C-parity conservation?

I've also seen an argument saying that our final state with $L=1$ is anti-symmetric if we exchange two $\pi^0$, which is forbidden since they are bosons. But I don't understand how that's related to C-parity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ what does the angular momentum have to do with it. C conservation has to do with charge conjugation and in isospin space, not in space. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_parity . The generalization is G parity, also displayed in the table you show en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-parity where the isospin vectors appear and for neutral particles only I appears. page 3 of pdg.lbl.gov/rpp-archive/files/RevModPhys.52.S1.pdf $\endgroup$ – anna v Dec 2 '17 at 5:13
  • $\begingroup$ @annav Thanks for your reply. I understand the definition of c parity and g parity, I just don’t know why this decay mode is listed under “charge conjugation violating modes” in the picture I posted. $\endgroup$ – Salmonella mayonnaise Dec 7 '17 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ I thinnk it is because G and C are the same for neutral states $\endgroup$ – anna v Dec 7 '17 at 19:19
1
$\begingroup$

@anna_v 's comment is your answer. The ω has C=- and G=- , while the C of each π0 is +, and thus of their aggregate +. (Your involving the angular momentum here in connection to C is fundamentally unsound--You are probably confusing the aggregate C of a fermion-antifermion pair or π+ π- which go into each other. Stay away from it here.)

The G of each pion is -, so their aggregate's is +, so G-parity also forbids the decay. That's what G parity is: evenness versus oddness of the number of pions. The ω is thus destined to only decay to an odd number of π s. However, G parity is violated more than C, since it involves isospin in its definition, which is not as perfect a quantum number as C in the strong interactions.

The PDG entry is thus spot on.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.