3
$\begingroup$

According to the Particle Data Group, the lifetimes of the neutral and charged $\Xi$ baryons differ significantly: $\tau(\Xi^-) = (1.639 \pm 0.015) \times 10^{-10}$ s, while $\tau(\Xi^0) = (2.90 \pm 0.09) \times 10^{-10}$ s. This is despite the fact that the dominant decay mode of both is to $\Lambda \pi$ (with a charged or a neutral pion, respectively), and both decays proceed through the same quark-level transition.

What is the reason why the neutral $\Xi$ lives almost by a factor 2 longer? Is there a simple explanation, or the answer is hidden in non-perturbative QCD effects?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Isospin. It looks like a homework problem, with a summary answer in Okun's book, p 63. You need quark diagrams like a hole in the head.

This strangeness-changing decay violates isospin by 1/2, so assuming the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece of the hamiltonian dominates, and, since Λ is an isosinglet (so irrelevant to the isospin amps), you just consider the addition of a spurion s of isospin $|1/2,-1/2\rangle$ added to the cascade isodoublet $|1/2,\pm 1/2\rangle$, to yield pion states $|1,0\rangle$ and $|1,-1\rangle$ respectively. Isospin is preserved in the subsequent hadronization sequence.

The ratio of the respective decay amplitudes, then, is the simplest Clebsch ever, wich is exactly why your PDG booklet you no doubt are staring at has a Clebsch table: the most useful page of it! $$ \frac{\langle \pi^- \Lambda | \Xi^- \rangle} {\langle \pi^0 \Lambda | \Xi^0 \rangle} = \frac { \langle J_\pi=1 , M_\pi=-1 | j_s=1/2 , m_s=-1/2; j_\Xi=1/2 , m_\Xi=-1/2 \rangle} { \langle J_\pi=1 , M_\pi=0 | j_s=1/2 , m_s=-1/2; j_\Xi=1/2 , m_\Xi=1/2 \rangle} =\sqrt{2}. $$

Thus, squaring the amplitude...


Response to comment:

Here is an "explanation" of the basic ΔI=1/2 rule of weak interactions: Assuming the short distance weak hamiltonian is dominated by its ΔI=1/2 piece, the QCD-driven hadronization preserves isospin, so the weak blob is regarded as an "act of god", simulated/summarized by a I=1/2 spurion. Okun gives you the practical application rules for these spurions, but, frankly, you should have learned all about them in your HEP course, not here...

When it comes to "math is great", of course the $\sqrt 2$ is the normalization of the neutral pion wave function, because it is basically the Clebsch you get by adding two spin 1/2s, and descending by one step. I assume you appreciate that, isoladder-wise, the pion is a composite of a spurion and a cascade! I would call this mathematical analogy, rather than the "underlying physics". The "physics" of this is just the cornerstone ΔI=1/2 rule.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, reference to the book is very useful too! However, I feel like this "describes" the experimental result rather than "explains" it, and spurion looks like a hack to get the correct result. Why is strong isospin "conservation" (when spurion taken into account) relevant for weak decays? Math is great, but I want to understand better the physics behind (there are no real spurions when the Xi decays!). My hypothesis was that sqrt(2) in fact emerges because of 1/sqrt(2) normalisation in the pi0 wave function. PS this is not a hw/exam question. $\endgroup$
    – Martino
    Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know how you contrast "describe" to "explain": you are basically telling me you are not accepting the $\Delta I= 1/2$ rule, the cornerstone of the weak interactions, because you don't have a QCD-based support of it. Advanced texts, like Donoghue and Holstein discuss it, but it is a fact, and you should be using it. What it says is that the (isospin-violating) part of the weak hamiltonian amounts to a spurion of I=1/2, and then isospin is respected during QCD hadronization. Perhaps you want to ask a separate question on that, but it's basic HEP. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ J. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B.R. Holstein, Dynamics of the Standard Model, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1992). Ch VIII - 4, p 249. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for such extensive addition, and for the references. Indeed, this was not in my HEP course (so far), and thus caught me confused. $\endgroup$
    – Martino
    Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ Not so far? Press your teacher to cover it. In practical matters, you'd be relying on it a lot--it would be your adjustable wrench, in conceptual terms. Okun, a master, took special pains to build up student proficiency in this, in his (still) peerless book. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 18:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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