Isospin decomposition of K->ππ decay

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the isospin decomposition of the decay process K->ππ, specifically addressing the discrepancies between decay amplitudes and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The decay amplitudes for K0 and K+ are expressed in terms of A0 and A2, which correspond to total isospin states I=0 and I=2. The participant highlights a mismatch in coefficients between their calculations and those found in external sources, such as Wikipedia. They also reference a paper discussing the introduction of fictitious particles (spurions) due to the weak nature of the decay, complicating the isospin analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of isospin representation in particle physics
  • Familiarity with Clebsch-Gordan coefficients
  • Knowledge of decay amplitudes in weak interactions
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics and particle decay processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in detail
  • Explore the role of fictitious particles (spurions) in weak decays
  • Investigate the implications of isospin symmetry in particle physics
  • Review advanced texts on decay amplitudes and their calculations
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers focusing on weak interactions and decay processes will benefit from this discussion.

Einj
Messages
464
Reaction score
59
I'm studying the decay K->ππ and I have some doubts on the isospin decomposition. We know that the state (\pi\pi) can have total isospin 0 or 2. Now, if we remember that in the isospin representation we have |\pi^+\langle=|1,1\langle, |\pi^0\rangle=|1,0\rangle and |\pi^-\rangle=|1,-1\rangle, then using Clebsch-Gordan coefficients we find:

\begin{eqnarray}
|\pi^+\pi^-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|2,0\rangle+\frac{1}{ \sqrt{2}}|1,0\rangle+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|0,0\rangle \\
|\pi^0\pi^0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|2,0\rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|0,0\rangle \\
|\pi^+\pi^0\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,1\rangle + |1,1\rangle)
\end{eqnarray}

Now, my textbook says that we can decompose the decay amplitudes as follow:

\begin{eqnarray}
A_{K^0\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-}=A_0e^{i\delta_0}+\frac{A_2}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\delta_2} \\
A_{K^0\rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0}=A_0e^{i\delta_0}-\sqrt{2}e^{i\delta_2} \\
A_{K^+\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^0}=\frac{3}{2}A_2e^{i\delta_2}
\end{eqnarray}

where A0 and A2 are the aplitude referred to the final state with I=0,2.
The problem is: why the decay amplitudes don't present the same coefficient as in the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Instead of the second line, Wikipedia gives

|1,0> ⊗ |1,0> = √(2/3)|2,0> - √(1/3)|0,0>

Does that help?
 
My fault. I wrote wrong in the post but I did the calculation with the correct formula. I will correct it right now. Still if you see the coefficients of the firt and second group of equation don't match.
 
Well, how about this, the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients give

|0> = √(1/3)(|1,-1> + |-1,1> - |0,0>)
|2> = √(1/6)(|1,-1> + |-1,1>) + √(2/3) |0,0>

Let K0 decay into the state Φ ≡ B0|0> + B2|2>

= √(1/3)(|1,-1> + |-1,1>)(B0 + √(1/2)B2) - √(1/3)|0,0>(B0 - √2B2)

Rescaling A0 = √(1/3)B0, A2 = - √(1/3)B2 we get

Φ = (|1,-1> + |-1,1>)(A0 + √(1/2)A2) + |0,0>(A0 - √2A2), which reproduces the first two of the textbook equations.
 
Actually, if I haven't done wrong calculation, I think there are some signs that doesn't match. However I think the situation is a little more complicated as I read here: http://web.mit.edu/woodson/Public/Duarte_isospin.pdf
The article talk about some fictitious particles (spurion) that must be introduced because the decay is a weak one, while the isospin is a good quantum number for strong interaction. I'll see :biggrin:
Thank you very much
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K