Relating partial width to helicity

sk1105
Messages
88
Reaction score
12
My lecture notes give an example of two decay modes of ##K^+##, namely ##K^+\rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu## and ##K^+\rightarrow e^+ \nu_e##. Both of these decays are suppressed due to helicity considerations which I understand, and the suppression factors are ##\frac{m_\mu c^2}{E_\mu}## and ##\frac{m_ec^2}{E_e}## respectively.

My notes then say that the ratio of partial widths of these decays is given by ##\frac{\Gamma(K^+\rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu)}{\Gamma(K^+\rightarrow e^+ \nu_e)} = \frac{m_\mu^2}{m_e^2}##.

This immediately follows on from the previous discussion, suggesting that there is some link or equivalence between decay amplitude suppression and partial widths, but I can't quite get my head round it. Thank you for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##E_\mu \approx E_e##, and probabilities (and branching fractions and partial widths, they are all proportional to each other) are proportional to the amplitude squared.
 
Ah ok the proportionality makes sense. My notes don't mention that we approximate the energies to be equal. In a high-energy collision it is clear that the difference in rest energy between the electron and the muon is negligible compared to ##\sqrt{s}##, but in this case are we saying it is negligible compared to the kaon rest energy?
 
Not negligible if you are interested in precision predictions, but it is a small effect. The 500 MeV from the kaon lead to roughly 250 MeV for the muon (gamma=2.3) and 250 MeV for the neutrino (gamma=very large). To conserve momentum, the muon gets a bit less energy and the neutrino gets a bit more - you can calculate the difference, it is not large. Electron and neutrino get 250 MeV each to a very good approximation.

The ratio is completely dominated by the squared electron to muon mass ratio.
 
Ah I think that has cleared it up for me; thanks for your help.
 
sk1105 said:
but in this case are we saying it is negligible compared to the kaon rest energy?
That's right. This approximation is good to about 10% in the ratio of partial widths, as the ratio of phase space factors is ##\frac{(m_K^2-m_e^2)^2}{(m_K^2-m_\mu^2)^2}=1.1##. This is a much worse approximation to make for charge pion decay (ratio of phase space factors ##\sim5.6##.)
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top