1: \documentstyle[pbar2000,11pt,fleqn,epsfig]{article}

2: \oddsidemargin .0325 truein

3: \topmargin -.456 truein

4: \textheight 9 truein

5: \textwidth 6.5 truein

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{Importance of Future Hyperon \\ Beta Decay Experiments}

9: 

10: \author{Nickolas Solomey \\

11: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois 60616}

12: 

13: \maketitle

14: 

15: \begin{abstract}

16: Recent results from the KTeV experiment at Fermilab using $\Xi^0$

17: hyperons have enabled a great leap in improving our understanding of

18: elementary particle physics, especially with the first form-factor

19: measurement from the semi-leptonic decay $\Xi^0 \rightarrow \Sigma^+

20: e^- \bar{\nu}$. This decay is a test of whether the standard model

21: contains all of the needed parameters to fully describe hyperon beta

22: decay. It was observed for the first time only in 1997 even though its

23: importance had been explicitly stated in 1961 by the early theories of

24: the standard model as formulated by N. Cabibbo. We have the ability to

25: improve this measurement substantially by making the definitive

26: form-factor measurement with a sample of 30,000 such decays from a

27: forthcoming experiment, which will either show or rule out the

28: existence any additional second class weak currents, an obviously

29: important measurement allowing particle physics to finally put this

30: question to rest. We also have the ability to make a measurement of

31: hyperon compositeness by measuring the charged $\Sigma^{\pm}$ beta

32: decay into $\Lambda^0$, and in addition to search for mass coupling

33: terms in hyperon beta decays where the muon replaces the electron,

34: important for determining the $g_3$ and $f_3$ form-factors. These are

35: the important questions to answer in studying strange baryon decays,

36: and are reviewed in this article.

37: \end{abstract}

38: 

39: \section{Review of the Recent KTeV Results}

40: There are several review articles that summarize the history of hyperon

41: beta decay \cite{theory1,kaon99solomey}. Here I will remind the reader

42: of the recent important results and then in the next section elaborate

43: on how they could be improved upon in future experiments.

44: 

45: The neutral beam of the KTeV experiment was produced by protons from

46: the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator. It had two components: the rare kaon

47: decay program, E799, and the search for direct CP violation, E832

48: \cite{ktev}. Presented here is only a small part of the results from a

49: neutral hyperon program that had three triggers in the E799 experiment

50: configuration, with results from both the 1997 and 1999 runs.

51: 

52: \paragraph*{Neutral $K^0$ and hyperon decays:}

53: The experiment's fiducial decay volume, which starts 90 m downstream of

54: the target because of the space needed to collimate the neutral beam,

55: is where most of the particles decay and is also the location of the

56: sweeping magnets that eliminate the charged particles. The decay volume

57: from 90 to 160 m from the target was at an ultrahigh vacuum to reduce

58: interactions and had scintillator ring counters to veto those events

59: where a particle left the fiducial volume. The spectrometer, consisting

60: of tracking chambers, an analysis magnet, electromagnetic calorimetry

61: (CsI) \cite{roodman}, particle identification by transition radiation

62: detectors (TRD) \cite{solomey}, and a muon counter system with 5 m of

63: iron filters, directly follows the decay volume. Data were collected

64: using 16 triggers for two different experimental configurations in 1997

65: and 1999.

66: 

67: \paragraph*{Semi-leptonic hyperon decay physics analyses} accessible in

68: KTeV

69: are the beta decay $\Xi^0 \rightarrow \Sigma^+ \hspace{0.1cm} e^{-}

70: \hspace{0.1cm} \bar{\nu}_{e}$ and muonic decay $\Xi^0 \rightarrow

71: \Sigma^+ \hspace{0.1cm} \mu^- \hspace{0.1cm} \bar{\nu}_{\mu}$. They are

72: important to study for their weak decay form-factors which give an

73: understanding of their underlying structure. In the V-A formulation the

74: transition amplitude of beta decay is

75: \begin{equation}

76: M = \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}} <\Sigma|J^{\lambda}|\Xi>{\bar{u}_{e}}

77: \gamma_{\lambda} (1 + \gamma_{5}) u_{\nu}

78: \end{equation}

79: The V-A hadronic current can be written as

80: \begin{eqnarray}

81: <\Sigma|J^{\lambda}|\Xi>\;= {\cal C} \; i\; \bar{u}(\Sigma) & [ &

82: f_{1}\gamma^{\lambda} + f_{2} \frac{\sigma^{\lambda

83: \upsilon}\gamma_{\upsilon}}{M_{\Xi}} +

84: f_{3} q^{\lambda} \frac{M_e}{M_{\Xi}} + \nonumber \\

85: & [ & g_{1} \gamma^{\lambda} + g_{2} \frac{\sigma^{\lambda \upsilon}

86: \gamma_{\upsilon}}{M_{\Xi}} + g_{3} q^{\lambda}

87: \frac{M_e}{M_{\Xi}}\hspace{0.25cm} ] \hspace{0.1cm} \gamma_{5}

88: \hspace{0.25cm} ]\;u(\Xi)

89: \end{eqnarray}

90: where ${\cal C}$ is the CKM matrix element and $q$ is the momentum

91: transfer. There are 3 vector form-factors: $f_1$ (vector), $f_2$ (weak

92: magnetism) and $f_3$ (an induced scalar); plus 3 axial-vector

93: form-factors: $g_1$ (axial vector), $g_2$ (weak electricity) and $g_3$

94: (an induced pseudo-scalar). All six form-factors are real if $T$-

95: invariance is valid. The quark model predicts a non-zero but small

96: $g_2$ form-factor if SU(3) breaking is sizable, but the standard model

97: assumes this term is zero. Figure \ref{ff} shows the expected changes

98: in these observable form-factors in the standard model and various

99: symmetry breaking schemes. The $g_3$ form-factor is expected to be

100: large ({\it i.e.} $\frac{\textstyle g_3}{\textstyle g_1} \sim 8$), but

101: it is multiplied by $\frac{\textstyle M_e}{\textstyle M_\Xi}$ making

102: this term negligibly small so as not to contribute any noticeable

103: effect. However, for the muonic decay this may no longer be assumed.

104: \begin{figure}[h]

105: \begin{center}

106: \mbox{\epsfig{file=thcom_doe_g1.eps,%

107: height=0.47\linewidth} }

108: \mbox{\epsfig{file=ff2.eps,%

109: height=0.47\linewidth} }

110: \end{center}

111: \caption{Theoretical predictions for (left) $\Sigma^+$ polarization for

112: values of $g_1/f_1$ with SU(3) prediction and various SU(3) symmetry

113: breaking models indicated by vertical lines, and (right) the $f_2 /f_1$

114: form-factor, fits from the electron energy spectrum with the SU(3)

115: prediction.} \label{ff}

116: \end{figure}

117: Furthermore, neither of these decays had previously been observed, so

118: measuring their branching ratio was also important as a test of the

119: standard model, and in the case of the muon decay this could be the

120: first place to look for a form-factor that substantially depends upon

121: the mass of the charged lepton. The final results for the beta decay

122: are a branching ratio of ($2.60 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-4}$,

123: based on 626 events, where the first error is statistical and the

124: second systematic, and the theoretical expectation is $2.6 \times

125: 10^{-4}$. For the muonic decay a preliminary branching ratio is ($3.5

126: ^{+2.0}_{-1.0}\ ^{+0.5}_{-1.0}) \times 10^{-6}$ based on 5 events,

127: while the asymmetric error bars are from the small number of events and

128: Poisson statistics at the 68\% C.I. \cite{feldman}; theoretically

129: expected is $2.6 \times 10^{-6}$. A larger sample of these events has

130: been obtained in the 1999 KTeV run and are shown in figure \ref{scc}

131: right.

132: \begin{figure}[h]

133: \begin{center}

134: \mbox{

135: \epsfig{file=bkg.eps,%

136: height=0.47\linewidth}

137: }

138: \mbox{

139: \epsfig{file=kalman.eps,%

140: height=0.47\linewidth}

141: }

142: \end{center}

143: \caption{A very clean sample of $\Xi^0$ beta decay events from the KTeV

144: 1997 run is shown on the left; these were used for the form-factor

145: measurements. On the right is the sample of $\Xi^0$ muonic decays from

146: the KTeV 1999 run, plotting the mass of $p\pi^0$ vs $\pi^+\mu^-\pi^0$;

147: the smaller dots are Monte-Carlo simulation of $\Xi^0$ muonic decays,

148: the circles the correct-charge-sign data, and the triangles the

149: wrong-charge-sign data (anti-hyperon production has a 10x

150: suppression).} \label{scc}

151: \end{figure}

152: 

153: \paragraph*{A very clean sample}

154: of $\Xi^0$ beta decays, figure \ref{scc} left were obtained by using

155: the electron identification of the TRD detector. These data were used

156: to measure the form-factor $g_2$, for which a non-zero value would

157: indicate new physics beyond the standard model. The decay of the

158: $\Sigma^+$ has a 98\% analyzing power, and this fact makes it

159: equivalent to a fully polarized beam. However, spin alignment magnetics

160: gave the ability to control this, and then to test the technique on the

161: much larger normal-mode decay $\Xi^0 \rightarrow \Lambda^0 \pi^0$. By

162: working in the $\Sigma^+$ reference frame, all of the form-factors

163: could be determined by measuring the angular distribution of the proton

164: relative to the electron neutrino (we typically use the reconstructed

165: transverse neutrino direction) (see figure \ref{ff}) or by measuring

166: the electron energy spectrum. We can also test the technique by

167: comparing the proton direction relative to the reconstructed $\Xi^0$.

168: The final four form-factors are: $f_1 = 0.99 \pm 0.14$,

169: $\frac{\textstyle g_1}{\textstyle f_1}=1.24 \pm 0.27$,

170: $\frac{\textstyle f_2}{\textstyle f_1}=2.3 \pm 1.3$, and

171: $\frac{\textstyle g_2}{\textstyle f_1}= -1.4 \pm 2.1$. This analysis

172: used the previously quoted branching ratio and permitted the $g_2$

173: form-factor to float. The $g_2$ value is consistent with zero and in

174: another analysis it was constrained to be zero and the remaining

175: form-factors re-analyzed; they remained essentially unchanged. For a

176: more detailed description see \cite{bright}.

177: \begin{figure}[h]

178: \begin{center}

179: \mbox{

180: \epsfig{file=cospe.ps,%

181: height=0.47\linewidth}

182: }

183: \mbox{

184: \epsfig{file=f1g1plot.ps,%

185: height=0.47\linewidth}

186: }

187: \end{center}

188: \caption{On the left is a plot of the $\Xi^0$ beta decay events of the

189: cosine of the angle between the proton and electron in the center of

190: mass of the $\Sigma^+$, and on the right is the best fit to the

191: form-factors $f_1$ and $g_1$.} \label{ff2}

192: \end{figure}

193: \begin{figure}[h]

194: \begin{center}

195: \mbox{

196: \epsfig{file=g1g2.eps,%

197: height=0.47\linewidth}

198: }

199: \end{center}

200: \caption{A determination of $g_2$ form-factor from the clean $\Xi^0$

201: beta decay sample is shown along with probability contours.} \label{g2}

202: \end{figure}

203: 

204: \section{Future Hyperon Beta Decay Measurements}

205: The following is a list of the most important hyperon beta decay

206: measurements that should be done and why, and which experiments, with

207: no or minor modifications, may be able to perform these studies.

208: 

209: \paragraph*{{\em CP} and $T$ violation studies with hyperons:}The subject

210: of

211: {\em CP} violation, first seen with the neutral $K^0$ system and hints

212: now just emerging with the $B^0$ meson, is an important topic to extend

213: to baryons. The first place this might be able to emerge is with

214: hyperons that can be produced copiously. The interest in this physics

215: topic is covered elsewhere in these proceedings \cite{kaplan}. However,

216: a minor point not covered there is that a large anti-hyperon beta decay

217: sample could be fertile ground in which to compare the branching ratio

218: with that of regular-matter hyperon beta decay.

219: 

220: \paragraph*{High-statistics sample of hyperon beta decays:}

221: This would permit a precision form-factor measurement which is

222: important as a test of the standard model as well as a good means of

223: searching for new physics not currently in the standard model. The KTeV

224: result mentioned in section 1 from the 1997 run is the start of such a

225: measurement because it will permit the best form-factor analysis with

226: the $\Sigma^+$ self-analyzing power. There is a three times larger

227: sample from the 1999 run (see figure \ref{ktev99}) which, when merged,

228: will offer a great improvement in the form-factor analysis. However,

229: there is the potential for a ten-fold improvement over the full KTeV

230: hyperon sample (1997 plus 1999 data) with a dedicated run using the

231: $K_{\rm short}$ target at the NA48 experiment at CERN scheduled for

232: 2002 \cite{addem2}.

233: \begin{figure}[h]

234: \begin{center}

235: \mbox{

236: \epsfig{file=casbet_ktev99.eps,%

237: height=0.6\linewidth}

238: }

239: \end{center}

240: \caption{The KTeV 1999 run has an additional 2100 $\Xi^0$ beta

241: decay events.}

242: \label{ktev99}

243: \end{figure}

244: 

245: The term $V_{us}$ as measured with $Ke3$ decays, $K^0 \rightarrow \pi^+

246: e^- \bar{\nu}$, and those from three hyperon beta decays do not have

247: perfect agreement, see table 1. In principle $V_{us}$ measured from

248: these decays should be the same, but what is actually being measured is

249: $|f_1 V_{us}|$. However, no particle, neither meson nor baryon, has

250: free quarks to measure $V_{us}$ directly. It is presumed that this

251: experimentally observed discrepancy is due to the strong force

252: potential that the quarks are in, hence the implication that the

253: measurement with the mesons might be closer to reality, but even this

254: is a poor approximation.

255: 

256: \begin{table}[h]

257: \caption{$V_{us}$ as determined by various hyperon beta decays, and

258: from $Ke3$ meson decay.}

259: \begin{center}

260: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}

261: \hline

262: Decay & $V_{us}$ & Uncertainty \\

263: \hline

264: $K^0_L \rightarrow \pi^+ e^-\bar{\nu}$ & 0.2188 & $\pm$0.0016 \\

265: \hline

266: $\Lambda^0 \rightarrow p\;e^- \bar{\nu}$ & 0.2130 & $\pm$0.0020 \\

267: $\Sigma^- \rightarrow n\;e^- \bar{\nu}$  & 0.2318 & $\pm$0.0040 \\

268: $\Xi^- \rightarrow \Lambda^0 e^- \bar{\nu}$ & 0.2434 & $\pm$0.0068 \\

269: \hline

270: \end{tabular}

271: \end{center}

272: \label{vus}

273: \end{table}

274: 

275: While seeing $g_2 \ne 0$ would be an indication of new physics beyond

276: the standard model, it is difficult to observe with any present

277: experiment. Hence the need for a dedicated experiment. It has also been

278: noted that hints for a non-zero $g_2$ form-factor may already exist,

279: because when $\frac{\textstyle g_2}{\textstyle g_1} \equiv 0.2$ then

280: all of the experimental measurements of $V_{us}$ using hyperon beta

281: decays (see table 1) come out equal to $0.220 \pm 0.004$, in agreement

282: with the $Ke3$ determination \cite{donoghue}. However, there are other

283: possible explanations to account for the discrepancy. Obviously another

284: measurement from a fourth hyperon beta decay would be useful, as would

285: a high-statistics measurement of any one hyperon beta decay, the best

286: being the $\Xi^0$ beta decay because of the $\Sigma^+$ analyzing power.

287: 

288: \paragraph*{$\Lambda^0-\Sigma^0$ mixing:}

289: It is known that the mesons experience mixing between neutral states,

290: and a similar mixing with $\Lambda-\Sigma^0$ is expected \cite{Karl}.

291: This can easily be tested by measuring any difference between the

292: branching ratio of the $\Sigma^{\pm}$ beta decays $\Sigma^+ \rightarrow

293: \Lambda^0 e^+ \nu$ and $\Sigma^- \rightarrow \Lambda^0 e^- \bar{\nu}$.

294: Both of these decays are badly measured and a 2\% branching ratio

295: measurement would suffice.

296: 

297: Furthermore, the $\Lambda^0$ has a 64\% analyzing power, although not

298: 98\% like the $\Sigma^+ \rightarrow p \pi^0$ decay used in $\Xi^0$ beta

299: decay, a large sample of either one of these decays could help resolve

300: the $V_{us}$ discrepancy between the hyperon beta decays and that from

301: $Ke3$ decays. It has also been pointed out that these $\Sigma^{\pm}$

302: beta decays could place the best limit on SU(3) symmetry breaking since

303: in these decays $V_{us}$ does not enter since they have just an

304: axial-current term.

305: 

306: \paragraph*{Form-factors outside of the normal octet:}

307: Measurements of anti-hyperon beta decays would give another test of

308: $V_{us}$ that may explain the discrepancy with $V_{us}$ measured using

309: mesons, which are quark anti-quark states, and this may be contributing

310: to the discrepancy with that of hyperons. A measurement of this would

311: also be a test of {\em CP} and $T$ violation in hyperons just by

312: comparing branching ratios at the 0.1\% level, but the real interest is

313: in the form factor similarity for anti-matter, which has never been

314: tested.

315: 

316: Measurements of the form-factors outside of the octet, such as with the

317: $\Omega^- \rightarrow \Xi^0 e^- \bar{\nu}$, or with charm-strange

318: baryons, $\Lambda^+_c \rightarrow \Lambda^0 e^+ \nu$, would give

319: another measurements of $V_{us}$ and the first measurement of $V_{cs}$

320: with baryons. The $\Omega^-$ beta decay could also be compared to the

321: matrix elements predicted by SU(6). Hyperon mixing of

322: $\Sigma^0-\Lambda$ could also be seen here by observing its decay into

323: $\Sigma^0 e^- \bar{\nu}$.

324: 

325: \paragraph*{Muonic hyperon decays:}

326: The hyperon muonic decays all have poorly measured branching ratios,

327: and we have never had a large enough sample to be used in a form-factor

328: measurement. This could be useful in several ways. First, a tagged

329: decay such as $\Omega^- \rightarrow \Lambda^0 K^-$ where $K^-

330: \rightarrow \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\Lambda^0 \rightarrow p \mu^-

331: \bar{\nu}$ could be of great assistance. This would help because the

332: presence of a $K^-$ decaying into three charged pions would indicate

333: unambiguously the presence of a $\Lambda^0$, and an experiment such as

334: HyperCP (E871) at Fermilab has excellent muon identification to

335: distinguish this. Other hyperon and kaon backgrounds would be

336: eliminated leaving only the charged-pion decay to $\mu^- \bar{\nu}$ to

337: contend with. For a branching-ratio measurement this contribution can

338: be simulated, and if it can be eliminated by topology constraints, then

339: a muonic decay form-factor can be extracted. The advantage of the

340: $\Xi^0$ muonic decay is that there are no competing two-body

341: backgrounds that contain a $\pi^-$, hence no background from this

342: source. As can be seen from the cleanliness of the KTeV $\Xi^0$ muonic

343: decay, see figure \ref{scc} right, the signal is exceptionally strong

344: and well separated from the kaon backgrounds.

345: 

346: The importance of measuring hyperon muonic decays is that it is the

347: only process where the $g_3$ form factor is expected to contribute any

348: noticeable charged-lepton mass effects \cite{linke}. Although small,

349: $\sim 15$\%, radiative corrections are expected to be half of this

350: value $\sim 7$\%. Nevertheless, a sample of 300 to 500 such events is

351: expected from the NA48 special run \cite{addem2}. So there is a future

352: experimental possibility with this type of decay. Another decay that is

353: expected to have a lot of hyperon muonic decays is the $\Omega^-$

354: system. Here, due to the large Q value of the beta and muonic decays,

355: the branching ratio for $\Omega^-$ is high: $\sim1 \times 10^{-3}$!

356: Maybe these can be extracted cleanly from the HyperCP experimental data

357: sample for improved branching ratio measurements. Due to the high Q

358: (released energy) phase space would not restrict their branching ratio,

359: so just a comparison of the beta and muonic decay branching ratio in

360: this system is a first test of the form factor equivalence. A clean

361: sample could yield an independent form-factor measurement where $g_3$

362: is large enough to be seen, or rule out its existence.

363: 

364: \section*{Conclusions}

365: Beta decays have been a source of great physics discoveries, since the

366: prediction of the neutrino to account for an anomalous electron energy

367: spectrum. With hyperons they allow an independent measurement of

368: $V_{us}$ in the standard model, and are a great place to hunt for

369: physics beyond the standard model. They may even hold some clues to the

370: unification of the strong nuclear force with electro-weak theory if the

371: form-factor $g_2$ can be explicitly shown to be non-zero. This is

372: because although they are from a weak decay, the strong force has a

373: substantial role in the hyperons themselves. When a more massive

374: charged lepton such as the muon replaces the electron of beta decay,

375: this is the only place that can show the effect of the $g_3$

376: form-factor. All of these exciting topics makes for continued interest

377: in studying hyperon beta decays.

378: 

379: I would like to thank the organizers, D. Kaplan and H. Rubin,

380: for the opportunity to

381: present my perspective on future hyperon beta-decay experiments. I also

382: wish to thank J. Rosner for many useful discussions.

383: 

384: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

385: \bibitem{theory1} A. Garcia and P. Kielanowski, {\em The Beta Decay of

386: Hyperons}, Lecture Notes in Physics, {\bf 222}, Springer-Verlag,

387: Berlin, (1985).

388: \bibitem{kaon99solomey}N. Solomey, "Recent Results in Weak Hyperon

389: Decays,"

390: in

391: {\em Kaon Physics}, ed. J.L. Rosner and B.D. Winstein (Chicago: University

392: of Chicago Press, forthcoming), chap. 44.

393: \bibitem{ktev}K. Arisaka {\em et al.}, KTeV design report, Fermilab report

394: FN-580, June 1992.

395: \bibitem{roodman}R.S. Kessler {\em et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.

396: A{\bf368}, 653, (1996).

397: \bibitem{solomey}N. Solomey, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 419}, 637

398: (1998).

399: \bibitem{feldman}G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf

400: 57}, 3873 (1998).

401: \bibitem{bright}S. Bright,

402: ``First Measurement of Form Factors of the Beta Decay of the XI Hyperon'',

403: Ph.D. Thesis at the Univ. of Chicago, June 2000.

404: \bibitem{kaplan}D. Kaplan, Future {\em CP} violation experiments with

405: hyperons, these proceedings.

406: \bibitem{donoghue}J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. Holstein, ``Dynamics

407: of the Standard Model'' Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp 340-341.

408: \bibitem{Karl}G. Karl, Physics Lett. B {\bf328}, 149 (1994).

409: \bibitem{linke}V. Linke, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 12}, 669 (1969).

410: \bibitem{addem2}Proposal to the CERN SPSC for a special

411: run of NA48 $K_{\rm short}$ target in 2002.

412: \end{thebibliography}

413: 

414: \end{document}

415: 

416: