Discover
/
Article

The puzzle of the A2 meson

NOV 01, 1970
The A2 may be two distinct but similar particles or a single object of an entirely new type. Either way, it has experimentalists arguing and theorists confused.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3021827

Peter Schübelin

Particles in high‐energy physics have become so numerous that a new “resonance,” as a short‐lived unstable particle is called, must do something unusual to attract attention. The A2 meson, an otherwise ordinary resonance, stands out from the crowd by exhibiting a peculiar structure in its mass spectrum. Instead of the single peak of a normal resonance, the A2 has two closely spaced peaks with the separation between the peaks roughly equal to their width. This double peak implies that the A2 is really two particles with nearly the same mass, or perhaps a single object of an entirely new type, a double resonance or “dipole.”

References

  1. 1. A. R. Erwin and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 628 (1961).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

  2. 2. R. Baud, H. Benz, B. Bosňjaković, D. R. Botterill, G. Damgaard, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, R. Klanner, C. Lechanoine, M. Martin, C. Nef, V. Roinishvili, P. Schübelin, A. Weitsch, H. Jöstlein, 2nd Philadelphia Conference on Meson Spectroscopy, May 1970.

  3. 3. G. Goldhaber and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 336 (1964).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

  4. 4. S. U. Chung and others, Phys. Rev Lett. 12, 621 (1964).

  5. 5. Aachen‐Berlin‐Birmingham‐Bonn‐Hamburg‐London (IC)‐Munich collaboration, Phys. Lett. 10, 226 (1964).https://doi.org/PHLTAM

  6. 6. S. U. Chung and others, UCRL 16881.

  7. 7. B. C. Maglić, G. Costa, Phys. Lett. 18, (1965).

  8. 8. B. Levrat, C. A. Tolstrup, P. Schübelin, C. Nef, M. Martin, B. C. Maglić, W. Kienzle, M. N. Focacci, L. Dubal, G. Chikovani, Phys. Lett. 22, 714 (1966).https://doi.org/PHLTAM

  9. 9. G. Chikovani, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, C. Lechanoine, B. Levrat, B. C. Maglić, M. Martin, P. Schübelin, L. Dubal, M. Fischer, P. Grieder, C. Nef, Phys. Lett. 25B, 44 (1967).

  10. 10. G. Chikovani, G. Laverrière, P. Schübelin, Nucl. Instr. and Methods 47, 273 (1967).

  11. 11. M. L. Goldberger, K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 136B, 1472 (1964).

  12. 12. J. S. Bell, C. Goebel, Phys. Rev. 138B, 1198 (1965).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

  13. 13. H. Benz, G. E. Chikovani, G. Damgaard, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, C. Lechanoine, M. Martin, C. Nef, P. Schübelin, R. Baud, B. Bosňjaković, J. Cotteron, R. Klanner, A. Weitsch, Phys. Lett. 28B, 233 (1968).

  14. 14. D. J. Crennel, U. Karshon, K. W. Lai, J. M. Scarr, I. O. Skillicorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1318 (1968).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

  15. 15. M. Aguilar‐Benitez, J. Barlow, L. D. Jacobs, P. Malecki, L. Montanet, M. Tomas, M. Della‐Negra, J. Cohen‐Ganaouna, B. Lörstad, N. West, Phys. Lett. 29B, 62 (1969).

  16. 16. G. E. Chikovani, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, U. Kruse, C. Lechanoine, M. Martin, P. Schübelin, Phys. Lett. 28B, 526 (1968).

  17. 17. R. A. Donald and others, Nucl. Phys. B12, 325 (1969).

  18. 18. K. Böckman and others, Bonn‐Durham‐Nijmegen‐Paris (EP)‐Torino collaboration, Nucl. Phys. B16, 221 (1970).

  19. 19. D. Cline, T. Buhl, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 15, no. 4, 513 (1970).

  20. 20. R. Baud, H. Benz, B. Bosňjaković, D. R. Botterill, G. Damgaard, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, R. Klanner, C. Lechanoine, M. Martin, C. Nef, V. Roinishvili, P. Schübelin, A. Weitsch, H. Blumenfeld, H. Jöstlein, P. Lecomte, Phys. Lett. 31B, 397 (1970).

  21. 21. R. Baud, H. Benz, B. Bosňjaković, D. R. Botterill, G. Damagaard, M. N. Focacci, W. Kienzle, R. Klanner, C. Lechanoine, M. Martin, C. Nef, V. Roinishvili, P. Schübelin, A. Weitsch, H. Blumenfeld, H. Jöstlein, P. Lecomte, Phys. Lett. 31B, 401 (1970).

  22. 22. A. Barbaro‐Galtieri, S. E. Derenzo, S. M. Flatté, J. H. Friedman, M. A. Garnjost, G. R. Lynch, M. S. Rabin, F. T. Solmitz, F. Buhl, L. Epperson, S. Protopopescu, R. Ott (to be published).

  23. 23. R. C. Arnold, J. L. Uretsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 444 (1969).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

  24. 24. C. Rebbi, R. Slansky, Phys. Rev. 185, 1838 (1969).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

  25. 25. P. J. Davis, S. E. Derenzo, S. M. Flatté, M. A. Garnjost, G. R. Lynch, F. T. Solmitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 1071 (1969).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

More about the Authors

Peter Schübelin. Brookhaven National Laboratory.

This Content Appeared In
pt-cover_1970_11.jpeg

Volume 23, Number 11

Related content
/
Article
Technical knowledge and skills are only some of the considerations that managers have when hiring physical scientists. Soft skills, in particular communication, are also high on the list.
/
Article
Professional societies can foster a sense of belonging and offer early-career scientists opportunities to give back to their community.
/
Article
Research exchanges between US and Soviet scientists during the second half of the 20th century may be instructive for navigating today’s debates on scientific collaboration.
/
Article
The Eisenhower administration dismissed the director of the National Bureau of Standards in 1953. Suspecting political interference with the agency’s research, scientists fought back—and won.
/
Article
Alternative undergraduate physics courses expand access to students and address socioeconomic barriers that prevent many of them from entering physics and engineering fields. The courses also help all students develop quantitative skills.
/
Article
Defying the often-perceived incompatibility between the two subjects, some physicists are using poetry to communicate science and to explore the human side of their work.

Get PT in your inbox

Physics Today - The Week in Physics

The Week in Physics" is likely a reference to the regular updates or summaries of new physics research, such as those found in publications like Physics Today from AIP Publishing or on news aggregators like Phys.org.

Physics Today - Table of Contents
Physics Today - Whitepapers & Webinars
By signing up you agree to allow AIP to send you email newsletters. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.