See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235998962

Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics

Book · May 2008

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511809019

CITATIONS READS

40 3,826

1 author:

Alessandro Bettini
University of Padova
380 PUBLICATIONS   4,444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GERDA neutrinoless double beta decay View project

GERDA Collaboration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alessandro Bettini on 21 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Weak Interactions

Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics

Diego Bettoni
Anno Accademico 2010-2011
 Introduction

Weak interactions were first observed in the slow process of nuclear  decay.
They take place in circumstances where the much faster strong or
electromagnetic decays are forbidden by the conservation laws, or processes
involving neutrinos, which can only have weak interaction.
Examples:
n  p  e   e   103 s B, Q, L
 e  p  n  e   10 43 cm 2
  p     10 10 s S=1
         10 8 s Energy
Weak processes are characterized by smaller cross sections and longer
lifetimes than for strong and electromagnetic processes.

   N  N        10 38 cm 2
at 1 GeV
  N   N   10  26 cm 2
The weak interactions can be classified as to whether they involve leptons only,
leptons and hadrons or hadrons only:
   e   e  
Leptonic
 e  e  e  e
n  p  e   e
S = 0
e  p  n  e 

K    0  e   e
Semileptonic S = 1
K    
 

D   K 0      S = 1; C = 1

   p
Nonleptonic K    0
K      
D            0
 Natural Radioactivity

Discovered in 1896 by H. Becquerel (one year before the electron was

discovered and several years before nuclei were known to exist !!!)
Three types of radiation, classified by Rutherford:
• -rays. Easy to absorbe. Bent slightly in the presence of magnetic
fields (positive charge, "heavy"). -rays emitted by a well defined
isotope are monoenergetic.
•  -rays. Harder to absorb than -rays. Bent significantly in the
presence of magnetic fields (negative charge, "light").
•  -rays. Not bent in the presence of magnetic fields (no charge), very
hard to absorb.
Each type of radiation is due to a different interaction:
  strong,   weak,   electromagnetic.
 Nuclear  decay
Early studies of -rays revealed two fundamental properties of this
type of radiation:
• They were identical to cathode rays (electrons).
• Their energy spectrum was discrete (like the spectrum of -rays)
– studies of the absorption of -rays seemed to indicated that these were
monoenergetic.
– the spectrum of a -ray beam incident on a photographic plate in the
presence of a constant magnetic field seemed to be discrete.
– -ray emission was a quantum phenomenon, to be associated to a
discrete spectrum.
– AZ  A(Z+1) + e- energy conservation implies
E(e-) = M(AZ) – M(A(Z+1))
Only in 1914 did Chadwick show that the observed -ray spectrum is
continuous and only 15 years later it was shown that the nuclear -ray
spectrum is continuous.
 A Wrong Model for the Nucleus

In the 1920’s it was postulated that nuclei were made up of protons and
electrons, such that AZ contained A protons and A-Z electrons (e.g.
4He = 4p; 14N = 14p + 7e-). In addition to energy conservation in -ray

emission there were several other problems:

• Magnetic moment of nuclei: e  p, e  nucleo. Impossible if the
nucleus is made of protons and electrons.
• Spin-statistics: according to this model 14N consists of an odd number
of fermions (14p+7e-), implying a half-integer spin, whereas
experimentally it was found to be a boson.
Solution:
electrons bound in nuclei behave differently from free electrons !!! (Bohr)
Gamow: “This would mean that the idea of energy and its conservation fails in dealing with
processes involving the emission or capture of nuclear electrons. This does not sound
improbable if we remember all that has been said about peculiar properties of electrons in
the nucleus”.
 Pauli and the “neutron”

In 1930 W. Pauli made the hypothesis that there was a third constituent
inside the nucleus: the “neutron”: a fermion with no electric charge,
which interacted very weakly with matter and with a mass of less than
1% of the proton mass: 14N= 14p+7e-+7’’.
In this way:
• The spin-statistics problems was solved, since the number of
fermions in the nucleus was now “correct”.
• The apparent violation of energy conservation in -decay was
explained assuming that the correct physical process was:
AZ  A(Z-1) + e- + ‘’

i.e. a three-body decay, with a continuous energy spectrum for the

electron.
Pauli (1930)
Dear Radioactive Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have come upon a desperate way out regarding the wrong statistics of
the 14N and 6Li nuclei, as well as the continuous  spectrum, in order to
save the “alternation law” of statistics and the energy law. Namely, the
possibility that there could exist in the nucleus electrically neutral
particles, which I shall call “neutrons”, which have spin ½ and satisfy
the exclusion principle and which further differ from light quanta in that
they do not travel with the speed of light. The mass of the neutrons
should be of the same order of magnitude as the electron mass and in
any case not larger than 0.01 times the proton mass. The countinuous 
spectrum would then become understandable from the assumption that
in  decay a neutron is emitted along with the electron, in such a way
that the sum of the energies of the neutron and the electron is constant.
For the time being I dare not publish anything about this idea and
address myself to you, dear radioactive ones, with the question how it
would be with experimental proof of such a neutron, if it were to have the
penetrating power equal to about ten times larger than a  ray.
I admit that my way out may not seem very probable a priori since one
would probably have seen the neutrons a long time ago if they exist.
But only the one who dares wins, and the seriousness of the situation
concerning the continuous  spectrum is illuminated by my honored
predecessor, Mr Debye, who recently said to me in Brussels: “ Oh, it is
best not to think about this at all, as with new taxes”. One must
therefore discuss seriously every road to salvation. Thus, dear
radioactive ones, examine and judge. Unfortunately I cannot appear
personally in Tübingen since a ball in Zürich makes my presence here
indispensible.
Your most humble servant, W. Pauli

From a letter written by W. Pauli , dated 4 december 1930, to the physicists attending a
Nuclear Physics conference in Tübingen.
 The Discovery of the Neutron

In 1932 Chadwick discovered a neutral nuclear constituent. By studying

the properties of the neutral radiation n emitted in the process
9Be +   12C + n

he found out that the particle n, the neutron, was a deeply penetrating
neutral particle slightly heavier than the proton, quite distinct from
-rays, i.e. a different particle from the neutron postulated by Pauli.
Given the fact that Chadwick’s neutron was much heavier than
Pauli’s, Fermi renamed Pauli’s neutron the neutrino.
 Fermi Theory of  Decay

n  p  e  e 
  885.7  0.8 s
d  u  e 
 e 
u e- u e-
MW = 80.425  0.038 GeV/c2
G
g g
W- d e
d e q2 << M2W

The interaction is practically pointlike, described by a

4 fermion coupling
g2
G 2
MW
In Fermi theory the transition probability per unit time is given by:
2 2 2 dn
W G M
 dE0
if J(leptons) = 0 |M|2 = 1 Fermi transition
if J(leptons) = 1 |M|2 = 3 Gamow-Teller transition

p, E
dE0 dN states 
P, T e-
E0
p
e

q, E
T, E, E kinetic energies of proton, electron, antineutrino
  
Energy and momentum P pq 0
conservation
T  E  E  E0
E0  mn  m p  me  0.8 MeV
 P2 0.8 MeV 2
T   10 3 MeV T 0
2 M 2  938.27 MeV
E0  E dE0
In the hypothesis m=0 E  qc  E0  E q  dq 
c c
For the electron the number of states with momentum between p and p+dp is given by:

1 3 p 2 dpd integrating over d 4p 2 dp

dn  3 d p  dne 
h h3 h3
4q 2 dq
Similarly for the neutrino: dn 
h3
Hence considering p and q as uncorrelated:
16 2 2 d 2 N 16 2 2
 6 3 p  E0  E  dp
2
2
d 2N  p q dpdq
h 6 dE0 h c
Hence if |M|2 is constant the electron spectrum is given by:

N ( p)dp  p 2  E0  E  dp
2
 Kurie Plot

N ( p)
vs E  ( E0  E ) m  0
p
2
 m c 
2
N ( p )  p ( E0  E )
2 2
1    m  0
 E0  E 
From Kurie plot one can measure the mass of the neutrino.

Some measurements from tritium  decay

H 3  He3  e   e

Langer, Moffatt 1952 m < 10 keV

Bergkvist 1972 m < 65 eV
Tretyakov 1976 m < 35 eV
Lyubimov 1980 m < 30 eV
Fritschi 1986 m < 18 eV
Robertson 1991 m < 9.3 eV
Stoeffl 1995 m < 7 eV
Weinheimer 1999 m < 2.8 eV
Lobashev 1999 m < 2.5 eV

present limit M ( e )  3 eV
 Sargent Rule

The total decay rate is obtained integrating over the electron energy spectrum.
For extreme relativistic electrons E  pc and we obtain:
E0 E0
E 5
N   N ( p )dp   E 2 ( E0  E ) 2 dE  0 Sargent rule
0 0 30

From Fermi’s rule, the value of G can be obtained from the observed decay rate.
For example:

O14  N 14*  e    e Fermi transition JP = 0+  JP = 0+

From  = 3100 s we obtain
1.02 10 5
G
M p2   c 1
 1.16 10 5 GeV  2
 Project Poltergeist and
the Discovery of the Neutrino
The goal of the project was the detection of (anti)neutrinos from the
inverse  decaye + p  e+ + n.
Original idea: detect antineutrinos from a nuclear explosion:
The antineutrinos from the
nuclear explosion would have
reached a liquid scintillator
suspended in an underground cave
at a distance of 40 m from the
30m high tower. In the original
scheme of Reines and Cowan
antineutrinos would have given rise
to inverse  decay, whereas the
detector would have registered the
positrons produced in the process.
 The Savannah River Experiment
(1956-1960)

A,B water tanks, whose protons acted as

targets for the antineutrinos, whereas the
function of the Cadmium Chloride was to
capture the neutrons.
I, II, III scintillator detectors.
It is relevant to note that a different technique for observing
antineutrinos was tried, without success, in parallel with project
Poltergeist. In 1955 a radiochemical experiment led by Ray Davis
located next to a nuclear reactor site failed to observe inverse
chlorine decay, i.e. the reaction:
e + 37Cl  e- + 37Ar
does not happen with a measurable rate. This null result can be
interpreted as evidence that neutrinos and antineutrinos are distinct
particles.
We currently interpret this null result as due to a conservation law,
i.e. lepton number conservation.
A similar setup was eventually used to study solar neutrinos.
 Parity Violation in  Decay
Parity violation in weak interactions had been postulated in 1956 by
Lee e Yang to explain the existence of the two decay modes:
K    K    (- paradox)
To test parity conservation an experiment was carried out by Wu et al (1957)
who employed a sample of 60Co at T=0.01 K inside a solenoid.
60
Co60Ni*  e    e Gamow-Teller
Transition
J 5 J 4
At a temperature of 0.01 K a high proportion of 60Co nuclei are aligned.
The relative electron intensities along and against the magnetic field direction
were measured.
p H
e-
θ
J (Co)
The results for electron intensities were consistent with a  distribution of the form:
 
p
I ( )  1     1
E 
J
p,E electron momentum and energy
v  
 1   cos  J
c
This form for I() implies a fore-aft asymmetry which in turn implies that the
interaction violates parity conservation.

p
p

θ
π−θ
J J

specchio

   
Under parity:
v
I ( )  1   cos
c
Let us now consider the helicity of the electrons emitted in 60Co decay. The
conservation of Jz implies that also the spin of the electron point in the direction
J. L:et s be a unit vector pointing in the electron spin direction:
 
sp
I ( )  1  
E
The average longitudinal polarization (or net helicity) can be defined as:
I  I I   I (  0)
H
I  I I   I (   )
v
It turns out that: H 
c

Experimentally: z
νe
(H)

 v
 c e  (  1) e-

H 
v J=5 J=4 Jz=1
 e (  1)

*
 c
60 60 -
Co Ni (e )L + νeR
 Helicity of the Neutrino
From the previous discussion it follows that for a massless neutrino (v=c)
helicity can assume the values H=+1 o H=-1. This particle is therefere
fully polarized.
Goldhaber experiment (Phys Rev 109(1015)1958)

orbital electron of Europium e  152Eu152Sm*   e

Z  63, J  0 Z  62, J  1
152
Sm* 152Sm   (960 KeV )
J 1 J 0
In this process the 152Sm* has the same polarization as the neutrino.
-
e Sm * νe
se J sν
ν RH
p pν

se J sν
p ν LH
pν
The 152Sm* is excited (because it lacks one internal electron) decays to its
fundamental state emitting a 960 keV  (  310-14 s). In this process the 
travelling in the direction of 152Sm* have the same polarization as the .
J J
   

152Sm* 152Sm*

 LH  RH
152Sm* LH 152Sm* RH

 (forward) LH  (forward) RH

To determine the polarization of the foward  rays (and thus of the neutrino)
the resonant scattering process was used:

  Sm Sm    Sm
152 152 * 152

For which the forward emitted -rays carry the right energy.
 To determine the polarization of the  they were made to pass through
magnetized iron. 
S 1

 LH
B

e

S 1

 RH
B

e

The transmission in the iron is bigger for the LH  than for RH ; the  polarization
can be determined comparing the counts with B “up” and B “down.
I risultati danno elicità negativa per i neutrini.

Particle e- e+ e e
Helicity -v/c +v/c -1 +1
 Parity Violation in  Decay

   p    K0    p B.R.  (63.9  0.5)%

   0  n (35.8%)   p  e   e (8.32  10  4 )
In the production process the spin of the  must be orthogonal to the
production plane, in order to conserve
 parity. 
    p K  p

A polarization in the production plane generally changes sign under P and is

not allowed. Experimentally the mean transverse polarization is found to be 70 %

N  N
P 
N  N
N  Number of counts with spin up
N  Number of counts with spin down
Decay process:    p

z
p
 


x

The angular distribution is of the

I ( )  1  P cos 
This up-down asymmetry is a manifestation of parity violation in  decay.
 The Discovery of 

A neutrino beam coming from the decay of charged pions    + (/)

was sent on a spark chamber: only muons were produced, but no electrons
demonstrating the existence of two types of neutrino:

  X   Y   X 
 e Y
 The Third Lepton Family and the 

• In 1975 an experiment led by M. Perl unveiled the existence of the

third lepton, the . This implied the existence of a third neutrino
flavour.
• A first indirect evidence for the existence of a third neutrino came
from the LEP experiments, where the measurement of the invisible
width of the Z0 was consistent with the predictions of the Standard
Model with three neutrinos.
• Cosmological calculations based on the quantity of 4He in the
universe indicate the existence of three neutrino species at the time
of the Big Bang.
• The direct observation of the  was made in 2001 thanks to the
DONUT experiment (Direct Observation of NU Tau) at Fermilab,
which detected four events due to  interactions over a background
of 0.34 events, consistent consistent with the predictions of the
Standard Model.
 The DONUT Experiment

The experiment was designed to detect the CC interactions of the ,

identifying the  as the only charged lepton in the event. At the energies of
DONUT the  decays within 2 mm into a final state with a single charged
particle (BR 86 %), therefore the signature is a prong with a “kink”. The
detector consists in an emulsion target followed by a magnetic spectrometer.
The neutrino beam is made starting from the 800 GeV protons from the
Fermilab Tevatron hitting a “beam dump” made of tungsten, 1 m in length
and located 36 m upstream of the emulsions.
The primary source of  is the decay DS   and the subsequent decay
of the  into .
  e  e   h  X

  h  X   e  e
 The V-A Interaction
Fermi developed his theory of  decay in analogy with electromagnetic interactions.


e  pe  p  n  p  e   e
e  j (e )
e
p  e   n  e

p j( N ) n
1
q2

p j ( p) p e j(e ) e

M em  e p  p  2  e e  e 
1 M W  G  n  p     e 
 q     
e

(N ) (e)
( p) (e) J J
ej ej  
 
•G is the weak coupling constant
e ( p ) (e) 2
•The weak current J changes the sign of the
M  2 j j electric charge: charged weak current.
q •In the matrix element there is no propagator:
the interaction is pointlike.
The matrix element written in this way is a scalar quantity and it implies
parity conservation. The violation of parity in the weak interaction requires
requires the inclusion of a parity-violationg term 5. The weak current
turns out to be a combination of a Lorentz vector () and of a pseudovector
(or axial vector, 5 ). Hence the name V-A.
The matrix element is written as:

 n  (1   5 ) p      (1   5 ) e 

G
M ( p  e   n  e ) 
2 e

A similar expression can be written for muon decay.

The charged weak current
(1   5 )
J     e
e
2
couples an incoming LH electron to an outgoing LH neutrino.
The amplitudes for weak interaction are of the form:
4G  
M J J
2
 Interpretation of G
If we compare electromagnetic and weak amplitudes we see that G replaces
e2/q2. Hence G is not dimensionless: [G] = [GeV]-2. We can try to extend the
between em and weak interaction by postulating that the latter are also mediated
by vector boson, for instance:

-
e-    e   e  
W-
e
 g (1   5 )  1  g (1   5 ) 
M       2 2 
 
e   
 2 
2  MW  q  2 2  e

If q2 << MW2 (as is the case for  and  decays)

G g2

2 8M W2
and the weak interaction becomes pointlike. We see that the interaction is weak not
because g << e, but because the W mass is big. If ge than for energies >> MW
electromagnetic and weak interactions are of comparable strength.
g  e unification of electromagnetic and weak interactions.
  and  Decay
          e   e  
In the + rest system  +
+
The  has spin 0, the  is LH, thus also the  must be LH.
In the subsequent muon decay the positron energy spectrum is peaked in the
region of the maximum energy, so the most likely configuration is the following:

 e+ is RH
e+ 
The angular distribution is of the form
dN 
 1 cos 
d 3 G m
2 5
in agreement with V-A. The muon lifetime is given by:  
1

192 3
Using the values m = 105.6593 MeV/c2 and  = 2.19709 s we obtain:

G  1.16637 10 5 GeV  2

 The Decay of the 
Angular momentum conservation requires that the leptons have the same helicity.

L L+
+
The leptons are emitted with helicities

 v 
e ,μ  The probability that an e+ or a + are emitted with
 c velocity v and helicity –v/c is proportional to (1-v/c)
 v
 
e ,μ   v
  1  
 c  c
In order to obtain the transition probability we must take into account the phase space:

dn 2 dp
p
dE0 dE0
 L + L+
 
 p, m  0, c p, m, v In the  rest system
m
The total energy is thus E0  m  p  p 2  m 2

dp p 2  m2 dp ( m 2
 m 2
)( m 2
 m 2 2
)
 p 2
  
dE0 m dE0 8m4
2
v p 2m 2
dp  v  m 2
 m  2
1  1  2 Mp 1   
2
1  2 
c p m
2 2
m  m 2 dE0  c  4  m 
  e me2 1
 2  1.275 10  4
   m  m  2 2

1  2 
 m 
  

Experimentally: 1.267  0.023 10 4

Positron energy spectrum for the decays:
        e   e    
   e   e
Some comments on the result:
• The decay   e would be enourmously favored by phase space with
respect to   .
However angular momentum conservation forces the charged lepton to
have the “wrong” helicity. This is more easily realized for the , whose mass
is approximately 200 times bigger than the electron’s.
• In the calculations we used the same value of G for both processes.
Universality in the coupling of leptons to to weak interaction.
• Following the same scheme the V-A theory predicts for the K mesons:

K  e
 2.5 10 5
K  
to be compared with the measured value:

2.43  0.14 10 5

 K0 Decay
S\I3 +½ -½
+1 K+ K0
-1 K0 K-
Production mechanisms:
K0 K0
   p    K0   p  K  K0  p E  1.5 GeV
E  0.91 GeV   p  K0 nn E  6.0 GeV
Therefore with a  beam of suitable energy it is possible to produce a pure beam of K0.
K0 e K0 are the kaon eigenstates as far as the strong interaction is concerned.
The kaons can decay by the weak interaction (S=1) into 2 or 3 .
2

K0 K0 K (t )   (t ) K 0   (t ) K 0
3
 CP K 0   K 0 CP K 0    K 0     1
We can form two CP eigenstates:

K1 
1
2

K0  K 0  CP  1

K2 
1
2

K0  K 0  CP  1
K1 and K2 are distinguished by their mode of decay
• 00 ,+- Bose Symmetry CP=+1
•  + -  0 L=0; CP(+-)=+1, CP(0)=-1 CP= -1
(CP=1 if L>0)
• 00 0 P=-1, C=+1 CP= -1

K1  2 CP  1  1  0.9 10 10 s

K 2  3 CP  1  2  0.5 10 7 s
 Strangeness Oscillations
K1 and K2, are not particle and antiparticle, therefore they have different mass,
because of their different weak couplings.
Let us write the amplitude for the K1 as a function of time:
1t
iE1t
 E1 energy
a1 (t )  a1 (0)e e 2
1=1/1 lifetime

I (t )  a1 (t )a1* (t )  I (0)e t / 1

In the K1 rest system E1=m1 (rest mass), 1= proper lifetime

 t  t 
 1  im1   2  im2 
a1 (t )  a1 (0)e  2 
a2 (t )  a2 (0)e  2 

If we start from a pure K0 beam:

1
a1 (0)  a2 (0) 
2
 a (t )  a (t ) a *
(t )  a 2 (t )
*
After a time t: I (K ) 
0 1 2
 1
2 2
 

1  t  t
 1 2
t 
  e  e  2e
1 2 2
cos( m  t )
4 

m = m2-m1
m 1 = 0.5

m  3.491  0.009   10 12 MeV

Intensity

m
 7 10 15
m

t/
1
  100 1

Starting from a pure K0 beam after a high number of 1 only the K2 survive.
In the target the strong interaction regenerates the components of S=+1, S=-1.

K2 
1
2

K0  K 0 
K0 e K0 are absorbed differently, since the K0 only undergoes elastic scattering
and charge exchange, whereas theK0 can also give rise to hyperons. Thus
after the regenerator we have components f|K0> and f|K0>, with f<f<1.
Therefore after the regenerator:

ff ff
1
2

f K f K 
0 0

2 2

K  K 
0 0

2 2

K0  K 0   
ff ff
 K2  K1
2 2
Since f≠f the K1 component has been regenerated.
 CP Violation in K0 Decay
In 1964 it was discovered that the eigenstate of CP=-1 (K2) can also decay to 2
with a branching ratio of the order of 10-3.
K1   K 2
K1  K S KS 
1 
2
Indirect CP violation
 K1  K 2
K2  KL KL 
1 
2

where  is a parameter which quantifies CP violation.

K L    
    2.286  0.014   10 3

K S    
K L   0 0
 00    2.276  0.014   10 3

K S   0 0
There exists also a direct CP violation, which originates in the decay.
 Weak Decays of Strange Particles
Selection rule:
1 sd S 
1 S0 I  0  I  12
S  1 I    
2 S  1
I  1
2
Example:   p     n  0

The nucleon and the pion in the final state must be in an I=1/2 isospin state

13 1 21 1 23 1 11 1
p   '  ' n 0  '  '
32 2 32 2 32 2 32 2
2
 (   n )0
 1
   1.036  0.345
 (   n )   (   p )  3 
0 

Experimental value: 0.358  0.005

isospin phase space
 Semileptonic Decays
The semileptonic decays obey the selection rule Q = S.
Q and S are the changes in charge and strangeness of the hadrons.
Q=S=1 follows from Q=I3+(B+S)/2 if I3=1/2.
Examples:    n  e   e   n  e   e

dds udd uus udd

S  1 S  0 S  1 S  1 S  0 S  1
Q  1 Q  0 Q  1 Q  1 Q  0 Q  1
Q  S  1 Q  S
BR  1.08  10 3 BR  5  10 6
Deviations from the   
  0
  
  2.94  0.35
I = ½ rule
       0 
whereas the selection rule predicts a ratio of 2.0. Thus the amplitude I=3/2
is also present, although heavily suppressed.
 Cabibbo Theory
Leptons and quarks interact weakly through V-A currents which are built
starting from the following leptonic doublets (LH):

 e       u   c 
        ?
e    d   s
In addition we also have u-s couplings, for example: 
K    
  u
s 
Furthermore decays with S=1 are suppressed by a factor of about 20 with
respect to those with S=0.
Cabibbo(1963): the d and s quark states participating in the weak interaction
are rotated by a mixing angle C (Cabibbo angle)

 e       u 
     
 e      d cos  C  s sin  C 
For either of these sets of doublets the weak coupling constant remains G.
For S=0 (d u) transitions the coupling will thus be proportional to
cosC, whereas for S=1 (s  u) it will be proportional to sinC.
Thus for example:
( K       )
 sin 2
C
(     )
 

which yields C  15o.

We therefore have favored ( cosC) and suppressed ( sinC) transitions.
Examples:

u u
W+ W+

cosC sinC
d s

Cabibbo favored Cabibbo suppressed

 Weak Neutral Currents
In 1973 the existence of muon neutrino interactions without a charged lepton in the
final state was first demonstrated in a bubble chamber experiment at CERN.
   N    X
   N    X
Weak Neutral Currents, with rates comparable to charged currents

    N     X      N     X 
 0.25  0.45
    N    X 

    N    X 


 -  

W+ Z0

X X
N N
Charged current Neutral current
 The GIM Model and Charm

All neutral current processes observed are characterized by the selection rule
S = 0. Indeed the idea of weak neutral currents had been discarded because
they had never been observed in decay processes:
K     5
 10 S  1
K    0   
Weak neutral currents are given by the diagrams:
u dcosC+ ssinC

u Z0 + Z0
dcosC+ ssinC
uu  dd cos 2  C  ss sin 2  C  sd  s d sin  C cos  C
 
S  0 S  1
Therefore neutral currents with S = 1 should be possible
(Strangeness Changing Neutral Currents, SCNC)
In order to explain the absence of SCNC Glashow, Iliopoulos e Maiani proposed
in 1970 the introduction of a fourth quark, the charm (c), with charge 2/3, which
allowed to introduce a second quark doublet for weak interactions:
 u   c 
   
 d cos  C  s sin  C    d sin  C  s cos  C 
We have therefore two new diagrams contributing to the weak neutral current:
c -dsinC+ scosC

c Z0 + Z0
-dsinC+ scosC
Therefore the weak neutral current becomes:
uu  cc  dd  ss  cos 2  C  ss  dd sin 2  C 
 
S  0
 0 

sd  s d  s d  sd sin  C cos  C

S  1
The introduction of the fourth flavor cancels exactly the SCNC.
The charm quark was discovered experimentally in 1974.
 Weak Mixing with 6 Quarks
and the CKM Matrix
With four flavors the weak current has the form:

  (1   5 )  d   cos  C sin  C 
J   u c U  U  
2 s   sin  C cos  C 
With the introduction of two more flavors (b, charge -1/3 and t, charge 2/3):

d 
  (1   5 )  
J   u c t M s 
2 b
 
 c1 c3 s1 s1s3 
  CKM matrix
M    c2 s1 c1c2 c3  s2 s3ei i
c1c2 s3  s2 c3e  (Cabibbo-Kobayashi
 ss  c s c  c s e i
 c1s2 s3  c2 c3ei 
Maskawa)
 1 2 1 2 3 2 3

1, 2, 3 mixing angles,

ci  cos  i si  sin  i
 phase
View publication stats

CKM Matrix

|Vud|=0.97380.0005 |Vus|=0.2200 0.0026 |Vub|=(3.670.47)10-3

e l l

n    B 
p  
|Vcd|=0.2240.012 |Vcs|=0.9960.013 |Vcb|=(41.31.5)10-3

l l l
D  D 
B 
  D
|Vtd|=0.00480.014 |Vts|=0.0370.043 |Vtb|=0.99900.9992
W
Bd Bd Bs Bs t
b