Return-Path: murayama@thsrv.lbl.gov Return-Path: Received: from lbl.gov (lbl.gov [128.3.254.23]) by thsrv.lbl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA20219 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:57:43 -0800 Received: from thsrv.lbl.gov by lbl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21634; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:57:29 -0800 Received: from thsrv.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thsrv.lbl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA20192; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:56:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199711232356.PAA20192@thsrv.lbl.gov> To: "M. Jennifer Markus" cc: murayama@lbl.gov Subject: Re: Me, again Reply-to: murayama@lbl.gov In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:25:42 PST." <2.2.16.19971123102609.24474ea4@uclink4.Berkeley.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:56:35 -0800 From: Hitoshi Murayama > -- using template mhl.format -- > Thanks for the message. It did help. Good! > I just wanted to run a couple of things by you (I am going to spell out the > Greek letters, so I hope this is clear): > > On number 2: In the typed notes you gave us Gamma(i ->f) is equal to the > integral of (1/2M)d(sigma)(Feynman amplitude)squared. So when I solve for > d(sigma)(Feynman amplitude)squared, I just multiply the Gamma(i->f) I solved > for in number one by twice the mass of the kaon, right? But if this is > true, my units don't seem to come out to (GeV)squared. Gamma has a dimension of energy. The mass of the kaon has also a dimension of energy once you set c=1. Then their product has a dimension of energy squared. > On number 5: I divided my answer for number 4 by my answer for number 2 > because I believe that that ratio is approximately epsilon (I realize it has > a factor of epsilon and (epsilon)squared, but it seemed a reasonable thing > to do because for number 6 I got an answer that was within 5% of the value > in PDG) Was this the correct approach? You need to think yourself on this. A hint is that epsilon is defined as a mixture of K1 state in KL. Using the fact that it is only K1 that decays into two-pion states, write down the decay amplitude of KL into two-pion states in terms of K1 and K2. > And finally for number 6: I multiplied Gamma(Ks->pi(0)pi(0)) by my epsilon > value and I took that product for the KL->pi(0)pi(0). Is that correct? This folows whatever you do on problem 5. It is true though that you are supposed to get the prediction consistent with the observed branching fraction. Hitoshi