text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

While the frontier of high energy physics marches on to higher and higher energies, there are many unsolved puzzles left over in low energy physics. Hyperon decays account for many of them. These puzzles are generally not considered serious enough to deserve major attention. Our inability to calculate accurately with strong interaction is usually the reason invoked to explain why these puzzles remains so and why they may not be directly relevant to our understanding of the fundamental physics.

Nevertheless, one should be reminded that, even if their solutions do not require changes in the fundamental physics, it is still utmost important to understand the dynamics of low energy hadronic physics through the thicket of strong interaction. In addition, one should keep in mind that the surprises can potentially occur that alter our understanding at the fundamental level. One example is the potential new source of CP that can be revealed itself in hyperon decays. There are of course many other corners that the new physics may have already revealed itself in the data, and yet unrecognized by us through our inability to quantify strong interaction. One example that stands out is the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ rule that had been repeatedly used to motivate new physics in the literature in the past.

Since hyperon decays is a vast and hard subject, it is beyond my ability to review most of them in detail . My goal is only to recount some of them with some personal perspective so as to help motivate more future experiments on this subject.

## 2 Problems and tools

The various tools or models was invented to understand hadronic dynamics without facing the strong coupling issues head on. One can start by taking advantage of only the symmetry property which presumably is respected by the strong dynamics except the potential spontaneous symmetry breaking by vacuum condensates. One first identifies, or assumes, the low energy degrees of freedom and their associate symmetry, and proceeds to write down the most general low energy effective theory describing these degrees of freedom consistent with the required symmetry. This is the approaches taken by chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) and QCD sum rule. These low energy effective theories typically involve infinite numbers of terms, or couplings. To make such theories useful some expansion parameters and the associated cut-off scheme is necessary to derive predictions. For example in the simplest ChPT, the octet of Goldstone bosons associated with chiral symmetry breaking are identified as the low energy degrees of freedom and using its energy and momentum as expansion parameter an infinite series of Lagrangian can be written down according to the chiral symmetry. The higher dimensional operators are suppressed by powers of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}`$ where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}`$ is the chiral symmetry breaking scale. Similar expansion series is employed in QCD sum rule approach.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that either the expansion is convergent, or, the degrees of freedom included is sufficient. This is especially the case when the energy involved in the hadronic process is not limited to very small $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}`$ and can sometimes be quite close to where the high resonance occurs. In such case it is often impossible to justify the approximation or to account for the data without extra inputs. However, there is so far no reliable principles about how such extra inputs should be invoked or deployed. As a results, the theory has degenerated into models that are mostly invoked to account for particular special subsets of phenomenology. For example, it was well known that the lower order chiral perturbation theory cannot account for the data on hyperon radiative decays  even after the heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory formalism is employed . In an attempt to resolve this puzzle, some additional resonances are added in the analysis recently . While the resulting ”model” can account for the data (in fact it can account for the data in more than one way), however it is not clear how much fundamental understanding is actually gained in the process. With these general comments on the theoretical difficulties, we can go over the specific challenges.

The challenges facing the hyperon decays can be summarized in the following categories :
(1)Nonleptonic decays;
(2)CP violation;
(3)Semi-leptonic decays;
(4)Radiative decays;
(5)Magnetic moments.
I shall leave the topic of CP violation to German Valencia and topic of semi-leptonic decays to Earl C. Swallow in this workshop.

## 3 Nonleptonic Decays

The nonleptonic decays, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}`$, includes:
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$; $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$;
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}`$; $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$; $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$;
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$; $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$.
The amplitude can be written as

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{5}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}$$

where amplitudes $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$’s are parity violating, S-wave while $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$’s are parity conserving and P-wave.

### 3.1 $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ Rule

Each amplitude can be further decomposed into two isospin channels. For example, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$ amplitude for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ can be decomposed into $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}`$ and similarly for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$ amplitudes. Experimentally , the ratio of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}`$ for each S-wave, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$, or P-wave, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$, amplitude is found to be small and of the order of that in the nonleptonic kaon decays. For example,

$$\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}& \\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{}}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.014}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.006}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{}}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.017}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.047}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.034}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.023}$}\end{array}$$

The fact that these ratios, as well as the corresponding one in kaon nonleptonic decays are all of the order of 0.02 in absolute value indicates that $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ rule may reflect something general about the strangeness changing nonleptonic decays. However, so far we have not been able to understand this selection rule in general.

For example, in kaon decays, the factor of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{20}$}`$ in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ enhancement is partially accounted for (by a factor of 3 to 4) by the renormalization group (RG) effect of QCD between the weak scale and the low energy kaon scale. However, numerically this enhancement is still insufficient and this actually leads to many proposal of new physics in the literature in order to account for it.

For hyperon, the understanding improves a little bit. The similar RG enhancement effect is still operating. Pati/Woo and Miura/Minamikawa  discovered another potential enhancement effect. They observed that, using Fierz transformation, the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}`$ operator that can mediate hyperon decays, can be written in such a way that it is symmetric under the exchange of color indices of either $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ pair or $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{d}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ pair. If the baryon are taken naively as consisting of three valence quarks only, then the anti-symmetry of color wavefunction as well as this color property of the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ operator imply that only the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ operator can mediate the transition $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}`$ where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}`$ is the weak Hamiltonian, that is, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\Delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{3}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{2}}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{0}}$}`$. Of course, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ matrix elements are not the only mechanism for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}`$ decays. And, baryon wavefunction is not exactly just three quark only. However, it is a good indication that the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ amplitudes are dynamically favored. The most unsatisfactory aspect of this explanation is probably that the same mechanism clearly does not apply to kaons. Therefore it does not provide a general understanding of the strangeness changing nonleptonic decays together. Nevertheless, with such qualitative mechanism at hand, one can conclude that, overall, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ rule is probably not as serious a problem theoretically as in the case of kaons.

### 3.2 Nonleptonic enhancement

The data clearly shows the typical non-leptonic branching ratios, say, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ is about $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$ larger than the typical semi-leptonic ones, say, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$. Why? We have not been able to account for that based on the fundamental principle. There were various attempts to resolve this difference using quark model plus some QCD inputs many years ago. However, none can be considered compelling. This problem has not received too much recent attention. Nevertheless, I am wondering whether one can derive some better qualitative understanding by learning from the recent works on related issues in the charm and especially the B systems, such as heavy quark perturbation theory  or QCD inspired factorization models .

### 3.3 S-Wave/P-Wave problem

In chiral models or current algebra approach, S-wave ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$) is due to a contact term or, in ChPT language, the lowest order term in chiral Lagrangian. It is typically represented as in Fig. 1a. Note that the same vertex does not contribute to the P-wave amplitudes, B. To get P-wave amplitudes, one need to invoke the pole diagrams in Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c. The lowest order weak Lagrangian gives

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{0}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{[}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{]}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}$$

where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}`$ is the usual Goldstone bosons in matrix form. The $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathit{0}}$}`$ contributes to S-wave amplitudes, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$, directly, but not to $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$. The two parameters $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ can be used to fit the S-wave amplitudes quite well at this order. In particular, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ is found to be zero at this order while experimentally, indeed, it is much smaller than others.

Fig.1. Here circle and square represent strong and weak vertex respectively.

Using the fitted $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$, together with strong interaction parameters, one can calculate the pole diagrams and predict the P-wave amplitudes, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$. The result turns out to be a poor fit of many of the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}`$ amplitudes extracted from the data. Actually, alternatively, one can also chose to use $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ to fit the P-wave amplitudes, and use them to predict S-wave amplitudes. The result is an equally poor fit. The is the famous S-wave/P-wave problem.

There are a few potential ways out of the puzzle. One can see if the inclusion of higher order effective Lagrangian can rectify the situation. However, there are just too many parameters in the next order Lagrangian and there is no unique, convincing fit to the data. Alternatively, one can adopt a model that include new resonances, such as Spin 1/2 Parity-odd resonances or the Spin 1/2 parity-even Roper resonances, as the intermediate states, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }$}}`$ in the pole diagrams. The result can fit both S- and P-wave amplitudes, however the fit is clearly model dependent.

## 4 Radiative Decays

The radiative decays are :
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{d}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.23}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.05}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$ ; \**
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ BF too small to see due to EM decay $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$; BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3.5}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.4}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$ ;
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$; BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.06}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.16}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$ ;
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$; BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.75}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.15}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$ ;
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$; BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.27}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.23}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}`$ ; \**
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ BF $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{100}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\%}$}`$ electromagnetic decay .
(Note that \** are charged modes between U-spin doublets.)

Generally, the amplitudes can be rewritten as

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}$$

where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}`$ is parity conserving magnetic dipole transition (M1), $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ is parity violating electric dipole transition (E1). The decay rate is $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$. The asymmetry is $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}`$, that is, one needs both nonzero $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ amplitudes to get nonzero asymmetry. There is an old theorem by Hara regarding the vanishing of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ amplitudes.

### 4.1 Hara’s Theorem

Hara’s Theorem: Assuming that the amplitudes are not singular in the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ limit, parity violating $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ amplitudes must vanish for decays between states of a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}`$-spin doublet in the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ limit.
The theorem implies that

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}$$

and as a result the asymmetries $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$

Accepting the assumption of Hara’s theorem, even when $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking is taken into account, asymmetry $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ should remain small. Unfortunately, experimentally $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$, which is the only one measured to be nonzero, was found to be $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.76}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.08}$}`$, indeed large and negative. The others, given in Table 1., have much larger error.

The hadronic models did not have a great deal of success in explaining the details of the data. All the models of this type (except those that include vector mesons) preserve Hara’s theorem in their formulations. General analysis which include $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking actually predicts a small and positive asymmetry for the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}`$ decay while the data is negative and relatively large. Models that assume vector-meson dominance  can introduce effects that violate Hara’s theorem due to mixing of the vector meson with the photon. In models using quarks, it was pointed out  that the diagrams in which a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}`$-boson is exchanged between two constituent quarks can give rise to violation of Hara’s theorem. In addition, models which include vector-meson dominance are in better agreement with the data, though the situation is still not satisfactory. Among hadronic models, the observed negative asymmetry parameter for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}`$ decay is best accounted for using QCD sum-rules . Other approaches can be found in Refs. . A detailed overview on both experimental and theoretical aspects of weak radiative decays of hyperons is given in Refs. .

Many papers questioned the assumption of Hara Theorem based on general ground, including some recent references. The point is that it is possible that the parity violating amplitude, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$, becomes singular when one takes the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ limit. It reflects that how to treat the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking can have a crucial influence on the outcome of the analysis. As elaborated in the magnetic moment section later, we believe that more careful analyses are still wanting in this aspect in the literature.

One may try to employ ChPT, that was useful in describing low energies hadronic processes involving only mesons, to tackle hyperon. For application to processes involving baryons, it is most consistently formulated in the heavy-baryon formulation , in which the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ invariant baryon mass, $`\dot{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}`$, is removed by a field transformation (see Ref.  for detail). In this approach an amplitude for a given process is expanded in external pion four-momenta, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}$}`$, baryon residual four momenta, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}$}`$, and the quark mass, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$. If one neglects the up and down quark mass. One can collectively write down $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}$}`$, and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$ as $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}`$ ( and adopt the convention that $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$ are of the same order in the chiral expansion). The perturbation theory is reliable only when $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}`$ is smaller than the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}`$. In the heavy-baryon formulation there is an additional expansion in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\dot{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}`$. However, all these terms can be effectively absorbed in counterterms of the theory .

Weak radiative decays of hyperons have been studied before in the context of ChPT by Jenkins, Luke, Manohar and Savage  and Neufeld . Jenkins et al. and Neufeld calculated the amplitude up to the one-loop level. These loop diagrams give contributions to the amplitudes which are at least of order $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ in the chiral expansion. However, tree-level direct emission diagrams from the next-to-leading order weak Lagrangian, which give contribution of order $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ to the amplitudes, were not considered. In a series of paper we consistently calculated the leading-order amplitude of weak radiative decays of hyperons in ChPT. At this order, no loop contribution need to be considered. However, one does need to take into account the higher-order terms in the weak chiral Lagrangian. We showed that it gives rise to violation of Hara’s theorem. As a consequence the decay rates for the charged decays $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ can be accounted for consistently. We showed that, in leading order, ChPT predicts the ratios of the decay amplitudes of all the neutral channels as functions of the baryon masses only. We compared these predictions with the data. Furthermore, the asymmetry parameters still vanish in this leading order calculation. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent with the data in the expansion scheme of ChPT.

In particular, the diagrams contributing to the leading-order amplitude are tree diagrams given in Fig. 2. There are two kinds of diagrams: the direct emission diagrams, Fig. 2a, and the baryon pole-diagrams, Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c. Loop diagrams give rise to contributions of higher order. The pole-diagrams only contribute to the parity-conserving form factor $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}`$, in accordance with the Lee-Swift theorem . Unfortunately as concluded in Ref., within the context of simplest heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory without inclusion of any additional resonances, the understanding of many of the data in radiative hyperon decays, including the asymmetry, is still beyond reach. However, if one is willing to introduce additional resonances, together with the additional parameters that come with it, it is possible to fit the data without some models.

Fig.2. Here circle and square represent strong and weak vertex respectively.

## 5 Magnetic Moments

The magnetic moments of the octet baryons were found to obey approximate $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ symmetry a long time ago by Coleman and Glashow (CG). In the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ symmetric limit, the nine observable moments (including the transitional moment between $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}`$) can be parameterized in terms of two parameters, and as a result obey approximate relationships. The two parameter result of CG can in fact fit the observed magnetic moments up to about the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{20}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\%}$}`$ level. However, since at present the moments have been measured with an accuracy of better than $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\%}$}`$ , an improved theoretical understanding is clearly desirable.

Many attempts were made trying to improve the numerical predictions of CG by including the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking effects using ChPT . However, many of these efforts resulted in numerical fits worse than the leading order $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ invariant one by CG. For example, Caldi and Pagels  found that the leading $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking corrections, in their scheme for ChPT, appear in the non-analytic forms of $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$. They showed that the $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}`$ corrections are in fact at least as large as the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ invariant zeroth order terms, which casts doubt on the applicability of ChPT. Caldi and Pagels suggested that this “failure” of ChPT might be attributed to the large mass of kaon in the loops and the fact that the leading correction is of non-analytic form. Such non-analytic contributions were indeed pointed out earlier by Li and Pagels  and others , however, the non-analyticity appears only in the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ invariant chiral symmetry breaking mass, not in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking parameters. More recently, similar large corrections to the baryon magnetic moments non-analytic in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$ have been found, by calculating them up to the one-loop level in ChPT . By only using the $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}`$ terms Jenkins et al.  could improve the accuracy of the Coleman-Glashow results from 20 % to about 10 %. However, this could only be achieved by using in kaon loops a different value of the meson decay constant than in pion loops, with the effect that the magnitude of the kaon loops is artificially reduced. In addition, Krause  showed that $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$ corrections are just as important, which disagrees with Refs. . Also, Krause further argued that the non-analytic contributions are not a good approximation of the loop integrals at all.

### 5.1 Okubo relation

Shortly after CG, Okubo  derived a relation

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Xi }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$

where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}}`$ is the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$}`$ transition moment. This relation can be obtained if one assumes that $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking corrections to the moments are linear in the quark mass matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}`$, defined by $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{diag}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$. The $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking terms introduce additional 5 parameters. The resulting 7 parameter prediction can fit the current 9 high precision observables to within 1.5% .

Within the context of ChPT, there is no unique way of treating the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking yet. However, the nice fit of Okubo relation can be taken as a hint. In Ref., it was shown that, even with in the scheme of ChPT used in Ref., while the one-loop non-analytic contributions of the form $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}`$ satisfies the Okubo relation, the nonanalytic contributions of the form $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$ does not! In Ref., a formulation of ChPT was suggested such that the leading $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ breaking correction is indeed linear in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}`$.

## 6 Summary

We had shown that there are still many issues that we do not understand associated with hyperon decays based only on fundamental principles. It is possible that some of the difficulties are such that, due to our inability of dealing with strong interaction, we cannot understand them without invoking some phenomenological models. It is also possible that some of the current data that makes it so hard for us to understand may be changed by improved measurement in the future.

This work was supported in parts by National Science Council of R.O.C., and by U.S. Department of Energy. We wishes to thank SLAC Theory Group for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Trilinear relations between the tetrahedron volumes in a cluster

## Abstract

We prove elegant trilinear formulas connecting products of volumes of Euclidean tetrahedra with vertices taken from a given set of 6 points. We propose a way for generalizing those formulas.

In this short note we obtain some trilinear relations between volumes of tetrahedra whose vertices belong to a set of 6 points, namely $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$, $`E`$ and $`F`$ in a 3-dimensional Euclidean space. This can be imagined as dividing a given octahedron into tetrahedra. Essentially, these are equalities between determinants because the volume of a tetrahedron $`ABCD`$ can be represented as

$$\frac{1}{6}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}x_Bx_A& y_By_A& z_Bz_A\\ x_Cx_A& y_Cy_A& z_Cz_A\\ x_Dx_A& y_Dy_A& z_Dz_A\end{array}\right|,$$

where $`(x_A,y_A,z_A)`$ are the coordinates of vertex $`A`$ and so on.

It is not claimed that our equalities are new. However, the reader will be able to see that there are certainly many “higher analogues” of our formulas and maybe some of them will be new. The author will be grateful for any indications at publications containing formulas of such kind.

Consider the Eiclidean octahedron depicted in Figure 1.

We will denote the lengths of its edges as $`l_{AB}`$, $`l_{BC}`$ and so on. Draw the diagonal $`DE`$ and introduce the following notations for solid angles between planes intersecting at it as in Figure 2.

$`\mathrm{}(BDE,CDE)=\alpha ,\mathrm{}(FDE,ADE)=\beta ,`$
$`\mathrm{}(ADE,BDE)=\gamma ,\mathrm{}(CDE,FDE)=\delta .`$
Then, let us allow the point $`D`$ to move, but only in such manner that distances $`l_{AD}`$ and $`l_{FD}`$ remain constant. The distances $`l_{BD}`$, $`l_{CD}`$ and $`l_{DE}`$ will change in some way, and we can write the following formula:

$`0=d(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{BD}}}dl_{BD}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{CD}}}dl_{CD}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{DE}}}dl_{DE}.`$ (1)
The following differential relations can be deduced from simple geometrical considerations (for details, see ):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{l_{BC}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{BC}l_{DE}}{V_{\overline{AF}}}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{l_{AB}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{AB}l_{DE}}{V_{\overline{CF}}}},`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{l_{AB}}{l_{BD}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{BD}}{l_{AB}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{FD}}}{V_{\overline{AF}}}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_{BC}}{l_{CD}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{CD}}{l_{BC}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{AD}}}{V_{\overline{AB}}}},`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{l_{DE}dl_{DE}}{V_{\overline{BC}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{BD}dl_{BD}}{V_{\overline{CE}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{CD}dl_{CD}}{V_{\overline{BE}}}},`$ (4)
where, e.g., $`V_{\overline{AF}}`$ is the volume of tetrahedron $`BCDE`$, etc. Then after all substitutions the equality (Trilinear relations between the tetrahedron volumes in a cluster) reduces to the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{DE}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{DE}^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{FD}}V_{\overline{CE}}}{V_{\overline{CF}}V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{BC}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{AD}}V_{\overline{BE}}}{V_{\overline{AB}}V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{BC}}}}\right).`$ (5)
It is important that in obtaining (5) we have used the lengths of $`BD`$ and $`CD`$ as “intermediate” variables. The use of other pairs of edges ($`CD`$ and $`FD`$, or $`FD`$ and $`AD`$, or $`AD`$ and $`BD`$) leads to other relations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{DE}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{DE}^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{AD}}V_{\overline{FE}}}{V_{\overline{CF}}V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{AB}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{BD}}V_{\overline{CE}}}{V_{\overline{AB}}V_{\overline{CF}}V_{\overline{BC}}}}\right),`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{DE}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{DE}^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{BD}}V_{\overline{AE}}}{V_{\overline{BC}}V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{AB}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{CD}}V_{\overline{FE}}}{V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{CF}}V_{\overline{BC}}}}\right),`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta )}{l_{DE}}}={\displaystyle \frac{l_{DE}^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{CD}}V_{\overline{BE}}}{V_{\overline{CF}}V_{\overline{AB}}V_{\overline{BC}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\overline{FD}}V_{\overline{AE}}}{V_{\overline{AB}}V_{\overline{AF}}V_{\overline{CF}}}}\right).`$ (8)
The following three identities obviously follow from (5), (6), (7) and (8):

$`V_{\overline{FD}}V_{\overline{CE}}V_{\overline{AB}}+V_{\overline{AD}}V_{\overline{BE}}V_{\overline{CF}}=V_{\overline{AD}}V_{\overline{FE}}V_{\overline{BC}}+V_{\overline{BD}}V_{\overline{CE}}V_{\overline{AF}}=`$
$`V_{\overline{BD}}V_{\overline{AE}}V_{\overline{CF}}+V_{\overline{CD}}V_{\overline{FE}}V_{\overline{AB}}=V_{\overline{CD}}V_{\overline{BE}}V_{\overline{AF}}+V_{\overline{FD}}V_{\overline{AE}}V_{\overline{BC}}.`$ (9)
More equalities of such kind can be obtained by permutations of vertices and changing the volumes signs, if necessary.

In conclusion, let us note that in considering in a similar way clusters of tetrahedra with more vertices we must be led to some “higher” multilinear formulae.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The collision of particles with the internal degrees of freedom are inelastic in general. The inelastic collisions are abundant in nature. Examples can be seen in collisions of atoms, molecules, elastic materials, balls in sports, and so on. The study of inelastic collisions will be able to be widely accepted as one of fundamental subjects in physics, because they are almost always discussed in textbooks of elementary classical mechanics.

Recent extensive interest in granular materials makes physicists to recognize fundamental roles of inelastic collisions. In fact, granules consists of macroscopic dissipative particles. Therefore, the decision of interaction among particles is obviously important. We believe that static interactions among granular particles can be described by the theory of elasticity. For example, the normal compression may be described by the Hertzian contact force and the shear force may be represented by the Mindline force. The dynamical part related to the dissipation, however, cannot be described by any reliable physical theory. Thus, the distinct element method which is one of the most popular models to simulate collections of granular particles contains some dynamical undetermined parameters. In other words, to determine such the parameters is important for both granular physics and fundamental physics.

The normal impact of macroscopic materials is characterized by the coefficient of restitution (COR) defined by

$$e=v_r/v_i,$$
(1)
where $`v_i`$ and $`v_r`$ are the relative velocities of incoming and outgoing particles respectively. COR $`e`$ had been believed to be a material constant, since the classical experiment by Newton. In general, however, experiments show that COR for three dimensional materials is not a constant even in approximate sense but depends strongly on the impact velocity.

The origin of the dissipation in inelastic collisions is the transfer of the kinetic energy of the center of mass into the internal degrees of freedom during the impacts. Systematic theoretical investigations of the impact have begun with the paper by Kuwabara and Kono. Taking into account the viscous motion among the internal degrees of freedom, they derived the equation of the macroscopic deformation. Later, Brilliantov et al. and Morgado and Oppenheim derived the identical equation to eq.(2). In particular, the derivation by Morgado and Oppenheim is based on the standard technique of nonequilibrium statistical mechanics to extract the slow mode among the fast many modes which can be regarded as the thermal reservoir. Furthermore, Brilliantov et al. compared their theoretical results with experimental results. Thus, the quasi-static theory has been accepted as reasonable one.

On the other hand, Gerl and Zippelius performed the microscopic simulation of the two-dimensional collision of an elastic disk with a wall. Their simulation is mainly based on the mode expansion of an elastic disk under the force free boundary condition. Then, they solve Hamilton’s equation determined by the elastic field and the repulsive potential to represent the collision of two disks. Their results show that COR decreases with the impact velocity, which strongly depends on Poisson’s ratio. For high velocity of the impact they demonstrate the macroscopic deformation has left after the collision is over. Although it is not easy to discuss the impact with the very low impact velocity from their method, their analysis may suggest the possibility of a complicated relation between the quasi-static theory of impact and their microscopic simulation. Thus, we have to clarify the relation between two typical approaches.

In this paper, we will perform the microscopic simulation of the impact of a two dimensional elastic disk with a wall. We introduce two methods of simulation; One is based on the lattice model (model A) and another is continuum model (model B) which is identical to that by Gerl and Zippelius. Through our simulation, we will demonstrate that (i) the effect of temperature (the initial internal motion) is important, (ii) COR is suddenly dropped by the plastic deformation which is enhanced by the initial temperature, and (iii) the continuum model (model B) does not recover the results predicted by the quasi-static theories in the low impact velocity.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we will briefly review the outline of quasi-static theory. In section 3, we will explain model A and model B which is equivalent to the model by Gerl and Zippelius of our simulation. In section 4, we will show the result of our simulation and discuss the validity of quasi-static theory. In section 5, we discuss our results, in particular, about the plastic deformation by the impact and its origin. In section 6, we will summarize our result.

## 2 Quasi-static theory

In this section, we briefly explain the outline of quasi-static theory. One purpose of this section is to summarize the two-dimensional version of quasi-static theory which may not be mentioned in any articles explicitly.

At first, let us summarize the three dimensional result, in which the equation of the macroscopic deformation is given by

$$\ddot{h}=kh^{3/2}\gamma \sqrt{h}\dot{h}$$
(2)
in a collision of two spheres, where the macroscopic deformation $`h`$ is given by $`h=R_1+R_2|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$ with the radius $`R_i(i=1,2)`$ and the position of the center of the mass $`𝐫_i`$ of $`i`$ th particle. $`\dot{h}`$ and $`\ddot{h}`$ are respectively $`dh/dt`$ and $`d^2h/dt^2`$. $`k`$ and $`\gamma `$ are unimportant constants. The first term of the right hand side in eq.(2) represents the Hertzian contact force and the second term is the dissipation due to the internal motion.

The simplest derivation of eq.(2) is that by Brilliantov et al., though we also check it validity by the alternative methods. Taking into account the limitation of the length of this paper, we follow the argument by them.

The static stress tensor in the two-dimensional linear elastic material can be represented by

$$\sigma _{}^{(el)}{}_{ij}{}^{}=2\mu (ϵ_{ij}\delta _{ij}ϵ_{ll}/2)+K\delta _{ij}ϵ_{ll}$$
(3)
where $`\mu `$ and $`K`$ are respectively the shear modulus and the compressional modulus, and $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is given by

$$ϵ_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_i}{x_j}+\frac{u_j}{x_i}\right)$$
(4)
with the displacement field $`u_i`$.

The two dimensional Hertzian contact law is given by the relation between the macroscopic deformation of the center of mass $`h`$ and the elastic force $`F_{el}`$ as

$$h\frac{F_{el}}{\pi Y}\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\pi YR}{F_{el}\left(1\sigma ^2\right)}\right)1\},$$
(5)
where $`Y`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`R`$ are the Young modulus, Poisson’s ratio and the radius of the disk without deformation, respectively. Equation (5) can be derived from the stress tensor (3) with the standard treatment of linear elastic theory. Note that $`h`$ satisfies $`h=Ry_0`$ with the position of the center of mass $`y_0`$.

For small dissipation, as in the textbooks, the dissipative stress tensor due to the viscous motion among internal motions is given by

$$\sigma _{}^{(vis)}{}_{ij}{}^{}=2\eta _1(\dot{ϵ}_{ij}\delta _{ij}\dot{ϵ}_{ll}/2)+\eta _2\delta _{ij}\dot{ϵ}_{ll}$$
(6)
as in the case of viscous fluid, where $`\dot{ϵ}_{ij}`$ is the time derivative of $`ϵ_{ij}`$, $`\eta _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) is the viscous constant.

Brilliantov el al. assumed that the velocity of deformation field is governed by the macroscopic deformation, i.e., $`\dot{u}_i\dot{h}(u_i/h)`$. Since in the limit of $`v_i0`$ we may replace eq.(5) by $`F_{el}\pi Yh/\mathrm{ln}(4R/h)`$. Thus, with the aid of the assumption by Brilliantov et al., (3) and (6), it is easy to derive the two dimensional version of quasi-static theory as

$$F_{tot}\frac{\pi Yh}{\mathrm{ln}(4R/h)}A\frac{\pi Y\dot{h}}{\mathrm{ln}(4R/h)},$$
(7)
where $`A`$ is an unimportant constant. This result can be derived by various other method. Thus, we will compare the result of our simulation with eq.(7).

## 3 Our models

Let us explain the details of our model. In both models, the wall exists at $`y=0`$, and the center of mass keeps the position at $`x=0`$. The disk approaches from $`y>0`$ region and is rebounded by the wall.

### 3.1 Model A

The disk in model A consists of some mass points (with the mass $`m`$) on the triangular lattice. All the mass points are combined with linear springs with the spring constant $`\kappa `$. In the limit of large number of the mass points, this disk corresponds to the continuum circular disk with the Young’s modulus $`Y=2\kappa /\sqrt{3}`$ and Poisson’s ratio $`1/3`$. The position of each mass point of model A is governed by the following equation:

$$m\frac{d^2𝐫_p}{dt^2}=\kappa \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}(d_0|𝐫_p𝐫_i|)\frac{𝐫_p𝐫_i}{|𝐫_p𝐫_i|}+\widehat{y}aV_0e^{ay_p}$$
(8)
where $`d_0`$ is the lattice constant, $`𝐫_i`$ is the position of the nearest neighbor mass points of $`𝐫_p`$, $`m`$ is the mass of the mass points, $`y_p`$ is the $`y`$ coordinate of $`𝐫_p`$, and $`\widehat{y}`$ is the unit vector of $`y`$ direction. Note that the directional projection of the linear spring force in model A can cause the nonlinear deformation. The wall potential is given by $`V_0e^{ay}`$ , where $`V_0=a/2`$ and $`a=100/d_0`$ for model A. The number of the mass points is fixed to 1459 in model A, since the rough evaluation of convergence of the results has been checked in this model.

### 3.2 Model B

In this subsection, we introduce model B which is originally proposed by Gerl and Zippelius. Although the details of this model can be checked in their paper, we present the minimum description of this model to understand the setup of our simulation.

Gerl and Zippelius analyze Hamilton’s equation ;

$$\dot{P}_{n,l}=\frac{H}{Q_{n,l}};\dot{Q}_{n,l}=\frac{H}{P_{n,l}}$$
(9)
under the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p_0^2}{2M}+\underset{n,l}{\overset{N}{}}(\frac{P_{n,l}^2}{2M}+12M\omega _{n,l}^2Q_{n,l}^2)+V_0_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi e^{ay(\varphi ,t)}.$$
(10)
Here $`Q_{n,l}`$ is the expansion coefficient of the 2D elastic deformation field in the polar coordinate $`𝐮=(u_r,u_\varphi )`$

$$(u_r(r,\varphi ),u_\varphi (r,\varphi ))=\underset{n,l}{}Q_{n,l}(u_r^{n,l}(r)\mathrm{cos}n\varphi ,u_\varphi ^{n,l}(r)\mathrm{sin}n\varphi ),$$
(11)
where $`u_r^{n,l}(r)R=A_{n,l}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_n(k_{n,l}r)}{dr}}+nB_{n,l}{\displaystyle \frac{J_n(k_{n,l}^{}r)}{r}}`$ and $`u_\varphi ^{n,l}(r)R=nA_{n,l}{\displaystyle \frac{J_n(k_{n,l}^{}r)}{r}}B_{n,l}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_{n,l}(k_{n,l}r)}{dr}}`$ with the radius of the disk and the Bessel function of the $`n`$th order $`J_n(x)`$. Here $`k_{n,l}^{}=k_{n,l}\sqrt{2(1+\sigma )/(1\sigma ^2)}`$ and $`k_{n,l}`$ is the solution of

$`(1\sigma ^2)(1n^2)\kappa \kappa ^2J_{n1}(\kappa )J_{n1}(\kappa ^{})+\kappa ^2[\kappa ^22n(n+1)(1\sigma )]J_n(\kappa )J_n(\kappa ^{})`$
$`+(1\sigma )[\kappa ^2(1\sigma )(1n^2)n][\kappa J_{n1}(\kappa )J_n(\kappa ^{})+\kappa ^{}J_{n1}(\kappa ^{})J_n(\kappa )]=0`$ (12)
with Poisson’s ratio $`\sigma `$, $`\kappa =k_{n,l}R`$ and $`\kappa ^{}=k_{n,l}^{}R`$, which is given by the boundary condition. Thus, for fixed $`n`$ there are infinitely many solutions $`k_{n,l}`$ and $`\omega _{n,l}=k_{n,l}\sqrt{Y/\{\rho (1\sigma ^2)\}}`$ numbered by $`l=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. $`A_{n,l}`$ and $`B_{n,l}`$ are determined by

$`A_n[{\displaystyle \frac{(1\sigma )}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_n(k_{n,l}R)}{dR}}+(k_{n,l}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\sigma )}{R^2}}n^2)J_n(k_{n,l}R)]`$
$`+nB_n(1\sigma )[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_n(k_{n,l}^{}R)}{dR}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_n(k_{n,l}^{}R)}{R^2}}]=0`$ (13)
and $`_0^R𝑑rr\{u_{r}^{n,l}{}_{}{}^{2}+u_{\varphi }^{n,l}{}_{}{}^{2}\}=R^2`$. $`P_{n,l}`$ is the canonical momentum. $`y(\varphi ,t)`$ is the shape of the elastic disk in the polar coordinate;

$$y(\varphi ,t)=y_0(t)+\underset{n,l}{}Q_{n,l}(C_{n,l}\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi S_{n,l}\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi )$$
(14)
with the position of the center of mass $`y_0(t)`$ and constants $`C_{n,l}`$ and $`S_{n,l}`$ determined by the maximal radial and tangential displacement at the edge of the disk as $`C_{n,l}=u_r^{n,l}(R)`$ and $`S_{n,l}=u_\varphi ^{n,l}(R)`$. $`M`$ is the mass of the disk, and the momentum of the center of the mass $`p_0=M\dot{y_0}`$ satisfies $`\dot{p}_0=(H/y_0)`$ , $`V_0`$ and $`a`$ are parameters to express the strength of the wall potential.

For the simulation of a pair of identical disks, they extrapolate the results of their simulation to $`a\mathrm{}`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ with the total number of modes $`N`$. We only adopt $`N=1189`$ ($`n50`$ and $`\kappa _n50`$)or $`N=437`$ ($`n30`$ and $`\kappa _n30`$), $`V_0=a/2`$ and $`a=500/R`$ with the radius of the disk $`R`$.

### 3.3 Parameters in both models

For the sake of simplicity and comparison between two different models, we only simulate the case of Poisson’s ratio $`\sigma =1/3`$. The numerical scheme of the integration of model A is the classical fourth order Runge-Kutta method with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1.6\times 10^3\sqrt{m/\kappa }`$. For model B, we adopt the fourth order symplectic integral method with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=5.0\times 10^3R/c`$ with $`c=\sqrt{Y/\rho }`$ for model B where $`Y`$ is Young’s modulus and $`\rho `$ is the density. In both models, we have checked the conservation of the total energy.

We also investigate the impact with the finite temperature. The temperature is introduced as follows: In model A, we prepare the Maxwellian for the initial velocity distribution of mass points, where the positions of all mass points are located at their equilibrium positions. From the variance of the Maxwellian we can introduce the temperature as a parameter. To perform the simulation, we prepare 10 independent samples obeying the Maxwellian with the aid of normal random number. In model B, we prepare samples in which the absolute value of each mode satisfies equipartition law exactly. The sign of each mode is assumed to be at random with the aid of the uniform random number. ¿From the equipartition law we can introduce the temperature as a parameter of simulation, too.

The summary of differences between model A and B is as follows: (i) All of the mass points in model A interact with the wall but, in model B, only exterior boundary has the influence of the potential as in (10). (ii) Model A can have nonlinear deformations, but model B is based on the theory of linear elasticity. (iii) Model A can express some plastic deformations, but model B cannot. (iv) Model A has the six folds symmetry but model B has the rotational symmetry.

## 4 Results

Now, let us explain the details of the result of our simulation. In the first subsection, we will introduce the result at $`T=0`$ and in the second subsection, we will show the result at finite $`T`$.

### 4.1 Simulation at $`T=0`$

At first, we carry out the simulation of model A and model B with the initial condition at $`T=0`$ (i.e. no internal motion). Figure 2 is the plot of the COR against the impact velocity for both model A and model B. For model B, we show the results of $`437`$ modes and $`1189`$ modes which clearly demonstrates the convergence of the result for the number of modes. When impact velocity $`v_i`$ is larger than $`0.1c`$ with $`c=\sqrt{Y/\rho }`$, the value of COR of model A is almost identical to that of model B. Each line decreases smoothly as impact velocity increases. At present, we do not know the reason why the significant difference between two models exists at low impact velocity.

Second, we investigate the force acting on the center of mass of the disk caused by the interaction with the wall in model B. In the limit of $`v_i0`$ we expect that the Hertzian contact theory can be used. The small amount of transfer from the translational motion to the internal motion is the macroscopic dissipation. Thus, we can check the validity of quasi-static approaches from our simulation by the difference between the observed force acting on the center of mass and the Hertzian contact force.

If $`h`$ is given, we can calculate the elastic force by solving eq.(5) numerically. Figure 2 is the comparison with our simulation in model B (1189 modes) and the Hertzian contact theory (5) which is given by the solid lines. The result of our simulation at the impact velocity $`v_i=0.01c`$ with $`c=\sqrt{Y/\rho }`$ shows the beautiful hysteresis as suggested in the simulation at $`v_i=0.1c`$ in ref.. This means the compression and rebound are not symmetric. The hysteresis curve is still self-similar even at $`v_i=0.04c`$ but the loop becomes noisy at $`v_i=0.1c`$.

For very low impact velocity $`v_i=0.001c`$, the hysteresis loop disappears but the total force observed in our simulation is almost a linear function of $`h`$ which is deviated from the Hertzian contact theory and quasi-static theory (7). In particular, the turning point at $`\dot{F}=0`$ is deviated from the Hertzian curve (the solid line). This deviation is clearly contrast to the quasi static theory, because the dissipative force in the theory in eqs.(2) and (7) must be zero at the turning point at which $`\dot{h}=0`$ should satisfy. This tendency is invariant even for the simulation of model A, though the data becomes noisy. The linearity of the total repulsion force is not surprising, because $`e^{ay(\varphi ,t)}`$ in the potential term in eq.(10) can be expanded by series of $`Q_{n,l}`$ for very slow impact. Although we cannot judge whether the model itself is not appropriate for slow impact or the quasi-static theory is wrong, our result clearly means that the validity of the quasi-static theory cannot be supported by our microscopic simulation. However, the validity of the contact time $`\tau `$ in the impact evaluated by the quasi-static theory  can be evaluated as $`\tau (\pi R/c)\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(4c/v_i)}`$ has been confirmed by the results of our simulation of model A (Fig.4). Thus, at least, the relation between dynamical impact theory and quasi-static elastic theory is not trivial at present.

### 4.2 Simulation at finite $`T`$

Now, let us show the results of our simulation at finite $`T`$ which has significant differences from those at $`T=0`$ in both low and large impact velocities. In this sense, we have much room to study this process at finite $`T`$ systematically.

For small impact velocity, COR at finite $`T`$ becomes larger than that at $`T=0`$ in both models. In some trials COR becomes larger than 1. It is an interesting result to extract work of this system from thermodynamical point of view. The details of the temperature effect at the slow impact will be reported elsewhere.

For large impact velocity, we do not observe any definite temperature effect in model B but we find drastic drop of COR in model A. It seems that COR can be on a universal curve when the impact velocity is scaled by the critical velocity above which COR drops abruptly (Fig.5). The relation between the critical velocity and the initial temperature at the intermediate impact velocities is shown in the Fig.6. The critical velocity seems to obey a linear function of $`T`$, though the data is not on the very slow and the very fast impacts.

## 5 discussion

We investigate what happens in the disk above the critical velocity and find the existence of plastic deformation of the disk (Fig.7(a)). Actually, there is no energy differences between two configurations in Fig.7(b) which can occur after the strong compression during the impact but cannot be released after the impact is over. It is well known that the plastic deformation causes the drop of COR.

Following the description in ref.6, let us explain the dimensional analysis of the two-dimensional plastic deformation. From two-dimensional Hertzian law (5) we evaluate $`ha_0^2/R`$ where $`a_0=\sqrt{4F_{el}R/(\pi Y^{})}`$ with the elastic force $`F_{el}`$, the radius without contact $`R`$ and the effective Young’s modulus $`Y^{}=Y/(1\sigma ^2)`$ with Poisson’s ratio $`\sigma `$ is the contact length in Hertzian law. The work for the compression of the disk $`W`$ is $`W=(1/2)Mv_i^2_0^h^{}𝑑hF_{el}_0^{a_0^{}}𝑑a_0a_0/R`$, where $`M`$ and $`v_i`$ are the mass of the disk and the impact velocity, respectively. $`h^{}`$ and $`a_0^{}`$ are respectively the maximal compression and and the maximal contact length. Here we neglect the logarithmic correction and unimportant numerical factors. Introducing the mean contact pressure during dynamical loading $`p_d`$ which satisfies $`p_dF_{el}/a_0`$, $`W`$ can be evaluated by $`Wp_d(a_0^{})^3/R`$. From $`WMv_i^2`$ we can express $`a_0^{}(Mv_i^2R/p_d)^{1/3}`$.

Let us assume that the impact exceeds the yield pressure for the plastic deformation. In such the case, the deformation during rebound is frozen. Thus, the work in a rebound is $`W^{}F_{}h^{}`$ where $`F_{}`$ is the maximal force during the impact. From $`h^{}F_{}/Y^{}`$ and $`F_{}p_da_0^{}`$ we evaluate $`W^{}(p_da_0^{})^2/Y^{}`$. Substituting the expression of $`a_0^{}`$ into the expression for $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ we obtain the COR as

$$e^2=\frac{v_r^2}{v_i^2}=\frac{W^{}}{W}\frac{p_d^{4/3}R^{2/3}}{Y^{}(MV_i^2)^{1/3}},$$
(15)
where $`v_r`$ is the rebound velocity. Thus, we expect the law $`ev_i^{1/3}`$ in the collision of a plastic deformed disk. The three dimensional version of evaluation which gives $`ev_i^{1/4}`$ agrees well with the experiment.

Our finding is, however, something new, because (i) the drop of COR is excited by the temperature and (ii) COR decreases more rapidly like $`ev_i^{1.2}`$ than that for the conventional plastic deformation $`ev_i^{1/3}`$ in (15). The mechanism how to occur the plastic deformation is not clear at present including the linear law in Fig.6.

## 6 Conclusion

We have numerically studied the impact of a two dimensional elastic disk with the wall with the aid of model A and model B. The result can be summarized as (i) The coefficient of restitution (COR) decreases with the impact velocity. (ii) The result of our simulation is not consistent with the result of the two-dimensional quasi-static theory. For large impact velocity, there is hysteresis in the deformation of the center of mass. For small velocity, there remains the inelastic force even at $`\dot{h}=0`$. (iii) There are drastic effects of temperature in both small and large impact velocity. (iv) In particular, for large impact velocity of model A, we have found the abrupt drop of COR above the critical impact velocity by the plastic deformation. The critical velocity of the plastic deformation seems to obey a simple linear function of temperature.

We believe that this preliminary report is meaningful to recognize that physicists have poor understanding of such the fundamental process of elementary mechanics. We hope that this letter will invite a lot of interest in the impact from various view points. We, at least, have a plan to study three dimensional impacts to clarify the relation among the microscopic simulation, experiments and the quasi-static elastic theory.

Acknowledgment

We appreciate S. Sasa, S. Takesue, Y.Oono and H. Tasaki for their valuable comments. One of the authors(HK) thanks S. Wada, K. Ichiki, A. Awazu, and M. Isobe for stimulative discussions. This study is partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research Fund from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Grant No. 11740228).