The of Neutral

W. A. Perkins

Perkins Advanced Computing Systems, 12303 Hidden Meadows Circle, Auburn, CA 95603, USA E-mail: [email protected]

With the advent of the ability to create and study antihydrogen, we think it is appropriate to consider the possibility that antiphotons might not be identical to . First of all, we will look at the experimental evidence concerning multiple neutral and multiple photons. Because of its internal structure, the neutral is not identical to its . We will consider internal structures for the neutral and for which the antiparticle differs from the . Interestingly, the antiphoton thus created from does not interact with because its neutrinos have the wrong helicity.

PACS numbers: 36.10.Gv,13.15.+g,14.60.St,14.70.Bh,13.20.Cz Keywords: antiphoton, antiboson, multiple neutral pions, antihydrogen, theory of light

I. INTRODUCTION

In the last few years researchers [1] have succeeded in forming and trapping large numbers of antihydrogen for long periods of time. Scientists [2] in addition have measured resonant quantum transitions of antihydrogen atoms. They have not measured the emission spectrum yet, and the purpose of this paper is to consider the possibility that antiphotons are different than photons. The “neutrino theory of light” provides a natural way for antiphotons to differ from photons. Photons are changed into antiphotons by applying the charge conjugation operator on the photon’s internal neutrino structure. In 1938 Pryce [3] presented several reasons why de Broglie’s idea of a composite photon formed of a neutrino-antineutrino pair, “neutrino theory of light”, was untenable, and it has had a stifling effect on the theoretical work ever

arXiv:1311.3733v1 [hep-ph] 15 Nov 2013 since. However, in 1966, Berezinskii [4] showed that Pryce’s only valid argument was that the composite photon could not satisfy Bose commutation relations because of its internal structure. Today, that objection does not seem so important as many composite bosons (such as pions and ) cannot satisfy that criterion [5]. There has been some continuing work on the neutrino theory of light (see [6–8]), but it still has other problems: (1) It is unclear how a neutrino-antineutrino pair interacts with an with the electromagnetic coupling constant “α” while a single neutrino interacts with the weak coupling constant “g”, and how the local interaction between the neutrino and the antineutrino affects this. (2) The theory needs massless 2-component neutrinos, while there are indications [9] that neutrinos have mass. Nevertheless, in this paper we will consider neutrinos to be massless 2-component [10]. In the next section we will consider the evidence that multiple neutral bosons exist. The existence of multiple neutral kaons is well established, while the evidence for multiple neutral 2

pions and multiple photons is less well-known. If the reactions pp → π0π0 and pd → π0π0n occur from S-states as implied by the experimental results, then the two neutral pions are not identical. In addition, there are results supporting the existence of a short-lived π0 from annihilations in emulsions. Indirect evidence of multiple photons comes from the decay π0 → γ + γ. In Section III we look at internal structures for which the antiparticles are different than the . From the “neutrino theory of light” the photon is composed of the left-handed and the right-handed electron antineutrino. Under charge conjugation the photon changes into an antiphoton composed of a right-handed electron neutrino and a left-handed electron antineutrino, two particles that have never been observed. Then in Section IV we examine the interaction of composite photons and antiphotons with elections. Because the electron-neutrino interaction is V-A in a world, it selects states with negative-helicity particles and positive-helicity antiparticles. An antiphoton cannot interact with electrons because its neutrinos have the wrong helicity. Conversely, a photon cannot interact with in an antimatter world where the interaction is V+A.

II. EVIDENCE FOR MULTIPLE NEUTRAL BOSONS

Neutral , such as neutrinos and the , are not identical with their antipar- ticles. Although it is expected that neutral bosons will be identical with their antiparticles, the neutral kaon, K0, is known to differ from its antiparticle, K0.

A. Multiple Neutral Kaons

To conserve strangeness in strong reactions, the K0 must have strangeness +1 while the 0 0 K must have strangeness -1. One also observes neutral kaons with different lifetimes, KS 0 and KL. One method to test if two neutral particles are identical is to look for decays which are forbidden for identical particles. If the neutral kaon were identical with its antiparticle, the reaction pp → K0K0 could not occur from as S-state of the pp system. The fact that the reaction occurs readily compared with pp → K+K− and since it has been determined [11] that pp → KK < 6% from P states, this is evidence that the neutral kaon differs from its antiparticle.

B. Multiple Neutral Pions

We will now consider evidence that at least two distinct neutral pions exist. Initially, it was thought that the reaction pp → π0π0 might not be observed since it is forbidden from an S-state of the pp system if the two π0 are identical [12]. To explain its occurrence for identical π0’s requires an anomalously high fraction from P-states as shown in Table 1. Theoretically it is expected [13, 14] that absorption will occur predominately from S- states for π− and K− and for protonium capture [15]. Experimental results for π−p [16, 17], K−p [18, 19] and Σ−p [20] show predominance of S-state capture. The reaction pd → π0π0n is also not allowed from S-states if the two π0’s are identical. Using charge independence one can calculate the fraction that must occur from the measured 3

TABLE I: Branching Ratio for pp → π0π0 Measured value % from P states Year Reference (4.8 ± 1.0) × 10−4 39% 1971 Devons et al. [21] (1.4 ± 0.3) × 10−4 13% 1979 Bassompierre et al. [22] (6 ± 4) × 10−4 47% 1983 Backenstoss et al. [23] (2.06 ± 0.14) × 10−4 18% 1987 Adiels et al. [24] (2.5 ± 0.3) × 10−4 22% 1988 Chiba et al. [25] (6.93 ± 0.43) × 10−4 53% 1992 Crystal Barrel [26] (2.8 ± 0.4) × 10−4 24% 1998 Obelix [27] (6.14 ± 0.40) × 10−4 48% 2001 Crystal Barrel [28]

TABLE II: Ratio BR(pd → π−π0p)/ BR(pd → π+π−n) Measured value Method % from P states Year Reference (0.68 ± 0.07) deut. bub. cham. 75% 1973 Gray et al. [29] (0.70 ± 0.05) mag. spect. 74% 1986 Bridges et al. [30] (0.55 ± 0.05) mag. spect. 80% 1986 Bridges et al. [30] (1.48 ± 0.05)a mag. spect. 34% 1988 Angelopoulos et al. [31] aCorrected for pairs beyond 5 degrees, see [12] branching ratio of the reactions pd → π−π0p and pd → π+π−n with the results shown in Table 2 indicating large fractions from P-states. Efforts [32–34] to reduce these discrepancies (large fraction captured from P-states when S-state capture should dominate) fall far short [12]. However, if pp → π0π0 and pd → π0π0n can occur from S-states the anomaly disappears. Therefore, we conclude that there is strong evidence that multiple π0’s exist, and experimental tests to confirm this have been proposed [12]. Further grounds for belief in the existence of multiple neutral pions comes the experiments of Tsai-Chu et al. [35, 36] with annihilating in emulsions. They reported the properties of a second neutral pion: (1) It has mass of the same order as the usual π0, (2) It is emitted with the same energy as that of a charged pion, (3) It decays much more often into electron pairs and into double pairs, (4) The electron pairs from this second neutral pion have larger opening angles than those of Dalitz pairs, and (5) It has a very short lifetime (much shorter than the usual π0) because the electrons are emitted directly from the origin of the annihilation stars. One emulsion event [35], attributed to an annihilation, appears to involve an η decay into three π0’s each of which decay into four electrons. Since there is no indication of such π0 decays from antiproton annihilation in liquid , Perkins [12] concluded that this second neutral pion has a lifetime so short that it occasionally decays before it can leave the annihilation nucleus (e.g., Ag) of the emulsion. The probability for creation of electron pairs by π0 photons inside a nucleus is very high, and the opening angles for pairs produced by high-energy photons on nuclei are wider than those for Dalitz pairs. It is uncertain whether such a short-lived π0 would have been detected in the Primakoff- effect experiments [37] because of the high angular resolution required in the forward direc- 4

tion.

C. Multiple Types of Photons

We will now consider evidence that at least two distinct photons exist. Again we look at decays that are forbidden if the photons are identical. A vector particle cannot decay into two photons according to the theorem of Landau [38] and Yang [39]. The two-photon state must be described in terms of three vectors: the relative momentum k, and the two polarization vectors e1 and e2. Since the state must be bilinear in the polarization vectors, there are just three possibilities:

e1 × e2,

(e1 · e2)k,

k × (e1 × e2). (1)

The last one has zero amplitude, while the first two are antisymmetric under an interchange of the two photons. Identical photons must be symmetric under interchange. This theorem has been used to prove that the neutral pion is not a vector particle, because it decays into two photons. However, if the two photons are not identical, the state of two photons can be antisymmetric under an interchange, and the neutral pion can be a vector particle. Therefore, if it can be shown that the neutral pion is a vector particle, this will prove that the two photons are not identical. If charged pions are vector particles, the neutral pion must also be a vector particle. There is significant evidence from multiple experiments [40] that the π+ carries directional information. The evidence comes from the asymmetry of from π − µ decay at rest. The results of three experiments are shown in Figure 1. Notice the large deviation from zero, the expected result for a pseudoscalar pion. One might expect that this large an asymmetry would be noticeable in many pion experiments. However the from π − µ decay at rest only travels about 1 mm in most materials. This problem does not exist for π → e+ν decay, but it takes a complex detection apparatus to separate out the background. The muon in K → µ + ν would have a longer path, but no one has looked for such decay asymmetries. It has been suggested [40] that the pion is an helicity-0 vector particle [41]. Such particles are 4-vectors with a net spin of zero. Experiments that can prove that the pion carries direc- tional information have also been proposed [40]. A positive result from those experiments will not only be evidence that pions are vector particles, but also evidence that multiple photons exist.

III. INTERNAL STRUCTURES

We will now consider internal structures of neutral bosons in which the antiparticle differs from the particle. Before we can do that, we need to discuss how the different neutrinos will be represented. Here we require that all neutrinos are massless 2-component spinors [10]. We designate the neutrino connected with electrons by νe2 and its antiparticle by νe2. The subscript “2” indicates that the neutrino νe2 has spin antiparallel to its momentum while νe2 has its spin parallel to its momentum. The annihilation operators for νe2 and νe2 are 5

- 0.4

D R A

) D R A W

W - 0.3

K C

K C

A A

- 0.2

B - D R A

B + D R A W W - 0.1

result expected for pseudoscalar pion

R O F ( R O F 2 0

FIG. 1: Experimental results showing large forward/backward asymmetry in π−µ decay relative to direction of beam with more muons emitted in backward direction. Peterson 1950 [42], 4 Lattes 1957 [43], • Hulubei 1963 [44] . a2(k) and c2(k) respectively. Similarly, the annihilation operators for νe1 (neutrino with spin parallel to its momentum) and νe1 are a1(k) and c1(k) respectively. We consider the µ+ to be the particle and µ− to be the antiparticle. (The reason for this choice will become apparent shortly.) Therefore we designate the neutrino connected with muons by ν1µ and its antiparticle by ν1µ. The subscript “1” indicates that the neutrino ν1µ has spin parallel to its momentum while ν1µ has its spin antiparallel to its momentum. The annihilation operators for ν1µ and ν1µ are b1(k) and d1(k) respectively. In addition, the annihilation operators for ν2µ and ν2µ are b2(k) and d2(k) respectively. Under C (charge conjugation), the neutrino annihilation operator transform as follows:

Ca2(k) = c1(k),

Cc2(k) = a1(k),

Ca1(k) = c2(k),

Cc1(k) = a2(k),

Cb1(k) = d2(k),

Cd1(k) = b2(k),

Cb2(k) = d1(k), 6

Cd2(k) = b1(k), (2) because two-component neutrino fields are not invariant under C. Under P (), the neutrino annihilation operator transform as follows:

P a2(k) = a1(−k),

P c2(k) = c1(−k),

P a1(k) = a2(−k),

P c1(k) = c2(−k),

P b1(k) = b2(−k),

P d1(k) = d2(−k),

P b2(k) = b1(−k),

P d2(k) = d1(−k). (3)

A. Internal Structure of Neutral Kaons

According to the , the neutral kaon consists of a d and an anti-s quark, K0 = ds, K0 = ds. (4)

Note that K0 is different than K0 in its internal structure and has strangeness of -1 while K0 has strangeness of +1. One can have a linear combinations of K0 and K0,

|K(t) >= α(t)|K0 > +β(t)|K0 > . (5) Forming the usual linear combinations which are eigenstates of CP,

1 0 0 |KS >= √ (|K > +|K >), 2 1 0 0 |KL >= √ (|K > −|K >), (6) 2 with |KS > having CP = +1 and |KL > having CP = -1.

B. Internal Structure of Neutral Pions

According to the Standard Model, the internal structure of the π0 consists of u and d , 1 π0 = √ (dd − uu). (7) 2 Its antiparticle, 1 π0 = √ (dd − uu), (8) 2 7 is identical to the particle. We are looking for an internal structure for which the antiparticle and particle are different. Since we suspect that the internal structure of the photon involves neutrinos, we will consider neutrinos as an internal structure for pions. We take the internal structure of the neutral pion to be,

0 1 π = √ (νe2νµ1 + νe2νµ1) (9) 2 giving a particle with zero net spin. We chose the µ+ as the particle to obtain a π0 with spin 0 since the internal momentums are in opposite directions. Equation (9) does not conserve flavor number, but it does conserves lepton number. The main evidence for conservation of lepton flavor number is the absence of the decay, µ+ → e+ + γ, (10) but this decay is forbidden by lepton number conservation if µ+ is the particle. Under the charge conjugation operation,

Cνe2 = νe1,

Cνµ1 = νµ2,

Cνe2 = νe1,

Cνµ1 = νµ2. (11) Thus the antiparticle of the π0 is,

0 1 π = √ (νµ2νe1 + νe1νµ2) (12) 2 Note that not only is the π0 different than the π0, but its neutrinos types are not even considered to exist. (This assumes that the µ+ is the particle.) As was done with the kaon, we create linear combinations of the particle and antiparticle,

1 0 0 |πS >= √ (|π > +|π >), 2 1 0 0 |πL >= √ (|π > −|π >), (13) 2 Under charge conjugation,

C|πS >= |πS >,

C|πL >= −|πL >, (14) showing that |πS > is an eigenstate of C with value +1, while |πL > is an eigenstate of C with value -1. Thus, |πS > could be the short-lived neutral pion observed by Tsai-Chu et al. [35, 36] Under the combined operation of charge conjugation and parity,

0 1 0 CP π = √ (νe2νµ1 + νe2νµ1) = π , 2 0 1 0 CP π = √ (νµ2νe1 + νe1νµ2) = π . (15) 2 8

Thus, both |πS > and |πL > are eigenstates of CP with value +1. The charged pions do not change into each other under charge conjugation. For example,

+ + − − C(π → µ + νµ1) 6= (π → µ + νµ2), (16) but

+ + − − CP (π → µ + νµ1) = (π → µ + νµ1). (17) The π+, π− and their antiparticles have internal structures similar to the π0 and π0.

C. Internal Structure of Photons

Next we take the internal structure of the photon to be,

γ = ν2eν2e (18) giving a particle with helicity +1 or -1. The photon field is [8],

X 1 nh +1 −1 −1 +1 i ipx Aµ(x) = q GR(p)u−1(p)γµu+1(p) + GL(p)u+1(p)γµu−1(p) e p 2 V ωp h † −1 +1 † +1 −1 i −ipxo + GR(p)u+1(p)γµu−1(p) + GL(p)u−1(p)γµu+1(p) e , (19) with the annihilation operators for left-circularly and right-circularly polarized photons with momentum p given by,

1 X † GL(p) = √ F (k)c2(−k)a2(p + k) 2 k 1 X † GR(p) = √ F (k)c2(p + k)a2(−k), (20) 2 k where F (k) is a spectral function. The plane wave neutrino spinors are  1  s p1+ip2 E + p3   +1  E+p3  u+1(p) =   , 2E  0  0

 −p1+ip2  s E+p3 E + p   −1 3  1  u−1(p) =   , 2E  0  0  0  s E + p  0  −1 3   u+1(p) =   , 2E  1  p1+ip2 E+p3  0  s E + p  0  +1 3   u−1(p) =  −p1+ip2  , (21) 2E  E+p3  1 9

where pµ = (p, iE), and the superscripts and subscripts on u refer to the energy and helicity states respectively. Under the charge conjugation operation,

Cν2e = ν1e,

Cν2e = ν1e. (22) Thus the antiparticle of the photon is,

γ = ν1eν1e. (23) Here again, not only is γ different than γ, but its neutrinos types are not considered to exist. The antiphoton field is,

X 1 nh −1 +1 +1 −1 i ipx Aµ(x) = q GR(p)u−1(p)γµu+1(p) + GL(p)u+1(p)γµu−1(p) e p 2 V ωp h † +1 −1 † −1 +1 i −ipxo + GR(p)u+1(p)γµu−1(p) + GL(p)u−1(p)γµu+1(p) e , (24) with the annihilation operators for left-circularly and right-circularly polarized antiphotons with momentum p given by,

1 X † GL(p) = √ F (k)c1(p + k)a1(−k) 2 k 1 X † GR(p) = √ F (k)c1(−k)a1(p + k), (25) 2 k As was done with the neutral kaon and neutral pion, we create linear combinations of the particle and antiparticle, 1 |γ1 >= √ (|γ > +|γ >) 2 1 |γ2 >= √ (|γ > −|γ >), (26) 2 although the labels “1” and “2” cannot refer to lifetime since the photon does not decay. Under charge conjugation,

C|γ1 >= |γ1 >,

C|γ2 >= −|γ2 >, (27)

showing that |γ1 > is an eigenstate of C with value +1, while |γ2 > is an eigenstate of C with value -1. Under the combined operation of charge conjugation and parity,

CP γ = ν2eν2e = γ,

CP γ = ν1eν1e = γ. (28) In previous versions of the “neutrino theory of light” [8] the photon was taken to be γ = ν1eν1e + ν2eν2e. Eliminating the ν1eν1e term is desirable since those neutrinos have not been observed. However, that term was useful in that it allowed the electromagnetic field to transform in the usual way under the operations of parity and charge conjugation [45]. Now, the electromagnetic field transforms in the usual way only under the combined operation of CP. 10

IV. INTERACTIONS OF COMPOSITE PHOTONS

The Lagrangian for the photon and electron fields is, ! ! 1 ∂Aµ ∂Aν ∂Aµ ∂Aν ∂Ψe L = − − − + iΨeγµ − meΨeΨe − eΨeγµAµΨe. (29) 4 ∂xν ∂xµ ∂xν ∂xµ ∂xµ The interaction between a photon and an electron is given by the term,

Lint = −eΨeγµAµΨe. (30)

From Equation (19) we see that Lint contains terms involving neutrino spinors, such as

+1 −1 − eΨeγµu−1(p)γµu+1(p)Ψe, (31) and

−1 +1 − eΨeγµu+1(p)γµu−1(p)Ψe. (32) Since the electron-neutrino interaction is V-A, we must insert the projection operator, 1 2 (1 − γ5) to select states with negative-helicity particles and positive-helicity antiparticles. With this insertion the components become,

−1 +1 − e[Ψeγµ(1 − γ5)u+1(p)][u−1(p)γµ(1 − γ5)Ψe], (33) and

+1 −1 − e[Ψeγµ(1 − γ5)u−1(p)][u+1(p)γµ(1 − γ5)Ψe]. (34)

+1 −1 Since u−1(p) designates a negative-helicity particle and u+1(p) a positive-helicity antipar- 1 ticle the insertion of 2 (1 − γ5) does not change the result as,

 0 0 0 0   0   0  s s 1   E + p  0  E + p  0  −1  0 0 0 0  3   3   (1 − γ5)u+1(p) =     =   (35) 2  0 0 1 0  2E  1  2E  1  0 0 0 1 p1+ip2 p1+ip2 E+p3 E+p3 However inserting Equation (24), we see that the interaction of an antiphoton with an electron contains components,

+1 −1 − e[Ψeγµ(1 − γ5)u+1(p)][u−1(p)γµ(1 − γ5)Ψe], (36) and

−1 +1 − e[Ψeγµ(1 − γ5)u−1(p)][u+1(p)γµ(1 − γ5)Ψe]. (37)

+1 −1 In this case, (1−γ5)u+1(p) = 0, and (1−γ5)u−1(p) = 0, because ν1e and ν1e have the wrong helicity, indicating that antiphotons do NOT interact with elections in a matter world. In an antimatter world the interaction of an antiphoton with a has terms containing,

+1 −1 − e[Ψe+ γµ(1 + γ5)u+1(p)][u−1(p)γµ(1 + γ5)Ψe+ ], (38) 11 and −1 +1 − e[Ψe+ γµ(1 + γ5)u−1(p)][u+1(p)γµ(1 + γ5)Ψe+ ]. (39) 1 Here the positron-neutrino interaction is V+A and 2 (1 + γ5) selects states with positive- helicity particles and negative-helicity antiparticles. If we replace the antiphoton with a photon the components contain, −1 +1 − e[Ψe+ γµ(1 + γ5)u+1(p)][u−1(p)γµ(1 + γ5)Ψe+ ], (40) and +1 −1 − e[Ψe+ γµ(1 + γ5)u−1(p)][u+1(p)γµ(1 + γ5)Ψe+ ]. (41) −1 +1 Here (1+γ5)u+1(p) = 0, and (1+γ5)u−1(p) = 0, because ν2e and ν2e have the wrong helicity, indicating that photons do not interact with positrons in an antimatter world. The search for invisible decays of [46] show that all the photons are visible to a high degree of accuracy. If the antiphoton, γ, were present it would not be detected. Therefore, those photons must be linear combinations of γ and γ, i. e., |γ1 > and |γ2 >. We know that the interaction of positrons with the electromagnetic field is similar to that of electrons. Even the interaction of antihydrogen with the electromagnetic field is similar to that of hydrogen [2]. This is all right if the effect of virtual photons is the same in matter and antimatter worlds.

V. CONCLUSIONS

In order to explain the experimental results indicating multiple neutral pions and indirect evidence of multiple photons, we have had to deviate from the Standard Model with a different internal structure for pions and propose a photon with an internal structure as in “the neutrino theory of light” [8]. This new theory requires neutrinos with zero mass. Although it has not been determined directly that neutrinos have mass, the interpretation of the SuperKamiokande neutrino experiments [9] indicates that neutrinos have mass and therefore are not two-component spinors. Proposed experiments [12] to test for a second neutral pion can determine if the suggested deviations from the Standard Model are justified. Also an experiment to test if charged pions carry directional information has been proposed [40]. An important test of these ideas will occur when the photons from antihydrogen are examined. The present theory predicts that the antiphotons from antihydrogen will have the wrong helicity for interaction with electrons, and thus the antiphotons will not be detectable. Furthermore, ordinary photons have the wrong helicity for interaction with antihydrogen.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Helpful discussions with Prof. J. E. Kiskis are gratefully acknowledged.

[1] Alpha Collaboration, G. B. Andresen et al., “Confinement of antihydrogen for 1000 seconds,” Nature Phys. 7, 558-564 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2025 12

[2] C. Amole et al., “Resonant Quantum Transitions in Trapped Antihydrogen Atoms,” Nature 483, 439-443 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10942 PMid:22398451 [3] M. H. L. Pryce, “On the Neutrino Theory of Light,” Proceedings of Royal Society (London) A165, 247-271 (1938). [4] V. S. Berezinskii, “Pryces Theorem and the Neutrino Theory of Light,” Zh. Eksperim. I. Teor. Fiz. 51, 1374-1384 (1966); Soviet Physics JETP, 24, 927 (1967). [5] W. A. Perkins, “Quasibosons,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 41, 823-838 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015728722664 [6] V. V. Dvoeglazov, “Speculations on the Neutrino Theory of Light,” Annales. Fond. Broglie 24 111-127 (1999); http://arXiv.org physics/9807013 (1998). [7] V. V. Dvoeglazov, “Again on the Possible Compositeness of the Photon,” Phys. Scripta 64 119-127 (2001); http://arXiv.org hep-th/9908057 (2001). [8] W. A. Perkins, “Interpreted History of Neutrino Theory of Light and Its Future,” in Lorentz Group, CPT and Neutrinos, Eds. A. E. Chubykalo, V. V. Dvoeglazov, D. J. Ernst, V. G. Kady- shevsky, and Y. S. Kim (World Scientific, Singapore) (2000) 115-126. http://arXiv.org hep- ph/0107122 (2001). [9] Y. Fukuda et al., (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) “Evidence for Oscilla- tion of Atmospheric Neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Letters 81, 1562-1567 (1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 [10] T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang “Parity Nonconservation and Two-component Theory of the Neu- trino”, Phys. Rev. 105, 1671-1675 (1957). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.105.1671 [11] R. Bizzarri et al., “Comparison of the Reaction pp → K0K0 at Rest in Hydrogen and Deuterium. A Test of S-State Annihilation Dominance,” Nucl. Phys. B 69, 307-316 (1974). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(74)90056-X [12] W. A. Perkins, “Search for Second Neutral Pion,” http://arXiv.org hep-ph/0110053v1 (2001). “Evidence for Two Neutral Pions,” Inter. J. Mod. Phys. 16, No. Supp01c 919-921 (2001) http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X01008497 [13] T. B. Day, G. A. Snow, and J. Sucher, “Suppression of P-State Capture in (K−, p) Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Letters 3, 61-64 (1959). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.61 [14] M. Leon and H. A. Bethe, “Negative Absorption in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. 127, 636-647 (1962). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.127.636 [15] B. R. Desai, “Proton-Antiproton Annihilation in Protonium,” Phys. Rev. 119, 1385-1389 (1960). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.119.1385 [16] T. H. Fields, G. B. Yodh, M. Derrick, and J. G. Fetkovich, “Cascade Time of π− in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Letters 5, 69-72 (1960). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.5.69 [17] E. Bierman, S. Taylor, E. L. Koller, P. Stamer, and T. Huetter, “Absorption Time of Negative Pions in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Lett. 4, 351-353 (1963). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031- 9163(63)90506-7 [18] M. Cresti, S. Limentani, A. Loria, L. Peruzzo, and R. Santangelo, “Lower Limit of the Ab- sorption Rate of K−’s at Rest in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Letters 14, 847-849 (1965). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.847 [19] R. Knop, R. A. Burnstein, and G. A. Snow, “Absorption Time of Nega- tive K- in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Letters 14, 767-769 (1965). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.767 [20] R. A. Burnstein, G. A. Snow, and H. Whiteside, “Absorption Time of Nega- tive Σ in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Letters 15, 639-641 (1965). 13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.639 [21] S. Devons et al., “Observation of pp → 2π0 at Rest: Evidence of S-State Annihilation,” Phys. Rev. Letters 27, 1614-1617 (1971). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.1614 [22] G. Bassompierre et al., “Measurement of π0π0 Production in pp Annihilation at Rest” Proc. 4th European Antiproton Conf., Vol. 1, Strasbourg. Ed. A. Freidman, (CNRS, Paris, 1979) p. 139-145. [23] G. Backenstoss et al., “Proton-Antiproton Annihilation at Rest into π0ω, π0η, π0γ, π0π0, and π0η0,” Nucl. Phys. B 228, 424-438 (1983). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(83)90553-9 [24] L. Adiels et al., “Experimental Determination of the Branching Ratios pp → 2π0, π0γ, and 2γ at Rest,” Z. Phys. C 35, 15-19 (1987). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01561050 [25] M. Chiba et al., “Proton-Antiproton Annihilation at Rest into π0M and γM with M = φ, η0, ω, ρ0, η, and π0,” Phys. Rev. D 38, 2021-2031 (1988). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.38.2021 PMid:9959358 [26] Crystal Barrel Collaboration, C. Amsler et al., “P- Versus S-wave pp Annihilation at Rest in LH2,” Phys. Lett. B 297, 214-218 (1992). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)91095-Q [27] Obelix Collaboration, A. Zoccoli et al., “A New Measurement of pp → π0π0 Annihilation Fre- quency at Rest in Liquid Hydrogen,” Proc. 97, Eds. S-U. Chung and H. J. Willutzki, AIP conf. proc. 432 (1997) p. 347-352. [28] Crystal Barrel Collaboration, A. Abele et al., “Branching Ratios for pp Annihila- tion at Rest into Two-body Final States,” Nucl. Phys. A 679, 563-576 (2001). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00361-4 [29] L. Gray et al., “Observations on pd Annihilations at Rest into Two Pions,” Phys. Rev. Letters 30, 1091-1094 (1973). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1091 [30] D. Bridges et al., “Antiproton Annihilations in Deuterium at Rest into Two Pions: Evidence for pN Bound States Near Threshold,” Phys. Lett. B 180, 313-318 (1986). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)90317-5 [31] A. Angelopoulos et al., “A Measurement of the S- and P-wave Content of Antiproton An- nihilation at Rest into Two Pions in Liquid Hydrogen,” Phys. Lett. B 212, 129-132 (1988). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(88)91249-X [32] G. Reifenrother and E. Klempt, “Annihilation of Antiprotons at Rest in H2 and D2: S Ver- sus P State Capture,” Phys. Lett. B 245, 129-136 (1990). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370- 2693(90)90176-7 [33] C. J. Batty, “S- and P-State Annihilation in pp Interactions at Rest,” Nucl. Phys. A 601, 425-444 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(96)00030-9 [34] C. J. Batty, “Two-body Branching Ratios; an Experimental Review,” Nucl. Phys. A 655, 203c-212c (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(96)00030-9 [35] Tsai-Chu and C. Simonin-Haudecoeur, “Direct Electronic Decay of Three π0’s Emit- ted from an Antineutron Annihilation Star,” Nuovo Cimento. 20, 1102-1113 (1961). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02732521 [36] Tsai-Chu, C. Simonin-Haudecoeur, D. Schune-Boisble, and B. Brami-Depaux, Nuovo Cimento, “Further Observation of Electrons in Antinucleon Annihilation Stars and the Possible Existence of a Second Neutral Pion,” 31, 1376-1379 (1964). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02733603 [37] A. M. Bernstein and B. J. Holstein, “Neutral Pion Lifetime Measurements and the QCD Chiral Anomaly,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 49-77 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.49 [38] L. D. Landau, “The Moment of a 2-Photon System,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR 60, 207-209 14

(1948). [39] C. N. Yang, “Selection Rules for the Dematerialization of a Particle into Two Photons,” Phys. Rev. 77, 242-245 (1950). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.77.242 [40] W. A. Perkins, “Pion-Muon Asymmetry Revisited,” http://arXiv.org hep-ph/0807.3182v1 (2008). “Pion-Muon Asymmetry Revisited,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 47 1316-1321 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10773-007-9566-0 [41] W. A. Perkins, “Helicity Zero Particles,” http://arXiv.org hep-ph/0409166 (2004). [42] V. Peterson, “Mesons Produced in Proton-Proton Collisions,” UCRL-713, May, 1950 (unpub- lished); quoted by R. E. Marshak, Meson Physics (Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York) p. 161 (1952). [43] C. M. G. Lattes, “Angular Correlation in the Decay of Pions and Muons,” Notas de Fisica 4, No. 8, 1-30 (1958). C. M. G. Lattes and P. S. Freier, “Angular Correlation Between Pions and Muons Measured in Nuclear Emulsions,” in Proceedings of the Padua-Venice Conference on Mesons and Recently Discovered Particles pp. IV-17-IV-23 (1957). [44] H. Hulubei, J. S. Auslander, E. M. Friedlander, and S. Titeica, “Angular Distri- bution of Muons in π − µ Decay at Rest,” Phys. Rev. 129, 2789-2801 (1963). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.129.2789 [45] W. A. Perkins, “Statistics of a Composite Photon Formed of Two Fermions,” Phys. Rev. D5, 1375-1384 (1972). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1375 [46] A. Badertscher et al., “An Improved Limit on Invisible Decays of Positronium,” http://arXiv.org hep-ex/0609059v2 (2006).