scattering prefer a larger value “strong ρ ”; the Bonn po- tential model for example uses ( α$_{ρ}$, κ$_{ρ}$ ) = (0 . 84 , 6 . 1) [14]. A QCD sum rule calculation by Zhu [39] finds ( g$_{ρ}$, κ$_{ρ}$ ) = (2 . 5 ± 0 . 2 , 8 . 0 ± 2 . 0), comparable to the fitted Bonn values. In contrast, the valence quark model with a $^{3}$P$_{0}$ NNρ coupling predicts a much smaller κ$_{ρ}$ = − κ$_{ω}$ = +3 / 2 [34]. Using Eq.33 we can give meson emission model predic- tions for Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) that follow from these various ( g$_{ρ}$, κ$_{ρ}$ ) parameters. The Bonn parameters cited above give Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) = 25 eV and B ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) = 2 . 7 · 10 − $^{4}$; this is essentially equal to the current ex- perimental upper limit [26, 29] of 3 . 1 · 10 − 4 (90% c.l. ), which is a Mark-II result dating from 1984. The Zhu QCD sum rule central values for ( g$_{ρ}$, κ$_{ρ}$ ) give essentially identical results. In contrast the valence quark model with $^{3}$P$_{0}$ couplings g$_{ρ}$ = g$_{ω}$/ 3 and κ$_{ρ}$ = +3 / 2 (and us- ing g$_{ρ}$ = 14 . 6 from the J/ψ → p ¯ pω discussion above) gives a much lower Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) = 5 . 6 eV and hence B ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) = 6 . 0 · 10 − $^{5}$, which is about a factor of 5 below the current experimental limit. The proximity of the Bonn and QCD sum rule parameter predictions for B ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) to the current limit suggests that an experimental study with significantly improved sensitiv- ity could make a useful contribution to establishing NNρ couplings. The decay J/ψ → p ¯ pφ in contrast has been observed, and has an experimental (PDG) branching fraction of B $^{expt.}$( J/ψ → p ¯ pφ ) = (4 . 5 ± 1 . 5) · 10 − $^{5}$, corresponding to Γ $^{expt.}$( J/ψ → p ¯ pφ ) = 4 . 2 ± 1 . 4 eV. Unfortunately in this case we do not have a theoretical estimate for ei- ther α$_{φ}$ or κ$_{φ}$ , since the (valence level, leading-order) $^{3}$P$_{0}$ model predicts no NNφ coupling. Clearly it would be very interesting to obtain experimental values for these couplings, since little is known about the properties of Zweig-suppressed vertices. Again, if the meson emission model gives a good description of this decay, a compari- son of Eq.(15) to the experimental J/ψ → p ¯ pφ DP event distribution should allow an experimental determination of the NNφ couplings. In this paper we have presented and developed a hadron-level “meson emission model” of charmonium de- cays of the type Ψ → N ¯ Nm , where Ψ is a generic char- monium resonance, N is a nucleon and m is a light meson. The model assumes that the decays take place through meson emission from the nucleon or antinucleon line, as a hadronic “final state radiation” correction to a Ψ → N ¯ N transition. As the model is relatively simple, we are able to evaluate the predicted DP event densities for many ex- perimentally accessible and measured processes; in par- ticular we give event densities for Ψ = η$_{c}$ , J/ψ (and ψ $^{′}$), χ$_{c}$$_{0}$ , χ$_{c}$$_{1}$ and ψ ′ and m = π $^{0}$, f$_{0}$ and ω , and implicitly all cases with the same J P C quantum numbers. We used the reaction J/ψ → p ¯ pπ 0 as a test case with no free parameters (the J/ψp ¯ p and NNπ couplings are known), and compared the meson emission model pre- dictions for the projected event density in M$_{pπ}$ and the partial width Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pπ $^{0}$) to experiment; the partial width is in good agreement, and the M$_{pπ}$ event density appears to describe the non- N ∗ “background” contribu- tion to this reaction observed experimentally. We also give predictions for Γ(Ψ → p ¯ pπ $^{0}$) for all Ψ cases consid- ered here; the overall trend of large and small widths and their approximate scale is reproduced by the model. We also considered scalar and vector meson produc- tion. We estimated Ψ → p ¯ pf$_{0}$ branching fractions for a light f$_{0}$ (500), and noted that the J/ψ and ψ ′ are fa- vored for these studies, and the ψ ′ is favored for glueball searches. In vector production we considered J/ψ → p ¯ pω in particular, and noted that a high statistics study of this reaction could be used to estimate the NNω cou- plings ( g$_{ω}$ and κ$_{ω}$ ), which play a crucial role in meson exchange models of the NN force. We showed that the J/ψ → p ¯ pω Dalitz plot event density is rather sensitive to the poorly known NNω Pauli coupling κ$_{ω}$ . Determi- nation of meson-nucleon strong couplings is a potentially very interesting application of Ψ → p ¯ pm decays. There are several theoretical developments that will be very important for future applications of this model. One should incorporate N ∗ resonances; this is conceptu- ally straightforward but may be technically complicated, as it will introduce many new and poorly known reso- nance coupling parameters and phases. This develop- ment is of course crucial to describe the data in reac- tions such as J/ψ → p ¯ pπ $^{0}$, which clearly shows N ∗ res- onance peaks (Fig.3). Another important development is the substitution of plausible Ψ N ( ∗ ) ¯ N ( ∗ ) and N ( ∗ $^{)}$Nm hadron vertex form factors for the assumed coupling con- stants; the difficulty here is that hadronic form factors are poorly known, and models such as $^{3}$P$_{0}$ that predict form factors have not been adequately developed and tested. Another interesting generalization of the strong vertices assumed here would be to include a J/ψp ¯ p Pauli cou- pling; as we noted previously [25], this can explain the ob- served e $^{+}$e − → J/ψ → p ¯ p angular distribution. Finally, Finally, we note in passing that ψ ′ decays to NNV are apparently not in agreement with the meson emis- sion model; proceeding as above, we would predict a branching fraction of B ( ψ ′ → p ¯ pω ) = 9 . 4 · 10 − $^{4}$, whereas the PDG experimental value is an order of magnitude smaller, B $^{expt.}$( ψ ′ → p ¯ pω ) = (6 . 9 ± 2 . 1) · 10 − $^{5}$. Possi- ble explanations for this discrepancy, including form fac- tors and (destructive interference with) additional decay mechanisms, are discussed in the next section. Since the total ψ ′ → p ¯ pω data sample reported by CLEO [11] and BES [12] comprises only about 35 events, it is not yet possible to establish the reason for this large discrepancy between experiment and the meson emission model. This would ideally involve a comparison between the predicted and observed Dalitz plot event densities. Hopefully this comparison will be possible using the large ψ ′ data set being accumulated at BES-III. IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 9