B ( J/ψ → p ¯ pω ) = (1 . 10 ± 0 . 15) · 10 − $^{3}$, which combined with the PDG J/ψ total width gives an experimental partial width of The fact that this is approximately equal to the p ¯ pπ 0 partial width (19) despite the much smaller phase space suggests a robust NNω coupling. On evaluating this theoretical decay rate by in- tegrating Eq.(15) numerically with physical masses, both NNω couplings free, and (as used previously) g$_{J/ψp}$$_{¯}$ p = 1 . 62 · 10 − $^{3}$, we find The single number Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pω ) alone does not suf- fice to determine the NNω strong couplings since there are two free parameters, g$_{ω}$ and κ$_{ω}$ . If we set κ$_{ω}$ = 0, following CD-Bonn [15] and the Sato-Lee photoproduc- tion study [35], the measured partial width (31) and the theoretical decay rate (32) imply g$_{ω}$ = 23 ± 3 (provided that meson emission dominates this decay). This g$_{ω}$ is rather larger than these references prefer for g$_{ω}$ ; it is con- sistent however with the EM form factor fit of Mergell et al. [36] and the range 18 ± 8 reported by Zhu [37] from QCD sum rules. If we instead assume the $^{3}$P$_{0}$ quark model value κ$_{ω}$ = − 3 / 2 for the Pauli term [34], we find g$_{ω}$ = 14 . 6 ± 2 . 0, which is consistent with the values quoted by NN scattering studies, and is somewhat larger than the photoproduction value. It is possible to estimate the two parameters g$_{ω}$ and κ$_{ω}$ independently through a more detailed comparison be- The ρ 0 case is especially interesting due to the range of values reported for κ$_{ρ}$ , as discussed by Brown and Mach- leidt [38]. Although vector dominance predicts κ$_{ρ}$ = 3 . 7 “weak ρ ”, and some data has been interpreted as sup- porting this, fits to ππ → N ¯ N and S-D mixing in NN and Other decays to p ¯ pV final states that are closely related to J/ψ → p ¯ pω include J/ψ → p ¯ pρ 0 and J/ψ → p ¯ pφ . In the m eson emission model these are both described by the d ecay formula (15), albeit with different vector meson m asses and NNV couplings. Given the rounded PDG ma sses m$_{ρ}$ 0 = 0 . 7755 GeV and m$_{φ}$ = 1 . 0195 GeV, we pred ict the numerical decay widths In contrast, for moderately large | κ$_{ω}$ | , such as the quark model value κ$_{ω}$ = − 3 / 2, the theoretical DP event density is closer to uniform. This is illustrated in Fig.5, which shows this event density along the diagonal M 2 pω = M 2 ¯ pω (relative to the maximum value on diago- nal) for various κ$_{ω}$ ≤ 0. If the meson emission model does give a good description of this decay, evidently it may be possible to determine κ$_{ω}$ by comparing the J/ψ → p ¯ pω DP event density on diagonal to the prediction in Fig.5. tween J/ψ → p ¯ pω data and the theoretical DP event den- sity, Eq.(15). This theoretical event density is strongly dependent on the Pauli coefficient κ$_{ω}$ ; with κ$_{ω}$ = 0 the event density at lower M$_{p}$$_{¯}$ p is strongly suppressed (see Fig.4). 8 Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pω ) = 103 ± 14 eV . (31) Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pω ) = α$_{ω}$ · ( 2 . 468 − 1 . 101 κ$_{ω}$ + 0 . 886 κ 2 ω ) eV . (32) Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pρ $^{0}$) = α$_{ρ}$ · ( 2 . 614 − 1 . 155 κ$_{ρ}$ + 0 . 930 κ 2 ρ ) eV (33) Γ( J/ψ → p ¯ pφ ) = α$_{φ}$ · ( 0 . 184 − 0 . 109 κ$_{φ}$ + 0 . 087 κ 2 φ ) eV . (34) 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 M 2 p  [GeV$^{2}$] 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 M 2 $_{p}$ω  [GeV 2 ] 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 M 2 p  = M 2 p [GeV$^{2}$] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 f(x,x) / f(x 0 ,x 0 ) - 2 - 3/2 ($^{3}$P$_{0}$) - 1 - 1/2 0 FIG. 5: Theoretical J/ψ → p ¯ pω DP event density along the diagonal M 2 pω = M 2 ¯ $_{pω}$, showing the strong κ ω dependence. FIG. 4: Theoretical relative J/ψ → p ¯ pω DP event density for κ ω = 0, from Eq.(15). Note the suppression near p ¯ p threshold (upper right). G. Other Ψ → p ¯ pV decays