2 -> 2 hadronic production cross section

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the hadronic production cross section for the process p p > t t~ at tree level. The user, Safinaz, encounters issues with negative values for the matrix element amplitude and the Mandelstam variable ## \hat{t} ##. The correct definition of the Mandelstam variable and the squared amplitude is emphasized, with the formula for the differential cross section provided. The response highlights the importance of correctly computing the amplitude squared to avoid negative results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tree-level particle physics processes
  • Familiarity with Mandelstam variables, specifically ## \hat{s} ## and ## \hat{t} ##
  • Knowledge of matrix element calculations in quantum field theory
  • Experience with Dirac spinors and their applications in particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Mandelstam variables in particle collisions
  • Learn about calculating matrix elements in quantum field theory
  • Explore resources on tree-level calculations in hadronic processes
  • Review exercises involving Dirac spinors and their implications in particle interactions
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers involved in high-energy physics calculations will benefit from this discussion.

Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
Hi all,

Could anyone help for calculating the hadronc production cross section for example for
tree level : p p > t t~ process, I try to calculate, but the first problem I meet is a negative value of the matrix element amplitude (and so cross section ) and a negative ## \hat{t} ## Mandelstam variable :

I define ## \hat{t} ## : ## - \frac{\hat{s}}{2} (1 - \beta \cos \theta) + m^2_{t} ##
with: ## \beta =\sqrt{1- \frac{4m_{t}^2}{\hat{s}}} ##, ## \hat{s} = x1 x2 s \sim x^2 s (for x1=x2) ##, s = 14000^2 and ## ## tree level (partonic) diff. cross section :

## \frac{d\hat{\sigma}}{d\cos\theta} = \frac{\beta}{16\pi \hat{s}}~ | M|^2 ##So did I defined every thing consistently , any suggestions ..
Do you know any good refrence or exercises about that ..Regards,
Safinaz
 
Physics news on Phys.org
of course you must be doing something wrong... Be careful, when you compute the amplitude squared, you write:
\left|M\right|^{2}= M^{+}M with + I denote the dager/hermitian conjugate.
So it's practically impossible (even if you define something "wrong" in your procedure) to get negative value out of it...Something you are doing wrong in your calculations.

Also please give me to understand better what you did... Did you work with dirac spinors for example?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K