Casimir Trick in \( e^+ e^- \to H \to f \bar{f} \)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dingo_d
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the averaged, unpolarized square of the invariant amplitude for the process \( e^+ e^- \to H \to f \bar{f} \). The participant has derived the expression for \(\langle|M|^2\rangle\) but struggles to apply the Casimir trick effectively to obtain a trace from the spinor components. The correct application involves rearranging the spinors into pairs and utilizing the relations \(\sum_{s_1}u_{1\delta}\bar{u}_{1\alpha}=({\not} p_1+m_1)_{\delta\alpha}\) and \(\sum_{s_2}v_{2\beta}\bar{v}_{2\gamma}=({\not} p_2-m_2)_{\beta\gamma}\) to facilitate the trace calculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory, specifically the process \( e^+ e^- \to H \to f \bar{f} \)
  • Familiarity with spinor algebra and Dirac matrices
  • Knowledge of the Casimir trick for calculating traces in particle physics
  • Proficiency in manipulating invariant amplitudes and averaging over spins
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the Casimir trick in various particle interactions
  • Learn about the properties of Dirac spinors and their role in quantum field theory
  • Explore the derivation of invariant amplitudes in \( e^+ e^- \) collisions
  • Investigate trace calculations in quantum field theory and their implications for scattering processes
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in particle physics, and anyone involved in the calculation of scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory.

dingo_d
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Casimir trick in e+e-->H->ffbar

Homework Statement


I have the process:

[itex]e^+e^-\to H\to f\bar{f}[/itex]

I have calculated the amplitude and it's conjugate, and now I want to find the averaged, unpolarized square of the invariant amplitude [itex]\langle|M|^2\rangle[/itex].

I average over the initial spins and sum over the final and usually in some simple processes like Moller scattering, I would play with Casimir trick and traces. But here I have:

[itex]\langle|M|^2\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{g_w^2}{4m_w^2} m_e m_f\right)^2\sum_{spins} \bar{u}_4v_2\bar{v}_1u_3\bar{v}_2u_4\bar{u}_3v_1[/itex]

Where [itex]\bar{v}_1[/itex] is the incoming positron with impulse p_1 and spin s_1, [itex]u_3[/itex] is the incoming electron, [itex]v_2[/itex] is the outgoing anti fermion, and [itex]\bar{u}_4[/itex] is the outgoing fermion.

If I look at the spinor components, I can arrange them into pairs and use the relations:

[itex]\sum_{s_1}u_{1\delta}\bar{u}_{1\alpha}=({\not} p_1+m_1)_{\delta\alpha}[/itex] and [itex]\sum_{s_2}v_{2\beta}\bar{v}_{2\gamma}=({\not} p_2-m_2)_{\beta\gamma}[/itex]

But I'm not getting any trace out of this :\

What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Homework Equations \langle|M|^2\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{g_w^2}{4m_w^2} m_e m_f\right)^2\sum_{spins} \bar{u}_4v_2\bar{v}_1u_3\bar{v}_2u_4\bar{u}_3v_1\sum_{s_1}u_{1\delta}\bar{u}_{1\alpha}=({\not} p_1+m_1)_{\delta\alpha} and \sum_{s_2}v_{2\beta}\bar{v}_{2\gamma}=({\not} p_2-m_2)_{\beta\gamma}The Attempt at a Solution To solve this problem, you need to use the Casimir trick. This is an algebraic trick which allows you to calculate the unpolarized, averaged square of the amplitude by summing over the initial spins and then taking the trace of the matrix. First, you need to express the spinors in terms of the momentum 4-vectors and the mass of the particle. Then, you can rearrange the spinors so that you have pairs of spinors which can be summed over using the Casimir trick. For example, you can rearrange the spinors so that you have: \langle|M|^2\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{g_w^2}{4m_w^2} m_e m_f\right)^2\sum_{spins} Tr[\bar{v}_1({\not} p_1+m_1)v_2\bar{u}_3({\not} p_2-m_2)u_4] Now, you can take the trace of the matrix to get: \langle|M|^2\rangle=\frac{1}{2
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K