Cross-section for elastic scattering?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculation of the cross-section for elastic scattering of charged fermions, highlighting a divergence that arises when integrating the square modulus of the scattering amplitude with respect to the Mandelstam variable t. This divergence, known as a collinear singularity, is a common issue in theories involving massless particles exchanged in the t and u channels. It is not considered problematic because it can be addressed through resummation techniques. The conversation references Weinberg's "Quantum Theory of Fields" for further insights into infrared problems and the behavior of such singularities. Understanding these concepts is crucial for resolving the apparent contradictions in tree-level scattering calculations.
muppet
Messages
602
Reaction score
1
Hi All,

Following on from the last dumb question I asked...

Suppose you calculate the tree-level approximation to the elastic scattering of two charged fermions
to find that the result varies as ##\sim 1/t##, where t is the Mandelstam variable describing the squared momentum transfer in the centre of mass frame.

To work out the corresponding cross-section, you integrate the square modulus of this over t with t=0 as one of your limits of integration, so that the result diverges. Why is this not regarded as a problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is regarded as a problem, a socalled collinear singularity. It always occurs for theories with massless particles exchanged in the t and u channels. The cure is a resummation in this channel. Look at Weinberg, Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I. There's a whole chapter is devoted to infrared problems.
 
Thanks for your reply. I've heard of collinear singularities, but I'd always had the impression that such singularities canceled other divergences from the same order in perturbation theory- e.g. infrared divergences in loop integrals being canceled by those from bremstrahlung, so I couldn't see how such higher-order terms would cancel a tree-level effect. Guess I need to look into Weinberg, thanks.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
683
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K