Electron-Muon Scattering Cross Section

  1. Hi,

    I am self-teaching Quantum Elctrodynamics, and have come across something which I do not understand. I would appreciate feedback from anyone on this specific issue from Atchison & Hey, "Guage Theories in Particle Physics" pg 238-239:

    In calculating the u-channel electron-muon scattering amplitude at the one-photon exchange, one can simplify the calculation by introducing the electron and muon tensors:

    LμγMμγ, where

    Lμγ = 2[k'μkγ+k'γkμ+(q2/2)gμγ] (electron tensor) and

    Mμγ = 2[p'μpγ+p'γpμ+(q2/2)gμγ] (muon tensor)

    Now qμ = (k-k')μ = (p-p')μ is the 4-momentum of the exchanged photon; p, p' are the intial and final momenta of the muon; k, k' the initial and final 4-momenta of the electron.

    It is claimed that qμLμγ = qγLμγ = 0, which is fine because L is the product of 2 4-currents and qμjμe- = 0. However, according to the text that I am reading, the qμLμγ = qγLμγ condition implies that we can replace p' in the muon tensor with (p+q); ie, Meffective = 2[2pμpγ + (q2/2)gμγ.

    Does anyone know how to go from the condition qμLμγ = 0 to the constraint condition p' = (p+q)?

    Thank you in advance for your assistance.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. samalkhaiat

    samalkhaiat 1,131
    Science Advisor

    The condition qμLμγ = 0 does not imply p' = (p + q). It is the opposite which is true.
    There is only one diagram in the process, so the amplitude has two momentum-conserving delta functions: [itex]\delta^{ 4 } ( k - k' - q )[/itex] at the electron vertex and [itex]\delta^{ 4 } ( p - p' + q )[/itex] at the muon vertex. So when you do the integral [itex]\int d^{ 4 }q[/itex] you forced to put [itex]p' - p= q = k' - k[/itex]. After that you can use the Casimir's trick the trace theorems to obtain the [itex]| \langle \mathcal{ M } \rangle |^{ 2 }[/itex].
     
  4. Samalkhaiat,

    Thank you for that reply. It is much clearer to me know how to obtain the scattering amplitude.

    I was scratching my head trying to figure out the implication in the other direction.

    The text was somewhat unclear in this regard.

    Boltzman1969
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted