Electron positron helicities and gamma-5

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jdstokes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Positron
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the helicities of electrons and positrons in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and weak interactions, particularly focusing on why certain helicity combinations do not contribute to scattering amplitudes in these processes.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that in the QED process e+e- → μ+μ-, terms from electrons and muons of the same helicity do not contribute, questioning the implications for weak interactions.
  • One participant discusses the forms of the electromagnetic and weak propagators, suggesting that the weak interaction involves specific helicity combinations due to the presence of the γ5 term.
  • Another participant elaborates on helicity projection operators and their effects on Dirac spinors, indicating that the ultrarelativistic limit allows for certain helicity states to be projected out, leading to zero contributions for specific helicity combinations.
  • It is proposed that the weak force couples only to left-handed particles and right-handed antiparticles, with a rationale based on the structure of bilinear covariants.
  • One participant asserts that QED conserves chirality, leading to a mixture of right and left helicity interactions, while the weak force's behavior is attributed to its coupling properties.
  • A later reply suggests considering conservation of angular momentum as a perspective on the topic, referencing a textbook for further intuitive understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the implications of helicity in QED and weak interactions, with some agreeing on the chirality conservation in QED and the left-handed nature of weak interactions, while others question or seek clarification on these points. No consensus is reached on the broader implications of these findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific mathematical forms and assumptions related to helicity and chirality, but these are not fully resolved or universally accepted within the discussion.

jdstokes
Messages
520
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

I've read that in the QED process [itex]e^+e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-[/itex], terms in the scattering amplitude coming from electrons and muons of the same helicity do not contribute.

I don't understand why this is the case. Is this not true if the interaction is mediated by the weak force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EM propagator is [tex]\gamma^{\mu}[/tex]

Weak propagator is [tex]\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma^5)[/tex]

(neglecting prefactors) You should find that for a spinor U:

[tex]U_{left}= \overline{U}(1+\gamma^5)[/tex]
[tex]U_{right}= (1-\gamma^5)U[/tex] (CHECK THESE; they may be incorrect)

Using the left and right helicity spinors and their adjoints you should find that the EM interation only involves certain helicity state combinations.

ie input [tex]U_{left}[/tex] & [tex]U_{right}[/tex] into the interaction term [tex]\overline{U}\gamma^{\mu}U[/tex] for the EM amplitude and into [tex]\overline{U}\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma^5)U[/tex] for the weak amplitude.

I think this is the proof that the weak interaction only involves left chiral particles and right chiral antiparticles where: [tex]U_{L.chirality} = \sqrt[2]{\frac{1+\beta}{2}}U_{L.Helicity}+\sqrt[2]{\frac{1-\beta}{2}}U_{R.Helicity}[/tex] and right chiral state is opposite signed

I can't remeber much else off the top of my head, but that is the general idea
 
Last edited:
So the em only allows interaction of fermions with specific helicity combinations? Interesting. This was never really apparent to me when taking spin sums of Feynman amplitudes in QED.

Helicity projection operators are defined by [itex]\Pi^{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(1\pm h_p)[/itex] where [itex]h_p = \hat{p}\cdot\Sigma[/itex] is the helicity operator ([itex]\Sigma^i = (\mathrm{i}/2)\epsilon^{ijk}\gamma_j\gamma_k[/itex]), of which the Dirac spinors are chosen to be eigenstates.

Clearly the helicity projection operator has the opposite effect on Dirac spinors corresponding to particles and antiparticles.

In the ultrarelativistic limit [itex]\Pi^\pm = (1/2)(1\pm \gamma_5)[/itex] so it can be moved through [itex]\gamma^\mu[/itex]'s changing + to -.

If we're interested in a process involving the a positive helicity electron and a positive helicity positron at the same vertex, then a possible bilinear covariant would be [itex]\bar{v}_1\gamma^\mu u_1[/itex]. This is equivalent to [itex]\bar{v} \gamma^\mu \Pi^+ u_1 = v^\dag_1 \gamma^0 \Pi^-\gamma^\mu u_1 = v^\dag_1 \Pi^+\gamma^0 \gamma^\mu u_1[/itex]. But this is zero since [itex]\Pi^+ v_1 = 0 \implies v_1^\dag \Pi^+ = 0[/itex].

What about the weak force?

The bilinear covariants in this case are of the form [itex]\bar{w}\gamma^\mu \Pi^-y[/itex]. where w and y can be either u or v. If y is a particle, this will vanish unless y has negative helicity ie it is left-handed. If y is an antiparticle this will vanish unless y has positive helicity. Similarly for w. Do you think this explains why the weak interaction couples only to left-handed particles and right-handed anti-particles?
 
Yeah, QED conserves chirality.

i.e:
[tex]\overline{U}\gamma^{\mu}U = \overline{U_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{L} + \overline{U_{R}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{R}+\overline{U_{R}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{L} + \overline{U_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{R} = \overline{U_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{L} + \overline{U_{R}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{R}[/tex]

as [tex]\overline{U_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}U_{R}=0[/tex]

So in general expect 50/50 mix of R/L interacting particles.

And yes, for the reason you gave the weak force only involves left chiral particles, and right chiral antiparticles, which is the only rationale I know which accounts for their being no observed right-handed neutrinos.
 
Think about this in terms of conservation of angular momentum...

Peskin&Schroeder has a good physically intuitive description in Chap. 1
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K