Energy conservation in e-e+ annihilation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical interpretation of energy conservation in the process of electron-positron annihilation, specifically in the context of scattering amplitudes as presented in a physics textbook. Participants are exploring the implications of their calculations and conventions related to the transition amplitude and delta functions in this quantum process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant is attempting to derive the delta function that asserts energy conservation in e^-e^+ annihilation, focusing on the time-dependent term in the scattering amplitude.
  • The participant notes a discrepancy in their calculation, leading to a delta function argument of E+E'+\omega instead of the expected E+E'-\omega.
  • Another participant suggests that the signs in the exponents of the transition amplitude are incorrect and provides a correction to the formulation.
  • The same participant emphasizes that the correct formulation corresponds to the initial state energy E+E' and the final state energy \omega.
  • A later reply indicates confusion regarding the interpretation of the "rule" for forming the matrix element, particularly concerning the roles of ingoing and outgoing states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the correct interpretation of the transition amplitude and the associated signs in the exponents. While one participant proposes a correction, the original poster expresses confusion about the conventions used in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings related to the conventions for ingoing and outgoing states in quantum field theory, as well as the mathematical steps involved in deriving the delta function for energy conservation.

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi,

I'm trying to convince myself (mathematically) that energy is conserved at the vertex in [itex]e^-e^+[/itex] annihilation, while solving Exercise 3.5(b) of Halzen and Martin's book (page 83).

I am looking at the time dependent term in the scattering amplitude [itex]T_{fi}[/itex] alone, to recover the delta function term which asserts the energy conservation. I know that I can look at the process in forward time or backward time, with the roles of the e+ and e- reversed.

Suppose the energies of the incoming electron and positron are E and E' respectively, whereas the energy of the outgoing photon is [itex]\omega[/itex] ([itex]\hbar = 1[/itex]).

From what I understand, the transition amplitude is proportional to

[tex]\int dt\,(e^{-i(-E')t})^{*}e^{-i\omega t}e^{-iEt} = 2\pi\delta(E+E'+\omega)[/tex]

which gives the wrong answer of course, since the argument of the delta function should be [itex]E+E'-\omega[/itex].

I believe I am making a mistake in interpreting their "rule":

The rule is to form the matrix element,

[tex]\int d^{4}x\,\phi^{*}_{outgoing}V\phi_{ingoing}[/tex]

where ingoing and outgoing always refer to the arrows on the particle (electron) lines.

What does this mean? I'm a bit confused with the convention.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone?
 
The signs in your exponents are wrong. It should be
[tex]e^{i\omega}e^{-i (E+E')}[/tex], corresponding to E+E' in the initial state and omega in the final state.
 
clem said:
The signs in your exponents are wrong. It should be
[tex]e^{i\omega}e^{-i (E+E')}[/tex], corresponding to E+E' in the initial state and omega in the final state.

Thanks clem. I was earlier thinking that the photon contribution will be through the potential term which is sandwiched between the final and initial states, which (I thought) referred to particles alone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K