Feynman Diagrams, are these allowed?

NumberBucket
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
I have drawn a couple of diagrams for each of the two following equations. Are any of them wrong? Are either preferred? I don't have much practice with drawing these...
Relevant Equations
electron + positron -> tau+ anti-tau
electron + positron -> tau-neutrino + anti-tau-neutrino
Capture1.PNG


Capture2.PNG

These are my attempts, I have found two possibilities for each, but have no idea if they're 'legal'...

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
As a rule of thumb: strong > electromagnetic > weak, and tree-level > loops
While the diagrams are possible (except for the signs in the second one, check these) there is a much more important diagram for tau+antitau unless you are close to the Z energy in the collision.
The fourth diagram has additional particles that shouldn't be there.
 
  • Like
Likes NumberBucket
mfb said:
As a rule of thumb: strong > electromagnetic > weak, and tree-level > loops
While the diagrams are possible (except for the signs in the second one, check these) there is a much more important diagram for tau+antitau unless you are close to the Z energy in the collision.
The fourth diagram has additional particles that shouldn't be there.
Ah ok, thanks! So would the first one be better with a photon then? And would flipping the RHS of the second one fix the charge issues?
 
"Better" is subjective. "Stronger" at low energies: Certainly.

Yes, flipping the RHS will fix it.
 
  • Like
Likes NumberBucket
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top