Finding Simplicity in Summation Expressions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Final
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expressions Summation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 3K views
Final
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hi,
there is a good expression for [tex]\sum_{s}{u_s(\vec{p})\bar{v_s}(\vec{p})}[/tex] ?

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Not that I know of. But I don't know why you would need this sum; spin sums are needed when a spin is not observed, then you want to sum the absolute square of the transition amplitude over the unobserved spin; but that will always involve u and ubar or v and vbar, but never u and vbar or v and ubar.
 
Not always...
My problem is about Majorana's fermions:

Take the scattering [tex]\nu_{\tau}+\bar{\nu}_{\tau}\rightarrow \nu_e+\bar{\nu}_e[/tex] and the interaction [tex]{\cal{L}}=g \sum Z_{\mu}\bar{\psi}_{\nu_l}\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma_5)\psi_{\nu_l}[/tex].

The [tex]\nu[/tex] are Majorana's fermions (i.e. [tex]d_r=b_r[/tex]) with mass [tex]m_{\nu_{\tau}}>m_{\nu_e}[/tex]. Compute the cross section. Here the feynman rules are quite difficult and the sums over the spin of the square of the transition amplitude involve also u vbar and v ubar!
:rolleyes:
 
For Majorana fermions, there is always a way to transform things (using spinor identities) so that you get only u ubar or v vbar. This is explained in the book by Srednicki (draft copy available free online, google to find it).