Help W/ Calculating LSZ Formula for 2-2 Scattering Amplitude

  • Thread starter Thread starter La Guinee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the two-to-two scattering amplitude using the LSZ formula and path integration techniques in a field theory with a specific Lagrangian. The original poster initially struggled with understanding why the amplitude depends on v2, v3, and v4, mistakenly believing it only involved v4. Assistance provided highlighted that contributions from v2 and v3 arise from second-order terms with internal propagators, which the poster had overlooked. Ultimately, the poster resolved their confusion by recognizing the importance of considering higher-order contributions in the calculations. The exchange emphasizes the complexity of deriving scattering amplitudes from a Lagrangian and the significance of understanding the order of contributions in perturbation theory.
La Guinee
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I need some help getting started with calculating a two to two scattering amplitude (tree approximation) in the field theory with lagrangian:
g^{2}L = (\partial\phi)^{2} - V(\phi)
where V is a polynomial in \phi. That is,
V = \Sigmav_{n}\phi^{n}

I am trying to calculate this using techniques of path integration and the lsz formula. I know the answer depends only on v_{2}, v_{3}, and v_{4} but I don't understand why. When I tried calculating the 4-point green's function I got it depending only on v_{4} so I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
La Guinee said:
I need some help getting started with calculating a two to two scattering amplitude (tree approximation) in the field theory with lagrangian:
g^{2}L = (\partial\phi)^{2} - V(\phi)
where V is a polynomial in \phi. That is,
V = \Sigmav_{n}\phi^{n}

I am trying to calculate this using techniques of path integration and the lsz formula. I know the answer depends only on v_{2}, v_{3}, and v_{4} but I don't understand why. When I tried calculating the 4-point green's function I got it depending only on v_{4} so I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what.

Can you post some of your steps?

Yes, there is a four point amplitude that comes from the V_4 term. But you should also get diagrams where there is an internal line connecting two three point vertex (like the tree level of the electron-positron scattering in QED). These will contain v_3 and v_2 (v_2 appearing in the propagator since it's essentially the mass of the scalr field, right?).

There are many many steps going from the lagrangian to an amplitude. Are you stuck with the LSZ part or in evaluating the amplitudes using path integrals? It's not clear where you are stuck, exactly.
 
kdv said:
Can you post some of your steps?

Yes, there is a four point amplitude that comes from the V_4 term. But you should also get diagrams where there is an internal line connecting two three point vertex (like the tree level of the electron-positron scattering in QED). These will contain v_3 and v_2 (v_2 appearing in the propagator since it's essentially the mass of the scalr field, right?).

There are many many steps going from the lagrangian to an amplitude. Are you stuck with the LSZ part or in evaluating the amplitudes using path integrals? It's not clear where you are stuck, exactly.

I actually figured it out. My mistake was that I was only going to first order. Like you said, you get a v_3 contribution from the second order term where you have an internal propagator. Thanks for the help.
 
La Guinee said:
I actually figured it out. My mistake was that I was only going to first order. Like you said, you get a v_3 contribution from the second order term where you have an internal propagator. Thanks for the help.

Good. I almost mentioned that in my post because the diagrams I described are clearly of order (v_3)^2 so they are of second order in the coupling constant but teh diagrams are still tree level. So I almost mentioned the fact that the v_4 contribution and the v_3 contributions were of different order in the coupling constant expansion. But I decided to wait and hear back from you first.

Good for you.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
802
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K