Narrow Width Approximation for a spin 1 resonance

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Narrow Width Approximation (NWA) to a spin 1 resonance, specifically in the context of the decay of a top quark via a W boson. Participants explore how to factorize the decay width and address the treatment of spin polarizations in this scenario.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the decay process of a top quark into a bottom quark and a W boson, emphasizing the need to factorize the decay width using the NWA.
  • Another participant suggests a method to avoid explicit polarization summation, indicating that the factor of 1/3 arises from averaging over initial spin states after summing over final states.
  • A participant questions the separation of polarization indices in the squared amplitude and seeks clarification on how to achieve the desired factorization.
  • One participant proposes an identity for polarization vectors that could facilitate the factorization but questions its validity.
  • Another participant argues that the squared modulus complicates the process and emphasizes the standard approach of summing over final spin states and averaging over initial states without needing additional identities.
  • A later reply acknowledges the insights gained from referenced materials, clarifying that the second transformation in the NWA is not an exact equality but an approximation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of polarization vectors and the necessity of specific identities. While some agree on the general approach of averaging over spins, the exact methods and identities to be used remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the application of the NWA involves approximations that may not hold in all cases, particularly regarding the treatment of polarization sums and the factorization of amplitudes.

jkp
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi

I'm trying to understand how the sum over spin polarizations is treated when using the Narrow Width Approximation(NWA) with a spin 1 resonance. For a spin zero resonance there is no such problem and the factorization is quite straightforward. I'll go through some details to explain where my problem is.

It'll be easier to talk about a specific example so I'm going to look at the decay of a top quark via a W boson, which is a spin 1 resonance. The decay follows like this ##t(k)\to b(p_1) W^*(q) \to b(p_1) f(p_2) \overline{f}'(p_3)## where ##f## and ##f'## are any fermion. So we'd expect that close to the resonance peak we can factorize the width as
$$\Gamma(t\to b f \overline{f}')=\Gamma(t\to b W) BR(W\to f\overline{f}')$$
that is the production and decay of a real W. My aim is to understand how this factorization occurs here for a spin 1 resonance.

Starting from the decay width formula we have,
$$\Gamma_{t\to b f\overline{f}'}=
\frac{1}{2 m_{t}}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{spin}
|{\mathcal M}(t\to b f \overline{f}')|^2
dLIPS$$
where
$$dLIPS
=
\frac{d^3 \vec{p}_{1}}{2 E_{p_1}(2\pi)^3}
\frac{d^3 \vec{p}_{2}}{2 E_{p_2}(2\pi)^3}
\frac{d^3 \vec{p}_{3}}{2 E_{p_3}(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p_1+p_2+p_3-k)$$
is the lorentz invariant phase space.

So my first job is to factorize the amplitude into ##t\to b W## and ##W\to f\overline{f}'## parts. We can write the amplitude as,
$${\mathcal M}(t\to b f \overline{f}')=
{\mathcal M}_1^\mu
\,\frac{(-g_{\mu\nu}+q_\mu q_\nu / M_W^2)}{q^2-M_W^2+iM_W\Gamma_W}
\,{\mathcal M}_2^\nu
=
{\mathcal M}_1^\mu
\,\sum_\lambda \frac{\epsilon^*_\mu(q,\lambda)
\epsilon_\mu(q,\lambda)}
{q^2-M_W^2+iM_W\Gamma_W}
\,{\mathcal M}_2^\nu$$
where ##{\mathcal M}_{1,2}## come from the ##t-b-W## vertex and ##W-f-f'## vertex respectively and I've used the polarization sum over the W polarization vector identity, ##\sum_\lambda \epsilon^*(q,\lambda)\epsilon(q,\lambda)=(-g_{\mu\nu}+q_\mu q_\nu/M_W^2)##, in the second equality where ##\lambda## is the W polarization. To simplify the notation I'm going to define as follows,
$${\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}=
{\mathcal M}_1^\mu \epsilon^*_\mu(q,\lambda)$$
and
$${\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}=
{\mathcal M}_2^\mu \epsilon_\mu(q,\lambda)
$$
So the amplitude becomes,
$$
{\mathcal M}(t\to b f \overline{f}')
=
\sum_\lambda
\frac{{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}}
{q^2-M_W^2+iM_W\Gamma_W}
$$
Now squaring the amplitude we have,
$$|{\mathcal M}(t\to b f \overline{f}')|^2
=
\left|\sum_\lambda
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
\frac{1}{{(q^2-M_W^2)^2+M_W^2\Gamma_W^2}}
$$
And this is where I get stuck. The propagator part is easy to deal with in the NWA it will change to a delta function like this,
$$
\frac{1}{{(q^2-M_W^2)^2+M_W^2\Gamma_W^2}}\to
\frac{2\pi\,\delta(q^2-M_W^2)}{2M_W^2\Gamma_W^2}
$$
but I'm not sure how to deal with the square of the polarization summed amplitude,
$$\left|\sum_\lambda
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
$$
Ideally I want to show that this can be written as something like,
$$
\left(\sum_\gamma\left|{\mathcal M}^\gamma_{t\to b W}\right|^2\right)
\left(
\frac{1}{3}\sum_\lambda \left|{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
\right)
$$
so that the decay width will factorize into, ##\Gamma(t\to b f\overline{f}')=\Gamma(t\to b W)BR(W\to f\overline{f}')##.

So my question is how do I show that, ##\left|\sum_\lambda
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
=
\left(\sum_\gamma\left|{\mathcal M}^\gamma_{t\to b W}\right|^2\right)
\left(
\frac{1}{3}\sum_\lambda \left|{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
\right)
## ?

I'm sorry for all the details but I wanted to give the full context of my question.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this is most probably the nifty trick of avoiding polarization.You should have written those λ's explicitly.
|Mμε*λμελvMv|2=(1/3)Ʃλ1,λ2|Mμε*λ1μ|2λ2vMv|2
the factor of 1/3 arises because you must sum over the final spin states and take an average over initial spin states after summing it(i.e. divide by 3 for W Boson).
 
Thanks for the reply Andrien but maybe you can provide a little more detail. I don't understand how you get ##\lambda_1## in one bracket and ##\lambda_2## in the other. As far as I see it we have,
$$
\left| \sum_\lambda
{\mathcal M}_1^\mu \epsilon^{\lambda *}_\mu
\epsilon^\lambda_\nu {\mathcal M}_2^\nu
\right|^2
=
\left(\sum_\lambda{\mathcal M}_1^\mu \epsilon^{\lambda *}_\mu
\epsilon^\lambda_\nu {\mathcal M}_2^\nu\right)
\left( \sum_\gamma{\mathcal M}_1^\rho \epsilon^{\gamma *}_\rho
\epsilon^\gamma_\sigma {\mathcal M}_2^\sigma\right)^*
=\sum_\lambda \sum_\gamma
({\mathcal M}_1^\mu {\mathcal M}_1^{\rho *}
\epsilon^{\lambda *}_\mu \epsilon^{\gamma}_\rho)
({\mathcal M}_2^\nu{\mathcal M}_2^{\sigma *}
\epsilon^\lambda_\nu \epsilon^{\gamma *}_\sigma)
$$
here we still have ##\lambda## and ##\gamma## in each of the brackets. This needs to be factorized so that there is ##\lambda## in one of the brackets and ##\gamma## in the other bracket as you wrote in your reply.

I could switch the polarization vectors so that we have,
$$
\sum_\lambda \sum_\gamma
({\mathcal M}_1^\mu {\mathcal M}_1^{\rho *}
\epsilon^{\lambda *}_\mu \epsilon^{\gamma}_\rho)
({\mathcal M}_2^\nu{\mathcal M}_2^{\sigma *}
\epsilon^\lambda_\nu \epsilon^{\gamma *}_\sigma)
=\left(\sum_\lambda {\mathcal M}_1^\mu {\mathcal M}_1^{\rho *}
\epsilon^{\lambda *}_\mu \epsilon^\lambda_\nu\right)
\left(\sum_\gamma{\mathcal M}_2^\nu{\mathcal M}_2^{\sigma *}
\epsilon^{\gamma}_\rho \epsilon^{\gamma *}_\sigma\right)
$$
but now the lorentz indices don't match up within the brackets!

So how do I take the final step?
 
It seems to me that I need some identity for the polarization vectors such as the following,
$$
\varepsilon_\mu^{\lambda_1 *}\varepsilon_\nu^{\lambda_2}
=\delta^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}\frac{1}{3}
\left(\sum_\lambda \varepsilon_\mu^{\lambda *}\varepsilon_\nu^{\lambda} \right)
$$
that is, the product of two polarization vectors is zero if the polarizations are different and equal to 1/3 the sum over polarizations if the two polarizations are equal. Does anybody know if such an identity actually exists?
 
No,the square of the modulus is just extra complication.It has nothing to do with it.It is used in all decay processes where you don't observe the final polarization states.you just sum over the final spin states and take an average over the initial spin states after summing over initial spin states.There is no use of any identity.It is the usual way.since W boson has 3 spin states,you will have to divide by three.In electron scattering you divide by two after summing because of two polarization possible like here in mott scattering on page 203-204
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lvmSZkzDFt0C&pg=PA137&dq=sakurai+advanced+quantum+mechanics+coulomb+scattering&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1-v_UIjSLIjMrQfYoIH4BA&ved=0CEEQuwUwAw#v=onepage&q=sakurai%20advanced%20quantum%20mechanics%20coulomb%20scattering&f=false
also see here eqn. 3
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4112(see the full paper):smile:
 
Thanks again Andrien

From the reference you provide I now see that the Narrow Width Approximation isn't just that the propagator becomes,
$$
\frac{1}{{(q^2-M_W^2)^2+M_W^2\Gamma_W^2}}\to
\frac{2\pi\,\delta(q^2-M_W^2)}{2M_W^2\Gamma_W^2}
$$
but also that we must approximate,
$$
\left|\sum_\lambda
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{t\to b W}
{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
\to
\left(\sum_\gamma\left|{\mathcal M}^\gamma_{t\to b W}\right|^2\right)
\left(
\frac{1}{3}\sum_\lambda \left|{\mathcal M}^\lambda_{W\to f\overline{f}'}\right|^2
\right)
$$
So this second transformation isn't an exact equality as I had assumed in my original question but a further simplification of the NWA proceedure.
 
sure,it is a simplification which is done to avoid polarization.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K