Photon Polarization Sum - Simplifying Amplitudes with Photon Polarizations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the mathematical treatment of photon polarization sums in quantum field theory amplitudes. It establishes that when the amplitude is expressed as M = M^{\mu} \epsilon^{*}_{\mu}, the sum over polarizations can be simplified using the metric tensor, specifically \sum_\epsilon \epsilon^{*}_\mu \epsilon_\nu = -g_{\mu\nu}. The conversation also addresses the complexity introduced when the amplitude includes additional terms, such as A\epsilon^{*}_\mu, and clarifies that the polarization-independent part can be factored out. The conclusion emphasizes that any object with a single Lorentz index must adhere to the relationship a_\mu = g_{\mu\nu}a^\nu.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory and photon polarization
  • Familiarity with Lorentz indices and metric tensors
  • Knowledge of amplitude calculations in particle physics
  • Experience with tensor algebra and inner products
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the polarization sum in quantum electrodynamics (QED)
  • Learn about the role of the metric tensor in simplifying tensor expressions
  • Explore the implications of polarization sums for massive bosons
  • Investigate techniques for isolating transverse polarization states in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, particle physics researchers, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of photon polarization and amplitude calculations.

Hepth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
457
Reaction score
40
When summing over photon polarizations for a given amplitude if it can be written as:
M = M^{\mu} \epsilon^{*}_{\mu}}
then
\sum_\epsilon |\epsilon^{*}_\mu M^\mu |^2 = \sum_\epsilon \epsilon^{*}_\mu epsilon\nu M^\mu M^{* \nu}

and you can replace the sum over polarizations with a -g_{\mu \nu}

But what if you cannot separate it out? Say your M is of the form:

M=\epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma} \epsilon^{* \alpha} q^\beta p^\sigma + A\epsilon^{*}_\mu

Do you square it out, but then the first term will be a -g^{\alpha \alpha'} so each term gets summed over different indices?

\sum_\epsilon |M|^2 =\left( \epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma} \epsilon^{* \alpha} q^\beta p^\sigma + A\epsilon^{*}_\mu\right)\left(\epsilon_{\nu \alpha' \beta' \sigma'} \epsilon^{\alpha'} q^{\beta'} p^{\sigma'} + A\epsilon_\nu \right)


\sum_\epsilon |M|^2 =\left( \epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma} \epsilon^{* \alpha} q^\beta p^\sigma \epsilon_{\nu \alpha' \beta' \sigma'} \epsilon^{\alpha'} q^{\beta'} p^{\sigma'} + A\epsilon^{*}_\mu\epsilon_{\nu \alpha' \beta' \sigma'} \epsilon^{\alpha'} q^{\beta'} p^{\sigma'} + \epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma} \epsilon^{* \alpha} q^\beta p^\sigma A\epsilon_\nu+ A\epsilon^{*}_\mu A\epsilon_\nu\right)

So my question is, for every pair of polarization vectors do I make the replacement to the metric tensor? Or do I multiply the entire thing by g mu nu?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Generically, the idea is that you can write the amplitude as the inner product of a polarization-independent 4-vector and a polarization 4-vector. Then, you can pull the polarization-independent part out of the polarization sum and use the fact that \sum_\epsilon \epsilon^*_\mu\epsilon_\nu = -g_{\mu\nu}.

For the particular case you're asking about, you're overcomplicating things. Remember that any object with a single Lorentz index obeys a_\mu = g_{\mu\nu}a^\nu. So, in your case,
\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\sigma}\epsilon^{*\alpha}q^\beta p^\sigma+A\epsilon^*_\mu = \left(\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\sigma}q^\beta p^\sigma+Ag_{\mu\alpha}\right)\epsilon^{*\alpha}.

That said, the object you're asking about still has a free Lorentz index; so, it can't, by itself, be an amplitude, since it isn't a Lorentz scalar.
 
Last edited:
there are a simmilar formula for massive bosons.
(k^{\mu} k^{\nu})/k^2-g^{(\mu \nu)}.

How can i get only the transverse polarization sum?
Thanks in advance
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
710
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K