Pion Decay Rate: Verifying Decay Rate Formula

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the calculation of the decay rate for the process of pion decay into a muon and anti-muon neutrino, specifically examining the associated Feynman amplitude and the evaluation of the decay rate formula. Participants explore the mathematical details and reasoning behind the calculations, including the evaluation of traces involving gamma matrices and the implications of various properties of these matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Feynman amplitude for the pion decay and expresses interest in verifying the decay rate formula.
  • Another participant questions the logic in the evaluation of the trace involving gamma matrices, suggesting that terms may vanish prematurely.
  • A participant acknowledges a mistake in their trace calculation and provides a corrected version, but still seeks clarification on a specific detail regarding the vanishing of a term involving the Levi-Civita symbol.
  • Several participants emphasize the importance of following established references, such as Griffiths, for clarity and guidance in the calculations.
  • One participant points out that the trace computation aligns with Griffiths' results, indicating a potential resolution to their earlier confusion.
  • Another participant explains why a specific term vanishes due to the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol when contracted with symmetric expressions.
  • Further suggestions are made regarding the approach to simplifying calculations, including expanding expressions and consolidating terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the evaluation of specific terms in the trace calculations, with some indicating potential errors or omissions in reasoning. There is no clear consensus on the correctness of the calculations presented, and multiple perspectives on the approach to the problem remain evident.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the calculations and the potential for errors in handling gamma matrices and traces. The discussion highlights the need for careful attention to the properties of these mathematical objects and the implications for the decay rate formula.

JD_PM
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
156
TL;DR
I am computing the decay rate for the pion into a muon and anti-muon neutrino but I do not get the desired expression *, so I would like to discuss the calculation
I am studying the following process: pion decays (mediated by the charged ##W## boson) into a muon and anti-muon neutrino (i.e. ##\pi^- \to \mu + \bar{\nu}_{\mu}##). The Feynman diagram associated to it is

PionToMuonAntiNeutrino.png
And its Feynman amplitude is (where we of course neglected ##\mathcal{O}(m_{\mu}^2/m_{W}^2)## and higher orders and assumed that the anti-muon neutrino is massless).

\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{M} = \frac{g^2}{8 m^2_W}f_{\pi} m_{\mu} \bar{u}_r(\vec p) (1-\gamma_5)v_s (\vec q)
\end{equation*}

I am particularly interested in verifying that the decay rate ##\Gamma## of such process is given by

\begin{equation*}
\Gamma = \frac{g^4 f_{\pi}^2}{256 \pi} \frac{m^2_{\mu}m_{\pi}}{m^4_{W}} \left( 1 - \frac{m^2_{\mu}}{m_{\pi}^2} \right)^2 \tag{*}
\end{equation*}

Let's get started. The differential decay rate is defined by ##d\Gamma := \left| S_{fi}\right|^2 / T##, where the matrix element ##S_{fi}## is given by

\begin{equation*}
S_{fi} = (2 \pi)^4 \delta^{(4)} (k - p - q) \sqrt{\frac{m}{V E_p}} \sqrt{\frac{m}{V E_q}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2V E_q}} \sum_{r,s} \mathscr{M}
\end{equation*}

Let us first deal with the square of ##\mathscr{M}##; we have

\begin{align*}
\sum_{r,s} \left|\mathscr{M} \right|^2 &= \sum_{r,s} \frac{g^4}{64 m^4_W} f^2_{\pi} m_{\mu}^2 \underbrace{\bar u_r (\vec p) (1-\gamma_5) v_s(\vec q) \bar v_s(\vec q) (1-\gamma_5) u_r (\vec p)}_{\text{we can take the trace}} \\
&= \sum_{r,s} \frac{g^4}{64 m^4_W} f^2_{\pi} m_{\mu}^2 tr \left[\bar u_r (\vec p) (1-\gamma_5) v_s(\vec q) \bar v_s(\vec q) (1-\gamma_5) u_r (\vec p) \right] \\
&= \frac{g^4}{64 m^4_W} f^2_{\pi} m_{\mu}^2 tr \left[(1-\gamma_5) \underbrace{\sum_s v_s(\vec q) \bar v_s(\vec q)}_{(q \!\!/ - m_{\mu})/2m_{\mu}} (1-\gamma_5) \underbrace{\sum_r u_r (\vec p)\bar u_r (\vec p)}_{(q \!\!/ + m_{\mu})/2m_{\mu}} \right] \\
&= \frac{g^4}{256 m^4_W} f^2_{\pi} tr \left[(1-\gamma_5) (q \!\!/ - m_{\mu})(1-\gamma_5)(q \!\!/ + m_{\mu}) \right]
\end{align*}

My issue at this point is how to evaluate such trace.

Using the fact that ##\{ \gamma^{\mu}, \gamma^5 \} = 0## and the following properties

DKOEKDOEKDOEKDEOEOD.png

JDIEJDIEJDEIJDJEDJJIEJDIJEJDI.png


I get

\begin{align*}
&tr\left[(1-\gamma_5)(q \!\!\!/ - m_{\mu})(1-\gamma_5)(p \!\!\!/ + m_{\mu}) \right]\\
&= tr\left[ (q \!\!\!/ (1 + \gamma_5) - m_{\mu}(1 - \gamma_5)) (1-\gamma_5)(p \!\!\!/ + m_{\mu}) \right] \\
&= tr\left[ - m_{\mu}(1 - \gamma_5)^2 (p \!\!\!/ + m_{\mu}) \right] \\
&= -2tr\left[ m_{\mu}(1 - \gamma_5) (p \!\!\!/ + m_{\mu})\right] \\
&= -8 m_{\mu}^2
\end{align*}

However, this does not lead to (*). It seems suspicious to me that momenta terms vanish...

Do you see any mistake so far? If not, the mistake has to be in what follows so I will post the rest of the calculation.

Thank you :biggrin:

PS: I post this specific calculation here because it is directly related to particle physics and I had really good previous experiences in this forum thanks to vanhees71, nrqed & Dr.AbeNikIanEdL
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chapter 10 of Griffiths goes through this. FWIW, I don't follow your logic in your last five rows of TeX. Terms seem to vanish before you have demonstrated that they have an odd number of gamma matrices. Maybe they are zero, but I can't see it from what you have written. You might want to expand to all 16 terms before you start cancelling.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't follow your logic in your last five rows of TeX.

Oh, my bad.

To get to the first equality I used ##\{ \gamma^{\mu}, \gamma^5 \} = 0##, so that we get
##(1-\gamma_5)(q \!\!\!/ - m_{\mu}) = q \!\!\!/ + \gamma_5 m_{\mu} - m_{\mu} -\gamma_5 q \!\!\!/ = q \!\!\!/ + \gamma_5 m_{\mu} - m_{\mu} + q \!\!\!/ \gamma_5 =
q \!\!\!/ (1 + \gamma_5) - m_{\mu}(1 - \gamma_5)##

To get to the second equality I used the fact that ##\gamma_5^2 = 1## so that one of the terms cancels due to
##(1 + \gamma_5)(1 - \gamma_5) = 1 - \gamma_5^2 = 0##

To get to the third equality I used ##(1- \gamma_5)^2 = 2(1- \gamma_5)##

Finally, traces with odd number of gamma matrices vanish. Traces containing ##\gamma^5## or ##\gamma^5 \gamma^{\mu}## vanish as well. Hence, only ##-2m_{\mu}^2 tr(\Bbb 1_{4 \times 4} ) = -8m_{\mu}^2 ## survives.
 
I am 99% sure you have dropped a sign somewhere. You want a p-slash times q-slash in the answer, right? But that piece gets zeroed out.

Like I said, Griffiths works this all out. It will be a lot more efficient and instructive for you to follow him than to have us searching for minus signs.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Like I said, Griffiths works this all out.

Thanks for the reference! I will study it and if I still have questions I will come back :)
 
JD_PM said:
Summary:: I am computing the decay rate for the pion into a muon and anti-muon neutrino but I do not get the desired expression *, so I would like to discuss the calculation

I am studying the following process: pion decays (mediated by the charged ##W## boson) into a muon and anti-muon neutrino (i.e. ##\pi^- \to \mu + \bar{\nu}_{\mu}##). The Feynman diagram associated to it is

View attachment 279894And its Feynman amplitude is (where we of course neglected ##\mathcal{O}(m_{\mu}^2/m_{W}^2)## and higher orders and assumed that the anti-muon neutrino is massless).

\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{M} = \frac{g^2}{8 m^2_W}f_{\pi} m_{\mu} \bar{u}_r(\vec p) (1-\gamma_5)v_s (\vec q)
\end{equation*}
You forgot a ##\gamma_\mu##!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM and vanhees71
nrqed said:
You forgot a ##\gamma_\mu##!

Oops, indeed! 😅

By the way, the trace I wrote down in the OP is not the one we are looking for. I have corrected my original mistake but I would still like to check a detail of my computation

\begin{align*}
&p'_{\mu}p'_{\nu} tr\left[\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma_5)p \!\!\!/ \gamma^{\nu}(1-\gamma_5)(q \!\!\!/ + m_{\mu}) \right]\\
&= 8 p'_{\mu}p'_{\nu} \left[ p^{\mu}q^{\nu} + p^{\nu}q^{\mu} - \eta^{\mu \nu} \left( p \cdot q\right) - i \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}p_{\rho} q_{\sigma} \right] \\
&= 8 \left[ 2(p' \cdot p)(p' \cdot q) - p'^2\left( p \cdot q\right) -ip'_{\mu}p'_{\nu} \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}p_{\rho} q_{\sigma}\right] \\
&= 8 \left[ 2(p' \cdot p)(p' \cdot q) - p'^2\left( p \cdot q\right) -ip'_{\mu}p'_{\lambda} \varepsilon^{\mu \lambda \lambda \sigma}p_{\lambda} q_{\sigma}\right] \\
&= 8 \left[ 2(p' \cdot p)(p' \cdot q) - p'^2\left( p \cdot q\right) \right] \\
\end{align*}

So is it OK to justify that the ##\varepsilon## vanishes due to relabeling two of the dummy indices as above ( given that repeating two of the indices of ##\varepsilon## makes it vanish by definition)? Or is there another reason?
 
You cannot have one index more then twice in a formula using the Ricci calculus!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
vanhees71 said:
You cannot have one index more then twice in a formula using the Ricci calculus!

Thanks for clarifying vanhees71

Then I do not see why ##ip'_{\mu}p'_{\nu} \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}p_{\rho} q_{\sigma}## term vanishes...

jijijijijkkkkkkkkkkk.png
 
  • #10
By the way, my trace computation matches Griffiths'

iededoeide.png
 
  • #11
It vanishes, because ##\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} p_{\mu}' p_{\nu}'=0##, contracting the antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol with an expression symmetric in the indices ##\mu## and ##\nu##.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
  • #12
Gosh, that was a big miss of mine! Thanks again vanhees71
 
  • #13
JD_PM said:
Gosh, that was a big miss of mine!

Recommendation:
  1. Expand it all out. Paper is cheap. Electrons even cheaper.
  2. Then remove terms that are zero automatically (e.g. odd number of gamma matrices)
  3. Then remove terms that cancel other terms.
  4. Consolidate. Put all the epsilon tensors together.
  5. Look for ways to cancel what's left - often a set of epsilon tensors sum to zero, for example.
  6. Then look for simple expressions, e. g. p_1 \cdot p_2
Keep an eye out for physical intuition: does your rate depend on whether your interaction is V+A or V-A? If not, your calculation shouldn't either.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
  • #14
Finally, as BJ taught me, "Always calculate ratios. You'll make the same mistake in the numerator as in the denominator and you'll be fine."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K