- #1
- 3,372
- 465
Take a look at the attachment, my question is obvious from the colored points. The attachment is from:
"state-of-the-art formulas for helicity amplitude calculation and all that
(version 2.4)
PART Ia. Spherical-Vector Method for Helicity Amplitudes
(FORMALISM)
Ken-ichi Hikasa"
I think there is a problem with the (-1) term. If
u^{1}_{h}(p)= (-1)^{h-\frac{1}{2}} e^{2ih \bar{\phi}} u^{2}_{h}(p)
Then I think when he did the substitution to my underlined step there should be a:
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-h} instead... At first I thought I had derived wrong the particle 1-2 spinors relation, but my idea is also boosted from the fact he changes the sign of the exponential.
The same is also true for the antiparticle spinor v (blue)
"state-of-the-art formulas for helicity amplitude calculation and all that
(version 2.4)
PART Ia. Spherical-Vector Method for Helicity Amplitudes
(FORMALISM)
Ken-ichi Hikasa"
I think there is a problem with the (-1) term. If
u^{1}_{h}(p)= (-1)^{h-\frac{1}{2}} e^{2ih \bar{\phi}} u^{2}_{h}(p)
Then I think when he did the substitution to my underlined step there should be a:
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-h} instead... At first I thought I had derived wrong the particle 1-2 spinors relation, but my idea is also boosted from the fact he changes the sign of the exponential.
The same is also true for the antiparticle spinor v (blue)
