Question on Witten's paper: Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on understanding formula 2.12 from Witten's paper "Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space" (hep-th/0312171). The user earth2 seeks clarification on the justification for this formula and its derivation. Another participant explains the amplitude expansion in terms of momenta and polarization vectors, emphasizing the unique contribution of each particle's polarization vector. They detail the action of the operator H_i on momentum and polarization vectors, leading to a definitive conclusion regarding the relationship between H_i and the amplitude.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of twistor space in theoretical physics
  • Familiarity with Witten's contributions to string theory
  • Knowledge of amplitude calculations in gauge theory
  • Proficiency in working with helicity and polarization vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Witten's paper "Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space" (hep-th/0312171) in detail
  • Learn about the Pauli-Lubanski vector and its applications in massless particle physics
  • Explore the concept of helicity in quantum field theory
  • Research the mathematical framework of twistor theory and its implications in string theory
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those focused on string theory, gauge theory, and advanced quantum field theory concepts.

earth2
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Question on Witten's paper: "Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory..."

Hi guys,

I have a question regarding formula 2.12 of Witten's paper hep-th/0312171
"Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space". He just states this formula but i don't really understand his 'justification' nor do I see a why to derive it myself. I tried to play around with the Pauli-Lubanski-Vector since it is in the massless limit related to helicity but with no success...

Do any of you guys have an idea?
Thanks,
earth2
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It's easy to see that formula if you think about the amplitude in precisely the manner in which Witten doesn't want to, namely in terms of the momenta and polarization vectors. Expand the amplitude in a series

\hat{A}(\lambda_i,\bar{\lambda}_i, h_i) = \sum C_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_n \nu_1\cdots \nu_m} p_1^{\mu_1} \cdots p_n^{\mu_n} \epsilon_1^{\nu_1} \cdots \epsilon_m^{\nu_m} ,

where C_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_n \nu_1\cdots \nu_m} are some coefficients that take into account however the momenta and polarizations are contracted. It is an important fact that each particle in the amplitude contributes one and only one polarization vector, so no factor of \epsilon_i is repeated.

Now under the maps

p_i^\mu \rightarrow \lambda^i_a \tilde{\lambda}^i_{\dot{a}}
\epsilon_i^\nu \rightarrow \frac{\lambda^i_a \tilde{\mu}^i_{\dot{a}}}{\langle \tilde{\lambda}^i,\tilde{\mu}^i\rangle} ~\tex{or}~\frac{\mu^i_a \tilde{\lambda}^i_{\dot{a}}}{\langle \lambda,\mu\rangle},

we consider the action of

H_i = \lambda^a_i \frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda^a_i} - \tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{a}}_i \frac{\partial}{\partial\tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{a}}_i}.

When H_i acts on a momentum factor, we obtain zero, since acting on \tilde{\lambda} cancels the action on \lambda. When H_i acts on a positive helicity polarization vector we find

- \frac{\mu^i_a \tilde{\lambda}^i_{\dot{a}}}{\langle \lambda,\mu\rangle^2}\langle \lambda,\mu\rangle - \frac{\mu^i_a \tilde{\lambda}^i_{\dot{a}}}{\langle \lambda,\mu\rangle} = -2(+1) \frac{\mu^i_a \tilde{\lambda}^i_{\dot{a}}}{\langle \lambda,\mu\rangle}

Similarly on a negative helicity polarization vector, we obtain a factor of 2 = -2(-1). So we can conclude that

H_i \hat{A}(\lambda_i,\bar{\lambda}_i, h_i) = - 2 h_i \hat{A}(\lambda_i,\bar{\lambda}_i, h_i) .
 


Thanks for your help! That solved my problem :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K