Three level Feynman diagramas lagrangian density

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 3K views
pstq
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am trying to figure out how to draw all the three level Feynman diagrams corresponding to this lagrangian density [tex]L = \frac{1}{2} \partial _{\mu} \phi \partial^{\mu} \phi - \frac{\mu^2}{2}\phi^2- \frac{\eta}{3!}\phi^3-\frac{\lambda}{4!} \phi^4+i \bar{\psi} \gamma _{\mu} \partial^{\mu} \psi \phi -m \bar{\psi} \psi+ig \bar{\psi} \gamma^{5} \psi \phi[/tex]
for this process [tex]F+ \bar{F} → F+ \bar{F}[/tex]
and φ is the field associated to this particle F.

So i was thinking on drawing the 3 Feynman diagram (i.e. u, s,t channels ) for every interaction term . I mean

for the interaction [tex]\phi^3[/tex] three Feynman diagrams, whose vertex are proportional to
[tex]\eta^2[/tex]
for [tex]\phi^4[/tex] another three , is that right ?

the problem is that I think that we don't have u channel in the [tex]\phi^3[/tex] case, but I am not sure why . So if someone could enlighten me about this as well, you will make another fellow human interested in particle physics very happy today.
and another question, [tex]\psi[/tex] is the dirac spinor for another particle X which is not F, would i need to take into account the last term of the above Lagrangian which is interaction term between the particles F and the others , if I am considering only the above process [tex]F+ \bar{F} → F+ \bar{F}[/tex] or not?

Any help with any question/ or any remark would be highly appreciated

thanks !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this is not coursework questions nor homework per se, so I hope this is the right place to post this. In case I am wrong , my sincerest apologies
 
pstq said:
I am trying to figure out how to draw all the three level Feynman diagrams

I guess you mean *tree* level?

pstq said:
for this process [tex]F+ \bar{F} → F+ \bar{F}[/tex]

From your Lagrangian, it looks like ##\phi## is a real scalar field. So the F particle is its own antiparticle. So I guess you are considering ##F + F \to F + F##?

pstq said:
So i was thinking on drawing the 3 Feynman diagram (i.e. u, s,t channels ) for every interaction term . I mean

for the interaction [tex]\phi^3[/tex] three Feynman diagrams, whose vertex are proportional to
[tex]\eta^2[/tex]
for [tex]\phi^4[/tex] another three , is that right ?

The ##\phi^3## interaction produces three tree-level diagrams, corresponding to the u, s, and t channels. However the ##\phi^4## interaction produces only one tree-level diagram for the process you are interested in.

pstq said:
the problem is that I think that we don't have u channel in the [tex]\phi^3[/tex] case, but I am not sure why .

There is definitely a u channel diagram.

pstq said:
and another question, [tex]\psi[/tex] is the dirac spinor for another particle X which is not F, would i need to take into account the last term of the above Lagrangian which is interaction term between the particles F and the others , if I am considering only the above process [tex]F+ \bar{F} → F+ \bar{F}[/tex] or not?

The X particle will only matter if you consider loop diagrams. Since there are no X's in the initial and final states, they can only appear in loops.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pstq
It's better to ask yourself why don't you see a u-channel for [itex]\phi[/itex]? (however you saw a t-channel)

For [itex]\phi^4[/itex] you will only get the diagram that looks like this: X
for 4 external legs...

For the last term, #2 post is totally right...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pstq