Understanding the (polarized) cross section for Compton Scattering by electrons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differential cross section for Compton scattering by electrons, focusing on the derivation and understanding of specific equations related to momentum conservation and Feynman amplitudes. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and specific equations relevant to the scattering process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the differential cross section formula for Compton scattering and poses questions regarding the derivation of specific equations related to momentum conservation.
  • Another participant clarifies that the photon momentum must satisfy the on-shell condition, leading to the conclusion that certain scalar products must hold true.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of vector equations presented by one participant, with others questioning their correctness and suggesting a focus on scalar relationships instead.
  • Participants engage in deriving Eq. (7) from conservation of momentum, with some expressing uncertainty about the steps taken and the implications of the on-shell conditions.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the derivation of Eq. (9) and seeks assistance in understanding the partial derivative involved.
  • Clarifications are provided regarding the relationships between various scalar products, leading to a resolution of some earlier misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for clarity regarding the derivation of specific equations, but multiple competing views and uncertainties remain about the steps involved in reaching those equations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the derivations depend on the on-shell conditions for the photon and electron momenta, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of certain vector equations versus scalar relationships.

JD_PM
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
156
TL;DR
I am studying the derivation of the polarized cross-section for Compton Scattering by electrons (i.e. both initial and final electron and photon states are set) from Mandl & Shaw (M&S)'s QFT book (chapter 8, section 8.6) and vanhees71's Manuscript (6.5.1 Compton Scattering).
I have specific questions, but let's first give context.

Initially we have an electron with momentum ##p=(E, \vec p)## and spin state ##u_r (\vec p)## and a photon with momentum ##k=(\omega, \vec k)## and polarization state ##\epsilon_s (\vec k)##.
Finally we have ##p'=(E', \vec p')##, ##u_r' (\vec p')##, ##k'=(\omega', \vec k')##, ##\epsilon_s' (\vec k')##

I understand that the differential-cross section for Compton Scattering by electrons is given by (more details here):

$$\frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega} = \frac{m^2 \omega'}{16 \pi^2 E E' \omega v_{rel}} \Big[ \Big( \frac{\partial(E'+\omega')}{\partial \omega'}\Big)_{\theta \phi} \Big]^{-1} |\mathscr{M}|^2 \ \ \ \ (1)$$

Where ##(\theta, \phi)## are the polar angles of ##\vec k'## and ##d \Omega = \sin \theta d \theta d \phi## is the corresponding infinitesimal solid angle. We take ##\vec k## as the polar coordinate axis, so that ##\vec k \cdot \vec k' = \omega \omega' \cos \theta## (where ##\cos \theta## arises due to the definition of the dot product).

Conservation of momentum gives

$$p+k=p'+k' \ \ \ \ (2)$$

The Feynman Amplitudes associated to these two figures are as follows

?hash=f39bdc901db8a54b4efaa3847f3d1c3f.jpg
$$\mathscr{M}=\mathscr{M}_a+\mathscr{M}_b \ \ \ \ (3)$$

$$\mathscr{M}_a = -i e^2 \frac{\bar u' \gamma^{\mu} \epsilon_{\mu}' (\gamma^{\mu} f_{\mu}+m) \gamma^{\mu} \epsilon_{\mu} u}{2(pk)}, \ \ \ \ \mathscr{M}_b = i e^2 \frac{\bar u' \gamma^{\mu} \epsilon_{\mu}' (\gamma^{\mu} g_{\mu}+m) \gamma^{\mu} \epsilon_{\mu}' u}{2(pk')} \ \ \ \ (4)$$

Where

$$f:=p+k, \ \ \ \ g:=p-k'$$

Eq. (3) is manifestly covariant and must be equivalent (I did not check it out myself though) to vanhees71's equation (6.128).

Experimentally the photon beam (usually) aims at a target of nearly stationary electrons. We now move to the LAB frame, which means that we have

$$p=(m, 0, 0, 0), \ \ \ \ \vec p' = \vec k - \vec k' \ \ \ \ (5)$$

Thus the energy-momentum equation yields

$$E' = \Big( m^2 + (\vec k - \vec k')^2 \Big)^{1/2} = \Big( m^2 + \omega^2 + \omega'^2 - 2\omega\omega' \cos\theta \Big)^{1/2} \ \ \ \ (6)$$

Mandl & Shaw asserted that from equation (2) we can get

$$pk=p'k+k'k=pk'+k'k \ \ \ \ (7)$$

And that Eq. (7) reduces to

$$\omega' = \frac{m \omega}{m+\omega(1-\cos\theta)} \ \ \ \ (8)$$

From Eq. (6) we get

$$\Big( \frac{\partial(E'+\omega')}{\partial \omega'}\Big)_{\theta \phi} = \frac{m \omega}{E' \omega'} \ \ \ \ (9)$$

Then, plugging back into (1) we get the differential cross section in the LAB frame

$$\Big( \frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega}\Big)_{LAB} = \frac{1}{(4 \pi)^2} \Big( \frac{\omega'}{\omega}\Big)^2 |\mathscr{M}|^2 \ \ \ \ (10)$$

These are my questions:

1) Where's Eq. (7) coming from?

M&S stated it comes from equation (2). However, I solve for ##p## and multiply (on the right) by ##k## but don't get (7)

$$pk = p'k+k'k-kk \neq p'k+k'k$$

$$pk = p'k+k'k-kk \neq pk'+k'k$$

2) Where's Eq. (8) coming from?

Let's assume Eq. (7); thus we have (recalling the definition of the 4 inner product ##p_1 \cdot p_2 = E_1 E_2 - \vec p_1 \cdot \vec p_2##)

$$(m\omega, 0)=(m \omega + \omega' \omega, -(\vec k - \vec k') \cdot \vec k - \vec k' \cdot \vec k)=(m \omega' + \omega' \omega, \vec k' \cdot \vec k)$$

Simplifying a bit we get

$$(m\omega, 0)=(m \omega + \omega' \omega, -\vec k \cdot \vec k )=(m \omega' + \omega' \omega, \vec k' \cdot \vec k)$$

Recalling that ##\vec k \cdot \vec k' = \omega \omega' \cos \theta## we get

$$(m\omega, 0)=(m \omega + \omega' \omega, -\omega^2 \cos \theta )=(m \omega' + \omega' \omega, \omega' \omega \cos \theta)$$

So we end up with these two equations

$$m\omega=m\omega+\omega'\omega=m\omega'+\omega'\omega \ \ \ \ (*)$$

$$\omega' \cos \theta=-\omega \cos \theta \ \ \ \ (**)$$

Mmm Eq. (*) is trivial so it tells us nothing interesting, but what can we say about ##(\omega'+\omega)\cos\theta=0##? Does it lead to Eq. (8)?

3) I am not getting Eq. 9

It has to be simply about taking the partial derivative but I am making a mistake I do not see...

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega'} (E'+\omega') = \frac{\partial}{\partial \omega'} \Big[ \Big( m^2 + \omega^2 + \omega'^2 - 2\omega\omega' \cos\theta \Big)^{1/2}+\omega' \Big] = \frac{\omega'-\omega \cos \theta}{\sqrt{m^2 + \omega^2 + \omega'^2 - 2\omega\omega' \cos\theta}}+1=\frac{\omega'-\omega \cos \theta+E}{E} \neq \frac{m \omega}{E' \omega'}$$

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first two:

1) ##k## should be an on-shell photon momentum, so ##k^2=0=(k^\prime)^2##. Similarly ##p^2=m^2=(p^\prime)^2##. From energy-momentum conservation (2) it then also follows that ##p^\prime k = pk^\prime##.

2) Why do you have vector equations there? Some of them look definitely wrong as they imply things like ##\vec{k}\vec{k}=0##, but I don't understand where they come from anyway. Eq. (7) is a relation between the scalars ##p\cdot k##, ##p\cdot k^\prime## and ##k\cdot k^\prime##. Calculating each of them in the rest frame of the initial electron, i.e. where ##p=(m,\vec{0})##, ##k=(\omega,\vec{k})##, ##k^\prime=(\omega^\prime,\vec{k}^\prime)## and using ##\vec{k}\vec{k}^\prime=\omega\omega^\prime \cos\theta## should almost immediately give (8) from the second version of (7).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
Dr.AbeNikIanEdL said:
For the first two:

1) ##k## should be an on-shell photon momentum, so ##k^2=0=(k^\prime)^2##. Similarly ##p^2=m^2=(p^\prime)^2##. From energy-momentum conservation (2) it then also follows that ##p^\prime k = pk^\prime##.

Oh I see so we take Eq. (2), solve it for ##p## and multiply it (on the right side) by ##k##

$$p \cdot k = p' \cdot k + k' \cdot k - k \cdot k$$

Due to the on-shell condition ##k^2=0=(k^\prime)^2##, ##k \cdot k=0##. Thus I get the first equality on Eq. (7)

$$p \cdot k = p' \cdot k + k' \cdot k$$

I still have to proof the second equality on Eq. (7).

$$p \cdot k = p \cdot k' + k' \cdot k$$

This is my reasoning:

We now solve Eq. (2) for ##p'##, multiply (on the right side) by ##k'##

$$p' \cdot k' = p \cdot k' + k \cdot k' - k' \cdot k'$$

Due to the on-shell condition ##k^2=0=(k^\prime)^2##, ##k' \cdot k'=0##. Thus I get

$$p' \cdot k' = p \cdot k' + k \cdot k'$$

Mmm but I am not really convinced because to show Eq. (7) I need ##p' \cdot k'=p \cdot k## to hold and I think this is not true...

Dr.AbeNikIanEdL said:
.2) Why do you have vector equations there? Some of them look definitely wrong as they imply things like ##\vec{k}\vec{k}=0##, but I don't understand where they come from anyway. Eq. (7) is a relation between the scalars ##p\cdot k##, ##p\cdot k^\prime## and ##k\cdot k^\prime##. Calculating each of them in the rest frame of the initial electron, i.e. where ##p=(m,\vec{0})##, ##k=(\omega,\vec{k})##, ##k^\prime=(\omega^\prime,\vec{k}^\prime)## and using ##\vec{k}\vec{k}^\prime=\omega\omega^\prime \cos\theta## should almost immediately give (8) from the second version of (7).

Ahhh big mistake of mine! Now I got it, thanks :biggrin:

Eq. (7) tells us that

$$p \cdot k = p \cdot k' + k \cdot k'$$

Where

$$p \cdot k=m\omega$$

$$p \cdot k'=m\omega'$$

$$k \cdot k'=\omega\omega'-\vec k \cdot \vec k'$$

Thus we get Eq. (8)

$$m\omega=m\omega'+\omega\omega'(1-\cos \theta)$$

$$\omega'=\frac{m\omega}{m+\omega(1-\cos \theta)}$$
 
JD_PM said:
Mmm but I am not really convinced because to show Eq. (7) I need p′⋅k′=p⋅kp′⋅k′=p⋅kp' \cdot k'=p \cdot k to hold and I think this is not true...
Try squaring both sides of (2)...

Or first subtract ##k## and ##k^\prime## from both sides and then square to immediately get the second expression of (7) from the first.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
Alright so indeed we have ##p' \cdot k'=p \cdot k##, thank you.

About 3). There has to be a naive mistake, if I find it I'll post it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K