What is the reason behind the HQET Lagrangian identity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Einj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identity in Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) given by the equation $$\bar Q_v\sigma^{\mu\nu}v_\mu Q_v=0$$ as presented in Wise's book "Heavy Quark Physics." Participants are exploring the reasoning behind this identity, discussing its implications, and examining related mathematical properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the identity and suggests that the projection operators $$P_\pm=(1\pm \displaystyle{\not} v)/2$$ are important for proving it.
  • Another participant explains that $$v_\mu$$ represents the four-velocity of the heavy quark but emphasizes that the projectors are the critical aspect.
  • A different participant notes that in the rest frame of the particle, the term becomes $$\sigma^{4\nu}$$, which is off-diagonal in certain representations, leading to the conclusion that the identity is zero.
  • Some participants discuss the validity of evaluating the identity in the rest frame of the heavy quark, suggesting it is a common practice in quantum field theory.
  • One participant proposes a reasoning based on the equations of motion for the heavy quark, leading to a simplification that suggests the identity holds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of confidence in the reasoning behind the identity, with some suggesting that the arguments presented are sufficient to conclude it is always zero, while others question whether this is definitive. No consensus is reached on the sufficiency of the arguments or the identity itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific representations of gamma matrices and projection operators, indicating that the discussion may depend on the chosen mathematical framework. There are also unresolved aspects regarding the implications of the equations of motion and the conditions under which the identity holds.

Einj
Messages
464
Reaction score
59
Hi everyone. I'm studying Heavy Quark Effective Theory and I have some problems in proving an equality. I'm am basically following Wise's book "Heavy Quark Physics" where, in section 4.1, he claims the following identity:

$$
\bar Q_v\sigma^{\mu\nu}v_\mu Q_v=0
$$

Does any of you have an idea why this is true??

I think that an important identity to use in order to prove that should be [itex]Q_v=P_+Q_v[/itex], where [itex]P_\pm=(1\pm \displaystyle{\not} v)/2[/itex] are projection operators.

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what is ##v_\mu##?
 
Is the four velocity of the heavy quark. However, I don't think it really matters. The only important thing is that the P's are projectors. I think I solved it, it's just an extremely boring algebra of gamma matrices
 
Yes, that is what it seems. But if you go in the rest frame of the particle, the term you will be having is like ##σ^{4\nu}##,which is a off diagonal matrix in the representation of Mandl and Shaw ( or may be Sakurai).Those projection operators are however diagonal in this representation and hence it's zero.
 
Yes, it sounds correct. Do you think this is enough to say that it is always zero?
 
Of course, you can always go to the rest frame of a heavy quark. That is how we evaluated the matrix elements in qft in old days.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Great sounds good! Thanks
 
I thought it was because : (bear with me i don't remember the slash command for the forums right now) the equation of motion:

$$ v^{\mu}\gamma_{\mu} Q_v = Q_v$$
$$ \bar{Q}_v v^{\mu}\gamma_{\mu} = \bar{Q}$$

so
$$ v_{\mu} \bar{Q} \left( \gamma^{\mu} \gamma^{\nu} - \gamma^{\nu} \gamma^{\mu}\right) Q $$
becomes
$$ \bar{Q} \left( \gamma^{\nu} - \gamma^{\nu} \right) Q $$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K