When can we ignore the delta function in th Feynman rules?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the delta function within the context of Feynman rules, specifically regarding the amplitude for the process e-e+ → μ-μ+. The amplitude is expressed as -iM = [\bar{v}(p2)(-ieγμ)u(p1)] (−igμν/q2)[\bar{u}(k1)(-ieγν)v(k2)]. The delta function integration is not explicitly included in this expression, as it pertains to the S matrix rather than the M matrix. Therefore, the delta function is not expected in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Feynman rules in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with the S matrix and M matrix concepts
  • Knowledge of particle physics, specifically electron-positron interactions
  • Basic proficiency in tensor notation and gamma matrices
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the S matrix in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the role of delta functions in scattering amplitudes
  • Explore Peskin and Schroeder's "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" for deeper insights
  • Investigate the implications of gauge invariance in particle interactions
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, quantum field theorists, and students studying advanced topics in theoretical physics will benefit from this discussion.

Vereinsamt
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
in peskin-schroeder and http://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/batley/particles/handout_04.pdf" the amplitude for [tex]e^-e^+\rightarrow \mu^- \mu^+[/tex] is written using feynman rules as follows
[tex]-iM=[\bar{v}(p_2)(-ie\gamma^\mu )u(p_1)] \frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{q^2}[\bar{u}(k_1)(-ie\gamma^\nu )v(k_2)][/tex]

but what about the delta function integeration? is it already done here?

thanks in advanced!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I may well be wrong here, but that looks like the M matrix part of the S matrix, and it is the S matrix that has the delta function in it, so you shouldn't be expecting a delta function.

again i DID only just do this, so i may be wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K