Why Are Currents in Matrix Elements Confusing?

alsey42147
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
i'm a bit confused about the currents in the expression for a matrix element for an interaction...

e.g. you could have a current like (adjoint spinor)x(spinor) which is scalar, this makes sense to me.

or you could have a current like (adjoint spinor)x(gamma matrix)x(spinor) which is vector according to all the books I've looked at. i don't get this - i would have thought that (gamma matrix)x(spinor) is either a vector or another spinor or something with 4 components, but then multiplying that by the adjoint spinor would just leave you with a scalar with 1 component. I'm guessing this is wrong but i can't see why.

also, say the matrix element looks something like:

(number)x[(adjoint)x(gamma-mu)x(spinor)]x[(adjoint)x(gamma-mu)x(spinor)]

with one gamma-mu having the index up, and the other one index down; does this mean that i sum the above expression over mu; i.e. a sum of 4 terms each with a different gamma matrix?

thanks in advance, and apologies for my lack of latex skills.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
remember that the gamma matrices actually have THREE indices! Writing it out explicity, they are \gamma^\mu_{\dot{\alpha}\beta}. The \mu index is the vector index, the undotted lower index is a spinor index and the dotted lower index is an "adjoint spinor" index. So you must contract ALL of these indices together:

\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi\equiv \bar{\psi}^{\dot{\alpha}}\gamma^\mu_{\dot{\alpha}\beta}\psi^{\beta}

and so it is a vector. Without the adjoint spinor, it would be this hybrid object with two indices.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top