Why does the trace show up while computing unpolarized cross sections?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JD_PM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computing Cross Trace
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the appearance of traces in the computation of unpolarized cross sections in quantum field theory, specifically in lepton pair production and Bhabha scattering processes. The equations provided illustrate how traces arise from the summation over spins and the use of projection operators. Key equations include the expressions for the unpolarized cross sections and the trace representations of the amplitudes. Understanding the role of the positive energy projection operator, as defined in Equation 5, is crucial for comprehending why traces appear in the calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Field Theory (QFT) fundamentals
  • Understanding of scattering processes
  • Familiarity with Dirac matrices and spinor algebra
  • Knowledge of unpolarized cross section calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of unpolarized cross sections in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the properties and applications of Dirac matrices
  • Explore the role of projection operators in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate advanced topics in scattering theory and trace techniques
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on quantum field theory, scattering processes, and particle physics calculations.

JD_PM
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
156
TL;DR
I want to understand why the trace shows up while dealing with unpolarized cross sections.
I've been studying different scattering processes (from Mandl & Shaw QFT's book, chapter 8) and there's always a common step I do not understand: the showing-up of the trace. Let me give two specific examples.
  • Lepton Pair Production ##( e^+ (\vec p_1, r_1) + e^- (\vec p_2, r_2) \rightarrow l^+ (\vec p_1', s_1)+l^- (\vec p_2', s_2))##
Here the unpolarized cross section is given by

$$X = \frac{e^4}{4\Big[(p_1+p_2)^2\Big]^2} A_{(l) \alpha \beta} B_{(e)}^{\alpha \beta} \ \ \ \ (1)$$

Here both ##A_{(l) \alpha \beta}## and ##B_{(e)}^{\alpha \beta}## end up yielding traces; let's show ##A_{(l) \alpha \beta}## explicitly as an example.

$$A_{(l) \alpha \beta}=\sum_{s_1} \sum_{s_2} \Big[ \bar u_{s_2} (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} v_{s_1} (\vec p_1'))(\bar v_{s_1}(\vec p_1')\gamma_{\beta} u_{s_2} (\vec p_2'))\Big]_{(l)}=Tr\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}-m_l}{2m_l} \gamma_{\alpha} \frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m_l}{2m_l}\gamma_{\beta}\Big] \ \ \ \ (2)$$
  • Bhabha scattering (##e^+ (\vec p_1, r_1)+e^- (\vec p_2, r_2) \rightarrow e^+ (\vec p_1', s_1) + e^+ (\vec p_2', s_2)##)
Let's take only a term of the total unpolarized cross section for the Bhabha scattering as an example

$$X_{ab} = \frac{-e^4}{4(p_1-p_1')^2(p_1+p_2)^2} \sum_{spins} \Big[ (\bar u (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} u (\vec p_2))(\bar u (\vec p_2)\gamma_{\beta} v (\vec p_1))(\bar v (\vec p_1) \gamma^{\alpha} v (\vec p_1'))(\bar v (\vec p_1')\gamma^{\beta} u (\vec p_2')\Big]=\frac{-e^4}{4(p_1-p_1')^2(p_1+p_2)^2} Tr\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m}{2m} \gamma_{\alpha}\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m}{2m} \gamma_{\beta}\frac{\not{\!p_1}-m}{2m} \gamma^{\alpha}\frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m}{2m} \gamma^{\beta}\Big] \ \ \ \ (3)$$Thus all boils down to understand why

$$X= \frac 1 2 \Lambda_{\delta \alpha}^+ (\mathbf p') \Gamma _{\alpha \beta} \Lambda_{\beta \gamma}^+ (\mathbf p) \tilde \Gamma _{\gamma \delta}=\frac 1 2 Tr \Big[\Lambda^+ (\mathbf p') \Gamma \Lambda^+ (\mathbf p) \tilde \Gamma \Big] \ \ \ \ (4)$$Where the positive energy projection operator satisfies the following equation$$\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}^+ (\mathbf p) = \Big( \frac{ \not{\!p}+m}{2m} \Big)_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{r=1}^2 u_{r \alpha} (\mathbf p) \bar u_{r \beta} (\mathbf p) \ \ \ \ (5)$$

But I do not see how to show that Eq. 5 is the reason why the trace shows up in Eq. 2, Eq. 3 and Eq. 4
Any help is appreciated.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$$A_{ij}B_{ji} = (AB)_{ii} =\operatorname{Tr}(AB)$$

More details :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K