Wick theorem for particle-antiparticle annihilation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LayMuon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Annihilation Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the LSZ (Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmermann) reduction formula in the context of particle-antiparticle annihilation, specifically for the process e- e+ -> 2 gamma (electron-positron annihilation into two photons). Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of the LSZ formula in this scenario, addressing potential factors arising from contractions in the expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a detailed expression for the S-matrix element for the process e- e+ -> 2 gamma, noting the placement of the electron and positron fields.
  • Another participant suggests an alternative form for the S-matrix element, emphasizing the need to introduce the decomposition of fermionic fields and the use of creation operators.
  • A participant initially expresses confusion over a factor of 2 arising from contractions but later confirms that their calculation is correct.
  • Another participant points out that the final state should represent two photons, while the initial state is represented as |e-e+>, indicating a need for careful interpretation of the states involved.
  • Discussion includes references to the LSZ reduction formula and its application to fermions, with a request for further references on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct interpretation and calculation of factors in the LSZ formula application. There is no consensus on the resolution of the factor of 2 issue, as participants present varying approaches and interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the interaction term in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the challenges in applying the LSZ reduction formula, indicating that certain assumptions and mathematical steps may be unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum field theory, particularly in the context of particle interactions and the application of the LSZ reduction formula in QED.

LayMuon
Messages
149
Reaction score
1
I am trying to write down the LSZ formula for e- e+ -> 2 gamma:

$$ S_{fi} \propto \langle 0| T \{\bar{\Psi}(x_1) \vec{A}(x_2) \Psi (x_4) \vec{A}(x_3) \left\lbrack \frac{(-i)^2}{2} \int d^4x A_\mu (x) \bar{\Psi}(x) \gamma^\mu \Psi (x) \int d^4y A_\nu (y) \bar{\Psi}(y) \gamma^\nu \Psi (y) \right\rbrack \} |0\rangle $$

So I have electron at ##x_1## and positron ##x_4##.

But now if i try to contract I can contract ##\bar{\Psi}(x_1)## with one at x or at y, and same with ##\vec{A}(x_2)## and this would produce a factor of 4 which would cancel with 1/2 from exponential expansion giving a factor 2, but this is wrong, there should not be a factor of 2.

Any ideas? thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sfi for two photon annihilation is probably
(-e)2∫d4x1t2<t1d4x2<2γ|ψ-(x1μψ(x1)Aμψ-(x2vψ(x2)Av(x2)|e-e+>,then you will have to introduce the decompositon of fermionic field into two parts and also use the creation operator on vacuum states to obtain the |e-e+> and |2γ> states.
 
No, i used LSZ, but i got it, the factor of 2 i am getting is correct. Thanks.
 
In any case,the final state represents two photons and initial one is |e-e+>,while your is only having sandwiched between vacuum states.so try to interpret it.
 
The leptons and photons are generated by the first four operators. I just used LSZ reduction formula.
 
you might like to give a reference for spinor electrodynamics lsz reduction. the term in square bracket contains the full interaction term of qed which is somewhat uneasy to me.
 
Greiner "Field quantization", chapter on LSZ for fermions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K