Neutrino-neutrino to WW amplitude via Z-exchange

  • Thread starter Thread starter blankvin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Amplitude
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a problem from Quigg's Gauge Theories regarding the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} term in the context of neutrino interactions. The user struggles to understand how to incorporate the S factors into their calculations, specifically how they relate to the existing terms after contraction. After some back and forth, it is revealed that the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} terms ultimately contribute zero to the amplitude. The user acknowledges that their confusion stemmed from fatigue, leading to the realization of this oversight. The conversation highlights the complexities of gauge theory calculations and the importance of careful attention to detail.
blankvin
Messages
15
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I am working through an example in Chapter 6 of Quigg's Gauge Theories. I have it mostly figured out, with the exception of how to work out the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} term. All he writes is "...the term is impotent between massless spinors."

Homework Equations


I begin with:

nunu_WW_amplitude.png


What I want to know is how to obtain the factors that include S:

result.png


The Attempt at a Solution


I have all of the terms except those which include S. An explicit calculation or explanation would be extremely appreciated!

[Edit] I will show my work to point out where I am stuck.

I worked out the term involving g^{\mu\nu}. After the contraction of \gamma_\nu g^{\mu\nu}, the polarization vectors contract with the terms in square brackets to give:

\epsilon_+^{*\alpha}\epsilon_-^{*\beta}[...] = \epsilon_+^{*} \cdot \epsilon_-^{*} (k_- - k_+)_{\nu} + \epsilon_-^{*} \cdot k_+ \epsilon_{+\nu}^* - \epsilon_+^* \cdot k_- \epsilon_{-\nu}^* [1]

My understanding is that the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} will act on [1] above, but I do not see how to get the desired result. I thought that the contravariant S^{\nu} term would contract with the covariants, but instead somehow the k_+ and k_- in the second and third terms of [1] above are replaced by S. Either this is something I do not quite get, or I am being foolish.blankvin
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you just looking for the amplitude?
 
saybrook1 said:
Are you just looking for the amplitude?

I know what the amplitude is. It is how to deal with the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} that I do not know.blankvin
 
Yeah sorry, the first time I saw your post I was on mobile. I will check back on it when I have time if you haven't received a response yet.
 
I figured it out.

Working out the S^{\mu}S^{\nu} terms lead to zero contribution to the amplitude.

This blunder will be blamed on fatigue.blankvin
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top