Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cross section for scattering of gauge bosons and Majorana neutrinos

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
denis.besak@gmx.de - 03 Jan 2007 14:16 GMT
For my diploma thesis I must provide a calculation that reproduces the
results given on page 46 of the paper hep-ph/0309342 . For those who do
not want to look it up, I briefly explain what it is about: It concerns
the two-body scattering processes

(1) N + V => L + H,
(2) N + L => V + H,
(3) N + H => V + L

where N denotes a right-handed Majorana neutrino, L and H are the SM
lepton and Higgs doublet and V represents either a SU(2) or U(1) gauge
boson. The processes are considered in the early universe, where
SU(2)xU(1) is unbroken and L and V are massless (but N is not). The
Higgs mass is also neglected since m_H << m_N, but this is of minor
importance here. The Majorana neutrino has a Yukawa coupling to the
lepton and Higgs doublet but does not couple to the gauge bosons. (See
Feynman diagrams in the paper.)
The problem is, that not only am I unable to reproduce the result given
for (2) and (3), but the result I get makes no sense. When I calculate
just the s-channel contribution |M_s|^2, then the result is negative!
With process (1), which occurs only in the t-channel and u-channel,
there is no problem, but for both (2) and (3) which have an s-channel
contribution I get a negative amplitude squared. To make it even
stranger-if I start from (1) and use crossing to obtain the result for
(3), I get the same as the author of the paper does. But still, there
must be something wrong since the direct calculation fails.

My question is now: Is there anything special about these diagrams,
some peculiarity that I most likely have not taken into account? My
supervisor told me some stories that the diagrams might violate the
Ward identity and I should try to add something which he called
"contact terms", but he was unable to explain me properly, what this
means.  In the literature, I have not found any example where anything
like that happens. I rather assume it could be connected to the
polarization sums for the gauge bosons which maybe contain something
special here. I used the same formula as for the photons (remember that
the SU(2) gauge bosons are also massless in this case!), maybe this is
wrong? But it works for process (1), this really confuses me...

I hope someone can give me a hint what could be going on here, since it
would be a pity to leave this part out. Few people have considered
these processes and I would like to include their effect in my thesis.

Thanks in advance,
Denis Besak
Autymn D. C. - 06 Jan 2007 21:08 GMT
Did you use the whole binominal expansion or the na?v product?
denis.besak@gmx.de - 06 Jan 2007 23:26 GMT
Autymn D. C. schrieb:

> Did you use the whole binominal expansion or the naïv product?

What do you mean by "whole binomial expansion"?
Autymn D. C. - 07 Jan 2007 04:18 GMT
> Autymn D. C. schrieb:
> > Did you use the whole binominal expansion or the naïv product?
>
> What do you mean by "whole binomial expansion"?

As both momenta are squarede, you wouldn't get negative products unless
you start with one imaginary.
denis.besak@gmx.de - 07 Jan 2007 09:08 GMT
Autymn D. C. schrieb:

> > Autymn D. C. schrieb:
> > > Did you use the whole binominal expansion or the naïv product?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> As both momenta are squarede, you wouldn't get negative products unless
> you start with one imaginary.

I still do not understand what you want to tell me, sorry. The minus
sign comes from the sum over the polarization vectors which gives -g_mu
nu. And there is no other minus sign to cancel this, the s-channel
contribution gives (modulo couplings etc.) something like -s(s - M_N
^2), where the other factors are of course positive. If I leave the
minus sign in the polarization sum out (which makes no sense but just
to give it a try) this results in a negative t-channel contribution.
Autymn D. C. - 10 Jan 2007 21:01 GMT
Shouldn't you sum the vectors, then square??
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.