# Why does this amplitude not factorise into subamplitudes?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
108 views

Consider the process $Xq\rightarrow Yq$ at tree level via exchange of a photon. It is depicted in the following Feynman diagram. In various literature it is said that for a nearly on-shell photon this amplitude factorises into the product of two amplitudes of the subprocesses $X\gamma\rightarrow Y$, $q\rightarrow q\gamma$ and the denominator squared of the photon propagator. But there is one subtlety that I do not understand about this.

The tensorial structure admits to writing the matrix element as the product $M_\mu\Delta^{\mu\nu}N_\nu=M_\mu(-g^{\mu\nu})N_\nu\frac{i}{k^2}$. The polarisation sum of massless vector bosons is $\sum_i\epsilon^\mu_i\epsilon^{\nu\ast}_i=-g^{\mu\nu}+\epsilon^\mu_+\epsilon^{\nu\ast}_-+\epsilon^\mu_-\epsilon^{\nu\ast}_+$, which allows us to substitute the metric for this sum. If the photon's momentum fulfills $1>>k^2=\eta>0$, the terms with $\epsilon_\pm$ should be of order $\eta$ and vanish in the limit $\eta\rightarrow0$, leading to the expression $\sum_iM_\mu\epsilon^\mu_i\epsilon^{\nu\ast}_iN_\nu\frac{i}{k^2}$. Now this *almost* looks like the product of two distinct matrix elements, except there is the sum over $i$, which couples both factors. If we calculate the amplitude and define $M_{\mu\nu}:=M^\dagger_\mu M_\nu$, $N_{\alpha\beta}:=N^\dagger_\alpha N_\beta$, we find that
$$|M|^2_{Xq\rightarrow Yq}=\frac{1}{k^4}\sum_{i,j}M_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\mu\ast}_i\epsilon^\nu_j\times N_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon^\alpha_i\epsilon^{\beta\ast}_j.$$
But this is not necessarily equal to the product $\frac{1}{k^4}|M|^2_{X\gamma\rightarrow Y}\times|M|^2_{q\rightarrow q\gamma}=\frac{1}{k^4}\sum_iM_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\mu\ast}_i\epsilon^\nu_i\times\sum_jN_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon^\alpha_j\epsilon^{\beta\ast}_j$ that you find in literature (e.g. Peskin & Schroeder pp.578).

I suppose there must be a profound error in my thinking somewhere but I just cannot see where. I hope somebody can explain.

recategorized Apr 7

What does it even mean "nearly vanish"?

it either vanishes or it doesn't, you don't use quantum logic on maths!

@twening

@MathematicalPhysicist I have made it more precise in that regard. Now, how are both expressions equal like P&S claims they are?

There was a question in Physics.stackexchange that was answered by Michael Peskin regarding page 578 that you are referring to.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.