I complain about the amplitude of Compton scattering, which is the scattering of a photon by an electron.
The Compton scattering amplitude is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:20160529a}
\frac{1}{4}  \mathcal{M} ^2 = 2 e^4 \left[\frac{p_{24}}{p_{12}} + \frac{p_{12}}{p_{24}}
+ 2 m^2 \left( \frac{1}{p_{12}}  \frac{1}{p_{24}}\right)
+m^4 \left( \frac{1}{p_{12}}  \frac{1}{p_{24}}\right)^2\right]
\end{equation}
$m$ is the mass of the electron and $p_{ij} = p_i \cdot p_j$. The definition of the momenta $p_i$ can be found in the graph below.

Compton scattering. $e^$ is an electron, $\gamma$ is a photon 
Although the result \eqref{eq:20160529a} is quite short, the calculation is long, see for example
Peskin and Schroeder, page 161.
I worked a bit differently from the calculation in Peskin and Schroeder. Namely I used the following two gamma matrix identities
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}&\left[
\left( a_1\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_1\right) \gamma^{\mu}
\left( a_2\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_2\right)\gamma^{\nu}
\left( a_3\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_3\right)\gamma_{\nu}
\left( a_4\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_4\right)\gamma_{\mu}
\right]\nonumber\\
& =
16 \left[ (a_{12} 2 m_{12} )(a_{34} 2 m_{34} )
(a_{13} 4 m_{13} )(a_{24}  m_{24} )
+ (a_{14} 2 m_{14} )(a_{23} 2 m_{23} )
\right]\label{eq:20160530a}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:20160530b}
\text{Tr}\left[
\left( a_1\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_1\right) \gamma^{\mu}
\left( a_2\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_2\right)\gamma^{\nu}
\left( a_3\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_3\right)\gamma_{\mu}
\left( a_4\!\!\!\!\!/ + m_4\right)\gamma_{\nu}
\right]
=
16 \left( a_{12} m_{34} + a_{13} m_{24} + a_{14} m_{23}  2 a_{13} a_{24} + a \leftrightarrow m \right)
\end{equation}
I thought this would lead to a shorter derivation than the one in Peskin and Schroeder, but the full calculation including the proof of \eqref{eq:20160530a} and \eqref{eq:20160530b} was still 8 handwritten pages. In the course of this calculation, many cancellations occurred leading finally to the simple result \eqref{eq:20160529a}.
I think that the fact that \eqref{eq:20160529a} is short but is the result of a long calculation with many cancellations, shows that a method could exist that yields \eqref{eq:20160529a} more efficiently. I have been looking on the internet for such a method, not only because I want to have a quicker method for \eqref{eq:20160529a}, but also because I think that looking for more efficient methods to calculate scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory is a current area of research.
Please leave a comment if you know a quick way to obtain \eqref{eq:20160529a}, \eqref{eq:20160530a} or \eqref{eq:20160530b}.
No comments:
Post a Comment