Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Yang's theorem states that a massive spin-1 particle cannot decay into a pair of identical massless spin-1 particles. The proof starts by going to the rest frame of the decaying particle, and relies on process of elimination of possible amplitude structures.

Let $\vec\epsilon_V$ be the spin vector of the decaying particle in its rest frame, and let $\vec\epsilon_1$ and $\vec\epsilon_2$ be the polarization 3-vector of the massless particles with 3-momenta $\vec{k}$ and $-\vec{k}$ respectively.

In the literature, I've seen arguments saying that

$\mathcal{M_1}\sim(\vec\epsilon_1\times\vec\epsilon_2).\vec\epsilon_V$, and $\mathcal{M_2}\sim(\vec\epsilon_1.\vec\epsilon_2)(\vec\epsilon_V.\vec{k})$ don't work because they don't respect Bose symmetry of the final state spin-1 particles.

But, why is $\mathcal{M_3}\sim(\vec\epsilon_V\times\vec\epsilon_1).\epsilon_2+(\vec\epsilon_V\times\vec\epsilon_2).\epsilon_1$ excluded? Sure, it's parity violating (if parent particle is parity even), but that's not usually a problem

Thanks

share|cite|improve this question
    
I'm looking for more information on this theorem. Where did you fount it on the literature? – Yair Nov 20 '13 at 5:09
    
Your amplitude is also impossible because it's bilinear in epsilon-V - but quantum mechanics has to produce evolution amplitudes that are linear in the initial state (the evolution operator is a linear one). – Luboš Motl Dec 16 '15 at 14:53
    
@LubošMotl that's true. But I must be blind; which amplitude do you refer to that is bilinear in epsilon-V? – QuantumDot Dec 16 '15 at 15:14
    
I must have mislooked, sorry. I would swear that I saw $(\epsilon_V\times \epsilon_1) \times (\epsilon_V\times \epsilon_2)$ or something like that. – Luboš Motl Dec 18 '15 at 15:04
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Because $\mathcal{M}_3$ as written above actually vanishes by a simple vector identity. On the first term, write

$$(\vec{\epsilon}_V\times\vec\epsilon_1).\vec\epsilon_2=(\vec\epsilon_2\times\vec\epsilon_V).\vec\epsilon_1$$

which cancels the second term.

[there goes my bounty]

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
Congrats on figuring it out =) – mtrencseni Oct 1 '12 at 18:24
    
@mtrencseni thanks – QuantumDot Oct 2 '12 at 5:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.