Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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|improve this question
    
Why isn't anyone answering?! Is my question not worded nicely? Is it because nobody knows the answer? what's the matter?!?!?!?!?!?! :( :( :'( –  QuantumDot Sep 29 '12 at 20:34
    
Hello? is this website working? –  QuantumDot Sep 30 '12 at 20:17
    
I'm looking for more information on this theorem. Where did you fount it on the literature? –  Yair Nov 20 '13 at 5:09
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 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|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
add comment

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.