Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/775262150361223169
Source Link
Kagaratsch
  • 1.5k
  • 1
  • 11
  • 24

Physical poles in QFT scattering amplitudes?

In QFT, for instance in $\phi^3$ theory, the scattering amplitudes are said to be constrained to feature so called "physical poles" only.

Consider generalized Mandelstam variables $$s_{ij},s_{ijk},s_{ijkl},...$$

defined as

$$s_{i_1i_2,...,i_m}=\left(\sum_{j=1}^m p_{i_j}\right)^2$$ where each $p_{i_j}^\mu$ is a four momentum corresponding to kinematics of external particles in the scattering process.

In case of $\phi^3$ theory the set of physical poles for $n$ point scattering is given by the generalized Mandelstam variables with indices strictly neighboring - i.e. $s_{12},s_{2,3,4}$ or wrapping around as $s_{n-1,n,1,2,3}$. What tells us that these indices should be neighboring?

Or, more generally:

I wonder where does the information come from for how exactly physical poles are supposed to look like? How would we go about finding a constraint for the shape of physical poles in a generic amplitude in a different theory?