I've been studying different scattering processes (from Mandl & Shaw QFT's book, chapter 8) and there's always a purely-mathematical common step I do not understand: the showing-up of the trace. Let me give two specific examples.

$$A_{(l) \alpha \beta}=\sum_{s_1} \sum_{s_2} \Big[ \bar u_{s_2} (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} v_{s_1} (\vec p_1'))(\bar v_{s_1}(\vec p_1')\gamma_{\beta} u_{s_2} (\vec p_2'))\Big]_{(l)}=Tr\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m_l}{2m_l} \gamma_{\alpha} \frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m_l}{2m_l}\gamma_{\beta}\Big] \ \ \ \ (1)$$

$$X= \frac 1 2 \Lambda_{\delta \alpha}^+ (\vec p') \Gamma _{\alpha \beta} \Lambda_{\beta \gamma}^+ (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma _{\gamma \delta}=\frac 1 2 Tr \Big[\Lambda^+ (\vec p') \Gamma \Lambda^+ (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma \Big] \ \ \ \ (2)$$


  • $\not{\!A} := \gamma^{\alpha} A_{\alpha}$
  • $\Gamma$ is a $4 \times 4$ matrix
  • $\tilde \Gamma := \gamma^0 \Gamma^{\dagger} \gamma^0$
  • $u, v$ are the Dirac Spinors (which are $4 \times 1$ matrices)
  • The Dirac-$\gamma$-matrices are $4 \times 4$ matrices and the adjoint is defined as $\bar w := w^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}$
  • $\Lambda^+$ is the positive energy projection operator defined as $$\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}^+ (\vec p) := \Big( \frac{ \not{\!p}+m}{2m} \Big)_{\alpha \beta}$$
  • $\Lambda^+$ has the following property

$$\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}^+ (\vec p) = \sum_{r=1}^2 u_{r \alpha} (\vec p) \bar u_{r \beta} (\vec p)$$

But what I do not understand is why does the Trace show up in $(1)$, $(2)$

Any help is appreciated.


Let's write out the spinor indices explicitly for $(1)$

$$A_l = \Big(\sum_{s_1} u_{s_1 \color{red}{\delta}}(\vec p_2') \bar u_{s_1 \color{blue}{\alpha}}(\vec p_2')\Big) \gamma_{\color{blue}{\alpha}\color{green}{\nu}}\Big(\sum_{s_2}v_{s_2 \color{green}{\nu}}(\vec p_1') \bar v_{s_2 \color{gray}{\beta}}(\vec p_1')\Big)\gamma_{\color{gray}{\beta}\color{red}{\delta}} \ \ \ \ (3)$$

We know the following properties

$$\Lambda^+_{\color{red}{\delta}\color{blue}{\alpha}}(\vec p_2')= \sum_{s_1} u_{s_1 \color{red}{\delta}}(\vec p_2') \bar u_{s_1 \color{blue}{\alpha}}(\vec p_2')=\Big(\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m_l}{2m_l}\Big)_{\color{red}{\delta}\color{blue}{\alpha}} $$

$$\Lambda^-_{\color{green}{\nu}\color{gray}{\beta}}(\vec p_1')= -\sum_{s_2}v_{s_2 \color{green}{\nu}}(\vec p_1') \bar v_{s_2 \color{gray}{\beta}}(\vec p_1')=-\Big(\frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m_l}{2m_l}\Big)_{\color{green}{\nu}\color{gray}{\beta}}$$

Thus we get

$$A_l = \Lambda^+_{\color{red}{\delta}\color{blue}{\alpha}}(\vec p_2')\gamma_{\color{blue}{\alpha}\color{green}{\nu}}\Lambda^-_{\color{green}{\nu}\color{gray}{\beta}}(\vec p_1')\gamma_{\color{gray}{\beta}\color{red}{\delta}}=-\operatorname{Tr}\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m_l}{2m_l}\gamma_{\alpha}\frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m_l}{2m_l}\gamma_{\beta}\Big]$$

Now I have two questions:

1) Why are we allowed to manipulate $\sum_{s_1} \sum_{s_2} \Big[ \bar u_{s_2} (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} v_{s_1} (\vec p_1'))(\bar v_{s_1}(\vec p_1')\gamma_{\beta} u_{s_2} (\vec p_2'))\Big]_{(l)}$ in such a way to get $(3)$? What I mean is that I do not see what mathematical properties allow us to do so.

2) I get a negative sign. I guess it gets cancelled out due to an antysymmetric swap of certein indices, but what pair specifically?

Thank you :)

  • $\begingroup$ A great way to start is to always write out an expression with the spinor indices explicitly written on all terms $\endgroup$ – Triatticus May 31 at 17:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Crossposted from math.stackexchange.com/q/3699711/11127 Please don't crosspost. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 3 at 15:39

Your equation $(2)$ has the answer to your same question $$X= \frac 1 2 \Lambda_{\delta \alpha}^+ (\vec p') \Gamma _{\alpha \beta} \Lambda_{\beta \gamma}^+ (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma _{\gamma \delta}=\frac 1 2 Tr \Big[\Lambda^+ (\vec p') \Gamma \Lambda^+ (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma \Big] \tag{2}$$ if you see, look very well at the spinorial indices $$\Lambda^+_{\color{red}{\delta}\color{blue}{\alpha}}\Gamma_{\color{blue}{\alpha}\color{orange}{\beta}}\Lambda^+_{\color{orange}{\beta}\color{green}{\gamma}}\tilde{\Gamma}_{\color{green}{\gamma}\color{red}{\delta}}$$ I've highlighted them so you can easily see them. As you can see they are all contracted with each other and since $A_{ij}B_{ji} = (AB)_{ii} = Tr(AB)$ it's easy to see where the result comes from.

If you write down all the spinorial indices for the spinors $u, v$ and so, and for the gamma matrices $\gamma_\alpha$ you'll see that the result easily follows.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Davide Morgante enlightening answer, thank you! :) Could you check my edit? I wrote out the spinor indices explicitly for $(1)$. Do you agree with what I've done? $\endgroup$ – JD_PM May 31 at 19:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes! You're absolutely right! Good job $\endgroup$ – Davide Morgante May 31 at 19:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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