Given the following Feynman Amplitude:

$$\mathscr{M}=\bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p) \tag 1$$


$\bar u_s, u_r$ are Dirac spinors ($1\times 4$ and $4 \times 1$ matrices respectively)

$\Gamma$ is a $4\times4$ matrix containing Dirac-$\gamma$-matrices (which are of course $4\times4$ matrices)

We're also given the (unpolarized cross-section) formula:

$$X= \frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1}^2 \sum_{s=1}^2 |\mathscr{M}|^2 \tag 2 $$

Where we've averaged over initial spins (i.e $\sum_r$) and summed over final spins (i.e $\sum_s$)


$$\tilde \Gamma = \gamma^0 \Gamma^{\dagger} \gamma^0 \tag 3 $$

Where $\dagger$ stands for conjugate transpose.

Prove that $(2)$ can be rewritten as follows:

$$X= \frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1} \Big( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big ) \Big( \bar{u_r} (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma u_s (\vec p') \Big) \tag 4 $$

My proof:

I assumed that

$$X= \frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1}^2 \sum_{s=1}^2 |\mathscr{M}|^2=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1}^2 \sum_{s=1}^2\mathscr{M}\mathscr{M}^{\dagger}\tag 5$$

Where by $\dagger$ I mean the conjugate transpose. Thus explicitly we get:

$$X= \frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1}^2 \sum_{s=1}^2\mathscr{M}\mathscr{M}^{\dagger}$$ $$=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1}\Big ( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big ) \Big( \bar{u_s} (\vec p) \Gamma u_r (\vec p')\Big)^{\dagger}$$ $$=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1} \Big( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big )\Big( u_r^{\dagger} (\vec p') \Gamma^{\dagger} \bar{u_s}^{\dagger} (\vec p)\Big) \tag 6$$

Now it is about working out $\bar{u_s}^{\dagger} (\vec p)$ and $u_r^{\dagger} (\vec p')$

We know that the adjoint is, by definition:

$$\bar{u_s} (\vec p) = u_s^{\dagger} \gamma^0 $$

Taking $\dagger$ on both sides of such equation we get:

$$\bar{u_s}^{\dagger} (\vec p) = (u_s^{\dagger} \gamma^0)^{\dagger}=\gamma^{0\dagger} u_s \tag 7$$

Where :


And here comes the key step: I assumed that $\Big(\gamma^{0}\Big)^{-1}=\gamma^{0}$ Thus we get

$$u_r^{\dagger} (\vec p') = \bar u_r (\vec p') \gamma^{0} \tag 8$$

Plugging $(7)$ and $(8)$ into $(6)$ we get the desired $(4)$

$$X=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1} \Big ( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big ) \Big ( u_r^{\dagger} (\vec p') \Gamma^{\dagger} \bar{u_s}^{\dagger} (\vec p)\Big)$$ $$=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1} \Big ( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big )\bar u_r (\vec p') \gamma^{0}\Gamma^{\dagger}\gamma^{0} u_s(\vec p')$$ $$=\frac 1 2 \sum_{r=1} \sum_{s=1} \Big( \bar{u_s} (\vec p') \Gamma u_r (\vec p)\Big )\Big ( \bar{u_r} (\vec p) \tilde \Gamma u_s (\vec p') \Big)$$

Note that in my proof I assumed $\Big(\gamma^{0}\Big)^{-1}=\gamma^{0}$.

Do you agree with it? If yes, why $\Big(\gamma^{0}\Big)^{-1}=\gamma^{0}$ is OK?

Source: Second edition Mandl & Shaw, QFT page 132

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What’s $\gamma_0^2$? $\endgroup$ – innisfree Jun 1 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @innisfree hi, I guess you mean we can use a property of the Dirac $\gamma$-matrices to get such a result. All I know for sure about $\gamma^0$ is the following: $\gamma^{0\dagger}=\gamma^{0}$ and $\gamma^{\mu \dagger}=\gamma^{0}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{0}$. May you please be more explicit? $\endgroup$ – JD_PM Jun 1 at 19:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know what $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}$ equals? Look at the 00 component. $\endgroup$ – innisfree Jun 1 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ @innisfree ahhh thank you, I think I got it! Based on the anticommutation relation $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2g^{\mu \nu}$ and with the convention $(+, -, -, -)$ for the Minkowski metric we get $\Big(\gamma^0\Big)^2=1$, which indeed proves $\Big(\gamma^{0}\Big)^{-1}=\gamma^{0}$ :)) Do you agree? $\endgroup$ – JD_PM Jun 1 at 21:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very good, now I encourage you to answer your own question here. You could just copy & paste your above comment, or write something longer. $\endgroup$ – innisfree Jun 2 at 0:19

Thanks to innisfree I got it!

We prove $\Big(\gamma^{0}\Big)^{-1}=\gamma^{0}$ is true based on the anticommutation relation (for instance, see page 452; Mandl & Shaw)

$$\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2g^{\mu \nu}$$

Using the convention $(+, -, -, -)$ for the Minkowski metric, we get for $\mu=0, \nu=0$


Which implies


| cite | improve this answer | |

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.