2
$\begingroup$
  1. In Maggiore's textbook, he defines the amplitude $$\langle k_1,..,k_n|S-1|p_1,..,p_m\rangle=(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}\left(\Sigma_i k_i-\Sigma_ip_j\right)\ i\mathcal{M},\tag{5.115}$$ where $S-1=iT$. When he then tries to calculate the classical potential for a $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering, he writes (eq. 6.68) $$i\mathcal{M}=\left( \langle k_1, k_2|iT|p_1,p_2 \right)^{(R)}\tag{6.68}$$ where the superscript $R$ stands for relativistic. Where did the factors of $(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}\left(\Sigma_i k_i-\Sigma_ip_j\right)$ go?

We can then use $|k_1, k_2\rangle^{(R)}=\sqrt{2E_{k_1}}\sqrt{2E_{k_2 }}|k_1, k_2\rangle^{(NR)}$, where $NR$ stands for non-relativistic. One can then use the Born approximation to show that the classical potential $V(x)$ is minus the Fourier transform of $\mathcal{M}$ (eq. 6.71, p.169).


  1. The second question is in getting the corrected Coulomb potential in QED from the following process: enter image description here

Schwartz (from QFT and the Standard model, chapter on vacuum polarization) first defines the second diagram to be $i\Pi^{\mu\nu}_2$ and then writes it in the form $$i\Pi^{\mu\nu}_2=i(-p^2g^{\mu\nu}+p^\mu p^\nu)e^2\Pi_2(p^2)\tag{16.48}$$ One can now compute the full diagram and find (eq. 16.50, p.309) $$-i\dfrac{\left[1-e^2\Pi_2(p^2)\right]g^{\mu\nu}}{p^2} +(\text{terms $\propto p^\mu p^\nu$ that have to do with the gauge})\tag{16.50}$$

Now, as I understand it, if we also include the contribution from the external legs, which would be in the form of the polarization vectors, $\epsilon_1^\mu, \epsilon_2^{\nu*}$, the $\mu,\nu$ indices in (16.48) would contract and we get something reminiscent of $i\mathcal{M}$ and we can follow the process from the first part of the question to find the classical potential.

Instead, Schwartz just takes the part of (16.50) that's proportional to $g^{\mu\nu}$, slaps an extra $e^2$ in front and defines $$\tilde{V}(p)=e^2\dfrac{\left[1-e^2\Pi_2(p^2)\right]}{p^2}\tag{16.51}$$ as being the Fourier transform of the classical potential.

Can somebody explain this step? I don't see why we haven't contracted the extra indices and where the $e^2$ comes from. I mean, I can kind of make sense of it (maybe attach vertices at the end which would give rise to the $e^2$), but I would like to have a clear picture of how to handle these situations to get classical potentials so I can handle more difficult cases myself.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Eq. 6.68 as you quote it seems wrong. Here's how to argue better that the delta functions should "vanish": The Born approximation says that the scattering amplitude for a momentum $\vec p$ into a momentum $\vec p'$ is $$ A_\text{QM}(p,p') = (2\pi)\delta(E_p - E_{p'})(-\mathrm{i})\langle \vec p\vert V\vert \vec p'\rangle,$$ and the corresponding expression from QFT is the non-relativistic limit of $$ A_\text{QFT}(p,p') = \int \langle p',k'\vert \mathrm{i}T\vert p,k\rangle\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\vec k\cdot\vec r}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3},$$ where the integration over $k$ is because the scattering needs to treat one of the electrons as the "fixed" source of the potential at some location $\vec r$ to be comparable to the Born approximation scattering off a potential $V$ that doesn't consider the source of the potential to incur a recoil, either. So with the definition of $\mathrm{i}\mathcal{M}$ you give first, this is $$ A_\text{QFT}(p,p') = \int(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(p' + k' - p + k)\mathrm{i}\mathcal{M}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\vec k\cdot\vec r}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}$$ and now the integral over $\vec k$ kills off the spatial part of the $\delta^{(4)}$ and just imposes $\vec k' = \vec p - \vec p'$, leaving a $\delta(E' - E)$ for the final and initial energies. Now you see that $$ \langle \vec p\vert V\vert \vec p'\rangle = -\mathcal{M} = -f^\mu e \Pi_{\mu\nu} e f^\nu,$$ by comparing the QM and QFT expressions, where $f^\mu = \bar u_{s'}(p') \gamma^\mu u_s(p)$ are the fermionic contributions (however you want to write them) and $\Pi^{\mu\nu} = \Pi g^{\mu\nu}$ is the photon propagator. In the non-relativistic limit we get $f^\mu \approx 2m \delta_{s's}\delta^{\mu0}$, and so after discarding the resulting $(2m)^2$ because the normalization between non-relativistic and relativistic momentum states differs we finally get $$ \langle \vec p\vert V\vert \vec p'\rangle = -e^2\Pi^{00} = e^2\Pi. \tag{*}$$ Spelling it out this way directly answers your second question - when computing the 1-loop correction, nothing in this logic changes except for the expression for $\Pi$, so we can directly jump to using eq. $({}^*)$.

(No guarantee is taken in this answer for missing signs or spurious factors of $\mathrm{i}$, because they do not matter for the overall logic)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! Just a question. Based on the scattered particles and their charge, we should consider the appropriate contributions from each of the s-, u-, t-channels. For example for $e^- e^-\rightarrow e^- e^-$, we consider the t and u (Moller scattering). For $e^- e^+\rightarrow e^- e^+$, we consider the s and t channels (Bhabha scattering). Peskin & Schroeder (p.125) only considers the s-channel and Schwartz (p.308) considers a single channel as well. Shouldn't we add up the contributions of the two channels? Wouldn't that give us $2$ times the Coulomb potential? $\endgroup$ – TheQuantumMan Jan 15 at 10:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheQuantumMan: The electrons here are not really indistinguishable if we want to compare to the Born approximation scattering - one of them is a fixed potential source, the other is scattering off it, and really the fixed one is usually not a single electron but some far heavier and complicated thing that contains an electron. So the u-channel does not contribute because of distinguishability. There is no s-channel for electron-electron scattering, you only have that for electron-positron scattering. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jan 15 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thanks a lot for your comment! $\endgroup$ – TheQuantumMan Jan 15 at 10:17

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.