1
$\begingroup$

Why do we need two gluons for the decay $$\pi^-+ p\rightarrow\pi^-+n+\pi^+\:\:?$$ If we have always the gluon $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(r\bar{r}-g\bar{g})$$ it should be possible with only one gluon

enter image description here

instead of 2 gluons

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Cite your sources. Normally, unless you are doing Β-F counting rules, an indefinite number of gluons is exchanged to ensure conservation of color. If you did the color traces properly, you'd see how one gluon won't suffice. Try the simpler decay of the J/ψ... $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 1:04

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The pion and proton are colourless, so if only one gluon was exchanged, that gluon would also have to be colourless, but there is no colourless gluon so at least two coloured gluons are required for a net colour-neutral gluon exchange. (More formally, one should replace "colourless" with "colour singlet" and "coloured" with "colour octet".)

There is no unique way to write down the colour-octet gluons, but any allowable $r\bar{r}$, $g\bar{g}$, $b\bar{b}$ combination must be a linear combination of the commonly chosen basis states: $$\frac{r\bar{r}-g\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}$$ $$\frac{r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}-2b\bar{b}}{\sqrt{6}}$$ There is no way to combine these two combinations to give $r\bar{r}$. The only way to get $r\bar{r}$ is to include some of the colour singlet $(r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}+b\bar{b})/\sqrt{3}$, i.e. $$ r\bar{r} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{r\bar{r}-g\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}} +\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\frac{r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}-2b\bar{b}}{\sqrt{6}} +\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}+b\bar{b}}{\sqrt{3}} $$ But the colour-singlet gluon does not exist, so the $r\bar{r}$ state is also not allowed.

The answers to "Is there such a thing as red - anti red gluon? …" and "Do color-neutral gluons exist?" may also be helpful.

Update: Gluon "Colours" are not Visible Colours (in response to a comment)

One must be careful not to stretch the analogy between visible colours and QCD "colour" too far.
There is obviously no simple way to use visible colours to draw the QCD "colour" flow for the $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_8$ gluons, but just because one can simply draw the other 6 gluons as colour-anticolour combinations does not mean that is only unique way to do so. In fact, none of the gluons in what I believe is the most common gluon Gell-Mann matrix representation can be represented simply by visible colours:

\begin{array}{lll} \lambda_1 = \frac{g\bar{r}+r\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \lambda_2 = \frac{g\bar{r}-r\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i & 0 \\ i & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\\ \lambda_3 = \frac{r\bar{r}-g\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i & 0 \\ i & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\\ \lambda_4 = \frac{r\bar{b}+b\bar{r}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \lambda_5 = \frac{r\bar{b}-b\bar{r}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & -i \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ i & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\\ \lambda_6 = \frac{g\bar{b}+b\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \lambda_7 = \frac{g\bar{b}-b\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & i \\ 0 & -i & 0 \end{pmatrix}\\ \lambda_8 = \frac{r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}-2b\bar{b}}{\sqrt{6}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -2 \end{pmatrix} \end{array}

If you naively interpreted $r$, $g$, and $b$ as visible colours in the above representation, all the gluons would be invisible in your diagram. For interaction diagrams, drawing $r\bar{g}$, $g\bar{r}$, $r\bar{b}$, $b\bar{r}$, $b\bar{g}$, and $g\bar{b}$ with their visible colours may be convenient, but when doing actual calculations, the above more symmetric basis is simpler.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ So the reason is that the $g\bar{g}$ in $\frac{r\bar{r}-g\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}$ cancels the amplitude of the $r\bar{r} $? $\endgroup$
    – Silas
    Commented Jan 29 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Silas No, the $g\bar{g}$ doesn't cancel the $r\bar{r}$ amplitude. That would suggest that the $(r\bar{r}-g\bar{g})/\sqrt{2}$ state does nothing, which is definitely not true. It is just as much an interacting gluon as $r\bar{b}$, $b\bar{g}$, …. The $(r\bar{r}-g\bar{g})/\sqrt{2}$ state is equivalent to the (non-zero) 3x3 Gell-Mann matrix $\lambda_3$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ From the generators it is clear that we cannot have $r\bar{r}$, but I don‘t know how one should then draw the color flow of the $\lambda_3$ gluon. $\endgroup$
    – Silas
    Commented Feb 2 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Silas I hope my updated answer helps. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2 at 20:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Silas That is correct. All hadrons are colour singlets, but all gluons are octet members. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 3 at 2:56
2
$\begingroup$

You are indulging in impressionistic color tracing by isolated examples, so, then, skipping diagrams. In your unrepresentative model, you might further add the missing diagram where the colors of the $\pi^-$ quark are $g\bar g$ instead of $r\bar r$, (the color singlet wavefunction of it is $\propto r\bar r + g\bar g + b\bar b$) and then your one gluon amplitude would enter with a minus sign exactly cancelling the $r\bar r$ piece one you wrote down.

In practice, an indefinite number of gluons is exchanged to ensure conservation of color. To count gluons, where it matters, you might go back to the simpler decay of the J/ψ to hadrons, where you may explicitly see your argument failing the way you framed it. Recall the trace of each of all 8 color generators individually vanishes.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean with an indefinite number of gluons is exchanged? $\endgroup$
    – Silas
    Commented Jan 29 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the momentum exchange via gluons is small, exchange of more, softer, gluons is not subdominant, and multigluon exchange diagrams are a central part of the picture. Brodsky-Farrar rules, which you may or may not be considering, are only a crude first approximation... $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 16:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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