DOCSLIB.ORG

The Higgs Particle As a Self Consistent Bound State Abstract

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Higgs Particle As a Self Consistent Bound State Abstract CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by CERN Document Server UW/SEA 97-01 The Higgs Particle as a Self Consistent Bound State H. J. Lubatti∗ Department of Physics University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail [email protected] I. J. Muzinich Institute for Nuclear Theory University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 email [email protected] (January 1997) Abstract We consider Higgs-Higgs scattering in a minimal Higgs model with strong cou- pling which leads to the Higgs as a bound state. The partial wave amplitude is unitarized using general principles of analyticity. We find λ(mH)/16π ∼ 1/2. λ A Higgs mass of approximately 1 TeV follows from mH = 2 v (spontaneous q symmetry breaking). PACS: 11.55.-m; 14.80.B; 14.80.Bn Typeset using REVTEX ∗Corresponding author: University of Washington, Department of Physics, Box 351560, Seattle, WA 98195-1560 U.S.A. phone: (206) 543-8964; fax: (206) 685-9242 1 In this paper we consider a framework where the Higgs is a bound state and calculate its mass and coupling. A minimal Higgs model with spontaneous symmetry breaking is assumed. We study elastic Higgs-Higgs scattering and employ unitarity and analyticity of the scattering amplitude and constrain the mass of the bound state to be the same as the range of the force that produces the bound state (fig. 1). Historically, this is referred to as the bootstrap procedure. Fundamental to this approach is strong coupling which is necessary to produce a bound state. Applying the bootstrap procedure we calculate the coupling constant. The Higgs mass is obtained from the spontaneous symmetry breaking relation between the coupling constant, mass, and vacuum expectation value. We use the N/D representation of the partial wave amplitude which contains the con- straints of analyticity and unitarity. The approach unitarizes the lowest order Born graphs. This leads to the well know Cauchy integral representations (dispersion relations) of the N- and D-functions which are used for our calculations. The standard model unitary gauge Higgs Lagrangian is used [1] to define vertices and couplings: 1 2 1 2 2 λ 3 λ 4 L = (∂µh) − m h + mh − h , (1) 2 2 s 2 4 where m is the Higgs mass and h the Higgs field. From spontaneous symmetry breaking the λ masses are related to coupling constants by m = 2 v, mZ = mW / cos θW , m = ev/2sinθW, q v = 246 GeV, and θW is the Weinberg angle. The cubic term in Eq. (1) gives rise to an attractive force. We note that not all con- tributions to the interactions are attractive; zero range polynomial terms and finite parts after renormalization could be repulsive. The quartic term is typical of such interactions. Other intermediate states in the s-channel which include tt, W W, ..., and multiparticle states are neglected. We consider only the single, symmetrized Higgs exchange in the elastic Higgs-Higgs channel (fig. 1). The unitary L = 0 partial wave elastic scattering amplitude expressed in terms of the 2 phase shift is √ M =(8π s/p)eiδ sin δ. (2) In the center of mass frame, one has the standard kinematics s =4p2+4m2 t=−2p2(1 − cos θ) u = −2p2(1 + cos θ), where p, E,andθare the center of mass momentum, energy, and scattering angle. We now have all of the necessary ingredients to proceed with a bootstrap calculation. The partial wave amplitude, Eq. (2), can be decomposed into an N/D representation, M = N/D, where the N-function has a left hand cut, and the D-function contains the usual right hand cut required by elastic unitarity. This decomposition can be established quite generally and rigorously [2,3]. The motivation comes from potential theory or Fredholm theory for two body scattering. The standard application of unitarity and analyticity leads to 1 ∞ D(p2)=1− dx ρ(x) N(x)/(x − p2 − iε)(3) πZ0 1 ∞ N(p2)=B(p2)− dx ρ(x) N(x) B(p2) − B(x) /x − p2 − iε, (4) π 0 Z where ρ(x) is the two body phase space factor p/16πE and B is the (t, u) symmetrized Born term including the quartic term (fig. 1). B is given by 2 1 2 9λm 1 1 B(p )=−λ+ d cos θ 2 + 2 (5) 2 Z−1 m − t m − u 9λm2 4p2 = −λ + ln 1+ . 4p2 m2! Eq. (5) has a left hand cut at p2 = −m2/4, corresponding to the rigorously established domains of analyticity. The normalization of the N and D functions is chosen to agree with 3 the renormalized quartic theory at high p2.1 We calculate D to O(λ)andNto O(λ2)using Eqs. (3 and 4). The integral over B(x) in Eq. (3) yields a divergent term which renormalizes the coupling constant λ and a convergent, attractive potential term from the logrithmic term. We have used the MS renormalization scheme [1]. We set D(λ, p2) = 0 at the physical Higgs mass s = m2, p2 = −3m2/4 (the bootstrap condition). As expected for a physical bound state the derivative ∂D/∂p2 is negative in the neighborhood of p2 = −3m2/4. The Higgs mass scales out of Eq. (3) and we determine the coupling constant, λ(m). The Higgs mass is obtained from the spontaneous symmetry λ breaking relation m = 2 v. q The numerical integration of Eq. (3) (relativistic kinematics) yields for the coupling constant and Higgs mass: λ ≈ 0.5,m=0.87 TeV. 16π Having obtained a self-consistent value of the Higgs mass, we next examine the consis- tency of the residue of the output pole with the input Born terms of Eq. (5). The amplitude in the neighborhood of the bound state is M = r/m2 − s.2 The residue of the pole is −1 3 2 ∂D 3 2 r ≡ 4N − 4 m ∂p2 −4m . Evaluating this yields a residue which is approximately two times larger than the input pole. We consider this reasonable qualitative agreement in view of the approximations made. The agreement between the input and output residue can be significantly improved by replacing the quartic term by a phenomenological contact interaction. The dominant decay modes of a high mass Higgs are pairs of longitudinally polarized W ’s and Z’s with a characteristic signature of leptons in the final state. LHC experiments taking data at the full design luminosity (105 pb−1) for one year will be sensitive to Higgs of mass 800 GeV. 1We do not consider CDD ambiguities [3] or other arbitrary parameters in Eqs. (3 and 4). 2The N-function is real and positive at the bound state pole. 4 One can view the approach adopted in this paper as an example of a specific dynamical realization of a strongly coupled heavy Higgs. If the Higgs mass is large, there are non-trivial strong interactions and it is likely to be composite. Related work on strong interactions of the Higgs sector and the related W and Z pair channels has also been communicated by a number of authors [4]. As is well known, the renormalization group for the λh4/4theory indicates a sharp increase of the coupling as the mass scale increases above the Higgs3.This has been interpreted as indicative of new physics. From the minimal assumptions of analyticity and unitarity of the Higgs-Higgs elastic scattering amplitude where the dominant force is taken to be Higgs exchange in the crossed channel we find that λ(m)/16π ≈ O(1) (strong coupling). By further assuming spontaneous symmetry breaking we obtain a Higgs mass of approximately 1 TeV. Our result is consistent with the bound obtained by Lee, Quigg and Thacker from an application of partial wave unitarity to tree graphs for Higgs-Higgs and longitudinal vector boson scattering [5]. IJM thanks the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for partial support in the initial stages of this work. HJL acknowledges NSF contract PHY-9515490 for support of this research. IJM thanks Bill Marciano for repeated conversations on the question of the Higgs boson and other issues associated with the electro-weak sector of the standard model. He also thanks λ 4 Peter Arnold for a discussion of the renormalization group for the 4 h theory. We also thank Steven Frautschi and Geoffrey Chew for discussions concerning general principles of S-matrix theory, and Marshall Baker for several very helpful conversations on S-matrix theory and applications of the N/D formalism. 3 4 3 2 The beta function for λh /4 theory is given at one loop by β(λ)=16π2 λ . The coupling constant 3λ(Mo) M evolution corresponding to this beta function is λ(M)=λ(M )/(1 − 2 ln ). 0 16π M0 5 REFERENCES [1] M. Peskin and D. Schroeder, An introduction to quantum field theory (Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 1994). [2] A. deAlfaro and T. Regge, Potential scattering (North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam Netherlands, 1963). [3] S.C. Frautschi, Regge poles and s-matrix theory (W.A. Benjamin Inc., 1963). [4] D. Sivers and J.L. Uretsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 1649; L.A.P.Bala’zs Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1310. [5] B.W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. Thacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 883 and Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1519. 6 FIGURES h h h @@ @@ @ √ @ iλ @ −i √3 λm@ − @ 2 h @ @@ h h h (a) bb "" A b " h b " h h A h b " "b A " b A " b h A h A A A h A h h A h A A (b) FIG.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Particle Zoo
    219 8 The Particle Zoo 8.1 Introduction Around 1960 the situation in particle physics was very confusing. Elementary particlesa such as the photon, electron, muon and neutrino were known, but in addition many more particles were being discovered and almost any experiment added more to the list. The main property that these new particles had in common was that they were strongly interacting, meaning that they would interact strongly with protons and neutrons. In this they were different from photons, electrons, muons and neutrinos. A muon may actually traverse a nucleus without disturbing it, and a neutrino, being electrically neutral, may go through huge amounts of matter without any interaction. In other words, in some vague way these new particles seemed to belong to the same group of by Dr. Horst Wahl on 08/28/12. For personal use only. particles as the proton and neutron. In those days proton and neutron were mysterious as well, they seemed to be complicated compound states. At some point a classification scheme for all these particles including proton and neutron was introduced, and once that was done the situation clarified considerably. In that Facts And Mysteries In Elementary Particle Physics Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com era theoretical particle physics was dominated by Gell-Mann, who contributed enormously to that process of systematization and clarification. The result of this massive amount of experimental and theoretical work was the introduction of quarks, and the understanding that all those ‘new’ particles as well as the proton aWe call a particle elementary if we do not know of a further substructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Identical Particles
    8.06 Spring 2016 Lecture Notes 4. Identical particles Aram Harrow Last updated: May 19, 2016 Contents 1 Fermions and Bosons 1 1.1 Introduction and two-particle systems .......................... 1 1.2 N particles ......................................... 3 1.3 Non-interacting particles .................................. 5 1.4 Non-zero temperature ................................... 7 1.5 Composite particles .................................... 7 1.6 Emergence of distinguishability .............................. 9 2 Degenerate Fermi gas 10 2.1 Electrons in a box ..................................... 10 2.2 White dwarves ....................................... 12 2.3 Electrons in a periodic potential ............................. 16 3 Charged particles in a magnetic field 21 3.1 The Pauli Hamiltonian ................................... 21 3.2 Landau levels ........................................ 23 3.3 The de Haas-van Alphen effect .............................. 24 3.4 Integer Quantum Hall Effect ............................... 27 3.5 Aharonov-Bohm Effect ................................... 33 1 Fermions and Bosons 1.1 Introduction and two-particle systems Previously we have discussed multiple-particle systems using the tensor-product formalism (cf. Section 1.2 of Chapter 3 of these notes). But this applies only to distinguishable particles. In reality, all known particles are indistinguishable. In the coming lectures, we will explore the mathematical and physical consequences of this. First, consider classical many-particle systems. If a single particle has state described by position and momentum (~r; p~), then the state of N distinguishable particles can be written as (~r1; p~1; ~r2; p~2;:::; ~rN ; p~N ). The notation (·; ·;:::; ·) denotes an ordered list, in which different posi­ tions have different meanings; e.g. in general (~r1; p~1; ~r2; p~2)6 = (~r2; p~2; ~r1; p~1). 1 To describe indistinguishable particles, we can use set notation.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics
    Quantum Mechanics Richard Fitzpatrick Professor of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Intendedaudience................................ 5 1.2 MajorSources .................................. 5 1.3 AimofCourse .................................. 6 1.4 OutlineofCourse ................................ 6 2 Probability Theory 7 2.1 Introduction ................................... 7 2.2 WhatisProbability?.............................. 7 2.3 CombiningProbabilities. ... 7 2.4 Mean,Variance,andStandardDeviation . ..... 9 2.5 ContinuousProbabilityDistributions. ........ 11 3 Wave-Particle Duality 13 3.1 Introduction ................................... 13 3.2 Wavefunctions.................................. 13 3.3 PlaneWaves ................................... 14 3.4 RepresentationofWavesviaComplexFunctions . ....... 15 3.5 ClassicalLightWaves ............................. 18 3.6 PhotoelectricEffect ............................. 19 3.7 QuantumTheoryofLight. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21 3.8 ClassicalInterferenceofLightWaves . ...... 21 3.9 QuantumInterferenceofLight . 22 3.10 ClassicalParticles . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25 3.11 QuantumParticles............................... 25 3.12 WavePackets .................................. 26 2 QUANTUM MECHANICS 3.13 EvolutionofWavePackets . 29 3.14 Heisenberg’sUncertaintyPrinciple . ........ 32 3.15 Schr¨odinger’sEquation . 35 3.16 CollapseoftheWaveFunction . 36 4 Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics 39 4.1 Introduction ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Possibility of Generating a 4-Neutron Resonance with a {\Boldmath $ T= 3/2$} Isospin 3-Neutron Force
    On the possibility of generating a 4-neutron resonance with a T = 3/2 isospin 3-neutron force E. Hiyama Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science, RIKEN, Wako, 351-0198, Japan R. Lazauskas IPHC, IN2P3-CNRS/Universite Louis Pasteur BP 28, F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex 2, France J. Carbonell Institut de Physique Nucl´eaire, Universit´eParis-Sud, IN2P3-CNRS, 91406 Orsay Cedex, France M. Kamimura Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan and Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science, RIKEN, Wako 351-0198, Japan (Dated: September 26, 2018) We consider the theoretical possibility to generate a narrow resonance in the four neutron system as suggested by a recent experimental result. To that end, a phenomenological T = 3/2 three neutron force is introduced, in addition to a realistic NN interaction. We inquire what should be the strength of the 3n force in order to generate such a resonance. The reliability of the three-neutron force in the T = 3/2 channel is exmined, by analyzing its consistency with the low-lying T = 1 states of 4H, 4He and 4Li and the 3H+ n scattering. The ab initio solution of the 4n Schr¨odinger equation is obtained using the complex scaling method with boundary conditions appropiate to the four-body resonances. We find that in order to generate narrow 4n resonant states a remarkably attractive 3N force in the T = 3/2 channel is required. I. INTRODUCTION ergy axis (physical domain) it will have no significant impact on a physical process. The possibility of detecting a four-neutron (4n) structure of Following this line of reasoning, some calculations based any kind – bound or resonant state – has intrigued the nuclear on semi-realistic NN forces indicated null [13] or unlikely physics community for the last fifty years (see Refs.
    [Show full text]
  • TO the POSSIBILITY of BOUND STATES BETWEEN TWO ELECTRONS Alexander A
    WEPPP031 Proceedings of IPAC2012, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA TO THE POSSIBILITY OF BOUND STATES BETWEEN TWO ELECTRONS Alexander A. Mikhailichenko, Cornell University, LEPP, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA Abstract spins for reduction of minimal emittance restriction arisen from Eq. 1. In some sense it is an attempt to prepare the We analyze the possibility to compress dynamically the pure quantum mechanical state between just two polarized electron bunch so that the distance between electrons. What is important here is that the distance some electrons in the bunch comes close to the Compton between two electrons should be of the order of the wavelength, arranging a bound state, as the attraction by Compton wavelength. We attracted attention in [2,3] that the magnetic momentum-induced force at this distance attraction between two electrons determined by the dominates repulsion by the electrostatic force for the magnetic force of oppositely oriented magnetic moments. appropriately prepared orientation of the magnetic In this case the resulting spin is zero. Another possibility moments of the electron-electron pair. This electron pair considered below. behaves like a boson now, so the restriction for the In [4], it was suggested a radical explanation of minimal emittance of the beam becomes eliminated. structure of all elementary particles caused by magnetic Some properties of such degenerated electron gas attraction at the distances of the order of Compton represented also. wavelength. In [5], motion of charged particle in a field OVERVIEW of magnetic dipole was considered. In [4] and [5] the term in Hamiltonian responsible for the interaction Generation of beams of particles (electrons, positrons, between magnetic moments is omitted, however as it protons, muons) with minimal emittance is a challenging looks like problem in contemporary beam physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bound and Quasi Bound States in the Continuum
    Bound and Quasi-Bound States in the Continuum One-dimensional models of square-integrable states embedded in continua, first offered by von Neumann and Wigner, can stabilize ordinary resonance levels and have gained importance in connection with solid state heterostructure semi­ conductor devices. General continuum bound state theories for many-particle systems do not exist, but models for continuum crossings of bound states suggest possible long-lived states, including some double charged anions. Nonlinear varia­ tional calculations can provide estimates of resonance energies and of the rapid onset of instability in various atomic and molecular ionization phenomena, typifying results found in mathematical "catastrophe theory". One-Dimensional Models :Many years ago von Neumann and Wignerl pointed out that local potentials could have bound (i.e. square-integrable) eigenstates with positive energies. These states are embedded in the continuum of scattering states with the same symmetry, but nevertheless would fail to "ionize". Thus it would be proper to regard these continuum bound states as infinitely sharp resonances. The example offered by von Neumann and Wigner (subsequently corrected by Simon2) was one-dimensional, and involved an oscillatory potential V(x) which behaved essentially as (sin x)/x for large lxl. Likewise the square-integ­ rable wavefunction l/;(x) for the positive energy bound state was oscillatory but, owing to diffractive interference induced by V(x), the amplitude of l/1 was driven toward zero as lxl increased, so that particle binding resulted. The exist­ ence of this elementary example naturally raises questions about whether similar continuum bound states could exist in physically more realistic cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Dimensional Supersymmetric Models and Some of Their Thermodynamic Properties from the Context of Sdlcq
    TWO DIMENSIONAL SUPERSYMMETRIC MODELS AND SOME OF THEIR THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES FROM THE CONTEXT OF SDLCQ DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Yiannis Proestos, B.Sc., M.Sc. ***** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Stephen S. Pinsky, Adviser Stanley L. Durkin Adviser Gregory Kilcup Graduate Program in Robert J. Perry Physics © Copyright by Yiannis Proestos 2007 ABSTRACT Supersymmetric Discrete Light Cone Quantization is utilized to derive the full mass spectrum of two dimensional supersymmetric theories. The thermal properties of such models are studied by constructing the density of states. We consider pure super Yang–Mills theory without and with fundamentals in large-Nc approximation. For the latter we include a Chern-Simons term to give mass to the adjoint partons. In both of the theories we find that the density of states grows exponentially and the theories have a Hagedorn temperature TH . For the pure SYM we find that TH at infi- 2 g Nc nite resolution is slightly less than one in units of π . In this temperature range, q we find that the thermodynamics is dominated by the massless states. For the system with fundamental matter we consider the thermal properties of the mesonic part of the spectrum. We find that the meson-like sector dominates the thermodynamics. We show that in this case TH grows with the gauge coupling. The temperature and coupling dependence of the free energy for temperatures below TH are calculated. As expected, the free energy for weak coupling and low temperature grows quadratically with the temperature.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics
    MIT Physics 8.05 Nov. 12, 2007 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON SOLVING THE RADIAL WAVE EQUATION USING OPERATOR METHODS Alternative title: An Introduction to Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics 1 Introduction In lecture this week we reduced the problem of finding the energy eigenstates and eigenvalues of hydrogenic atoms to finding the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the Coulomb Hamiltonians d2 HCoul = + V (x) (1) ℓ −dx2 ℓ where ℓ(ℓ + 1) 1 V (x)= . (2) ℓ x2 − x (You will review this procedure on a Problem Set.) That is, we are looking for the eigenstates u (x) and eigenvalues κ2 satisfying νℓ − νℓ HCoul u (x)= κ2 u (x) . (3) ℓ νℓ − νℓ νℓ Here the dimensionless variable x and dimensionless eigenvalue constants κνℓ are related to r and the energy by a 2µe4Z2 r = x , E = κ2 , (4) 2Z νℓ − h¯2 νℓ 2 2 −1 where a =¯h /(me ) is the Bohr radius, the nuclear charge is Ze, and µ = (1/m +1/mN ) is the reduced mass in terms of the electron mass m and nuclear mass mN . Even though Coul the Hamiltonians Hℓ secretly all come from a single three-dimensional problem, for our present purposes it is best to think of them as an infinite number of different one-dimensional Hamiltonians, one for each value of ℓ, each with different potentials Vℓ(x). The Hilbert space for these one-dimensional Hamiltonians consists of complex functions of x 0 that vanish ≥ for x 0. The label ν distinguishes the different energy eigenstates and eigenvalues for a →Coul given Hℓ .
    [Show full text]
  • Laser Spectroscopy of Simple Atoms and Precision Tests of Bound State QED
    Laser spectroscopy of simple atoms and precision tests of bound state QED Savely G. Karshenboim1 D.I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology, 198005 St. Petersburg, Russia Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Quantenoptik, 85748 Garching, Germany2 Abstract. We present a brief overview of precision tests of bound state QED and mainly pay our attention to laser spectroscopy as an appropriate tool for these tests. We particularly consider different precision tests of bound state QED theory based on the laser spectroscopy of optical transitions in hydrogen, muonium and positronium and related experiments. I INTRODUCTION Precision laser spectroscopy of simple atoms (hydrogen, deuterium, muonium, positronium etc.) provides an opportunity to precisely test Quantum Electrody- namics (QED) for bound states and to determine some fundamental constants with a high accuracy. The talk is devoted to a comparison of theory and experiment for bound state QED. Experimental progress during the last ten years has been mainly due to laser spectroscopy and, thus, the tests of bound state QED are an important problem associated with modern laser physics. The QED of free particles (electrons and muons) is a well-established theory designed to perform various calculations of particle properties (like e. g. anomalous magnetic moment) and of scattering cross sections. In contrast, the theory of bound states is not so well developed and it needs further precision tests. The QED theory of bound states contains three small parameters, which play a key role: the QED constant α, the strength of the Coulomb interaction Zα and the mass ratio m=M of an orbiting particle (mainly—an electron) and the nucleus.
    [Show full text]
  • Wave Mechanics (PDF)
    WAVE MECHANICS B. Zwiebach September 13, 2013 Contents 1 The Schr¨odinger equation 1 2 Stationary Solutions 4 3 Properties of energy eigenstates in one dimension 10 4 The nature of the spectrum 12 5 Variational Principle 18 6 Position and momentum 22 1 The Schr¨odinger equation In classical mechanics the motion of a particle is usually described using the time-dependent position ix(t) as the dynamical variable. In wave mechanics the dynamical variable is a wave- function. This wavefunction depends on position and on time and it is a complex number – it belongs to the complex numbers C (we denote the real numbers by R). When all three dimensions of space are relevant we write the wavefunction as Ψ(ix, t) C . (1.1) ∈ When only one spatial dimension is relevant we write it as Ψ(x, t) C. The wavefunction ∈ satisfies the Schr¨odinger equation. For one-dimensional space we write ∂Ψ 2 ∂2 i (x, t) = + V (x, t) Ψ(x, t) . (1.2) ∂t −2m ∂x2 This is the equation for a (non-relativistic) particle of mass m moving along the x axis while acted by the potential V (x, t) R. It is clear from this equation that the wavefunction must ∈ be complex: if it were real, the right-hand side of (1.2) would be real while the left-hand side would be imaginary, due to the explicit factor of i. Let us make two important remarks: 1 1. The Schr¨odinger equation is a first order differential equation in time. This means that if we prescribe the wavefunction Ψ(x, t0) for all of space at an arbitrary initial time t0, the wavefunction is determined for all times.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantization of the E-M Field 2.1 Lamb Shift Revisited
    2.1. LAMB SHIFT REVISITED April 10, 2015 Lecture XXVIII Quantization of the E-M field 2.1 Lamb Shift revisited We discussed the shift in the energy levels of bound states due to the vacuum fluctuations of the E-M fields. Our picture was that the fluctuating vacuum fields pushed the electron back and forth over a region of space defined by the strength of the fields and the electron mass. We estimate the uncertainty in the electron position due to the fields. The strength of the Coulomb potential that binds the electron to the proton depends of course on the position of the electron. In order to account for fluctuating position we average the potential over the position uncertainty. Far from the proton the difference of the potential averaged over this finite range of electron positions is zero. But at the origin of the potential, there is a finite contribution that will tend to reduce the effective coupling. At any rate we estimate the effect and found that because the vacuum fluctuations occur at all wavelengths, the position fluctuations diverge. We used a cutoff, excluding photons with energy greater than the electron rest energy. Now we consider the effect in the language of transitions. Suppose that we have an electron in a bound state A. There is some amplitude for the electron to emit a photon with energy ¯hck and absorb it again. In the interim, energy is not necessarily conserved. There may be an intermediate bound state, but maybe not. The electron lives in a virtual state as does the photon.
    [Show full text]
  • Decay of a Bound Muon Into a Bound Electron
    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 102, 073001 (2020) Decay of a bound muon into a bound electron M. Jamil Aslam ,1,2 Andrzej Czarnecki ,1 Guangpeng Zhang ,1 and Anna Morozova 1 1Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1, Canada 2Department of Physics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan (Received 14 May 2020; accepted 23 September 2020; published 13 October 2020) When a muon bound in an atom decays, there is a small probability that the daughter electron remains bound. That probability is evaluated. Surprisingly, a significant part of the rate is contributed by the negative energy component of the wave function, neglected in a previous study. A simple integral representation of the rate is presented. In the limit of close muon and electron masses, an analytic formula is derived. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.073001 I. INTRODUCTION nucleus (we neglect screening or Pauli blocking due to − other electrons). Electrostatic binding of a muon μ in an atom changes its − − The decay ðZμ Þ → ðZe Þνμν¯ was previously studied decay characteristics. Coulomb attraction decreases the e phase space available to the decay products but enhances in the very elegant and detailed paper [4]. We reevaluate it and find discrepancies with that pioneering study, particu- the daughter electron wave function. Muon motion smears larly for large values of Z. This is most likely explained by the energy spectrum of electrons. All these effects largely negative energy components of the Dirac wave functions, cancel in the lifetime of the muon [1] but they do slow neglected in [4] (as discussed in its Appendix A).
    [Show full text]