Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

August 22, 2007

MHV

One of the nice things about travelling is that you get to hear about some of the important stuff you’ve been missing out on. A big industry was launched, several years ago by Cachazo, Svrček and Witten, who wrote down a prescription for computing Yang-Mills amplitudes, using the tree-level MHV amplitudes (suitably-continued off-shell) as vertices, and using ordinary i/p 2i/p^2 as a propagator. This proved an extremely efficient way to calculate tree amplitudes and the cut-constructible parts of higher-loop amplitudes.

But why it was correct (to the extent that it was correct) remained a mystery until a very striking paper by Paul Mansfield. He started with Yang-Mill in lightcone gauge. Pick a null vector, μ\mu, and set1 A^Aμ=0\hat{A}\equiv A\cdot\mu=0. Then Aˇ\check{A} is non-dynamical, and can be integrated out, yielding an action of the form S=4g 2trd 4x S=\frac{4}{g^2}tr\int d^4x \mathcal{L} where = ++ +++ ++ ++\mathcal{L}= \mathcal{L}^{-+} + \mathcal{L}^{++-} + \mathcal{L}^{--+} + \mathcal{L}^{--++} takes the form

(1) + =A¯(ˇ^¯)A ++ =(¯^ 1A)[A,^A¯] + =[A¯,^A](¯^ 1A¯) ++ =[A¯,^A]^ 2[A,^A¯] \begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}^{-+} &= \overline{A}(\check{\partial}\hat{\partial}-\partial\overline{\partial}) A\\ \mathcal{L}^{++-} &= - (\overline{\partial}\hat{\partial}^{-1} A) [A,\hat{\partial}\overline{A}]\\ \mathcal{L}^{--+} &= - [\overline{A},\hat{\partial}A](\overline{\partial}\hat{\partial}^{-1} \overline{A})\\ \mathcal{L}^{--++} &= - [\overline{A},\hat{\partial}A]\hat{\partial}^{-2} [A,\hat{\partial}\overline{A}] \end{aligned}

This doesn’t look much like the MHV Lagrangian: it has an ++\mathcal{L}^{++-} term, and no terms with more than two positive helicity gluons. But Mansfield shows that that there is a canonical transformation A =A(B) A¯ =A¯(B¯,B) \begin{aligned} A &= A(B)\\ \overline{A}&=\overline{A}(\overline{B},B) \end{aligned} where the latter is linear in B¯\overline{B}, but both contain all orders in BB. This transformation is cooked up so that +(A)+ ++(A) +(B) \mathcal{L}^{-+}(A)+ \mathcal{L}^{++-}(A) \equiv \mathcal{L}^{-+}(B) This transformation can be cranked out explicitly, order-by-order in BB, and, when substituted back into (1), yields the MHV Lagrangian of Cachazo et al.

Defining λ=2 1/4(p/p^ p^),λ˜=2 1/4(p¯/p^ p^) \lambda = 2^{1/4} \begin{pmatrix}-p/\sqrt{\hat{p}} \\ \sqrt{\hat{p}}\end{pmatrix},\qquad \tilde{\lambda} = 2^{1/4} \begin{pmatrix}-\overline{p}/\sqrt{\hat{p}} \\ \sqrt{\hat{p}}\end{pmatrix} (adapted to the particular choice μ=(1,0,0,1)/2\mu = (1,0,0,1)/\sqrt{2}) one finds λ αλ˜ α˙=p αα˙+aμ αα˙ \lambda_\alpha\tilde{\lambda}_{\dot{\alpha}} = p_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}} + a \mu_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}} where a=2(pˇp^pp¯)/pˇa= - 2 (\check{p}\hat{p}-p\overline{p})/\check{p} vanishes for null momenta. This is exactly the off-shell continuation that they prescribed.

Moreover, the Equivalence Theorem says that, for most purposes, you can use B,B¯B,\overline{B} external lines, instead of A,A¯A,\overline{A} external lines, in computing scattering amplitudes. The source terms trJ¯A+JA¯tr \int \overline{J}A+J\overline{A} couple to A,A¯A,\overline{A}, which are multilinear in the BB’s. But, when you apply the LSZ reduction formula, this kills the multi-BB contributions.

There are some exceptions, as shown by Ettle et al. The Equivalence theorem fails (and one gets nonzero contributions) for the tree-level ++++- anplitude and for the non-cut-constructible bits of the 1-loop amplitudes, which are exactly things that are “missed” by the “naïve” CSW prescription.

The required canonical transformation turns out to emerge very beautifully from a construction in which one lifts the Yang-Mill Lagrangian to twistor space. I’ll have to explain that some other time.

1We choose conventions where p αα˙=p μσ αα˙ μ=2(pˇ p p¯ p^)p_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}=p_\mu \sigma^\mu_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\check{p}&-p\\ -\overline{p}&\hat{p}\end{smallmatrix}\right) so that the Lorentz inner product AB=A^Bˇ+AˇB^AB¯A¯BA\cdot B= \hat{A}\check{B}+\check{A}\hat{B}-A\overline{B}-\overline{A}B.

Posted by distler at August 22, 2007 6:40 AM

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/1399

1 Comment & 1 Trackback

Re: MHV

MHV is prominent in Twistor theory.

Helices are ubiquitous in ballistics, mechanics, electrical engineering [EE] an biophysiology.

Electromagnetism [EM] and bio-EM [ionic or electrochemical] appear to have solenoid like activity?

Could “strings” be of almost any length [R or 1/R] but limited to one period, repeating sometimes as a helix?

EE techniques [or ticks?] can deal with discontinuities and treat the interval [minus-infinity, plus-infinity] as one period.

Helical angles [related to periods] may be more informative than violations?

Posted by: Doug on August 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post Twistor Yang Mills
Weblog: Musings
Excerpt: Belatedly Boels et al.
Tracked: September 27, 2007 12:33 AM

Post a New Comment