2022
DOI: 10.1007/jhep02(2022)167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Natural selection rules: new positivity bounds for massive spinning particles

Abstract: We derive new effective field theory (EFT) positivity bounds on the elastic 2 → 2 scattering amplitudes of massive spinning particles from the standard UV properties of unitarity, causality, locality and Lorentz invariance. By bounding the t derivatives of the amplitude (which can be represented as angular momentum matrix elements) in terms of the total ingoing helicity, we derive stronger unitarity bounds on the s- and u-channel branch cuts which determine the dispersion relation. In contrast to previous posi… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 92 publications
(188 reference statements)
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, as noted in [47], bounds from different polarizations impose a finite 'island' of allowed Wilson coefficients. Similar bounds may be derived for lower and higher spins [55][56][57].…”
Section: Unitarity Causality and Analyticity In S-matrixsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…In particular, as noted in [47], bounds from different polarizations impose a finite 'island' of allowed Wilson coefficients. Similar bounds may be derived for lower and higher spins [55][56][57].…”
Section: Unitarity Causality and Analyticity In S-matrixsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…with a small mass [60] or small (∂φ) 4 interaction [52], but this inevitably leads to an unacceptably low cut-off 6 . Another possible resolution is to make weaker assumptions about the nature of the UV completion-for instance, if the UV amplitude exhibits some mild non-locality, then the dispersion relation for ∂ 2 s A need not converge and (2.9) need not apply, and yet higher order positivity bounds may still be used to constrain these couplings [16,93]. Yet another possibility is that gravitational effects modify (2.9), particularly in light of recent results which show that a small negative c ss may not violate causality if balanced by a gravitational time delay [27] (see also [94][95][96][97][98][99]).…”
Section: Positivity Boundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the Galileon 1 In this work we focus on linear positivity bounds for a single scalar field. There has been much progress recently developing similar (and in some cases stronger) bounds for spinning particles [13][14][15][16], non-linear bounds from moment theorems [17][18][19] and exploiting full crossing symmetry [20][21][22][23][24], generalised bounds for EFTs with multiple fields [25,26], and bounds including the effects of gravity [27][28][29][30][31][32].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other applications of positivity bounds in SMEFT can be found in [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. Also, see [57][58][59][60][61][62][63] for a few other generalizations of positivity bounds, and [64][65][66][67] and reference therein for recent progress in S-matrix bootstrap, which overlaps the development of positivity bounds.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%