meta user
network profile
| bio | website | cambridge.academia.edu/… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Cambridge, United Kingdom | |
| age | 23 | |
| visits | member for | 2 years, 1 month |
| seen | Jun 9 at 18:16 | |
| stats | profile views | 724 |
Currently undertaking Part III of the Mathematical Tripos at the University of Cambridge.
Previously obtained a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A. in Physics from the University of Chicago (2012).
|
Jul 27 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
May 31 |
asked | Lepton Number Conservation |
|
May 30 |
comment |
Yukawa Coupling of a Scalar $SU(2)$ Triplet to a Left-Handed Fermionic $SU(2)$ Doublet This part of my question can be phrased as: given this statement of the problem, what is the correct form of the Yukawa coupling term? (I realize what I wrote down didn't make sense. The problem is, I don't know how to modify it so that it does make sense). |
|
May 30 |
comment |
Yukawa Coupling of a Scalar $SU(2)$ Triplet to a Left-Handed Fermionic $SU(2)$ Doublet This actually came from a homework problem (there was a five tag limit). The problem reads: "One method of generating neutrino masses that we did not discuss in class involves adding a Higgs field $T$ which is a triplet under $SU(2)_L$ with a Yukawa coupling to the left-handed lepton doublets. If this triplet is a complex field, then it is possible to assign a lepton number to this new scalar field such that the lepton number is conserved.". He doesn't actually write out the Yukawa coupling term, so we are left to figure this out on our own. |
|
May 29 |
asked | Yukawa Coupling of a Scalar $SU(2)$ Triplet to a Left-Handed Fermionic $SU(2)$ Doublet |
|
May 22 |
accepted | Radiative Corrections and Bremsstrahlung |
|
May 22 |
revised |
Radiative Corrections and Bremsstrahlung Typo |
|
May 22 |
asked | Radiative Corrections and Bremsstrahlung |
|
May 21 |
accepted | QED BRST Symmetry |
|
May 20 |
answered | Coulomb's Law: why is $k = \dfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}$ |
|
May 20 |
revised |
The Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian Typo in an index. |
|
May 20 |
comment |
The Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian In the Scholarpedia article, I am looking at the part that begins with "One more improvement was introduced by 't Hooft . . .". It almost seems as if the term I'm wondering about was inserted by hand by allowing a more general gauge fixing condition. With this more general condition, the relevant delta function contributes a nonzero term to the Lagrangian. If I understand this correctly, that's all well and good, but why the need for the more general condition? Is $\partial _\mu A^{\mu k}$ not sufficient? Does this not just complicate things further by introducing an extra term? |
|
May 20 |
asked | The Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian |
|
May 9 |
answered | The meaning of scale invariance in power law distribution |
|
May 8 |
revised |
The meaning of scale invariance in power law distribution Fixed spelling, grammar, and wording to increase clarity of the post. |
|
May 8 |
suggested | suggested edit on The meaning of scale invariance in power law distribution |
|
May 8 |
awarded | Citizen Patrol |
|
May 4 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
May 3 |
comment |
Could a people do all sort of gymnastics movement in vacuum space? I don't understand your question. Could you try clarifying? |
|
May 3 |
awarded | Yearling |
