Timeline for A Hamiltonian for a left-handed spinor field
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2023 at 16:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 8, 2023 at 3:04 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2023 at 16:02 | comment | added | Kvothe | Apparently I can only flag one duplicate. This question is a duplicate of both physics.stackexchange.com/questions/584727/… and physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146329/…. (Only the first link has a correct (although kind off incomplete) answer. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 15:56 | comment | added | Kvothe | Does this answer your question? Why the terms like $\partial_\mu\psi\partial^\mu\psi + h.c.$ cannot be included in the Lagrangian for spinor fields? | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 4:38 | comment | added | Prahar | @ACuriousMind - That is true. I think that is the point of the question. To show that you cannot use the scalar kinetic term as is and adapt it for spinors for reasons alluded to in the question. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 4:09 | history | edited | Sho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 4:03 | history | edited | Sho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 3:58 | comment | added | Sho | I found this statement in Srednicki's QFT text (Section36). | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 8:08 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | That term there is not how a spinor kinetic term looks anyway, no matter the handedness... | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 6:08 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Oct 3, 2016 at 4:17 | comment | added | flippiefanus | Perhaps you can provide more information, including a reference to where you found the statement. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 2:08 | history | edited | Sho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2016 at 2:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 3:42 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 2:02 | history | asked | Sho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |