5
$\begingroup$

In lectures on the standard model I recently saw, in writing down the SM Lagrangian the professor was careful to refer to fields like $e^c$ as a conjugate electron rather than an antielectron. He also mentioned that all the fields he wrote down were left-handed Weyl spinors.

First Question: What is the relationship between conjugate electrons and antielectrons?

Second Question: Are fields in the SM Lagrangian left-handed spinors by convention, or is this physically meaningful?

Third Question: Is there any connection between charge conjugation and handedness of a spinor?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$
  1. Given a Dirac spinor $\psi$, its "charge conjugate" spinor is given by $\psi^c = C\psi^\ast$, where $C$ is a charge conjugation matrix defined by a certain convention (e.g. $C^\dagger \gamma^\mu C = -(\gamma^\mu)^\ast$). Meanwhile, the anti-particles are associated with the Dirac adjoint (or Driac conjugate) spinor $\bar{\psi} = \psi^\dagger \gamma^0$.

  2. Electrons are not left-handed, they are massive Dirac spinors with both left- and right-handed components. The SM neutrinos are massless and usually thought to be only left-handed, but there are plenty of ideas for sterile right-handed neutrinos in formulations with massive neutrinos beyond the SM.

  3. No. You can charge conjugate a Dirac spinor as well as just a Weyl spinor of either chirality. The charge conjugation matrix for Weyl spinors is just given by projecting $C$ down to the subspace of the given chirality.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For 3., doesn't applying $C$ flip chirality? $P_L (\psi_L)^C = 0$? $\endgroup$ – innisfree Apr 19 '17 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ @innisfree No, $C$ commutes with the chiral projectors, since (in a particular basis) $C = \mathrm{i}\gamma^0\gamma^2$ and $P_{R/L} = \frac{1}{2}(1\pm\gamma^5)$ and $\gamma^5$ anticommutes with all $\gamma^\mu$, so $C$ and $P_{R/L}$ commute, so $P_L (\psi_L)^c = P_L C P_L \psi^\ast = P_L^2 C \psi^\ast = P_L C\psi^\ast = (\psi_L)^c$. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Apr 19 '17 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I thought eg $C=i\gamma_2$. $\endgroup$ – innisfree Apr 19 '17 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ fermion "fields in the SM Lagrangian" are not massive. $\endgroup$ – arivero Aug 2 '17 at 1:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.