Some books, such as Maggiore, write that the axial $U(1)$ transformation is the chiral transformation. A Dirac field $\Psi \in (\frac12, \frac12)$ undergoes a chiral transformation in the following manner.

$$ \Psi \mapsto e^{i\beta\gamma_5}\Psi $$

In a chiral basis, we can write $\Psi \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \psi_L\\ \xi_R\end{pmatrix}$ where $\psi_L \in (\frac12,0)$ and $\xi_R \in (0,\frac12)$. Then,

$$ \psi_L \mapsto e^{-i\beta}\psi_L \,,\qquad \xi_R \mapsto e^{i\beta}\xi_R \,. $$

Maggiore defines chiral fields to be ones that violate the axial $U(1)$ symmetry.

Whereas books such as Srednicki define chiral fields to be ones that violate parity. A parity transformation does the following.

$$ \begin{pmatrix} \psi_L\\ \xi_R\end{pmatrix} \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \xi_R\\\psi_L \end{pmatrix} $$

Srednicki discusses the axial $U(1)$ symmetry in a different chapter as a global symmetry in consistent gauge theories.

So, which of the definitions of chirality is true? And if they are equivalent, how so?

  • $\begingroup$ Both P and an axial rotation do not leave $\psi_L, \xi_R$ invariant. $\endgroup$ Jul 31 '17 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos Yes, that's true. But are they necessary and sufficient for each other: parity violation $\Leftrightarrow$ axial asymmetry? In other words, are the two definitions equivalent? $\endgroup$ Jul 31 '17 at 15:57

They are both manifestly true. Any confusion is traceable to notational overkill. In your 2d Weyl basis where superfluous spinor indices are ignored, an axial rotation is but $$ e^{-i\beta \sigma_3} =1\!\!1 \cos \beta -i \sigma_3 \sin \beta , $$ where, of course, the finite rotation $\beta=\pi/2$ amounts to the above reducing to $-i\sigma_3= -\tfrac{i}{2}(1\!\!1+i\sigma_2)\sigma_1 (1\!\!1-i\sigma_2)$, so unitarily equivalent to $-i\sigma_1$.

Likewise, $$ P=\sigma_1 $$ which has the same eigenvalues as the π/2 rotation above, and provides its conjugation matrix, $$ P e^{-i\beta \sigma_3} P= e^{i\beta \sigma_3}, $$ since $\sigma_1 \sigma_3\sigma_1=-\sigma_3$.

So, yes, axial rotations differentiate between chiral eigenstates and parity interchanges them. You cannot have an invariant of axial rotations which is not parity invariant; and, conversely, for fermions, you won't be able to construct an parity invariant which violates the axial U(1).

We are talking about fermions here, but, parity-odd spinless states like pseudoscalars (which might be used to violate parity in an action) can be associated with fermion spinless bilinears which comport with this axial rotation scheme: so you might as well consider the two bases connected by $(1\!\!1-i\sigma_2)/\sqrt2 $ equivalent.


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.