The spinor inner product in particle physics is given by $\overline{\psi} \psi = \psi^{\dagger} \gamma_0 \psi $, where I take the convention that the zeroth gamma matrix is hermitian while the rest are anti-hermitian. This is invariant under spin group transformations, $\psi \rightarrow e^{\omega_{ab} S^{ab} }\psi$, with $\omega_{ab}$ real parameters and $S^{ab} = \frac{1}{4}[\gamma^a, \gamma^b]$.

However, there is a second invariant inner product given by $\psi^{\dagger} \gamma_0 \gamma_5 \psi$, with $\gamma_5 = i\gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3$. My question is, why not the other one? Is it down to the fact that there are observable differences between the two, and one is favoured by experiment?

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean with "use one inner product and not the other". Where do we use the one and not the other? $\endgroup$ – Hunter Jan 22 '14 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Apologies, I mean in the standard model the spinor inner product is $\psi^{\dagger} \gamma_0 \psi$. My question is why not the other one? $\endgroup$ – Steven Jan 22 '14 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ Purely speculative, as I haven't had a proper module on the SM, I guess it has to do with the fact that $\psi^\dagger \gamma_0 \psi$ is used for the Dirac Lagrangian, which yields the famous Dirac equation. This equation is necessary to describe QED (and maybe other processes that I have not yet studied). $\endgroup$ – Hunter Jan 22 '14 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ I changed the question according to @Steven : ``why not the other one?'' $\endgroup$ – user28355 Jan 22 '14 at 0:42

Well the $\gamma^5$ term does appear in the standard model.

As you duly note, both $\bar{\psi}\psi$ and $\bar{\psi} \gamma^5 \psi$ are Lorentz invariant, so the question to ask is, how are they different?

It turns out that the difference lies in their transformations under a Parity transformation. Without proof, I claim that under $P:(x,y,z) \to (-x,-y,-z)$, $\bar{\psi}\psi \to \bar{\psi}\psi$, while $\bar{\psi}\gamma^5\psi \to -\bar{\psi}\gamma^5\psi$.

So the first object is a true scalar while the second object is a pseudoscalar (i.e. it picks up a minus sign under $P$). Thus, if we have the second term in the Lagrangian, it breaks Parity symmetry.

It turns out (experimentally) that $P$ is indeed broken in the weak interaction. So we do have a weak interaction vertex (for a electron + neutrino $ \to W^-$ interaction, for example) that looks like

\begin{align} \sim -\frac{-i g_{\mu\nu}}{2\sqrt{2}}\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma^5). \end{align}

This is an axial vector coupling, which is not parity invariant.

However the pseudoscalar $\bar{\psi}\gamma^5\psi$ doesn't appear in the SM because the object $(1-\gamma^5)/2 = \mathbb{P}_L$ is the projector onto the left-handed component of a spinor, so it can only appear if you want a theory in which the mass term of the right-handed and left-handed spinors are different, which we don't observe experimentally.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ As a follow up question: In (3+1)-dimensions, the measure for the action integral transforms with a minus sign under a parity transformation. Wouldn't that mean that the action is only invariant if the Lagrangian is a pseudoscalar under parity? $\endgroup$ – Steven Jan 22 '14 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ Hm, why would the measure change? If you change $x\to-x$ the bounds of integration are also flipped: i.e. the integral $\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx \to - \int_{\infty}^{-\infty} dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dx$ so it seems to me the measure is invariant? $\endgroup$ – nervxxx Jan 22 '14 at 17:58

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.