Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with chirality
Search options questions only
not deleted
user 28301
Chirality is defined through the ±1 eigenvalue under action of γ^5 on ψ, a Dirac field thus projected into its left- or right-handed component by the projection operators (1−γ^5)/2 or (1+γ^5)/2 on ψ. For massless particles (only!) chirality coincides with [helicity], a notion which is frame-dependent, and hence ambiguous for massive particles. Avoid using the [helicity] tag instead: the projectors *must* be implied.
18
votes
1
answer
2k
views
Chirality, helicity and the weak interaction
I have two hypotheses:
Massive spinors don't have an intrinsic chirality (since they are not eigenstates of chirality operator), the only information I have is about helicity, and the odd thing I described … Massive particles have an intrinsic chirality, but I don't see how the chirality information gets encoded into the Dirac spinor / how the weak interaction couples to only half of it. …
- 333