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 answers only
not deleted
user 37286
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.
1
vote
Accepted
Dirac spinor and Lorentz group
The Lie algebra of the Lorentz group can be understood as two copies of the $SU(2)$ Lie algebra. Representations of $SU(2)$ can be labelled by half integers $(0,1/2,1,\ldots)$. (This should be familia …
- 10.3k
6
votes
Accepted
Two conflicting definitions of chirality
I think your problem is mostly a problem of notation. If you write two Weyl spinors inside a Dirac spinor, you should use different symbols to avoud confusion, i.e.
$$\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \xi_L \\ …
- 10.3k
0
votes
Is Parity really violated? (Even though neutrinos are massive)
Okay, I think I have an idea why the terminology is used, but I think this argument makes little sense:
The Lagrangian term describing weak interactions is of the form
$$ \bar \Psi \gamma_\mu P_L …
- 10.3k
9
votes
Are there really left-chiral particles?
Chirality and therefore weak isospin are not conserved quantities. …
- 10.3k