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 50583
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
Why would a square matrix transform?
What we are looking at here is a $\sigma$-model that exemplifies strong chiral symmetry breaking. The theory first only contains a massless Dirac spinor $\psi$, which is assumed to transform in the fu …
- 129k
1
vote
Accepted
Are the definitions of chirality in continuum QFT and the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem equivalent?
A lattice breaks Poincaré invariance, so there's no representations of the Lorentz group to look at for chirality - the notion of chirality doesn't really make sense for a lattice at first glance. … However, the notes by Tong you link in the question are trying to make an argument for why the latter is the correct notion of "chirality on the lattice". …
- 129k
9
votes
Accepted
Confusion with chirality eigenstates
wouldn't be any reason to consider electron-1 and electron-2 as particle and anti-particle of the same Dirac field - they would be just two Weyl fields, each with their own antiparticle of the opposite chirality …
- 129k
2
votes
Could graviton exist in a single polarisation?
Recent observations at LIGO (GW170814 disfavour all non-standard assumptions for polarizations of gravitational wave, i.e. the observational data so far fits best to the standard concept of two ("plus …
- 129k
1
vote
Accepted
Nature of Chirality: Additive or multiplicative?
Chirality is not a quantum number. … The available operator is helicity (and other spin components, of course), not chirality. …
- 129k
8
votes
Accepted
The non-abelian chiral anomaly and one-loop diagrams higher than the triangle one
The higher polygonal diagrams do not contribute to the anomaly. If you examine the actual computation of the higher polygonal diagrams, you will find that they, due to their lower/non-existent diverge …
- 129k
13
votes
Accepted
Is an Anti-positron actually only a relativistic effect on the observed helicity of an elect...
The article you link is choosing to use non-standard terminology to explain how the weak force can couple to particles with a certain handedness but not others. I do something similar with "electron-1 …
- 129k
7
votes
A thought experiment about neutrinos
Handedness is not about helicity - which, as the question points out, is something that can change depending on the reference frame - but about chirality (see also this answer of mine). … Its helicity flips, sure, but its chirality - the thing the weak interaction cares about - doesn't. …
- 129k
36
votes
What is polarisation, spin, helicity, chirality and parity?
Chirality only makes sense for Dirac spinors and similar objects whose representation decomposes into smaller representations, or where exactly one of the two $s_i$ labelling their spin is zero. …
- 129k