Dirac and Majorana spinors for neutrinos

In summary, sampling theory states that the probability of finding a particle at a point x is given by the product of the density of particles at that point and the probability of finding the particle in a unit volume.
  • #1
bubble
6
0
Dirac description
If I well understood a Dirac description for fermions is :
##\Psi_{D}=\Psi_{L}+\Psi_{R}## where ##\Psi_{L}## is the left-chiral spinor and ##\Psi_{R}## the right-chiral spinor.
Each spinor, ##\Psi_{L} ## and ##\Psi_{R}## has 2 components cotrresponding to the particle and antiparticle :
Q1 : Can we write ##\Psi_{L}=(\nu_{L},\bar{\nu}_{R}) ##? and ##\Psi_{R}=(\nu_{R},\bar{\nu}_{L})## ?

Majorana description
The Majorana condition is ##\Psi_{L}=\Psi_{L}^{c}## and ##\Psi_{R}=\Psi_{R}^{c}##.
Q2: is it right ?
If yes, ##\Psi_{M}=\Psi_{L}+\Psi_{R}## can be written as ##\Psi_{M}=\Psi_{L}+\Psi_{R}^{c}=\Psi_{L}+(\Psi_{L})^{c}##
with ##\Psi_{L}=(\nu_{L},\bar{\nu}_{R}) ## and ##(\Psi_{L})^{c}=((\nu_{L})^{c},(\bar{\nu}_{R})^{c}) =(\nu_{R}^{c},\bar{\nu}_{L}^{c})=(\nu_{R},\bar{\nu}_{L})##
So the Majorana field describes the 4 states of the neutrino (##\nu_{L},\bar{\nu}_{R},\nu_{R},\bar{\nu}_{L}##)
Q3: In such notation what is the difference between ##\nu_{L}^{c}## and ##\bar{\nu}_{L} ## ? Majorana condition ##\nu_{L}^{c} = \nu_{L}## can be also written as : ##\bar{\nu}_{L} = \nu_{L}## ?

I realize I am lost between antiparticle notation ##\bar{\nu}## and charge conjugate ##\nu^{c}##
Can you help me ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
up
 
  • #3
Your questions cannot be answered without careful explanation of the notation. Are you using a particular text?

I recommend Srednicki's text (draft version available free from his web page) for a detailed explanation of Weyl, Dirac, and Majorana fields.
 
  • #4
Thank you, this text is very useful.
But I am still not sure to understand the difference between the fields component and the particle.
For example for the Dirac field where ##\Psi_{D}=\Psi_{L}+\Psi_{R}##, the four components of the field ##\Psi_{D}## are ##\nu_{L},\bar{\nu}_{R},\nu_{R},\bar{\nu}_{L}## or is it something completely different ?
Thank you...
 
  • #5
bubble said:
Dirac description
If I well understood a Dirac description for fermions is :
##\Psi_{D}=\Psi_{L}+\Psi_{R}## where ##\Psi_{L}## is the left-chiral spinor and ##\Psi_{R}## the right-chiral spinor.
Each spinor, ##\Psi_{L} ## and ##\Psi_{R}## has 2 components
No, [itex]\Psi_{L}[/itex] and [itex]\Psi_{R}[/itex] are 4-component spinors just like [itex]\Psi_{D}[/itex]. Why don’t you work it out yourself? In Dirac representation, you have [tex]\gamma_{5} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0_{2 \times 2} & I_{2 \times 2} \\ I_{2 \times 2} & 0_{2 \times 2} \end{array} \right) .[/tex] So, if you write [itex]\Psi_{D} = \left( \chi , \phi \right)^{T}[/itex], with [itex]\chi = \left( \psi_{1} , \psi_{2} \right)^{T}[/itex] and [itex]\phi = \left( \psi_{3} , \psi_{4} \right)^{T}[/itex], you find [tex]\Psi_{L} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{c} \chi - \phi \\ \phi - \chi \end{array} \right) , \ \ \ \Psi_{R} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{c} \chi + \phi \\ \phi + \chi \end{array} \right) .[/tex]
corresponding to the particle and antiparticle
Wrong again, Dirac equation has 4 independent solutions, each (massive) solution is given by 4-component spinor. Two of these solutions (spin up: [itex]u^{(1)} (p)[/itex] & spin down: [itex]u^{(2)} (p)[/itex]) represent a (massive) fermion and the other two solutions ( [itex]v^{( 1 , 2 )} (p)[/itex] ) describe the corresponding anti-fermion. The same is true for massless fermions except that the Dirac equation splits into two decoupled equations for the 2-component spinors [itex]\chi[/itex] and [itex]\phi[/itex] : [tex]E \chi = - ( \sigma \cdot p ) \chi ,[/tex] [tex]E \phi = ( \sigma \cdot p ) \phi .[/tex] Each one of these equations has 2 independent solutions: one (2-spinor) for [itex]E = | p |[/itex] ( [itex]\nu_{L}[/itex], if you like), and the other 2-spinor solution is for [itex]E = - | p |[/itex] ( i.e., [itex]\bar{\nu}_{R}[/itex] ) . So, when we say that [itex]\chi[/itex] describes [itex]\nu_{L}[/itex] and [itex]\bar{\nu}_{R}[/itex], this DOSE NOT mean that [itex]\nu_{L}[/itex] is the first component of [itex]\chi[/itex] and [itex]\bar{\nu}_{R}[/itex] is the second component. No, [itex]\nu_{L}[/itex] and [itex]\bar{\nu}_{R}[/itex] are 2 independent solutions of the SAME equation and each (massless particle) is described by 2-component spinor. Indeed, in the Weyl (chiral) representation, you find [itex]\Psi_{L} = ( \chi , 0 )^{T}[/itex] and [itex]\Psi_{R} = ( 0 , \phi )^{T}[/itex].
Q1 : Can we write ##\Psi_{L}=(\nu_{L},\bar{\nu}_{R}) ##? and ##\Psi_{R}=(\nu_{R},\bar{\nu}_{L})## ?
What does it mean to pair together 2 independent solutions of the same equation? Is [itex]\Psi_{D} ( p ) = \left( u ( p ) , v ( p ) \right)[/itex]? Does the object [itex]( e^{-} , e^{+} )[/itex] make any mathematical sense? No, [itex]\Psi_{D} = u^{(1)} , u^{(2)} , v^{(1)} , v^{(2)}[/itex], these are four independent 4-component spinors solutions of the Dirac equation.

Sam
 

What are Dirac and Majorana spinors for neutrinos?

Dirac and Majorana spinors are mathematical representations of the spin and properties of neutrinos, which are subatomic particles with very little mass and no electric charge. These spinors were developed by physicists Paul Dirac and Ettore Majorana to describe the behavior of neutrinos in quantum mechanics.

What is the difference between Dirac and Majorana spinors?

The main difference between Dirac and Majorana spinors lies in their behavior under charge conjugation, a mathematical operation that switches particles with their antiparticles. Dirac spinors are transformed into themselves under charge conjugation, while Majorana spinors are transformed into their own complex conjugates.

Why are Dirac and Majorana spinors important for neutrinos?

Dirac and Majorana spinors allow us to describe the behavior of neutrinos in quantum mechanics, which is essential for understanding their properties and interactions. In addition, these spinors have played a crucial role in the development of the Standard Model of particle physics.

Do all neutrinos have a specific type of spinor?

No, not all neutrinos have a specific type of spinor. Neutrinos can have either Dirac or Majorana spinors, depending on their properties and interactions. However, the majority of neutrinos in the universe are predicted to have Majorana spinors.

Are there any real-world applications of Dirac and Majorana spinors for neutrinos?

While the study of Dirac and Majorana spinors for neutrinos is primarily theoretical, there are potential applications in fields such as astrophysics and particle physics. For example, understanding the behavior of neutrinos through spinors can help us better understand the formation of the universe and search for new particles beyond the Standard Model.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top