Dirac and Majorana spinors for neutrinos

bubble
Messages
6
Reaction score
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
up
 
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.
 
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...
 
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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K