Alright, I'm trying to follow Weinberg's derivation of the matter part of the Lagrangian for electroweak theory, and I am all confused. This is equation (21.3.20) in volume II.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

He writes:

[tex]

iL_e = - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\bar \upsilon _e } \\

{\bar e} \\

\end{array} } \right)\sum\limits_\alpha {\gamma _\mu A^\mu _\alpha } t_\alpha \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\upsilon _e } \\

e \\

\end{array} } \right)

[/tex]

but I think he meant to write

[tex]

iL_e = - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\bar \upsilon _e } \\

{\bar e} \\

\end{array} } \right)\sum\limits_\alpha {\gamma _\mu \left( {A^\mu _\alpha t_{\alpha L} + B^\mu y} \right)} \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\upsilon _e } \\

e \\

\end{array} } \right)

[/tex]

He defines his left handed and right handed parts different than Itzykson and Zuber

Namely [tex]e_L = \frac{1}{2}\left( {1 + \gamma _5 } \right)[/tex] and [tex]

e_R = \frac{1}

{2}\left( {1 - \gamma _5 } \right)

[/tex]

but whatever

From this I was able to derive next line

Namely

[tex]

\begin{gathered}

- \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\bar \upsilon _e } \\

{\bar e} \\

\end{array} } \right)[\frac{1}

{{\sqrt 2 }}\gamma _\mu W^\mu \left( {t_{1L} - it_{2L} } \right) + \frac{1}

{{\sqrt 2 }}\gamma _\mu W^{*\mu } \left( {t_{1L} + it_{2L} } \right) \hfill \\

+ \gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {t_{3L} \cos \theta _W + y\sin \theta _W } \right) + \gamma _\mu A^\mu \left( { - t_{3L} \sin \theta _W + y\cos \theta _W } \right)]\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\upsilon _e } \\

e \\

\end{array} } \right) \hfill \\

\end{gathered}

[/tex]

but when I tried to go to the final line of his derivation I got an opposite sign and some different stuff, namely I got

[tex]

\begin{gathered}

- \frac{g}

{{\sqrt 2 }}\left( {\bar e\gamma _\mu W^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 + \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)\upsilon _e } \right) - \frac{g}

{{\sqrt 2 }}\left( {\bar \upsilon _e \gamma _\mu W^{*\mu } \left( {\frac{{1 + \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)e} \right) \hfill \\

+ \frac{1}

{2}\sqrt {g^2 + g'^2 } \bar \upsilon _e \gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 + \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)\upsilon _e - \frac{1}

{2}\frac{{\left( {g^2 - g'^2 } \right)}}

{{\sqrt {g^2 + g'^2 } }}\bar e\gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 + \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)e \hfill \\

- g'\sin \theta _W \bar e\gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 - \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)e - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\bar \upsilon _e } \\

{\bar e} \\

\end{array} } \right)\gamma _\mu A^\mu \left( { - t_{3L} \sin \theta _W + y\cos \theta _W } \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\upsilon _e } \\

e \\

\end{array} } \right) \hfill \\

\end{gathered}

[/tex]

The first four terms I got are similar to his, but with a different sign, and I understand he uses a Gell Mann Nishijima equation to get last part, but how do you get

[tex]

- g'\bar e\gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 - \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)e + e\left( {\bar e\gamma _\mu A^\mu e} \right)

[/tex]

from

[tex]

- \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\bar \upsilon _e } \\

{\bar e} \\

\end{array} } \right)[\gamma _\mu Z^\mu \left( {\frac{{1 - \gamma _5 }}

{2}} \right)\sin \theta _W + \gamma _\mu \left( { - t_{3L} \sin \theta _W + y\cos \theta _W } \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

{\upsilon _e } \\

e \\

\end{array} } \right)

[/tex]

even with

[tex]

q = - \sin \theta _W t_3 + \cos \theta _W y

[/tex]

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Help with a formula in Weinberg

Loading...

Similar Threads - Help formula Weinberg | Date |
---|---|

A I need a spherically symmetric spin-dependent NN potential | Mar 10, 2018 |

I Best way to get an overview of research happening at CERN | Sep 24, 2017 |

Numerical integration of Bethe formula in Excel: help! | Feb 21, 2013 |

Can someone help me understand the factors in the Breit-Wigner formula? | Dec 15, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**