How Do Neutrinos Differ from Anti-Neutrinos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutrinos
Glenn
What are the characteristic differences between the two?

I was under the impressions that antimatter and matter had the same characteristics except for an opposite charge. But a neutrino has no charge.

Thanks,
Glenn
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only difference, as far as I'm aware, is in their helicity. So basically, a "right handed" neutrino would be an anti-neutrino.
 
Originally posted by Lonewolf
The only difference, as far as I'm aware, is in their helicity. So basically, a "right handed" neutrino would be an anti-neutrino.

Quote from a post by Lobos Motl on today's s.p.r.:
It is only the combined "CP" transformation whose candidate operator can be found: it maps a left-handed neutrino into a right-handed antineutrino, which is OK. However even this combined "CP" transformation, although you can define such candidate operators, does not commute with the Hamiltonian because the mass matrix for quarks (and - as we know today - probably also for the leptons) contains a complex phase that physically distinguishes particles from anti-particles.
 
Helicity is not a good quantum number for a massive particle (like a neutrino). Since it is roughly speaking defined as a projection of a particle's spin onto its momentum, one can always switch to a reference frame that is moving faster then the particle. In this frame you'll observe opposite helisity. So helicity is not Lorentz-invariant.

Neutrinos are interesting precisely because they have no electric charge. The only thing that distinguishes neutrino and antineutrino is a lepton number. And even that depends on "what it is." For example, if neutrino is a so-called Majorana particle, then it is its own antiparticle (transforms into itself under the CP-transformation), just like a photon or neutral pion.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top