synoe
- 23
- 0
I have a question about chirality.
When a spinor [itex]\psi[/itex] have plus chirality, namely
[tex] \gamma_5\psi=+\psi,[/tex]
how can I write this condition for the Dirac adjoint [itex]\bar{\psi}=\psi^\dagger i\gamma^0[/itex]?
Let me choose the signature as [itex]\eta_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}(-,+,+,+)[/itex] and define [itex]\gamma_5\equiv i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3[/itex]. Taking the Dirac adjoint of the left hand side of the above equation,
[tex] (\gamma_5\psi)^\dagger i\gamma^0=\psi^\dagger\gamma^\dagger_5i\gamma^0\\<br /> =\psi^\dagger(-\gamma^0\gamma^0)\gamma_5i\gamma^0\\<br /> =\bar{\psi}\gamma^0\gamma^0\\<br /> =-\bar{\psi}\gamma_5,[/tex]
so the chirality condition seems to be rewritten as
[tex] \bar{\psi}\gamma_5=-\bar{\psi}.[/tex]
However, for example, considering a quantity [itex]\bar{\psi}\gamma_5\psi[/itex], this result is inconsistent. Where is wrong in the above calculation?
When a spinor [itex]\psi[/itex] have plus chirality, namely
[tex] \gamma_5\psi=+\psi,[/tex]
how can I write this condition for the Dirac adjoint [itex]\bar{\psi}=\psi^\dagger i\gamma^0[/itex]?
Let me choose the signature as [itex]\eta_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}(-,+,+,+)[/itex] and define [itex]\gamma_5\equiv i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3[/itex]. Taking the Dirac adjoint of the left hand side of the above equation,
[tex] (\gamma_5\psi)^\dagger i\gamma^0=\psi^\dagger\gamma^\dagger_5i\gamma^0\\<br /> =\psi^\dagger(-\gamma^0\gamma^0)\gamma_5i\gamma^0\\<br /> =\bar{\psi}\gamma^0\gamma^0\\<br /> =-\bar{\psi}\gamma_5,[/tex]
so the chirality condition seems to be rewritten as
[tex] \bar{\psi}\gamma_5=-\bar{\psi}.[/tex]
However, for example, considering a quantity [itex]\bar{\psi}\gamma_5\psi[/itex], this result is inconsistent. Where is wrong in the above calculation?