Rearranging neutrino expression in see-saw maths

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter venus_in_furs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression Neutrino
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical proof of the relationship between neutrino fields in the context of the see-saw mechanism. The expression \(\bar{\nu_R} \nu_R^c = \bar{\nu_R^c} \nu_R\) is established as incorrect due to the non-conjugated fields on the right side. The correct formulation involves adding the Hermitian conjugate to both sides, leading to the conclusion that \(\overline{ \nu_R^c} \nu_R + h.c. = \overline{ \nu_R} \nu_R^c + h.c.\) This is proven through a series of transformations that demonstrate the equality of the two expressions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the see-saw mechanism in particle physics
  • Familiarity with Hermitian conjugates and their properties
  • Knowledge of neutrino field notation and transformations
  • Basic grasp of quantum field theory concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of the see-saw mechanism in neutrino physics
  • Learn about Hermitian conjugates and their applications in quantum field theory
  • Explore the implications of neutrino mass models in particle physics
  • Investigate the three-generation model of neutrinos and its differences from the one-generation model
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, students studying quantum field theory, and researchers interested in neutrino mass mechanisms will benefit from this discussion.

venus_in_furs
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
Hello

I'm working through the see-saw mechanism.
This is currently from the one-generation section.
(I haven't got to the three generation workings yet... although I'm guessing I'll come across something very similar in the three generation model)

Could someone please tell me if it is correct or not that
\bar{\nu_R} \nu_R^c = \bar{\nu_R^c} \nu_R

and if it is, could I please have a hint as to why / how to prove this.

Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not true, the fields on the right are not conjugated while those on the left are. You might want to add the hermitian conjugate on both sides.
 
ahhhhh thankyou, I think I have it ...

\overline{ \nu_R^c} \nu_R + h.c. = \overline{ \nu_R} \nu_R^c + h.c.

(1) + h.c. = (2) + h.c.

(1)^{\dagger} +h.c. = (2) + h.c.Proof

(1)^{\dagger} = ( \overline{ \nu_R^c} \nu_R )^{\dagger}

= ( - \nu_R^T C ^{\dagger} \nu_R )^{\dagger}

= \nu_R^{\dagger} C \nu_R^{\ast}

= \nu_R^{\dagger}\gamma^0 C \gamma^0 \nu_R^{\ast}

= \overline{\nu_R} C \gamma^0 \nu_R^{\ast}

= \overline{\nu_R} C \overline{\nu_R^{T} }

= \overline{\nu_R} \nu_R^{c} = (2)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K