Does charge conjugation affect parity?

silmaril89
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
"Notice that these transformations do not alter the chirality of particles. A left-handed neutrino would be taken by charge conjugation into a left-handed antineutrino, which does not interact in the Standard Model." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-symmetry

The excerpt above seems to unambiguously answer this question. But, then:

"You can easily convince yourself (exercise II.1.9) that the charge conjugate of a left handed field is right handed and vice versa." --Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, A. Zee

These statements appear to be contradictory. What's going on here?

Also, it does seem easy to convince myself of Zee's comment (following Zee's convention that \psi \to \psi_c = \gamma^2 \psi^\ast):

Suppose \psi is left-handed (i.e. P_L \psi = \psi and P_R \psi = 0), then
P_L \psi_c = P_L \gamma^2 \psi^\ast = \gamma^2 P_R \psi^\ast = \gamma^2 (P_R \psi)^\ast = 0
and
P_R \psi_c = P_R \gamma^2 \psi^\ast = \gamma^2 P_L \psi^\ast = \gamma^2 (P_L \psi)^\ast = \psi_c
Therefore, it appears that Zee's comment is correct. Can anyone help me understand why the two quotes above are or are not in contradiction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both statements are technically true, but I think Zee's is misleading. If we work in basis where ##\gamma_5## is diagonal, then a Dirac field ##\Psi## can be written as a left-handed Weyl field ##\chi## stacked on top of a right-handed Weyl field ##\xi^\dagger##,
\Psi=\pmatrix{\chi\cr\xi^\dagger}
The charge conjugate field is then
\Psi^c=\pmatrix{\xi\cr\chi^\dagger}
Now if we set ##\xi=0##, then we recover Zee's statement (and your algebra). But I think it is more correct to say that the charge conjugate of the left-handed field ##\chi## is the left-handed field ##\xi##. Then, if we use ##\Psi## as a Dirac field for neutrinos, ##\chi## creates left-handed neutrinos, and ##\xi## creates left-handed antineutrinos, which is consistent with the wikipedia statement.
 
  • Like
Likes silmaril89
Ok, thanks for the reply. I think I'm still a little confused, but you've put me in a particular direction to begin investigating this further.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top