- #1
Soph_the_Oaf
- 32
- 0
Hello
I'm trying to work through a see-saw model derivation and I've become a bit stuck. I've tried lots of sources but the difference in conventions doesn't fill me with confidence when combining these sources.
I need to get from
## \overline{ \nu_L^c } \nu_R^c + h.c ##
to
## \overline{ \nu_R } \nu_L + h.c. ##I know the +h.c. allows me to take the h.c. at any point.
And I know the identities for charge conjugation:
## \nu_L^c = C \overline{ \nu_L }^T ##
## \overline{ \nu_L^c } = - \nu_L^T C^\dagger ##
but I still can't work it out!Either this is possible, in which case i'd love someone to give me a hint/identity, or they are not equal and I have made a mistake somewhere. Eitherway any input would much appreciated.
Thanks
I'm trying to work through a see-saw model derivation and I've become a bit stuck. I've tried lots of sources but the difference in conventions doesn't fill me with confidence when combining these sources.
I need to get from
## \overline{ \nu_L^c } \nu_R^c + h.c ##
to
## \overline{ \nu_R } \nu_L + h.c. ##I know the +h.c. allows me to take the h.c. at any point.
And I know the identities for charge conjugation:
## \nu_L^c = C \overline{ \nu_L }^T ##
## \overline{ \nu_L^c } = - \nu_L^T C^\dagger ##
but I still can't work it out!Either this is possible, in which case i'd love someone to give me a hint/identity, or they are not equal and I have made a mistake somewhere. Eitherway any input would much appreciated.
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator: