Jump to content

Talk:B − L

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weak hypercharge

[edit]

As far as I can see B-L is the same was weak hypercharge. --Michael C. Price talk 10:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it. I say merge the two at weak hypercharge.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate only because none of my textbooks make this identification. --Michael C. Price talk 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme a sec, I got two books here that might give some insight.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Griffith's
Building on the parallel with isospin, we are led to consider a weak analog of hypercharge(Y),* which is related to electric charge (Q, in units of e) and the third component of isospin (I3), by the Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula:
We introduce, then, the "weak hypercharge" current:
This is an invariant construct, as far as weak isospin is concerned, for the latter does not touch right-handed components at all [formula i don't want to type]. The underlying symmetry group is called SU(2)L x U(1). SU(2)L refers to the weak isospin (with a subscript to remind us that it involves left-handed states only), and U(1) refers to weak hypercharge (involving both chiralities).
Now this is chinese to me, but that might not be to you.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also, both articles (B-L and weak hypercharge) say that B-L is an expression of weak hypercharge. I doubt we need to put more thought in the merger than this.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me ask another editor who's worked on it. --Michael C. Price talk 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likebox has reservations about the merger. I don't fully understand his reasoning, but think we should defer to it. See his explanation at my talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let'S follow his advice. Whenever there's group theory involved, I can't follow a damn thing.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 00:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy, I'll grant. I good place to start would be at Noether current. --Michael C. Price talk 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what that tell me about what in the world is a SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) group.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the maths articles are even more poorly written than the physics stuff. But you could try Special unitary group.--Michael C. Price talk 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE DON'T MERGE. B-L IS DEFINITELY NOT WEAK HYPERCHARGE, BY ANY MEANS. 147.162.6.125 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge bosons

[edit]

The article states that there are gauge bosons associated with B-L called X and Y. This is wrong. GUTs like SU(5) usually have X and Y bosons, but if we just gauge B-L we end up with one neutral gauge boson, in the literature denoted as Z' (Z-prime). The statement about neutrino mass is also questionable; the truth is, if B-L were exact, neutrinos would have to be Dirac particles, which is perfectly fine. Breaking B-L usually leads to Majorana neutrinos, but not always, as it depends on the B-L charge of the scalar field one uses to break the symmetry.

Someone should definitely rewrite the article, if I find the time I will do it in a couple of month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.28.47.102 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

global/gauge U(1) symmetry

[edit]

It should be clarified which is meant, global or local U(1) symmetry. These are different symmetries. Charge conservation is related to global U(1) symmetry, while gauge invariance is a local U(1) symmetry. Aoosten (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violated in AdS/CFT

[edit]

A newly published article claims to prove that B-L is not possible as a symmetry under AdS/CFT:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191601 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TricksterWolf (talkcontribs) 20:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]