This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would it make sense to add spinors, where conjugation rules are for Weyl spinors are:
And for Dirac spinor:
-- Plaes ( talk) 07:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this last chapter... Could it be better explained? Thanks
Rasco 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"I think this theory needs to be disproven, for isn't it clear that the 'forms' are different, not the same. Invariance is something different than this."- ParkerE
Merge with C parity or vice-versa? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. Besselfunctions ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, definity not. C Parity is not the same thing as C-symmetry. There is an issue of whether or not light and gravity are c-symmetric that needs to be resolved first, which I address below 130.207.180.80 ( talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree that this page should be merged with C parity. I propose to make a more generic page on "charge conjugation", with C parity (of systems of particles / fields) and C symmetry (of theories) as subtopics. Jasondet ( talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
gravity is not C symmetry i think it should be merged with C parity as well it makes more sense we need to have a new generic page on charge conjugation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.253.182 ( talk) 14:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I put up a dubious text because I honestly belief that gravity is not C-symmetric. As a physicist I have generally learned that anti-gravity is not possible because gravity has no charge conjugate since its charge is zero. If there is a source of information that shows gravity to be C-symmetric you need to cite an example.
Furthermore there need to be clarification on the word electromagnetism vs. the phrase "electricity and magnetism". Do you mean the quantum mechanics of electricity and magnetism or the quantum mechanics of optics? While Electricity and magnetism both have charge and produce something called Electromagnetism, Electromagnetism in itself lacks charge because the photon and the electromagnetic wave lacks charge even though the electromagnetic waves components have charge. In fact to my knowledge if electromagnetism is C-symmetric then wouldn't that mean anti-photons exist? 130.207.180.80 ( talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the spelling errors and grammatical errors, I made before. ( talk) 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This article states: "Notice that these transformations do not alter the chirality of particles." However, the transformations on spinors *do* seem to transform LH into RH and vice versa under the action of gamma_2.
Furthermore, in Zee's textbook p. 101 it states that "the charge conjugate of a LH field is a RH field". Am I missing something?
131.111.5.181 ( talk) 01:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - how very kind of you. 131.111.5.181 ( talk) 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would it make sense to add spinors, where conjugation rules are for Weyl spinors are:
And for Dirac spinor:
-- Plaes ( talk) 07:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this last chapter... Could it be better explained? Thanks
Rasco 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"I think this theory needs to be disproven, for isn't it clear that the 'forms' are different, not the same. Invariance is something different than this."- ParkerE
Merge with C parity or vice-versa? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. Besselfunctions ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, definity not. C Parity is not the same thing as C-symmetry. There is an issue of whether or not light and gravity are c-symmetric that needs to be resolved first, which I address below 130.207.180.80 ( talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree that this page should be merged with C parity. I propose to make a more generic page on "charge conjugation", with C parity (of systems of particles / fields) and C symmetry (of theories) as subtopics. Jasondet ( talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
gravity is not C symmetry i think it should be merged with C parity as well it makes more sense we need to have a new generic page on charge conjugation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.253.182 ( talk) 14:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I put up a dubious text because I honestly belief that gravity is not C-symmetric. As a physicist I have generally learned that anti-gravity is not possible because gravity has no charge conjugate since its charge is zero. If there is a source of information that shows gravity to be C-symmetric you need to cite an example.
Furthermore there need to be clarification on the word electromagnetism vs. the phrase "electricity and magnetism". Do you mean the quantum mechanics of electricity and magnetism or the quantum mechanics of optics? While Electricity and magnetism both have charge and produce something called Electromagnetism, Electromagnetism in itself lacks charge because the photon and the electromagnetic wave lacks charge even though the electromagnetic waves components have charge. In fact to my knowledge if electromagnetism is C-symmetric then wouldn't that mean anti-photons exist? 130.207.180.80 ( talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the spelling errors and grammatical errors, I made before. ( talk) 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This article states: "Notice that these transformations do not alter the chirality of particles." However, the transformations on spinors *do* seem to transform LH into RH and vice versa under the action of gamma_2.
Furthermore, in Zee's textbook p. 101 it states that "the charge conjugate of a LH field is a RH field". Am I missing something?
131.111.5.181 ( talk) 01:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - how very kind of you. 131.111.5.181 ( talk) 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)