Massive neutrons aren't incompatible with parity violation in the weak interactions, any more than massive electrons are. Left handed leptons are in doublets, right handed leptons are in singlets, of the gauge group, that's all. So if the neutrinos are Dirac particles, they would acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs-with a very small Yukawa coupling. The point, however, is that the right handed neutrinos are ``sterile'', so there are constraints from there, that can be satisfied, if the neutrinos are Majorana particles and there are experiments being carried out to test this hypothesis (namely neutrino-less double beta decay). 

In both cases there are implications for effects beyond those described by the Standard Model.

Hi Stam, your argument  - neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana and singlets or doublets  - ignores the basic fact what braeking the parity in beta decay 

No-in beta decay, electrons are left handed and massive and that doesn't forbid the antineutrinos, that are right handed, to be massive, also. Parity isn't violated only in beta decay, incidentally, but in weak interactions in general, precisely because the left handed particles interact differently from the right handed particles, whether they're quarks or leptons. 

Parity violation implies, therefore, that the two chiralities must belong to different representations of the gauge group, that's all, but the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism, precisely, provides the way for giving mass to such fermions, assuming they're Dirac fermions, through their Yukawa couplings with the Higgs. That's how the (electrically) charged leptons acquire their mass and there isn't any reason why the corresponding Yukawa couplings can't be written for the (electrically) neutral leptons, the neutrinos, either. The neutrinos do carry weak charge, that's how they interact at all and that's how the interaction with the Higgs, which is electrically neutral, occurs, too, for all particles, interacting with the Higgs. There's a huge hierarchy, of course, but the mass hierarchy exists anyway. But there are other constraints that tend to favor that neutrinos are Majorana particles-still doesn't forbid them from being massive. 

Sorry. the initial statement (that massive neutrinos are incompatible with the break down of parity in weak interaction) is not correct. Parity violation in the standard electro-weak theory (Glashow-Weinberg-Salam) is not necessarily related with masslessness of any participating object. Recall that in the quark sector of the theory there is no massless quark. Moreover, even if the bare neutrino mass would be zero, this does not mean that the physical neutrino mass is also zero. In the case of the photon, vanishing of the physical mass is guaranteed by the exact symmetry, the gauge invariance. It was believed for some years that a similar role for neutrino plays the so-called gamma-5 invariance. But later it was understood that this invariance is

definitely violated because of the axial anomaly. Therefore, there is no theoretical reason why the neutrino mass could be zero, at least after accounting for interactions.

Saying on parity violation in beta-decay, you seem to mean the electron longitudinal polarization, with absolute value of v/c. (Nte that it is not unity as it would be for a massless electronю). Of course, the electron appears th the amplutude through the lepron current, togerher with the massless neutrino. The same may be said about the directional up-down asymmetry of the electron in respect to the initial neutron spin. However, beta-decay has also different  parity-violating correlarions, between the initial neutron and the final proton, not related directly to the massless neutrino. Moreover, parity violation effects in atomic spectra are determined only by massive particles. The same is true for parity violations in weak hadronic decays, without any lepton production (e.g., for pion decays of K-mesons). All this clearly demonstrates that parity violation and masslessness of any particle are quite different phenomena, not necessarily related..

I agree with YakoV

The chiral anomaly doesn't have anything to do with the mass of the neutrinos.  The reason is that neutrinos have only weak interactions, in those interactions axial symmetry is part of the gauge group and the singlet part, that would be of relevance, is cancelled, since otherwise gauge invariance would be broken and the theory would be inconsistent.  There isn't any symmetry that protects neutrinos from interacting with the Higgs. It just is the case that their oscillations are easier to detect than to measure their Yukawa couplings. It's the discovery of neutrino oscillations that implies, inevitably, that neutrinos can't have all the same mass, therefore at least one is massive and the measurement of the mixing angles implies that all are. What's not, yet, settled is, whether they do have Yukawa couplings with the Higgs,i.e. right handed neutrinos, singlets under electroweak interactions, exist or not, i.e. whether they are Majorana particles. 

(The chiral nature of the electroweak interactions implies that it isn't possible to write a mass term for the charged  leptons, at all-unless they interact with the Higgs. Neutral leptons, neutrinos, can be Majorana particles, electrons can't be. Quarks acquire only part of their mass from their interactions with the Higgs, since they have, also,  strong interactions, where it is possible to write Dirac-type mass terms for the quarks, since QCD is a vector theory and its gauge group is distinct from that of the electroweak interactions-it's the latter that mix the flavors of the quarks, as defined by the strong interactions.)

The statement that the spin of massive particles may point in any direction is also not good.

Yes, I have perceived this puzzle a long time ago and, until now, nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory explanation

dear Nguyen Ai Viet, dear J.A. Souza,

as far a the spin direction of a massive particle is concerned this is given by a transformation into the rest system of the particle. This rest system ("empty" R(3)) is invariant under rotations around any point and any axis at any angle. So the spin direction can be mapped onto the surface of a unit sphere, point by point.

However for a massless particle there is no "rest system" and the spin can only point parallel or antiparallel to the particle's momentum p, |p| = E/c

##############

like photons, neutrinos are always polarized, s // +-p, as typical for massless particles and the b-decay produces only one kind of polarized neutrinos and therefore the parity is broken in weak interaction

The statement about neutrinos is wrong, because the polarization of neutrinos doesn't have anything to do with that of photons. The fact that neutrinos, that have weak interactions only, interact in a certain way doesn't have anything to do with whether they're massive or not. The finding that they interact the way they do does not imply that they're massless-it implies that the two chiralities interact in different ways-which expresses the fact that weak interactions of all particles break parity.  While massless spin-1 particles have only two helicity states, instead of three, spin-1/2 particles have two helicity states independently of whether they're massless or not. 

generally there are exactly TWO helizity states: parallel or antiparallel to the momentum, in the non rel. version. Otherwise p, s are 4-vectors with the invariants p², s² and ps=0. For massive particles p is timelike,, s is space like and in the rest-system we have p = (m;0,0,0) and s = (0;k), |k| = 1. so k may point in ANY direction and the electron is handed if in a moving frame the propagation direction is parallel or antiparallel to the spatial component of the spin..|a,b>,  a,b, complex numbers, represents a Pauli spin 1/2 electron wtth spin in k direction if k sigma |a,b>  +-|a,b>, the upper sign is positiv hel, the lower negativ. |a,b>  a|1,0> + b|0,1)>, these two spin-states are a basis for an electron pointing in EVERY direction. This is a superposition of states. If |1,0> and |0,1> represent Weyl neutrinos, the abov sum would'nt be a superposition (it is a direct sum of two Hilbert spaces) and NOT an eigenstate of k sigma.

massless particles cannot be transformed in a "rest"-system. they exist only on the lightcone and have no classical analog. momentum and spin are (anti-)parallel and this is final. (they transform under the same rotationgroup).  Photons follow parity, in contrast to neutrinos, this statment has no analog for particles on the mass shell.

So (H-;H,e-,µ) and (n;p,e,nu) is essentially different under a parity transformation as long nu is massless. If nu would be massive, an ionic H radiation (µ= photon) decay and a beta decay would both conserve parity.

########## 

@ Stam Ncolis: "While massless spin-1 particles have only two helicity states, instead of three, spin-1/2 particles have two helicity states independently of whether they're massless or not. "

this sentence is wrong, nearly word by word: two helicity states, instead of three.???

I think we have to bring in the discussion of having different symmetries at different energy regimes. Therefore a subset of Physical laws change when one passes from one energy regime to another (Of course as you have said below, that certain laws do not change, such as conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy and so on). For example up to the scale of MZ the relevant symmetry is U(1)em. But above the scale MZ the relevant symmetry is SU(2)Lx U(1)Y.

SU(2)LxU(1)Y model puts left handed projections in doublets and right handed projections of a particle state in singlets of SU(2)L groups, also, hypercharge assignments are different for left and right handed projections. Therefore parity is already broken in a scale where  SU(2)LxU(1)Y gauge symmetry is exact. However when the quarks acquire a mass (around the 100 GeV scale), mass differences within the members of a doublet (say u quark and d quark) are created. In this way SU(2)L symmetry is  broken by the effect of non-vanishing quark masses. Now suppose neutrino mass is zero. Then there is a mass difference between the electron and the electron neutrino, which  breaks the SU(2)L symmetry.  The mass splitting me-mν changes slightly when mν is  non vanishing. These are low energy effects. Here chirality is not a good symmetry as fermions are massive. Massive states are not eigenstates of the chirality operators PL=(1+γ5)/2 and PR=(1-γ5)/2. This is what you say, that, one can go to a reference frame where a left handed fermion will not look left handed.

At mass scales higher than the electroweak scale, parity is strictly broken. This is true in spite of the fact that chirality is a good quantum number for massless fermions, ie, you can label your states with eigenvalues of the chirality operator. Finally a comment on helicity. This is a good quantum number for massive fermions. To prove this one has to show that σ.p/|p|  commutes with the Hamiltonian. Because p/|p| is a unit vector along the direction of momentum, helicity operator projects components of spin along the direction of momentum.

@Biswajoy Brahmachari 

I'm amazed to learn, physics changes with scales what so ever. How about angular momentum conservation? Or Eredidatos neutrinos faster than light?

In my opnion, there is only ONE physics and we have fixed constants (c,e,h, ..) and strict conservation laws, most famous E = mc². Further I'm curious to hear from you: how about the PCT invariance in QFT? If this is no longer strictly tru you should skip full SRT&QFT. 

my friend: it is irrelevant what happens in beta neutrino decay! As far as "symmetry" is concerned, we look EXCLUSIVELY onto the FREE ingoing and and FREE outgoing particles. here: (n;p,e,nu). the spin content is: in: 1/2, and out: three times 1/2. Now, we observe, the e is always left handed and the antineutrino right handed, because of angular momentum conservation. The electron is massive and has two helizity states (of course NOT in its rest system!)  Next, the lepton number is conserved: so the we have an antineutrino.

If the neutrino would be massive, it would have – like the electron – TWO helizity states and both would have the same lepton number:  –1. This massive neutrino can be rotated from the rh hel. state into  the lh hel. state by a simple rotation which never changes a parity or lepton number … . Therefor there is NOW no reason, why we should not also observe rh electrons and lh neutrinos in neutron beta decay. This massive chargeless  neutrino does not change its lepton number –1 by helizity change.

In the antineutron beta decay the massive neutrino has lepton-number +1. And TWO helizity states. 

Similar to neutron/antineutron YOU have to distinguish between these two massive neutrino types: the neutron's magnetic moment is parallel to the spin and opposite for antineutrons. Introduce a “weak” magn. moment for neutrinos! And so on … Then, there is no longer any reason why in neutron beta decay we see only lh e and rh nu. Impossible to say:  exactly THIS IS THE PARITY BREAKE! If you throw a coin and you see always “eagle up” and “number down” then, when you conclude: parity is broken in gravity!!! you may be considered as a full scale idiot.

Resume: two massive particles have to distribute their helizity distribution on a 50% scale. If this is not the case you have to give an explanation for it. The only way out is: one of the decay products is massless and helizity change comes with lepton number change. This is the most simple explanation, hypothesis, theory …. You are free to develop a different  hypothesis why massive  decay products show parity break. Go ahead, you have to explain, why and how a simple rotation brakes parity.

########################

"At mass scales higher than the electroweak scale, parity is strictly broken." please tell me, how about (n;p,e,nu)? how "stricltly" YOU conserve parity here?

@Martin Spinrath: actually, nobody  needs more than "handedness"  

(der rest ist physico-mathematischer schnickschnack, wir sind hier nicht bei der DNS)

@Martin Spinrath

To understand the dilemma of massive neutrinos and the breakdown of parity it is enough to recall plain SRT via basic knowledge of the representation of the Lorentzgroup, a Lie group described by SO(3,1) or O(3,1), if reflections are included.

The defining 4 representation acts on real 4 vectors, axial vectors, 4x4 tensors and so on.

For two 4 vectors a,b, there are the invariants a², b² and ab (indefinite metric) A pointlike mass is described by its energy momentum 4 vector p = (E,p), with p² = m². A pointlike mass has a restsystem: here: prest = (m,0). p is a time like vector on the positive mass shell and this is final. This prest may be boosted to a frame moving with a velocity v < c , in, say, z direction. If I go into a frame, moving with w, v

@Martin Spinrath

By the way, the superluminal neutrinos were 'measured' by the OPERA collaboration which is not located at CERN and they discovered the experimental errors they made

this is of course not the case. Eredidatos neutrinos came from CERN. and CERN was very proud of E.'s result and nobody (besides me) noticed, that "neutrinos faster than light" means we believed fully 100 years in wrong physics. E. hold also CERN positions. I asked him and got the answer, he is still looking for neutrinos faster than light

dear Martin

you repeat yourself and ignore fully my arguments

WHERE ARE YOUR LH ANTINEUTRINOS?

you just admitted above, they exist. Eventually at KIT the famous "black box" thought experiment is known: something well known (the n) comes in the black box something happens there and then, something well known (p,e,nu) comes out of the box.  it is irrelevant what happens in this box, forget your standard model). 1st) if the antineutrino is massive, then we observe only by chance its righthandedness, because this depends of the reference frame. 2nd) if and only if) the antineutrino is massless, its permanent righthandedness indicate the brake of parity, becaus lh antineutrinos do not exist. 3rd.) when I was at MIT, they naturally answered ALL questions (f.i. at the PCT seminar). perhaps this is the difference to KIT.4th) you are concerned about my using german in this letter above. Just tell me, why is a german institute named in english after MIT? 

I guess, I will never get an answer here from you.

have a nice day

Tony

many thanks for constant downvoting

@Martin Spinrath:

"Hence, your statement  "resume: massive neutrinos (Noble Price) are on the same scale as "neutrinos faster than light" (CERN)" is as invalid as all other claims you have made here".

unfortunately I have to remind you on basic principles in logical thinking: 1st) neutrinos exist. 2nd) as far as standard SO(3,1) theory is concerned, in the (4) representation (the defining rep), there are four types of 4 vectors which cannot be transformed into each other by SO(3,1):  timelike (positiv or negativ m), lightlike (massless particles) and spacelike (tachyons and spin). The position vector (x,t) may be "everywhere" (element R(4).

Now: Assume the neutrino is massless. Then, the statement it is timelike (KIT) or spacelike (Eredidato) is WRONG on the same scale.

next you judge: ALL  MY OTHER CLAIMS I MADE HERE ARE INVALID! logically, your statement is wrong, if I just made 1 correct statement: f.i.: Eredidatos neutrinos came from CERN. 

with this statement you disqualify yourself for any further serious discussion.

have a nice day

Tony

This is all textbook stuff, so why there is any discussion at all is strange-it suffices, as mentioned many times above, to consult any textbook. If the neutrinos are Dirac particles, therefore the antineutrino is distinct from the neutrino, they acquire their mass through the Yukawa couplings with the Higgs field, just like the charged leptons, and, since their masses are very small, the strength of their interactions is, also, therefore the probability of directly detecting left handed antineutrinos or right handed neutrinos is, also, correspondingly small. Their existence is inferred from the oscillations and assuming they are Dirac particles. This last assumption can be tested and is being tested: through experiments that test whether, indeed, the antineutrino is distinct from the neutrino. One way to do this is by trying to detect neutrino-less double beta decay. Experiments are ongoing, since it is a very hard measurement. Detecting such a process would imply that the neutrino is its own antiparticle, therefore it would be a Majorana fermion. It is known how to describe how such a particle can acquire a mass-in this case the mass term involves only the left handed neutrino and there isn't any right handed neutrino at all.  In any case the observation of neutrino oscillations and, thus, the inference of neutrino masses is the first hint of effects beyond the Standard Model.

@Stam Nicolis, @Martin Spinrath:

“That is in no contradiction at all with the statement that a boost can flip the helicity of a massive particle”.

Martin Spinrath from KIT meanwhile achieved to this wisdom, see above. Certainly, this is all textbook stuff.

Now we summarize: the handedness of this massive - say:KIT – antineutrino is frame dependend. In other words, there are frames, where after neutron beta decay the electron is rh and the antinetrino is lh. Now have a look into the textbooks: such an event was never observed, and the conclusion was, since now 60 years: 1st) parity is broken in neutron beta decay. 2nd) the neutrinos are massless, because only massless particles do not change their handedness by going in other frames.

Next: parity controll is performed by the “mirror experiment” (again: textbook stuff): you make a movie of the experiment and of the same experiment as seen in a mirror. If an observer cannot decide, what was real, what was mirror, parity is conserved. In neutron beta decay the mirrored version was never observed and THEREFORE is assumed, parity is broken. Then, with massive neutrinos the mirror picture could be realized, see above, and parity would be – so far – conserved.

For these simple considerations you need no information what happens in detail during decay. All these arguments about (V,A), chiriality, gauging and so on are not only redundant, but they serve only as a useless try to circumvent the massive neutrino dilemma.

The handedness of a massive particle is frame dependent, if it is distinct from its antiparticle-that's the point.  So there is a left-handed electron and a right-handed electron and a left-handed neutrino and, perhaps, a right-handed neutrino. However      these labels refer to free particles-interactions, namely the weak interactions, mix them up differently, that's all. And how they get mixed up is in all the textbooks-in the chapters that deal with interactions, not free fields.

@Martin Spinrath

you like to ignore constantly that I never used the term "chiriality" and it is not your business to judge what I confuse with what. And what's that?

You still did not define who or what Eredidatos is

A  closer look to Ereditato’s personal homepage helps: 

“I had positions in Strasbourg, CERN, Nagoya and INFN Napoli,…” 

Also ATLAS, and so on, he is a real CERN man. He, THE italian top physicist had to resign from his OPERA top position after the “neutrinos faster than light” desaster. His faster than light was THE top story in the scientific community AND was on the front page of all public journals, and CERN was celebrating with him this “break through”.

 I learned, those scientists in the highest positions do’nt even worry about “massive, massless, faster than light”, they just don’t know, what they are talking about. 

Your situation is similar: you just NEED massive neutrinos, and so you ignore basic facts f.i. that for checking parity break you need to know nothing about VA, chiriality and so on.

Why not, KIT and CERN go hand in hand, we other are ignorants and or idiots.

@Stam Nicolis

astonishing, you ignore basic facts about Feynman's interaction diagrams and rules: the ingoing particles come FREE into the interaction zone and similar for the outgoing. 

then:"However these labels refer to free particles-interactions, namely the weak interactions, mix them up differently..."

meanwhile it is accepted in this forum that the  handedness of this MASSIVE neutrino is frame dependend. Now I go into the rest system of this massive neutrino and all "handednes" is vanished. the proton and the electron may "point" in any direction. your secret agent has to distribute  three massive particles and there is NO PARITY BREAKE! Study Dalitz plot mechanics!

Once more: the assumption underlying the statement about the chirality of a particle is that it is distinct from its antiparticle. If neutrinos are Majorana particles, then only massive,  left handed, neutrinos can exist and they suffice. If neutrinos are Dirac particles, the Yukawa couplings imply that left-handed antineutrinos and right-handed neutrinos can interact so weakly that they don't affect any known measurement in particle physics. However, such ``sterile'' neutrinos are disfavored from *other* measurements, so it's more likely that neutrinos are Majorana particles. And this situation can be described quantitatively. 

@Martin Spinrath:

you are the man who wrote:

ALL MY .... CLAIMS I MADE HERE ARE INVALID!

this is arrogant, wrong, insulting. You call me "aggressive". again,  just like so, no reason at all. You ignore ALL my arguments: the neutron beta decay is by far the best understood weak interaction process, and for decades it was clear, the neutrino is massless. Now you agree, the helizities are frame dependend. Now we go into the rest system of the neutrino, the electron is rh, the neutrino has no "helizity" anymore, the proton is lh. AND PARITY IS CONSERVED. What happened during the interaction is IRRELEVANT!!!

however, at KIT and CERN nothing is tru what is not allowed to be tru.  Why not? At CERN they celebrated Ereditatos (a CERN man!) faster than light neutrinos and I'm sure, the same at KIT! faster than light, slower (=massive) than light, who cares.

next you show a considerable amount of nonlogical thinking:

"You are mistaken what my business is. My business is to do research and to teach. Hence, it is exactly my business to point out if someone does a mistake and explain him what the correct answer is. I get paid for that."

YOU GOT NOT PAID TO TEACH ME!, but you are convinced, it is yours to teach everybody.. I know exactly ONE person with the same attitude: The Pope in Rome.

#######################

then, it is irrelevant whether you follow my "rants" (insulting!). You just damaged your reputation badly and that of KIT.

have a nice day!

@Stam Nicolis ·

"The handedness of a massive particle is frame dependent, if it is distinct from its antiparticle-that's the point.  So there is a left-handed electron and a right-handed electron and a left-handed neutrino and, perhaps, a right-handed neutrino"

this is not the full story: we go into the neutrino's rest system, and in this system the neutrino has no "helizity". .Now, the electron is rh, the proton is lh. PARITY IS CONSERVED. the details of the interaction process are IRRELEVANT for these considerations. For the other "weak" interaction you and other mentioned I recommend: introduce a 5th "superweak" interaction, because you always find a way out (e.g.: neutrino oscillations for missing sun neutrinos). I remark: this 5th interaction was proposed decades ago (not from me!).

remark: you argue constantly with "helizity" because in your SU(5) standard model the leptons are massless and therefore are helizity states. After your Higgs did his job all leptons are massive and there is no need at all to introduce a parity brake. but, don't worry, SU(5) is wrong anyway, because the proton does nor decay within 10^30  years. Who cares: we go into SO(10) - a higher rank (=5) Lie group, and the proton lives just 100 times longer and NOBODY can measure this now and in near future. I recommend for still more stable protons: take E6!. Now I'm a famous physicist!

@Martin Spinrath

are you unable to read? I wrote:

"the neutrino has no "helizity" anymore" ( at rest)

and you answer: And hence you cannot properly define helicity in the rest frame of a particle.

is this possible that you may have a psychological problem with me? (yelling, more yelling ...very weird ideas., and so on.). Of course, you don't understand CERN: you FOLLOW CERN. CERN is your Gral and you defend it under all circumstances: of course, the neutrino faster than light desaster is due CERN!!! they had to stop Eredidato just right now and NOT  celebrating him. At the instant of time I heard that I tould me friends at FU and TU: what a bullshit.

Dear Martin, calm down! You just indicated to stop conversation with me. I tell you, I do not physics, like you, because  I get paid for, perhaps that is the difference.

I AM A PHYCISIST

The charged leptons are massless, absent an interaction with the Higgs, not because they're helicity states, but because the two chiralities have different weak interactions and it's not possible to combine them in a way to provide a mass term, that's consistent with the symmetries of the electroweak interactions, unless there's an interaction with a scalar field. For electrically neutral leptons-the neutrinos-it could be the same story-just that the right handed neutrino doesn't have any other, but weak, interactions. So, if the neutrino is a Dirac fermion, no problem, it acquires its mass, just like the charged leptons; if it's a Majorana fermion, the right handed fermion isn't necessary and only left-handed neutrinos exist. The statements about helicities aren't relevant here, it's the chiralities that matter. While the electron does require both chiralities, because it is electrically charged, the neutrino can make do with just one, because it's electrically neutral. That's the content of the experiments trying to determine whether it's its own antiparticle, or not. All this is standard knowledge, as linked to before.

I agree with M.Spinrath: He is on a religious mission and his bible are these textbooks.

(in german: beratungsresistent)

congratulation, dear Martin, you (and all KIT staff) are always on step 7. (and get paid (!!!) for it)

unfortunately, you are not allowed to write the story. This is HARVARD's business. Too bad for you.

(next unfortunaltely, my computer - or that of RG? - decides this bold typing by random)

by the way, what is your actual gauge group today? still SU(5) ore higher? what will Harvard decide after they reached (final) E8?. Anyway, all this junk keeps you busy the next decades. Say hello to your friend from those "superluminous" neutrinos!

My dearest Martin,

You just can't look beyond your small horizon: 

step 6: transmission to students.

but this is never final: f.i. for KIT/CERN/OPERA ... people there is:

STEP 7: HARVARD announces  a new theory based on - say - Fuchsian groups. AND: GO BACK TO STEP 2:

(only for you: discrete Lorentz groups)

#####################

contrary to you my PhD thesis is in fhe WORLD WIDE WEB! ask the TUB library!

what's so great on yours that you hide it from the public and want money for it?

Are you not paid enough at KIT?

Bravo! I don't know what's wrong with your KIT computers. Other people had no problem to get my thesis. On the other hand: what means this: 

Again, I would be happy if you check your references first and then provide us with them. That is good scientific practice.

" ... then provide us .... ": again, pluralis majestatis!

Who provides what with what?

I start now that "good scientific practice" As long as we continue this dialog - and RG allows that - I'll finish with ONE of my 76 references: Here is #65:

ETTORE MAJORANA: Teoria Relativistica di Particelle con Momento intrinseco arbitrario. Nuovo Cimento, 9, 335-334 (1932)

@Martin Spinrath

Physicists who did not decouple more than 30 years ago from actual research tried to explain you, where  you made your mistake, but instead of having a real scientific discussion you put everything on a personal and offensive level.

YOU are constantly insulting: You know little about gauging and so on. Since MORE than 30 years your people try to find a suitable gauging group. YOU did not answer my question, what is your today's favorite? SU(5) IS old fashioned and is certainly not correct because the proton is too stable. Do you still adore SU(5)?

in case of SU(5) YOU need several representations, three rh 5-tuples, {1000] and three lh decuplets {2100}, standard model, in obvious notation: a total of 45 handed, massles spin 1/2 fields. Next you take the adjoint representation and 3x24 "gauge-bosons". This make - not only - the proton unstable. But, how about the other representations of SU(5)?

Then, your "chiriality Higgs" HokusPokus is fully redundant for symmetry considerations. To save symmetry you have to go into supersymmetry (exchange rh/lh above) but for that Harvard did not give jet permission to KIT&Co .

Higgs acts on these HANDED massless fields. God personally (sic! Higgs= god's particle) "gives" masses to these massless fields. But there are TWO more regions in momentum space: why should we restrict to "time like". It's not a big deal to assume a - say - sHiggs, which transports some rh/lh massless neutrinos into the SPACEL IKE region. AND EREDIDATO IS BACK again and you back on step 2 of SMBC

#########

ref. 5) C.Piron: Axiomatique de la Theorie Quantique, International school of physics "Enrico Fermi", Varenna Italy, 1970

Hi, Dr. Spinrath, I just read on page 1:

To complement the aforementioned considerations, we give two explicit flavour models in a SU(5) context.

is this tru? You still stick on SU(5)? You are much more "old fashioned" than me. I hope seriously for you, you remark later down that SU(5) is a lousy model. In 2010 it was known that the proton does not decay under SU(5). By the way, in MY SO(4,4) model the proton is stable.

Hi, Mr Spinrath, I'm happy to read:

“You have to know that KIT is the fusion of former Kalrsruhe University and Karlsruher Kernforschungszentrum”.

A few decades ago I visited friends in Karlsruhe and wanted to see this most famous "Kernforschungszentrum...." Meanwhile  their projects in nuclear "breeding" all failed, they got just nothing from what they promised, similar to their FUSION friends in Garching. I stood in front of that large building and saw on top; from the left, to the right: HUGE LETTERS, minimum 1 meter each, free in the air against the sky:. It started with a 10(?) meter gap on the left and then: --------FORSCHUNGS ZENTRUM blablabla. . The blameword KERN was vanished, so the image.

next you show me where I "confused" chiriality with helizity. 

Spinrath: “And what is your problem with SU(5) to begin with? SU(5) is still valid”. 

First, eventually I ask tomorrow Prof. Dr. Harald Fritzsch, how come that his pupils at LMU ignore his SO(10) which he personally brought from Gell-Mann to Germany. Then you may tell me how many new parameters you introduced to stretch the half life of the proton in SU(5) beyond 10^30y. Further I inform you that this – your – standard model - uses a direct product group representation of SO(3,1)xSU(5). Next I want to know from you, how you manage the transition of the former massless fields then after Higgs into massive ones. Just gimme the page of your diss. I want to see how this Higgs transforms a light cone representation of Sl(2.C) into a mass shell rep. I would be VERY impressed, Must be a selection from direct product representations of sl(2,C)|lightcone x sl(2,C)|mass shell. Terrible difficult! 

Then I had a short look into the “particle data group 2014”: nothing really new. This junk we know since ages. I’m still perfectly up to date. 

Then:”And what are you saying about SO(4,4)? Is this supposed to be your gauge group?”

First of all, it is MY model! This model is physico-geometrical, similar strings. The symmetry of the whole gives the particles (f.i. strings) and vice versa. They use a mix of R(4)xT^7,, sometimes the take 21(?) tori! I extend the evident SO(3,3) symmetry of the free Maxwell field (L ~ E² - B²) and the obvious SO(4,1) resp. SO(3,2) symmetry of the free Dirac-equation Into a projective P(3)XP(3) space, with SO(4,4) as symmetry, which means a double elliptic space. (projective double torus in R(8), and COMPACT!). This goes with pseudo octonionic 8-tupels. The compact subgroup of S0(4,4) is SO(4)xSO(4) and so I have only 2x6 mesons for what you name "gauge group". (Better: adjoint rep, just trivial). 

In MY thesis I studied not only these extended octonionic (Gürsey) spaces like F(4)/SO(9) but also general Q:M representations over Galois fields GF(p^q), just perfect for introducing susy and susygut … enough for your next decades. 

Then, you started the insulting sequence! And, I did not ask for an Oberlehrer.Spinrath.

dear Dr. Spinrath,

of course, in my D(4) model (Cartan's classification) there are EXCLUSIVELY only c, h, m(el), ) and q included as elementary constants. The proton mass is a consequence. Similar Barut/Kleinert's work.

So(?), you introduced "only" two new parameters? What page please, in your diss. I should be ready with reading till tonight, but a admit I'm courious about the now famous two Spinrath parameters. By the way, with two free parameters I can explain "everything" by starting with Ohm's law.

then, many thanks for  "The correct terms are chirality and helicity." I confess, I pay  somtimes little attention with respect to correct orthography. For this I have lectors like you.

then, you still keep refusing my question where exactly "I confused chirality with helicity" . And you are not only immune to advice (parity brake lies in the ansatz of massless rh/lh SU(5) fields, you need no chirality argument at all) but in addition ignorant with respect certain questions you dislike. This goes parallel to some well known Popes Martin (Martin V or Martin Luther).

Soon I'll check your great knowledge in SU(5). It seems to me, the interplay between particle multiplets and representations of this Lie group is not completely clear to you. So I ask you, What representations follow the Mesons? Aren't they these "gauge mesons?" What proton's life time is concerned how about Fritzsch's SO(10) model? How do YOU decompose SO(10)/SU(5)?. Please, I beg you, gimme FIRST your answer for this. (No problem for a full SU(5) knower)

Maybe you accept Berkeley better. (M.Spinrath)

not really, they celebrated Cabrera's monopole. At Harvard they stated: Berkeley must be a special place in the universe.

since yesterday I know from Prof Fritzsch his sight of all this junk. He would even not generally reject a paper where Higgs transforms lightcone neutrinos into Eredidato-types faster than light.

Dear Dr. Spinrath,

"And with two parameters you can explain all fermion masses starting with Ohm's law? Wow. Please show me that." I devote this below KIT&Co:

New research:

Ohm’s law is equivalent to universal 2 parameter ALL particle spectrum: 

U = R×I

mc²/q = (Mc²tSp/qK²)×q/t

q : el. charge ; M : mass of universe (arbitrary); tP = Planck time;

0 < qK < infinity< : variable KIT gauging charge (analog various quark charges)

tSp : Spinrath time with tSp = t0×sin sigma: ct0 = h/mc; Compton length, sigma: Spinrath angle (similar Cabibbo) 

################ 

Universal 2 parameter particle spectrum from neutrino mass till larger than universe, for next big bang: 

m(qk,tSpin) = M×(q/qK)²×(tSp/tp)

@Martin Spinrat

My advanced OML (=Ohm’s mass law) reads now:

m(qKKK,tSIT) = M×(q/qKKK)²×(tSIT/tP)

It is a function of TWO(!!!) variables:

qKKK: universal sliding charge, analog gut’s sliding coupling constant and KKK in honour of  Karlsruhe Kernforschungs Kollegen, and

tSIT: tSIT = t0×sin s: ct0 = h/mc, Compton length; s for SIT angle (similar Cabibbo angle) and SIT for Schober Institute of Technology, my yesterday renamed office.

OML has THREE(!!!) naturals constants: Mass of universe, elementary charge, Planck time, and includes in addition the Compton wave length.

I’m happy that Dr. Spinrath accepted my formula, clearly the final answer to all particle spectra today and in the future and I assume, KIT recomends me now for Nobel price.

This ”dignity” is lost for all guys who named (and call) funny Higgs fields “god’s particle”, and the “dignity” of this Dr. title is little in the land of Schawan, v.Guttenberg on others. Most famous: Jan Hendrik Schön, candidate for Noble Price in Physics.

If you are “on the lightcone”, you have mathematically TWO equivalent possibiltes to leave this lightcone: become timelike or space like. It’s an easy task to construct a “Higgs mechanism” into tachyons. Obviously this is new for you. However, you have to jump, there is no smooth passage away from the lightcone, and some chirality lovers ignore that! For “masive” neutrino there is only ONE reason (and NO evidence): neutrino oscillation for missing sun neutrinos. H. Fritsch told me so but for him it where only “details”, that earth’s orbit is by chance on the right place.

Complete impossible is to ignore that  lh/rh starter multiplets incorporate broken  parity.and somebody who said all my claims are INVALID should not talk about vendetta!

Have a nice X-mass.

Dr. Schober, SIT.

in your thesis your mathematical basis is modest. SU(N) with Young T's is old fashioned, (this was made for GL(n)). You just don't know what this is: a Lie group, Lie algebra, and I never saw such a funny Zn definition of such a trivial object. What's that: a simple non Abelian Lie group???. You may decompose direct products by Young T's, but much more important for physics is the study of nested group chains, to be done f.i. by SO(10)/SU(5). You know nothing about the Cartan subgroup, (it brings the physical "eigenvalues"!!) nothing about split algebras and a modern approach via root - and Dynkin diagrams. Your "free" parameters are abundant, for certain more than 100. Earth orbit is nearly circular and your neutrinos oscillate bravely in units AU's (ask an astronomer for that) You talk about "neutrino revolution" in your thesis! I would say, it's a brake down of SM, GUT&SUSYGUT. It's a Glasperlenspiel (H.Hesse)

There is nothing really new in your thesis: You are extrapoliting, that's it. 

 Why are you asking a nonphysicist about my SO(4,4) model? Well, you deal within the An sequence, most compact real form, (everything is standard), I took D4, LEAST COMPACT FORM, which is exciting because it contains the Lorentz group. And everything is new! (For you: see Cartan classification of ss Lie groups.). I get NATURALLY three basic octets: spacetime, baryonic, leptonic, and this is FINAL! (By triality)

You don't even understand OML: m = f(x,y) has a range from 0 to infinity and therefor for each m > 0 you find some (x,y).And, there is no Spinrath any more in the  my last answer above. Only SIT&KKK.

" worse than the behaviour of the pope.": with this you disqualify yourself  down to zero. I'm not a believer but I respect anybodys religion, with and without pope. With this statement you insult the majority of RG followers, if not all.I promise you, this sentence of you will not be forgotten and will fall back to you sometimes in the future. It doesn't matter at all whether you answer or not, this here IS NOT PRIVAT; IT'S PUBLIC!!!