Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction

+ 16 like - 0 dislike
209 views

Question:

How can you show the inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ superfield approach (without reducing to components)?


Background and some references:

Regularization by dimensional reduction (DRed) was introduced by Siegel in 1979 and was shortly after seen to be inconsistent Siegel in 1980. Despite this, it is commonly used in supersymmetric calculations since it has most of the advantages of (normal) dimensional regularization (DReg) and (naively) preserves supersymmetry.

The demonstration of the inconsistency of DRed is based on the combination of 4-dimensional identities, such as the product of epsilon-tensors $$ \varepsilon^{\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3\mu_4} \varepsilon^{\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3\nu_4} \propto \det\big((g^{\mu_i\nu_j})\big) $$ and the d-dimensional projections of 4-dimensional objects. Details can be found in the references above and below, although the argument is especially clear in Avdeev and Vladimirov 1983.

Various proposals have been made on how to consistently use DRed and most involve restrictions on the use of 4-dimensional identities using epsilon-tensors and $\gamma_5$ matrices. (Note that the treatment of $\gamma_5$ in DReg is also a little tricky...). This means we also have to forgo the use of Fierz identities in the gamma-matrix algebra (which is also a strictly 4-dimensional thing - or whatever integer dimension you're working in). This means we lose most of the advantages that made DRed attractive in the first place - maintaining only the fact that it's better than DReg in SUSY theories. The latest such attempt is Stockinger 2005, but it's also worth looking at the earlier discussions of Delbourgo and Jarvis 1980, Bonneau 1980 and (especially) Avdeev and Vladimirov 1983 & Avdeev and Kamenshchik 1983. The pragmatic discussion in Jack and Jones 1997 is also worth reading - it also contains a fairly complete set of references.

Anyway, all of the "fixes" are hard to do when using superfields, since the $D$-algebra has all of the "bad" 4-dimensional algebra built in.

My question is: What is the easiest way of showing the inconsistency of DRed in the superfield approach? (I want an answer that does not rely on reducing to components!). I'm guessing that it should somehow follow from the $D$-algebra acting on dimensionally reduced superfields.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon
asked Jun 9, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Simon (325 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 16, 2014
Most voted comments show all comments
@Simon: May I suggest editing to ask why reducing to components is the only way yo show this perticular inconsistency

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus
@Argus: As in you wish to change the question from "how do you prove this using superfields" to "why can you only prove it using components?"

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon
I guess it would change the meaning too much. As nobody has the ability to answer the question it seems like breaking it down might help. Your question just wondering a way to "Work towards" an acceptable answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus
Still no answer? This question must be reaaaally hard . . .

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

This question actually got something like 8 wasted bounties on PSE, I hope there is someone here who can answer it.  

Most recent comments show all comments
@Trimok: I think that if the number of fields don't match then you can't have supersymmetry. However the $2^{d/2}$ structure was considered by people like Delbourgo and others back in the 70s and 80s. I can't remember the details...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon
@Undo - thanks for the bounty!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-16 01:59 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...