• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Kahler potential for adjoint representation fields

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

In supersymmetric theories of fields in fundamental representation we write the Kahler interactions as 
\Phi ^\dagger e ^{ 2 qV } \Phi 
where $V$ is the vector superfield in the fundamental representation. This is necessary to keep the fields which transform as,
& \Phi \rightarrow e ^{ i \Lambda } \Phi , \quad V \rightarrow V - \frac{ i }{ 2} \left( \Lambda - \Lambda ^\dagger \right) 
gauge invariant.

I would naively think that this requirement would transfer over to fields in other representations. However recently I reading a paper where they introduce fields in the adjoint representation, $\Phi _a$, and I believe they didn't include the gauge contribution and just wrote,
\Phi _a ^\dagger \Phi _a 
(though they don't state or write this explicitly so I'm not sure). This doesn't make sense to me since adjoint representation fields still transform. Is there a reason why this would be justified, or did I misunderstand the paper?

asked May 16, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by JeffDror (650 points) [ revision history ]

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

You need to check if the chiralilty condition on the  superfield -- if it involves the gauge covariant derivative, then $\Phi^\dagger \Phi$ will be locally gauge invariant.

A chiral superfield is usually defined by $\bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. The gauge covariant version is given by first defining $$\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}}:= e^V \bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} e^{-V}\ ,$$ where $V$ is taken to be in a representation of the gauge group.Then, one defines a "covariant chiral super field" by $$\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0\ . $$ (see Wess & Bagger or section 2 of this paper).

(moving my comment into the answer)

answered May 17, 2014 by suresh (1,545 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 17, 2014 by suresh

By chirality condition do you mean to check that 

$$(\partial_\alpha - (\sigma \theta)_\alpha ) \Phi_a = 0 $$

for $\partial_\alpha$ or $D_\alpha$?

A chiral superfield is usually defined by $\bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. The gauge covariant version is given by first defining $\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}}:= e^V \bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} e^{-V}$. Then, one defines a "covariant chiral super field" by $\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. (see Wess & Bagger or section 2 of this paper).

Thanks for your help. I think I misunderstood what they were doing in the paper. They had the correct Kahler term but were treating the $D$ terms of the gauge fields in a strange way. If you have time, I've added in a new related question here.

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights