# Can you have more than one $D$ term for each gauge group?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
206 views

I'm reading this note in chapter 6 which discusses ${\cal N} = 2$ supermultiplets, though the discussion is quite general and applies to ${\cal N} = 1$ fields in the adjoint representation. I summarize the discussion given in the paper here with a slightly simplified situation and notation for clarity. Suppose we have some field, $\Phi$, in the adjoint representation of a gauge group $SU(N)$. The Kahler term for the field is

$$\int d ^2 \theta \Phi ^\dagger e ^{ 2 g V ^a T ^a} \Phi =g D ^a \phi ^\dagger T ^a \phi + ...$$

and the kinetic gauge term gives,

$$W^\alpha _a W_\alpha^a=\frac{1}{2} D ^a D ^a+...$$

The paper then goes on to integrate out the $D^a$ fields which gives,

$$D^a =\Phi ^\dagger T ^a \Phi$$

Then the authors go on to introduce more ${\cal N} =1$ field, $H$. The $H$ field Lagrangian takes the form,

\begin{align}{\cal L} &= \int d^4\theta H ^\dagger e^{2q V ^a t ^a} H+ \int d^2\theta W^\alpha _a W_\alpha^a + ...\\&= g D ^a \Phi ^\dagger T ^a \Phi + \frac{1}{2}D_aD_a...\end{align}

where $t_a$ are the generators in the representation of the $H$ fields.

So far I have no issues, however then do something strange. They go on to again integrate out the $D$ fields, but they do so independently of the fields introduced earlier in the adjoint representation. However, don't we have a single $\vec{D}$ field for every gauge group, not every representation? So how come we are able to consider the sectors independently of one another?

edited May 27, 2014

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

There is indeed one $D$ field for each gauge group, it is simply one field in the vector supermultiplet. I think that the way the paper presents things can be explained as follows. The Lagrangian for the $D$-field will always be of the form

$\frac{1}{2} D^{2} + (a+b+...)D$

where $a$,$b$,... are the contributions of the various charged fields and the equation of motion for $D$ is $D = -a-b-...$. In particular, each charged field gives a well-defined contribution to $D$ and the total $D$ is just  the sum of these contributions, there is no interaction between the various terms. When they consider one special field and integrate out $D$, I think they mean to compute the contribution of this field to the $D$-term.

answered May 28, 2014 by (5,140 points)

Thanks for your response. That makes sense. Just to make sure I understand correctly. Is it then indeed true that we will also have cross terms of the form,

$$(\phi ^\dagger T ^a \phi ) H ^\dagger t ^a H$$

arising from the $D^a D^a$ term?

Yes, I think so.

 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): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: 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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen 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.