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

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Dynamical supersymmetry breaking and Witten index

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
155 views

Witten index, defined as ${\rm Tr}(-1)^F$, determines if supersymmetry is spontaneously broken or not for a given model. However, it is also known that supersymmetry can be dynamically broken. One could think of a mechanism (yet to be implemented if any) à la Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model for chiral symmetry in QCD. In this case, how does Witten index change? I think it should reflect the fact that, even if we are not requiring explicitly a selected ground state breaking symmetry, particle masses are lifted and a gap equation is satisfied.

A more general question is: if Witten index applies as well to dynamical breaking of supersymmetry, for all the models one can possibly conceive.

As usual, good references are welcome.

Thanks.


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jon

asked Nov 29, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Jon (40 points) [ revision history ]
edited Dec 22, 2014 by Dilaton

2 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

When ${\rm Tr}(-1)^F\neq 0$, then supersymmetry cannot be spontaneously broken. One could say that this basic fact is the very point of the Witten index.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Nov 29, 2012 by Luboš Motl (10,248 points) [ no revision ]
Yes, I know this. I have read Witten's paper. But how does this idea translate to dynamical breaking of symmetry? And if I would have a NJL mechanism?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jon
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Last time I checked, dynamical SUSY breaking was a particular kind of spontaneous SUSY breaking. It just means using certain non-perturbative effects to lift some of the flat directions in moduli space.

So Witten's index trick still works: You can prove that SUSY is unbroken by showing that the Witten index is non-zero.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1504
answered Nov 29, 2012 by user1504 (1,100 points) [ no revision ]
I think this is a right view.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jon
It's the right answer, but I gave it -1 because it's exactly copied from my answer that was written 5 hours earlier. Why?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
@LubošMotl: Jon didn't seem to realize that dynamical susy breaking is a form of spontaneous susy breaking and I thought that stating this explicitly was important. Your answer didn't directly address the point he was confused about. Anyways, no particular harm done. (And by the way, I'm the sole upvoter of your answer.)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1504
It is unfortunate that this rather dippy question has 6 upvotes, while its two correct answers have (net) 1 each.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-22 11:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1504

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$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
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
...