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
4,848 answers , 20,603 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Forming massive $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supermultiplets

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
134 views

This question stems from page 14 of John Terning's Modern Supersymmetry.

Suppose we consider $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supersymmetry, and denote the spin-0 Clifford vaccuum by $\Omega_0$. Now, the non-trivial anticommutators of the SUSY algebra for a massive supermultiplet of mass $m$ are

$\{Q_\alpha^a, {Q^\dagger}_{\dot{\alpha}b}\} = 2 m \delta_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}\delta^a_b$

where $a, b = 1, \ldots, \mathcal{N}$. Let's build the states.

$|\Omega_0\rangle$ spin = 0

${Q^\dagger}_{\dot{\alpha}a} |\Omega_0\rangle$ spin = 0 + 1/2 = 1/2

${Q^\dagger}_{\dot{\alpha}a} {Q^\dagger}_{\dot{\beta}b} |\Omega_0\rangle$ naively, spin = 0 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, except this doesn't seem to be true, because you can get both spin 0 and spin 1 in this case.

In the book, the author first provides a schematic construction of the supermultiplet starting from a Clifford vacuum of spin s. Then, he considers a specific example for $\mathcal{N} = 2$.

But in the general case of spin s, he doesn't seem to distinguish between states of spin $s + 1/2$ and $s - 1/2$. Why not?

I am guessing this is more to do with notation than anything else, but doesn't $s$ denote the TOTAL SPIN? A massive state should be labeled then by $|m, s, s_3\rangle$ and not just the total spin.

To be perfectly clear, what happens when $Q^\dagger$ acts on a general state of spin $s$? Does it produce a rung of states with total spin ranging from $-|s-1/2|$ to $|s+1/2|$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-01 13:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user leastaction
asked Jan 1, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by leastaction (425 points) [ no revision ]
Try p.172 of Muller-Kirsten/Wiedemann (Introduction to Supersimmetry).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-01 13:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Rexcirus

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

But in the general case of spin s, he doesn't seem to distinguish between states of spin s+1/2 ands−1/2. Why not?

I am not sure I understand your confusion but think of the following. The reason people do not consider this is because these states are CPT related. Despite that if you take a look at the representation tables  you will find the info you need and the classification of the states (including the CPT conjugates). In specific, this is the article you should be looking into. Check also Witten's lecture on Seiberg-Witten theory from IAS.

We conclude that CPT flips the sign of the helicity. Therefore, unless the helicity is distributed symmetrically around 0, which is not the case in general, a supermultiplet is not CPT-invariant. This means that in order to have a CPT-invariant theory one should in general double the supermultiplet we have just constructed adding its CPT conjugate.  This is not needed if the supermultiplet is itself CPT conjugate but $\mathcal{N}=2$ is not! Note simply that we have two $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral supermultiplets (plus our vector supermultiplet).

$Q_{\dot{\alpha}a} Q_{\dot{\beta} b} =|\Omega_0 \rangle$ = naively, spin=0+1/2+1/2=1

Now this is not true. In a chiral multiplet you only get up to spin 1/2. Remember that you are acting with one of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ susy's onto the spin 0 vacuum. To get vectors you need to act on the 1/2 vacuums.

answered Jan 1, 2015 by conformal_gk (3,535 points) [ revision history ]
Any good references?
@Outlander John Terning is an excellent SUSY reference. I strongly recommend it.

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$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflow
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
...