• 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 , 22,734 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Since the Susy variation of a scalar field is itself a (Lorentz?) scalar, shouldn't the variation of the variation of the scalar field again be the same, that is - the "dot product" of the Susy parameter and the spinor field?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

I am trying to study Susy from Patrick Labelle's book. While I see that we want the Susy variation to take \(\phi\) into \(\chi\) and vice versa, I don't see why I cannot argue that since \(\delta\phi=\zeta.\chi\) is itself a scalar, another variation by a Susy parameter (say, \(\beta\)) won't just produce \(\delta_\beta \delta_\zeta \phi=(\beta.\zeta)(\zeta.\chi)\), or something like that, since \[\delta_\beta \delta_\zeta \phi=\delta_\beta(\zeta.\chi)=\delta_\beta(\phi')=\beta.\chi\]again? Here I have defined \[\phi'=\zeta.\chi\] to be the new scalar field. Is it right to think of \(\zeta.\chi\) as a scalar field?

Put differently, what stops me from thinking of \(\zeta.\chi\) as another scalar, the Susy variation of which should again give something similar to the Susy variation of \(\phi\)?

I have a "feeling" that I am perhaps not clear about the fact that \(\phi\) is a scalar under Lorentz transformation. I am also not clear about whether it is the scalar or the bosonic nature of \(\phi\) that I should be thinking about.

Any help would be much appreciated!

asked Dec 29, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by ConservedCharge (30 points) [ revision history ]
edited Dec 29, 2015 by ConservedCharge

Lorentz invariance itself is not restrictive enough for you to determine the form of variation. In the simple example you gave, since you are doing two Susy transformations, you final result should contain two fermionic parameters, so it cannot be $\beta \cdot \chi$.

Thanks, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "Lorentz invariance itself is not restrictive enough"?

Your example suffices to demonstrate why "Lorentz invariance itself is not restrictive enough", $\delta_\beta \delta_\zeta \phi=\beta\cdot\chi$ is a Lorentz scalar, so Lorentz invariance doesn't rule it out, but it's still wrong due to the previously mentioned reason.

Hi @JiaYiyang. I have modified my question to further bring out the doubt that I have.

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

I guess I didn't get my previous point across in the comment and I think your confusion is simply a psychological one. The point is, there is simply no reason to require non-Lorentz transformations on a field to be determined by its Lorentz transformation properties. For example, consider a scalar matter field in a gauge theory, let's say Higgs doublet $\phi$ in a $SU(2)$ gauge theory. Now the scalar is in fundamental rep and the gauge field $W_\mu$ is in the adjoint rep, however, you simply cannot say $\partial_\mu \phi$ should also live in adjoint just because it has the same Lorentz index structure as $W_\mu$, and instead it clearly lives in fundamental because $\phi$ does. 

In your case, the situation is exactly the same: $\zeta \cdot \chi$ and $\phi$ are simply two different fields even if they have the same Lorentz index structure. In fact, maybe as an even more pertinent example , in Wess-Zumino model with auxiliary scalar fields, those auxiliary scalar fields transform differently from the propagating scalar fields, which is easy to see by counting their mass dimensions.

answered Dec 29, 2015 by Jia Yiyang (2,640 points) [ revision history ]

Thanks Jia!

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