• 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 ...

  Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I'm looking for approaches to nonrenormalization theorems in supersymmetric QFT which are as much as possible mathematical, elegant and involve few heavy straightforward computations

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Nov 5, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Squark (1,725 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

One approach is that of Seiberg


which is also expanded upon a little bit (and explained in a slightly different way) by Weinberg


The old point of view is based on explicit supergraph computations


The disadvantage of the supergraphs approach is that it is bound to be valid only in perturbation theory. The advantage of it is that it is extremely rigorous and transparent. You said you were looking for a mathematically solid and elegant approach, so I would probably recommend this one. But the intuitive methods of Seiberg proved much more powerful because of their non-perturbative validity and simplicity.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Nov 5, 2011 by Zohar Ko (650 points) [ no revision ]
Thx! Is there an exposition of the supergraph approach which is freely available online?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Sure http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0108200 But it is advisable to acquire Wess&Bagger, where there is an introduction to the subject as well.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

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