# Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
558 views

Does the P-V regulator breaks SUSY?

Take for instance the 1-loop (top/stop loops) correction to the Higgs squared-mass parameter in the MSSM, and you'll get something like,

$$\delta m^2_{h_u} = - 3Y_u^2/(4 \pi^2) m_{\tilde{t}}^2 ln (\frac{\Lambda_{PV}^2}{m_{\tilde{t}}^2})$$

Where, $\Lambda_{PV}$ is the P-V regulator/cutoff, and $m_{\tilde{t}}$ is the stop-quark mass.

In my mind, as the calculation is performed before EWSB (i.e. no mass for the top), but at the same time it's considering softly broken susy (i.e. there is mass for the stop-quark), therefore we don't get perfect cancelation. But I heard someone saying that there's no perfect cancelation because PV regulator breaks susy!

I don't see where the PV breaking susy argument fits. Can anyone enlighten me?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Nov 26, 2011
The question is unclear. If your question is about the PV regulator, why did you bring up that reference? It has nothing to do with PV, and it is not even mentioned once in the paper.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Because I took the equation from there. Umm, Ok let's say: Does the Pauli-Villars regularisation break supersymmetry? And how to see that?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I still don't see why you copied a random equation from a random paper and proclaimed that their cutoff is a PV cutoff. So I still dont understand the question. It would be very helpful if you rephrase it. Also note that there is no problem to write a ghost kientic term in SUSY, so the bottom component of the chiral multiplet is a ghost while the fermion is fine. So the right question is not whether SUSY allows ghosts (it does) but whether this is enough to cancel the divergences.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I did similar calculation, as an exercise. I used PV and I got a similar result. But then, someone was saying something about PV regulator breaking susy and I was lost. :p Also, I didn't understand your answer.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Ok, I'll remove the equation I copied, and the reference, and will write my own result.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Perhaps the statement you are trying to reproduce has to do with dimensional regularization instead? Just a shot in the dark...

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
No, I was asking about the PV regularisation. Maybe some time later I'll ask about DM. :p

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

## 1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I think that I am confused by the question and even more confused by the last remark. When you use PV regulator, you necessarily encounter for the ghosts. When you add to a propagator of a physical field another part, which looks like a propagator with a minus sign and a mass $\Lambda_{UV}$, you pretend that there is a heavy ghost "particle" in the theory (the wrong sign of the kinetic term in the Lagrangian translates into the sign flip in front of the propagator). Then if you ask the question whether this ghost can be supersymmetrized, the answer is "yes". So in this sense PV regulator does not violate SUSY. (As it was previously mentioned, the question whether it is enough to cancel all the divergences remains though).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Nov 26, 2011 by (40 points)
Welcome Andrey, according to the picture, you have grown a lot of hair since the last time I saw you.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Ok, thanks for your answer. The reason for the confusion is that I'm confused myself. I was following the PV scheme without knowing the physics behind it :/ But I think I'm getting a feeling of what the PV regulator does. Thanks again to you and to Zohar Ko whom I annoyed :p

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I was not annoyed at any point, just tried to make the question clearer for other commentators who might wanna take a shot at it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks! So can I ask then, is the PV regulator enough to cancel divergences? If not, then why?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
It depends on what are you doing. If you regularize a Yukawa coupling, it is enough to introduce one PV regulator for you scalar to cancel the divergence. But there are more subtle examples, e.g. you need several sets of PV fermions to cancel consistently the divergences in QED photon self energy (the PV method becomes cumbersome and therefore Peskin switches to dim.reg.; you can see how it is done with PV regulators in Bjorken and Drell). I am not aware about any explicit example of a renormalizable theory, where the PV regularization fails, regardless how you introduce the regulators.

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): 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:$\varnothing\hbar$ysicsOverflowThen 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.