• 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
5,079 questions , 2,229 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,758 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
819 active unimported users
More ...

  On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory

+ 14 like - 0 dislike

The chiral ring of the Coulomb branch of a 4d N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory is given by the Casimirs of the vector multiplet scalars, and they don't have non-trivial relations; the Casimirs are always independent.

Also in Gaiotto's class of N=2 non-Lagrangian theories, the chiral ring of the Coulomb branch doesn't (seem to) have relations.

Is it a general fact? If so, how can we deduce it from the N=2 susy algebras?

I was asked to clarify the definition of the Coulomb branch in non-Lagrangian theories; let's define them for N=2 SCFT by the fact that $SU(2)_R$ symmetry acts on the Coulomb branch operators trivially.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

asked Dec 10, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Yuji (1,395 points) [ revision history ]
edited Mar 15, 2015 by Dilaton
Most voted comments show all comments
There's a reason why textbooks and papers are called differently:) I say, you should just try reading a paper which interests you most, using various references. If you can, then you're ready; if you can't, then you're not.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
My inexperience speaks! But the metric of measurement you are suggesting is not very definitive. If I pick up that paper on chiral rings that you linked to then I am quite sure that much of it will be beyond me though I have done courses and projects in what I might think of as "basic" QFT and SUSY. The question is I want to know as to how much of knowledge and by when (years in grad school) is considered cutting edge?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
More specifically can you give some canonical references to read which explain how superpotentials are calculated (exact?) and how is it that often people seem to be almost magically be able to read off the beta-functions by looking at it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Well, anything which was done in the last century should be considered basic. The SUSY textbook by Terning covers basic stuffs pretty well.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks for the comments. I am not sure how to go about learning everything "done in the last century" - that sounds scary! But may be I can try reading Terning - though that is a very terse book!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
Thanks a lot for the reference. "All papers" by Seiberg and Witten is almost sounding like an hyperbole :) Can you give a more practical advice - like from which papers to start for getting a grasp of the background of what you are asking here? And what kind of pre-requisites would be required? And how much time should it take - like how fast should one be able to work through any typical paper that you have in mind? I really don't understand how to read these papers! Should I read them like I try to read the volumes by Weinberg - line by line working out every line?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Once you finish a basic QFT textbook and a SUSY textbook, just pick whatever recent paper which motivates you most, and try to understand it. The required materials are either in the review sections or in the references in the paper. Going through it line-by-line won't work, because the author didn't intend the paper to be read that way. Rather, try to work out an example which is slightly different from what's dealt in the paper. That way, you'll learn exactly which tools are necessary, which part of the paper can be improved, and once done, it might result in your paper!

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