• 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.


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
5,037 questions , 2,191 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,706 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Diagonalize mass matrix term for fermions and "doubling trick" in m(atrix) theory

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Can someone help me understand the "Doubling trick" at page 36 in http://inspirehep.net/record/887513/files/sis-2002-060.pdf (named "Scattering in Supersymmetric M(atrix) Models" by Robert Helling) or help me in some other way to get the mass for the fermions from the given Lagrangian, preferably without knowing the explicit form of the SO(9) gamma matrices?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Natanael

asked Nov 2, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Natanael (75 points) [ revision history ]
retagged May 21, 2014 by dimension10
Rather than link against the thesis, it would be better to put the trick/equation inlined here (with a reference to the text). Also, what is your confusion about it? Where it comes from, how to use it, why it works, etc?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user tpg2114

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Let $M$ be the mass matrix for fermions $\psi_+$ and for $\psi_-$ (separately). It is obtained by $\not{D}\not{D^+}= -\partial_t^2+ M^2$

Then $M^2=r^2 \mathbb{Id_{16}}- \not{v}$, Now, the $16*16$ matrix $\not{v}$ has a zero trace, and it square is $\vec v^2 Id_{16}$, so the only possibility is that the matrix $\not{v}$ has 8 eigenvalues $v$, and 8 eigenvalues $-v$ (here $v$ means $\sqrt{\vec v^2}$). So the matrix $M^2$ has 8 eigenvalues $r^2+v$ and 8 eigenvalues $r^2-v$. This is true for $\psi_+$ and for $\psi_-$, while $\psi_3$ is obviously massless.


The gamma matrices of $SO(9)$ are real, so $\not{B}$ is hermitian. $\partial_t$ is antihermitian (because $i\partial_t$ is hermitian), so starting with $\not{D}=\partial_t-\not{B}$, it is easy to see that $\not{D}^{\dagger}=-\partial_t-\not{B}$

If you neglect order 3 terms in the Lagrangian ($\psi^2Y, \psi^2A$), and apply Lagrange equation on $\psi_+$, you get $\not{D}\psi_-=0$. And, because $\psi_+ = (\psi_-)^*$, and $\not{B}$ is real, you have also $\not{D}\psi_+=0$

The mass matrix apply separately to $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$, simply because $\psi_+ = (\psi_-)^*$, and the mass matrix is real.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok
answered Nov 2, 2013 by Trimok (955 points) [ no revision ]
Why do we have a mass matrix for both $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$ separately? And how come that if $\not{D}=\partial_t-\not{B}$ then $\not{D}^{\dagger}=-\partial_t-\not{B}$? And where do $\log$ come from? If it's from the effective action $\Gamma^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\log (\mathscr{O})$ does that mean that $\not{D}$ is the wave operator for the fermions, and how do I see this?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Natanael

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