# Ques. F Term SuSy Breaking -Bailin & Love

by ChrisVer
Tags: bailin, love, ques, susy, term
 P: 754 I have a problem understanding the attached part of the book... Specifically how they derived this result for the Fs... For example I'll try to write: $F_{1}^{\dagger}= - \frac{\partial W(Φ_{1},Φ_{2},Φ_{3})}{\partial Φ_{1}}|_{Φ_{1}=φ_{1}}$ If I do that for the O'Raifeartaigh superpotential I'll get: $F_{1}^{\dagger}= -λ_{1} (Φ_{3}^{2}-Μ^{2})$ However they choose $Φ_{3}=φ_{3}$ instead, and I don't know why they do that... Attached Thumbnails
 P: 1,020 Write the most general form of chiral superfield with it's expansion in terms of the scalar field, fermionic and auxiliary field. Constructing a superpotential consists of some expression like Φn with different values of n and a number of superfields and writing a general expression. You need to put the superpotential term along with superlagrangian (which contains terms of auxiliary fields like F*F) and integrate with something like ∫d2θ[...], to get the general lagrangian. In doing so you will encounter terms like NφN-1F and φN-2ψψ, you just concentrate on the term NφN-1F which can be written as ##\frac{∂W}{∂φ}##F. You just also add the complex conjugate of it to satisfy the hermtiicity condition. Along with F*F term you have the general form of potential in which you have to get rid of auxiliary field by EOM. Doing that gives you, ##F^*=-\frac{∂W}{∂φ}##. So it is already assumed that when you differentiate with respect to φ, you get a term which is dependent on the superfield but then you have to make a replacement of Φ by φ.
P: 90
 However they choose Φ3=φ3 instead, and I don't know why they do that...
I think $\Phi_{3}$ is the superfield where $\varphi_{3}$ is the scalar field component of the superfield. This formula enables to compute the scalar potential of the theory (which is $\sum{F_{i}^{\dagger}F_{i}}$) from the superpotential.

 P: 754 Ques. F Term SuSy Breaking -Bailin & Love Yes, that what it does... Also F could not be proportional to a chiral sfield, because F is a scalar one... However in such a definition of F I gave in my post, there is no way for me to plug in the scalar field φ3 instead of the chiral sfield Φ3. Andrien, I would agree with that if the chiral field was one... In that case, you indeed get $Nφ^{N-1} F$ terms... (the FF* comes from the Kahler part of the Lagrangian). However in the case you have different chiral fields (as you do here), you get different terms... for example the: $Φ_{1}Φ_{2} |_{θθ-wanted}= φ_{1}F_{2} + F_{1} φ_{2}$ and $Φ_{1}Φ_{2} Φ_{3} |_{θθ-wanted}= φ_{1}φ_{2}F_{3} + φ_{1}F_{2}φ_{3}+ F_{1}φ_{2}φ_{3}$ But enough of that, let me write the spotential of the current O'Raifeartaigh model... $W= λ(Φ_{1} Φ_{3}^{2} - Φ_{1} Μ^{2} )+ g Φ_{2}Φ_{3}$ By the above, the terms containing F's after a ∫d2θ are: $W= λ[(2φ_{1}φ_{3}F_{3}+ F_{1} φ_{3}^{2}) - F_{1} M^{2}] + g (φ_{2}F_{3}+φ_{3}F_{2})$ (but question, how could you drop the ψ fields appearing?) From that I see for example that the coefficient of $F_{2}$ is: $g φ_{3}= \frac{∂W}{∂Φ_{2}}$ but not for $Φ_{2}=φ_{2}$, but for all the rest fields also reduced down to their bosonic component....
 P: 754 I guess I had the derivative definition, I used in my 1st post, wrong in my lecture notes :/
P: 1,020
The differentiation is performed with respect to scalar part as opposed to superfield as you have written in OP.
 how could you drop the ψ fields appearing?
For the same reason you don't take VEV of spinor fields because it's zero.
 P: 754 then $dW/dφ_{2}= g F_{3}$?
P: 1,020
 Quote by ChrisVer then $dW/dφ_{2}= g F_{3}$?
You use this on original superpotential treating Φ as φ and you get right result.
If you write it in terms of F's like,

 ##W= λ[(2φ_{1}φ_{3}F_{3}+ F_{1} φ_{3}^{2}) - F_{1} M^{2}] + g (φ_{2}F_{3}+φ_{3}F_{2})##
then you need to use eqn. of motion for F's to get the same thing ( with F*F term included), you get by directly differentiating superpotential with respect to scalar part. Both give equivalent result but don't confuse one by another.

 Related Discussions Quantum Physics 3 Beyond the Standard Model 1 Beyond the Standard Model 1 Beyond the Standard Model 2 High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 4