What Makes R-Symmetry Unique in N=4 Supersymmetry?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Melsophos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Susy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the uniqueness of R-symmetry in N=4 supersymmetry, particularly focusing on the transition from U(N) to SU(4) and the implications of this transformation within the context of supersymmetry algebra. Participants explore theoretical aspects, algebraic computations, and references related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the R-symmetry group for N=4 is SU(4) rather than U(4), suggesting that this distinction arises from the properties of the scalar fields in the Lagrangian.
  • Another participant mentions that U(4) can be factored as SU(4) x U(1), with the U(1) factor commuting with the superconformal group generators, leading to a projective symmetry group PSU(2,2|4).
  • A request for references on the factorization of U(1) in this context indicates a lack of familiarity with supergroups among some participants.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of earlier statements regarding the factorization of U(4), with some participants suggesting that the R-operator vanishes for N=4, resulting in only SU(4).
  • One participant highlights the existence of multiple U(1) factors, including U(1)_Z, U(1)_R, and U(1)_B, and discusses their roles in the symmetry structure.
  • Another participant explains that the R-symmetry generator commutes with the supercharge for N=4, leading to the R-symmetry factor being factored out of the supergroup.
  • There is mention of a specific commutation relation involving the R-symmetry generator and supercharges, which vanishes when N=4, although uncertainty remains about the implications for the anticommutator.
  • References to various texts and papers are shared, with some participants expressing difficulty in finding comprehensive explanations of the construction related to R-symmetry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of agreement on the nature of R-symmetry in N=4 supersymmetry, with some proposing different interpretations and models regarding the factorization of U(4) and the roles of various U(1) factors. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their understanding of supergroups and the specific algebraic steps involved in the transition from U(N) to SU(4), indicating that certain assumptions or definitions may be missing or unclear.

Melsophos
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Last year I was studying supersymmetry and since them I'm regularly thinking to one question for which I don't have answer: when one looks at the susy algebra with N generators, one sees that there is a U(N) R-symmetry. But for N=4, the group is in fact SU(4).
To explain this, one generally argues (Terning's book, McGreevy's lectures, problem set 2) using the form of the lagrangian, e.g. that the scalars are in the real antisymmetric 6 representation, and so a phase transformation is clearly not a symmetry of the lagrangian.
But I'm remember to have read somewhere a computation at the level of the algebra (with N generators) which leads to a term with (N-4) and this explains why the case N=4 is special. Unfortunately I'm not able to remember the steps of the computation or to find again the place where I have read this; it's not in usual books (Terning, Weinberg, Wess/Bagger, West, Binétruy, Freund, Müller-Kirsten/Wiedemann) nor reviews (Sohnius, Bilal, etc.). Does someone have an idea or a hint about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not an expert, but it's something to do with the fact that the R-symmetry group U(4) factorizes as U(4)= SU(4)xU(1). The U(1) factor commutes with all the (superconformal)group generators and hence can be factored out, leaving the projective symmetry group PSU(2,2|4) rather than SU(2,2|4) as you would have expected.
 
Do you have any reference explaining this factorization of U(1) in this case? I'm not very accustomed to supergroup.
 
I'm not sure what I said before was quite right - here is a reference (section 3).

Normally with these extended supersymmetries, the R-symmetry group is U(N), but in this case, N=4, it's SU(4)xU(1).

(I don't think what I said - that U(4)=SU(4)xU(1) is correct)
 
In fact, we can always decompose as U(N) = U(1) x SU(N), where the U(1) is the usual symmetry associated to the R-charge for N=1, except for N=4 where the R-operator vanishes, and we get only SU(4).
I took a look at the paper you said, and the U(1)_Z group which he speaks about is not the same as the U(1)_R, but it corresponds to the central charge(s) that one can adds (related to BPS state).
 
Melsophos said:
In fact, we can always decompose as U(N) = U(1) x SU(N), where the U(1) is the usual symmetry associated to the R-charge for N=1, except for N=4 where the R-operator vanishes, and we get only SU(4).
I took a look at the paper you said, and the U(1)_Z group which he speaks about is not the same as the U(1)_R, but it corresponds to the central charge(s) that one can adds (related to BPS state).

This is briefly explained in Peter West's book Introduction to Supersymmetry and Supergravity.
 
Exact, you are right, I have the book but I did not recognize since the notations differs from the usual ones. Sadly the construction is not fully explained, and I don't have access to the original paper from Hagg, Lopuszanski, Sohnius.
Do you know somewhere else where this construction is detailed? In any case, thanks for showing this.
 
Melsophos said:
In fact, we can always decompose as U(N) = U(1) x SU(N), where the U(1) is the usual symmetry associated to the R-charge for N=1, except for N=4 where the R-operator vanishes, and we get only SU(4).
I took a look at the paper you said, and the U(1)_Z group which he speaks about is not the same as the U(1)_R, but it corresponds to the central charge(s) that one can adds (related to BPS state).

I think you're right. As this reference (near end of page 2) points out, there are potentially 3 U(1)s involved: U(1)_Z which is the central extension in the reference I gave, U(1)_R (which he calls U(1)_C) which is the extra piece that traditionally gets removed from the R-symmetry U(4) - this is the one you want, and finally U(1)_B (which some people call U(1)_Y) which Intriligator refers to as the "bonus symmetry".

The U(1)_R factor can indeed be factored out of the supergroup when \mathcal{N}=4 since it commutes with the generators. This is explained in the appendix here. Basically the commutator of the R-symmetry generator with the supercharge is given by [R^a_b,Q^c_{\alpha}]=\delta^c_bQ^a_{\alpha}-\frac{1}{4}\delta^a_bQ^c_{\alpha}
Contracting a and b, \delta^a_b becomes \mathcal{N}, so the commutator vanishes when \mathcal{N}=4.

I assumed you'd also want the R to drop out of the anticommutator (last equation in A.2)? I'm not sure how to show that...
 
sheaf said:
I think you're right. As this reference (near end of page 2) points out, there are potentially 3 U(1)s involved: U(1)_Z which is the central extension in the reference I gave, U(1)_R (which he calls U(1)_C) which is the extra piece that traditionally gets removed from the R-symmetry U(4) - this is the one you want, and finally U(1)_B (which some people call U(1)_Y) which Intriligator refers to as the "bonus symmetry".

In another reference (I forgot which ones precisely, but it cites the one you are talking about) I read that in fact it's not very important which U(1) ones factorizes since one can always take linear combinations.

sheaf said:
The U(1)_R factor can indeed be factored out of the supergroup when \mathcal{N}=4 since it commutes with the generators. This is explained in the appendix here. Basically the commutator of the R-symmetry generator with the supercharge is given by [R^a_b,Q^c_{\alpha}]=\delta^c_bQ^a_{\alpha}-\frac{1}{4}\delta^a_bQ^c_{\alpha}
Contracting a and b, \delta^a_b becomes \mathcal{N}, so the commutator vanishes when \mathcal{N}=4.

I assumed you'd also want the R to drop out of the anticommutator (last equation in A.2)? I'm not sure how to show that...

Your reference is really perfect, thank you! In fact, the Sohnius review "Introducing susy" has also a little section on this, but less well explained.
Sohnius explained a little what happens to this term, but I'm not sure to understand all. In short, he says the term is allowed only if the lowest helicity of the representation is different from -1.
It seems (page 2) that one can redefine the variables such that the commutator is [Q, S] ~ ... + (N-4) R, and this gives [Q, R] ~ Q.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K