good luck with your phd! don't worry about that last question, it was a result of curiosity when you shared that paper.. i have also to wory about m courses instead of drifting away. thanks for your discussion, @haushofer
Oh i see thanks for your efforts in explaining these, please if i could ask one more thing: when you replied by this
Could we know how this ##\epsilon=1+\beta e^2## represents the Killing spinor for the IWP metric which has a time-like Killing vector while the other two orbits correspond to...
Oh ok, concerning what you said here
I was asking because if you go back to the paper you cited, specifically, you can see that the authors (upon the use of gauge transformation) turned the original very general ##\epsilon =\lambda 1 +{\mu}^{i}e^i+\sigma e^{12}## to 3 canonical forms which are...
Thanks for your answers guys!
@haushofer sure your answers always do help, I just want to make sure of some stuff going on in my head as I am trying to solve KSE's for the first time.
So why do people have the right to simplify a spinor that way?
Then in the paper you cited, you're saying...
Spinors in $N=2, D=4$ supergravity can be simplified using gauge transformation and thus canonical spinors can be found. In the case of $N=2, D=4$ supergravity the gauge transformation Spin (3,1) is used. My question is how do we know which transformation can be used in a certain theory in order...
This sounds more like "fermion" is still transformed into the "boson" so is it that spin connection is a boson? or else what is the point of mentioning this?
Do you mean that the metric is a boson?
happy 2016 @haushofer
@haushofer thanks very much for your answers. I really like the fact that you put an analogy but I did not get the whole picture of the analogy and how it plays a role in answering my first question which says: "Does it imply that for a background to be supersymmetric, then fermions must not...
Links for [1] and [2] are below.
Please have a look here section 12.6 [1]. It says here that
Given the action of a supergravity theory, it is generally useful to search for solutions of the classical equations of motion. It is most useful to obtain solutions that can be interpreted as...
ummm, thanks a lot @Emilie.Jung and @nrqed ! So, you mean this is not a property of a Hermitian metric but is an additional condition on that Hermitian metric? Because EmilieJung said it was a property. If EmilieJung is right then doesn't this property have a proof? That was mainly my question.
The past post got a little messy, what I meant to ask you was when you said
So why is it that hermiticity makes those two terms vanish? Excuse me for double posting
@haushofer But you start by setting as a given that the lagrangian holds scalar fields or complex fields and you build on that, meanwhile the question was why is this the case? Why in 4D you have complex scalars and in 5D you have real scalars? It seems you answered the question by setting the...