Clarifying the SUSY equations in Weinberg III

  • Thread starter Thread starter Si
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weinberg
Si
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I'm giving lectures on SUSY following Weinberg III. Here's my problem: Is (27.1.12) correct? I mean, shouldn't the \Omega dependent factors be swapped? Otherwise \Phi^\dagger \Gamma is not gauge covariant!

My understanding is that the extended gauge transformations of (27.1.11) and (27.1.12) are generalizations of the ordinary ones in (27.1.2) and (27.1.4) respectively, i.e. one generalizes \Lambda(x_+) to \Omega(x_+,\theta_L), the point being that \Phi remains left-chiral after the \Omega transformation (and F and D terms are extended gauge invariant). But comparing (27.1.12) with (27.1.4) shows the \Omega factors of the transformation are the wrong way round.

Of course I can just correct this "typo" in my own lecture notes, but the problem is that I really need (27.1.12) to be true. Otherwise, jumping ahead to page 130 (hardback edition), I can't get (27.3.12) to be the gauge covariant left-chiral superfield it needs to be. I have now wasted 2 days going through literature and the web to sort this out, with no success!

So, why is (27.1.12) true / if it is a typo, how can I get (27.3.12) to be a left-chiral gauge covariant superfield?

Thank a lot in advance for any help you can give.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Si said:
...(27.1.12)...shouldn't the \Omega dependent factors be swapped?

By 27.1.10 Γ=Γ so it doesn't matter.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
Back
Top