Dimensional reduction of 10D N=1 Super Yang Mills to 4D

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    4d Reduction
physicus
Messages
52
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Given N=1 SYM in 10 dimensions (all fields in the adjoint representation):
\int d^{10}x\, Tr\,\left( F_{MN}F^{MN}+\Psi\Gamma^M D_M\Psi\right)
D_M\Psi=\partial_M \Psi+i[A_M,\Psi] is the gauge covariant derivative.
Reduce to 4 dimensions A_M=(A_\mu,\phi_i), \mu=0,\ldots,3, i=4,\ldots 9, \partial_i=0 \,\forall \,i and show:
F_{MN}F^{MN}=F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+D_\mu \phi_i D^\mu \phi^i + [\phi_i,\phi_j][\phi^i,\phi^j]

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



My ansatz:
F_{MN}F^{MN}=F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i}+F_{i\nu}F^{i\nu}+F_{ij}F^{ij}
I have some trouble writing down what F_{\mu i} and F^{\mu i} are. I think my problem is that I only have the definition of the gauge covariant derivative acting on a field in the adjoint.
F_{\mu i}=\frac{1}{i}[D_\mu,D_i]=\frac{1}{i}(D_\mu D_i - D_i D_\mu) = ?
Is D_i = i\phi_i?

Thanks for any help!

physicus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
physicus said:
I have some trouble writing down what F_{\mu i} and F^{\mu i} are. I think my problem is that I only have the definition of the gauge covariant derivative acting on a field in the adjoint.
F_{\mu i}=\frac{1}{i}[D_\mu,D_i]=\frac{1}{i}(D_\mu D_i - D_i D_\mu) = ?
Is D_i = i\phi_i?

Up to sign and other conventions, yes. Remember that the ##\phi_i## are also in the adjoint representation. You seem to take conventions so that ##D_M = \partial_M +i A_M##. Then dimensional reduction tells to take ##\partial_i=0## when acting on any fields, so we recover D_i = i\phi_i.
 
Thanks! Why can we write D_M=\partial_M+iA_M if for some field X in the adjoint D_M X=\partial_M X +i[A_M,X] (which is given in the exercise)? I don't see where the commutator should come from.

I tried to determine F_{\mu i}=\frac{1}{i}[D_\mu,D_i] by letting it act on some X in the adjoint:
[D_\mu,D_i]X=D\mu D_i X - D_i D_\mu X
=D_\mu(i[\phi_i,X])-D_i(\partial_\mu X+i[A_\mu,X])
=i\partial_\mu[\phi_i,X]-[A_\mu,[\phi_i,X]]-i[\phi_i,\partial_\mu X]+[\phi_i,[A_\mu,X]]
Use the Jacobi identity in the last term and : \partial_\mu[\phi_i,X]=[\partial_\mu\phi_i,X]+[\phi_i,\partial_\mu X]
=i[\partial_\mu\phi_i,X]-[A_\mu,[\phi_i,X]]-[A_\mu,[X,\phi_i]]-[X,[\phi_i,A_\mu]]
The 2nd and 3rd term cancel.
=i[\partial_\mu \phi_i+i[A\mu,\phi_i],X]
=i[D_\mu\phi_i,X]
I would have expected the result to be i(D_\mu\phi_i)X without commutator. But even if that was the result i would get an unwanted factor 2:
F_{MN}F^{MN}=F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\color{red}{2} D_\mu \phi_i D^\mu \phi^i + [\phi_i,\phi_j][\phi^i,\phi^j]

Where am I wrong?
 
The factor of 2 is correct. See pages 9-10 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9801182. You can rescale the ##\phi_i##, which just puts a factor of 1/4 in front of the potential term.
 
Thanks, there seems to be an error in the exercise then.

I still have another question. I found for a field X in the adjoint of the gauge group:
F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i}X = \ldots = [D_\mu \phi_i,[D^\mu \phi^i,X]] = D_\mu \phi_i D^\mu \phi^i X+X D_\mu \phi_i D^\mu \phi^i
The calculation is equivalent to my previous post.
What can i conclude from that for Tr\,(F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i})?

All the operators have gauge group indices:
F_{\mu i}{}_a{}^b F^{\mu i}{}_b{}^c X_c{}^d = (D_\mu \phi_i)_a{}^b (D^\mu \phi^i)_b{}^c X_c{}^d+X_a{}^b (D_\mu \phi_i)_b{}^c (D^\mu \phi^i)_c{}^d

I need Tr\,(F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i})=F_{\mu i}{}_a{}^b F^{\mu i}{}_b{}^a
Can I get that from what i have done?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top