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

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    4d Reduction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dimensional reduction of N=1 Super Yang-Mills theory from 10 dimensions to 4 dimensions. Participants are tasked with expressing the field strength terms in a reduced form and clarifying the implications of the gauge covariant derivative in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the expression for the field strength components, particularly F_{\mu i} and F^{\mu i}, and question the definitions and conventions used in the gauge covariant derivative. There is an attempt to derive relationships involving these components and their implications for the dimensional reduction.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the conventions for the gauge covariant derivative and the implications of dimensional reduction. There is ongoing exploration of the factor of 2 that arises in the calculations, with references to external resources for clarification. Multiple interpretations of the results are being discussed, particularly regarding the trace of the field strength terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential discrepancies in the exercise and question the assumptions made regarding the adjoint representation of the fields. The discussion includes considerations of gauge group indices and the implications of rescaling fields.

physicus
Messages
52
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



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

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



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

Thanks for any help!

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

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 [itex]D_i = i\phi_i[/itex].
 
Thanks! Why can we write [itex]D_M=\partial_M+iA_M[/itex] if for some field [itex]X[/itex] in the adjoint [itex]D_M X=\partial_M X +i[A_M,X][/itex] (which is given in the exercise)? I don't see where the commutator should come from.

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

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 [itex]X[/itex] in the adjoint of the gauge group:
[itex]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[/itex]
The calculation is equivalent to my previous post.
What can i conclude from that for [itex]Tr\,(F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i})[/itex]?

All the operators have gauge group indices:
[itex]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[/itex]

I need [itex]Tr\,(F_{\mu i}F^{\mu i})=F_{\mu i}{}_a{}^b F^{\mu i}{}_b{}^a[/itex]
Can I get that from what i have done?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K