Is the vector superfield in superspace a physical degree of freedom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neitrino
  • Start date Start date
Neitrino
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
HI,

We can construct vector superfield by chiral field minus anti chiral super field (example Bailin-Love page 59 expression 3.23)

So does this vector superfield have a kinetic term-WW ? since the for the kinetic term we have expression 3.37 and it seems that if vector superfield is defined as in 3.23 then all terms in kinetic expression are zero.

Thank you
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Neitrino said:
HI,

We can construct vector superfield by chiral field minus anti chiral super field (example Bailin-Love page 59 expression 3.23)

So does this vector superfield have a kinetic term-WW ? since the for the kinetic term we have expression 3.37 and it seems that if vector superfield is defined as in 3.23 then all terms in kinetic expression are zero.

Thank you

V_{\mu\nu} in 3.37 is the field strength tensor for the Lorentz vector field V_{\mu} appearing as the lowest component of V_{WZ} in 3.23. There are no extra \thetas appearing in the terms in 3.37. In the abelian theory considered there,

V_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu V_\nu - \partial_\nu V_\mu.

I think that your confusion is due to the fact that the authors are using V to represent at least 3 different but related objects.
 
Neitrino said:
HI,

We can construct vector superfield by chiral field minus anti chiral super field (example Bailin-Love page 59 expression 3.23)

So does this vector superfield have a kinetic term-WW ? since the for the kinetic term we have expression 3.37 and it seems that if vector superfield is defined as in 3.23 then all terms in kinetic expression are zero.

The confusion is that this is not a vector superfield with a propagating spin-1 component, rather the gauge field component is pure gauge. The point is that the combination "chiral field minus anti chiral super field" is precisely how a local gauge transformation acts on a vector superfield, so this is precisely the superspace generalization of writing

variation(A_mu) = del_mu phi

which does not describe a physical degree of freedom.
 
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