Kahler potental terms linear in visible sector fields

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SUSY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Linear Terms
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the absence of linear terms in the Kahler potential for visible sector fields, specifically terms of the form Pα(φ, φ*) Cα + h.c. Participants clarify that such terms violate charge conservation associated with the visible sector fields, which interact with the Standard Model. The discussion highlights that while hidden sector fields may allow for certain terms, visible sector fields must adhere to conservation laws, thus forbidding linear terms. References to specific terms like CαCβ and 1/Re(Cα) illustrate the constraints imposed by these conservation laws.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kahler potential in supersymmetry
  • Familiarity with visible and hidden sector fields in particle physics
  • Knowledge of charge conservation in gauge theories
  • Basic concepts of non-perturbative terms in quantum field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of charge conservation in supersymmetric theories
  • Study the role of hidden sector fields in string theory
  • Examine the properties of non-perturbative terms in quantum field theory
  • Explore the relationship between gauge interactions and Kahler potential terms
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in supersymmetry, string theory, and gauge theories, as well as graduate students seeking to deepen their understanding of the Kahler potential and its implications in particle physics.

SUSY
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have a question regarding the expansion of the Kahler potential in visible sector fields [itex]C^{\alpha}[/itex]:

It is usually said that the Kahler potential can be expanded as follows: [tex]K = K_{hid}(\phi,\phi^*) + K_{\bar{\alpha} \beta}(\phi,\phi^*) C^{*\bar{\alpha}} C^{\beta} + \frac{1}{2} (Z_{\alpha \beta}(\phi,\phi^*) C^{\alpha} C^{\beta} + h.c.) + ...[/tex]
where the [itex]\phi[/itex] are the hidden fields.

I was wondering why there are no terms linear in [itex]C^{\alpha}[/itex], i.e. why there are no terms
[tex]P_{\alpha}(\phi,\phi^*) C^{\alpha} + h.c. \subset K[/tex]

I always thought the Kahler potential should be assumed as general as possible and that would include such terms. Can someone tell me why they are usually assumed to be absent? Are there papers about that specific question that I could consult?

Thank you very much,
SUSYAs an edit:
One often finds terms such as [itex]\propto \frac{1}{S + S^*}[/itex] for some stringfield [itex]S[/itex]. Again, such terms are absent for the visible fields, i.e. there are no terms [itex]\propto \frac{1}{C^{\alpha} + C^{*\bar{\alpha}}}[/itex] and I can't seem to understand why that should be so...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's recall that the visible sector contains those fields that are charged under a gauge group that contains the Standard Model interactions, while the hidden sector does not directly participate in the Standard Model interactions. The two sectors can interact together via gravity or perhaps some very high energy gauge interaction. This means that the visible sector fields have conserved charges that the hidden sector fields do not.

A term linear in a visible sector field will generally not conserve these charges, so such terms are forbidden. Some terms like the ##C^\alpha C^\beta## one that you wrote down could also be forbidden, but would be allowed if that particular field only had a ##\mathbb{Z}_2## charge. Similarly, a non-perturbative term like ##1/\mathrm{Re}(C^\alpha)## would also be forbidden. Some hidden sector or string fields (in particular the dilaton) might not have such conserved charges, so ##1/\mathrm{Re}(S)## could be allowed. A term proportional to ##C^\alpha C^{*\alpha}## would tend to be invariant under the SM charges, so can be generated perturbatively via any messenger interactions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K