A On the Refined Index of BPS states

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter kdv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index States
kdv
Messages
345
Reaction score
5
I am trying to reproduce a very simple result that involved evaluating the refined index for a vector supermultiplet but ran into a snag. I hope someone will be able to clear that up easily.

Apparently for a half vector multiplet (meaning that we do not include the CPT conjugated states), the result is (see 0912.1346, equations 3.1 to 3.3):

$$ Tr_{H'} (-y)^{2J_3'} = - y - y^{-1} $$

Here the primes indicate that we must remove from the state a half hypermultiplet, in other words
$$ H = H' \otimes \biggl( [\frac{1}{2}] + 2 [0] \biggr) $$

Now, unless I am mistaken, a half hypermultiplet has two states of helicity 1/2 and two of helicity zero.
And a half vector multiplet has one h=1, two h=1/2 and 1 h=0.

My questions are:

1) First they say that all multiplets contain at least a half hypermultiplet...but I don't see this in the vector multiplet since it has fewer h=0 states than a hypermultiplet.

2) How do they get the trace to be $$ -y-y^{-1}??$$ Clearly they consider only the values $$J_3'=\pm 1/2$$ but why ? My guess was that by J_3' they mean half the helicity, and if I consider the two helicities of a spin 1 particle, I would then get their result , but this leads to several questions:

I) Why would J_3' mean half the helicity?

II) Why would we consider the helicities + 1 and -1 if we are talking about half a vector multiplet? We should not be including the CPT conjugate, I thought?!

III) How does one get rid of the spin 1/2 and spin zero contributions, exactly? It seems to work for the spin 1/2 (vector and hypermultiplets have the same number of h=1/2 components) but it does not work for the h=0 states.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kdv said:
I am trying to reproduce a very simple result that involved evaluating the refined index for a vector supermultiplet but ran into a snag. I hope someone will be able to clear that up easily.

Apparently for a half vector multiplet (meaning that we do not include the CPT conjugated states), the result is (see 0912.1346, equations 3.1 to 3.3):

$$ Tr_{H'} (-y)^{2J_3'} = - y - y^{-1} $$

Here the primes indicate that we must remove from the state a half hypermultiplet, in other words
$$ H = H' \otimes \biggl( [\frac{1}{2}] + 2 [0] \biggr) $$

Now, unless I am mistaken, a half hypermultiplet has two states of helicity 1/2 and two of helicity zero.
And a half vector multiplet has one h=1, two h=1/2 and 1 h=0.

My questions are:

1) First they say that all multiplets contain at least a half hypermultiplet...but I don't see this in the vector multiplet since it has fewer h=0 states than a hypermultiplet.

2) How do they get the trace to be $$ -y-y^{-1}??$$ Clearly they consider only the values $$J_3'=\pm 1/2$$ but why ? My guess was that by J_3' they mean half the helicity, and if I consider the two helicities of a spin 1 particle, I would then get their result , but this leads to several questions:

I) Why would J_3' mean half the helicity?

II) Why would we consider the helicities + 1 and -1 if we are talking about half a vector multiplet? We should not be including the CPT conjugate, I thought?!

III) How does one get rid of the spin 1/2 and spin zero contributions, exactly? It seems to work for the spin 1/2 (vector and hypermultiplets have the same number of h=1/2 components) but it does not work for the h=0 states.

Thanks in advance
I have my questions. To get the vector multiplet, we must take H' to be [1/2]. Indeed,
$$ [\frac{1}{2}] \otimes \biggl( [\frac{1}{2}] + 2 [0] \biggr) = [1] + [0] + 2 [\frac{1}{2}] $$ which is the particle content of a vector supermultiplet. It's that simple.
 
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