Problem evaluating an anticommutator in supersymmetric quantum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating an anticommutator in the context of supersymmetric quantum mechanics, specifically related to the verification of an equation from a research paper. The participants explore the implications of the equation within the framework of N = 4 gauge quantum mechanics derived from N = 1 gauge theory in four dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to reproduce results from a paper, specifically focusing on the anticommutator of supercharges and its relation to the Hamiltonian and other terms in the theory.
  • The participant expresses difficulty in confirming the equation and suspects a conceptual misunderstanding in the calculations.
  • Another participant suggests manipulating the Pauli matrices to simplify the expression and potentially reveal the necessary relationships.
  • A later reply reiterates the need to establish a specific equality involving the Pauli matrices and Kronecker deltas, indicating an ongoing effort to resolve the mathematical challenge.
  • There is mention of checking various contractions to ensure consistency, but no resolution is reached regarding the equality of the two sides of the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct evaluation of the anticommutator or the specific mathematical manipulations required. Multiple competing views and approaches are presented, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about their calculations and conceptual understanding, particularly regarding the manipulation of Pauli matrices and the implications of the equations involved. There are references to specific terms and conditions that may not be fully established or agreed upon.

Gleeson
Messages
30
Reaction score
4
I am trying to reproduce the results of a certain paper here. In particular, I'm trying to verify their eqn 5.31.

The setup is N = 4 gauge quantum mechanics, obtained by the dimensional reduction of N = 1 gauge theory in 4 dimensions. ##\sigma^i## denotes the ith pauli matrix. ##\lambda_{A \alpha}## is a two component complex fermion (or rather its ##\alpha##th component). ##A## labels the generators of the gauge group.

\begin{align*}
H &= \frac{1}{2}\pi^m_A \pi^m_A + \frac{1}{4} g^2 (f_{ABC}\phi^m_B \phi^n_C)^2 + igf_{ABC}\bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^m\phi^m_B \lambda_C \\
Q_{\alpha} &= (\sigma^m \lambda_A)_{\alpha}(\pi^m_A - iW^m_A)\\
\bar{Q}_{\beta} &= (\bar{\lambda}_B\sigma^n)_{\beta}(\pi^n_B + iW^n_B)\\
W&= \frac{1}{6}g f_{ABC} \epsilon_{mnp}\phi^m_A \phi^n_B \phi^p_C \\
W^m_A &= \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi^m_A} \\
[\phi^m_A, \pi^n_B] &= i \delta_{AB}\delta^{mn} \\
\{\lambda_{A \alpha}, \bar{\lambda}_{B \beta} \} &= \delta_{AB} \delta_{\alpha \beta}\\
G_A &= f_{ABC}(\phi^m_B\pi^m_C - i\bar{\lambda}_B \lambda_C).
\end{align*}

It is claimed that

\begin{align*}
\{Q_{\alpha}, \bar{Q}_{\beta}\} &= 2 \delta_{\alpha \beta}H - 2g(\sigma^m)_{\alpha \beta} \phi^m_A G_A
\end{align*}

This can also be written as

\begin{align}
\{Q_{\alpha}, \bar{Q}_{\beta}\} &= \delta_{\alpha \beta}(\pi^m_A \pi^m_A + \frac{1}{2} g^2 (f_{ABC}\phi^m_B \phi^n_C)^2 + i2gf_{ABC}\bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^m\phi^m_B \lambda_C) - 2g(\sigma^m)_{\alpha \beta} \phi^m_A f_{ABC}(\phi^m_B\pi^m_C - i\bar{\lambda}_B \lambda_C).
\end{align}

I have spent many hours trying to confirm this, but unable so far to do so.

\begin{align*}
\{Q_{\alpha}, \bar{Q}_{\beta}\} &= \{(\sigma^m \lambda_A)_{\alpha}(\pi^m_A - iW^m_A) (\bar{\lambda}_B\sigma^n )_{\beta}(\pi^n_B + iW^n_B)\}\\
&=(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\lambda_{A \theta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})[\pi^m_A \pi^n_B + W^{n m}_{BA} + iW^n_B\pi^m_A - i W^m_A \pi^n_B + W^m_A W^n_B] \\
&+( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\lambda_{A \theta})[\pi^n_B \pi^m_A - W^{m n}_{AB} - iW^m_A \pi^n_B + iW^n_B \pi^m_A + W^n_B W^m_A] \\
&= (\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})(\lambda_{A \theta} \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}) [\pi^m_A \pi^n_B + W^{n m}_{BA} + iW^n_B\pi^m_A - i W^m_A \pi^n_B + W^m_A W^n_B] \\
&+ (\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})[\pi^n_B \pi^m_A - W^{m n}_{AB} - iW^m_A \pi^n_B + iW^n_B \pi^m_A + W^n_B W^m_A] \\
&= (\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\theta \beta})[\pi^m_A \pi^n_A + iW^n_A\pi^m_A - i W^m_A \pi^n_A + W^m_A W^n_A] \\
&+ (\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})[( \lambda_{A \theta}\bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma})-( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})]W^{m n}_{AB}\\
&= (\delta_{mn} \delta_{\alpha \beta} + i \epsilon_{mnp}\sigma^p_{\alpha \beta})[\pi^m_A \pi^n_A + iW^n_A\pi^m_A - i W^m_A \pi^n_A + W^m_A W^n_A] \\
&- 2(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})W^{m n}_{AB}\\
&= \delta_{\alpha \beta}(\pi^m_A \pi^m_A + W^m_AW^m_A) + 2\epsilon_{mnp}\sigma^p_{\alpha \beta} W^m_A \pi^n_A - 2(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})W^{m n}_{AB}\\
&=\delta_{\alpha \beta}(\pi^m_A \pi^m_A + \frac{1}{2} g^2 (f_{ABC}\phi^m_B \phi^n_C)^2) +g \epsilon _{mrs}f_{ABC}\phi^r_B \phi^s_C\epsilon_{mnp}\sigma^p_{\alpha \beta} W^m_A \pi^n_A - 2(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})W^{m n}_{AB}\\
&= \delta_{\alpha \beta}(\pi^m_A \pi^m_A + \frac{1}{2} g^2 (f_{ABC}\phi^m_B \phi^n_C)^2) - 2g(\sigma^m)_{\alpha \beta} \phi^m_A f_{ABC}\phi^m_B\pi^m_C - 2(\sigma^m_{\alpha \theta}\sigma^n_{\gamma \beta})( \bar{\lambda}_{B \gamma}\lambda_{A \theta})g \epsilon_{mnp}f_{ABC}\phi^p_C.
\end{align*}

The first three terms are correct. But the fourth term is wrong (it should instead be two different terms above). I have spent many hours on this. I think I must have some conceptual misunderstanding about these sorts of calculations, because I can't do it. I am hoping someone can help me out and clarify what I'm doing wrong please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So I think I have reduced the above to trying to conclude that:

$$
\sigma^{k \ \beta}_{\alpha} \delta_{\theta}^{\gamma} - \sigma^{k \ \gamma}_{\theta}\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha} = i \epsilon_{ijk}\sigma^{i \ \gamma}_{\alpha} \sigma^{j \ \beta}_{\theta}.
$$

If anyone has any suggestions, it would be appreciated.
 
I would try dropping in a commutator of Pauli matrices for ##\epsilon_{ijk}\sigma^{i \gamma}_{\alpha}## and see if you can get Kronecker's on the left hand side from products of the same Pauli matrices.
 
Gleeson said:
So I think I have reduced the above to trying to conclude that:

$$
\sigma^{k \ \beta}_{\alpha} \delta_{\theta}^{\gamma} - \sigma^{k \ \gamma}_{\theta}\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha} = i \epsilon_{ijk}\sigma^{i \ \gamma}_{\alpha} \sigma^{j \ \beta}_{\theta}.
$$

If anyone has any suggestions, it would be appreciated.
This should be
$$
\sigma^{k \ \gamma}_{\theta}\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha} - \sigma^{k \ \beta}_{\alpha} \delta_{\theta}^{\gamma} = i \epsilon_{ijk}\sigma^{i \ \gamma}_{\alpha} \sigma^{j \ \beta}_{\theta}.
$$.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I still couldn't show the two sides to be equal. I have checked various contractions, and they seem to be consistent at least.

If anyone else can see how to solve this, or to point out a mistake, please let me know.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K