- #1
- 6,735
- 2,455
Hello all
Since there seems that quite many here have followed Professor Srednickis QFT book, I want to ask a couple of question I have from his chapter on Supersymmetry.
i) on page 617 he defines the kinetic term of the Chiral Superfields as:
[tex]L_{\text{kin}} = \Phi^{\dagger} \exp(-2gV) \Phi[/tex]
but he evaluates [tex] \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi[/tex] in eq. 95.63
But why? the relation is not [tex] \exp(-2gV) \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi[/tex]
Can one pull that exponential like this, even though it contains anticommuting numbers (95.62)
ii) On page 618, he says that "From eq 95.24, we see that [tex]D^*_{\dot{a}} = - \partial ^*_{\dot{a}} [/tex] acts on a function of y, theta and theta^*
Has anyone confirmed this? I am lost, and what is the significance of this?
iii) How does he starts off with equation 95.68, and why is there a factor of 2, comparing with 95.16??
If anyone has any questions on this chapter, maybe we can start a study circle and solve the problems and derivations together?
cheers
Since there seems that quite many here have followed Professor Srednickis QFT book, I want to ask a couple of question I have from his chapter on Supersymmetry.
i) on page 617 he defines the kinetic term of the Chiral Superfields as:
[tex]L_{\text{kin}} = \Phi^{\dagger} \exp(-2gV) \Phi[/tex]
but he evaluates [tex] \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi[/tex] in eq. 95.63
But why? the relation is not [tex] \exp(-2gV) \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi[/tex]
Can one pull that exponential like this, even though it contains anticommuting numbers (95.62)
ii) On page 618, he says that "From eq 95.24, we see that [tex]D^*_{\dot{a}} = - \partial ^*_{\dot{a}} [/tex] acts on a function of y, theta and theta^*
Has anyone confirmed this? I am lost, and what is the significance of this?
iii) How does he starts off with equation 95.68, and why is there a factor of 2, comparing with 95.16??
If anyone has any questions on this chapter, maybe we can start a study circle and solve the problems and derivations together?
cheers