S. Martin's Supersymmetry primer Metric

TriTertButoxy
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

S. Martin's Supersymmetry primer (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356) is a wonderful source from which to learn SUSY.

But, what really causes me (and others around me) huge consternation is Martin's use of mostly plus metric, when particle physicists use the mostly minus metric. Given that minus signs are very important in SUSY, it would be nice to follow a primer that is in line with particle physicist's metric.

Is there a mostly minus version of the primer?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NEVER MIND; Martin has provided the readers with a way to easily convert it:
Grab the source from the ArXiV, and change the following line in his tex file:

\def\signofmetric{1}
 
Well, the advantage is that it's a free source. Since spinorial calculul is the foundation of SuSy, such basic conventions do matter. If you're coming off a QFT book with the mostly minus convention, then you are not pleased. You have to do work on your own to adjust to the new convention. My reccomendation to anyone for the best written introduction to SuSy would be the book by Mueller-Kirsten. It leaves almost nothing to the reader.
 
I have Mueller-Kirsten's book. It is awesome; but they only go as far as setting up the machinery. Now I need to study MSSM and other non-perturbative physics. This is where Martin's primer comes in.
 
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...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top