Solving Supersymmetry Q: U_R(1) Symmetry & theta*Q

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alphaone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supersymmetry
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the transformation properties of the anticommuting variable theta in the context of U_R(1) symmetry within superspace. The transformation theta -> exp(-i alpha)*theta is derived from the need for the SUSY generator Q to maintain invariance under R-symmetry. This invariance is crucial for ensuring consistency between the transformations of component fields, particularly in chiral superfields. The BUSSTEPP lectures on supersymmetry provide further insights into these concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supersymmetry and its mathematical framework
  • Familiarity with U_R(1) symmetry and its implications
  • Knowledge of chiral superfields and their components
  • Basic grasp of renormalization theorems in quantum field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the transformation properties of fields under U_R(1) symmetry
  • Explore the role of SUSY generators in superspace formalism
  • Review the BUSSTEPP lectures on supersymmetry for detailed explanations
  • Investigate the implications of invariance in quantum field theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in supersymmetry, quantum field theory, and researchers exploring beyond the standard model.

alphaone
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Hi
I have a question concerning the anticommuting variable theta of the superspace manifold: For a proof of some renormalisation theorems I have seen the author make use of the transformation properties of theta under the internal U_R(1) symmetry i.e. he said theta -> exp(-i alpha)*theta ,under this symmetry. Now I would like to know where this comes from. Is it coming from the fact that the SUSY generator Q does not commute with the R-symmetry and that we want theta*Q to be invariant under this symmetry? If so why do we need theta*Q to be invarint? I would really appreciate any response and if my question is not really clear please let me know as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alphaone said:
Hi
I have a question concerning the anticommuting variable theta of the superspace manifold: For a proof of some renormalisation theorems I have seen the author make use of the transformation properties of theta under the internal U_R(1) symmetry i.e. he said theta -> exp(-i alpha)*theta ,under this symmetry. Now I would like to know where this comes from. Is it coming from the fact that the SUSY generator Q does not commute with the R-symmetry and that we want theta*Q to be invariant under this symmetry? If so why do we need theta*Q to be invarint? I would really appreciate any response and if my question is not really clear please let me know as well.


I'm not an expert, but I think it goes something like this: Before we go to the superspace formalism, we know how the R-symmetry acts on the fields. To realize this symmetry in superspace, we look at for example the chiral superfield. We know how the R-symmetry acts on the components fields, the scalar and the fermion. If we look at the scalar, there are no thetas around, and so this will tell us how the entire superfield transforms.
But this transformation is only consistent with the transformation of the component fermions as long as the superspace coordinates, theta, also transforms.

I don't know if that made things clearer, I think this is explained in f.x the BUSSTEPP lectures on supersymmetry. You can find it here:
http://www.stringwiki.org/wiki/Supersymmetry_and_Supergravity

BTW: This question would probably be more at home in "beyond the standard model".

nonplus
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K