What is the meaning of 'box' in Wess and Bagger's chiral superfield theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobhawke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Box Operator
Bobhawke
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I apologize if this question has been asked before or if it is dumb, but...

I'm trying to learn some supersymmetry and have been working through Wess and Bagger. However, I have become confused in chapter 9, when they calculate the propagators of a free chiral superfield theory. My confusion is at the set of equations 9.11: They call the position space Feynman propagator the inverse of (box squared + m squared). It might make sense if it was momentum space and box was the momentum, but elsewhere in the book I believe they are using box to mean the D'Alembert operator. This doesn't seem to make sense and all and I can't figure out what's causing the confusion.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In and around W&B (9.11) \Box still means the d'Alembertian \Box=\partial^a\partial_a, i.e. it's a differential operator.

Below equation (9.11) there's the formula

\Delta_F(x) = \frac{1}{\Box-m^2}

this probably a typo/oversight of some sort.
Either the (x) is extraneous and it should be interpreted as the operator definition

\begin{align}<br /> \Delta_F = \frac{1}{\Box-m^2}\,, <br /> \quad \text{such that:}&amp; \quad<br /> (\Box-m^2)\Delta_F = \mathbf{1}\\<br /> \quad\text{equivalently:}&amp; \quad<br /> (\Box-m^2)\Delta_F(x) = \delta^4(x) <br /> \quad\text{where}\quad <br /> \Delta_F(x) = \Delta_F\cdot\delta^4(x)\,,<br /> \end{align}

or (more likely) it was meant to include the Dirac δ-function,

\Delta_F(x) = \frac{1}{\Box-m^2}\delta^4(x)

so that using the momentum space representation for the Dirac δ-function you get the normal momentum space propagator

\tilde{\Delta}_F(k) = \frac{-1}{k^2+m^2}\ .

By the way:
The approach used in this section is a bit old fashioned / not very common. You can more simply derive the superfield propagator directly using superspace variational derivatives and then, if you want, project out the component propagators. See the standard textbooks by Gates, Grisaru, Rocek & Seigel OR Buchbinder & Kuzenko OR West etc... for more modern / different approaches. More details at http://www.stringwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_Supergravity" is also worth the read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you very much, that was extremely helpful.
 
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