Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My question is in reference to the action in equation 4.130 of Becker, Becker and Schwartz. It reads as,

$S_{matter}= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int (2\partial X^\mu \bar{\partial}X_\mu + \frac{1}{2}\psi^\mu \bar{\partial} \psi_\mu + \frac{1}{2}\tilde{\psi}^\mu \partial \tilde{\psi}_\mu)d^2z$

  • Its not clear to me as to why this should be the same as the Gervais-Sakita (GS) action as it seems to be claimed to be. Firstly what is the definition of $\tilde{\psi}$? (..no where before in that book do I see that to have been defined..) Their comment just below the action is that this is related to the $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$ defined earlier but then it doesn't reduce to the GS action.

  • What is the definition of the "bosonic energy momentum tensor" ($T_B(z)$) and the "fermionic energy momentum tensor" ($T_F(z)$)? I don't see that defined earlier in that book either.

I am not able to derive from the above action the following claimed expressions for the tensors as in equation 4.131 and 4.133,

$T_B(z) = -2\partial X^\mu(z)\partial X_\mu (z) - \frac{1}{2}\psi^\mu(z)\partial \psi _\mu (z) = \sum _{n=-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{L_n}{z^{n+2}}$

and

$T_F(z) = 2i\psi^{\mu} (z) \partial X_{\mu} (z) = \sum _{r=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{G_r}{z^{r+\frac{3}{2}}}$

  • It would be helpful if someone can motivate the particular definition of $L_n$ and $G_r$ as above and especially as to why this $T_B(z)$ and $T_F(z)$ are said to be holomorphic when apparently in the summation expression it seems that arbitrarily large negative powers of $z$ will occur - though I guess unitarity would constraint that.

  • Why is this action called "gauge-fixed"? In what sense is it so?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

  • Consider Wick-rotating the action back from Euclidean signature into Lorentzian: you replace $\partial\rightarrow \partial_+$, $\bar{\partial}\rightarrow \partial_-$ and the fields are replaced by $\psi\rightarrow\psi_+$ and $\tilde{\psi}\rightarrow\psi_-$.
  • The action you wrote has an $N=1$ superconformal symmetry (which, I believe, was one of the first SUSY examples) with generators $T_B(z)$ and $T_F(z)$ (sometimes called $T(z)$ and $G(z)$ respectively). Here $T_B$ is the usual energy-momentum tensor (generator of conformal symmetries), while $T_F$ is the supercurrent (supersymmetry generator). See exercises 4.6 and 4.7 for their derivation ($T_F$ is called $J$ there).
  • The conservation of the energy-momentum tensor gives $\bar{\partial} T=0$ on the worldsheet (the punctured complex plane $z\neq 0$), i.e. $T$ is holomorphic. Recall, that $z=\exp(2(\tau+i\sigma))$, so $z=0$ corresponds to $\tau\rightarrow-\infty$. Similarly, conservation of the supercurrent implies that $T_F$ is holomorphic.
  • To (partially) fix the worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance, one usually considers the conformal gauge: $g_{ab}=h_{ab} e^\phi$, where $g_{ab}$ is the worldsheet metric, $h_{ab}$ the flat metric and $\phi$ the dilaton, which decouples. In the action you wrote, the worldsheet metric is flat, which is the gauge-fixing in this case.
share|improve this answer
    
I am getting quite confused as to how they keep shifting between the "+-" notation and the "\alpha \beta" notation. I have seen those 4.6 and 4.7 exercises there in 4.6 they seem to be postulating a "new" definition of what is $T_{++}$ and what is $T_{--}$ and its not clear as to how or why they are related to $T_B(z)$. And what happened to our familar definition of the stress-tensor as $ T_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\mu} \phi)\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial^{\nu} \phi)} - \eta_{\mu \nu}L $ ? –  user6818 Dec 23 '11 at 2:34
    
What I typed above seems to have gotten completely messed up! Can you kindly be a little more explicit. In 4.6 excersise for example they claim $\delta_{+} (\psi_{-}\partial_{+} \psi_{-} + \psi_{+}\partial_{-} \psi_{+}) = \partial_+(\psi_{+}\partial_{-} \psi_{+}) - \partial_{-} (\psi_{+} \partial_{+} \psi_{+})$ This is not clear to me! –  user6818 Dec 23 '11 at 2:38
    
Everything I am writing seems to get messed up! Can you kindly fill in some more details about those exercises - I have seen them but got lost midway. –  user6818 Dec 23 '11 at 2:39
    
@user6818, +- refers to the light-cone coordinates: $x_+ = x_0 + x_1$, $x_- = x_0 - x_1$, which become $z$ and $\bar{z}$ in Euclidean signature. The definition of $T$ is simple: it is the Noether current associated to the $z\rightarrow z+\epsilon(z)$ symmetry. What you see in the book is just a trick for computing it. The formula you write for $T_{\mu\nu}$ is correct, but you should be careful with two things: $\psi$ anticommute and $\eta_{+-}=\eta{-+}=1/2$ (the diagonal entries are zero). –  Pavel Safronov Dec 23 '11 at 4:31
    
good answer, +1. User: your first comment got invalidated because you wrote a quotation mark instead of a dollar in front of the first $T_{++}$ in it. So all maths and non-maths got exactly reverted afterwards. You still had time to edit it and fix it, a few minutes! –  Luboš Motl Dec 23 '11 at 6:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.