Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
  • I would like to know what is exactly meant when one writes $\theta^{\pm}, \bar{\theta}^\pm, Q_{\pm},\bar{Q}_{\pm},D_{\pm},\bar{D}_{\pm}$.

{..I typically encounter this notation in literature on $2+1$ dimensional SUSY like super-Chern-Simon's theory..}

  • I guess that when one has only half the super-space (i.e only the $+$ of the above or the $-$) it is called the $(0,2)$ superspace compared to the usual $(2,2)$ superspace. In this case of $(0,2)$ SUSY I have seen the following definitions,

$Q_+ = \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^+} + i \bar{\theta}^+\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial y^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y^1} \right)$

$\bar{Q}_+ = -\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}^+} - i \theta^+\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial y^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y^1} \right)$

which commute with,

$D_+ = \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^+} - i \bar{\theta}^+\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial y^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y^1} \right)$

$\bar{D}_+ = -\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}^+} + i \theta^+\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial y^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y^1} \right)$

  • I am guessing that there is an exactly corresponding partner to the above equations with $+$ replaced by $-$. Right?

How does the above formalism compare to the more familiar version as,

$Q_\alpha = \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^\alpha} - i\sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}\bar{\theta}^{\dot{\alpha}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}$

$\bar{Q}_\dot{\alpha} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}^\dot{\alpha}} + i\sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}\theta^{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}$

which commute with,

$D_\alpha = \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^\alpha} + i\sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}\bar{\theta}^{\dot{\alpha}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}$

$\bar{D}_\dot{\alpha} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}^\dot{\alpha}} - i\sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}\theta^{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}$

{..compared to the above conventional setting, in the $\pm$ notation among many things the most perplexing is the absence of the Pauli matrices!..why?..}

I would be very grateful if someone can explain this notation.

{..often it turns out that not just the Qs and the Ds but also various superfields also acquaire a $\pm$ subscript and various usual factors of Pauli matrices look would be great if someone can help clarify this..}

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

It's hard to answer because you don't give many details, but since $\tfrac \partial {\partial y^2}$ does not appear in the SUSY generators, I think it's safe to assume that this is some light-cone superspace. In this kind of superspace one projects the spinors to plus and minus components with $\gamma_+ \gamma_-$ (I omitted a numerical factor which makes this a projector and which depends on your conventions).

Then the superspace is realized with only half of the odd variables, $\theta_+$ or $\theta_-$. So the only supercharges (or covariant derivatives) which are considered in this formalism are $\theta_+$ in your case. You don't need to include their analogs with $\theta_-$. If you insist on including them, you will generally run into problems with the closure of the algebra.

You had another question about the absence of the $\gamma$ matrices. They are there, just written out explicitly.

share|cite|improve this answer
Can you give some more explicit expressions about the projections you mentioned or a reference(pedagogic?)? I don't get it when you say that the $\theta_1,\theta_2$ superspace is equally captured by just $\theta_+$ or $\theta_-$. I guess you mean to say that $\theta_+$ and $\bar{\theta}_+$ is the same space as $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. So what is the $(2,2)$ superspace. As for extra details - well - much of my immediate notation is from this paper - - and one can see this $\pm$ notation also in this paper - – user6818 Mar 25 '12 at 17:29
@user6818 The first paper you cite deals with two dimensions. So your comment about Chern-Simons definitely doesn't apply. In the second reference I can't see any equation of the kind you asked about. If your question is really about 2D, try this reference, starting at page 52. – Sidious Lord Mar 25 '12 at 21:06
Thanks for the reference. Let me see if that helps completely understand this $\pm$ notation. About my second reference looks at page 29, 37 and 40 for example - you can see this curious $\pm$ notation - I don't understand what they call as the supersymmetry transformation in that language - like say on page 37. – user6818 Mar 26 '12 at 22:46

Your Answer


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.