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.

I want to understand the proof of the claims (of the construction as well as of its uniqueness) of gauge singlet states given around equation 2.13 (page 10) of this paper.

  • Also does the listing of gauge singlet states there depend on the fact that these are superconformal primaries? (Are they claiming that any gauge singlet state is a primary?)

    What exactly is the connection between the construction of the gauge singlets and them being superconformal primaries?

Let me repeat the claims here again,

  • If you have $N_f$ fields in the fundamental representation of $U(N_c)$ then apparently these can't be combined (tensored?) into an $U(N_c)$ invariant (gauge singlet).

  • But $N_f$ in the fundamental of $SU(N_c)$ can be combined into "baryons" - gauge singlets of $SU(N_c)$ as, $\epsilon_{i_1\dots i_{N_f-N_c}j_1\dots j_{N_c}}\epsilon^{a_1\dots a_{N_c}}$ $\prod_{k=1}^{N_c} \phi^{j_k}_{a_k}$

  • If with the same $SU(N_c)$ the $N_f$ fields happen to be in the adjoint of $SU(N_c)$ then there exists forms invariant under $SU(N_c)$ given as $Tr[\prod_{k=1}^n \phi_{i_k}]$ (for any $n$ of these $N_f$ fields)

  • If one has a pair of fields in the fundamental and the anti-fundamental of $SU(N_c)$ then the gauge invariant operators under $SU(N_c)$ are given as the "mesons" - $\phi^i_a \bar{\phi}^a_j$ (where $a$ is the $N_c$ index and $i,j$ is the $N_f$ index)

-

I wonder if some Hilbert's invariant theory has gone into these claims. If yes, how? I guess somewhere it is being used that the gauge invariant states are finitely generated since these are invariant under the action of these reductive gauge groups.

share|improve this question
4  
Hi user6818 - this is a lot of different questions. Could you edit your post to reduce it to ask only one thing, or a couple of closely related ones? You can always post the others separately. –  David Z Feb 1 '13 at 5:44
    
I may be out of my depth here, but I think the requirement for field unitarity is related to the invariance of the scalar observables, i.e., the field energy density. Non-unitary transformations could break this conservation, and would lead to non-physical results. –  KDN Feb 13 '13 at 12:54

1 Answer 1

There is nothing fancy going on here. The question can be re-phrased as a question(s) in group theory.

  1. Starting from an object in the fundamental representation of $SU(N_c)$, can one obtain a single by considering arbitrary tensor products of the the fundamental representation with itself. The answer is that one needs to take $N_c$-th power to find a singlet. The easy (physics) way to see this is that there are only two isotropic tensors in $\mathbb{C}^{N_c}$: $\delta^{a\bar{b}}$ and $\epsilon^{a_1a_2\ldots a_{N_c}}$, where I use unbarred indices $a$ ($a_i$)for the fundamental and barred indices for the anti-fundamental representations of $SU(N_c)$. These lead to the "baryons" where we follow a convention that the field has a "lower" index.
  2. If you have one field in the fundamental and the other in the anti-fundamental, then a singlet may be formed using the invariant tensor $\delta^{a\bar{b}}$.
  3. An adjoint field may be considered to be a bi-fundamental i.e., having one fundamental and one anti-fundamental index. You can easily see that the trace can be re-written as a bunch of contractions involving $\delta^{a\bar{b}}$.

None of these make any reference to whether these operators are conformal or superconformal primaries. That is an independent question which I have not answered.

share|improve this answer

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.