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.

While reading a paper I ran into this particular way of writing a $\cal{N}=3$ fields (in a theory with $N_f$ hypermultiplets) that I couldn't relate to anything I had seen before in the text-books (typically Weinberg's) The claim is that $q^{Aa}$ and $\psi_{\alpha}^{Aa}$ are scalar and fermions such that $a,b$ are $SU(R)_R$ indices, $A,B$ are denoting them to transform in the fundamental representation of $USp(2N_f)$ (why?) and $\alpha, \beta$ are $SO(2,1)$ spinor indices (theory is in $2+1$)

Apparently these fields satisfy some reality conditions given by, the following equations,

$(q^\dagger)_{Aa} = \omega_{AB}\epsilon_{ab}q^{Bb}$

and

$\bar{\psi} ^\alpha _{Aa} = \omega_{AB} \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon ^{\alpha \beta} \psi _{\beta} ^{Bb}$

(where $\omega$ is some symplectic form, which I have no clue about)

I find the above equations very unfamiliar. For one thing why do the scalar and the fermion have $R$ charge indices? (I am only familiar with the supercharges having a R-symmetry when the central charges are absent) Also I don't understand the $USp(2N_f)$ index.

Apparently this can be related to usual $\cal{N}=2$ fields $(Q,\tilde{Q})$ as,

$q^{A1} = (Q,\tilde{Q})$

and

$q^{A2} = (-\bar{\tilde{Q}}, \bar{Q})$

I am completely unfamiliar with such a relationship or this thinking of $\cal{N}=2$ fields as being thought of as a pair of $Qs$.

Once I understand the meaning of the above I will post another about its curious way of writing the supersymmetry transformation and the lagrangian with this field content.

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.