# Tag Info

1

Let me elaborate on Ryan's correct comments. The flat background makes all components of the spinors covariantly constant; so the geometry is compatible with all of SUSY. A generic curved 6-real-dimensional manifold has an $O(6)$ holonomy or $SO(6)\sim SU(4)$ if it is orientable. The $SU(3)$ subgroup preserves 1/4 of the original supercharges – it is the ...

2

Say we have a supercharge $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{10}$. To turn this into a supercharge on the $\mathbb{R}^4$ effective theory obtained by compactifying on $X$, we need to contract $Q$ with a covariantly constant spinor on $X$. The reason why we want it to be covariantly constant is because we want to take the size of $X$ to zero. Covariant constant spinors are ...

2

It is not an answer, but maybe some information which could be useful : In an other post, it has been also noticed that the commutators of the $R$-symmetry generators with supercharge generators are: $[R^a_b,Q^c_{\alpha}]=\delta^c_bQ^a_{\alpha}-\frac{1}{4}\delta^a_bQ^c_{\alpha}$ So, taking the trace (on $a,b$), with $\mathcal N=4$, gives a null ...

5

Only the $su(4)$ generators appear on the right hand side of the $u(2,2|4)$ commutation relations, so superconformal invariance does not prevent an anomaly in the $u(1)$ reducing the symmetry to $su(2,2|4)$. In $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM the central charge is furthermore zero, so the actual symmetry is $psu(2,2|4)$. The breaking of the generator with non-zero ...

5

It's a scenario that has heavy scalars and relatively light gauginos, so it's one example of a class of "split SUSY" or "mini-split SUSY" scenarios that have survived most of the constraints. In this kind of scenario, collider bounds put the lightest superpartners, namely the winos, above about 270 GeV. Gluinos are constrained to be somewhere north of a TeV, ...

3

While keeping the array page $9$ in ref1, already given, in mind, we add a new ref2, especially fig $1$ page $7$, paragraph $2.2.3$. $D = 6$, page $11$, table $5$ page $13$, and discussion page $12$ From fig $1$, page $7$, we see, that in $D=6$, the $N=2$ supersymmetry corresponds to a $(N_+, N_-) = (1,0)$ supersymmetry Looking at the discussion page $12$, ...

0

I've found the answer to this question, and it does basically follow from holomorphicity. The holomorphicity property is essentially the statement that the operator is BPS: $\Phi$ is annihilated by a supercharge $Q$. This is also the reason the property does not hold for vector superfields, which are not BPS. The reason that the dimension of the operator is ...

-2

i think that the superstrings need not of supersymetry or better.all occur into of tolpology of smooth 4-dimension manifolds containing infinity families of smoth with differents metrics curvatures

0

Supersymmetry is not dead and cannot die because it is a mathematical construction, beautiful in its simplicity and power. What it may very well is not to be physical. Many string theory constructions are being postulated assuming some sort of unicity proved: types of compactifications, solutions to various no-go theorems, anomaly cancellations etc. In all ...

1

In the first action the $A_{\mu}$ are Hermitian. In the second action the $A_{\mu}$ are anti-Hermitian since we let $A_{\mu}\to\frac{i}{g}A_{\mu}$. The commutator of anti-Hermitian matrices are also anti-Hermitian. If we have $\text{Tr}(M^{2})$ , with $M$ being anti-Hermitian, then we can write it as $\text{Tr}(M^{2})=-\text{Tr}((iM)^{2})$ , with $iM$ ...

Top 50 recent answers are included