1,611 reputation
1131
bio website physics.uwa.edu.au/~styler
location Melbourne, Australia
age 33
visits member for 3 years, 10 months
seen Sep 25 at 11:31

11h
awarded  Explainer
Sep
25
awarded  Altruist
Sep
18
awarded  Investor
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
24
revised Explicit supersymmetry breaking fermion mass terms
added the missing m_{ij}
Jun
24
suggested suggested edit on Explicit supersymmetry breaking fermion mass terms
Jun
19
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
16
awarded  Notable Question
Mar
13
awarded  Favorite Question
Jan
1
revised How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?
TeXified the TeXifiable math
Jan
1
suggested suggested edit on How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?
Dec
22
awarded  Revival
Nov
20
comment Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction
@Undo - thanks for the bounty!
Nov
20
comment Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction
@Trimok: I think that if the number of fields don't match then you can't have supersymmetry. However the $2^{d/2}$ structure was considered by people like Delbourgo and others back in the 70s and 80s. I can't remember the details...
Nov
15
awarded  Yearling
Oct
29
comment Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction
@Jose: That does not address the question being asked.
Oct
29
comment Why do people rule out zeta regularization for renormalization?
This question does not seem to have any physics content. People don't rule out zeta function regularization. It is often used in one-loop calculations and whole books have been written about it. However, it is awkward to use at higher loops which prevents it's mainstream use in large scale calculations.
Oct
27
accepted Simple (but wrong) argument for the generality of positive beta-functions
Aug
25
comment Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction
@Humphrey: I thought that maybe swapping the order of some D-algebra (4D) and momentum integration ($(4-\epsilon)$-D) would yield an inconsistency. For example, the former could give you a 4D Kronecker delta and the latter would give you a ($(4-\epsilon)$-D) delta... And more importantly, if it's not possible to get inconsistent results in the superfield formulation, then why not just declare the results of such calculations to be what we mean by DRed and be done with it?
Jul
25
revised Superfields and the Inconsistency of regularization by dimensional reduction
re-tagged