2
$\begingroup$

I suspect that I might have understood something wrong here. I'm trying to show that the general Wess-Zumino Lagrangian \begin{align} \mathcal{L} &= \int d^2\theta d^2\bar{\theta} K(\Phi^*, \Phi) + \Big[\int d^2\theta W(\Phi) + \mbox{h.c.}\Big] \\ &= K_{ij^*}(-\partial_\mu A^{*j} \partial^\mu A^i + F^{*j}F^i + \frac{i}{2}\partial_\mu\psi^{\dagger j} \bar{\sigma}^\mu \psi^i - \frac{i}{2}\psi^{\dagger j}\bar{\sigma}^\mu \partial_\mu \psi^i) \\ &\qquad + F^jW_j - \frac{1}{2} \psi^i\psi^jW_{ij} + F^{*j}W^*_j - \frac{1}{2}\psi^{\dagger i}\psi^{\dagger j} W^*_{ij} \end{align} under SUSY action as it should. $K(\Phi^*,\Phi)$ is the Kahler potential which can be any arbitrary real function (I do not assume renormalizability here). I tried to do this showing that $\delta \mathcal{L}$ would be a total derivative after substituting each field variation \begin{align} \delta_\epsilon \phi_j &= \epsilon \psi_j \\ \delta_\epsilon \psi_j &= -i(\sigma^\mu \epsilon^\dagger)\partial_\mu \phi_j + \epsilon F_j \\ \delta_\epsilon F_j &= -i\epsilon^\dagger \bar{\sigma}^\mu \partial_\mu\phi_j \end{align} But after some rather boring maths I couldn't show get total derivative unless the Kahler metric is the trivial one $K_{ij^*} = \delta_{ij}$. So my question is: Do each field still meant to transform under the above SUSY variation when I consider such theory in the general Kahler geometry? If they do I must have just made an algebraical mistake. If not how do they meant to transform now and why?

I understand that I could show this using the superspace formalism where I can apply \begin{align} Q &= i\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} + \bar{\theta}\sigma^\mu \partial_\mu \\ Q^\dagger &= -i\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}} + \theta\sigma^\mu \partial_\mu \end{align} directly to $K(\Phi^*, \Phi)$ where I would get total derivative variation by construction. But I don't see why the transformation rule for each individual fields should change since I could use product rule and apply $Q, Q^\dagger$ on each field before multiplying them back to get $\delta K$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Comment to the question (v1): Consider adding references to fix conventions and focus answers. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 8 '15 at 14:37
1
$\begingroup$

You forgot that terms like $g_{mi^*}\Gamma_{jk}^{m} F^{*i}\psi^{j}\psi^{k}$ as well as $R_{ij^*kl^*}\psi^{i}\psi^{k}\bar\psi^{j}\bar\psi^{l}$ also shows up in the $\theta\theta \bar\theta\bar\theta $when we expand $K(\Phi,\Phi^*)$ in terms of components.

$$ K=...+\theta\theta \bar\theta\bar\theta\left(g_{ij^*}F^{i}F^{j}-\frac{1}{2}g_{im^*}\Gamma^{m^*}_{j^*k^*}F^{i}\bar\psi^{j}\bar\psi^{k}-c.c.+\frac{1}{4}R_{ij^*kl^*}\psi^{i}\psi^{k}\bar\psi^{j}\bar\psi^{l}+...\right) $$

where

$$ g_{ij^*}=\frac{\partial}{\partial A^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial A^{*j}} K|_{\theta\theta \bar\theta\bar\theta} $$ $$ g_{mj^*}\Gamma_{ik}^{m} = \frac{\partial}{\partial A^{*k}}\frac{\partial}{\partial A^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial A^{*j}} K|_{\theta\theta \bar\theta\bar\theta}=\frac{\partial}{\partial A^{*k}}g_{ij^*} $$

This is why you only obtained the $g_{ij^*}=\delta_{ij^*}$, you are ignoring curvature here. See chapter XXII. Chiral models of Wess and Bagger.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.