1
$\begingroup$

When writing down the the action of the RNS superstring in superspace, all of the sources I have checked (BBS, GSW, Polchinski) seem to just write down the action in conformal gauge, that is $$ S_{\text{RNS}}:=\mathrm{i}\, \frac{T}{4}\int _W\mathrm{d}^2\sigma \mathrm{d}^2\theta \, \bar{D}Y\cdot DY, $$ where $W$ is the superworldsheet, $Y$ is a superfield on $W$: $$ Y:=X+\bar{\theta}\psi +\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}\theta B, $$ $D$ is the 'supercovariant derivaitve': $$ D_A:=\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\theta}^A}+(\rho ^\alpha \theta )_A\partial _\alpha, $$ $\rho ^\alpha$ are generators of the $(-,+)$ Clifford algebra: $$ \{ \rho ^\alpha ,\rho ^\beta \}=2\eta ^{\alpha \beta}, $$ and the bar denotes the Dirac conjugate.

On the other hand, for the bosonic string, we have the Polyakov action: $$ S_{\text{P}}:=-\frac{T}{2}\int _W\mathrm{d}^2\sigma \, \sqrt{-h}\nabla _\alpha X\cdot \nabla ^\alpha X, $$ where $h_{\alpha \beta}$ is the metric on the worldsheet $W$ and $\nabla _\alpha$ the corresponding Levi-Civita covariant derivative (which for scalar fields happens to agree with just the usual partial derivative). If we take $h_{\alpha \beta}=\eta _{\alpha \beta}$ (conformal gauge), then this reduces to the Bosonic part (ignoring the auxilary field $B$) of $S_{\text{RNS}}$.

I was wondering: what is the appropriate generalization of $S_{\text{RNS}}$ to a theory defined on a supermanifold with a 'supermetric'? For that matter, what is the right notion of a supermetric on a supermanifold and do we have an analogous Fundamental Theorem of Super-Riemannian Geometry that, given a supemetric, gives us a canonical supercovariant$^1$ derivative? This generalization should be analogous to the pre-gauge-fixed form of $S_{\text{P}}$ given above in which the metric and all covariant derivatives appear explicitly.


$^1$ While $D$ is called the "supercovariant derivative", it clearly cannot be the right notion, at least not in general, because it makes no reference to a supermetric.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is given in an old review by D'Hoker and Phong, with this INSPIRE entry.

A summary is given in Sec. 2.1 and Appendix B of (again) D'Hoker and Phong, hep-th/0110238.

$\endgroup$

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.