The Quantum Theory of Fields
Volume III
Supersymmetry
Steven Weinberg
University of T= at Austin
. . CAMBRIDGE
~ UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 100114211, USA http://www.cup.org
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
@ Steven Weinberg 2000
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2000
Printed in the United States of America
Typeface Times (Monotype) l1/13pt. System ~TJ3X [DBD]
A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 521 66000 9 hardback
Contents
Sections marked with an asterisk are somewhat out of the book's main line of
development and may be omitted in a first reading.
PREFACE TO VOLUME m xvi
NOTATION xx
24 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 1
24.1 Unconventional Symmetries and 'NoGo' Theorems 1
SU(6) symmetry 0 Elementary nogo theorem for unconventional semisimple
compact Lie algebras 0 Role of relativity
24.2 The Birth of Supersymmetry 4
Bosonic string theory 0 Fermionic coordinates 0 Worldsheet supersymmetry 0
WessZumino model 0 Precursors
Appendix A SU(6) Symmetry of NonRelativistic Quark Models 8
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem 12
Problems 22
References 22
25 SUPERSYMMETRY ALGEBRAS 25
25.1 Graded Lie Algebras and Graded Parameters 25
Fermionic and bosonic generators 0 SuperJacobi identity 0 Grassmann par
ameters 0 Structure constants from supergroup multiplication rules 0 Complex
conjugates
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 29
HaagLopuszanskiSohnius theorem 0 Lorentz transformation of fermionic gen
erators 0 Central charges 0 Other bosonic symmetries 0 Rsymmetry 0 Simple
Vll
vm Contents
and extended supersymmetry 0 Fourcomponent notation 0 Superconformal
algebra
25.3 Space Inversion Properties of Supersymmetry Generators 40
Parity phases in simple supersymmetry 0 Fermions have imaginary parity 0
Parity matrices in extended supersymmetry 0 Dirac notation
25.4 Massless Particle SupermultipIets 43
Known particles are massless for unbroken supersymmetry 0 Helicity raising and
lowering operators 0 Simple supersymmetry doublets 0 Squarks, sleptons, and
gauginos 0 Gravitino 0 Extended supersymmetry multiplets 0 Chirality problem
for extended supersymmetry
25.5 Massive Particle SupermultipIets 48
Raising and lowering operators for spin 3component 0 General massive multi
plets for simple supersymmetry 0 Collapsed supermultiplet 0 Mass bounds in
extended supersymmetry 0 BPS states and short supermultiplets
Problems 53
References 54
26 SUPERSYMMETRIC FIELD THEORIES 55
26.1 Direct Construction of Freid Supermnltiplets 55
Construction of simplest N = 1 field multiplet 0 Auxiliary field 0 Infinitesi
mal supersymmetry transformation rules 0 Fourcomponent notation 0 Wess
Zumino supermultiplets regained
26.2 General SuperfieIds 59
Superspace spinor coordinates 0 Supersymmetry generators as superspace dif
ferential operators 0 Supersymmetry transformations in superspace 0 General
superfields 0 Multiplication rules 0 Supersymmetric differential operators in su
perspace 0 Supersymmetric actions for general superfields 0 Parity of component
fields 0 Counting fermionic and bosonic components
26.3 ChiraI and Linear Snperfields 68
Chirality conditions on a general superfield 0 Left and rightchiral superfields 0
Coordinates ~ 0 Differential constraints 0 Product rules 0 Supersymmetric g;
terms 0 g;terms equivalent to Dterms 0 Superpotentials 0 Kahler potentials
o Partial integration in superspace 0 Space inversion of chiral superfields 0
Rsymmetry again 0 Linear superfields
26.4 RenormaIizabIe Theories of Chiral Superfields 75
Counting powers 0 Kinematic Lagrangian 0 g;term of the superpotential 0
Complete Lagrangian 0 Elimination of auxiliary fields 0 Onshell superalgebra 0
Vacuum solutions 0 Masses and couplings 0 WessZumino Lagrangian regained
Contents IX
26.5 Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree Approximation 83
Q'Raifeartaigh mechanism 0 Rsymmetry constraints 0 Flat directions 0 Gold
stino
26.6 Superspace Integrals, Field Eqnatious, and the Current Superfield 86
Berezin integration 0 D and jO"terms as superspace integrals 0 Potential su
perfields 0 Superspace field equations 0 Conserved currents as components of
linear superfields 0 Conservation conditions in superspace
26.7 The Supercnrrent 90
Supersymmetry current 0 Superspace transformations generated by the super
symmetry current 0 Local supersymmetry transformations 0 Construction of
the supercurrent 0 Conservation of the supercurrent 0 Energymomentum ten
sor and Rcurrent 0 Scale invariance and R conservation 0 Nonuniqueness of
supercurrent
26.8 General Kabler Potentials' 102
Nonrenorma1izable nonderivative actions 0 Dterm of Kahler potential 0
Kahler metric 0 Lagrangian density 0 Nonlinear ITmodels from spontaneous
internal symmetry breaking 0 Kahler manifolds 0 Complexified coset spaces
Appendix Majorana Spinors 107
Problems 111
References 112
27 SUPERSYMMETRIC GAUGE THEORIES 113
27.1 GangeInvariant Actions for Cbiral Snperfieids 113
Gauge transformation of chiral superfields 0 Gauge superfield V 0 Extended
gauge invariance 0 WessZumino gauge 0 Supersymmetric gaugeinvariant kine
matic terms for chiral superfields
27.2 GangeIuvariant Action for AbeHan Gauge Superfields 122
Field strength supermultiplet 0 Kinematic Lagrangian density for Abelian gauge
supermultiplet 0 FayetIliopoulos terms 0 Abelian fieldstrength spinor super
field W. 0 Left and rightchiral parts of W. 0 W. as a superspace derivative of
V 0 Gauge invariance of W. 0 'Bianchi' identities in superspace
27.3 GangeInvariant Action for General Gange Superfields 127
Kinematic Lagrangian density for nonAbelian gauge supermultiplet 0 Non
Abelian fieldstrength spinor superfield WA. 0 Left and rightchiral parts of
WA 0 9tenn 0 Complex coupling parameter 1:
27.4 Renormaljzable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 132
Supersymmetric Lagrangian density 0 Elimination of auxiliary fields 0 Condi
tions for unbroken supersymmetry 0 Counting independent conditions and field
x Contents
variables 0 Unitarity gauge 0 Masses for spins 0, 1/2, and 1 0 Supersymmetry
current 0 NonAbelian gauge theories with general Kahler potentia1s 0 Gaugino
mass
27.5 Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree Approximation Resumed 144
Supersymmetry breaking in supersymmetric quantum electrodynamics 0 General
case: masses for spins 0, 1/2, and 1 0 Mass sum rule 0 Goldstino component of
gaugino and chiral fermion fields
27.6 Perturbative NonRenormalization Theorems 148
Nonrenorma1ization of Wilsonian superpotential 0 Oneloop renormalization
of terms quadratic in gauge superfields 0 Proof using holomorphy and new
symmetries with external superfields 0 Nonrenorma1ization of FayetIliopoulos
constants ~A 0 For ~A = 0, supersymmetry breaking depends only on super
potential 0 Nonrenorma1izable theories
27.7 Soft Supersymmetry Breaking' 155
Limitation on supersymmetrybreaking radiative corrections 0 Quadratic diver
gences in tadpole graphs
27.8 Another Approach: GaugeInvariant Supersymmetry Transformations 157
De WitFreedman transformation rules 0 Preserving WessZumino gauge with
combined supersymmetry and extended gauge transformations
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry' 160
N =2 supersymmetry from N = 1 supersymmetry and Rsymmetry 0 La
grangian for N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theory 0 Eliminating auxiliary fields
o Supersymmetry currents 0 WittenOlive calculation of central charge 0 Non
renorma1ization of masses 0 BPS monopoles 0 Adding hypermultiplets 0 N = 4
supersymmetry 0 Calculation of beta function 0 N = 4 theory is finite 0
MontonenOlive duality
Problems 175
References 176
28 SUPERSYMMETRIC VERSIONS OF THE STANDARD MODEL 179
28.1 Superfields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws 180
Quark, lepton, and gauge superfields 0 At least two scalar doublet superfields
o jO"term Yukawa couplings 0 Constraints from anomalies 0 Unsuppressed
violation of baryon and lepton numbers 0 Rsymmetry 0 R parity 0 Jlterm 0
Hierarchy problem 0 Spartic1e masses 0 Cosmological constraints on lightest
superpartic1e
28.2 Supersymmetry and StrongElectroweak Unification 188
Renormalization group equations for running gauge couplings 0 Effect of super
Contents Xl
symmetry on beta functions 0 Calculation of weak mixing angle and unification
mass 0 Just two scalar doublet superfields 0 Coupling at unification scale
28.3 Where is Supersymmetry Broken? 192
Tree approximation supersymmetry breakdown ruled out 0 Hierarchy from non
perturbative effects of asymptotically free gauge couplings 0 Gauge and grav
itational mediation of supersymmetry breaking 0 Estimates of supersymmetry
breaking scale 0 Gravitino mass 0 Cosmological constraints
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 198
Supersymmetry breaking by superrenormalizable terms 0 General Lagrangian 0
Flavor changing processes 0 Calculation of KO ..... Jt! 0 Degenerate squarks and
sleptons 0 CP violation 0 Calculation of quark chromoelectric dipole moment
o 'Naive dimensional analysis' 0 Neutron electric dipole moment 0 Constraints
on masses and/or phases
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Numher 209
Dterm contribution to scalar potential 0 Ilterm contribution to scalar poten
tial 0 Soft supersymmetry breaking terms 0 Vacuum stability constraint on
parameters 0 Finding a minimum of potential 0 BIl =f 0 0 Masses of CPodd
neutral scalars 0 Masses of CPeven neutral scalars 0 Masses of charged scalars
o Bounds on masses 0 Radiative corrections 0 Conditions for electroweak
symmetry breaking 0 Charginos and neutralinos 0 Lower bound on IIlI
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking 220
Messenger superfields 0 Supersymmetry breaking in gauge supermultiplet prop
agators 0 Gaugino masses 0 Squark and slepton masses 0 Derivation from
holomorphy 0 Radiative corrections 0 Numerical examples 0 Higgs scalar
masses 0 Il problem 0 Aij and Cij parameters 0 Gravitino as lightest spartic1e
o Nexttolightest spartic1e
28.7 Baryon and Lepton NonConservation 235
Dimensionality five interactions 0 Gaugino exchange 0 Gluino exchange sup
pressed 0 Wino and bino exchange effects 0 Estimate of proton lifetime 0
Favored modes of proton decay
Problems 240
References 241
29 BEYOND PERTURBATION THEORY 248
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking 248
Finite volume 0 Vacuum energy and supersymmetry breaking 0 Partially broken
extended supersymmetry? 0 Pairing of bosonic and fermionic states 0 Pairing
of vacuum and onegoldstino state 0 Witten index 0 Supersymmetry unbroken
xu Contents
in the WessZumino model 0 Models with unbroken supersymmetry and zero
Witten index 0 Large field values 0 Weighted Witten indices
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 256
Sum rule for vacuum energy density 0 Onegoldstino contribution 0 The
supersymmetrybreaking parameter F 0 Soft goldstino amplitudes 0 Sum rule
for supersymmetry currentfermion spectral functions 0 Onegoldstino contribu
tion 0 Vacuum energy density in terms of 1F and D vacuum values 0 Vacuum
energy sum rule for infinite volume
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 266
Nonperturbative effects break external field translation and Rconservation 0
Remaining symmetry 0 Example: generalized supersymmetric quantum chromo
dynamics 0 Structure of induced superpotential for Cl > C2 0 Stabilizing the
vacuum with a bare superpotential 0 Vacuum moduli in generalized supersym
metric quantum chromodynamics for Nc > Nf 0 Induced superpotential is linear
in bare superpotential parameters for Cl = C2 0 Oneloop renorma1ization of
[W. W.], term for all Cl C2
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 276
Witten index vanishes in supersymmetric quantum electrodynamics 0 Cweighted
Witten index 0 Supersymmetry unbroken in supersymmetric quantum electro
dynamics 0 Counting zeroenergy gauge field states in supersymmetric quantum
electrodynamics 0 Calculating Witten index for general supersymmetric pure
gauge theories 0 Counting zeroenergy gauge field states for general supersym
metric pure gauge theories 0 Weyl invariance 0 Supersymmetry unbroken in
general supersymmetric pure gauge theories 0 Witten index and R anomalies 0
Adding chiral scalars 0 Model with spontaneously broken supersymmetry
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution' 287
Underlying N = 2 supersymmetric Lagrangian 0 Vacuum modulus 0 Leading
nonrenormalizable terms in the effective Lagrangian 0 Effective Lagrangian for
component fields 0 Kahler potential and gauge coupling from a function h(~) 0
SU(2) Rsymmetry 0 Prepotential 0 Duality transformation 0 h(~) translation 0
Zs Rsymmetry 0 SL(2, Z)symmetry 0 Central charge 0 Charge and magnetic
monopole moments 0 Perturbative behavior for large laiD Monodromy at
infinity 0 Singularities from dyons 0 Monodromy at singularities 0 Seiberg
Witten solution 0 Uniqueness proof
Problems 305
References 305
30 SUPERGRAPHS 307
30.1 Potential Superfields 308
Contents Xli
Problem of chiral constraints 0 Corresponding problem in quantum electro
dynamics 0 Path integrals over potential superfields
30.2 Superpropagators 310
A troublesome invariance 0 Change of variables 0 Defining property of super
propagator 0 Analogy with quantum electrodynamics 0 Propagator for potential
superfields 0 Propagator for chiral superfields
30.3 Calculations with Supergrapbs 313
Superspace quantum effective action 0 Locality in fermionic coordinates 0 D
terms and 1F terms in effective action 0 Counting superspace derivatives 0 No
renorma1ization of 1Fterms
Problems 316
References 316
31 SUPERGRAVITY 318
31.1 The Metric Superfield 319
Vierbein formalism 0 Transformation of gravitational field 0 Transformation of
gravitino field 0 Genera1ized transformation of metric superfield HJl 0 Interaction
of HJl with supercurrent 0 Invariance of interaction 0 Genera1ized transformation
of HJl components 0 Auxiliary fields 0 Counting components 0 Interaction of
HJl component fields 0 Norma1ization of action
31.2 The Gravitational Action 326
Einstein superfield EJl 0 Component fields of EJl 0 Lagrangian for HJl 0 Value of
Ie [j Total Lagrangian 0 Vacuum energy density 0 Minimum vacuum energy 0
De Sitter and antide Sitter spaces 0 Why vacuum energy is negative 0 Stability
of fiat space 0 Weyl transfonnation
31.3 The Gravitino 333
Irreducibility conditions on gravitino field 0 Gravitino propagator 0 Gravitino
kinematic Lagrangian 0 Gravitino field equation 0 Gravitino mass from broken
supersymmetry 0 Gravitino mass from sand p
31.4 AnomalyMediated Supersymmetry Breaking 337
Firstorder interaction with scale noninvariance superfield X 0 General formula
for X 0 General firstorder interaction 0 Gaugino masses 0 Gluino mass 0 B
parameter 0 Wino and bino masses 0 A parameters
31.5 Local Supersymmetry Transformations 341
WessZumino gauge for metric superfield 0 Local supersymmetry transforma
tions 0 Invariance of action
XlV Contents
31.6 Supergravity to All Orders 343
Local supersymmetry transformation of vierbein, gravitino, and auxiliary fields
o Extended spin connection 0 Local supersymmetry transformation of general
scalar supermultiplet 0 Product rules for general superfields 0 Real matter
superfields 0 Chiral matter superfields 0 Product rules for chiral superfields 0
Cosmological constant and gravitino mass 0 Lagrangian for super gravity and
chiral fields with general Kahler potential and superpotential 0 Elimination of
auxiliary fields 0 Kahler metric 0 Weyl transformation 0 Scalar field potential
o Conditions for fiat space and unbroken supersymmetry 0 Complete bosonic
Lagrangian 0 Canonical normalization 0 Combining superpotential and Kahler
potential 0 Noscale models
31.7 GravityMediated Snpersymmetry Breaking 355
Early theories with hidden sectors 0 Hidden sector gauge coupling strong at
energy A 0 First version: Observable and hidden sectors 0 Separable bare
superpotential 0 General potential 0 Terms of order ,,4 A8 "" mi 0 A estimated
as "" 1011 GeV 0 11 and BIlterms 0 Squark and slepton masses 0 Gaugino
masses 0 Aparameters 0 Second version: Observable, hidden, and modular
sectors 0 Dynamically induced superpotential for modular superfields 0 Effective
superpotential of observable sector Oilterm 0 Potential of observable sector
mi
scalars 0 Terms of order ,,8 A12 ;::,; 0 Soft supersymmetrybreaking terms 0 A
estimated as ;::,; 1013 GeV 0 Shifts in modular fields 0 Absence of Cij terms 0
Squark and slepton masses 0 Gaugino masses
Appendix The Vierbein Fonnalism 375
Problems 378
References 379
32 SUPERSYMMETRY ALGEBRAS IN HIGHER DIMENSIONS 382
32.1 General Supersymmetry Algebras 382
Classification of fermionic generators 0 Definition of weight 0 Fermionic gen
erators in fundamental spinor representation 0 Fermionic generators commute
with PI' 0 General form of anticommutation relations 0 Central charges 0 Anti
commutation relations for odd dimensionality 0 Anticommutation relations for
even dimensionality 0 Rsymmetry groups
32.2 Massless Multiplets 393
Little group O(d  2) 0 Definition of 'spin' j 0 Exclusion of j > 2 0 Missing
fermionic generators 0 Number of fermionic generators < 32 0 N = 1 supersym
metry for d = 11 0 Threeform massless particle 0 Types IIA, IIB and heterotic
supersymmetry for d = 10
32.3 pBranes 397
New conserved tensors 0 Fermionic generators still in fundamental spinor repre
Contents xv
sentation 0 Fermionic generators still commute with PI' 0 Symmetry conditions
on tensor central charges 0 2form and 5form central charges for d = 11
Appendix Spinors in Higher Dimensions 401
Problems 407
References 407
AUTHOR INDEX 411
SUBJECT INDEX 416
Preface To Volume III
This volume deals with quantum field theories that are governed by
supersymmetry, a symmetry that unites particles of integer and halfinteger
spin in common symmetry multiplets. These theories offer a possible way
of solving the 'hierarchy problem,' the mystery of the enormous ratio of
the Planck mass to the 300 Ge V energy scale of electroweak symmetry
breaking. Supersymmetry also has the quality of uniqueness that we search
for in fundamental physical theories. There is an infinite number of Lie
groups that can be used to combine particles of the same spin in ordinary
symmetry multiplets, but there are only eight kinds of supersymmetry
in four spacetime dimensions, of which only one, the simplest, could be
directly relevant to observed particles.
These are reasons enough to devote this third volume of The Quantum
Theory of Fields to supersymmetry. In addition, the quantum field theories
based on supersymmetry have remarkable properties that are not found
among other field theories: some supersymmetric theories have couplings
that are not renormalized in any order of perturbation theory; other
theories are finite; and some even allow exact solutions. Indeed, much of
the most interesting work in quantum field theory over the past decade
has been in the context of supersymmetry.
Unfortunately, after a quarter century there is no direct evidence for
supersymmetry, as nO pair of particles related by a supersymmetry trans
formation has yet been discovered. There is just one significant piece
of indirect evidence for supersymmetry: the highenergy Unification of
the SU(3), SU(2), and U(I) gauge couplings works better with the extra
particles called for by supersymmetry than without them.
Nevertheless, because of the intrinsic attractiveness of supersymmetry
and the possibility it offers of resolving the hierarchy problem, I and
many other physicists are reasonably confident that supersymmetry will be
found to be relevant to the real world, and perhaps soon. Supersymmetry
is a primary target of experiments at high energy planned at existing
accelerators, and at the Large Hadron Collider under construction at the
CERN laboratory.
XVI
.
Preface XVll
After a historical introduction in Chapter 24, Chapters 2527 present
the essential machinery of supersymmetric field theories: the structure of
the supersymmetry algebra and supersymmetry multiplets and the con
struction of supersymmetric Lagrangians in general, and in particular
for theories of chiral and gauge superfields. Chapter 28 then uses this
machinery to incorporate supersymmetry in the standard model of elec
troweak and strong interactions, and reviews experimental difficulties and
opportunities. Chapters 2932 deal with topics that are mathematically
more advanced: nonperturbative results, supergraphs, supergravity, and
supersymmetry in higher dimensions.
I have made the treatment of supersymmetry here as clear and self
contained as I could. Wherever possible I take the reader through cal
culations, rather than just reporting results from the literature. Where
calculations are too lengthy or complicated to be included in a book of
this sort, especially in Chapter 28, I have tried to present simpler versions
that give the reader an idea of the physical issues involved.
I have made a point of including topics here that have generally not been
covered in earlier books, some because they are too new. These include:
the use of holomorphy to study perturbative and nonperturbative radi
ative corrections; the calculation of central charges; gaugemediated and
anomalymediated supersymmetry breaking; the Witten index; duality;
the SeibergWitten calculation of the effective Lagrangian in N = 2 su
persymmetric gauge theories; supersymmetry breaking by modular fields;
and a first look at the rapidly developing topic of supersymmetry in higher
dimensions, including theories with pbranes.
On the other hand, I have shortened the usual treatment of two topics
that seemed to me to have been well covered in earlier books. One of these
is the use of supergraphs. Many of the previous applications of the super
graph formalism in studying the general structure of radiative corrections
can now be handled more easily by using the arguments of holomorphy
described in Sections 27.6 and 29.3. The other is supergravity. In Sections
31.131.5 I have given a detailed and selfcontained treatment of super
gravity in the weakfield limit, which makes it clear why the ingredients of
supergravity theories  the graviton, gravitino, and auxiliary fields  are
what they are, and which allows us to derive some of the most important
results of supergravity theory, including the formula for the gravitino
mass and for the gaugino masses produced by anomalymediated super
symmetry breaking. In Section 31.6 I have outlined the calculations that
generalize supergravity theory to gravitational fields of arbitrary strength,
but these calculations are so lengthy and unlovely that I was content to
quote other sources for the results. However, in Section 31.7 I have given
a fuller than usual treatment of gravitationally mediated supersymmetry
breaking. I regret that I have not been able to in,clude exciting work of the
.. Preface
XVlll
past decade on supersymmetry related to string theory, but string theory
is beyond the scope of this book, and I did not want to report results for
which I had not provided a basis of explanation.
I have given citations both to the classic papers on supersymmetry
and to useful references on topics that are mentioned but not presented
in detail in this book. I did not always know who was responsible for
material presented here, and the mere absence of a citation should not
be taken as a claim that the material presented here is original, but
some of it is. I hope that I have improved on the original literature
or standard textbook treatments in several places, as for instance in
the proof of the ColemanMandula theorem; in the treatment of parity
matrices in extended supersymmetry theories; in the inclusion of new soft
supersymmetrybreaking terms in the minimum super symmetric standard
model; in the derivation of supercurrent sum rules; and in the proof of
the uniqueness of the SeibergWitten solution.
I have also supplied problems for each chapter. Some of these problems
aim simply at providing exercise in the use of techniques described in the
chapter; others are intended to suggest extensions of the results of the
chapter to a wider class of theories.
In teaching a course on supersymmetry, I have found that this book
provides enough material for a oneyear course for graduate students. I
intended that this book should be accessible to students who are familiar
with quantum field theory at the level it is presented in the first two
volumes of this treatise. It is not assumed that the reader has gone
through Volumes I and II, but for the convenience of those fortunate
readers who have done so I use the same notation here, and give cross
references to material in Volumes I and II wherever appropriate.
***
I must acknowledge my special intellectual debt to colleagues at the
University of Texas, notably Luis Boya, Phil Candelas, Bryce and Cecile De
Witt, Willy Fischler, Daniel Freed, Joaquim Gomis, Vadim Kaplunovsky,
and especially Jacques Distler. Also, Sally Dawson, Michael Dine, Michael
Duff, Lawrence Hall, Hitoshi Murayama, Joe Polchinski, Edward Witten,
and Bruno Zumino gave valuable help with special topics. Jonathan
Evans read through the manuscript of this volume, and made many
valuable suggestions. Thanks are due to Alyce Wilson, who prepared
the illustrations, to Terry Riley for finding countless books and articles,
and to Jan Duffy for many helps. I am grateful to Maureen Storey of
Cambridge University Press for working to ready this book for pUblication,
Preface XIX
and especially to my editor, Rufus Neal, for his continued friendly good
advice.
STEVEN WEINBERG
Austin, Texas
May, 1999
Notation
The big issue in choosing notation for a book on supersymmetry is whether
to use a twocomponent or a fourcomponent notation for spinors. The
standard texts on supersymmetry have opted for the twocomponent Weyl
notation. I have chosen instead to use the fourcomponent Dirac notation
except in the first stages of constructing the supersymmetry algebra and
multiplets, because I think this will make the book more accessible to those
physicists who work on particle phenomenology and model building. It
would be a pity to see the growth of a separate enclave of supersymmetry
specialists, who communicate well with each other but are cut off by their
notation from the larger community of particle theorists.
There is no great difficulty anyway in converting expressions in four
component form into the twocomponent formalism. In the representation
of the Dirac matrices used throughout this book, in which 1'5 is the
diagonal matrix with elements +1, +1, 1, and Ion the main diagonaL
any fourcomponent Majorana spinor lp" (such as the supersymmetry
generator Q", the superspace coordinate fJ", or the superderivative !0,,)
may be written in terms of a twocomponent spinor Xa as
where e is the 2 x 2 antisymmetric matrix with e12 = + 1. The two
component spinor Xa is what in other books is often called lp~ = iJ;" ,
while (eX*)a would be called lpa. A summary of useful properties of
fourcomponent Majorana spinors is given in the appendix to Chapter 26.
Here are some other features of the notation used in this book:
Latin indices i, j, k, and so on generally run over the three spatial
coordinate labels, usually taken as 1, 2, 3. Where specifically indicated,
they run over values 1, 2, 3, 4, with x4 = it.
Greek indices /l, v, etc. from the middle of the Greek alphabet generally
run over the four spacetime coordinate labels 1, 2, 3, 0, with xO the
time coordinate. Where it is nec(:ssary to distinguish between spacetime
xx
Notation XXI
coordinates in a general coordinate system and in a locally inertial system,
indices Jl, v, etc. are used for the former and a, b, etc. for the latter.
Greek indices IX, /3, etc. from the beginning of the Greek alphabet gener
ally (except in Chapter 24) run over the components of fourcomponent
spinors. To avoid confusion, I depart here from the conventions of Vol
ume II, and use uppercase letters A, B, etc. to label the generators of
a symmetry algebra. Components of twocomponent spinors are labelled
with indices a, b, etc. In particular, fourcomponent supersymmetry gen
erators are denoted QIX, while twocomponent generators (the bottom two
components of QIX) are called Qa.
Repeated indices are generally summed, unless otherwise indicated.
The spacetime metric '1llv is diagonal, with elements 'Ill = '122 = '133 =
1, '100=1.
The d'Alembertian is defined as 0 == '1 llv 82 /8xIl8xv = V2  8 2 /8tz, where
V2 is the Laplacian 82 /8x i 8xi.
The 'LeviCivita tensor' eIlVP<I is defined as the totally antisymmetric
quantity with e0123 = +1.
Dirac matrices "Ill are defined so that YIlYv + YvYIl = 2'1llv, Also, "15 =
iYOYl "12"13, and /3 = iyO = "14. Where explicit matrices are needed, they are
given by the block matrices
"I = .[01]
I 1 0 ' "I = I
.[0
a
a]
0 '
where 1 is the unit 2 x 2 matrix, 0 is the 2 x 2 matrix with elements zero,
and the components of a are the usual Pauli matrices
al = (~ ~) , a2 = (~ ;/), 63 = (~ ~1)
We also frequently make use of the 4' x 4 block matrices
"15 = [~ ~1] , e = [~ ~] ,
where e is again the antisymmetric 2 x 2 matrix ia2. For instance, our phase
convention for fourcomponent Majorana spinors s may be expressed as
s =  /3 "15 e s.
The step function 8(s) has the value +1 for s > 0 and 0 for s < O.
The complex conjugate, transpose, and Hermitian adjoint of a matrix
or vector A are denoted A, AT, and At = A oT , respectively. We use
xxii Notation
an asterisk * for the Hermitian adjoint of an operator or the complex
conjugate of a number, except where a dagger t is used for the transpose of
the matrix formed from the Hermitian adjoints of operators or complex
conjugates of numbers. + H.c. or +c.c. at the end of an expression
indicates the addition of the Hermitian adjoint or complex conjugate of
the foregoing terms. A bar on a fourcomponent spinor u is defined by
u=utfJ
Units are used with Ii and the speed of light taken to be unity. Throughout
e is the rationalized charge of the electron, so that the fine structure
constant is CJ. = e'2/41t ~ 1/137. Temperatures are in energy units, with the
Boltzmann constant taken equal to unity.
Numbers in parenthesis at the end of quoted numerical data give the
uncertainty in the last digits of the quoted figure. Where not otherwise
indicated, experimental data are taken from 'Review of Particle Physics,'
The Particle Data Group, European Physics Journal C 3, 1 (1998).
24
Historical Introduction
The history of supersymmetry is as peculiar as anything in the history of
science. Suggested in the early 1970s, supersymmetry has been elaborated
since then into a beautiful mathematical formalism that unites particles of
different spin into symmetry multiplets and has profound implications for
fundamental physics. Yet there is so far not a shred of direct experimental
evidence and only a few bits of indirect evidence that supersymmetry has
anything to do with the real world. If (as I expect) supersymmetry does
tum out to be relevant to nature, it will represent a striking success of
purely theoretical insight.
Chapter 25 will begin the construction of supersymmetry theories from
first principles. In the present chapter we shall introduce supersymmetry
along chronological rather than logical lines.
24.1 Unconventional Symmetries and 'NoGo' Tbeorems
In the early 1960s the symmetry SU(3) of GellMann and Ne'eman
(discussed in Section 19.7) successfully explained the relations between
various strongly interacting particles of different charge and strangeness
but of the same spin. The idea then grew up that perhaps SU(3) is part of
a larger symmetry, which has the unconventional effect of uniting SU(3)
multiplets of different spin.! There is such an approximate symmetry in the
nonrelativistic quark model, under SU(6) transformations on quark spins
and flavors, analogous to an earlier SU(4) symmetry of nuclear physics
that had been introduced in 1937 by Wigner.2 As described in detail in
Appendix A of this chapter, this SU(6) symmetry unites the pseudoscalar
meson octet 1t, K, R, and", the vector meson octet p, K, R", and co, and
the vector meson singlet cP in a single 35 multiplet, and also unites the
spin 1/2 baryon octet N, ~, A, and 3 with the spin 3/2 baryon decuplet
A, ~(1385), 3(1530), and Q in a single 56 multiplet. The SU(6) symmetry
scored a number of successes, but it is actually nothing but a consequence
of the approximate spin and flavor independence of forces in the quark
1
2 24 Historical Introduction
model; the SU(6) symmetry is somewhat weaker than the assumption of
spin and flavor independence, but, as shown in Appendix A, there is no
evidence that the predictions of SU(6) symmetry are any more accurate
than those of complete spin and flavor independence.
Nevertheless, there were various attempts to generalize the SU(6) sym
metry of the nonrelativistic quark model to a fully relativistic quantum
theory. 3 These attempts all failed, and a number of authors showed under
various restrictive assumptions that this is in fact impossible.4 The most
farreaching theorem of this sort was proved in 1967 by Coleman and
Mandula. 5 They adopted reasonable assumptions about the finiteness of
the number of particle types below any given mass, the existence of scat
tering at almost all energies, and the analyticity of the Smatrix, and used
them to show that the most general Lie algebra of symmetry operators
that commute with the Smatrix, that take singleparticle states into single
particle states, and that act on muitiparticle states as the direct sum of
their action on singleparticle states consists of the generators PJ.l and JJ.lY
of the Poincare group, plus ordinary internal symmetry generators that act
on oneparticle states with matrices that are diagonal in and independent
of both momentum and spin. We will use this theorem as an essential
ingredient in our analysis of all possible supersymmetry algebras in four
spacetime dimensions in Chapter 25, and in higher spacetime dimensions
in Chapter 32. In Section 32.3 we will consider supersymmetry algebras in
theories that involve extended objects, for which the ColemanMandula
theorem does not apply.
Coleman and Mandula's proof is ingenious and complicated. A version
is presented in Appendix B to this chapter. In the present section we shall
give a very simple purely kinematic proof of one piece of this theorem,
but this piece is enough to show clearly why an unconventional symmetry
like SU(6) is possible in nonrelativistic but not in relativistic theories.
We shall use Lorentz invariance to show that if the Lie algebra of all
symmetry operators B" that commute with the momentum generators PJ.l
consists of the PJ.l themselves plus the Hermitian generators BA of some
finiteparameter semisimple compact" Lie sub algebra d, then the BA
must be the generators of an ordinary internal symmetry, in the sense
that they act on singleparticle states with matrices that are diagonal in
and independent of both momentum and spin. No use is made in this
theorem of the properties of the Smatrix, of the finiteness of the particle
spectrum, or of assumptions about how the symmetry generators act on
physical states. The Lie algebra of SU(6) is of course both semisimple
For the definition of semisimple and compact Lie algebras, see the footnote in Section
15.2.
24.1 Unconventional Symmetries and 'NoGo' Theorems 3
and compact, so this theorem rules out the use of any such symmetry in
relativistic theories to derive relations among particles of different spin.
Here is the proof. Let all symmetry generators that commute with
the fourmomentum PJ.l form a Lie algebra spanned by the generators Brz .
Consider the effect on these generators of a proper Lorentz transformation
XJ.l ~ AJ.l vxv, which is represented on Hilbert space by the unitary operator
U(A). It is easy to see that the operator U(A)BrzU1(A) is a Hermitian
symmetry generator that commutes with A/ Pv, so since A/ is non
singUlar, this operator must commute with PJ.l, and therefore must be a
linear combination of the Brx:
U(A)Brz U1(A) = L DP rz(A) Bp , (24.1.1)
p
with DP rz(A) a set of real coefficients that furnish a representation of the
homogeneous Lorentz group
D(Ad D(A2) = D(A1 A2) . (24.1.2)
Further, the U(A)BrzU1(A) satisfy the same commutation relations as the
Brz, so the structure constants C~P of this Lie algebra are invariant tensors
in the sense that
C~P = L D" rz(A) DP' p(A) DY yl(A 1) Ctp' . (24.1.3)
rr pyl
Contracting this with the corresponding equation for C;rJ' we find that
gPij = '"'
~D pi p(A)D ij' ij(A)gplijl, (24.1.4)
P'ij'
where gPij is the Lie algebra metric
gPij =L C~p C;ij . (24.1.5)
rzy
Because all of these generators commute with PJ.l, we have C;P = cpJ.l =
0, so gJ.llY. = grzJ.l = O.
We will distinguish the symmetry generators other than the PJ.l by
using SUbscripts A, B, etc. in place of IX, /3, etc. Using the vanishing
of C:B = C~J.l in Eq. (24.1.5) gives gAB = 2:CD C~c C~D' We as
sumed that the generators BA span a compact semisimple Lie algebra,
so the matrix gAB is positivedefinite. Eqs. (24.1.4) and (24.1.2) show that
the matrices gl/2D(A)g1/2 furnish a real orthogonal and hence unitary
finitedimensional representation of the homogeneous Lorentz group. But
because the Lorentz group is noncompact, the only such representation
is the trivial one, for which D(A) = 1. (This is the place where relativity
makes all the difference; the semisimple part of the Galilean group is the
4 24 Historical Introduction
compact group SU(2), which of course has an infinite number of unitary
finitedimensional representations.) With D(A) = 1, the generators BA
commute with U(A) for all Lorentz transformations AI'..
Acting on the state Ip, n) of a single stable particle with momentum pP
and spin and species labelled by a discrete index n, an operator like BA
that commutes with PJ.l can only yield a linear combination of such states
BAlp,n) = L
m
(bA(p)Ln1p,m). (24.1.6)
The fact that the BA commute with what we called 'boosts' in Section 2.5
implies that the bA(p) are independent of momentum, and the fact that
the BA commute with rotations implies that the bA(p) act as unit matrices
on spin indices, so the BA are the generators of an ordinary internal
symmetry, as was to be proved.
24.2 The Birth of Supersymmetry
If theoretical physics followed logic in its evolution, then after the proof
of the ColemanMandula theorem someone seeking exceptions to this
theorem would have noticed that it deals only with transformations that
take bosons into bosons and fermions into fermions and are therefore gen
erated by operators that satisfy commutation relations rather than anti
commutation relations. This would have raised the question of whether
a relativistic theory can have symmetries acting nontrivially on particle
spins that take fermions and bosons into each other, and that there
fore satisfy anticommutation relations rather than commutation relations.
Exploring the possible structure of such a superalgebra along the lines
described in the following chapter, supersymmetry would have emerged
as the only possibility.
This is not what happened. Instead, supersymmetry arose in a series
of articles on string theory and independently in a pair of littlenoticed
papers, about which more later, none of which show any sign that the
authors were at all concerned with the ColemanMandula theorem.
Starting in the late 1960s, the effort to construct Smatrix elements for
stronginteraction processes that would satisfy various theoretical require
ments led to a new picture of various types of hadrons, as different modes
of vibration of a string. 6 A point on a string labelled by a parameter rr
will at time t on some fixed clock have spacetime coordinates XJ.l(rr, t), so
the theory of a string's motion in d spacetime dimensions may be regarded
24.2 The Birth of Super symmetry 5
as a twodiinensional field theory with d bosonic fields, with action
[[X] =
J J [aXil
T ax  aXil ax.]
at at
"2 du dt'lll. au au
 J J  aXil ax
 T du
+
du 'I flY au+ au , (24.2.1)
where T is a constant known as the string tension; /.I. = 0, 1, ... , d  1;
and u are the twodiinensional 'lightcone' coordinates u = t u.
This action can be derived from a more general version, with complete
invariance* under transformations of a pair of 'worldsheet coordinates' Uk
[ [Xl = T
"2 J 2 ki aXIl ax
d u 'Ill. y'Det g g auk au l ' (24.2.2)
by passing to a special coordinate system in which the world sheet metric
gkl satisfies the condition
y'Det g gkl = (~ ~1) . (24.2.3)
In much the same way that in electrodynamics the problems introduced by
the negative sign of the action for tiinelike photons are eliminated by the
gauge invariance of the theory, here the problems introduced by the nega
tive sign of 'Ill. in Eqs. (24.2.1) and (24.2.2) for /.I. = v = 0 are eliminated by
the invariance of the action (24.2.2) (for appropriate boundary conditions)
under general transformations of the world sheet coordinates. In the spe
cial coordinate system in which the action takes the form (24.2.1), there is
an iinportant remnant of invariance under general worldsheet coordinate
transformations: invariance under the global conformal transformations:
u+ ..... f(u) , (24.2.4)
with f a pair of independent arbitrary functions.
The particles described by this string theory do not match those seen
in the real world. Ramond 7 and Neveu and Schwarz8 in 1971, aiining
respectively to introduce particles with halfinteger spin or with the quan
tum numbers of pions, suggested the addition of d ferrnionic field doublets
1pf(u,t) and 1p~(u,t). Shortly after, Gervais and Sakita9 introduced an
action for this theory:
[[X, 1p] = J
du
J +
du
[aXil aXil . Il a . Il a ]
T au+ au + 11p2 au+ 1p 21l + 11pl au1p11l '
(24.2.5)
This symmetry is violated by quantum anomalies, like those discussed in Chapter
22, except in d = 26 spacetime dimensions for the purely bosonic theory, or d = 10
dimensions after the introduction of fermions.
6 24 Historical Introduction
and noted that conformal in variance could be maintained by extending
the conformal transformations (24.2.4) to act also on the fermion fields
df +)1 / 2
lpf ~ ( du+ lpf ' (24.2.6)
Gervais and Sakita pointed out that, in addition to twodimensional con
formal invariance and ddimensional Lorentz invariance, for appropriate
boundary conditions this theory has a symmetry under infinitesimal trans
formations that interchange the bosonic field XJ.l with the fermionic fields
mJ.l
'Yr
.
(jlp~(u+, u) = iT OC2( u) 8! XJ.l( u+, u) ,
(jlpf(u+,u) = iT OC1(U+) 8!+XJ.l(u+,u), (24.2.7)
(jXJ.l(u+,u) = OC2(U)lp~(u+,u) + OC1(U+) lpf(u+, u) ,
where OC1 and OC2 are a pair of infinitesimal fermionic functions of u+
and U, respectively, like the Grassmann variables introduced in Section
9.5. This was an example of what has subsequently come to be called
supersymmetry, a symmetry connecting bosons and fermions, but thus
far it was only a symmetry of a twodimensional field theory, not of a
physical theory in four spacetime dimensions.
A few years later Wess and Zumino 10 referred back to the example of
supersymmetry that had been provided by References 79, and commented
that it would be natural to try to extend the idea of supersymmetry to
quantum field theories in four spacetime dimensions. They constructed
several supersymmetric models. The simplest involved a single Majorana
(selfchargeconjugate Dirac) field lp, a pair of real scalar and pseudoscalar
bosonic fields A and B, and a pair of real scalar and pseudoscalar
bosonic auxiliary fields F and G, with invariance under the infinitesimal
transformation
(jA = (alp) , (jB = i (aY5lp),
(jlp = 8J.l(A + iY5B)yJ.loc + (F  iY5G)OC , (24.2.8)
(jF = (ayJ.l 8J.llp) , (jG = i ( ay5yJ.l 8J.llp) ,
where oc is an arbitrary constant infinitesimal Majorana fermion cnumber
The notation for Dirac matrices used here is explained in the Preface and in S,:ction
5.4. The Ys used here (which satisfies y~ = 1) is a factor of i times that used by Wess
and Zumino, and the covariant conjugate ijJ of any spinor 1p is defined here as i times
that ofWess and Zumino. For this reason, some of the phases in Eqs. (24.2.8)(24.2.10)
are different from those in Reference 10.
24.2 The Birth of Supersymmetry 7
parameter. If we require invariance of the action under these transfor
mations, then the most general real, Lorentzinvariant, parityconserving,
renormalizable Lagrangian density built out of these ingredients is
!l' = !8JlA 8Jl A  !8JlB 8Jl B  FjJ yJl8 Jl1p
+HF2 + G2) +m [FA + GB  !ip1p]
+ g [F(A2 + B2) + 2GAB  ip(A + iY5B)1p] . (24.2.9)
Since the auxiliary fields F and G enter quadratically, we can derive an
equivalent Lagrangian by setting them equal to the values given by the
field equations
F = rnA  g(A2 + B2) , G = mB  2gAB . (24.2.10)
The Lagrangian density then becomes
!l' =  !8JlA 8Jl A  !8JlB 8Jl B  !ipy Jl 8Jl 1p
 ~m2 [A 2 + B2]  ~mip1p
 grnA(A2 + B2)  ~g2 (A2 + B2)2  gip(A + iY5 B )1p. (24.2.11)
This Lagrangian density exhibits relations not only between scalar and
fermion masses, but also between Yukawa interactions and scalar self
couplings, which are characteristic of supersymmetric theories. Wess and
Zumino also described supersymmetry transformations and gave a La
grangian for a supermultiplet containing a vector field. (We shall go into
all this in more detail in Chapter 26.) Finally, in a second paper, Wess
and Zumino ll recalled the ColemanMandula theorem and traced the
apparent violation of this theorem to the fact that the symmetry genera
tors here satisfY anticommutation rather than commutation relations. It
was a few more years before Gliozzi, Scherk and Olive lla showed that it
was possible to construct a superstring theory with spacetime as well as
world sheet supersymmetry by imposing suitable periodicity conditions on
the fields of the RamondNeveuSchwarz model.
Unknown to Wess and Zumino, at the time of their first papers on
supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions this symmetry had already
appeared in a pair of papers published in the Soviet Union. In 1971
Gol'fand and Likhtman 12 had extended the algebra of the Poincare group
discussed in Section 2.4 to a superalgebra and used the requirement
of invariance under this superalgebra to construct supersymmetric field
theories in four spacetime dimensions. Their paper though prophetic gave
few details, and was generally ignored until much later. Independently
Volkov and Akulov 13 in 1973 discovered what today would be called
spontaneously broken supersymmetry, but they used their formalism to
identify the Goldstone fermion associated with supersymmetry breaking
8 24 Historical Introduction
with the neutrino, an idea that met with no success. For most theorists,
especially outside the Soviet Union, supersymmetry as a possible symmetry
of nature in four spacetime dimensions began with the 1974 papers of
Wess and Zumino.
Appendix A SU(6) Symmetry of NonRelativistic Quark Models
This appendix will describe the way that an SU(6) symmetry that relates
particles of different spin arises in nonrelativistic quark models. This has
nothing directly to do with supersymmetry, but it provides the historical
background for the ColemanMandula theorem, which is an essential
input to the construction of general supersymmetry algebras in Sections
25.1 and 31.1.
In general, the Hamiltonian of the nonrelativistic quark model could
depend not only on positions and momenta but also on the spin and flavor
operators cr}n) and A~), where the cr}n) (with i = 1, 2, 3) act on the spin
indices of the nth quark as the Pauli matrices crj defined by Eq. (5.4.18),
while the A~) (with A = 1, 2, ... , 8) act on the flavor indIces of the
nth quark as the GellMann SU(3) matrices AA defined by Eq. (19.7.2).
(Where n refers to an antiquark, cr}n) and A~) act as the matrices crr
and A1 of the contragredient representations.) If we were to assume
only that there is no spinorbit coupling, so that the total orbital angular
momentum Lj is separately conserved, then we could conclude only that
the Hamiltonian commutes with the total spin and unitary spin
Sl. = 1 ' " _(n)
2 ~ Vi '
TA = 1 ' " ,(n)
 2 ~AA ' (24.A.l)
n n
as well as Lj. On the other hand, if we were to suppose that the
Hamiltonian depends only on quark positions and momenta, and not at
all on spins or quark flavors, then such a Hamiltonian would commute
not only with the total orbital angular momentum L, but also with each
of the operators cr}n) and A~). In between these two extremes there is the
interesting possibility that in addition to commuting with the Lj, Si, and
T A , the Hamiltonian also commutes with the operators
(24.A.2)
where the sign is + or  for quarks and antiquarks, respectively: The Sj,
TA, and R.;A form the Lie algebra of the group SU(6), with commutation
The minus sign for antiquarks arises because the terms in ~A for antiquarks must act
on spin and flavor indices as the matrix (U;AA)T = (Un (AI)
Appendix A SU(6) Symmetry of NonRelativistic Quark Models 9
relations
[Si, Sj] = i L CijkSk , [TA, TB] = i LfABCTc, [Si, TA] = 0,
k C
[~ , R jA ] = i L Cijk~A , [TA , ~B] = i L f ABC~C , (24.A.3)
k C
[RAi, RBj] = ibij LfABC Tc + ~ibAB L C/jk Sk + iL Cijk dABc~c,
C k kC
Here fABC and dABC are respectively totally antisymmetric and totally
symmetric numerical coefficients,14 with independent nonvanishing values
given by
fl23 = 1, f458 = f678 = ../3/2,
(24.A.4)
fl47 = ft65 = /246 = f257 = f345 = f376 = 1/2 ,
and
dl46 = dl57 = d247 = d256 = d344 = dm = d366 = d377 = 1/2,
d 118 = d228 = d338 = d888 = 1/../3 , (24.A.5)
d44 8 = d558 = d668 = d778 = 1/(2../3).
This is the symmetry that remains if we include a spin and flavor
dependent twobody interaction in the Hamiltonian that commutes with
~A as well as with the Si and TA . There are such interactions, given by
linear combinations of twobody operators of the form
(24.A.6)
where the sign + is negative if one of the particles n, m is a quark and
the other an antiquark and positive if they are both quarks or both
antiquarks.
Of course, even in the nonrelativistic quark model the SU(6) symmetry
is at best approximate. It is broken by spinorbit and spinspin forces, and
also by the mass of the s quark, which reduces the flavor SU(3) symmetry
to the SU(2) and U(I) of isospin and hypercharge conservation. If we
avoid the effects of this quark mass difference by restricting ourselves to
hadrons built up from the light u lind d quarks and antiquarks, then the
only nonvanishing AA matrices are the Aa with a = 1,2, 3 (which for
the u and d quarks are given by the Pauli matrices (5.4.18) (that in this
context are conventionally called fa) and A8 (which is just the number
1/../3 for the u and d quarks, and 1/ J3
for the u and d antiquarks). The
10 24 Historical Introduction
interaction (24.A.6) thus becomes
(24.A.7)
Aside from quark number conservation, the remaining symmetry is then
SU(4), with generators S;, Ta, and R.;a which commute with (24.A.7). This
was proposed by Wigner2 in 1937 as a symmetry of nuclear forces, though
of course with protons and neutrons in place of u and d quarks. The
interaction (24.A.7) is known in nuclear theory as a Majorana potential
to distinguish it from an interaction that does not depend on spin or
isospin, called a Wigner potential, or an interaction proportional to just
the spindependent or just the isospindependent factor in (24.A.7), known
respectively as a Bartlett potential and a Heisenberg potential.
It is amusing to note that, although in nonrelativistic theories there
is no theoretical barrier to symmetries like S U(6) that act on spin as
well as particle type, there never was any experimental evidence for such an
assumed SU(6) symmetry of the nonrelativistic quark model that is any bet
ter satisfied than the assumption of complete spin and flavor independence.
These assumptions are not the same; if the Hamiltonian of a system of
N nonrelativistic quarks and/or antiquarks is completely independent of
spin and flavor, then its symmetry is S U(6)N, not S U(6). For instance,
a twoparticle interaction like (24.A.6) and various other multiparticle
interactions break SU(6)N to SU(6). Of course, all these symmetries are
only approximate anyway. The question is whether SU(6) is less badly
broken than SU(6)N?
This cannot be answered by studying the multiplet that contains the
baryon octet, which consists of the nucleon and hyperons A, I:, and E. In
the nonrelativistic quark model these particles are interpreted as bound
states of three quarks with zero orbital angular momentum. Because these
states are color neutral, the wave function is completely antisymmetric
in the suppressed color indices, and therefore it is completely symmetric
under the combined interchange of spin and flavor. The baryon octet
would therefore have to be put in the symmetric thirdrank tensor rep
resentation 56 of SU(6), which besides the baryon octet contains a spin
3/2 decuplet, which may be identified as the one consisting of the famous
'33' resonance ~ and the I:(1385), E(1530), and n particles. (Numbers
in parentheses give masses in MeV, where these are needed to distinguish
the particles from others of the same isospin and strangeness but lower
mass.) The SU(6) symmetry leads to good predictions for the baryon
magnetic moments: The quark charge operator is q = e().3/2 I )..8/2..[3),
so if quarks have the magnetic moments 3q/2mN of Dirac particles of this
Appendix A SU(6) Symmetry of NonRelativistic Quark Models 11
charge and mass mN /3, then the magnetic moment operator is
Jli = 3JlN [!2 Ri3 + _IRig]
213 '
where JlN = e/2mN is the nuclear magneton, and RiA is defined by
Eq. (24.A.2). It is straightforward to calculate the matrix elements of
this symmetry generator between the members of the 56 multiplet, with
the result that the magnetic moments for p, n, A, I:+, I:, :a:., and '2P
in units of JlN are respectively +3, 2, 1, +3, 1, 1, and 2, which
may be compared with the corresponding experimental values +2.79,
1.91, 0.61, +2.46, 1.16, 0.65, and 1.25. The agreement is fair, and
somewhat better (except for I:) if we take the quark magnetic moment
to be a little less than 3JlN. Because of the symmetry of the three
quark wave function, nothing new is learned here if we assume that the
Hamiltonian is completely independent of spin and flavor; the states of
zero angular momentum would still have to fall in a multiplet consisting
of 6 x 7 x 8/6! = 56 members. In particular, the operator (24A.6)
has the same value 4 for any state of two quarks that is symmetric
under simultaneous interchange of their spins and flavors, whether it is
symmetric both under interchange of spins and interchange of flavors, or
antisymmetric under both interchanges.
In order to decide whether SU(6) is any better than SU(6)N, it is more
useful to study the mesons, which in the nonrelativistic quark model are
interpreted as bound states of a quark and antiquark. If the Hamiltonian
of these states is completely independent of spin and flavor then its
symmetry is S U(6)2, and the meson states fall into its 36dimensional
(6,6) representation, while for SU(6) symmetry we could only say that the
mesons belong to either of the two representations of SU(6) contained
in 6 x 6: the adjoint representation 35 or the singlet representation. To
be more specific, the 35 consists of an SU(3) singlet with spin S = 1, an
SU(3) octet with S = 0, and an SU(3) octet with S = 1, corresponding to
the SU(6) generators Si, T A , and ~A' which is split from the SU(3) singlet
state with S = 0 by the interaction (24.A.6). Since all these assumptions are
approximate anyway, the question in deciding whether SU(6) symmetry is
more accurate than complete spin and flavor independence is whether the
splitting of the SU(3) singlet S = 0 state from the other 35 states of the
same orbital angular momentum is any greater than the splittings within
the 35 supermultiplet.
For orbital angular momentum L = 0 the quarkanti quark states have
negative parity P, and positive or negative chargeconjugation quantum
number C (for selfchargeconjugate states) according to whether the total
spin S is zero or one, respectively. (For an explanation, see Section 5.5.)
The 35 therefore consists of a singlet with J Pc = 1, a 0+ octet, and
12 24 Historical Introduction
a 1 octet, which may be identified respectively as: the tf>(1020); the
pseudoscalar octet n, 11, K, and K; and the vector octet p, ill, K*, and K*.
There is also a 0+ SU(3) singlet 11' at 958 MeV, which can be regarded
as the SU(6) singlet The splitting of this singlet from the particles in
the 35 multiplet is not distinctly greater than the splittings within the 35
multiplet.
It may be argued that the L = 0 mesons do not provide a good
test of the symmetries of the nonrelativistic quark model, because they
include the Goldstone bosons n, 11, K, and K, which become massless
for zero u and d quark masses and are therefore not well described by
this model. Therefore let us consider the quarkantiquark states with
L = 1. These states have P positive and C positive or negative according
to whether S = 1 or S = 0, so the pwave 35 consists of: SU(3) singlets
with S = 1 and JPc = 0++, 1++, 2++, which may be identified as the
/0(1370), the 11(1285), and the 12(1270); an S = 0 1+ octet identified
as hl(1170), bl(1235), KI(I400), and KI(I400); and S = 1 octets: a 0++
octet consisting of /0(980), ao(980), Kt(1950), and Kt(1950); a 1++ octet
consisting of /1(1420), al(1260), Ki(1650), and K{(1650); and a 2++ octet
consisting of 12(1430), a2(1320), Ki(1980), and Ki(1980). In addition to
these 35 x 3 states, there is a another particle with the right quantum
numbers to be the pwave SU(6) singlet: the I+ isoscalar hl(1380). Of
course, we could interchange the identifications of hi (1170) and hi (1380),
or identify the SU(3) singlet and octet isoscalar 1+ states as orthogonal
linear combinations of hl(1l70) and hl(1380). The important point is that
there are two of these 1+ isoscalars, with no indication that one of them,
belonging to an SU(6) singlet, is more strongly split from the particles of
the 35 than the particles of the 35 are split from each other. Here too,
then, there is no evidence that SU(6) symmetry is any more accurate than
the stronger assumption of complete spin and flavor independence.
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem
This appendix provides a proof of the celebrated theorem of Coleman
and Mandula 5 that the only possible Lie algebra (as opposed to super
algebra) of symmetry generators consists of the generators PI' and JI'V
of translations and homogeneous Lorentz transformations, together with
possible internal symmetry generators, which commute with PI' and J I'V
and act on physical states by multiplying them with spinindependent,
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem 13
momentumindependent Hermitian matrices" By 'symmetry generators'
here is meant any Hermitian operators: that commute with the Smatrix;
whose commutators are also symmetry generators; which take oneparticle
states into oneparticle states; and whose action on multiparticle states is
the direct sum of their action on oneparticle states (as in Eq. (24.B.1)).
A further technical requirement will be added when needed later. Apart
from the general principles of relativistic quantum mechanics described in
Chapters 2 and 3, the only other assumptions needed in this proof are:
Assumption 1 For any M there are only a finite number of particle types
with mass less than M.
Assumption 2 Any twoparticle state undergoes some reaction at almost all
energies (that is, at all energies except perhaps an isolated set).
Assumption 3 The amplitudes for elastic twobody scattering are analytic
functions of the scattering angle at almost all energies and angles"
It is not necessary to assume that the Smatrix is governed by a local
quantum field theory. The proof presented here is somewhat rearranged
and streamlined, and it spells out some steps that Coleman and Mandula
left to the reader.
It is convenient to start by proving this theorem for the subalgebra
consisting of those symmetry generators BIZ that commute with the four
momentum operator P fl. (This part of the theorem is of some interest
in itself; it rules out symmetries in relativistic theories that act like the
SU(6) symmetry of the nonrelativistic quark model.) The action of such
As we shall see, in theories with only massless particles there is also the possibility
that in addition to the generators p" and J"y there are additional generators D and
K" that fill out the Lie algebra of the conformal group. IS
Strictly speaking, this assumption is not satisfied in theories with infrared divergences
such as quantum electrodynamics, where, as shown in Section 13.3, the Smatrix
element for anyone scattering process involving charged particles actually vanishes,
except for elastic forward scattering. In Abelian gauge theories like electrodynamics
this problem can be avoided by applying the ColemanMandula theorem to the
theory with a fictitious gauge boson mass, and then working only with 'infraredsafe'
quantities like masses and suitably integrated crosssections that are finite in the limit
of zero gauge boson mass. There is no problem in nonAbelian gauge theories like
quantum chromodynamics, in which all massless particles are trapped  symmetries
if unbroken would only govern Smatrix elements for gaugeneutral bound states,
like the mesons and baryons in quantum chromodynamics. As far as I know, the
ColemanMandula theorem has not been proved for nonAbelian gauge theories with
untrapped massless particles, like quantum chromodynamics with many quark flavors.
14 24 Historical Introduction
symmetry generators on multiparticle states is given by
Brzlpm, qn, ... ) = L (b,,(p)t,m Ipm', qn, ... )
m
+L (brz(q)t,n Ipm, qn', ... ) + ... , (24.B.1)
n'
where m, n, etc. are discrete indices labelling spin zcomponents and
particle type for particles of a definite mass ~PJ.l jJil, and the brz(p) are
finite Hermitian matrices, which define the action of the Brz on oneparticle
states.
Now, we can see from Eq. (24.B.1) that the mapping that takes the
Brz into brz(p) for some fixed p is a homomorphism in the sense that the
commutation relations
[Brz, Bp] = i L CZpBy (24.B.2)
y
are also satisfied by the Hermitian matrices brz(p):
[brz(P), bp(p)] = i L CZp by(p) . (24.B.3)
y
A wellknown theorem proved in Section 15.2 tells us that any Lie al
gebra of finite Hermitian matrices like brz(p) must be a direct sum of a
compact semisimple Lie algebra and U(I) algebras. However, we cannot
immediately apply this result to the operator algebras Brz because the
homomorphism between the operators Brz and matrices brz(p) is not nec
essarily an isomorphism. For it to be an isomorphism would require also
that whenever L.rz crzbrz(P) = 0 for some coefficients crz and momentum
p, then L.rz crzbrz(k) = 0 for all momenta k, which is equivalent to the
condition L.rz crz Brz = O.
Instead of considering the homomorphism that maps the Brz into the
oneparticle matrices brz(p), Coleman and Mandula considered the homo
morphism that maps the Brz into the matrices that define the action of Brz
on twoparticle states with fixed fourmomenta p and q:
(24.B.4)
The invariance of the Smatrix for the elastic or quasielastic scattering of
two particles with fourmomenta p and q into two particles with momenta
p' and q', with masses J~p'J.l = ~PJ.ljJil and Jq~q'J.l = J=qJ.lqJl,
yields the condition
brz(p',q')S(p',q';p,q) = S(p',q';p,q)brz(p,q). (24.B.5)
Here S(p',q';p,q) is a matrix of the same dimensionality as b(p,q) and
b(P',q'), defined in terms of the connected Smatrix elements S(pm, qn+
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem 15
p'm',q'n') by
S(pm, q n ~ p'm', q'n') = (j4(p' +q'pq) (S(p', q'; p,q) . (24.B.6)
m'n',mn
According to Assumption 2 and the optical theorem (see Section 3.6),
for almost any choice of p and q the elastic scattering amplitude is non
vanishing in the forward direction, and Assumption 3 then tells us that
the matrix S(p',q';p,q) is nonsingular for almost all p' and q' on the same
mass shells and satisfYing the conservation condition p' +q' = p+q, so for
almost all such fourmomenta Eq. (24.B.5) is a similarity transformation.
It follows then that if L,,, c"b",(p, q) = 0 for almost any fixed four
momenta p and q, then L,,, c"b,,(p',q') = 0 for almost any fourmomenta
p' and q' on the same mass shells that satisfy p' +q' = p+q. Unfortunately,
this does not tell us that L,,, c"b,,(p') and L,,, c"b,,(q') vanish, but only
that these matrices are proportional to the unit matrix (with opposite
coefficients). To do better, it is necessary to consider not the bip) or
b,,(p, q), but their traceless parts.
One immediate consequence of Eq. (24.B.5) is that
Tr b,,(p', q') = Tr b,,(p, q) . (24.B. 7)
With Eq. (24.B.4), this tells us that
N( ,jqll qll) tr b,,(p') + N ( ,jPll pll) tr b,,(q')
= N( ,jqll qll) tr b,,(p) + N( ,jPllpll) tr b,,(q) , (24.B.8)
where N(m) is the multiplicityt of particle types with mass m, and the
lower case t in 'tr' indicates a sum over oneparticle rather than two
particle labels. In order for this to be satisfied for almost all massshell
fourmomenta for which p' + q' = p + q, it is necessary that the function
trb,,(p)/N(.jPllfJP) be lineartt in p:
tr bip) _ all
(24.B.9)
N(.jPllpJl)  rzPll'
with a~ independent of p (and of everything else but the displayed indices.)
We may define new symmetry generators by subtracting terms linear in
t These multiplicity factors were not shown explicitly by Coleman and Mandula. They
are needed in justifying a step that Coleman and Mandula made without explanation,
that of defining the symmetry generators B! with traceless kernels.
tt A constant term is easily seen to be ruled out in Eq. (24.B.9) by the existence of
processes in which the number of particles is not conserved, processes which are
inevitable in any relativistic quantum theory satisfying the cluster decomposition
principle. Even if we considered only twoparticle processes and did not use this
argument, a constant term in Eq. (24.B.9) would only amount to a change in the
action of internal sytnmetries on physical states.
16 24 Historical Introduction
the momentum operator PI':
B9 =BIl a~PI" (24. B.1 0)
which according to Eq. (24.B.9) are represented on oneparticle states by
the traceless matrices
#) n'n = (
(brz{p) )
bip) n'n 
tr bll(p)
N(~ PI' jJP) [)n'n
(24.B.11)
Because PI' commutes with BIl and the unit matrix commutes with every
thing, the commutators of the B1 are the same as those of the BIl , and the
commutators of the bf(p) are the same as those of the bll(p):
[B9, BjJ = iI: C~fJB1 = iI: C~fJ[B! +a~PI'] , (24.B.12)
1 1
[b!(p), b~(p)] = iI:C~fJb1(P) = iI: C~fJ[b!(p) +~Pl']. (24.B.13)
1 1
Also, Eq. (24.B.13) and the fact that commutators of the finite matri
ces bf(p) have zero trace* imply that 2::1 C~fJ a~ = 0, and using this in
Eq. (24.B.12) then shows that the B1 satisfY the same commutation rela
tions as the B Il :
[B1, Bj] = i I: C~fJ B! . (24.B.14)
1
Because B1 is a symmetry generator, the scattering amplitude satisfies
b!(p', q') S(p', q' ;p, q) = S(p', q' ;p, q) b!(p, q) , (24.B.15)
where the bf(p,q) are the matrices representing the B1 on the twoparticle
states
(24.B.16)
and satisfY the same commutation relations as the B1:
[b!(p,q), b~(p,q)J = iI:C~fJb!(p,q). (24.B.17)
1
The advantage of dealing with these twoparticle matrices is that, since
S(p', q'; p, q) is a nonsingular matrix, it follows that if2::1l cllbf(p, q) = 0 for
some fixed massshell fourmomenta p and q, then 2::1l cllbf(p', q') = 0 for
*This is one of the places where we use Assumption 1, without which commutators
need not have zero trace. Also, at this point it is crucial that we are dealing with
commutation rather than anticommutation relations, since the unit matrix does not
anticommute with other matrices, and anticommutators of finite matrices do not
necessarily have zero trace.
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem 17
almost all p' and q' on the same respective mass shells with p' +q' = p+q.
Because we are dealing now with traceless matrices, this tells us that
2: crt. b!(p') = L crt. b!(q') = 0 . (24.B.18)
rt. rt.
We would like to conclude from this that L:rt. crt.b!(k) = 0 for all massshell
fourmomenta k, but so far we have proved only that L:rt. crt. b!(P') = 0 for
almost all of those p' for which q' = p + q  p' as well as p' is on the mass
shell (and correspondingly for q'.) To get around this limitation, we can
use a trick of Coleman and Mandula, noting that if L:rt. crt. b!(p, q) = 0
then (24.B.18) and (24.B.16) together yield
L crt. b!(p, q') =0,
rt.
so that, according to Eq. (24.B.15),
2: crt. b~(k, p + q'  k) = 0,
rt.
and therefore
Lcrt. b!(k) = 0, (24.B.19)
rt.
for almost all massshell fourmomenta k for which p + q'  k is also on
the mass shell. Now, the conditions that q' and p + q  q' be on the mass
shell leave two parameters free in q', so that we have enough freedom in
choosing q' that the condition that p + q'  k is on the mass shell leaves us
free to choose k to be anything we like, at least within a finite volume of
momentum space. This volume can be adjusted to be as large as we like
by taking p and q sufficiently large, so if L:rt. crt.b!(p, q) = 0 for some fixed
massshell fourmomenta p and q then L:rt. crt.b!(k) = 0 for almost all mass
shell fourmomenta k. But then if L:rt. crt.bW<o) =1= 0 for some particular
massshell fourmomentum ko, a scattering process in which particles with
fourmomenta ko and k scatter into particles with fourmomenta k' and
kIf will be forbidden by the symmetry generated by L:rt. ~ B5 for almost all
k, k', and k", in contradiction with our assumption about the analyticity
of the scattering amplitude. We conclude then that if L:rt. crt.b5(p,q) = 0
for some fixed massshell fourmomenta p and q then L:rt. crt.b~(k) = 0 for
all k, and therefore L:rt. crt. B5 = 0, so that the mapping that takes Brt. into
b5(p, q) is an isomorphism.
One immediate consequence is that, since the number of independent
matrices b~(p, q) cannot exceed N(.jpJ.lpJJ) N(.jqJ.lqiJ), there can be at
most a finite number of independent symmetry generators Brt.. As em
phasized by Coleman and Mandula, in proving their theorem it is not
necessary to make an independent assumption that the symmetry algebra
is finitedimensional.
18 24 Historical Introduction
The theorems of Section 15.2 tell us further that a Lie algebra of finite
Hermitian matrices like bf(p, q) for fixed p and q is at most the direct
sum of a semisimple compact Lie algebra and some number of V(l) Lie
algebras. We have seen that this Lie algebra is isomorphic to that of the
symmetry generators Bf, so the Bf must also span the direct sum of at
most a compact semisimple Lie algebra and V(l) Lie algebras.
Let us first dispose of the V(l) Lie algebras. For any pair of massshell
momenta p and q we can find a Lorentz generator J that leaves both
p and q invariant. (If p and q are lightlike and parallel then take J to
generate rotations around the common direction of p and q. Otherwise,
p + q will be timelike, so we can take J to generate rotations around
the common direction of p and q in the centerofmass frame in which
p = q.) We can choose the basis of twoparticle states to diagonalize J,
so that
Jlpm, qn} = q(rn, n)lpm, qn} . (24.B.20)
Now, PfJ commutes with all Bf, and [J, PfJ ] is a linear combination of
components of PfJ , so PfJ commutes with all [J,Bf], and therefore the
symmetry generator [J, Bf] must be a linear combination of the Bp, which
by definition form a complete set of symmetry generators that commute
with Pw More specifically, since the matrices representing a commutator
of symmetry generators are necessarily traceless, [J, Bf] has to be a linear
combination of the Bl
But any V(l) generator Bf (taken Hermitian) in
the algebra of the BI
would have to commute with all the BI,
and hence
in particular must commute with [J, Bf] :
[Bf, [J, Bf]] = O.
Taking the expectation value of this double commutator in the twoparticle
basis in which J is diagonal, we have
2
0= L
m,rt
(q(m',n') q(m,n) (bf(p,q)
mrt,mn
(24.B.21)
for any m and n. The indices run over a finite range, so if there were any
q for which there existed an m and n with q(m,n) = q and an m' and n'
with q( m', n') =1= q, with (bf (p, q m'rt,mn =1= 0, then there would have to be
a smallest such q, in which case the righthand side of Eq. (24.B.21) for
this m and n would be positivedefinite, contradicting Eq. (24.B.21). We
conclude that (bf(p, qmrt,mn must vanish for all m, n, m', and n' for which
q(m', n') =1= q(m, n). Because the algebra of the bf(p, q) is isomorphic to that
of the Bf, this means that each of the V(l) generators Bf commutes with
J. Since we can choose p+q to be in any time like direction, it follows that
Appendix B Th,e ColemanMandula Theorem 19
each of the U(l) generators Bf commutes with all the generators J/Iv of the
homogeneous Lorentz group. The fact that they commute with what we
called 'boosts' in Section 2.5 implies that the (bf(Pn'n are independent of
threemomentum, and the fact that they commute with rotations implies
that the (bf(Pn'n act as unit matrices on spin indices, so these generators
are the generators of an ordinary internal symmetry.
This leaves the B~ that generate a semisimple compact Lie algebra.
The argument of Section 24.1 (a somewhat more explicit version of the
reasoning given by Coleman and Mandula) tells us that the generators of
the semisimple compact part of the Lie algebra commute with Lorentz
transformations and, as shown for the U(1) generators, this means that
they too are the generators of internal symmetries. We have thus shown
that the symmetry generators Ba. that commute with P/I are either internal
symmetry generators or linear combinations of the components of P/I
itself.
Next, we must take up the possibility of symmetry generators that do
not commute with the momentum operator. The action of a general
symmetry generator Aa. on a oneparticle state Ipn} of fourmomentum p
would be
Aa.lp,n} = L Jttp' (da.(p',p)tn Ip',n'), (24.B.22)
n'
where nand n' are again discrete indices labelling both spin zcomponents
and particle types. Of course, the kernel da.(p',p) must vanish unless both
p and p' are on the mass shell. We shall show first that the da.(P',p)
vanishes for any p' =1= p.
For this purpose, note that if Aa. is a symmetry generator, then so is
A~ = J ttx exp( iP . x) Aa. exp(iP . x) f(x), (24.B.23)
where P/I is the fourmomentum operator, and f(x) is a function that can
be chosen as we like. Acting on a oneparticle state, this gives
A~ Ip,n} = L Jttp' f(p'  p) (da.(P',p)tn Ip',n') , (24.B.24)
n'
where f is the Fourier transform
f(k) = J
ttx exp(ix k)f(x) . (24.B.25)
Suppose that there is some pair of massshell fourmomenta p and p + ~
with ~ =1= 0 such that d(p + ~p) =1= O. Generic massshell fourmomenta
q, p', and q' with p' + q' = p + q will not have q + ~ or p' + ~ or q' + ~
on the mass shell. If we take f(k) to vanish outside a sufficiently small
20 24 Historical Introduction
region around ~, then A! will annihilate all oneparticle states with four
momenta q, p', and q', but not the oneparticle states with fourmomentum
p, so such a symmetry would forbid any scattering process in which any
particles of momenta p and q go into any particles of momenta p' and q',
in contradiction with the consequence of Assumptions 2 and 3 that there
is some scattering at almost all energies and angleso
This result does not mean that any symmetry generator Aa; must com
mute with PfJ ' because the kernels da;(P',p) may include terms proportional
to derivatives of t5\p'  p) as well as terms proportional to t5 4(pl  p) it
self To deal with this possibility, Coleman and Mandula made the 'ugly
technical assumption' that the kernels d a;(P', p) are distributions, which
means that each can contain at most a finite number Da; of derivatives
of t5\P'  p)o To put this another way, each symmetry generator Aa; is
assumed to act on oneparticle states as a polynomial of order Da; in the
derivatives a/ apfJ' with matrix coefficients that at this point are allowed
to depend on momentum and spino To use the above results for symmetry
generators that commute with the momentum operators, Coleman and
Mandula considered the Da;fold commutator of momentum operators
with Aa;
BexfJtooofJO. =
 [pfJt , [pfJ2 ,... [PfJo. 'Of
A ] ] ] (24oB.26)
The matrix elements of the commutators of B:tooofJo. with pfJ between
states with fourmomenta p' and p are proportional to Da; + 1 factors of
p'  p, times a polynomial of order Da; in momentum derivatives acting
on t5 4(P'  p), and therefore vanish. Since the generators B:tooofJo. commute
with the momentum operators, according to the results obtained so far
they act on oneparticle states with matrices of the form
(24oB.27)
where the b!fJl"ofJo. are momentumindependent traceless Hermitian ma
trices generating an ordinary internal symmetry algebra, and the a:fJl"ofJo.
are momentumindependent numerical constants, with both b!fJtooofJo. and
a:fJtOoofJo. symmetric in the indices III IlD.o Also, even though the Aa;
000
do not necessarily commute with PfJ ' they cannot take oneparticle states
off the mass shell, so since Assumption 1 requires that the masssquared
operator pfJpfJ has only discrete eigenvalues, the Aa; must commute with
pfJpfJo It follows in particular that for D > 1
O  [pfJtp#1' [pfJ2 , . . . [pfJo. ,A
O] f] ]  2P#1 BfJl"ofJo.
Of ,
so that
(24oB.28)
Appendix B The ColemanMandula Theorem 21
As long as the theory contains massive particles this must be satisfied for
p in any timelike direction, so for Da. > 1
b#/ll"'/lD
a. 
 0, (24.B.29)
and
(24.B.30)
But for Da. > 2 Eq. (24.B.30) together with the symmetry of a~/ll"'/lD
in the indices JlI'" JlD. would require that a~/ll"/lD. = O. (For then
_ a/l/l2/lC"/lD. _
~/J/ll/l2"/lD. _ a/l2/l/l1"/lD. __ ~/J2/l1W"/lD. _ ~/Jl/l2W"/lD. _
Ua. a.  ex  Ua. ex 
~1/l/l2"/lD. = _ ~/l1/l2"/lD. )
We are left with at most two kinds of non
vanishing symmetry generator: those with Da. = 0, for which the generator
Aa. commutes with P/l and therefore must be either an internal symmetry
generator or some linear combination of the P/l; and those with Da. = 1,
in which case
(24.B.31)
with a~v some numerical constants antisymmetric in Jl and v. Eq. (24.B.31)
requires that
(24.B.32)
where J/l V is the generator of proper Lorentz transformations, which
according to Eq. (2.4.13) satisfies [pv,JP"] = irJvpP" + irJv"PP, and Ba.
commutes with P w Since Aa. and J/l V are symmetry generators, so is
Ba., which must therefore be a linear combination of internal symmetry
generators and/ or the components of Pw Eq. (24.B.32) therefore completes
the proof of the ColemanMandula theorem.
***
In theories with only massless particles Eq. (24.B.30) does not necessarily
follow from Eq. (24.B.28); since P/lp!l = 0, we can also have
(24.B.33)
In this case the symmetry algebra consists of internal symmetries plus the
algebra of the conformal group, which is spanned by generators K/l and
D together with the generators J/l V and p/l of the Poincare group. The
commutation relations are
[p/l, D] = iP/l, [K/l, D] = iK/l ,
[p/l, KV] = 2irJ/lV D + 2iJ/lV , [K /l , KV] = 0, (24.B.34)
[JP" , D] = 0 ,
22 24 Historical Introduction
together with the commutation relations (2.4.12)(2.4.14) of the Poincare
algebra
i [JIlV, JP""] = rJ VP JM _ rJllP rtf  rJtf ll JPv + rJtfV JPIl ,
i [Pil , JP""] = rJllP ptf  rJM pP , (24.B.35)
[Pil , PP] = 0 .
The infinitesimal group element
U(1 + W,c,A,p) = 1 + (i/2)JwwIlV + iPllcll + iAD + iKllpll (24.B.36)
induces the infinitesimal spacetime transformation
xll + xll + wllV Xv + cll + Axil + pllxVXv  2xll pV Xv . (24.B.37)
These are the most general infinitesimal spacetime transformations that
leave the lightcone invariant.
Problems
1. Show that the most general symmetry algebra allowed under the
assumptions of the ColemanMandula theorem in the case where
all particles are massless consists of internal symmetry generators
plus either the Poincare algebra or the conformal algebra (24.B.34),
(24.B.35).
2. Show that the GervaisSakita action (24.2.5) is invariant under the
worldsheet supersymmetry transformation (24.2.7).
3. Calculate the change in the WessZumino Lagrangian density (24.2.9)
under the spacetime supersymmetry transformation (24.2.8).
References
1. B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. 136, B 1756 (1964); F. Gursey and L. A.
Radicati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 173 (1964); A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Lett.
13, 175 (1964); F. Gursey, A. Pais, and L. A. Radicati, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 13,299 (1964). These articles are reprinted in Symmetry Groups
in Nuclear and Particle Physics, F. 1. Dyson, ed. (W A. Benjamin,
New York, 1966), along with a helpful set of Dyson's lecture notes
on this subject.
2. E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 51. 106 (1937). This is reproduced ill
Symmetry Groups in Nuclear and Particle Physics, Ref. 1.
References 23
3. A. Salam, R. Delbourgo, and 1. Strathdee, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London)
A 284, 146 (1965); M. A. Beg and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 267
(1965); B. Sakita and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. 139, B 1355 (1965).
These are reproduced in Symmetry Groups in Nuclear and Particle
Physics, Ref. 1.
4. W. D. McGlinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 467 (1964); O. W. Greenberg,
Phys. Rev. 135, B 1447 (1964); L. Michel, Phys. Rev. 137, B 405
(1964); L. Michel and B. Sakita, Ann. Inst. HenriPoincare 2, 167
(1965); M. A. B. Beg and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 509, 577
(1965); S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. 138, B 1262 (1965); S. Weinberg,
Phys. Rev. 139, B 597 (1965); L. O'Raifeartaigh, Phys. Rev. 139, B
1052 (1965). These are reproduced in Symmetry Groups in Nuclear
and Particle Physics, Ref. 1.
5. S. Coleman and 1. Mandula, Phys. Rev. 159, 1251 (1967).
6. For an introduction with references to the original literature, see
M. B. Green, 1. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987); 1. Polchinski, String
Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).
7. P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D3, 2415 (1971). This article is reprinted
in Superstrings  The First 15 Years of Superstring Theory, 1. H.
Schwarz, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985).
8. A. Neveu and 1. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B31, 86 (1971); Phys. Rev.
D4, 1109 (1971). These articles are reprinted in Superstrings  The
First 15 Years Of Superstring Theory, Ref. 7. Also see Y. Aharonov,
A. Casher, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D5, 988 (1972).
9. 1.L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Nucl. Phys. B34, 632 (1971). This article
is reprinted in Superstrings  The First 15 Years of Superstring
Theory, Ref. 7.
10. 1. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B70, 39 (1974). This article is
reprinted in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed. (North Holland/World
Scientific, Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987).
11. 1. Wess and B. Zumino,. Phys. Lett. 49B, 52 (1974). This article is
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 10.
11a. F. Gliozzi, 1. Scherk, and D. Olive, Nucl. Phys. B122, 253 (1977).
12. Yu. A. Gol'fand and E. P. Likhtman, JETP Letters 13, 323 (1971).
This article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 10.
13. D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, Phys. Lett. 46B, 109 (1973). This
article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 10.
14. M. GellMann, Cal. Tech. Synchotron Laboratory Report crSL20
(1961), unpublished. This is reproduced along with other articles on
24 24 Historical Introduction
SU(3) symmetry in M. GellMann and Y. Ne'eman, The Eightfold
Way (Benjamin, New York, 1964).
15. R. Haag, 1. T. Lopuszanski, and M. Sohnius, Nucl. Phys. 888, 257
(1975). This article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 10.
25
Supersymmetry Algebras
This chapter will develop the form of the supersymmetry algebra from first
principles, following the treatment of Haag, Lopuszanski, and Sohnius.'
As we shall see, under conditions in which the ColemanMandula theorem
applies, this structure is almost uniquely fixed by the requirements of
Lorentz invariance. The supermultiplet structure of oneparticle states
will then be deduced directly from the supersymmetry algebra.
25.1 Graded Lie Algebras and Graded Parameters
We saw in Section 2.2 how to express any continuous symmetry trans
formation in terms of a Lie algebra of linearly independent symmetry
generators ta that satisfy commutation relations [ta, tb] = i L:c C~tc. In
much the same way, supersymmetry is expressed in terms of symmetry
generators ta that form a graded Lie algebra,2 embodied in commut,ation
and anticommutation relations of the form
tatb  (1 )~a~b tbta = i L. C~btc . (25.1.1)
c
(The summation convention is suspended in this section.) Here rJa for each
a is either +1 or 0 and is known as the grading of the generator ta, and
the C~ are a set of numerical structure constants. Generators ta for which
rJa = 1 are calledfermionic; theothers, for which rJa = 0, are called bosonic.
Eq. (25.1.1) provides commutation relations for bosonic operators with
each other and with fermionic operators, but anticommutation relations
for fermionic operators with each other. We will come back soon to the
motivation for Eq. (25.1.1); for the moment we will just take a look at its
consequences for the structure constants.
According to Eq. (25.1.1), the structure constants must satisfy the con
ditions
(25.1.2)
25
26 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
For any operator formed as a functional of field operators, the products
of two bosonic or two fermionic operators are bosonic, and the products
of a fermionic with a bosonic operator are fermionic, so that
C~ = 0 unless rJc = rJa + rJb (mod 2) . (25.1.3)
Also, for any operator formed in this way, the Hermitian adjoint of a
bosonic or fermionic operator is, respectively, bosonic or fermionic. If the
ta are Hermitian operators, then the structure constants satisfy a reality
condition
c
Cab CC
=  ba (25.1.4)
The structure constants also satisfy a nonlinear constraint, which fol
lows from a superJacobi identity
(_1)~c~a [[ta, tb}, t c} + (_1)~a~b [[tb, tc}, ta} + (1 )~b~c [[tc, ta}, tb} = O.
(25.1.5)
Here '[... }' denotes a commutatorjanticommutator like that appearing
on the lefthand side of Eq. (25.1.1), but here extended to any graded
operators 0, 0', etc.
[O,O'} = 00' _(_l)~(O)~(OI)O'O = _(_1)~(O)~(OI)[O',0}, (25.1.6)
=
it now being understood that any product = tatbtc ... of generators is
given a grading rJ( 0) rJa + rJb + rJc + ... (mod 2). (To prove Eq. (25.1.5),
it is sufficient to prove that the coefficients of tatbtc and tatctb vanish, for
then the symmetry of the lefthand side of Eq. (25.1.5) under the cyclic
permutations abc + bca + cab will ensure that the coefficients of all other
products of generators also vanish. The coefficient of tatbtc in Eq. (25.1.5)
.
IS
(_1)Ma  (_1)~a~b(_1)~a(~b+~cl = 0,
while the coefficient of tatctb is
(_1)~a~b(_1)~b~C(_1)~a(~b+~c)  (_1)~b~c(_1)~c~a = 0,
completing the proof.) By inserting Eq. (25.1.1) in Eq. (25.1.5), we find the
constraint
L(1)~c~ac~qc + L.(_1)~a~bcgcqa + L.(_1)~b~CC~aC;b = O. (25.1.7)
d d d
Of course, in the case where all generators are bosonic Eq. (25.1.5) is the
usual Jacobi identity, and Eq. (25.1.7) is the usual nonlinear condition
(2.2.22) on the structure constants.
Eq. (25.1.1) can be taken as our starting point, but it can also be given
a motivation like that given for ordinary Lie algebras in Section 2.2, as
a necessary feature of finite continuous symmetry transformations. The
25.1 Graded Lie Algebras and Graded Parameters 27
difference is that now these transformations depend on continuous graded
parameters. A set of graded cnumber parameters can be thought of as
'numbers,' including Grassmann parameters (see Section 9.5) as well as
ordinary numbers, which satisfy the associative and distributive rules of
arithmetic, but which instead of simply commuting satisfy relations
rxafJb = (_1)~a~b fJbrx a , (25.1.8)
where ~, fJa, ... are used to distinguish different values of the ath param
eter, in the same way that in vector algebra we might let va and ua denote
the acomponents of different values of some real vector. Again the ath
graded parameter is given a grading rJa equal to +1 or 0 when ~ is a
fermionic or bosonic parameter, respectively. That is, these parameters
commute if either is bosonic, and anti commute if both are fermionic.
The product ~fJbye .. . of a set of graded parameters is given the grading
rJa +rJb +rJe + ... (mod 2); that is, such a product is fermionic if it involves
an odd number of fermionic parameters, and is otherwise bosonic. With
this grading, it is easy to see that products of graded parameters satisfy a
commutation or anticommutation rule just like Eq. (25.1.8).
Consider a continuous transformation T(rx), given by a formal power
series in the graded parameters ~:
T(rx) = 1 + L>a ta + L~~tab +... (25.1.9)
a ab
where t a, tab, etc. are a set of rxindependent operator coefficients, not
yet assumed to satisfy any algebraic relations like Eq. (25.1.1). Because
the parameters rxa satisfy Eq. (25.1.8), the coefficients tab ... must satisfy
symmetry / antisymmetry conditions, such as
tab = (_1)~a~btba . (25.1.10)
It is convenient also to assume that the transformation T(fJ) commutes
with any value rx a of any graded parameter, in which case the operator
coefficients in (25.1.9) satisfy the conditions
(25.1.11)
(25.1.12)
That is, tb and tbe commute or anticommute with graded parameters as
if they were graded parameters themselves, with grading rJb and rJb + rJe
(mod 2), respectively.
The other constraints on these operators follow from the requirement
that the T(rx) form a semigroup; that is, that the product of the operators
for different values rx and fJ of the graded parameters is itself a T operator
T(rx)T(fJ) = T(f(rx, fJ , (25.1.13)
28 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
where fC(rx, P) is itself a formal power series in the graded parameters.
Because T(O)T(P) = T(P) and T(rx)T(O) = T(rx), we must have
fC(O,P) = pc , JC(rx,O) = rxc , (25.1.14)
and therefore the power series expansion for f(rx, P) must take the form
JC( rx, P) = rx C+ pc + E f~b IX" pb + ... , (25.1.15)
ab
where f~ is a set of ordinary (that is, bosonic) constants, and ,... ,
denotes terms of third or higher order in the graded parameters. In order
for fC(rx,P) to be a graded parameter, it is necessary for each term in
Eq. (25.1.15) to have the same grading, which implies that
f~ = 0 unless rJc = rJa + rJb (mod 2) . (25.1.16)
Inserting the power series (25.1.9) and (25.1.15) into the product rule
(25.1.13) gives
[1 + Erxata + EIX"~tab + ... ] [1 + Epa ta + Epapb tab + ... ]
a ab a ab
= 1 + E (rx + pc + E f~rxa pb + ... ) tc
c
C ab
+ E (rx c + pc + ... ) (rx d + pd + ... )tCd + ...
cd
The coefficients of 1, IX", pa, rxa~, and papb match on both sides of this
equation, but the condition that the coefficients of IX" pb are the same yields
the nontrivial relation
(1 )Mb tatb = E f~tc + tab + (1 )~a~b tba = E f~tc + 2tab . (25.1.17)
C C
(The sign factor on the lefthand side arises from the interchange of ta
and pb.) Together with higherorder relations of the same sort, this allows
us to calculate the whole function (25.1.9) if we know the generators ta
and the groupcomposition function r( rx, P). But for this to be possible,
ta must satisfy a constraint. Using Eq. (25.1.10), the difference or sum of
Eq. (25.1.17) and the same equation with a and b interchanged yields the
Lie superalgebra relations Eq. (25.1.1), with structure constants given by
iCCab = (1 )~a~bfCab  fCba (25.1.18)
Also, Eq. (25.1.3) follows immediately from Eqs. (25.1.16) and (25.1.18).
The complex conjugate rx* of an anticommuting cnumber rx is defined
so that the Hermitian adjoint of the product of rx and an arbitrary operator
(!) is
(25.1.19)
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 29
It follows that products of cnumbers behave the same under complex
conjugation as operators do under Hermitian conjugation:
(rxP)" = P"rx" , (25.1.20)
and that rx" has the same grading as rx.
The graded Lie algebras of importance to physics are severely restricted
by spacetime symmetries. We now tum to a consideration of these
restrictions.
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras
Consider a g(:neral graded Lie algebra of symmetry generators that com
mute with the Smatrix. If Q is any of the fermionic symmetry generators,
then so will be U'(A) Q U(A), where U(A) is the quantum mechanical
operator corresponding to an arbitrary homogeneous Lorentz transfor
mation N'v. Therefore U1(A)Q U(A) is a linear combination of the
complete set of fermionic symmetry generators, and hence this set of gen
erators must furnish a representation of the homogeneous Lorentz group.
The individual generators may therefore be classified according to the
irreducible representation of the homogeneous Lorentz group to which
they belong.
As described in Section 5.6, the representations of the homogeneous
Lorentz group furnished by any set of operators can be specified by giving
their commutation relations with generators A and B, defined by
(25.2.1 )
where J and K are the Hermitian generators of rotations and boosts,
respectively. These satisfy the commutation relations
[A;, Aj] = 2:>ijkAk, [Bi, Bj] = LCijkBk, [Ai, Bj] = 0, (25.2.2)
k k
where i, j, and k run over the values 1, 2, 3, and Cijk is totally antisym
metric, with c123 = +1. Thus representations of the homogeneous Lorentz
group are labelled, like states with two independent spins, by a pair of
integers or halfintegers A and B, with elements of the representation
labelled by a pair of indices a and b, which run by unit steps from A
to +A and from B to +B, respectively. More specifically, a set of
(2A + 1)(2B + 1) operators Q1f that form an (A, B) representation of the
homogeneous Lorentz group satisfies the commutation relations
[A, Q1f] = L.r;> ~g , [B, Q1f] =  L J~V Q:!J , (25.2.3)
a a
30 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
where JW is the spin threevector matrix for angular momentum j:
From Eq. (25.2.4), it follows that'
 (JW) * q' ,(1
= (1 )"'.,. (JU) , .
(1 ,(1
(25.2.5)
Thus if Q~ are a set of operators that transform according to the spin
j representation of the rotation group, then so are (1 yu ~~.,.. Also,
Eq. (25.2.1) shows that A* = B. By taking Hermitian adjoints in
Eq. (25.2.3), we see that the Hermitian adjoint Q!af" of operators that
transform according to the (A, B) representation of the homogeneous
Lorentz group are related by a similarity transformation to operators Qf.A
that transform according to the (B,A) representation:
Q1:" = (_I)Aa (_I)Bb Q~t.a . (25.2.6)
The HaagLopuszanskiSohnius theorem' states in part that the fermion
symmetry generators can only belong to the (0,1/2) and (1/2,0) represen
tations. As we have seen, the Hermitian adjoint of a (0,1/2) or (1/2,0)
operator is a linear combination respectively of (1/2,0) or (0,1/2) opera
tors, so the complete set of fermionic symmetry operators may be divided
into (0,1/2) generators Qar (with the superscript 0 ~ omitted) and their
(1/2,0) Hermitian adjoints Q:r, where a is a spinor index running over the
values +1/2, and r is used to distinguish different twocomponent gener
ators with the same Lorentz transformation properties"" The theorem
further states that the fermionic generators may be defined so as to satisfy
the anticommutation relations
{Qar, Qbs} = 2b rs ~ Pil ' (25.2.7)
{QaT> Qbs} = eabZrs, (25.2.8)
where Pil is the fourmomentum operator, the Zrs = Zsr are bosonic
symmetry generators, and fIll and e are the 2 x 2 matrices (with rows and
We use an asterisk for the Hermitian adjoint of an operator or the complex conjugate
of a number. The dagger t will be used for the transpose of the matrix formed from
lhe Hermitian adjoints of operators or complex conjugates of numbers.
We are using roman instead of italic letters for the twocomponent Weyl spinors Qar,
to distinguish lhem from fourcomponent Dirac spinors that will be introduced later
in this section. There is a notation due to van der Waerden, according to which a
(0,1/2) operator like Q is written with dotted indices, as Q., while (1/2,0) operators
are written wilh undotted indices. We will not use this notation here, but will instead
explicitly indicate which twocomponent spinors transform according to the (0,1/2)
or (1/2,0) representations ofthi~ homogeneous Lorentz group.
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 31
columns labelled +1/2, 1/2):
~),
~),
Finally, the fermionic generators commute with energy and momentum:
(25.2.10)
and the Zrs and Z;s are a set of central charges of this algebra, in the
sense that
o = [Zrs, Qat] = [Zrs, Q:t] = [Zrs, Ztu] = [Zrs, Z~]
= [Z;s' Qatl = [Zr:' Q~] = [Z;s' Z~] . (25.2.11)
To prove these results, let us start by considering nonvanishing fermionic
symmetry generators that belong to some (A, B) irreducible representation
of the homogeneous Lorentz group, and that therefore may be labelled
Q::, where a and b run by unit steps from A to +A and from B to
+B, respectively. As already mentioned, the Hermitian adjoint is related
to operators belonging to the (B, A) representation by Eq. (25.2.6), so the
anticommutator of these operators must take the form
A+B C D
L L L
C=JABJ D=JABJ c=C d=D
X CAB(Cc;a,b')CAB(Dd;a'b)X~;P , (25.2.12)
where CAB(jq;ab) is the usual ClebschGordan coefficient for coupling
spins A and B to form spin j, and Xc;,p is the (c,d)component of an
operator that transforms according to the (C,D) representation of the
homogeneous Lorentz group. Using the wellknown unitarity properties
of the ClebschGordan coefficients, we may express the operator Xc;,p in
terms of these ariticommutators:
A B A B
Xc;,p = L L L L (_I)Aa'(_I)Bb'
a=A b=B a=A b'=B
x CAB(Cc;a  b') CAB(Dd; a'b){~a:, ~,*}. (25.2.13)
Not all of these operators are necessarily nonzero. But the only nonzero
Cle bschGordan coefficients CAB (j17, ab) for j = 17 = A + B and j = 17 =
A + B are the ones for a = A, b = B and a = A, b = B, respectively,
which both have the value unity, so by taking C = D = c = d = A + B
in Eq. (25.2.13), we find that
A+B.A+ B _ (_I)2B {QAB QAB*}
X A+B,AB (25.2.14)
 A,B' A,B .
32 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
This cannot vanish unless QtB = 0, which would imply (taking com
mutators with the 'lowering' operators Al  iA2 and 'raising' operators
BI + iB2) that all the Q:: vanish. Hence if there are any nonvanishing
(A, B) fermionic generators, then their anticommutators with their adjoints
must at least involve nonzero bosonic symmetry generators belonging to
the (A + B,A + B) representation.
Now, the ColemanMandula theorem tells us that the bosonic symme
try generators consist of the (1/2,1/2) generators PfJ of translations, the
(1,0) + (0, 1) generators JfJ V of proper Lorentz transformations, and per
haps the (0,0) generators TA of various internal symmetries. (Recall that
symmetric traceless tensors of rank N transform according to the represen
tation (N /2, N /2), antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 transform according
to the representation (1,0) + (0,1), while Dirac fields transform according
to the representation (1/2,0) + (0, 1/2).) Hence the fermionic symmetry
generators can only belong to representations (A, B) with A + B < 1/2.
These operators tum bosons into fermions and viceversa, so they cannot
be scalars, leaving only the (1/2,0) and (0,1/2) representations, as was to
be shown. Labelling the linearly independent (0,1/2) fermionic genera
tors as QaT' the anticommutator {QaT' Qb.} belongs to the representation
(0,1/2) x (1/2,0) = (1/2,1/2), and therefore must be proportional to the
only (1/2,1/2) bosonic symmetry generator, the momentum fourvector
Pw Lorentz invariance dictates that the form of this relation must be
{Qar, Qb.} = 2NT O'~ PfJ ' (25.2.15)
where NT. is a numerical matrix.
To see this, we use the isomorphism of the Lorentz group (or more
properly its covering group) with the group SL(2, C) of twodimensional
unimodular complex matrices A., discussed in Section 2.7. The effect of a
Lorentz transformation AfJ v on the (0,1/2) fermionic generators is
U 1(A) QaT U(A) = L Aab QbT , (25.2.16)
b
where A is the Lorentz transformation defined by
AO'fJ At = A VfJO'v . (25.2.17)
We can check that Eq. (25.2.16) applies for (0, 1/2) operators by noting
that for an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation AfJ v = /jfJ v + Q)fJ v with
Q)fJV = Q)VfJ' Eq. (25.2.17) is satisfied for
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 33
while t
U(A) = 1 + ! iwllv JIlV = 1 + ! iCijkWijIk  iWiOKi .
(Repeated latin indices i, j, k are summed over values 1, 2, 3.) In this
case, by equating the coefficients of Wij and WiO in Eq. (25.2.16), we find
that
[J, Qal =  t La ab Qb , [K, Qal =  t i L a ab Qb ,
b b
or, equivalently,
[B, Qal =  ! LaabQb , [A, Qal = 0,
b
which shows that an operator satisfying Eq. (25.2.16) belongs to the (0, 1/2)
representation. Now, the all form a complete set of 2 x 2 matrices, so we
can put the anticommutator {QaT' Qbs} in the form Nrs (all)ab, where Nil
is some matrix of operators. Eqs. (25.2.16) and (25.2.17) show that these
operators are fourvectors, in the sense that U 1(A)NIlU(A) = Allv N V, and
so by the ColemanMandula theorem they must be proportional to PIl,
the only fourvector of bosonic symmetry operators. Setting Nrs = 2pIl N Ts
then gives Eq. (25.2.15).
Now we will apply a linear transformation to the QaT> to put their
anticommutators in the form (25.2.7). For this purpose, we need to
establish that the matrix N Ts is Hermitian and positivedefinite. That
it is Hermitian follows immediately by taking the Hermitian adjoint
of Eq. (25.2.15). To see that it is positivede1inite, recall that the Qar
are taken linearly independent, so for any nonzero linear combination
Q == L:T da CTQaT there must be some state 1'1') that Q does not annihilate.
Taking the expectation value of Eq. (25.2.15) in this state implies that
2('1'1 La~bPlldadb 1'1') LcTc;NTs = ('I'I{Q,Q*}I'I') > O.
ab TS
This shows immediately that L:TS CTC; N Ts cannot vanish for any CT that
are not all zero, so N Ts is either positivedefinite or negativedefinite. The
operator L:ab(all)abPlldadb is positive on the space of physical states with
_PIlPIl > 0 and pO > 0, so the matrix N Ts must be positivedefinite. tt
tHere K; is defined as Jif). There was a mistake in the first two printings of Volume I:
K; was defined as JiO in Sections 2.4, 3.3, and 3.5, but as JiO in Sections 5.6 and 5.9,
w:ith A and 8 throughout given by Eq. (25.2.1).
tt Tl~is argument may be turned around. Assuming a supersymmetry with N" positive
definite, as in Eq. (25.27), we can deduce that pO > 0 for all states. 2 However, this
conclusion is not valid when gravitation is taken into account, and unless gravitation
is taken into account a shift in the energy of all states by the same amount would
have no physical effects.
34 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
We may now define new fermionic generators
12
rs / Qas,
Q 'ar = "'N
~
s
for which the anticommutators take the form
{Q~r' Q;s} = 2brs (J~ Pfl
From now on we shall assume that the fermionic generators are defined
in this way, and drop the primes, so that Eq. (25.2.7) is satisfied.
Next we must show that the Qar commute with the momentum four
vector Pfl. The commutator of a (1/2,1/2) operator like Pfl with a (0,1/2)
operator like Q can only be a (1/2,0) or (1/2,1) operator, but we have
seen that there are no (1/2,1) symmetry generators, so the commutator
of Pfl with Q can only be proportional to the (1/2,0) symmetry generator
Q*. Lorentz invariance requires this relation to take the form
[.A ab, Qcr] = L eac K rs Qbs , (25.2.18)
s
where K is a numerical matrix, and .A is the matrix of operators
(25.2.19)
(The matrix eac is the ClebschGordan coefficient for coupling two spins
1/2 to give zero spin.) It is straightforward then to calculate that
[.A_!_!, [.A_!_!, {Q!r' Q!s}]] = 4(.AL!_!(KKt)rs. (25.2.20)
Using Eq. (25.2.7), the lefthand side is a linear combination of multiple
commutators [Pfl , [P., P;.]] , all of which vanish, while (.A)1/21/2 is non
zero for generic momenta, so KKt = 0, and therefore K = 0, which
with Eq. (25.2.18) shows that [Pfl,Qar] = 0. The complex conjugate gives
[Pfl ' Q:r] = 0.
Now we can take up the anticommutator of two Qs. The anticommu
tator of two (0,1/2) symmetry generators must be a linear combination
of (0, 1) and (0,0) symmetry generators. The ColemanMandula theorem
tells us that the only (0,1) symmetry generators are linear combinations
of the generators J.;. of proper homogeneous Lorentz transfiDrmations,
but since the Qs commute with Pfl so must their anticommutators, and
Eq. (2.4.13) shows that no linear combination of the J.;. commutes with
Pw This leaves just (0,0) operators, which commute with both Pfl and J fl .
Lorentz invariance then requires the anticommutators of the Qs: with each
other to take the form of Eq. (25.2.8). The internal symmetry generators
Zrs are anti symmetric in rand s because the whole expression must be
symmetric under interchange of r and a with s and b, and the matrix eab
is antisymmetric in a and b.
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 35
It now only remains to show that the Z s are central charges. It follows
immediately from Eqs. (25.2.8) and (25.2.10) that
[P,." Zrs] = 0. (25.2.21)
Next consider the generalized Jacobi identity (25.1.5) involving two Qs
and a Q*:
0= [{Qar, Qbs}, Q;t] + [{Qbs, Q;t}, Qar] + [{Q;t, Qar}, Qbs] .
Eqs. (25.2.7) and (25.2.10) show that the second and third terms vanish,
so
(25.2.22)
Finally, consider the generalized Jacobi identity for a Z, a Q, and a Q*:
0= [Zrs, {Qat, Qbu}] + {Qbu, [Zrs, Qat]}  {Qat. [Qbu, Zrs]} .
The first and third terms vanish because of Eqs. (25.2.21) and (25.2.22),
respectively, so we are left with the second term
{Qbu, [Zrs, Qatl} = 0 . (25.2.23)
Now, [Zrs, Qatl is a (0,1/2) symmetry generator, so it must be a linear
combination of the Qs:
[Zrs, Qat] = L M rstu Qau . (25.2.24)
u
Eq. (25.2.23) then reads
(J'~PJlMrstu = 0 ,
for all a, b, r, s, t, and u. Since the operator (J'~PJl is not zero, we conclude
that M rstu = 0, so that
[Zrs, Qat] = 0. (25.2.25)
Using the anticommutation relation (25.2.8) and its adjoint together with
the commutation relations (25.2.22) and (25.2.25) and their adjoints then
gIves
[Zrs, Ztu] = [Zrs, Z~] = [Z;s' Zt:] = 0, (25.2.26)
which finishes the proof of Eq. (25.2.11), and with it the proof of the
HaagLopuszanskiSohnius theorem.
Of course, the fact that the Zrs are central charges of the supersymmetry
algebra does not rule out the possibility that there may be other Abelian or
nonAbelian internal symmetries. Let TA span the complete Lie algebra
of bosonic internal symmetries. Then [TA' Qar] is a (0,1/2) symmetry
generator, so it must be a linear combination of the Qs:
[TA, Qar] =  L(tA)rsQas. (25.2.27)
s
36 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
From the Jacobi identity for two Ts and a Q, we learn that the tA matrices
furnish a representation of the internal symmetry algebra
[tA, tB] = i L C~B tc , (25.2.28)
c
where the coefficients C~B are the structure constants of the internal
symmetry algebra
[TA, TB] = iLC~B Tc. (25.2.29)
c
The Zrs will then be central charges not only of the superalgebra con
sisting of the Qs, Qs, PI" Zs, and Zs, but also of the larger symmetry
superalgebra that in addition contains all the TA. To see this, note from
Eqs. (25.2.27) and (25.2.8) that
[TA, Zrs] =  L(tA)rr'Zr's  L(tA)ss'Zrs' ,
r' s'
so the Zrs form an invariant Abelian sub algebra of the whole bosonic
symmetry algebra. But recall that in proving the ColemanMandula
theorem we found that the complete Lie algebra of internal bosonic
symmetries, which in our case is spanned by the T A, is isomorphic to
a direct sum of a compact semisimple Lie algebra and several U(1)
algebras. The only invariant Abelian subalgebras of such a Lie algebra
are spanned by U(1) generators, so the Zrs must be U(1) generators, and
hence commute with all the TA.
Even though the Z s commute with all symmetry generators, they are
not just numbers; they are quantum operators, whose value may vary from
state to state. In fact, the Zs must obviously take the value zero for a
supersymmetric vacuum state, which is annihilated by all supersymmetry
generators, but they need not vanish in general. In Section 27.9 we
will see how the Z s may be calculated in gauge theories with extended
supersymmetry.
In the absence of central charges, the supersymmetry algebra (25.2.7),
(25.2.8) is invariant under a group U(N) of internal symmetries
(25.2.30)
with Vrs an N x N unitary (not necessarily unimodular) matrix. This
is known as Rsymmetry. This symmetry mayor may not be a good
symmetry of the action, and if it is then it may be violated by anomalies,
or it may be spontaneously broken, or it may be a good symmetry of
nature.
A supersymmetry algebra where r, s, etc. run over N > 1 values is
known as an Nextended supersymmetry. Where there is just one Q, the
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 37
condition Zrs = Zsr tells us that the Z s vanish, yielding a simpler form
of the anticommutation relations
{Qa, Qb} = 2(i~ Pfl ' (25.2.31)
{Qa, Qb} = o. (25.2.32)
This is known as the case of simple supersymmetry, or N = 1 super
symmetry. In this case the Rsymmetry transformations are U(1) phase
transformations
Qa + exp( iq> ) Qa , (25.2.33)
with q> a real phase.
For several purposes it is convenient to combine the (0,1/2) operators
Qar together with (1/2,0) operators, which according to Eq. (25.2.6) may
be taken as eabQb" into fourcomponent Majorana spinor generators Qar,
defined as
Qr = _(eQrQ;) ' (25.2.34)
or more explicitly
Qlr = Q~!r' Q2r = Q~r' Q3r = Q!r' Q4r = Q!r
This is a Majorana spinor in the sense that
Qr = pcYsQ; ,
where p, c, and Ys are 4 x 4 matrices that may be written as the 2 x 2
block matrices:
P=(~ ~) c=(~ ~)
(The properties of Majorana spinors are reviewed in the appendix to
Chapter 26.) The form (25.2.34) is chosen in accordance with the usual
notation for the fourcomponent Dirac representation of the homogeneous
Lorentz group, in which according to Eq. (5.4.4) the rotation and boost
generators are represented according to Eqs. (5.4.19) and (5.4.20) by
/1 = 2
1 [(it0 (il0] ' %/ = _!..2 [(it
0
0].
(il
(25.2.35)
With Eq. (25.2.1), this shows that the operators A and B act only on the
top two and bottom two components of the Dirac spinor, respectively,
which is why we use the (0,1/2) operators Qar as the bottom rather than
the top components in Eq. (25.2.34).
38 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
In this fourcomponent notation, the fundamental anticommutation
relations (25.2.31) and (25.2.32) for simple supersymmetry read
{Q, Q} = 2 (O"I'~I' e(O"~I')T e) = 2iPI'"yJl. (25.2.36)
Our notation for Dirac matrices is reviewed in the Preface to this volume;
here we need only recall that
o
I' = I
.p = I
. (00"0
0"0)
0 ' l' =
.(0(1 (1)
I 0 ' (25.2.37)
while e (1 T e = (1, eO"oe = 0"0, and as usual Q = Qt p. The presence of
central charges will change this formula in the case of extended super
symmetry; instead of Eq. (25.2.36), we have
{Q r , Q} _
s  
21 PI' I' I'!Jrs + (1+1'5)Z
2 sr +
(11'5)Z
2 rs (25.2.38)
The analysis presented here for the case of four spacetime dimensions
will be repeated, in a somewhat less explicit form, for general spacetime
dimensions in Chapter 32. As we will see there, the supersymmetry
generators always belong to the fundamental spinor representation of the
higherdimensional Lorentz group, even in theories with extended objects
that allow the construction of bosonic symmetry generators other than
those allowed by the ColemanMandula theorem.
***
In theories of massless particles that are invariant under the conformal
symmetry algebra (24.B.34}(24.B.35) there are two additional bosonic
symmetry generators D and KI' that can appear on the righthand side of
the supersymmetry anticommutation relations. These new generators have
the Lorentz transformation properties of a scalar and a vector, respectively,
just like Zrs and PI" so once again the fermionic generators must belong
to the fundamental (1/2,0) spinor representation of the Lorentz algebra,
and its Hermitian adjoint, the (0,1/2) representation. It is convenient
to classify all generators also according to their commutators with the
dilation generator D; an operator X is said to have dimensionality a if
[X, D] = iaX. (25.2.39)
Inspection of Eq. (24.B.34) shows that the bosonic symmetry generators
JI", PI', KI', and D have dimensionalities 0, +1, 1, and 0, respectively.
Also, the generators of any Lie group of internal symmetries have dimen
sionality o. The anticommutator of a fermionic generator of dimensionality
a with its adjoint is a positivedefinite bosonic operator of dimensionality
2a, so since the only positivedefinite bosonic symmetry generators are
linear combinations of the components of PI' and KI" the only fermionic
25.2 Supersymmetry Algebras 39
symmetry generators have dimensionalities +1/2 and 1/2. The (0,1/2)
fermionic symmetry generators of dimensionality 1/2 and their adjoints
may again be assembled into Majorana spinors Qro:, with
{Qro:, Qsp} = 2iPfI(yfl)o:p<>rs , (25.2.40)
[PfI , Qro:] = 0, (25.2.41 )
[D, Qro:] =  FQro:. (25.2.42)
(Note that central charges are not allowed here, because their dimension
ality would be 0, not +1.) The commutators of the Kfl with the Qro:
are linear combinations of Majorana fermionic symmetry generators Qfo:'
which Lorentz invariance allows us to write in the form
(25.2.43)
(An arbitrary factor on the righthand side has been absorbed into the
normalization of Q~p. The phase of the righthand, side is chosen so
that Q~p will satisfY the standard reillity condition (26.A.2) for Majorana
spinors.) The Q~p have dimensionality +1/2 1 = 1/2, so
(25.2.44)
Taking the commutator of Eq. (25.2.43) with po and using the commutator
of Kfl with po given by Eq. (24.B.34) gives
(25.2.45)
We see that the Qs and Q#s are paired. By taking the commutator of the
anticommutation relation (25.2.40) with Kfl we find the anticommutators
of the Q#s and Qs:
{Qfo:' Qsp] = 2iD<>rs<>o:p + 2JfI'<>rs/~p + Ors<>o:p + 0~.(y5)o:p , (25.2.46)
where /fI' = _i[yfl, y']/4, and Ors and O~s are Lorentz invariant operators
of zero dimensionality with
Ors = Osr, O~s = +O~. (25.2.47)
Taking the commutator of Eq. (25.2.43) with K, and using the fact that
[K"K fI ] = 0, we find that (yfl)o:p[K',Qrp] is symmetric in J1. and v, which
with a little algebra tells us that
[K' ,Qrp] = 0. (25.2.48)
Also, taking the commutator of Eq. (25.2.46) with K, gives
{Q~, Q#sp} = +2iKfI (yfl)o:p<>rs. (25.2.49)
Finally, taking the commutator of Eq. (25.246) with Qty shows that Ors and
O~s act as the generators of the Rsymmetry group U(N), with the left and
40 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
righthanded parts of Qro: transforming according to the representations
Nand N, respectively, while the P,." K,." and D are U(N)invariant. The
U(N) commutation relations of these generators with each other and with
other generators together with Eqs. (24.B.34), (24.B.35), (25.2.40H25.2.49)
and the commutators of J,.,.
and D with the various generators constitute
the superconformal algebra. One of the outstanding differences between
this algebra and that of ordinary simple or N extended supersymmetry
is that the U(N) symmetry is not merely an outer automorphism of the
algebra that mayor may not be a symmetry of the action  it is a part
of the superconformal algebra, which therefore must be a symmetry of
any action that is supersymmetric and conformally invariant.
25.3 Space Inversion Properties of Supersymmetry Generators
In theories that respect the conservation of parity, the result plQar P of
acting on the fermionic symmetry generator Qar with the parity operator
P must also be a fermionic symmetry generator. Since Ji and Ki are
respectively even and odd under space inversion, Eq. (25.2.1) shows that
the effect of acting on Ai with the parity operator is
(25.3.1)
According to Eq. (25.2.3), the definition of Qar as a (0,1/2) operator
means that
[Bi, Qar] = !L (lJi)abQbr, [Ai, Qar] = 0. (25.3.2)
b
Applying the parity operator yields
[Ai, p1Qar P] =  ~ Lb (lJi)
ab
P1Qbr P , [Bi, P1QarP] = 0, (25.3.3)
so plQarP is a (1/2,0) symmetry generator, and therefore must be a linear
combination of the Q:r' According to Eq. (25.2.6), Lorentz invariance
dictates the form of this relation as
P1Qar P = L fllJrs eabQi,s , (25.3.4)
bs
where fllJ is a numerical matrix, and the matrix e is given by Eq. (25.29).
We can learn something about the properties of the matrix fllJ by requir
ing that Eq. (25.3.4) be consistent with the fundamental anticommutation
relation (25.2.7). Eq. (25.3.4) and its adjoint yield
1
p {QaT> Qbs}P = L fllJrt eac fllJ;" ebd {Q;t, Qdu} .
edtu
25.3 Space Inversion Properties of Supersymmetry Generators 41
Inserting Eq. (25.2.7), this becomes
1
brsG';d, p PJlP = 'L &>rt eac &>;,. ebd btu G':c P Jl
cdtu
But eG'[ e 1 = G'i and eG'6 e 1 = +G'o, while pl PiP = Pi and p1PoP =
Po, so this reduces to the statement that &> is unitary
&> &>t = 1. (25.3.5)
The matrix &> is to some extent arbitrary, because for any set of
fermionic generators Qar that satisfies Eqs. (25.3.2) and (25.2.7), we con
struct another set Q~r that also satisfies Eqs. (25.3.2) and (25.2.7) by a
unitary transformation
OIIt = OIlI , (25.3.6)
s
so that the parity transformation rule (25.3.4) becomes
plQ~p = 'L&>;'seabQ;':, (25.3.7)
bs
where
(25.3.8)
For simple supersymmetry &> is just a 1 x 1 phase factor, and Eq. (25.3.4)
reads
plQa P = &> 'L eabQi, . (25.3.9)
b
Combining this with its adjoint gives
p2Qa p2 = Qa, (25.3.10)
independently of the value chosen for the phase factor &>. This has the
striking consequence that if a boson in a supermultiplet of particles has a
real intrinsic parity, then the fermions obtained by acting on this boson
state with Qa have imaginary intrinsic parities.
Because for simple supersymmetry OIl and &> are just phase factors, it is
obvious from Eq. (25.3.8) that by a suitable choice of OIl, the phase factor
f1}J' can be made anything we like. It will be convenient to choose f1}J' = +i,
so that Eq. (25.3.7) takes the simple form (now dropping primes)
plQa P = i'L eabQi,. (25.3.11)
b
Just as for spinor field operators, the representation of space inversion is
simpler if we combine the (0,1/2) operators Qa and the (1/2,0) operators
I:b eabQi, into the fourcomponent Dirac spinor generator Qa defined by
42 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
Eq. (25.2.34). In these terms, Eq. (25.3.11) and its adjoint read
p1Q P = iP Q . (25.3.12)
(We are using the notation for Dirac matrices given in Section 5.4 and in
the Preface to this volume, which gives
P=(~ ~),
where 1 and 0 are understood as 2 x 2 submatrices.)
For extended supersymmetry it is not always possible to choose 0/1 so
that f!JY is diagonal. However, a theorem in matrix algebra (proved in
Appendix C of Chapter 2) shows that it is possible to choose 0/1 so that
f!JY is block diagonal, in general with some of the matrices on the diagonal
equal to 1 x 1 submatrices that can be chosen equal to i (or any other
phase factors we like), and other submatrices on the diagonal given by
2 x 2 matrices that can be chosen to have the form
0 exp(i</ )
( exp( i</ 0 '
with various phases </>. Correspondingly, with this choice of 0/1 (and now
dropping primes) the twocomponent Qs are of two types. The Qs of the
first type also satisfy Eq. (25.3.11):
P 1Qar P = i L
eab Qbr . (25.3.13)
b
The twocomponent Qs of the second type come in pairs, which we will
call Qasl and Qas2, with the sth pair having the parity transformation rule
p 1 Qasl P = eit/), L eab Qbs2 , pl Qas2 p = eit/>, L eab Qbsl . (25.3.14)
b b
In particular, we now have
p2Qa sl p2 =  ~it/>, Qa sl , P2Qas2 p2 =e2it/>'Qas2 (25.3.15)
This shows that, unless </>s = 0 (mod 1t), it is not possible to form
supersymmetry generators of the first type out of linear combinations of
extended supersymmetry generators of the second type.
In terms of the fourcomponent spinors (25.2.34), the effect of the parity
operator on extended supersymmetry generators of the first type is
p1Qr p = iP Qr , (25.3.16)
while for generators of the second type
pl Qsl p = PI's exp(iys</>s) Qs2 , pl Qs2 P = PI's exp( iys</>s) Qsl .
(25.3.17)
25.4 Massless Particle 8upermultiplets 43
25.4 Massless Particle Supermultiplets
Supersymmetry requires that the known particles be accompanied in
irreducible representations of the supersymmetry algebra by 'sparticles':
bosonic 'squarks' and 'sleptons' accompanying quarks and leptons, and
fermionic 'gauginos' accompanying gauge bosons. None of these sparticles
have been observed, so supersymmetry is certainly broken, with the masses
of the sparticles almost certainly much larger than the quark, lepton, and
gauge boson masses produced by the spontaneous breakdown of the
electroweak 8U(2) x U(1) gauge group, and hence of the same order
of magnitude as the splittings within supermultiplets. Thus it is very
likely that at energy scales that are large enough so that we can neglect
supersymmetry breaking and these mass splittings, we can also treat the
known quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons and their superpartners as
massless. Therefore we will be specially interested in supermultiplets of
massless particles.
Consider a state containing a single massless particle belonging to some
supermultiplet. We obtain the other states in the same supermultiplet
by applying operators Qar and/or Q:r to this state. Since Qar and
Q:r commute with PI" all these states have the same value of the four
momentum. We will work in a Lorentz frame in which the fourmomentum
of these states is pI = ,; = 0 and p3 = po = E. With this choice of four
momentum, we have
(25.4.1)
which aside from the factor 2E is the projection matrix onto the subspace
with helicity +1/2. The anticommutation relation (25.2.7) therefore shows
that {Q(1/2)n Q(1/2)r} gives zero when acting on any state in a super
multiplet with this momentum, and thus so do Q(1/2)r and Q(1/2)r' We
must therefore construct,the states of the supermultiplet by acting only
with Q(1/2)r and Q(1/2)r' Furthermore, we are labelling the Qs with their
h values, in the sense that
(25.4.2)
so Q(1/2)r and Q(1/2)r respectively lower and raise the helicity by 1/2.
We will first consider the case of simple supersymmetry. Consider a
supermultiplet with maximum helicity ..1.max , and let l..1.max ) be any one
particle state with this helicity and fourmomentum pI'. Then
Q~ l..1.max ) = 0 ,
~ ,
(25.4.3)
while acting on this state with Ql/2 gives a state l..1.max 1/2) with helicity
44 25 8upersymmetry Algebras
. 1.max  1/2. We will define this state as
l..1.max  1/2} = (4E)1/2 Q 1
~
l..1.max ) . (25.4.4)
The fundamental anticommutation relation (25.2.7) together with Eqs.
(25.4.1) and (25.4.3) shows that this state is normalized in the same way
as IAmax}
(..1.max  1/21..1.max  1/2) = (..1.maxI..1. max ) , (25.4.5)
and in particular this state cannot vanish. Eq. (25.2.32) shows that
Qi/2 = 0, so acting with Ql/2 on l..1.max  1/2} gives zero:
Q!I..1.max 1/2} = (4E)1/2Q~IAmax) = O. (25.4.6)
On the other hand, acting with Qi/2 on this state gives the state with
which we started. That is,
Q~ l..1.max  1/2} = (4E)1/2Q~~ Q ~llAmax) = (4E)1/2{ Q~~ , Q ~1 }1..1.max ) ,
~
so that Eq. (25.4.1) and the anticommutation relation (25.2.31) yield
Q~ 1..1.max 1/2} = (4E)1/21..1.max) . (25.4.7)
~
Thus the supermultiplet consists of just two states, with helicities . 1.max and
. 1.max  1/2. In the basis provided by these two states, the operators Q1/2
and Qi/2 are represented by the matrices
(25.4.8)
while the operators Q1/2 and Q:'1/2 are represented by zero.
It is worth emphasizing that this is the only kind of massless super
multiplet in theories with simple supersymmetry. There are no massless
particles that are not accompanied with a superpartner, and none that
have more than one superpartner. Of course, CPT invariance implies that
for every supermultiplet of massless particles of helicities . 1. and . 1.  1/2
there must be an antimultiplet with helicities ..1. + 1/2 and ..1.. In par
ticular, a massless particle and antiparticle with helicities +1/2 and 1/2
must be accompanied by a massless particle and antiparticle either with
helicities +1 and 1 or with helicities both zero.
How might the known quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons fit into this
picture? We will assume that the supersymmetry generator commutes with
the generators of the 8U(3) x 8U(2) x U(1) gauge group: The quarks
In simple supersymmetry the generator Q. must in any case commute with the
SU(3) x SU(2) generators, because semisimple algebras like SU(3) x SU(2) have no
nontrivial onedimensional representations.
25.4 Massless Particle 8upermultiplets 45
and leptons belong to different representations of the gauge group from
the gauge bosons, so they cannot be in the same supermultiplets. We
have to conclude then that in the limit of high energy where 8U(2) x U(l)
symmetry breaking may be neglected, the massless quarks and leptons of
each color and flavor are in supermultiplets with pairs of massless squarks
and sleptons of zero helicity and the same color and flavor, while the
massless gauge bosons are accompanied by massless gauginos of helicity
+1/2 comprising an adjoint representation of 8U(3) x 8U(2) x U(l).
Because gravity exists we know that in addition to the particles of the
standard model there must also exist a massless particle of helicity +2, the
graviton. Massless particles with hehcity ..1. having 1..1.1 > 1/2 must couple
at low momentum to conserved quantities" Soft massless particles of
helicity +1 can couple to various internal symmetry generators, soft mass
less particles of helicity +3/2 can couple to the supersymmetry generators
Qa, and a soft particle of helicity +2 can couple to a single conserved
quantity, the momentum fourvector PI" but there are no conserved quan
tities to which a soft massless particle with 1..1.1 > 2 could couple. We
conclude that the graviton cannot be in a supermultiplet with particles of
helicity +5/2, so it must be in a supermultiplet with a massless particle
of helicity +3/2, known as a gravitino, coupled to the supersymmetry
generators themselves. The field theory of this supermultiplet is known as
supergravity, and will be discussed in Chapter 31.
Now let us consider the case of extended supersymmetry, with N
supersymmetry generators. We first note that because the Q(1/2)r all
give zero when acting on the states of a supermultiplet (including a state
obtained by letting Q(l/2) s act on any othl~r state of the multiplet), the
central charges Zrs must also annihilate any state of the multiplet. With
central charges out of the picture, the supersymmetry generators Q(1/2)r
all anticommute when acting on a massless particle supermultiplet, so
applying n of them to a oneparticle state of maximum helicity Amax and
fourmomentum pi' gives N!/n!(N  n)! oneparticle states of the same
fourmomentum and helicity ..1.max  n/2, tiJrming a rank n antisymmetric
tensor representation of the 8 U(N) Rsynnnetryt (25.2.30). The maximum
value of n that gives a nonzero state is n = N, so the minimum helicity
in a supermultiplet is given by
Amin = ..1.max  N /2 . (25.4.9)
If we wish to exclude massless particle helicities ..1. with 1..1.1 > 2, then
Tbis is discussed for the case of integer heIicity in Section 13.1. The argument for
halfinteger helicity was given by Grisaru and Pendleton. 3
t The U(l) part of U(N) Rsymmetry is often violated by quantum mechanical
anomalies.
46 25 8upersymmetry Algebras
..1.max ..1.min < 4, so extended supersymmetries are allowed only with
N < 8.
For N = 8, with helicities with 1..1.1 > 2 excluded, there is only one
possible supermultiplet, consisting of: 1 graviton with each helicity 2;
8 gravitinos with each helicity +3/2; 28 gauge bosons with each helicity
+ 1; 56 fermions with each helicity + 1/2; and 70 bosons with helicity zero.
Compare this with the case N = 7, again excluding helicities with
1..1.1 > 2. Here there are two supermultiplets. One supermultiplet contains:
1 graviton with helicity +2; 7 gravitinos with helicity +3/2; 21 gauge
bosons with helicity +1; 35 fermions with helicity +1/2; 35 bosons with
helicity zero; 21 fermions with helicity 1/2; 7 gauge bosons with helicity
1; and 1 gravitino with helicity 3/2. The other is the CPTconjugate
supermultiplet, with all helicities reversed. Adding the numbers of particles
in these two supermultiplets, we have 1 graviton with each helicity +2;
7 + 1 = 8 gravitinos with each helicity +3/2; 21 + 7 = 28 gauge bosons
with each helicity + 1; 35 + 21 = 56 fermions with each helicity + 1/2; and
35 + 35 = 70 bosons with helicity zero. Extended supergravity theories
with N = 8 and N = 7 thus have precisely the same particle content and
are in fact identical.
On the other hand, extended supergravity theories with N < 6 have just
N gravitinos of each helicity +3/2 and are therefore all distinct.
For N < 4 there is also the possibility of global supersymmetry theories,
theories with supermultiplets that do not include gravitons or gravitinos.
For global N = 4 supersymmetry there is just one supermultiplet, contain
ing: 1 gauge boson of each helicity 4; 4 fermions of each helici ty + 1/2;
and 6 bosons of helicity zero. This is equivalent to the global supersym
metry theory with N = 3, which has two supermultiplets: 1 supermultiplet
with one gauge boson of helicity +1, 3 fermions with helicity +1/2; 3
bosons with helicity zero; and 1 fermion with helicity 1/2; and the other
the CPT conjugate supermultiplet with opposite helicities. Adding the
numbers of particles of each helicity in these two N = 3 supermultiplets
gives the same particle content as for N = 4 global supersymmetry. The
gauge field theory with N = 4 supersymmetry has remarkable properties,
which will be discussed in Section 27.9.
For N = 2 extended global supersymmetry there are supermultiplets
of two different types, apart from those related by CPT. There are
gauge supermultiplets, each containing one gauge boson of helicity +1,
two fermions of helicity +1/2 forming a doublet under the 8U(2) R
symmetry (25.2.30), and one boson of helicity zero, together with their
CPTconjugate supermultiplets, with helicities reversed. Together each
gauge supermultiplet and its antimultiplet contain one gauge boson with
each helicity 1, an 8U(2) doublet offermions of each helicity + 1/2, and
two 8U(2) singlet bosons of helicity zero. Then there are hypermultiplets,
25.4 Massless Particle 8upermultiplets 47
which contain one fermion of each helicity 1/2 and an 8U(2) doublet of
bosons of helicity zero, together with its CPTconjugate. (In quantum field
theory a hypermultiplet cannot be its own antimultiplet, because then the
helicity zero particles would be described by just two real scalar fields,
which cannot form an 8U(2) doublet.) Of course, in the real world there
would also have to be a graviton supermultiplet, containing a graviton
of helicity +2, an 8 U (2) doublet of gravitinos with helicity + 3/2, and
one gauge boson with helicity +1, together with their CPTconjugates,
with opposite helicity. Gauge theories with N = 2 supersymmetry are
constructed in Section 27.9, and explored nonperturbatively in Section
29.5.
The particle content of these supermultiplets reveals a difficulty in
incorporating extended supersymmetry in realistic tlu:ories of particles
at accessible energies. In all cases but one, the helicity +1/2 fermions
belong to supermultiplets along with helicity +1 gauge bosons. Gauge
bosons belong to the adjoint representation of the gauge group, so if the
supersymmetry generators are invariant under the gauge group then the
helicity +1/2 fermions must also belong to the adjoint representation,
which is real. This is in conflict with the fact that the known quarks
and leptons belong to a representation of 8U(3) x 8U(2) x U(1) which is
chiral that is, for which the helicity +1/2 fermions belong to a complex
representation, which is then necessarily different from the representation
furnished by their CPTconjugates, the helicity 1/2 fermions. The one
exception, where helicity +1/2 fermions are not in a supermultiplet with
gauge bosons, is the N = 2 hypermultiplet discussed above. But in this case
particles of both helicities + 1/2 and 1/2 are in the same supermultiplet,
and therefore must transform the same under any gauge transformations
that leave the supersymmetry generators invariant. They may belong to a
complex representation of this gauge group, but then the CPTconjugate
of this hypermultiplet belongs to the complexconjugate representation,
and the fermions of each helicity then belong to the sum of the two
representations, which is real, again in conflict with the chiral nature of
the known quarks and leptons.
In contrast, for simple supersymmetry there are supermultiplets con
taining just helicity +1/2 and helicity zero, which may be in a complex
representation of the gauge group, distinct from the representation fur
nished by the CPTconjugate supermultiplet. Here there is no conflict
with chirality. For this reason, most discussions of supersymmetry as a
symmetry that remains unbroken at accessible energies have focused on
simple rather than extended supersymmetry.
48 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
25.5 Massive Particle Supermultiplets
Although the known quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons and their super
partners may probably be treated as massless at energies where super
symmetry breaking is negligible, this is not necessarily true for other
particles, including the extra gauge bosons of large mass required by the
ories that unify the strong and electroweak interactions. Also, ever since
the WessZumino model, massive particle theories have been useful test
cases for studying supersymmetry theories. It will therefore be worthwhile
for us briefly to consider the implications of unbroken supersymmetry for
massive particles.
As in the previous section, we obtain the various oneparticle states in
a supermultiplet by acting on anyone of them with the operators Qar
and Q:r, and all of these states have the same fourmomentum. Unlike
the case of zero mass, for mass M > 0 we may now take this to be
the fourmomentum of a particle at rest, with pi = 0 for i = 1,2,3 and
po = M. In this frame of reference, we have
(25.5.1)
Thus, acting on any state I ) in a supermultiplet with this fourmomentUID.
the anticommutation relation (25.2.7) yields
{Qar, Qbs}1 ) = 2M <>ah <>rs I ) . (25.5.2)
In contrast with the case of zero mass, here no component of Qar or Q:r
can vanish on the whole multiplet, so we have two sets of raising and
lowering operators: both Q(1/2)r and Q(1/2)r lower the spin 3component
by 1/2, while both Q(1/2)r and Q(1/2)r raise the spin 3component by 1/2.
However, as we shall see, for extended supersymmetry it is possible for
certain linear combinations of the Qs and Qs to vanish.
We will first consider the case of simple supersymmetry. By using
the supersymmetry algebra (25.231), (25.2.32), we shall show that the
general massive supermultiplet consists of a particle of spin j + 1/2, a
pair of particles of spin j, and a particle of spin j  1/2. Where parity is
conserved, the particles of spin j + 1/2 have equal intrinsic parity, given
by some phase 1], while the two particles of spin j have parities +il] and
il]. Here j is any integer or halfinteger greater than zero. There is also
a collapsed supermultiplet, consisting of two particles of spin zero and a
particle of spin 1/2. When parity is conserved the particles of spin zero
have parities il] and iI], where I] is the parity of the particle of spin 1/2.
Here is the proof. We first show that any supermultiplet will contain at
least one spin multiplet of states Ij,O") with spin 3component 0" running
by unit steps from  j to +j, having the special property that, for all such
25.5 Massive Particle Supennultiplets 49
u and for a = +1/2,
Qa 11, u) = o. (25.5.3)
Starting with any nonzero state lip) in the supermultiplet, we can define
nonzero states
+
Ql/211p) 0
Ql/211p) = 0
and
+
Ql/21Ip') 0
Ql/21Ip') = 0
Because the Qa anticommute, Ql/21Ip') = 0, and so Qallp") = 0 for a =
+ 1/2. If any state lip") satisfies the condition that Qa lip") = 0, then so does
U(R)IIp"), where U(R) is the unitary operator representing an arbitrary
spatial rotation. It follows that the states that satisfy this condition may
be decomposed into complete spin multiplets 11, u), satisfying condition
(25.5.3).
Now focus on anyone of these spin multiplets satisfying Eq. (25.5.3),
normalized so that
(j, u'll, u) = bal a (25.5.4)
For 1> 0, by applying the spin 1/2 operators Q: to these states we can
construct states of spin 1 + 1/2:
11 + 1/2,u) = ~ ~ CU(l + 1/2, u; a, u  a) Q: 11,u  a), (25.5.5)
where Cjj'(j", u"; u, u') is the conventional ClebschGordan coefficient for
coupling spins 1 and J with 3components u and u' to make spin l'
with 3component u". Using Eqs. (25.5.2H25.5.5) and the orthonormality
properties of the ClebschGordan coefficients, we can show that these
states are properly normalized:
(j + 1/2, ull 1/2, u') = baa' , (j + 1/2, ull + 1/2, u') = 0, (25.5.6)
so none of the states 11 + 1/2,u) can vanish. The only exception is for
1 = 0, in which case of course there is no state 11  1/2,u). We can
also construct other states by applying two Qs to 11,u). Since each Q:
Since Qa transforms under rotations like a field that destroys a particle of spin
1/2 and spin 3component a, it is Q: that transforms like a field that creates
such a particle, and hence transforms like the particle itself. To put this formally,
[Ji, Qal =  I:b ~(CTi)ab Qb, so [Ji, Q:l = I:b ~(CTi)ba Q;, which may be compared with
the transformation property of a spin 1/2 particle, J i la) = I:b ~(CTi)ba Ib).
50 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
anticommutes with itself, the only such nonzero states are formed by
applying the operator Qi/2Q~1/2 = Q~1/2Qi/2 This operator may be
written as ~eabQ:Qb' which shows that it is rotationally invariant, so this
gives a second spin multiplet with spin i:
(25.5.7)
which is distinguished from Ii, u) by the fact that instead of Eq. (25.5.3),
we have
(25.5.8)
Again using Eqs. (25.5.2H25.5.4), we find that these are also normalized
states:
"u,u'I)" j,U =Ua'a,
< U, u'li, u)" = 0. (25.5.9)
It is then easy to show that the states constructed so far form a complete
representation of the supersymmetry algebra. The orthonormality prop
erty of the ClebschGordan coefficients allows us to rewrite Eq. (25.5.5)
as
Q: Ii, u) = ..j2M I: C 1/ 2i (i + 1/2, u + a; a, u) Ii + 1/2, u + a). (25.5.10)
Also, Eq. (25.5.2) shows that, for any state I ) in the supermultiplet,
[Qa, Q~Q:'!] I) = 2M I: eab Qb I), (25.5.11)
b
so Eqs. (25.5.7) and (25.5.3) give
Qa Ii, u)" = I: eab Qb Ii, u)
b
= ..j2M I: eab I: C!i (i + 1/2, u + b; b, u) Ii + 1/2, u + b) . (25.5.12)
b
From Eqs. (25.5.2), (25.5.3), and (25.5.5) we have
Qa li+ 1/2,u) = ..j2MC!i(i + 1/2, u; a, u  a) li,u  a), (25.5.13)
while Eqs. (25.5.5), (25.2.31), and (25.5.7) yield
Q:li+ 1/ 2,u) = ..j2MI:eabC!i(i+1/2,u;b,ub) li,ub)". (25.5.14)
b
Eqs. (25.5.3), (25.5.8), (25.5.10), and (25.5.12H25.5.14) give the action of
the Qs and Q"s on all the statf:S of the supermultiplet.
25.5 Massive Particle Supermultiplets 51
For j = 0 we have the collapsed supermultiplet: Eqs. (25.5.3), (25.5.8),
(25.5.10), and (25.5.12H25.5.14) become
Qa 10,0) = 0, Q:
10,0)P = 0,
Q: 10,0) = .j2M 11/2, a) , Qa 10, O)p = .j2M 2:.b eab 11/2, b) ,
Qa 11/2, b) = .j2MbabI0, 0) , Q:
11/2,b) = .j2Meab 10,0)P .
(25.5.15)
Now suppose that parity is conserved. Recall that the phase of the
supersymmetry generator may be chosen so that the action of the parity
operator on these generators is given by Eq. (25.3.13). Then acting on Q:
Plj,O") is a linear combination of the states PQalj,O"), which vanish, and
since Plj,O") has the same rotation properties as Ij, O")P, it must simply be
proportional to it
(25.5.16)
Since P is unitary, 11 is a phase factor, with 1111 = 1. A correspond
ing argument shows that Plj,O")P is proportional to Ij,O"). To find the
proportionality coefficient, we note that
Plj,O")P = (2M)lpQ~ Q* 1 Ij,O") = 11(2M)lQ 1 Ql Ij,O")P
1 1 1 1
= 11(2M)2 Q_! Qi Q! Q=! Ij,O") = l1lj, 0") .
We can then define states of spin j
Ij,O") = ~(lj,O") +ilj,O")p), (25.5.17)
with definite parity
(25.5.18)
Finally, applying the parity operator to Eq. (25.5.5) and using Eqs. (25.3.13)
and (25.5.16) gives
P Ij+ 1/2,0") =  k I: Ci j(i+ 1/2, 0" ; a, O"a) I: eabQb Ij,O"a)P .
a b
Eq. (25.5.12) and the orthonormality property of the ClebschGordan
coefficients then yield
P Ij 1/2,0") = I1lj + 1/2,0") , (25.5.19)
as was to be shown.
We now tum briefly to the case of extended supersymmetry, with N
supersymmetry generators. As mentioned in the previous section, there
can be no massless particle with a nonvanishing eigenvalue for any central
charge. We can go further and show that the eigenvalues of the central
charge operators set a lower bound on the mass of any supermultiplet.
52 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
Because the central charges Zrs and Z;s commute with each other and with
Pft' oneparticle states can be chosen to be eigenstates of all the central
charges as well as of Pft' and because the central charges commute with
the Qar and Q:", all states in a supermultiplet have the same eigenvalues.
To derive an inequality relating the mass M of a supermultiplet and
the eigenvalues of the central charges on this multiplet, we use the anti
commutation relations (25.2.7) and (25.2.8) to write
I: {(Qar  I: eab UrsQbs ), (Q:r  I: eac U;tQct)}
ar bs ct
= 8N pO  2Tr (z ut + uzt) , (25.5.20)
where U rs is an arbitrary N x N unitary matrix. The lefthand side is
a positivedefinite operator, so by letting this act on the states of the
supermultiplet at rest, we find
M> _l_Tr (ZU t
 4N
+ uz t ) ' (25.5.21)
where now Zrs denotes the values of the central charges for the super
multiplet of mass M. The polar decomposition theorem tells us that any
square matrix Z may be written as H V, where H is a positive Hermitian
matrix and V is unitary. We can obtain a useful inequality (which is in
fact optimal) by setting U = V, in which case Eq. (25.5.21) becomes
1 1
M> Tr H
 2N
= Tr
2N
.jztz . (25.5.22)
States for which M equals the minimum value allowed by this inequality
are known as BPS states, by analogy with the Bogomol'nyiPrasad
Sommerfeld magnetic monopole configurations discussed in Section 23.3,
whose mass also equals a lower bound on general monopole masses.
In fact, this is more than an analogy; we will see in Section 27.9 that
the lower bound on monopole masses in gauge theories with extended
supersymmetry is a special case of the lower bound (25.5.22).
As we can see from this derivation of Eq. (25.5.22), for BPS supermulti
plets the operator Qar  I:bs eab UrsQ bs gives zero when acting on any state
of a supermultiplet, so there are only N independent helicityIowering op
erators Q(1/2)r and only N independent helicityraising operators Q(1/2)n
just as in the case of massless supermultiplets. This leads to smaller
supermultiplets than would be found in the general case.
For instance, for N = 2 supersymmetry the central charge is given by a
Problems 53
single complex number
z _ ( 0 Z12
Z12 o ). (25.5.23)
The inequality (25.5.22) here reads
M > IZi21/2. (25.5.24)
Where M = IZ12I/2, the helicity contents of the massive particle super
muitiplets are the same as for those of zero mass: there are gauge su
permultiplets, consisting of one particle of spin 1, an SU(2) Rsymmetry
doublet of spin 1/2, and one particle of spin 0 (the other helicity zero state
belonging to the spin one particle), and hypermuitiplets, consisting of one
particle of spin 1/2 and an SU(2) Rsymmetry doublet of spin O. These
are sometimes called 'short' supermuitiplets, to distinguish them from the
larger supermultiplets encountered when M > IZ12I/2.
Problems
1. Find a set of 2 x 2 matrices that foml a graded Lie algebra containing
fermionic as well as bosonic generators.
2. Following the approach of Haag, Lopuszanski, and Sohnius, derive
the form of the most general symmetry superalgebra in 2 + 1 space
time dimensions. (Hint: With the generators of the Lorentz group
in 2 + 1 spacetime dimensions labelled Ai = illO, A2 = iJ2Q,
A3 = 112, the commutation relations of the Poincare algebra are
[Ai, ,Aj] = i I:k EijkAk, so the representations of the homogeneous
Lorentz group in 2 + 1 spacetime dimensions are labelled with a
single positive integer or halfinteger A.) Assume that the conditions
for the ColemanMandula theorem are satisfied here.
3. Suppose that there were no massless particles with helicity greater
than +3/2 or less than 3/2. Find the most general massless
particle multiplets for N = 6 extended supersymmetry and (using
CPT symmetry) N = 5 extended supersymmetry. What does the
comparison between the particle content you find suggest about
these two extended supersymmetries?
4. What are the possible parities of the particles in the short supermui
tiplets of extended N = 2 supersymmetry?
In some articles on N = 2 supersymmetry the central charge Z is what we would call
Z /212. .
54 25 Supersymmetry Algebras
References
1. R. Haag, 1. T. Lopuszanski, and M. Sohnius, Nucl. Phys. B88, 257
(1975). This article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed.
(North Holland/World Scientific, Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987).
2. B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B89, 535 (1975). This article is reprinted in
Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
3. M. T. Grisaru and H. N. Pendleton, Phys. Lett. 67B, 323 (1977).
26
Supersymmetric Field Theories
Now we know the structure of the most general supersymmetry algebras,
and we have seen how to work out the implications of this symmetry for
the particle spectrum. In order to learn what supersymmetry has to say
about particle interactions, we need to see how to construct supersymmet
ric field theories.
Originally the construction of field supermultiplets was done directly,
by a repeated use of the Jacobi identities, much as in the construction of
supermultiplets of oneparticle states in Sections 25.4 and 25.5. Section
26.1 presents one example of this technique, used here to construct su
permultiplets containing only scalar and Dirac fields. Fortunately there
is an easier technique, invented by Salam and Strathdee, l in which su
permultiplets of fields are gathered into 'superfields,' which depend on
fermionic coordinates as well as on the usual four coordinates of space
time. Superfields are introduced in Section 26.2, and used to I;onstruct
supersymmetric field theories and to study some of their cons.equences
in Sections 26.326.8. This chapter will be concerned only with N = 1
supersymmetry, where the superfield formalism has been chiefly useful. At
the end of the next chapter we will construct theories with Nextended
supersymmetry by imposing the U(N) Rsymmetry on theories of N = 1
superfields.
26.1 Direct Construction of Field Supermuitiplets
To illustrate the direct construction of a field supermultiplet, we will
consider fields that can destroy the particles belonging to the simplest
supermultiplet of arbitrary mass discussed in Section 25.5: two spinless
particles and one particle of spin 1/2. We saw in Eq. (25.5.15) that the
oneparticle zero spin state 10,0) is annihilated by the supersymmetry
generator Qa but not by Q:, so we would expect the scalar field <J>(x) that
creates this particle from the vacuum (which is assumed to be annihilated
by all supersymmetry generators) to commute with Qa but not with Q:.
55
56 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
That is,
[Qa, f/J(x)] = 0, (26.1.1)
iI:eoo[Qb' f/J(x)] =~a(x) =1= o. (26.1.2)
b
The antisymmetric 2x2 matrix eoo (with el/2,1/2 = +1) is introduced here
because it is I:b eooQb that transforms under the homogeneous Lorentz
group according to the (1/2,0) representation. It follows that ~a(x) is a
twocomponent spinor field that also belongs to the (1/2,0) representation
of the homogeneous Lorentz group:
From Eqs. (26.1.1){26.1.2) and the anticommutation relation (25.2.31),
we find
{Qb, ~a} = iI:eac[{Qb, Q;}, f/J(x)] = 2i(Jl'e)ba [PI" f/J],
c
and so
(26.1.3)
On the other hand, Eq. (26.1.2) and the anticommutation relation (25.2.32)
gtves
iI: eac{Qb, ~c} = {Qb' [Q:, f/J]} = {Q:, [Qb' f/J]} = iI: ebc{Q:, ~d},
c c
so I:c eac {Qb,~c} is antisymmetric, and therefore proportional to the
antisymmetric 2 x 2 matrix eoo:
i{Qb' ~a(x)} = 2boo ~(x) . (26.1.4)
Lorentz invariance requires that the coefficient ~(x) is a scalar field.
We must now go one step further, and calculate the commutators of the
supersymmetry generators with ~(x). Using Eqs. (26.1.4), (26.1.2), and
(25.2.32), we have
boo [Q;, $'] = F[Q;, {Qb' ~a}] = !i[{Q;, ~a}, Qb] =  bac [Qb'~] .
By taking a = b =1= c, we find that this commutator vanishes:
[Q;, ~(x)] = 0 . (26.1.5)
At this point we are not assuming anything about the masses or interactions of the
particles described by these fields, but it may be noted that, as explained in Section 5.9,
a (1/2,0) free field can create massless particles only of helicity +1/2, in agreement
with the result (25.5.15) that the massless spinless oneparticle state 10,0) that is
annihilated by Qa is in a superrnultiplet with a state of helicity +1/2 .
26.1 Direct Construction of Field Supermultiplets 57
Finally, using Eqs. (26.1.4), (25.2.31), and (26.1.3), we have
bah [Qc,~] = 4i [Qc, {Qb' ~a}] = !i[{Qc, Qb}' ~a]  4i [Qb, {Qc, ~a}]
=  u:b 0l'ta + i (ul'e)ca [Qb' 0l'I'/J]
=  u:b 0l'~a + I:, ebd (ul'e)ca 0l'~d .
~ d
Contracting with bah, this becomes
[Qc, ~(x)] =  I:, u~a 0l'~a(x) . (26.1.6)
a
Eqs. (26.1.1H26.1.6) show that the fields I'/J(x), ~a(x), and ~(x) furnish a
complete representation of the supersymmetry algebra. These fields are not
Hermitian, so their complex conjugates furnish another supermultiplet:
[Q:, I'/J*(x)] = 0 , (26.1.7)
iI:,eah[Qb, I'/J*(x)] = ~:(x), (26.1.8)
b
o
{Qb' ~:(x)} = 2(eul')ah l' I'/J* (x) , (26.1.9)
i{ Qb, G(x)} = 2bah ~*(x) , (26.1.10)
[Qc, ~*(x)] = 0 , (26.1.11)
[Q;, ~*(x)] = I:, u:C 0l'~:(x) . (26.1.12)
a
We can express these commutation and anticommutation relations as
transformation rules under a supersymmetry transformation, which shifts
any bosonic or fermionic field operator 19(x) by the infinitesimal amount
(26.1.13)
where Ea is an infinitesimal fermionic cnumber spin or. (Because Ea
and E: anticommute with Qa and Q:, the quantity E:Qa + EaQ: is anti
Hermitian, so Eq. (26.1.13) gives (bl9r = bl9*.) The commutation and
anticommutation rules (26.1.1H26.1.6) are equivalent to the transforma
tion rules
b<l>(x) = i I:, Ea eah ~b(X) , (26.1.14)
ah
b~a(x) = 2 I:, Eb (ul'e)ba 0l'I'/J(x)  2iEa ~(x) , (26.1.15)
b
b~(x) =  I:, Eb Uta 0l'~a(x) . (26.1.16)
ah
This may be put into a fourcomponent Dirac notation by introducing
58 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
an infinitesimal, Majorana,** fourcomponent, spmor transformation
parameter
a =I (
I:b Ea
eabEj,
)
, (26.1.17)
so that Eq. (26.1.13) becomes
iM9(x) = [liQ, 19(x)] (26.1.18)
The transformation rules (26.1.14){26.1.16) and their complex conju
gates may be put into a convenient covariant form by introducing a set
of real bosonic fields A, B, F, and G, defined by
A + iB = FiG
J2 ,/"
,J..
J2 =ff', (26.1.19)
and a fourcomponent Majorana spinor 1p, defined by
1p = J2
1 (
 I:b~aeabG )
.
(26.1.20)
Let's also recall the relation between the 4 x 4 Dirac matrices and the
2 x 2 matrices U ft:
0 ieouJe)
Yft= ( iUft
The transformation rules now take the form
bA = li1p, bB = i liY5'P,
b'P = oft(A + iY5B)yfta + (F  iY5G)a , (26.1.21 )
bF = Ii '1ft oft1p , bG = i Ii Y5y ft oft'P .
A direct but tedious calculation shows that this transformation leaves
With the phase convention we will be using here, a Majorana fourcomponent spinor
is formed from a (1/2,0) twocomponent spinor Ua as
Eq. (26.1.17) fits this definition. with U = iE. Equivalently, a Majorana spinor can be
formed from a twocomponent (0, 1/2) spinor Va as
An example is provided by Eq. (25.2.34). Properties of Majorana spinors are considered
in detail in the appendix to this chapter.
26.2 General Superfields 59
invariant the action
1= J ttx {!oI'AoI'A  40I'BoI'B  4ijry l'0I''P
+ HF2 + G2) + m [FA + GB  !ijJ1p]
+ g[F(A2 + B2) + 2GAB 1jJ(A + iY5B}'P]} . (26.1.22)
Eqs. (26.1.21) and (26.1.22) agree with the transformation rules (24.2.8)
and Lagrangian density (24.2.9) found in the original work of Wess and
Zumino. In the next three sections we will explore a convenient technique
for checking the supersymmetry of Eq. (26.1.22) and for deriving more
general supersymmetric actions.
Where the fermion field 'P(x) satisfies the freefield Dirac equation
(yl'01' +m)1p = 0, these transformation rules show that F + rnA and G+mB
are invariant, and therefore commute with Qa and Q:, and hence also
with Pw This does not prove that F = rnA and G = mB, but without
changing any of the commutation and anticommutation rules (26.1.1)
(26.1.6) or transformation rules (26.1.21), we can redefine the fields F and
G by subtracting the constants F +mA and B +mG, respectively, so that the
new fields F and G are given by F = rnA and G = mB, and therefore
~ = mrjJ*. This is not true in the presence of interactions, but even in
the interacting case ~(x), F(x), and G(x) are typically auxiliary fields that
can be expressed in terms of the other fields of the supermultiplet, as is
the case for the action (26.1.22).
26.2 General Superfields
It is straightforward to construct supermultiplets of fields by the direct
technique illustrated in the previous section, but in order to construct
supersymmetric actions we also need to know how to multiply field
supermultiplets to make other supermultiplets. A great deal of work can
be saved by using a formalism invented by Salam and Strathdee, l in which
the fields in any supermultiplet are assembled into a single superfield.
Just as the fourmomentum operators PI' are defined as the generators
of translations of the ordinary spacetime coordinates xl', the four super
symmetry generators Qa and Q: may be regarded as the generators of
translations of four fermionic cnumber superspace coordinates, which
anticommute with each other and with fermionic fields but commute with
the xl' and all bosonic fields. We aim at constructing Lorentzinvariant La
grangian densities, so it will be convenient to adopt the fourcomponent
Dirac formalism described in Section 25.2. The supersymmetry gen
erators are gathered into a fourcomponent Majorana spinor Q", and
60 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
correspondingly, the superspace coordinates are gathered into another
four~component Majorana spinor Oa.. (Various properties of Majorana
spinors are outlined in the appendix to this chapter.) The supersym
metry generators have nonvanishing anticommutators, so we cannot take
them as simply proportional to the supercoordinate translation opera
tors aI aoa.. Instead, Salam and Strathdee found that the supersymmetry
algebra would be satisfied if we suppose that the commutator or anticom
mutator of the supersymmetry generator Q with any bosonic or fermionic
superfield S (x, 0) is
[Q,S}=i.E!S, (26.2.1)
where .E! is the superspace differential operator
.E! = 00a + 'II' 0 axl'a . (26.2.2)
(As usual 0 = ot p. All derivatives with respect to fermionic cnumber
variables should be understood as leftderivatives, calculated by moving
the variable to the left of any expression before differentiating with respect
to it.) For Majorana spinors 0 = OTY5E, with the 4 x 4 matrix E given by
Eq. (26.A.3), so Eq. (26.2.1) may be expressed more explicitly as
.E!a. = I:(Y5 E)a.y a~" + I: y~Oy a~1' . (26.2.3)
y 'y
Likewise,
 ~ a ~ a (26.2.4)
.E!p = L..J .E!y ('15 E)yp = "0  L..J(Y5 Eyl')py 01' " I' .
l' u P y ux
It is straightforward to calculate that
{.E!a., .E!p} = ('15 eyl' '15 E)pa. a~1' + Y~p a~1' . (26.2.5)
But Eq. (5.4.35) shows that yJ = cc 'II' CC 1, where CC is the matrix
CC = Y5E, so both terms on the righthand side of Eq. (26.2.5) are equal,
and therefore
{
}_ I' a
.E!a. ,.E!p  2'1 a.p a xl' . (26.2.6)
Eqs. (26.2.6) and (26.2.1) together with the generalized Jacobi identities
(25.1.5) show that
[{Qa., Qp}, S] = {.E!a., .E!p}S = 2Y~pa1'S = 2iy~p[PI" S], (26.2.7)
in agreement with the anticommutation relation (25.2.36).
It is often more convenient to express the commutation and anti
commutation relations (26.2.1) as transformation rules under infinitesimal
26.2 General Superfields 61
supersymmetry transformations. Combining Eqs. (26.1.18), (26.2.1), and
(26.2.2) shows that a supersymmetry transformation with infinitesimal
Majorana spinor parameter IX changes a superfield S(x, 0) by an amount
(26.2.8)
Recall that fJja7J here acts on the left of any expression. In particular,
where M is any linear combination of the matrices 1, /'5/'1l' and /'5 for
which OMO does not vanish, we have 7J'M 0/1 = 0" M ()', so
:0 (OMO) = 2MO . (26.2.9)
The components of 0 anticommute, so any product of their components
vanishes if two of them are the same component. But 0 has only four
components, so any function of 0 has a power series that terminates with
its quartic term. Furthermore, as shown in the appendix to this chapter, a
product of two Os is proportional to a linear combination of (7J0), (7J/'1l/'58),
and (0/'50); a product of three Os is proportional to (0/,50)9; and a product
of four Os is proportional to (0/'50f The most general function of xll and
omay therefore be expressed as
S(x,O) = C(x)  i(O /'5 w(x))  ~ (0 /'5 IJ)M(x)  ~ (7J 0)N(x)
+ ~ (0 /'5 /'1l0) VIl(x)  i(O /'50) (0 [A(X) + ~ ilw(x)])
 ~(0/'5 0)2 (D(X) + ~DC(X)) . (26.2.10)
(The terms ~~w and 1DC(x) are separated from A(X) and D(x), respect
ively, for later convenience.) If S(x, 0) is a scalar then C(x), M(x), N(x),
and D(x) are scalar (or pseudoscalar) fields; w(x) and A(X) are four
component spinor fields; and VIl(x) is a vector field. Also, using the
reality properties of bilinear products of Majorana fields given in the
appendix to this chapter, we see that if S(x,O) is real, then C(x), M(x),
N(x), VIl(x), and D(x) are all real, while w(x) and A(X) are Majorana
spinors satisfying the phase convention s = pe/'5s.
Now we must work out the supersymmetry transformation properties of
the component fields in Eq. (26.2.10). Applying Eqs. (26.2.8) and (26.2.9)
62 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
to the expansion (26.2.10) gives
_ oC
bS = (ayflO) oxfl
_ ow )
+ i (iiY5W)  i (iiyflO) ( OY5 oxfl
+ i (iiY5 0 ) M  2:i (iiyflO) (OY5
 0) oM
oxfl
+ (iiO) N  2:1 (iiyflO) (00 ) oxfl
oN
. _ oV
 i (iiY5Y.0) V+ ~ (iiyflO) (OY5Y.0) oXfl
+2i(iiY50) (0 [A + 4 i'wl)+i(OY5 0 ) (ii[A+ ~ i'w])
i(iiyflO) (OY50) (i'1afl[A+ ! i'w]) + (OY50) (iiY50)[D+ !OC].
We need to put each term in the standard form of Eq. (26.2.10). For this
purpose, we note that: Eq. (26.A9) gives
(iiyflO)(OY50flW) =  HOO)(ii i'Y5W)  HOY5Y O)(ii i'y.w)  i(OY50)(ii i'w) ;
Eq. (26.A.16) gives
Eq. (26.A.17) gives
Eq. (26.A.9) gives
fl
(iiY50)(O[A + ! i'w]) = HOO)(iiY5[A + 4 i'w]) + HOY5y O)(iiYfI[A + ! i'w])
 HOY50)(ii[A + ! i'w]) ;
and Eq. (26.A.19) gives
(iiyflO)(OY50)(Oofl[A + ~ i'w]) = Hii i'Y5[A + ~ i'W])(OY5 0 )2.
Using these relations and rearranging terms in order of increasing numbers
of 0 factors, we have
bS = i (iiY5W) + (ii[flC + iY5M + N  iY5 ']9)
 ~i (00) (iiY5[A+ i'w]) + !i (OY50) (ii[A+ i'w])
+!i (OY5y fl O) (iiYflA) + !i (OY5Y0) (iio.w)
+~ (OY50) (ii[ii'M Y5i'N  ii" +Y5(D + ~OC)]9)
1i (OY50)2 (iiY5[flA+ !Ow]) ,
26.2 General Superfields 63
or, using the symmetry property (26.A. 7),
bS = i (1i')'5W) + (0[ C + i')'5M + N  i')'5 rlex)
!i (00) (1i')'5[A+ wD + !i (0')'50) (Ii[A+ wD
+!i (0')'5')'1l0) (li')'IlA) + !i (0,),5,),VO) (1i/7.w)
+! (0')'50) (O[i M  ')'5 N  iOIl r,),1l + ')'5(D + !DC)lex)
 ~i (0')'50)2 (1i')'5[A + ~Dw]) .
If we now compare this with the terms up to second order in 0 in the
expansion (26.2.10), we find the transformation rules:
bC = i (1i')'5W) , (26.2.11)
bw = (i')'5 C  M + i')'5N+ r) ex, (26.2.12)
bM=(Ii[A+wl) , (26.2.13)
bN = i (1i')'5 [A+ wl) , (26.2.14)
b Vil = (li')'ll A) + (liOIlQ)) . (26.2.15)
The terms of third and fourth order in 0 give
b[A + ! wl = ! [M  i')'5 N + all r,),1l + i')'5(D + !DC)] ex,
b[D+ !DCl =i(Ii')'5[A+ !Dwl).
Combining the latter two transformation rules with the transformation
rules (26.2.11) and (26.2.12) for C and w yields much simpler transforma
tion rules for A and D:
. bA = ( ! [ all r , ')'Il] + i')'5D ) ex , (26.2.16)
bD = i ( Ii ')'5 A) . (26.2.17)
It is to achieve this simplification that the terms ! w and !DC were
separated from A and D in the expansion (26.2.10).
The whole point of the superfield formalism is to simplify the task of
making supermultiplets out of other supermultiplets. Given two super
fields Sl and S2 that both satisfy the transformation rule (26.2.8), their
product S = SlS2 satisfies
bS = [(liQ) , SlS21 = (bSt}S2 + Sl(bS2)
= (Ii ~)Sl )S2 + Sl (Ii~))S2 = (Ii~) S, (26.2.18)
64 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
and is therefore also a superfield. A straightforward calculation using
Eqs. (26.A.7), (26.A.16), (26.A.18), and (26.A.19) gives its components as
C = CI C2 , (26.2.19)
OJ = CIOJ2 + C20JI , (26.2.20)
M = CIM2 + C2MI + F (OJI 1'5 OJ2) , (26.2.21)
N = CIN2+ C2NI  ! (OJI OJ2) , (26.2.22)
Vil = CI Vi + C2 Vi  H
OJI Y5y IlWz) , (26.2.23)
A = CIA2 + C2AI  !yIlOJIoIlC2  4yIlOJ20llCI + !i rl/'5OJ2 + !i r2Y5OJI
+ HNI  iY5 M t} OJ2 + HN2  iY5 M 2) OJI , (26.2.24)
D = oilCI 0llC2 + CID2 + C2DI + MIM2 + NIN2
 (OJI [A2 + ! OJ2])  (OJ2 [AI + 4 OJd)  Vi ll vi . (26.2.25)
It is trivial that linear combinations of superfields are superfields, in the
same sense, and that spacetime derivatives and complex conjugates of
superfields are superfields. But multiplying a superfield by some function
of () or differentiating it with respect to () does not in general yield a
superfield. (For instance, () itself is evidently not a superfield, because ()
is a fermionic cnumber and therefore commutes with iiQ, while .?l() =F 0.)
There is, however, a way of combining a derivative of a superfield with
respect to () and multiplying it by a factor () which does yield another
superfield.
Consider the superspace differential operator ~a. defined by
a a
~ = 00  I'll () axil' (26.2.26)
or more explicitly
a a
~a. = I:(Y5 E )a.y o()" 
Y 'Y
I: Y~A axil . (26.2.27)
The only difference between the definitions of ~ and .?l is a change of sign
of the terms involving the spacetime derivative. In consequence of this
change of sign, in the anticommutator of ~ p with .?la., instead of getting
two equal terms like those in Eq. (26.2.5) with the same sign, we get them
with opposite signs, so that'they cancel:
(26.2.28)
Since IX is fermionic, it follows that (ii.?l) commutes with ~II, so if S(x, ())
is a superfield, then
b~pS = i[(iiQ), ~pS] = i~p[(iiQ), S] = ~p(ii.?l)S = (ii.?l)~pS ,
(26.2.29)
26.2 General Superjields 65
so that ~pS is also a superfield. Thus an arbitrary polynomial function of
superjields S and their superderivatives ~pS, ~P~YS, etc. is also a superjield.
It is not necessary to add here that in constructing a superfield out of
other superfields we can also include their spacetime derivatives, because
these can be obtained from second superderivatives. Since the only
difference between ~ P and .?2p is in the sign of the term involving aft, the
anticommutators of the ~s are the same as those of the .?2s, except for a
change of sign :
}_ ft a
{ ~a.,~p 2Ya.P OXft (26.2.30)
Now let us consider how to construct a supersymmetric action out of
superfields. There is no such thing as a supersymmetric Lagrangian den
sity, because the anticommutation relation (26.2.6) shows that if {}!l' = 0
then !l' must be a constant. Even if the Lagrangian density is not super
symmetric, the action will still be supersymmetric if (}!l'(x) is a derivative,
which would not contribute to {} J !l' ttx. In general, the Lagrangian den
sity !l' can be written as a sum of terms, each of which is some component
of a superfield that is constructed out of elementary superfields and their
superderivatives. Inspection of the transformation rules (26.2.11 H26.2.17)
for the individual components shows that in the absence of any special
conditions on a general superfield, the only component of such a super
field whose variation is a derivative is the Dcomponent. Also, for the
Dcomponent of any superfield to be a scalar, the superfield itself must be
a scalar. Therefore, unless there are special conditions on the individual
superfields from which the Lagrangian density is constructed, a supersym
metric action can only be the integral of the Dterm of a scalar superfield
A:
1= J ttx [A]D . (26.2.31)
But in fact no action of this sort would be physically satisfactory without
special conditions on the superfields from which it is constructed. For
a general superfield S(x,9), the only sort of supersymmetric kinematic
action 10 that is bilinear in Sand S and involves no more than two
derivatives of the component fields is of the form
10 ex J ttx [So S]D . (26.2.32)
From Eq. (26.2.25), we see that S S has the Dcomponent
[So S] D = oftC oftC ! (w yftOftw) + t (Oftw) yftw)
+CD +DC  (WA)  (:iw)
. +M M + N N  V; V ft . (26.2.33)
66 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
The terms quadratic in C or OJ look promising as the kinematic La
grangians for massless fields of spins zero and 1/2; the final three terms
are harmless; but the terms involving D or A. have the disastrous effect in
path integrals of constraining C and OJ to vanish. Fortunately, as we shall
see in the following section, there are constrained superfields from which
we can construct physically sensible actions. The introduction of these
constrained superfields will also open up ways of constructing supersym
metric terms in the action that are not the Dcomponents of functions of
superfields.
If parity is conserved, then the space inversion properties of the com
ponent fields of a superfield will be related by supersymmetry. To
work out this relation, we apply the parity operator P to the com
mutation/anticommutation relation (26.2.1) and use the transformation
property (25.3.16) of supersymmetry generators, which gives
iP [Q, pl S(x, 0) p} = .E! pl S(x, 0) p . (26.2.34)
The solution of Eq. (26.234) for a scalar superfield is of the form
pl S(x, 0) p = 'I S(Apx, iPO) , (26.2.35)
where 'I is some phase (the intrinsic parity of the superfield) and Apx =
(x, +xo). (To check that Eq. (26.2.35) satisfies Eq. (26.2.34), note that
Eq. (26.2.35) gives the lefthand side of Eq. (26.2.34) as
i'lP ( ~
o(zP )
O
0 + yl'(iPO) O(A ) )
pX I'
S(Apx,O) = 'I.E! S(Apx, iPO) ,
in agreement with what Eq. (26.2.35) gives for the righthand side of
Eq. (26.2.34).) Using the expansion (26.2.10) in Eq. (26.2.35) then gives
the space inversion properties of the component fields:
p1C(x) P = 'I C(Apx) ,
p1OJ(x) p = i'l P OJ(Apx) ,
pl M(x) p = 'I M(Apx) ,
pl N(x) p = 'I N(Apx) , (26.2.36)
pl VI'(x) P = 'I (Ap)l'. V (Apx) ,
p1A.(x)P = i'l PA.(Apx) ,
pl D(x) P = 'I D(Apx) .
***
The general real superfield S involves four real spinless fields C, M, N,
and D, plus one real fourvector field VI" for a total of eight independent
bosonic field components. For comparison, there are two fourcomponent
Majorana spinor fields OJ and A., alSCl for a total of eight independent
26.2 General Superjields 67
field components. The equality of the numbers of independent bosonic
and fermionic field components holds in general not only for the un
constrained general superfield studied in this section, but also for all
superfields obtained from the general superfield by imposing supersym
metric constraints, such as the chiral and other constrained superfields
discussed in the next section.
To see this in general, suppose that we have a representation of the
supersymmetry algebra provided by N B linearly independent real bosonic
field operators bn(x) and NF linearly independent fermionic field operators
/k(x). We will assume that these fields satisfy only nontrivial field equa
tions, so that no linear combination of the bn or /k with nonvanishing
coefficients satisfies a homogeneous linear field equation. Consider a real
supersymmetry generator Q(u), defined as
Q(u) = (uQ) = (Qu) , (26.2.37)
where u is some ordinary numerical Majorana spinor (not an anticom
muting cnumber). (For extended supersymmetry, in place of Q" we could
use anyone of the Qr", say Ql".) In order for the bn and /k to furnish a
representation of the supersymmetry algebra, we must have
[Q(u), bnl = i''qnk(o)/k, (26.2.38)
k
{ Q(u) , /k } = ' Pkn(O) bn , (26.2.39)
n
for some matrix differential operators q(o) and p(o). Taking the antic om
mutator of Eq. (26.238) and the commutator of Eq. (26.2.39) with Q(u)
gtves
[Q2(U) , bnl = i' (q(o)p(o))nm bm , (26.2.40)
m
{Q2(U), /kl = i'
, (p(o)q(o)t,J'. (26.2.41)
The anti commutation relation (25.2.36) or (25.2.38) gives the square of
Q(u) as Q2(u) = iPft (uyftu). Hence the square matrices p(o)q(o) and
q(o)p(o) must both be nonsingular, because if there were any non
vanishing coefficients cn(o) or dk(O) for which I:n cn(o)(q(o)p(o))nm = 0
or I:k dk(O)(p(o)q(o))k( = 0 then bn or Jk would satisfy the homogeneous
linear field equations
( uyftu) oft ' cn(o)bn = 0 or ( uyftu ) oft ' dk( o)/k = 0,
n k
in contradiction with our assumption that the fields do not satisfy such
field equations. In order for qp to be nonsingular we must have NF > NB,
68 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
and in order for pq to be nonsingular we must have N B > N F, so we
can conclude that NB = NF. Also the square matrices q and p must both
be nonsingular, so the complex conjugate of Eq. (26.2.38) tells us that
r = q*lqJ, so that the number of independent fermion fields is NF
rather than 2NF, and is therefore equal to the number N B of independent
boson fields, as was to be shown.
26.3 Chiral and Linear Superfields
In the previous section we found that the presence of D and A components
in a general superfield stood in the way of using such superfields in a
physically satisfactory Lagrangian density. Suppose then that we consider
a superfield with
A=D=O. (26.3.1)
Are these conditions preserved by supersymmetry transformations? Ac
cording to Eqs. (26.2.17) and (26.2.16), the condition D = 0 is invariant
if A = 0, but the condition A = 0 is only invariant if we also impose the
condition that aI' v.  a. VI' = 0, which requires that VI' be a pure gauge:
(26.3.2)
Eq. (26.2.15) shows that, with A = 0, this condition is preserved by
a supersymmetry transformation. We have thus arrived at a reduced
superfield, subject to the constraints (26.3.1) and (26.3.2), with component
fields having the transformation properties
bC = i (aY5w) , (26.3.3)
bw = (iY5 C  M + iY5N +z) IX, (26.3.4)
bM = (aw) , (26.3.5)
bN = i (aY5 w) , (26.3.6)
bZ=(aw). (26.3.7)
Comparing with Eq. (26.1.21), we see that this is the same as the su
permultiplet constructed by direct methods in Section 26.1, with the
identifications
C=A , w = iY51j) , M=G, N=F , Z = B. (26.3.8)
26.3 Chiral and Linear Superfields 69
A superfield satisfying the conditions (26.3.1) and (26.3.2) is said to be
chiral.
To distinguish a chiral superfield X(x,O) from the general superfield
S(x,O) of the previous section, we will use A, B, F, G, and 1p for its
components, instead of C, M, N, Z, and OJ. By using Eqs. (26.3.1),
(26.3.2), and (26.3.8) in Eq. (26.2.10), we find the form of a general chiral
superfield to be
X(x, 0) = A(x)  (01p(x)) + ~ (0 0)F(x)  ~ (01'50) G(x)
+~ (0 1'5Y1l 0) all B(x) + ~ (01'50) (01'5 1p(x))
81 (_01'5 0)2 DA(x). (26.3.9)
(We could just as well have taken C = B, OJ = 1p, M = F, N = G,
and Z = A. We make the identifications (26.3.8) because, as we see here,
for a scalar superfield they are consistent with the usual convention that
A and F are scalars while Band G are pseudoscalars.)
The chiral superfield (26.3.9) may be further decomposed, as
X(x, 0) = ~ [!J>(X,O) + !l>(x, 0)] , (26.3.10)
where
!J>(x,O) = rjJ(x)  .j2(01pL(X)) + jO(x) (0 C~ 1'5) 0) + ~ (01'51'1l0 )allrjJ(x)
 ~(01'50)(0 1pdx))  ~(01'50)2DrjJ(X)' (26.3.11)
(26.3.12)
with component fields defined by
A.. _
'I' =
A + iB
.j2'
_
1pL =
(1 +2 1'5 ) 1p , jO =FiG
.j2=2 , (26.3.13)
Some authors use the term 'chiral' to describe a special case of such superfields,
introduced helow, which are here called leftchiral or rightchiral. Our use here of the
term chiral may at first seem strange, hecause it hlll; no counterpart for Dirac spinors.
Any Dirac spinor is the sum of Dirac spinors that are leftchiral lIlIld rightchiral, in
the sense that they are respectively proportional to 1 +)'5 lIlIld 1  )'5, so no special
term is needed for such sums of Dirac spinors. In contrast, it is only superfields
satisf'ying Eqs. (26.3.1) and (26.3.2) that can he expressed as the sum of a leftchiral
and arightchiral superfield.
70 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
 AiB
= ( 12 1'5) tp ,
Or _ F +iG
cf> = ,fi , 1J)R :fI'= ,fi (26.3.14)
The component fields of either II> or 11> furnish complete representations
of the supersymmetry algebra:
c5tpL = ,fiof.lcf> yf.l (XR + ,J2ff (XL , (26.3.15)
c5ff = ,fi((XL 1J)L) , (26.3.16)
c5cf> = ,fi((XRtpL) , (26.3.17)
c51J)R = ,fiof.l yf.l (XL + ,fijj' (XR , (26.3.18)
c5$; = ,fi((XR 1J)R) , (26.3.19)
c5 = ,fi((XL1J)R) , (26.3.20)
where as usual
(XL = ( 1 +2 1'5) (X , (XR = ( 1 2 1'5 ) (X ,
and likewise for O. A superfield of the form (26.3.11) or (26.3.12) is known
as leftchiral or rightchiral, respectively. In the special case where a chiral
superfield X(x, 0) is real, its leftchiral and rightchiral parts II> and 11> are
complex conjugates, so that = cf>., jj' = ff, and tp is a Majorana field.
However, if we do not require X(x,O) to be real then in general there
is no relation between II> and 11>; it is even possible that one of the two
vanishes.
The component fields of the superfield II> include two complex bosonic
components cf> and ff, or four independent real bosonic components,
and one Majorana fermion field tp, which has four independent fermionic
components. This is another example of the general result, derived at
the end of the previous section, that any set of fields that furnish a
representation of the supersymmetry algebra must have an equal number
of independent bosonic and fermionic components.
We can use Eqs. (26.A.5), (26.A.17), and (26.A.18) to rewrite Eqs. (26.3.11)
and (26.3.12) in a form that clarifies the way that these superfields depend
on OL and OR:
1I>(x, 0) = cf>(x+)  ,fi(OEE tpL(X+)) + ff(x+) ( OEE OL) , (26.3.21)
l1>(x,O) = (x_) + ,fi(OkEtpR(X)) jj'(X_)(OkEOR) ' (26.3.22)
where
(26.3.23)
26.3 Chiral and Linear Superjields 71
The expansions of cf>(x+) and (x_) in powers of xl'  4 terminate
with quadratic terms, the expansions of lpL,R(X) terminatewith linear
terms, while the expansions of 3iO(x+) and $;(x_) terminate at zeroth
order, because all higher terms make contributions in Eqs. (26.3.21) and
(26.3.21) that contain three or more factors of 1 or OR and therefore
vanish. For the same reason, it is easy to see that any superfield that
depends only on OL and x+
but not otherwise on OR must take the form
(26.3.21), and any superfield that depends only on OR and x!' but not
otherwise on OL must take the form (26.3.22).
We have seen that for a superfield to be leftchiral or rightchiral is
entirely a matter of what the superfield is allowed to depend on. It follows
immediately that any Junction oj leJtchiral superjields (or oj rightchiral
superjields), but not their complex conjugates or spacetime derivatives, is a
leJt(or right)chiral superjield. This can also be shown in a more formal
way. Because lI>(x, 0) depends on OR only through its dependence on X+,
and d>(x, 0) depends on OL only through its dependence on x_, they satisfy
the conditions
(26.3.24)
where ~R and ~L are the right and lefthanded parts of the superderiva
tive (26.2.26):
~Ra. == [C ~ 1'5) ~L =  '{>a. p a:  (yf.lOda. a~f.1 ' (26.3.25)
RP
~La. = [( 1 ~ 1'5) ~] a. = + ~ Ea.p a:LP  (yf.lOR)a. a~,.. , (26.3.26)
for which
~Ra.X+ = ~La.X: = O.
Conversely, if a superfield II> satisfies ~RII> = 0 it is leftchiral, and if it
satisfies ~LII> = 0 it 'is rightchiral. Any function f(lI of superfields II>n
that all satisfy ~RlI>n = 0 or all satisfy ~LlI>n = 0 will satisfy ~Rf(lI = 0
or ~L!(J~) = 0, and hence be leftchiral or rightchiral, respectively. But
a function of leftchiral and rightchiral superfields is in general not chiral
at all.
Using the representation (26.3.21) for leftchiral superfields makes it easy
to work out their multiplication properties. For instance, if 1I>1 and 1I>2
are two leftchiral superfields, then their product II> = 1I>11I>2 is a leftchiral
superfield, with components
cf> = cf> 1cf>2 , (26.3.27)
1jJL = cf>11jJ2L + cf>21jJ1L , (26.3.28)
72 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
(26.3.29)
The presence of chiral superfields in a theory opens up an additional
possibility for constructing supersymmetric actions. Inspection of the
transformation rule (26.3.16) shows that a supersymmetry transformation
changes the ffterm of a leftchiral superfield II> by a derivative, so that
the integral of the ff term of any leftchiral superfield is supersymmetric.
Thus we can form a supersymmetric action as
(26.3.30)
where f and K are any leftchiral superfield and general real superfield,
respectively, formed from the elementary superfields.
On what can f and K depend? The function f will be leftchiral if it
depends only on leftchiral elementary superfields II>n, but not their right
chiral complex conjugates. On the other hand, the superderivative of a
chiral superfield is not chiral, so we cannot freely include superderivatives
of the II>n in f. It is true that, acting on a superfield S that is not leftchiral
(such as one involving complex conjugates of leftchiral superfields), a
pair of right superderivatives gives a leftchiral superfield, because there
are only two independent right superderivatives and they anticommute:
~Ra.(~RP~RYS) = 0.
However, the ffterm of any function f that is constructed in this way
makes a contribution to the action that is the same as that of a D term
of some other composite superfield. Since the ~s anticommute, the most
general leftchiral superfield formed by acting on a general superfield S
with two ~RS may be expressed in terms of (~ke~R)S, If one of the
leftchiral superfields in the superpotential is of this form, then since each
~R annihilates all the other superfields in the superpotential, we can write
the whole superpotential as f = (~ke~R)h for some other superfield h.
Now,
(~ke~R) (8ke8R) = 4,
so, apart from spacetime derivatives that do not contribute to the ac
tion, (~ke~R)h is the coefficient of (8Ie8R)/4 in h. But, again apart
from spacetime derivatives. rJ]j'" is the coefficient of (8Ie8d in f, so
[(~ke~R)h]j'" equals the coefficient of (8Ie8L) (8Ie8R)/4 = (81'58)2/4
in h, and therefore
J ttx [(~ke~~R)h]j'" = 2 J ttx [h]D . (26.3.31)
Thus we do not need to include terms in f that depend on leftchiral
superfields of the form ~RP~RYS  any such terms will be included
26.3 Chiral and Linear Superfields 73
in the list of all possible Dterms. When f is expressed as a function
only of elementary leftchiral superfields and not their superderivatives or
spacetime derivatives, it is known as the superpotential.
In contrast, the function K is in general a real scalar function of both
leftcrural superfields !l>n and their rightcrural complex conjugates !l>~, as
well as their superderivatives and spacetime derivatives, known as the
Kahler potential. (Any rightchiral superfield is the complex conjugate of
a leftcrural superfield, so there is no loss of generality in supposing K
to depend only on leftchiral superfields and their complex conjugates.)
However, not all K s obtained in this way will yield distinct actions. For
one thing, chiral superfields have no Dterms, so two Ks that differ by a
chiral superfield make the same contribution to the action.
It is also possible to change the form of K without changing the action
by a partial integration in superspace. The Dterm of the superderivative
~a.S of an arbitrary superfield makes no contribution to the action because
J ttx [~a.S]D = 0. (26.3.32)
To see this, recall that
~(
~a.S  ~
P
Y5 )a.pu~
~o
p
(y "0)11. ~
~
uX"
.
Since S is a polynomial at most of fourth order in 0, the first term in ~a.S
is a polynomial in 0 at most of third order and therefore cannot have a
nonzero Dterm that is not a derivative, while the second term is also a
spacetime derivative, so that its Dterm is also a spacetime derivative, and
therefore neither the first nor the second terms in ~a.S can contribute to
the integral in Eq. (26.3.32). Also, the superderivative acts distributively, so
it follows from Eq. (26.3.32) that we can integrate by parts in superspace:
for any two bosonic superfields Sl and S2,
J ttx [Sl~a.S2]D =  J
ttx [S2~a.SllD . (26.3.33)
In Sections 26.4 and 26.8 we will consider in detail the case where f and
K depend only on elementary superfields, but not their superderivatives
or ordinary derivatives.
We saw in the previous section that in theories in which parity is
conserved, the effect of the space inversion operator on a general scalar
superfield is to subject its arguments to the transformations x" + (Ap )"yxY
and 0 + iPO, and perhaps to multiply the superfield by a phase 11. Under
these transformations, the arguments 4 in Eqs. (26.3.21) and (26.3.22)
are changed by 
x, + (Apx)" + !(epY5Y"pO) = (Apx+)" , (26.3.34)
74 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
while fh + iPOR and OR + iPOL. Thus space inversion takes left
chiral superfields into rightchiral superfields, and viceversa. The only
righthanded scalar superfield whose component fields involve creation
and annihilation operators for the same particles that are created and
destroyed by a lefthanded scalar superfield II> is Ii> ex II>*, so p11I> P must
be proportional to II>'. By a suitable choice of phase of II>, we can arrange
that this transformation rule reads
p11I>(x, 0) p = 1I>*(Apx, iPO) . (26.3.35)
In terms of component fields, this transformation is
p1<l>(x)P = <I>*(Apx) ,
pllpdx) p = ieY5plp~(Apx) , (26.3.36)
pl ff(x) p = ff*(Apx).
There is another type of possible symmetry, known as Rsymmetry, that
is important in some models of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking
discussed in Section 26.5, and that will also be used in proving no
renormalization theorems in Section 27.6. As mentioned in Section 25.2, in
theories of simple N =1 supersymmetry an Rsymmetry is invariance under
a U(l) transformation under which the lefthanded components of the
supersymmetry generator (called Qa in Section 25.2) carry a nonvanishing
quantum number, say 1, in which case their adjoints, the righthanded
components of the supersymmetry generator carry the opposite quantum
number +1. Inspection of Eq. (26.2.2) shows that the 0 superspace
coordinate has a nontrivial transformation property under Rsymmetry
transformations: OL carries Rquantum number +1 and OR, which is
proportional to O~, carries R quantum number 1. In addition, the whole
superfield may be given an R quantum number. If we give a leftchiral
superfield II> the R quantum number ~, then its scalar component <I> has
the same R quantum number, while the lefthanded spinor component
1jJL has Rtp = ~  1, and the auxiliary field ff has R~ = ~  2. In
particular, in order for the superpotential term J d4 x rJ]~ to conserve R,
the superpotential itself must have Rf = +2, so if f depends on a single
leftchiral superfield II>, then it must be proportional to 1I>2/R.,. To put this
another way, if f(lI is a pure mass term proportional to !J>2 then we must
choose ~ = +1, while if f(lI is a pure interaction term proportional
to 1I>3, then we must choose ~ = 2/3. On the other hand, inspection
of Eq. (26.2.10) shows that the Dterm of a superfield has the same R
value as the superfield, so in order for the term J ~X[g]D in the action to
conserve R it is only necessary that K have R = 0, which will be the case
if each term in K contains equal numbers of II> and II>* factors, whatever R
value we give to II>. Of course, there is no general reason why Rsymmetry
26.4 Renormalizable Theories of Chiral Superfields 75
should be respected by the action, or why it should not be spontaneously
broken.
***
There are other ways of constraining superfields, to yield other types
of supermultiplets of fields. Among the more common are the linear
superfields. To learn the conditions defining this sort of superfield, we
note that if S is a general superfield, then we can form a chiral superfield
S' !
= U~ ~) S . (26.3.37)
This is a chiral superfield because it can be written as a sum of 1U!h ~d S,
which is rightchiral, and 1(~R ~R) S, which is leftchiral. Its components
are given in terms of the components of S by
C' = N, (26.3.38)
0/ = A+ OJ , (26.3.39)
M' = 0,.. V'" , (26.3.40)
N' = D +DC, (26.3.41)
V~ = o,..M , (26.3.42)
A' = D' = o. (26.3.43)
A multiplet S is said to be linear if the superfield S' defined in this way
vanishes
(~~)S=o, (26.3.44)
or in terms of its components,
N = M = 0,.. V'" = 0 , A =  OJ, D = DC. (26.3.45)
This leaves four independent bosonic fields, C and the three components
of V,.. subject to the condition 0,.. V'" = 0, and four independent fermionic
fields, the components of the Majorana fourspinor OJ. We will see in
Section 26.6 that the 'current superfields, whose V,..terms are the conserved
currents associated with symmetry transformations, are linear superfields.
26.4 Renormalizable Theories of Chiral Superfields
We will now work out the details of a general renonnalizable theory of
scalar chiral superfields. This will provide some insight into the impli
cations of supersymmetry, and the theory we obtain will be part of the
supersymmetric standard model to be discussed in Chapter 28.
As discussed in Section 12.2, the Lagrangian density in a renormalizable
theory can con1tain only operators with dimensionality (counting powers
76 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
of energy or momentum, with 1i = c = 1) four or less. Eq. (26.2.6) shows
that!la. and hence o;a(}a. has dimensionality 1/2, so ~a. has dimensionality
+1/2, and (}a. has dimensionality 1/2. The ff' and Dterms of a superfield
S are the coefficients of two or four factors of (}, respectively, so if
the superfield has dimensionality d(S) then its ff'  and Dterms have
dimensionalities d(ff's) = d(S) + 1 and d(Ds) = d(S) + 2. Thus in a
renormalizable theory the functions f and K in Eq. (26.3.30) consist of
operators with dimensionality at most three and two, respectively.
The dimensionality of an elementary scalar superfield !l>n is that of an
elementary scalar field, or +1, so in order for each term in the function f
to have dimensionality three or less, it can contain at most three factors of
!l>n and/or derivatives 0/ oxf.I and/or pairs of spin or superderivatives ~a..
As discussed in the previous section, any leftchiral term in f that involves
superderivatives could be replaced with a term in K, so superderivatives
can be omitted in f. Eq. (26.2.30) shows that spacetime derivatives can
be expressed in terms of superderivatives, so these too can be omitted.
(In any case, Lorentz invariance would rule out terms with one spacetime
derivative, and terms with two derivatives in a renormalizable theory could
involve only one !l>n factor, on which these derivatives would have to act,
so such terms would not contribute to the action.) We conclude that f(!l
is at most a cubic polynomial in the !l>n, without spacetime derivatives or
superderivatives.
The same dimensional analysis shows that in a renormalizable theory
K is at most a quadratic function of !l>n and !l>~, without derivatives.
But any term in K(!l>,!l>*) that involves only !l>n or only !l>~ would be
a chiral superfield, and chiral superfields by definition have no Dterms,
so [K(!l>,!l>*)]D receives contributions only from terms in K(!l>,!l>*) that
involve both !l>n and !l>~. Thus K(!l>, !l>*) must be of the form
(26.4.1)
Inn
with constant coefficients gnm forming a Hermitian matrix.
We must now calculate the ff'  and Dcomponents of f(!l and K(!l>, !l>*),
respectively. To calculate the Dcomponent of K(!l>,!l>*), we note that the
term in !l>~!l>m of fourth order in (} is
[!l>~!l>m]lI4 = ! (OY5(})2[<P~D<Pm + (D<P~)<Pn]
+(01'5 (}) [( lpn (}) (Oyf.l0f.llpm) + (Of.llpn) yf.l(}) (Olpm)]
+~ ff'~ ff'm (0(1  1'5)8) (0(1 + 1'5)8)
 ~ Of.l<P~ OV <Pm (OY5Yf.l(}) (OY5Yv(}) .
26.4 Renormalizable Theories of Chiral Superfields 77
Using (26.A.18) and (26.A.19) allows_us to convert the 8 dependence of
this expression to an overall factor (8Y58)2:
[!l>~!l>m]1I4 = ! (8Y5 8 )2 [~<I>~D<I>m + ~ (D<I>~)<I>n  (1JJnyIlOIl1JJm)
+((OIl1JJn)yll1JJm) +2ff~ ffm  oll<l>~ Oll<l>m] .
The Dterm of a superfield is the coefficient of  i (8Y58) 2 minus 4D
acting on the 8independent term, which for !l>~!l>m is <I>~<I>m, so
~[K(!l>,!l>*)]D = ~gnm [OIl<l>~OIl<l>m+ff~ffm
 ~ (1JJnL yIlOIl1JJmL) + ~ (oll(1JJnd yll1JJmL)] (26.4.2)
If we write !l>n as a linear combination Lm Nnm!l>~ of new superfields !l>~,
then K(!l>, !l>*) is given in terms of the new superfields by a formula which is
the same as Eq. (26.4.1), except that gnm is replaced with g:"" = (Nt gN)nm.
In order for the kinematic terms for the scalar and spinor fields to have
a sign consistent with the quantum commutation and anticommutation
relations, it is necessary that the Hermitian matrix gnm be positivedefinite
and, as shown in Section 12.5, this means that we can choose N so that
g:"" = bnm Dropping primes, the term (26.4.2) is now
~[K(!l>,!l>*)]D = ~ [OIl<l>~OIl<l>n+ff~ffn
,  ~ (1JJnL yIlOIl1JJnL) + ~ (oll(1JJnd yll1JJnL)]. (26.4.3)
We can still use a unitary transformation to redefine the superfields
without changing the form of Eq. (26.4.3), a freedom we will need to
exercise shortly.
The terms in Eq. (26.4.3) involving <l>n and 1JJnL are the correct kinematic
Lagrangians for conventionally normalized complex scalar and Majorana
spinor fields. We will rewrite the fermion terms in a more familiar form
after we have had a chance to consider mass terms.
To calculate the ffterm of f(!l, it is most convenient to use the
representation (26.3.21) of the superfields, and pick out the term of second
78 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
order in fh:
T T iPf(cf>(x))
[f(ll>(x,O))]Oi = ~ (OLE1pnL(X)) (OLE1pmL(X)) ocf>n(x)ocf>m(x)
of( cf>(x))
+~ffn(X) ocf>n(x) (olEOL).
(We have replaced X+ here with x because the term (O"kE'YIlOd in Eq.
(26.3.21) vanishes when mUltiplied by an expression with two OL factors.)
The 0 dependence of the first term on the righthand side can be put into
a standard form by using Eq. (26.A.1l) to write
(OlE1pnL)(OlE1pmL) = (1pJLEC~Y5)0) (OTEC~Y5)1pmL)
=~(1j)nL1pmL)(OlEOL) .
The ffterm of any leftchiral superfield is the coefficient of (OlEOd, so
here
(26.4.4)
The complete Lagrangian density is the sum of the terms (26.4.3), (26.4.4),
and the complex conjugate of (26.4.4):
Ii' = ~ [ Ilcf>~ oil cf>n + ff~ffn
0
 ~ (1pnL yIlOIl1pnL) + ~ (oll1pnd yll1pnL)]
1 o2f(cf (_ ) 1 ( o2f(cf ). (_ ).
 2 ~ ocf>n ocf>m 1pnL 1pmL  2 ~ ocf>n ocf>m 1pnL 1pmL
+ ~ffn t~~) + ~ff~ (ot~~)) (26.4.5)
The auxiliary fields ff n enter quadratically in the action, with constant
coefficients for the secondorder terms, so they can be eliminated by
setting ff n equal to the value at which the Lagrangian density (26.4.5) is
stationary with respect to ff n and ff~:
ff = _ (Of(cf) (26.4.6)
n ocf>n
Note that ifJ.L is the lefthanded component of ifJ., not 'P.L.
26.4 Renormalizable Theories of Chiral Superfields 79
Inserting this in Eq. (26.4.5) gives
Ii' = ~ [  o"cf>~ [JlJcf>n  ~ (lpnL y"o" lpnL) + ~ (O"lpnL)Y" lpnL) ]
1 o2f(cf (_ ) 1 (02 f (cf )*(_ )*
 2 ~ ocf>n ocf>m lpnL lpmL  2 ~ ocf>n ocf>m 1pnL lpmL
 E (Of(cf> )) * of(cf . (26.4.7)
n ocf>n ocf>n
Thus the scalar field potential is V(cf = Ln lof(cf/ocf>nI 2
With the auxiliary fields eliminated in this way, the action is no
longer invariant under under the supersymmetry transformations (26.3.15),
(26.3.17) of the remaining fields lpnL and cf>n:
Of(cf) *
OlpnL = Jio "cf>ny"rxR  Ji ( ocf>n rxL ,
This is because the expression (26.4.6) does not obey the transformation
rule ofF n = Ji(rxL lpnL) for fFn given by Eq. (26.3.16), but instead
o( Of(cf)*
ocf>n
= E(
m
o2f(cf
ocf>nocf>m
)* ocf>~ = JiE( o2f(cf
m ocf>nocf>m
)* (rxLlpmR).
For the same reason, after eliminating the auxiliary fields the commutators
of the supersymmetry transformations of cf>n and lpnL are no longer given
by the supersymmetry anticommutation relations, and in fact do not form
a closed Lie superalgebra. But this is not inconsistent with the existence
of quantum mechanical operators Q" that satisfy the anticommutation
relations of supersymmetry. These operators generate supersymmetry
transformations, in the sense that the commutator of i(iiQ) with any
Heisenbergpicture quantum field cf>n or lpnL equals the change in that
field under a supersymmetry transformation with infinitesimal parameter
rx. With fF n given by Eq. (26.4.6) the commutator of 1(iiQ) with fF n
is given by ofF n = Ji(rxL (JlpnL), because in the Heisenberg picture the
quantum field lpnL satisfies the field equation derived from the Lagrangian
(26.4.7):
o2f(cf ) *
lpnL =  ~ ( ocf>n ocf>m lpmR
Likewise, the supersymmetry transformations of the quantum fields cf>n
and lpnL do form a closed Lie superalgebra when the field equations are
taken into account. Such algebras are often called onshell.
The zerothorder expectation values cf>nO of the scalar fields cf>n must
be at lhe maximum of the last term in Eq. (26.4.7). Since this term is
always negative or zero, the maximum will be at spacetimeindependent
80 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
field values cf>nO at which this term vanishes, so that
of(cf
=0 (26.4.8)
ocf>n </>=</>o '
provided of course that a solution of this equation exists. Eq. (26.4.8) not
only maximizes the last term in Eq. (26.4.7)  it is also the condition for
supersymmetry to be unbroken. Invariance of the vacuum under super
symmetry transformations requires that the vacuum expectation value of
the change in any field under a supersymmetry transformation should
vanish. The change in a bosonic field is a fermionic field, which of course
has zero expectation value anyway, but Eq. (26.3.15) shows that the vac
uum expectation value of c)tpnL is proportional to the vacuum expectation
value of the auxiliary field :Fn , which therefore must vanish if supersym
metry is unbroken. According to Eq. (26.4.6), in zerothorder perturbation
theory this condition requires that Eq. (26.4.8) must be satisfied. We will
see in Section 27.6 that if Eq. (26.4.8) is satisfied then supersymmetry is
unbroken to all orders of perturbation theory.
For a single leftchiral scalar superfield !l>, the fundamental theorem of
algebra tells us that the polynomial 0 f( cf/ ocf> always has at least one zero
somewhere in the complex plane. This is not necessarily true when there
is more than one superfield. If we assume that there is a solution cf>nO of
Eq. (26.4.8), we can evaluate the physical degrees of freedom of the theory
by setting
(26.4.9)
and expanding in powers of cpn. The masses of the particles of this theory
can be calculated by inspecting the terms of second order in cp and tp:
20 = ~ [ 0l'cp~ ol'CPn  ~ (tpnL )'1'01' 1J.'nL) + ~ (OI'(tpnd)'1' tpnL) ]
 ~ LA
nm
nm ( tpnL tpmL)  ~ LA;"" (tpnL tpmL)
nm
 L (At A) mn CP~CPn , (26.4.10)
nm
where A is the symmetric complex matrix
A = ( 02f(cf ) (26.4.11)
mn  ocf>nocf>m </>=</>o
Now if we redefine the fields by a unitary transformation
(26.4.12)
26.4 Renormalizable Theories of Chiral Superfields 81
then the freefield Lagrangian (26.4.10) will take the same form, but with
vIt replaced with vIt', where
vIt' = Olt T vItOlt . (26.4.13)
According to a theorem of matrix algebra, for any complex symmetric
matrix vIt it is always possible to find a unitary matrix Olt such that the
matrix vIt' defined by Eq. (26.4.13) is diagonal, with real positive elements
mn on the diagonal. (For future use, we note that vIt't vIt' = Oltt vltt vltOlt, so
the quantities m~ are just the eigenvalues of the positive Hermitian matrix
vltt vIt.) Redefining the fields in this way and dropping the primes, the
quadratic part of the Lagrangian is now
20 = ~ [  o,..cP~ o"'CPn  ~ (tpnL '1"'0,.. tpnL) + ~ (o,..(tpnd 'I'" tpnL) ]
 ~ L mn ( tpnL tpnL)  ~ L mn ( tpnL tpnL)
n n
(26.4.14)
n
To put the fermion mass terms in a more familiar form, we introduce
fields tpn(x) defined as the Majorana fields whose lefthanded components
are tpnL(X). Then, using the symmetry properties (26A.7) of Majorana
bilinears:
~ (tpnL '1"'0,.. tpnL) + ~ (o,..(tpnd 'I'" tpnL)
=  ~ (tpn 'I'" C
~ '15) O,..tpn) + ~ (O,..(tpn) 'I'" C~ '15) tpn)
= _ ~ ( tpn 'I'" (1 ~ '15) 0,.. tpn)  ~ ( tpn 'I'" (1 ~ '15) 0,..1JJn )
=  ~ (tpn y"'O,..1JJn) ,
while the reality properties (26A.21) give
( tpnL tpnL) + (tpnL tpmL) = 2 Re (tpn ( 1 ~ '15) tpn) = (tpn tpn) .
The complete quadratic Lagrangian is then
20 = Ln [ o,..cP~ o"'CPn  Ln m~ cP~ cpn
~(tpnY"'O,..tpn)  ~n (tpntpn)]. (26.4.15)
The factor 1/2 in the fermion terms is correct because these are Majorana
82 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
fermion fields, while there is no factor 1/2 in the scalar terms because
these are complex scalars. We see that the spinless and spin 1/2 particles
have equal masses mn , as required by the unbroken supersymmetry of the
theory.
The interaction part 2' of the Lagrangian density is given by the terms
in Eq. (26.4.7) of higher than second order in C{Jn and tpn. Since the superpo
tential f(C/>o + C{J) is being assumed to be a cubic polynomial and stationary
at C{Jn = 0, with C{J defined so that the secondorder terms are ~ Ln mnC{J~,
we may write the superpotential (apart from an inconsequential constant
term) as
f(C/>o + C{J) = 2"1~ 2 1~
L..., mn C{Jn + 6" L...,frunt C{Jn C{Jm C{J( . (26.4.16)
n runt
Using this in Eq. (26.4.7) gives the interaction as
2" = ~ LfruntC{Jn
runt
(tpm C~ 1'5) tp()
2"1 ~.
L...,fnm( C{Jn
(_
tpm
( 1 2 1'5) tp( )
runt
1~ 1~.
2" L..., mn f runtC{JnC{JmC{J( 2 ~ mn f runtC{JnC{JmC{J(
runt runt
~
41 L...,
f runtfnnrt'C{JmC{J(C{J",C{J(' . (26.4.17)
runt",('
We see that a knowledge of the masses mn and the 'Yukawa" couplings
f runt of the scalars and fermions is enough to determine all the cubic and
quartic selfcouplings of the spinless fields.
As an illustration, consider the case of a single leftchiral superfield.
For comparison with earlier results, let us write the single coefficient f in
Eq. (26.4.16) as
(26.4.18)
where A. is real and IX is some real phase. We will also introduce a pair
of real spinless fields A(x) and B(x) by writing the single complex scalar
here as
__ ia. (A+iB)
C{J=e J2 . (26.4.19)
The total Lagrangian density is then given by the sum of Eqs. (26.4.15)
and (26.4.17) as
2' =  ~0I'A 01' A  ~0I'B 01' B  ~m2 (A 2 + B2)
 ~ (1J!Y I' Ol'tp )  4m (1J!tp )
26.5 Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking 83
AA (tji1p)  iAB (tjiY51p)
mAA(A 2 + B2) _ !A2(A2 + B2)2. (26.4.20)
which is the same as the Lagrangian density (24.2.9) originally found by
Wess and Zumino. 2 It is noteworthy that in this simple case the Lagrangian
turns out to be invariant under a space inversion transformation
A(x) + A(Apx) , B(x) + B(Apx) , 1p(x) + iP1p(A p x) , (26.4.21)
even though we did not assume parity conservation in deriving it. The
appearance of parity conservation as an 'accidental' symmetry is a familiar
feature of various renormalizable gauge theories (see Sections 12.5 and
18.7) but not of theories involving spinless fields, so this is a special
consequence of supersymmetry in the renormalizable theory of a single
scalar superfield.
26.5 Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree
Approximation
We saw in the previous section that supersymmetry is unbroken (at least
in the tree approximation) in renormalizable theories of chiral superfields
if Eq. (26.4.8) has a solution, that is, if there is a value cf>o of the fields at
which the superpotential f(cf is stationary:
of(cf
=0 (26.5.1)
o
cf>n </>=</>o
There are as many independent variables here as there are equations to
satisfy, so we generally expect there to be solutions of Eq. (26.5.1). In
order for supersymmetry to be spontaneously broken in these theories, it
is necessary to impose restrictions on the form of the superpotential.
To see how a choice of superpotential may allow supersymmetry to
be spontaneously broken, we will consider a generalization of a class of
models due to O'Raifeartaigh.3 Suppose that the superpotential is a linear
combination of a set Yi of leftchiral superfields, with coefficients given by
functions fi(X) of a second set of leftchiral superfields Xn:
f(X, y) = L Ydi(X) . (26.5.2)
The conditions for supersymmetry to be unbroken by the values Xn and
Yi of the scalar components of these superfields are that
0= of(x,y) = J;(x) , (26.5.3)
Yi
84 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
(26.5.4)
Eq. (26.5.4) can always be solved by taking Yi = 0, with no effect on the
problem of solving Eq. (26.5.3). On the other hand, if the number of Xn
superfields is smaller than the number of Yi superfields, then Eq. (26.5.3)
imposes more conditions on the Xn than there are variables, so without
finetuning a solution is impossible, and supersymmetry is broken.
It may appear that the initial assumption (26.5.2) itself represents a
radical form of finetuning, but in fact this form can be imposed on
the superpotential by assuming a suitable Rsymmetry. As discussed in
Section 26.3, in theories with N = 1 supersymmetry an Rsymmetry is a
U(1) symmetry for which the fJ superspace coordinate has a nontrivial
transformation property. If we assume an Rsymmetry for which fJ L
carries quantum number +1, then the 'term of any superpotential has
a quantum number equal to that of the superpotential itself minus 2, so
R invariance requires the superpotential itself to have R = 2. We can
therefore impose the structure (26.5.2) by requiring R invariance, with the
Yi and Xn superfields given R quantum numbers +2 and 0, respectively.
The scalar fields in this sort of model have a potential
2
LYi O~~:)
2
V(x,y) = L Ifi(X)1 + Ln (26.5.5)
, ,
The potential is always minimized by choosing the Xn to minimize the
first term; whatever values this gives the X n , the second term can always
be minimized by taking Yi = 0. Whether or not supersymmetry can be
spontaneously broken, these models have the peculiar feature that there
are always directions in the space of the fields in which the minimum
of the potential is fiat. Whatever values XnO of the Xn minimize the first
term in Eq. (26.5.5), the second term vanishes not only for Yi = 0, but
for any vector Yi in a direction orthogonal to all the vectors (Un)i =
(Ofi(X)/OXn)x=xo. If there are Nx superfields Xn and Ny superfields Yi
with Ny > Nx, then the un cannot span the space of the ys, and there
will be at least Ny  Nx of these fiat directions. For any nonvanishing
values Yi = YOi along anyone of these fiat directions, the Rsymmetry of
the Lagrangian density is spontaneously broken, and the Goldstone boson
field cf> associated with this global symmetry breakdown corresponds to a
term cf> YOi in the Yi.
The simplest example of this class of models is provided by the case
where there is just one X superfield and two Y superfields. Renormaliz
ability requires the coefficient functions j;(X) to be quadratic functions of
X, and by taking suitable linear combinations of the Yi and shifting and
26.5 Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking 85
rescaling X we can choose these functions so that
h(X) = X a, h(X) = X2 , (26.5.6)
with an arbitrary constant a. There clearly is no simultaneous solution of
the two equations (26.5.1) unless the superpotential is finetuned so that
a = o. The potential (26.5.5) here is
2 2
V(x,y) = Ixl4 + Ix  al + IYl + 2XY21 . (26.5.7)
The sum of the first two terms has a unique global minimum Xo. The fiat
direction here is the one for which YI + 2XOY2 = O. For a = 0 we have
Xo = 0, and the minima of the potential are along the line with Yl = 0
and Y2 arbitrary.
Whatever the reason for a spontaneous breakdown of supersymmetry,
this phenomenon always entails the existence of a massless spin 1/2
particle, the goldstino, analogous to the Goldstone bosons associated
with the spontaneous breakdown of ordinary global symmetries. (The
one exception, discussed in Section 31.3, is that in supergravity theories,
where supersymmetry is a local symmetry, the goldstino appears as the
helicity +1/2 states of a massive particle of spin 3/2, the gravitino.)
In renormalizable theories of chiral superfields, the treeapproximation
vacuum expectation values cf>no of the scalar fields must be at a minimum
of the potential 2:n liJf(cf/iJcf>nI 2 in Eq. (26.4.7), so
Lviinm (iJ f( cf ). = 0 , (26.5.8)
m iJ cf>m </>=4>0
where
vII = iJ2f(cf
(26.5.9)
nm
iJ cf>n iJ cf>m </> =</>o
If Eq. (26.5.1) is not satisfied, then Eq. (26.5.8) tells us that the matrix
viinm has at least one eigenvector with eigenvalue zero, so according to
Eq. (26.4.10) there must be at least one linear combination of the spin
1/2 particles described by tpn with zero mass. For instance, for the model
defined by Eqs. (26.5.2) and (26.5.6), the matrix vii has the nonvanishing
components
vIIXY1 = vII Y1X = 1, (26.5.10)
so this matrix has eigenvalues +2xo and 0, with the last eigenvalue cor
responding to the goldstino mode. In Chapter 29 we will show without
the use of perturbation theory that the spontaneous breakdown of super
symmetry requires the existence of goldstinos, and explore their general
properties.
86 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
26.6 Superspace Integrals, Field Equations, and the Current
Superfield
The 'ffterms' and 'Dterms' from which we construct the Lagrangian
density may be expressed as integrals over the superspace coordinates
Oa.. The rules for integrals over fermionic parameters originally given
by Berezin4 are derived in Section 9.5. Briefly, because the square of
any fermionic parameter vanishes, any function of a set of N fermionic
parameters ~n may be expressed as
f(~) = (g ~n) C + terms with fewer ~ factors, (26.6.1)
and its integral over the ~ s is defined simply by
(26.6.2)
The coefficient c may itself depend on other unintegrated cnumber vari
ables that anticommute with the ~ s over which we integrate, in which case
it is important to standardize the definition of c by moving all ~ s to the left
of c before integrating over them, as we have done in Eq. (26.6.1). With
this definition, integration over fermionic variables is a linear operation.
It resembles the integral over a real variable in the sense that, since a
shift ~n + ~n + an of the variable ~n by a constant an changes the product
IIn ~n only by terms involving fewer ~ factors, it does not affect the value
of the integral
(26.6.3)
Also, as a special case of Eq. (26.6.2), the integral over N fermionic
parameters of a polynomial of order < N vanishes. Integrals over
fermionic and bosonic parameters are strikingly different in the way
they respond to change of variables: for bosonic parameters Xn we have
dNx' = Det(ox'jox)dNx, while for fermionic parameters
dN~' = [Det (o~' /i3~)rldN ~ . (26.6.4)
In particular, the dimensionality of d~ is opposite to the dimensionality of
~.
According to Eq. (26.2.10), the Dterm of a general superfield S(x,O)
(which may be elementary or composite) is equal, up to a derivative term,
to the coefficient of (8YSO)2j4 = (jTEf))2j4. Anyone of the four Os
can be 01. and each possibility gives an equal contribution, so we may
assume that 01 is the leftmost, and pick up a factor of 4. Then 02 must
be the nexttoIeftmost. Any of the two remaining Os may be 03, and
26.6 Superspace Integrals, Field Equations, Current Superfield 87
each possibility gives an equal contribution, so we may assume that 03 is
third from the left and pick up a factor of 2, and 04 must then be the
rightmost. That is,
 2
 HOysO) =  i x4x2 X 01020304,
so the coefficient of this function of 0 is 1/2 the integral over d4 0. Since
this is the Dterm up to a derivative, we have then
J rx [S]D = ~ J J
rx ro S(x,O). (26.6.5)
In the same way, using Eq. (26.3.11), we find that the spacetime integral of
the ff term of a generalleftchiral superfield 4> (again, either elementary
or composite) may be expressed as
(26.6.6)
Since we are now integrating over Os, it is convenient to introduce a
delta function, defined as usual by the condition that for an arbitrary
function f(O)
(26.6.7)
According to Eq. (9.5.40), this condition is satisfied by
15 4(0'  0) = (0 1 Od(02  (2)(0 3 (3)(0~  (4)
= ~ [(OL  O~) T E (OL  O~)] [(OR  Ok) T E (OR  Ok)] . (26.6.8)
The representation of the action as an integral over superspace allows
an easy derivation of the field equations in superfield form. Consider, for
instance, the action for a S(:t of leftchiral scalar superfields 4>n (which
includes as a special case the general renormalizable theory of leftchiral
superfields 4>n):
I = ~ J
rx [K(4), 4>*)]D +2Re Jrx [f(4))]?, (26.6.9)
with K an arbitrary function of 4>n and 4>~ without derivatives, and f
an arbitrary function of 4>n, also without derivatives. (The motivation
for this form of the action and the expression of the action in terms
of component fields is described in Section 26.8.) We cannot derive
correct field equations by simply demanding that this is stationary with
respect to arbitrary variations in 4>, because the 4>n are constrained by
the requirement that they satisfy the requirement f0R4>n = 0 for left
chiral superfields. To make sure that this condition is preserved by any
variation, we can use a trick that will also turn out to be useful in deriving
88 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
superspace Feynman rules in Chapter 30. We write the 4>n in tenns of
potential superjields Sn(x,6) as
4>n = ~~Sn, (26.6.10)
from which it follows (using Eq. (26.A.21 that
4>~ = ~is: , (26.6.11)
where ~~ and ~i are abbreviations for (~~E~R)  (~R~R) and
(~IE~d = (~L~d, respectively. To see that it is always possible to
find an Sn (not necessarily local) that satisfies Eq. (26.6.10), note that for
any leftchiral superfields 4>n,
~~~i4>n = 16D4>n, (26.6.12)
so that Eq. (26.6.10) is satisfied by the solution of
16DSn = ~i4>n . (26.6.13)
The expression ~~ S is leftchiral for any S, so the action must be
stationary with respect to arbitrary variations in the Sn. Using Eq. (26.6.5),
the action may be expressed in tenns of the Sn and as S:
I =  ~J tfx J tf6 K(~is', ~~S) + 2 Re J tfx [f(~~S)t.
(26.6.14)
The variation of the first tenn under infinitesimal changes ~Sn in the
Sn (but not the S:) is easily calculated by an integration by parts in
superspace:
Eqs. (26.3.31) and (26.6.5) allow us to express the variation of the integral
in the superpotential tenn under infinitesimal changes ~Sn in the Sn as
~J tfx [f(~~S)lj>" = En J tfx [0 f~4n _ ~~~Sn]
2
4>1') RS ?
EJtfx
n
[~~ (of(4
0 4>n 4>=I')~S
~Sn)] ?
=2EJtfx [of(4)) ~Sn]
n 0 4>n 4>=I')~S D
=EJtfxJtf6 of(4)) ~Sn.
n 0 4>n 4>=I')~S
26.6 Superspace Integrals, Field Equations, Current Superfield 89
The condition for Eq. (26.6.14) to be stationary with respect to arbitrary
variations in Sn is then
~2 JK(~is*, ~~S) = 4 of(4))
R J~~Sn o4>n 4>=I'J1s'
or in tenns of the chiral superfields
~2 JK(4) , 4>*) = 4 0 f(4))
(26.6.15)
R J4>n o4>n .
The complex conjugate yields
~2 JK(4) , 4>') = 4 (0 f(4)))' (26.6.16)
L J4>~ o4>n
It can readily be checked that the components of these equations yield the
field equations for the components of 4>~ and 4>n. For instance, recalling
that ~~( 81e'iJR) = 4, the 8independent part of ~~4>~ is 4~~, while the 8
independent part of 0 f(4))/o 4>n is 0 f(cf/o cf>n, so the 8independent part
of Eq. (26.6.15) for K = Ln 4>~4>n yields the relation ~~ =  0 f(cf/o cf>n,
in agreement with Eq. (26.4.6).
As an example of the use of this fonnalism, let us consider the superfields
to which conserved currents belong. Suppose that the superpotential and
Kahler potential in the action (26.6.9) are invariant under an infinitesimal
global transfonnation
(26.6.17)
m m
with E a real infinitesimal constant and gnm a Hermitian matrix, perhaps
part of a Lie algebra of similar transformation matrices. Since the super
potential depends only on the 4>n, it is automatically also invariant under
the extended transfonnations
(26.6.18)
m m
where A(x,8) is a superfield that must be taken leftchiral in order that
the J4>n be leftchiral, but is otherwise unrestricted. On the other hand,
other tenns such as the Kahler potential are not in general invariant under
these transfonnations, because A f N. For general fields the change in
the action must therefore be of the form
M = iE J J
tfx tf8 [A A*]f, (26.6.19)
where f( x, 8) is some real superfield, known as the current superfield. But
if the field equations are satisfied then the action is stationary under any
variation in the superfields, so the integral (26.6.19) must vanish for any
90 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
leftchiral superfield A(x, 8). Any such A may be put in the form A = ~~S,
so this means that the current superfield must satisfy
~~f = ~if = 0 . (26.6.20)
That is, f is a linear superfie1d. As we saw in Section 26.3, this means
that its components satisfy
N~ = M~ = al'v! = 0, },/ =  ~Q)J, DJ = DC J . (26.6.21)
This allows us to identify the V component V! as the conserved current
associated with this symmetry.
For the particular action (26.6.9), the current superfield takes the form
1S_,,aK(4),4>*) ,.,. _,,,aK(4),4>*)or ,.,.* 66)
rf L..i a4> ff nm"'m  ~ a4>* :::; mn"'m , (2 . .22
nm n nm n
with the equality of these two expressions a consequence of symmetry
under the transformation (26.6.17). Then, using the field equation (26.6.15),
~2RrfIS = "
L..i
[~2R aK(4),4>*)]
a4>
ff 4> = 4" af(4)) ff 4>
nm m L..i a4> nm m,
(26623)
. .
run n run n
which vanishes because of the assumed invariance of the superpotential
under the transformation (26.6.17). In the same way, using the second of
the two expressions for f and the field equation (26.6.16), we find that
~if = 0, thus verifying the conservation condition (26.6.20).
26.7 The Supercurrent
Like any other continuous global symmetry, supersymmetry leads to the
existence of a conserved current. s The conservation and commutation
properties of the supersymmetry current are operator equations that will
remain valid even when supersymmetry is spontaneously broken, and that
will therefore be useful to us in Chapter 29, when we consider theories
of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in a nonperturbative context.
Also, the supersymmetry current is related to components of a superfield
known as the supercurrent,6 that will be of fundamental importance in
our treatment of supergravity in Chapter 31.
As we saw in Section 7.3, the existence of an ordinary global symmetry
of the Lagrangian density under an infinitesimal transformation + t
t t
+ d;;t (with a generic canonical or auxiliary boson or fermion field
and 't a function of the canonical and auxiliary fields) leads to the
existence of a current
1') " a.P(x) =t)
J (x ex 7 a(al!(x)/ ax"):JI' (x ,
26.7 The Supercurrent 91
which is conserved for fields satisfying the field equations, and generates
the symmetry in the sense that the canonical commutation relations give
[j d3xJO(x), :I(y)] ex j>t(y).
The supersymmetry current requires a somewhat more complicated treat
ment for two reasons. One is that supersymmetry is only a symmetry of
the action, not of the Lagrangian density or the Lagrangian. Instead, the
variation of the Lagrangian density under an infinitesimal supersymmetry
transformation is a spacetime derivative, which we may write in the form
{)!l' = L (ri o/JK/J) , (26.7.1)
t
with K/J a fourvector of Majorana spinors. In consequence, the super
symmetry current is not the usual Noether current. The Noether current
is a fourvector N/J of Majorana spinors defined by
~ O~:/J~/:I = (riN/J) , (26.7.2)
whose divergence is given by the EulerLagrange equations as
(rxo/JN1') __ "oR!l'
7 ox {)x 7 t
t _"
o
oR!l'
(o/Jr)o/J{)
:I
={)!l'. (26.7.3)
(Here OR denotes the right partial derivative, defined by moving differen
tiated fermionic variables to the right before differentiating.) Instead, we
must define the supersymmetry current as
S/J =N/J +K/J, (26.7.4)
which Eqs. (26.7.1) and (26.7.3) tell us is conserved:
0/JS/J = o. (26.7.5)
The second complication is that the change {) t in a canonical field t
under a supersymmetry transformation is not just a function of canon
ical fields, but also involves their canonical conjugates. For instance,
Eq. (26.3.15) shows that the change in the lpcomponent of a chiral
scalar superfield involves the time derivative of the </>component. As
a result the commutator of the Noether charge I d3x~ with a general
canonical field does not give the supersymmetry transformation of that
field. Fortunately, this complication is cancelled by the first complication:
when the commutators of I d3xKO as well as I d3x ~ with the fields are
taken into account, the operator I d3 xSO does generate supersymmetry
92 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
transformations' in the sense that
[j d x (iXSO) , l]
3
= iJl , (26.7.6)
consistently with Eqs. (26.2.1) and (26.2.8).
For example, we may derive an explicit formula for the supersymmetry
current in the general renormalizable theory of leftchiral superfields 4>n,
which can be used to check that it does generate supersymmetry transfor
mations, in the sense of Eq. (26.7.6). The Lagrangian density (26.4.7) for
This is a general result for currents constructed in this way. For instance, consider a
Lagrangian L (not Lagrangian density) that depends on a set of canonical variables q"
and their time derivatives it", with no constraints of any class. In quantum field theory
the label n includes spatial coordinates as well as discrete spin and species labels, and
J
L = d3 X It'. Our assumption here that the Lagrangian density is invariant up to
spacetime derivatives under some infinitesimal transformation b means that bL is the
time derivative of some functional F. That is,
"aLb "+"aLb"=!..F.
L..i aq" q L..i ail" q dt
" "
Using the canonical equations of motion, this can be written as a conservation law
Q = 0, where the conserved charge is
Q= _ " aL bq" + F .
L..i aq"
"
In our case here, Q = J d3x [~ + KOj. We assume the usual unconstrained commu
tation relations
and find the commutator
[Q,q m] .b qm "aL
=1
abql [.. m] + "aF
L..ia'~ q,q q,q m] .
L..ia. [..
"' q q " q
To evaluate the second and third terms, we note that the second time derivatives ij"
appear linearly in the invariance condition, so their coefficients must match: even
without using the equations of motion, we have
L I
;~q aa~:'
q
= :~ .
q
The second and third terms in the commutator therefore cancel, leaving us with the
desired result
Taking the time derivative gives also
This result has been extended to theories with constraints. 7
26.7 The Supercurrent 93
this theory may be put in the fonn
!l' = ~~ [  olJcf>~ [JI'cf>n  ~ (lpLn 1'1'01' lpLn)  ~ (lpRn 1'1'01' lpRn) ]
+nonderivative tenns . (26.7.7)
Using the transformation rules (26.3.15), (26.3.17), (26.3.18), and (26.3.20)
(with ;p = cf>*), the Noether current defined by Eq. (26.7.2) is
NIJ = ~~ [2 (olJcf>~) lpnL + 2 (olJcf>n) lpnR + (~cf>n)ylJlpnR + (~cf>~) ylJlpnL
fF n ylJlpnR  fF~ ylJlpnL] . (26.7.8)
We can calculate the change in the Lagrangian density either directly, or,
more easily, by noting that the changes of Dtenns and fF tenns under
supersymmetry transfonnations are given respectively by Eqs. (26.2.17)
and (26.3.16). Either way, we find that the current KIJ in Eq. (26.7.1) is
K I' = ~ ~ 1'1' [  (~cf>n) lpnR  ( ~cf>~) lpnL + fF~ lpnL + fF n lpnR
Of(cf)
+2 ( ocf>n lpnL + 2 (Of(cf)
ocf>n
* ]
lpnR (26.7.9)
Adding (26.7.8) and (26.7.9) gives the supersymmetry current for this class
of theories
SIJ = .ji ~ [( ~cf>n)ylJlpnR +( ~cf>~)ylJlpnL + (::n) ylJlpnL + (::n) * ylJlpnR] .
(26.7.10)
It is straightforward then to use the canonical commutation and anti
commutation relations to verify that I d3 x SO satisfies the commutation
relations (26.7.6).
There is another definition of symmetry currents, in tenns of the re
sponse of the matter action to a local symmetry transfonnation, which is
particularly useful when the associated symmetries are 'gauged,' as super
symmetry will be when we turn to supergravity theories in Chapter 31. In
the absence of supergravity fields, the action is not invariant under local
supersymmetry transformations. If we make such a transfonnation with a
spacetimedependent parameter oc(x), the action will change by an amount
that, in order to vanish when oc(x) is constant, must (even when the field
equations are not satisfied) be of the fonn
(26.7.11)
with SIJ(x) a fourvector of Majorana spinor operator coefficients. This
94 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
does not define SI'(x) uniquely, because when we generalize global super
symmetry transfonnations to local transformations, we might in general
give the change b X of a field X under a local supersymmetry transfonna
tion an arbitrary dependence on the derivatives of oc(x). There is, however,
one way of defining local supersymmetry transfonnations that guarantees
that the coefficient SI'(x) in Eq. (26.7.11) is the same as the current defined
by Eq. (26.7.4), which as we have seen generates the symmetry transfor
mations in the sense of Eq. (26.7.6). It is to specify that derivatives of
oc(x) do not appear in the supersymmetry transformation of the canonical or
auxiliary fields l. For instance, the local versions of the transformation
rules (26.3.15)(26.3.17) for the components of a leftchiral superfield are
b1pL(X) = .JiOI'<fJ(x) 1'1' OCR(X) <fJ(x) + ~2ff(x) OCL(X) , (26.7.12)
b~(x) = .Ji(ocdx) ~1pdx) , (26.7.13)
b<fJ(x) = .Ji(ocR(x)1pdx) . (26.7.14)
Eq. (26.3.21) shows that the superfield may be expressed in terms of its
component fields at x~ without derivatives, so the transfonnation rule for
the superfield may be expressed as
(26.7.15)
where !l is the operator (26.2.2).
With local supersymmetry transfonnations defined in this way, the
change of the action that they induce consists of two terms. First,
although the variation in canonical fields under a supersymmetry trans
formation does not involve derivatives of oc(x), the variation in derivatives
of canonical fields does. This produces a change in the Lagrangian density
which is the same as Eq. (26.7.2), except that ~ is replaced with 0l'~:
btl =  Jtfx ([Ol'~(x)] NI'(x).
The second tenn in the change of the action arises from the fact that the
Lagrangian density is not invariant even under the part of the supersym
metry transfonnation that does not involve derivatives of oc(x). According
to Eq. (26.7.1), this produces a change in the action
b21 = J tfx (~(x)oI'KI'(x) =  J tfx (ol'~(xKI'(x) .
Adding btl and b21 gives a total change in the action of the fonn (26.7.11),
with SI'(x) given by Eq. (26.7.4), as was to be shown.
Even with this specification of the transfonnation property of the com
ponent fields, the supersymmetry current SI'(x) is not uniquely specified
26.7 The Supercu"ent 95
by Eq. (26.7:11), because we could always introduce a modified current
S1:ew = S'" + o.A"" , (26.7.16)
where A"" = A'''' is an arbitrary antisymmetric tensor of Majorana spinors.
The term o.A"" is conserved whether or not the field equations are satisfied,
and its time component is a space derivative, so I d3x sgew = I d3x so,
leaving Eq. (26.7.6) unchanged.
There is in fact a particular choice of AJIV with the convenient feature
that y",S1:ew turns out to be a measure of the violation of scale invariance
by the theory. By using the Dirac equations derived from the Lagrangian
density (26.4.7):
02 / (4).
~tpmL =  ~ ( o4>m o4>n tpnR ,
it is straightforward to calculate that
y",S'" = 2~ ~ { ~ (4)ntpnR + 4>~tpnL)
+ (L:
m
2
4>m 0 1(4))  2 01 (4))) tpnL
o4>n o4>m o4>n
021(4)) 01 (4))). }
+ ( ~ 4>m o4>n o4>m  2 a4>n tpnR
We can eliminate the first term by introducing a modified supersymmetry
current of the general type of Eq. (26.7.16):
S1:ew = S'" + f [1'''' , 1"] L: n
0. (4)ntpnR + 4>~tpnL) , (26.7.18)
for which
2
'" _
y",Snew 
_ ,r,;"
2" 2 ~
{ (" 0 1(4)) _ 01 (4)))
~ 4>m o4>n o4>m 2 o4>n tpnL
021(4)) 01 (4))). }
+ ( ~ 4>m o4>n o4>m  2 o4>n tpnR (26.7.19)
The righthand side vanishes for a scaleinvariant Lagrangian density,
with 1(<1 a homogeneous polynomial of third order in the <1>n
We now tum to the supersymmetry transformation property of the
supersymmetry current. It is straightforward to check that the current
given by Eqs. (26.7.18) and (26.7.10) is related to the cocomponent co~ of
96 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
a real nonchiral superfield elt by"
8 + 2'}'1t '}'. w v8 ,
new = 2w It
Sit (26.7.20)
where
elt = 1i2 ~ [44>~01t4>n  44>n0It4>~ + ((~4>~)'}'It(f04>n)] . (26.7.21)
The superfield elt is known as the supercurrent.
The supercurrent obeys a conservation law that incorporates the con
servation of the supersymmetry current (26.7.20) and much else besides.
To derive it, we may use the anticommutation relation (26.2.30) to writet
[f0R, (~Lf0d] = 4 ~f0L.
Together with the chirality conditions f0 R4>n = f0L4>~ = 0, this gives
I' 1t f0L L [4>~ 01t4>n4>n 01t4>~] =  ~ L 4>~f0R (~Lf0L )4>n L( ~4>~) f0L4>n
n n n
and
I' 1t f0L L ((~4>~)yIt(f04>n) = 4 L( ~4>~) f04>n + 2 L f04>~(~Lf0L)4>n ,
n n n
so that the superfield (26.7.21) satisfies
I'lt f0 Lelt = li L (f0R4>~) (~Lf0L )4>n  i2 i L 4>~f0R (~Lf0L )4>n .
n n
(26.7.22)
We saw in Section 26.6 that the field equations for the Lagrangian density
(26.4.7) may be expressed in the form
ifA
( ::0
)m
I7A
L::O L 'n = 4 (01o4>n(4)' (26.7.2 ) 3
Here we introduce a notation that will be used extensively in Chapter 31; following
Eq. (26.2.10), the components CS, QJs, M S, N S, V!, ;.S, and D of an arbitrary
supedield S(x,O) are defined by the expansion
S(x,O) = CS(x)  i( 01'5 QJS(x))  ~ (0 1'5 0)MS(x)  Ho 0)NS(x)
+H01'd 0) V! (x)  i(01'5 0) (0 [;'S(X) + ~ ~QJS(X)])
H01'50r[DS(X)+~OCS(X)] .
t It should be noted_ that ~L and ~R are the left and ri~handed components of the
covariant adjoint 5'}, rather than the covariant adjoints 5'}L and 5'}R of 5'}L and 5'}R.
26.7 The Supercurrent 97
Using this in Eq. (26.7.22) gives finally
'" 2.",,.,.*
I' !?,h81l =  3' ,,;;,(f0R 'n)
(Of)' 1 ",.
o4>n + "3 i ";;' 4>n
(Of)'
o4>n
f0R
.
=
1.
3' f0 R [ of(4))
~ 4>n o4>n  3 f(4)) ] (26.7.24)
The Hennitian adjoint of Eq. (26.7.24) is
yll f0R 8", =  ! if0L [~4>n O~~~)  3 f(4))] (26.7.25)
The sum of this and Eq. (26.7.24) then gives the conservation law
(26.7.26)
where X is a real chiral superfield given (up to an additive constant) in
this class of theories by
2 [ of (4)) ]
X=3 Im ~4>n o4>n 3f(4)) . (26.7.27)
Although it has been derived here only for renonnalizable theories
of chiral superfields, we may expect that the conservation law (26.7.26)
holds more generally, though of course with X not necessarily given by
Eq. (26.7.27), because of the other conservation laws that it incorporates.
(A generalized fonnula for X will be given in Section 31.4.) To derive these
relations, we must use Eq. (26.2.10) to express 81l in tenns of components
C:;, Q)~, etc. and use Eq. (26.3.9) to express the chiral superfield X in
tenns of components AX, tpx, etc. With the aid of Eqs. (26.A.9), (26.A.16),
(26.A.17), and the Dirac matrix identities
(26.7.28)
y"'yPyV = 111lP yV l11lVyP + l1VPyll + iI's EIlVPU yu , (26.7.29)
we can then expand both sides of Eq. (26.7.26) in the tenns
1, 8, ys8, yV8, ysy V8, ys[yll, yV]8,
(08), (OYs8), (OySY v 8) ,
8 (Oys8), ys8 (OYs8), yV8 (OYs8),
yVYs8 (OYs8), [yP,yU]8 (OYs8), (OYS8)2.
Matching the coefficients of 1, 8, ys8, yV 8, ysyV 8, Ys [yll, :~ V] 8, respectively,
98 26 Super symmetric Field Theories
yields the results tt
tpX = _ il'syl' 0/'>
I' , (26.7.30)
FX = ol'C~ , (26.7.31)
GX = (Ve)1' I' ' (26.7.32)
ol'A x = N~, (26.7.33)
ol'B
x = M~, (26.7.34)
o= V~  V.~ + EI'.puOuCep . (26.7.35)
Matching the coefficients of either (08) or (01'58) yields the same result:
o= '}'I' A.~ , (26.7.36)
and matching the coefficients of (0'}'s,},'8) yields the result
 iI's [I" , ~] tpx = 2'}'1''}'' A.~ + 1'" [I" , ~] OJ~ (26.7.37)
From Eqs. (26.7.30), (26.7.36), and (26.7.37) we obtain the conservation of
the supersymmetry current (26.7.20):
0= 0I'S!:ew = 20I'OJ~ + 2 ~'}'I'OJ~ , (26.7.38)
and a relation among A.~ and OJ~:
1
JI..e _  a e
\pOJ. + U.'}'
~ I' OJI'e . (26 .7.39)
Matching the coefficients of 8(0'}'s8) and '}'s8(0'}'s8) gives relations that
can be obtained by taking the divergence of Eqs. (26.7.34) and (26.7.33),
respectively. Matching the coefficients of '}'P8(0'}'s8) gives
opG x = ol'V::' + Ol'V::'  op yell , (26.7.40)
which, combined with Eq. (26.7.32), yields the conservation law
01' TI" = 0 , (26.7.41)
where TI" is the symmetric tensor
T 1" =  ve
2"1 1"  1 ve
2".1' + '1jJ'
Vel 1 . (26.7.42)
Matching the coefficients of '}'P'}'s8(0'}'s8) gives
x
ojJF = 2D~ + OC~ + Ep.ujJO'V epu , (26.7.43)
which, with Eqs. (26.7.31) and (27.7.35), yields a relation between D~ and
eo
CjJ'
D~ = OC~ + ojJo C;> . (26.7.44)
tt Note that V~ is the V,component of e~, not the V~component of e,.
26.7 The Supercurrent 99
Matching the coefficients of [,},P, '}'"]8(8'}'s8) and (8'}'s8)2 gives results that
already follow from Eq. (26.7.34) and from Eqs. (26.7.38) and (26.7.39),
respectively.
The conserved symmetric tensor TI" may be identified as the energy
momentum tensor of the system. To check this, we use Eqs. (26.1.18) and
(26.2.12) to write the change in OJ~(x) under a supersymmetry transfor
mation with infinitesimal parameter IX as
bOJI'8=  I.[(QIX),
 OJI'8] = +1.[8  ]
OJI' ' (QIX)
= (iI'S ~e~  M~ + i'}'sN~ + '}'. V~) IX .
Eqs. (26.7.33H26.7.35) allow us to put this in the form
i{ OJ~ , Q} = !'}"(V~ + V.~)  al'(Bx +'}'sAx ) iI's ~e~ + !EI'Vlcu'}" a"e8u .
In terms of the currents (26.7.20) and (26.7.42), this reads
i { S!:ew, Q} = 21'. TI" + 2( al'  '}'I' ~)( BX + '}'sAx)  EI""u 'I. alee;>
+2i,},s ( ~e8 I'  '}'I''}'" ~cr  4'}'I' [~, '}'U] e;. (26.7.45)
For /J. = 0 all the terms on the right except the first are space derivatives,
and therefore vanish when we integrate over space, leaving us with
i {J d3 x s2ew, Q} = 21'. J d3 x TO. . (26.7.46)
We have defined the supersymmetry current S!:ew to give J d3 x s2ew = Q,
so the fundamental anticommutation relation (25.2.36) tells us that
J d3 x roy = Pv , (26.7.47)
which, with the conservation condition (26.7.41), allows us to identify T!'V
as the energymomentum tensor.
It is important to .note which energymomentum tensor we have con
structed in this way. Either directly from Eq. (26.7.21), or by considering
the supersymmetry transformation of the current (26.7.18), we can calcu
late that the energymomentum tensor TI" for renormalizable theories of
chiral superfields is
TI" = L: [al'<I>~a' <l>n + a' <I>~al'<I>n]  111" L [a).<I>~a).<I>n + al(<I 2]
a<l>n
n n
+! (111"0  al'a') L I<l>n1 2+ ... ,
n
(26.7.48)
where the dots denote terms involving fermions, which do not concern
us here. We see that the last term, which is related by supersymmetry
100 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
to the correction term in Eq. (26.7.18), has the effect that the energy
momentum tensor is traceless for the massless freefield theory with no
superpotential, in which case ocf>n = O. A simple calculation shows that
T"'V is also traceless more generally for scaleinvariant theories, with f(cf
a homogeneous polynomial of third order in the cf>n.
Supersymmetry also imposes an interesting relation among violations
of scale invariance and R conservation. Eqs. (26.7.30H26.7.32) show that
'Y",S1:ew = 61'",0)8"" o"'C~, and Tll = 2V 8 ",,,, (which measures the violation
of scale invariance) are proportional to components of a chiral superfield
X, so if anyone of these vanishes as an operator equation (that is, not
just for some particular field configuration), then they all do. In this case,
we can show that C8 P is proportional to the current of an R quantum
number. To see this, note that Eq. (26.2.11) gives
bC;> = i [c;>, (a Q)] = i (aI'S 0); ,
so that in general
[C;> , Q] = 1'50);> . (26.7.49)
We have seen that if c;> is conserved then 'Y",SP = 0, so that Eq. (26.7.20)
gives Su = 20);>. Setting u = 0 and integrating over x in Eq. (26.7.49)
then gives
[j d x
3
C0
8
, QJ = !'YsQ. (26.7.50)
We can therefore introduce a current
PA'" = 2C",8 , (26.7.51)
which if conserved is the current of a quantum number PA J d3 X ~ for =
which QL and QR destroy the values +1 and 1, respectively. Since the
commutator of QL with a scalar superfield 4> involves a term o4>jofh, this
means that fh carries the PA value +1, in accord with the usual definition.
A theory in which the superfield X vanishes, or, equivalently, in which
T'" P' 'Y",S"', and o",PA'" all vanish, is invariant under an enlarged set of
supersymmetry transformations, generated by the superconformal algebra
described at the end of Section 25.2.
In scaleinvariant theories the value of the PA quantum number carried
by various superfields is fixed by the structure of the Lagrangian. For
instance, in a scaleinvariant theory of chiral scalar superfields, the su
perpotential must be a homogeneous polynomial of third order in the
superfields. The jO"term of the superpotential is proportional to the co
efficient of (Jr, which has PA quantum number +2, so the PA quantum
number of the ffterm of the superpotential is the PA quantum number
of the superpotential itself minus two. PA invariance then requires that
26.7 The Supercurrent 101
we give the scalar superfields an PA quantum number +2/3, so that the
superpotential will have PA quantum number +2, and its ffterm will have
PA quantum number zero. That is, the scalar components cf>n have PA = 2/3
and the spinor components tpnL (proportional to the coefficient of 1 in
the superfield) have PA = 1/3. This can be verified by calculating the
current PA'" from the Cterm of the supercurrent (26.7.21) for this class of
theories:
(26.7.52)
(The second term contains an extra factor of 1/2 because tp is a Majorana
spinor.)
Quantum corrections can introduce violations of PA invariance (through
AdlerBellJackiw anomalies) and of scale invariance (through the renor
malization group running of the coupling constants) but supersymmetry
continues to impose a relation between these symmetry violations despite
these corrections. 7a We will see an example of this in Section 29.3.
***
The conservation condition (26.7.26) does not uniquely determine either
the supercurrent 8'" or the associated chiral superfield X. In particular,
we may add to 8'" a change
(26.7.53)
with Y an arbitrary chiral superfield. The lefthand side of Eq. (26.7.26)
is then changed by
1'",f0A8'" =~f0Y .
For a leftchiral superfield Y L the chirality condition f0 R YL = 0 and the
anticommutation relations (26.2.30) give
~f0aY =t [{f0L,f0R}f0RLYL
~j [",.(!>.".)YL+ ~!>Lp"""Lphl
The matrix E/'5 in f0LP in the second term on the right of the above
expression may be moved to the final operator f0LP, so that the chirality
condition and anticommutation relations give
I:f0 Lpf0Ra f0LpYL =  I:f0 Lpf0 Ra f0 LpYL = 2(~f0)aYL'
p p
and hence
~f0YL=~ [f0(f0f0)YL+2 ~f0YL] =~f0(f0f0)YL.
102 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
The same result can be derived in the same way for any rightchiral
superfield, and hence it holds also for an arbitrary sum Y of a leftchiral
and a rightchiral superfield
'Y"f0Ae" =~f0Y =  ~f0 (~f0) Y . (26.7.54)
This is of the same form as the conservation condition (26.7.26), with the
associated chiral superfield X changed by the chiral superfield
AX =  H~f0) Y . (26.7.55)
It is easy to check that the addition of Ae" to e" changes T,J) and
S~ew only by space derivatives, and therefore does not change the energy
momentum fourvector P" or the supercharge Q.
We saw in Section 26.6 that any chiral superfield X may be expressed
in the form X = (~f0)S, and hence can be removed by adding a term
of the form (26.7.55) to e" with Y = 4S. But in general S and the new
e" constructed in this way will not be local. This situation is already
familiar from our experience with triangle anomalies, discussed in Chapter
22  we saw there that, although it is always possible to construct terms
that if added to the Lagrangian density would cancel these anomalies,
in general these terms would not be local, and hence must be excluded
from the Lagrangian density. There are chiral superfields that can be
expressed as (~f0)S with S local, and that therefore, if present in the
associated chiral superfield X, could be eliminated by adding local terms
of the form (26.7.53) to e". They include, for instance, a term of the
form Re(k8f(4/04, with k an arbitrary complex constant, because
the field equations (26.6.15) and (26.6.16) show that (~f0)Re(k4 =
4Re(k8f(4/84. But in general the changes in X that can be made in
this way are quite limited.
26.8 General Kahler Potentials
There are several circumstances in which it is necessary to consider non
renormalizable Lagrangian densities of the general form (26.3.30)
(26.8.1 )
where the superpotential f is an arbitrary function of leftchiral scalar
superfields 4>n but not their derivatives, and the Kahler potential K is an
arbitrary function of the 4>n and 4>~ but not their derivatives.
This section lies somewhat out of the book's main line of development, and may be
omitted in a first reading.
26.8 General Kahler Potentials 103
This situation arises in effective field theories whose symmetries rule
out any renormalizable interactions, or in which the renormalizable in
teractions all happen to be small. It is often then possible to calculate
scattering amplitudes at low energy from tree graphs, using a Lagrangian
with the smallest value for some combination of the numbers of deriva
tives, fermion fields, and any small renormalizable couplings. In Section
19.5 we examined such an effective field theory with no renormalizable
couplings, involving nucleons and soft pions. The dynamically broken
gauge theories discussed in Section 21.4 provide examples of effective field
theories of this sort with small renormalizable couplings. This circum
stance also arises in supersymmetric theories whose symmetries do not
allow a superpotential, or where the superpotential is for some reason
small. We will encounter an example of this sort when we consider the
extended N = 2 supersymmetric theory of Abelian gauge superfields and
gaugeneutral chiral scalar superfields in Section 29.5. We will show there
that lowenergy scattering amplitudes in this theory are generated by tree
graphs using a Lagrangian density of the form (26.8.1), with f = 0 and
K a function only of the 4>n and 4>~ but no derivatives, plus ffterms
quadratic in gauge superfields. The inclusion of Kahler potentials having
arbitrary dependence on 4>n and 4>~ but not on their derivatives is partic
ularly important in effective field theories in which some scalar fields are
of the same order of magnitude as the fundamental energy scale of the
underlying theory, although all other field values and all energies are much
smaller. This will be of interest, for instance, in connection with theories
of gravitymediated supersymmetry breaking, discussed in Section 31.6.
Let us consider how to express the Lagrangian density (26.8.1) in terms
of component fields. We did not use the assumption that f(4)) is a cubic
polynomial in deriving Eq. (26.4.4), so this continues to give the jO"terms
in the Lagrangian contributed by an arbitrary superpotential. To derive
the Dterms, we note that the term in the Kahler potential of fourth order
in (1 is
104 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
(26.8.3)
To make the reality properties of the fermion kinematic terms transparent,
we can use Eq. (26.A.21) to write
(IPn ~tpmR) = (tpn ~tpmL )* .
The Dterm of K(4),4>*) is the coefficient of (81'58)2/4 minus half
the d'Alembertian of the 8independent term in K(4),4>*), which is just
26.8 General Kahler Potentials 105
K(l/J,l/J), so
~[K(<I>,<I>)]D =Re ~~nm[  ~(lPm ~(1 +l's)lPn)
+~n~~  0JJl/Jn OJJl/J~]
o3K(l/J,l/J) _
Re L ol/J ol/J ol/J. (lPnlPmL)~t
nml n m I
o3K(l/J l/J.)
+ Re L ol/J ol/J' ol/J. (lPmI'JJ1p(R )o",l/Jn
nml n m I
1 o4K(l/J,l/J) _ _
L ol/J ol/J ol/Jol/Jk (lPnlPmL) (lPklPIR),
+ 4 nmlknml (26.8.4)
where '( l/J, l/J.) is the Kahler metric
~" (A.. A...) = o2K(l/J,l/J) (2685)
"'nm '/', '/' ol/Jn ol/J;" . ..
Note that the constant matrix gnm in Eq. (26.4.2) is replaced here with the
Kahler metric 'nm( l/J, l/J.). Because the Kahler metric is fielddependent, we
cannot in general make it equal to the unit matrix by a field redefinition,
so the total Lagrangian must be left in the form
.? = Re ~ 'nm [  ~ (lPm ~(1 + I's)lPn) + ~n~~  o",l/Jn o"'l/J~]
o3K(l/J,l/J) _
Re L ol/J ol/J ol/J (lPnlPmL)~t
nml n m I
o3K(l/J l/J.)
+ Re L ol/J ol/J' ol/J. (lPml' "'lPtR )O",l/Jn
nml n m I
1 'o4K(l/J,l/J) _ _
L ol/J ol/J ol/J ol/Jk (lPnlPmL) (lPklPIR)
+ 4 nmlknml
o2f(l/J) (_ ) of(l/J)
Re ~ ol/Jn ol/Jm lPn lPmL + 2Re ~ ~n ol/Jn . (26.8.6)
The biilinear (1pm hSlPn) is a total derivative, and could be discarded if
'nm we:re a constant, but must be kept for general Kahler potentials. This
result will be extended to include gauge superfields at the end of Section
27.4.
***
As discussed in Section 19.6, the spontaneous breakdown of a global
106 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
symmetry group G to a subgroup H entails the existence of a set of real
massless Goldstone bosons with scalar fields 7tk, for which the term in the
Lagrangian with the minimum number of derivatives takes the form
2 G/H =  L GIet(7t)0I'7tk OI' 7t t , (26.8.7)
let
where GIet(7t) is the metric of the coset space G/H. (Theories with
Lagrangian densities of this general form are known as nonlinear u
models.) By writing the complex fields l/Jn in terms of their real and
imaginary parts, the term L.nm'#nm(l/J,l/J*)0l'l/Jnol'l/J';" in the Lagrangian
density (26.8.6) can be put in the form (26.8.7), but the converse is
not generally true: the condition that a set of real coordinates like the
Goldstone boson fields 7tk can be interpreted as the real and imaginary
parts of a set of complex coordinates like the fields l/Jn with the metric
in these coordinates locally given by Eq. (26.8.5) defines what is called
a Kahler manifold.* But it should not be thought that in the common
cases where G/H is not a Kahler manifold, it is impossible for G to
be spontaneously broken to H while keeping supersymmetry unbroken.
What happens in these cases is the appearance of extra massless bosons,
which, together with the Goldstone bosons, do form a Kahler manifold.
This is because the superpotential f(l/J) depends on l/J but not l/J*, so
if the whole Lagrangian is invariant under a global symmetry group G
then the superpotential is automatically invariant under a group Gc , the
complexification of G: if G consists of transformations exp(iL.A eAtA)
with generators tA and arbitrary real parameters eA, then Gc consists of
transformations exp(iL.A zAtA) with the same generators and arbitrary
complex parameters ZA. (For instance, if G is U(n) then Gc is GL(n,C),
the group of all complex nonsingular matrices, while if G is SU(n)
then Gc is SL(n,C), the group of all complex nonsingular matrices with
unit determinant.) Likewise, if some stationary point l/J(O) of f(l/J) is left
invariant by some subgroup H of G, then it will also be left invariant by a
"" The significance of Kahler manifolds in this context was pointed out in an early
paper by Zumino. 8 Note that it is not necessary for the metric to be expressible in
the form (26.8.5) over the whole manifold with a single Kahler potential K(</J, </J"); it
is only necessary that the manifold can be covered in finite overlapping patches in
which this holds, with different Kahler potentials in each patch. The simplest example
of a Kahler manifold is the flat complex plane, with Kahler potential Iz12. As an
example of a coset space G/H that is a Kahler manifold, Zumino gave tbe case where
G = GL(p,C) x GL(p+q,C) and H = GL(p,C), with p and q arbitrary positivedefinite
integers, and GL(N,C) the group of complex nonsingular N x N matriCt:s. The coset
space G/H here has complex coordinates </J. that may be taken as the components of
a complex p x (p + q) matrix A, which under G and H undergoes the transformations
A ~ BAC and A ~ BA, respectively, where B and C are square nonsingular complex
matrices of dimensionality p and p + q, respectively. The Kahler potential in this case
is simply K oc In DetAAt.
Appendix Majorana Spinors 107
subgroup He of Ge, the complexification of H. Whether or not GIH is a
Kahler manifold, the complexified coset space GelHe is always a Kahler
manifold. This follows because Gel He is a complex submanifold of the
flat complex space of the 4Jn, which is a Kahler manifold, and it is a
theorem that any complex submanifold of a Kahler manifold is a Kahler
manifold. 9 If parameterized by the values of 4Jn(z) = [exp(iI:A zAtA)4J(O)]n,
the Kahler manifold Gc/ He has the metric obtained by embedding it in the
flat complex space of the 4Jn, usually taken with line element I: n d4Jn d4J~.
It is true that Ge is not a symmetry of the whole Lagrangian, but the
Goldstone bosons associated with the breakdown of Ge to He are nev
ertheless exactly massless. This is guaranteed by the nonrenormalization
theorem of Section 27.6, or, more simply, by the result of Section 25.4,
that massless spin zero particles must come in pairs that are related by
supersymmetry transformations and that therefore have the same trans
formation under any global symmetry group G that commutes with super
symmetry.
Appendix Majorana Spinors
This appendix summarizes some algebraic properties of Majorana spinors
that are needed in dealing with superfields.
Consider a fourcomponent fermionic Majorana spinor s that like Q or
e may be expressed in the form
s= ( e t ), (26.A.l)
where c; is some twocomponent spinor and e is the 2 x 2 matrix
e= ( 10 01) . = IU2
Such a spinor is related to its complex conjugate by
s = (~e ~) s = /hs es , (26.A.2)
where e is the 4 x 4 matrix
(26.A.3)
and as usual 1'5 and f1 are 4 x 4 matrices
1'5 = (~ ~1) , f1=(~ ~),
108 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
with 1 and 0 understood here as 2 x 2 submatrices. Taking the transpose
of Eq. (26.A.2) and multiplying on the right by /1 gives the equivalent
formula
(26.A.4)
The anticommutation of the spinor components limits the variety of
covariants that can be formed from a Majorana spinor. To see this, it
will be convenient first to consider the symmetry properties of bilinear
covariants, which will be of some interest in themselves. For a pair of
Majorana spinors SI and S2 and any 4 x 4 numerical matrix M, Eq. (26.A.4)
.
gives
Sl M S2 = L SIIX S2/J (e I'S M)IX/J = L S2IX Sl/J (e I's M)/JIX
IX/J IX/J
= + LS2IXSI/J (MTeys)lX/J = S2 (e"}'s)IMTe"}'sSl,
IX/J
with the minus sign following the second equal sign arising from the
fermionic nature of these spinors. In Section 5.4 we found that the 16
covariant matrices formed from Dirac matrices satisfy
M = 1, I'SI'", I's (26.A.5)
M = 1'", [1'", I'v ]
where CC is the matrix
CC = 1'2/1 = el'S = (~e ~). (26.A.6)
It follows that
(M ) _ { +(S2 Ms t) M = 1, I'sI'P' I's (26.A.7)
Sl S2   (M)
S2 Sl M = 1'", [1'", I'v]
In particular, setting Sl = S2 = s, we find that
51'"S = 5 [1'", I'v]s = 0, (26.A.8)
so the only bilinear covariants formed from a single Majorana spinor s
are 5 s, 51'sI'" s, and 51'S s.
In considering the form of the most general superfields, we need to
have expressions for the products of two or more Majorana spinors. For
two spinors, we recall that any 4 x 4 matrix may be expanded as a sum of
the 16 covariant matrices 1,1'", [I'P' I'v], YSl'p, I's. Lorentz invariance tells
us that for the matrix SIX 5/J this expansion must take the form
S5 = ks (5S) + kv 1'" (51''' s) + kT [1'", I'v] (5 [1''', I'V] S)
+kA I'SI'" (51'SI''' s) + k p Ys (51'S s) ,
Appendix Majorana Spinors 109
where the ks are constants to be determined. Eq. (26.A.8) shows that we
may take kv = kT = O. The remaining coefficients may be calculated by
mUltiplying on the right with 1, 1'51''', and 1'5 and taking the trace, which
gives ks = 1/4, kA = +1/4. and kp = 1/4. In this way we find that
S5=  i(5 s) + i 1'51'" (51'51''' S)  hs (51'S s) . (26.A.9)
By multiplying on the right with e1's and using Eq. (26.A.4), we may put
this in the form
sa.sp = He1's)a.p (5s) + i(1'"e)a.p (51'51''' S) + ~ ea.p (51'ss), (26.A.I0)
or, equivalently,
sa.sp = He1's)a.p (sTeyss) + i(1'"e)a.p (sTey" s) + ~ ea.p (sTes). (26.A.ll)
Now consider the product sa.spSy of three components of a Majorana
spinor s. We can divide s into left and righthanded parts
s = SL + SR , SL = HI + 1's)s , SR = HI 1's)s . (26.A.12)
Each of SL and SR has only two independent components, so since the
square of any fermionic cnumber vanishes, we have SLa.SLpSLy = 0 and
SRa.SRpSRy = 0 for all a, fl, and 1', and therefore
sa.spsy = SLa.SLpSRy + SLa.SRpSLy + SRa.SLpSLy + L ++ R,
with 'L ++ R' denoting the sum of previous terms with labels Land R
interchanged. To evaluate this expression, we multiply Eq. (26.A.ll) by
suitable factors of (1 + 1'5)/2, and find
SLa.SLP = He(1 + 1's)]a.P (sIesL).
If we now multiply this with SRy, since (SkesR) SRy = 0 we can drop the
label L on the spinors in the bilinear (sIesL):
SLa.SLP SRy = He(1 + 1's)]a.P (sTes)SRy.
The same arguments also yield
SRa.SRpSLy = He(I1's)]a.p (sTe S) SLy .
Adding the sum of these two expressions to the same quantity with y
replaced with a or fl yields finally
sa.spSy = i (sTes) [ea.p Sy  (ers)a.p (1'Ss)y  eay sp
+(e1's)ay (1'ss)p + epy Sa.  (e1's)py (1'ss)a.]. (26.A.13)
To calculate the products of four Majorana spinor components, we note
that (sTes) contains only terms with two SLS or two SRS, so
(sTes)sysO = (sTes)[SRySRO + SLySU] .
110 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
Using Eq. (26.A.ll) to c~valuate the sum in square brackets, and noting
that
(sTes)(STerss) = (sIesd(s~esR)  (s~esR)(sIesd = 0,
we find that
(sTes)sysO = j e yo(sTes)2 . (26.A.14)
MUltiplying Eq. (26.A.l3) with So therefore yields the result
l~ (sTes)
2
sa.spSySo = [ea.p eyo  (e')'s)a.p (e')'s)yo  ea:y epo
+(e')'s)a:y (ers)po + epy eaa  (e')ls)py (e')'s)aa] . (26.A.15)
Any product of five components of s vanishes, so this completes the list
of formulas for products of components of a Majorana spinor.
We can use these formulas to derive some additional relations that will
be useful in dealing with superfields. By contracting Eq. (26.A.13) with
(e')'s)PY and (e')l/l)py, we find
Sa. (5 s) = (')15 s)a. (5 ')15 s) (26.A.l6)
and
Sa. (5')1S')ll's) = (')1/1 s)a.(5')1S s) . (26.A.17)
From Eqs. (26.A.16) and (26.A.l7) we may derive 'Fierz' identities
(5s)2 = (5')1ss)2 , (5')1S')l/ls) (5')1S')lv s) = '1/1V (5')1ss)2. (26.A.18)
Also, Eq. (26.A.14) may be put in a covariant form
(26.A.19)
It will also be useful to record the reality properties of bilinear products
of Majorana spinors. For any pair of Majorana spinors Sl, S2 satisfying
the phase convention (26.A.l), Eqs. (26.A.2) and (26.A.4) give
(Sl M S2) = (sIers M si) = (SI fJ ')Is M fJ ')Is S2) .
(The minus sign in the middle expression arises from reversing the inter
change of Sl and S2 that occurs when we take the complex conjugate.) But
Eqs. (5.4.40) and (26.A.6) give fJe')'s')l:fJe')'s = ')1/1' so
fJ ')Is M fJ ')Is = { +~ M
M
=
=
1, ')II" [')1/1' ')1/1]
')11'')15, ')15
(26.A.20)
and therefore
(M ). _ { +(Sl Ms 2) M = 1, ')1/1' [')1/1' ')1/1] (26.A.21)
Sl S2  (M)
 SI S2 M = ')1/1')15 , ')15
Problems 111
Finally, we mention that any spinor u may be written in terms of a pair
of Majorana spinors s+ as
(26.A.22)
where
s+ = ~ (u  fJEI'Su') , (26.A.23)
To check that s are Majorana spinors satisfying Eq. (26.A.2), it is only
necessary to recall that fJEI'S is real, and that (fJe'YS)2 = 1.
Problems
1. Using the direct technique of Section 26.1 in the case of N = 2
supersymmetry, find the super symmetry transformation rules of the
massive field supermultiplet with just one Majorana spinor field and
two complex scalars.
2 Calculate the component fields of a timereversed superfield
r 1S(x,8)T
in terms of the components of the superfield S(x,8). What sort of
superfield do we get by the time reversal of a leftchiral superfield?
Of a linear superfield?
3. Consider the N = 1 supersymmetric theory of a single leftchiral su
perfield <1>. In superfield notation, list all the terms of dimensionality
5 involving <I> and/or <1>' that might be added to the Lagrangian
density.
4. Consider the theory of three leftchiral scalar superfields <1>1, ~, and
<1>3, with a conventional kinematic term, and with a superpotential
/(<1>1, <1>2, <1>3) = <1>1 <I>~ + <1>2 (~ + a) ,
where a is a nonzero real constant. Show that this is a theory with
spontaneously broken supersymmetry. Find the minimum value of
the potential. Express the field of the goldstino in terms of the
fermionic components of <1>1, <1>2, and <1>3.
5. Find all the components of the current superfield for the action
(26.6.9), in terms of the components of the leftchiral superfields <l>n
and derivatives of the superpotential / and the Kahler potential K.
112 26 Supersymmetric Field Theories
6. Check that the supersymmetry current given by Eqs. (26.7.18) and
(26.7.10) is related to the wcomponent of the superfield (26.7.21) by
Eq. (26.7.20).
References
1. A. Salam and J. Strathdee, Nucl. Phys. B76,477 (1974). This article
is reprinted in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed. (North HollandjWorld
Scientific, Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987).
2. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B70, 13 (1974). This article is
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
3. L. O'Raifeartaigh, Nucl. Phys. B96, 331 (1975). This article is
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
4. F. A. Berezin, The Method of Second Quantization (Academic Press,
New York, 1966).
5. J. Iliopoulos and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B76, 310 (1974); S. Ferrara
and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B87, 207 (1975). These articles are
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
6. This section follows the approach of S. Ferrara and B. Zumino, Ref.
5.
7. X. Gracia and J. Pons, J. Phys. A25, 6357 (1992). I am grateful
to J. Gomis for suggesting the use of the equation matching the
coefficients of qn.
7a. M. Grisaru, in Recent Developments in Gravitation  Cargese 1978,
M. U:vy and S. Deser, eds. (Plenum Press, New York, 1979): 577.
8. B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. 87B, 203 (1979). This article is reprinted in
Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
9. P. Griffiths and J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry (Wiley,
New York, 1978): 109. I thank D. Freed for telling me of this
application of the general theorem.
27
Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
The successful theories of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions
described in the first two volumes are all gauge theories. In order to see
how simple supersymmetry may make contact with reality, we must there
fore consider how to construct actions that satisfy both supersymmetry
and gauge invariance. 1
27.1 G3lug~Invariant Actions for Chiral Superfields
Consider a set of Abelian or nonAbelian gauge transformations that leave
the supersymmetry generator Q invariant. (For simple supersymmetry
there is just one Majorana spinor super symmetry generator, which can
only furnish a trivial representation of any semisimple gauge group.)
Each component field in a supermultiplet must transform in the same
way under such gauge transformations. In particular, for a leftchiral
superfield we have
4Jn(x) + I: [exp (iLtAAA(X)] 4Jm(x) ,
m A nm
lPndx) + L [exp (iLtAAA(X)] lPmdx) , (27.1.1)
m A nm
fFn(x) + L [exp (iL tAAA(X)] fFm(x) ,
m A nm
tA
where are Hermitian matrices representing the generators of the gauge
algebra, and AA(x) are real functions of xl' that parameterize a finite
gauge transformation. (We are using the same notation for gauge trans
formations as in Section 15.1, except that in order to avoid confusion with
Dirac indices we label the gauge generators and gauge transformation
parameters with the letters A, B, etc. instead of IX, fl, etc.)
The leftchiral superfield (26.3.11) involves derivatives of some of
the component fields, so its transformation is more complicated than
113
114 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
Eq. (27.1.1). However, Eq. (26.3.21) shows that the superfield does not
involve derivatives if expressed in terms of 8L and the variable x+ defined
by Eq. (26.3.23). It therefore has the transformation property
<l>n(x,8) + L[ex
m
p (iLtAAA(X+)] <l>m(x,8).
A nm
(27.1.2)
If a term in the action depends only on leftchiral superfields, and not
their derivatives or complex conjugates, like the term J d4x [((<1], in
Eq. (26.3.30), then it (and its complex conjugate) will be invariant under the
local transformation (27.1.2) if it is invariant under global transformations
with AA(x) independent of xl'. The need for introducing gauge fields in
renormalizable theories of chiral superfields arises only in the Dterms,
which involve both <l>n and <I>~. Because the matrices tA are Hermitian,
the Hermitian adjoint of Eq. (27.1.2) is
<I>!(x,8) + L <l>l(x, 8)
m
[exp ( i L
A
tAAA(x+>")].
~
(27.1.3)
If it were not for the difference between AA(x+r = AA(x_) and AA(x+),
this would just say that <l>t transforms according to the representation of
the gauge group that is contragredient to the representation furnished by
<1>, and any function of <I> and <l>t that is invariant under global gauge
transformations would also be invariant under local gauge transforma
tions. Because x+ and x_ are different, we must introduce a gauge
connection matrix r nm(x, 8), with the transformation property
r(x,8) + exp (+i L tAAA(x+)*) r(x,8) exp (i L tAAA(x+) . (27.1.4)
A A
Then by mUltiplying <l>t on the right with r we obtain a superfield that
transforms as
[<I>t(x,8)r(x,8)] + L [<I>t(x,8)r(x,8)] [exP(iLtAAA(x+)] ,
n m m A ~
(27.1.5)
so that any globally gaugeinvariant function constructed from <I> and
<l>tr (and not their derivatives or complex conjugates) will also be locally
gaugeinvariant. One obvious example is the gaugeinvariant version
(<I>tr<lD of the Dterm in the Lagrangian constructed in Section 26.4.
Any r(x,8) that transforms as in Eq. (27.1.4) will allow us to construct
gaugeinvariant Lagrangians of chiral superfields. The choice is not
unique; if r transforms as in Eq. (27.1.4), and we mUltiply on the right
with any leftchiral superfield Y L with the transformation rule
h(x,8) + exp (i L tAAA(x+) h(x, 8) exp (iL tAAA(x+) ,
A A
27.1 GaugeInvariant Actions for Chiral Superfields 115
then we obtain a new gauge connection that also satisfies Eq. (27.1.4).
One simplification is to take r(x,8) Hermitian:
r t (x,8) = r(x,8). (27.1.6)
This is always possible if there is any r(x,8) that satisfies Eq. (27.1.4),
for then by taking the Hermitian adjoint of Eq. (27.1.4) we easily see
that rt(x,8) transforms in the same way as r(x,8), so if r(x,8) is not
Hermitian then we can replace it with its Hermitian part (r + rt)/2
(or, if that vanishes, by its antiHermitian part (r  rt) /2i.) Another
simplification of great physical importance is to express r(x,8) in terms
of fields whose gauge transformation properties do not depend on the
specific representation tA of the gauge algebra under which the chiral
superfield <I>(x,8) transforms, so that these fields can be used to form
a suitable matrix r(x,8) for chiral superfields that transform according
to any representation of the gauge group. For this purpose, it is useful
to recall the BakerHausdorff formula, which states that, for arbitrary
matrices a and b,
eai=exp(a+b+ Ha,b] + A[a,[a,b]] + A[b,[b,a]]+ ... ), (27.1.7)
where ' ... ' denotes higherorder terms that can be written as multiple
commutators of as and bs, like the second and thirdorder terms that are
shown explicitly. It follows from this that for any representation of a Lie
algebra, we have
exp ( L ~tA) exp ( L bAtA) = exp (LfA(a. b) tA) , (27.1.8)
A A A
where
fA(a,b)=~+0+ !iLCABcaBbc Ii L cABcCcDEaBaDbE
BC BCDE
I~ L cABCCcDEbBbDaE + ... , (27.1.9)
BCDE
which depends on the Lie algebra through its structure constants CABC,
defined as usual by
[tB, tc] = iL CABC tA,
A
but does not depend on the particular representation furnished by the tAo
We will therefore take r(x,8) in the form
r(x,8)=exp(2~>AVA(X,8), (27.1.10)
where VA(x,8) are a set of real superfields (so that r is Hermitian), not
depending on the representation of the gauge algebra furnished by the tAo
116 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
We can achieve an important further simplification by noting an addi
tional symmetry of supersymmetric gauge theories. If some function of
<I> and <l>tr is invariant under global gauge transformations, then it will
automatically be invariant not only under the local gauge transforma
tions (27.1.2)(27.1.4), but also under the larger group of extended gauge
transformations
<l>ndx,8) + L [exp (i L tAnA(x, 8)] <l>mdx, 8) (27.1.11 )
m A nm
and
r(x,8) + exp (iLt AnA(x,8) r(x,8) exp (+iLt AnA(X,8)*) ,
A A
(27.1.12)
where nA(x, 8) is an arbitrary leftchiral superfield  that is, an arbitrary
function of 8L as well as x+. Under this transformation,
(27.1.13)
where ' ... ' denotes terms arising from the commutators in Eq. (27.1.7),
which are of first or higher order in gauge coupling constants. As a
generalleftchiral superfield, n may be written in the form (26.3.11)
(27.1.14)
in which WA(x) and ,#"A(x) are arbitrary complex functions of xl', and
we introduced Majorana spinors wA(x) defined so that the lefthanded
spinor components of the superfields are HI + 'Ys)wA(x). Using the com
plex conjugation properties (26.A.21) of Majorana bilinears, the complex
conjugate of Eq. (27.1.14) gives
(27.1.15)
We write the real superfields VA(JC,8) in terms of component fields as in
27.1 GaugeInvariant Actions for Chiral Superjields 117
Eq. (26.2.10):
VA(X, e) = CA(x)  i(O 1'5 wA(x)  ~ (01'5 e)MA(x)  ~ (0 e)NA(x)
+ ~ (01'51''' e) V:(x)  i(O 1'5 e) (0 [JeA(x) + ~ ~wA(x)] )
 ~ (01'5 e) + ~ DCA(X)
2
(DA(X) , (27.1.16)
where CA(x), MA(x), NA(x), and V:(x) are all real, and wA(x) and JeA(x)
are Majorana spinors. Using Eqs. (27.1.14)(27.1.16) in Eq. (27.1.13),
we find that the component fields of the gauge superfield undergo the
extended gauge transformation
CA(x) + CA(x)  1m WA(x) + ... ,
1
wA(x) + wA(x) + J2
wA(x) + ... ,
V:(x) + V:(x) + o"Re WA(x) + ... ,
MA(x) + MA(x)  Re ,#"A(x) + ... , (27.1.17)
NA(x) + NA(x) + 1m ,#"A(x) + ... ,
JeA(x) + JeA(x) + ... ,
DA(x) + DA(x) + ... ,
where again '... ' denotes terms that arise from the structure constants in
Eq. (27.1.9) and that are therefore proportional to one or more factors
of gauge coupling constants. We can use such an extended gauge trans
formation to put the gauge superfields into a convenient form, known as
WessZwnino gauge, 1 in which
CA(x) = wA(x) = MA(x) = NA(x) = 0, (27.1.18)
so that
(27.1.19)
To accomplish this to zeroth order in the coupling constants, it is only
necessary to set 1m WA(x) = CA(x), wA(x) =  J2w A(x), and ,#"A(x) =
MA(x)  iNA(x). For Abelian gauge theories, in which the structure
constants vanish, this ends our task. For nonAbelian gauge theories it is
necessary to add terms to 1m WA(x), wA(x), and ,#"A(X) of first order in
gauge coupling constants to cancel the terms arising from commutators
of zerothorder terms, then add terms to 1m WA(x), wA(x), and ,#"A(x)
118 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
of second order in gauge coupling constants to cancel the terms arising
from commutators of firstorder terms with zerothorder terms, and so
on. It is not easy to calculate the series of terms in 1m WA(X), wA(x), and
,#"A(x) needed to satisfy the gauge conditions (27.1.18) to all orders in
gauge couplings, but there is no need  the important thing is that it is
possible.
Inspection of the transformation rules (26.2.11 )(26.2.14) shows that the
WessZumino gauge condition (27.1.18) is not invariant under supersym
metry transformations unless V;= ..1.A = 0, and the condition ..1.A = is
not super symmetric unless also DA = 0, in which case the whole superfield
vanishes. Once we adopt WessZumino gauge, the action is no longer
invariant under either general extended gauge transformations or under
supersymmetry, but it is invariant under super symmetry transformations,
which take us out of WessZumino gauge, followed by suitable extended
gauge transformations that take us back to WessZumino gauge. (We
will go into this explicitly in Section 27.8.) As we shall now see, it is
also invariant under the ordinary gauge transformations (27.1.2)(27.1.4),
which preserve WessZumino gauge.
With the gauge superfield satisfying the WessZumino gauge condition
(27.1.18), it becomes relatively easy to calculate its behavior under ordinary
infinitesimal gauge transformations. In this case, QA(x+) are leftchiral
superfields of the form (26.3.11), but with no 1pL  or ff components, and
with cPcomponents given by real infinitesimal functions AA(x):
To calculate the product of exponentials in the transformation rule (27.1.4),
we use a version of the BakerHausdorff formula:
exp(a)exp(X)exp(b) = exp [x + Lx (ba)+(Lx cothLx ) (b +a)+ ... ] ~
(27.1.21)
where a, b, and X are arbitrary matrices, Lx is the operator
Lx . f = HX, f]' (27.1.22)
and ' ... ' here denotes terms of second and higher order in a and/or b. In
our case we have
b+a = 2L tA 1m AA(x+) = i(eYSY/lo) L tA i)ll AA(x) ,
A A
ba = 2iLtAReAA(x+) = 2iLtA [AA(X) !(eYSo)20AA(X)] ,
A A 8
27.1 GaugeInvariant Actions for Chiral Superfields 119
x = 2 L tA VA(x, 8) = 2 L tA [~ (0 1'51'1' 8) V:(x)
A A
i(O 1'5 8) (OJeA(x)  ! (0 1'5 8)2 DA(X)] .
Now, every term in X involves at least one factor of 8L and at least one
factor of 8R, while a + b has just one factor of 8L and one factor of 8R,
so we can drop any terms in Lx coth Lx of second or higher order in
Lx. Since Lx coth Lx is an even function of Lx, this means that we can
replace it with its term of zeroth order in Lx, which is just unity. Also,
we may drop the term in b  a proportional to (01'58)2, since when acted
on by Lx it would yield at least three factors of either 8L or 8R. Thus the
argument of the exponential on the righthand side of Eq. (27.1.21) may
be replaced with
X + HX,b  a] + b+a = 2 L tA [VA(X' 8) + L CABC SB(X, 8) AC(x)
A BC
+ ~i(01'5I'/J8 )a/JAA(x)] .
Thus for infinitesimal gauge transformations, the transformation rule
(27.1.4) yields
VA(x, 8) + VA(x, 8) +L CABC SB(x, 8) Ac(x) + ~i(01'5I'/J8 )a/J AA(x) .
BC
(27.1.23)
It is important to note that under ordinary gauge transformations, a
gauge superfield in WessZumino gauge remains in WessZumino gauge.
In terms of the component fields in Eq. (27.1.19), Eq. (27.1.23) reads
V:(x) + L CABC V:(x) Ac(x) + a~AA(x) , (27.1.24)
BC
JeA(X) + L CABC JeB(x) Ac(x) , (27.1.25)
BC
DA(X) + L CABC DB (x) AC(x). (27.1.26)
BC
We recognize Eq. (27.1.24) as the usual YangMills gauge transformation
rule (15.1.9) of a gauge field, while Eqs. (27.1.25) and (27.1.26) tell us that
the fields JeA(x) and DA(x) transform as 'matter' fields that belong to the
adjoint representation of the gauge group. The Majorana spinors JeA are
known as gaugino fields, while the real scalars DA will tum out to be
another set of auxiliary fields.
120 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
Next we must evaluate the matrix r that is needed in constructing
gaugeinvariant functions of chiral superfields. Because all terms with
more than four factors of 8 vanish, the expansion of the exponential is
very simple in WessZumino gauge:
r(x,8) = exp (2 LtA VA(x,8)
A
= 1  i(ih5 1'" 8) L tA V:(x)
A
~ (0 1'5 1'" 8) (0 1'51'v 8) L tA tB V:(x) V:(x)
AB
+2i (01'58) LtA (0 JeA(x) + ~(o 1'5 8)2 L tA DA(x) .
A A
We can construct a gaugeinvariant density by multiplying this on the
right with a column vector ofleftchiral superfields of the form (26.3.11):
1
<l>n(x,8) = cPn(x)  Ji(01fJnL(x) + YF n(x) (0 ( ~ 1'5) 8)
+~ (01'51',,8 )O"cPn(X)  ~(01'58) (0 ~1fJndx)
81 (81'5 8)2 cPn(x),
and multiplying on the left with the column
1
<l>n(x,8)* = cP~(x)  Ji( 1fJndX)8) + YF~(x) (0 ( ~ 1'5) 8)
~ (01'51',,8) o"cP~(x)  ~(01'58) 0" (1fJndx)I'''8)
81 (_81'5 8)2 cPn(x).
*
The term in this product of fourth order in 8 is
[<I>tr<l>]04 = ~(01'58)2 { [cPtocP] + [(OcPt)cP] }
+(01'5 8) { [(1fJL 8) (OI'''O,,1fJL)] + [((0,,1fJdl'''8) (01fJL)] }
+~(0(11'5)8)(0(1 +1'5)8) [YFt YF]
~(01'51'''8) (01'5I' V8) [o"cP t OV]
27.1 GaugeInvariant Actions for Chiral Supeifields 121
~(01'5y1'8)(01'5I'V8) ~V:{ [cfJttAovcfJ]  [(ovcfJt)t AcfJ ]}
~(01'5y1'8)(01'5I'v 8) L V: V: [cfJt tAtB cfJ]
AB
2i (01'51'1' 8) LV: [(1fJL 8) tA (0 1fJL)]
A
2iJ"i (0 1'58) L [(1fJL 8) tA (OJeA)cfJ]
A
2iJ"i (01'5 8) L [cfJt (JeA 8) tA (01fJL)]
A
+~(01'58)2 LDA [cfJttAcfJ] ,
A
in which we use square brackets to indicate scalar products in the flavor
indices n, m, and continue to use round brackets to indicate scalar products
in Dirac indices. Just as in Section 26.4, we may use the identities
(26.A.17H26.A.19) to put all 8 dependence in the form of an overall
factor (01'58)2:
[<I>tr<l>]04 = (01'5 8)2 {  HcfJtocfJ]  H(OcfJt)cfJ]
+H(1fJL I'I' OI'1fJL)]  ~ [((ol'1fJdl'l'1fJL)]
H~t ~] + HOl'cfJt ol'cfJ]
+~ L V: [cfJt tA ol'cfJ]  ~ L V: [(ol'cfJ t )tA cfJ]
A A
+~ LV:VBI'[cfJt tAtB cfJ]  ~ LV: [(1fJAl'l'tA 1fJA)]
AB A
 ~ L[(1fJLtAJe A)cfJ] + ~L[cfJt(JeAtA1fJL)]
,,2 A ,,2 A
+~ ~DA [ttAcfJ]}.
The Dterm is the coefficient of  H01'58)2 minus !O acting on the 8
independent term, which for [<I>tr<l>] is [cfJtcfJ], so
[<I>t r <1>] D = 2 [0l'cfJ t ol'cfJ]
[(1fJLI'I'OI'1fJL)] + WOl'lPdl'l'1fJL)] +2[~t~]
122 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
2i LV: [cfJ t tA ol'cfJ] + 2i LV: [(ol'cfJ t) tA cfJ]
A A
2LV:VBI'[cfJtt AtBcfJ] +2iLV: [(1pAl'l'tA1pA)]
AB A
A
+2iJ2 L [(1pLtAJe )cfJ] 2iJ2L [cfJt (JeAtA1pL)]
A A
2LDA [ttAcfJ] .
A
To see that this is gaugeinvariant, we note that it may be written as
~ [<I>t r <I>]D =  [(Dl'cfJ)t Dl'cfJ]
~[(1pL/'I'DI'1pL)] + ~[((DI'1pL)yI'1pL)] + [fft ff]
+iJ2 L [(1pL tA JeA)cfJ]  iJ2L [cfJt (JeA tA 1pL)]
A A
 LDA [cfJttAcfJ] , (27.1.27)
A
where DI' is the gaugeinvariant derivative (15.1.10):
DI'1pL = ol'1pLiLtA V:1pL, Dl'cfJ = Ol'cfJiLtA V:cfJ. (27.1.28)
A A
Eq. (27.1.27) is thus a suitable gaugeinvariant kinematic Lagrangian
for the scalar and spinor components of a leftchiral superfield, now
supplemented with Yukawa couplings of gaugino fields to the scalar and
spinor components of chiral superfields as well as terms involving auxiliary
fields fji' n and D A.
27.2 GaugeInvariant Action for Abelian Gauge Superfields
We must now consider how to construct a gaugeinvariant super symmetric
action for the gauge superfields VA(x,8) that contain the gauge fields
V:(x). In order to motivate this construction we will first consider the
case of a single Abelian gauge field (dropping the superscript A), and then
return to the general case in the next section.
In an Abelian gauge theory like quantum electrodynamics, the gauge
invariant field constructed from VI'(x) is the familiar fieldstrength tensor
(27.2.1)
The super symmetry transformation rule for il'v(x) is then given by the
27.2 GaugeInvariant Action for Abelian Gauge Supeifields 123
transformation rule (26.2.15) for V,,(x) as
(jf"v = (ii(a"yv  avy,,)A) . (27.2.2)
Eq. (26.2.16) gives the transformation rule for A(X) as
(jA = (U"v[y", yV] + iYSD) IX, (27.2.3)
while Eq. (26.2.17) gives the transformation rule for D(x):
(jD = i ( ii Ys ~A) . (27.2.4)
None of this depends on whether or not the superfield S(x) is taken to be
in WessZumino gauge. We see that the fields f"v(x), A(X), and D(x) form
a complete supersymmetry multiplet.
It is not hard to construct a suitable kinematic Lagrangian density
for the fields of this supermultiplet. The only Lorentzinvariant, parity
conserving, and gaugeinvariant functions of these fields with dimension
ality four are f"vf"v, 1 ~A, and D2. We can make V" a conventionally
normalized vector field by taking the coefficient of f"vf"v to be ~, so we
may tentatively take the kinematic Lagrangian density as
o?gallge =  !f"vf"V  c.l ~A)  c D ,
2
D
with coefficients c.< and CD to be determined from the condition that
J o?gallgeifX is super symmetric. Using Eqs. (27.2.2H27.2.4), an infinites
imal supersymmetry transformation changes the operators in the La
grangian by
(j(f"vf"v) = 2f"v(ii(Yva" y"av)A),
(j(l~A) =2(ii[+U"v[y", yV] +iYSD] ~A),
(jD 2 = 2iD ( iiys ~A) ,
in which we drop derivative terms that do not contribute to the variation
of the action. In order to see how these terms cancel, it is necessary to use
an identity for gamma matrices'
[y" , yV] yP = 2,,"Pyv + 2"vPy"  2iE"VP"y"yS . (27.2.5)
The term iE"VP"f"v(iiY"YsapA) does not contribute to J ifx (jO?, because
integrating by parts yidds a contribution proportional to E"VP" apf"v, which
To derive this, use the fact that any 4 x 4 matrix may be expressed as a linear
combination of the 16 independent covariant matrices described in Section 5.4, which
in our case is limited by Lorentz invariance and space inversion invariance to the
terms shown here. The coefficients of these terms can be calculated by giving /lV p the
values 121 and 123.
124 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
vanishes for an ffJ v of the form (27.2.1). This identity then allows us to
rewrite the variation of the Aterm as
The cancellation of terms proportional to ffJ VA requires that C;. = 1/2,
while the cancellation of terms proportional to DA requires that CD = c;.,
so the supersymmetric Lagrangian density takes the form
(27.2.6)
This shows that with VfJ canonically normalized, the field A related to
VfJ by the transformation rules (27.2.2) and (27.2.3) is also canonically
normalized.
In addition, for Abelian gauge theories there is a superrenormalizable
term, known as a FayetIliopoulos term: 2
(27.2.7)
with ; an arbitrary constant. Its variation under a supersymmetry trans
formation is shown by Eq. (27.2.4) to be a derivative, so that it yields
another supersymmetric term in the action. As we will see in Section 27.5,
the presence of such a term can provide a mechanism for the spontaneous
breakdown of supersymmetry.
Both for its own interest and as a tool in constructing supersymmetric
interactions involving the fields ffJ v, ..1., and D, it is interesting to ask what
sort of superfield has these as component fields. Somewhat surprisingly,
it turns out to be a spinor superfield WIX(x), with component fields (in the
notation of Eq. (26.2.10 given by
C(IX)(X) = AIX(X) ,
W(IX)P(X) = !i(yfJyVI')IX/fJv(x) + (YsE)IXpD(x) ,
V(IX)fJ(X) =  iOfJ (Ys..1.(x),. , (27.2.8)
M(IX)(x) =  i (~YSA(X),. , N(IX)(x) =  (~A(X) IX '
A(IX)p(X) = D(IX)(x) = 0 .
(The subscript IX on these component fields is put inside parentheses to
emphasize that it labels the whole superfield.) It is straightforward to
use Eqs. (27.2.2){27.2.4) to check directly that the superfield components
given by Eq. (27.2.8) do transform as in Eqs. (26.2.11H26.2.17).
Inserting the component fields (27.2.8) in Eq. (26.2.10) and using
27.2 GaugeInvariant Action for Abelian Gauge Superfields 125
Eq. (26.A.5), we find that the superfield W" takes the form
W,,(x, 0) = [.A.(X) + iyPyVO!pv(x)iYsOD(x) !(OTEO) ~Ys.A.(x)
+!(OTrySO) ~.A.(x) + !(OTryPO)YSOp.A.(x)
 {( OT EO )YsyPyVy/TO O/T!PV(x)
+F(OTEO)y/TOO/TD(x) t(OTEO)2 0 .A.(X)],.. (27.2.9)
As we showed in Section 26.3, a superfield like this with zero .A. and D
components is chiral  that is, it is the sum of leftchiral and rightchiral
superfields
W(x,O) = WL(x, 0) + WR(x, 0) . (27.2.10)
Here the left and rightchiral superfields are simply the projections of W
on the subspaces with Ys = +1 and Ys = 1, respectively:
WL(x, 0) = H1+ys)W(x,O)
= .A.L(x+) + !yPyV OL !pv(x+) + (OIEOL) ~.A.R(X+)  iOLD(x+) ,
(27.2.11)
WR(X,O) = Hiys)W(x,O)
= .A.R(X) + !yPyV OR !pv(x)  (O'kEOR) ~.A.L(x)  iORD(x_) ,
(27.2.12)
with x~ given by Eq. (26.3.23).
As we saw in Section 26.3, we can construct suitable Lagrangian densi
ties from the ff term of any scalar function of a leftchiral superfield, plus
its Hermitian adjoint. The simplest scalar function of the leftchiral super
field (27.2.11) is 2.:"p E"p WL/X WLP. To calculate the ff term, we note that,
when expressed as a function of OL and x+, the term in 'L,,,p E"p WL/X WLP
of second order in 0L is
[I:>"pWL/XWLP]/p. = (OIEOL)[ 2(.A.I(x)E~.A.R(X) +D 2(x)]
"p L
+ 116 (Odyp , yV] [yP, y/T]8L) !pv(x)!P/T(x) .
(The argument of the fields here can be taken as x P rather than ~ because
the difference would yield terms that contain at least three factors of OL,
which therefore vanish.) Lorentz invariance together with the fact that
(s[YP' Yv]s) and (s[yp, Yv]yss) vanish for any Majorana fermion s tell us
126 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
that the bilinear (8dyP, yV] [yP, yU]8d must be proportional to a linear
combination of (8L8 L)("PP"VU  "PU"VP) and (8L8de PVptT . We can find the
coefficients by giving J1.Vp(J the values 1212 or 1230, and in this way we
find that
(8L [yP, yV] [yP, yU]8L) = 4(
8L8L) [ _ "PP"vu + "pu"vp + iePvPu ] .
The ffterm is the coefficient of (8 L 8L), so
 [~;>"/l WLa WL/l to = 2(.A.R ~.A.R)  ~fpvfPV + ~ePvpu fpvipu + D2 .
(27.2.13)
Eq. (26.A.21) shows that (.A. ~.A.) is real, while (X ~Y5.A.) is imaginary, so the
real part of Eq. (27.2.13) yields the Lagrangian (27.2.6) for the gauge and
gaugino fields
 ~ Re [2: e"/l WLa WL/l to =  ~ (.A. ~.A.)  ~fpviPV + ~D2. (27.2.14)
"/l
The physical significance of the imaginary part will be discussed in a more
general context in the next section.
There is another way to derive the form of the spinor superfield,
which will turn out to provide a more convenient way of deriving the
components of the gauge superfield in nonAbelian gauge theories. A
tedious but straightforward calculation shows that the gaugeinvariant
superfield (27.2.9) may be expressed in terms of the gauge superfield
(27.1.16) as
(27.2.15)
where !?)" is the superderivative introduced in Eq. (26.2.26):
0 P0 0 P 0
!?)" = ~(Y5e)"/l08/l  (y 8)" 0Jd' =  oe"  (y 8)" oxP .
This result might have been obtained (aside from the normalization factor)
by noting that the function (27.2.15) has the desired property of being
a gaugeinvariant chiral spinor superfield. First, note that Eq. (27.2.15)
is a superfield, because it is formed by acting on the superfield V with
superderivatives. Also, it follows from the anticommutation of the !?)s that
the product of any three or more !?)LS or three or more !?)RS vanishes, so
that
(!?)Te!?))!?) = (!?)Ie!?)L)!?)R + (!?)ke!?)R)!?)L. (27.2.16)
Because !?)L(!?)I!?)d = !?)R(!?)ke!?)R) = 0, the superfield (27.2.15) is cbiral,
27.3 GaugeInvariant Action for General Gauge Superfields 127
with
WL,,(x,8) = ~(.~'kE~R)~L<X V(x,8), WR,,(x,8) = ~(~IE~L)~R" V(x, 8)
(27.2.17)
Finally, we can show that (27.2.15) is invariant under the generalized gauge
transformation (27.1.13), which for a single Abelian gauge superfield is
simply
V(x,8) + Vex, 8) + ~ [n(x, 8)  n(x, 8)] , (27.2.18)
where n(x,8) is an arbitrary leftchiral superfield. Since ~ Ln = 0, the
change in WL" is proportional to (~'kE~R)~L"n. But ~Rn = 0 and
[(~'kE~R), ~L<X] = 2 [(1 +Ys) ~~RL,
so the change in W L<X vanishes. A similar argument shows that W R" is also
gaugeinvariant. (The work of checking Eq. (27.2.15) is greatly reduced
by using this gaugeinvariance property to put V(x,8) in WessZumino
gauge.)
The chiral superfields (27.2.11) and (27.2.12) are evidently not of the
most general form for left and rightchiral superfields. To put the con
straints satisfied by these superfields in a manifestly supersymmetric form,
we note by using the anticommutation relation (26.2.30) that
E"P~L<X( ~'kE~R )~LP = 2~R"~LP (E(1 + ys) ~) P" + (~'kE~R) (~IE~L)
= E"P~R,,(~IE~L)~RP' (27.2.19)
From Eq. (27.2.17) it follows then that WL and WR are related by the
constraint
(27.2.20)
It is straightforward to show that the most general chiral spinor superfields
satisfying Eq. (27.2.20) are of the form (27.2.11) and (27.2.12), with ffJ v
constrained to satisfy the 'Bianchi' identities EfJVPU opffJv = O.
27.3 GaugeInvariant Action for General Gauge Superfields
Our experience in the previous section with supersymmetric Abelian gauge
theories suggests immediately that in a general nonAbelian gauge theory
the kinematic Lagrangian for the fields V1(x), . 1.A(x), and DA(x) should
appear as part of the gaugeinvariant generalization of Eq. (27.2.6):
~l'gauge =  (L: f AfJvf~v  ! L (..1.A (P..1.)A) + !L DAD A . (27.3.1)
A A A
128 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
We are now using a basis for the Lie algebra with totally antisymmetric
structure constants, and we are consequently not preserving the distinction
between upper and lower group indices, writing all indices A, B, etc. as
subscripts. Also, f Apv is the gaugecovariant fieldstrength tensor
f AfJV = op VAv  Ov VAp +L CABC VBp VCv , (27.3.2)
BC
and DpA is the gaugecovariant derivative of the gaugino field, which in
the adjoint representation is
(DpA)A = OpAA +L CABC VBpAC . (27.3.3)
BC
The question is: does Eq. (27.3.1) yield a supersymmetric action?
Since the Lagrangian density (27.3.1) is manifestly gaugeinvariant, we
can test whether the action is supersymmetric in any convenient gauge.
To find out whether 152gauge is a derivative at some point XP, it is
convenient to adopt a specific version of WessZumino gauge in which
V~(X) = O. Then at X the changes in the component fields are given by
Eqs. (26.2.15H26.2.17) at x = X as
(27.3.4)
(27.3.5)
(27.3.6)
(We must set x P in these expressions equal to XP after calculating the
change under a supersymmetry transformation, not before.) Also, the
nonlinear terms in f~v are quadratic in the V s and therefore at x = X
have zero variation, so at x = X
(27.3.7)
With one exception, the terms in Eq. (27.3.1) and their transformations
under supersymmetry transformations are thus just a number of copies
(labelled by A) of the Abelian theory discussed in the previous section,
and therefore give a supersymmetric action. The one exception that might
disturb the supersymmetry of the action arises from the second term in
the gaugecovariant derivative (27.3.3) of the gaugino field:
2.v.v = ! L CABC( ..1.A rBAC) , (27.3.8)
ABC
27.3 GaugeInvariant Action for General Gauge Superjields 129
whose variation at x = X is
t52,uv =  fL CABC( ..tA(t5 rB)..tC) =  fL CABC (..tAYP..tC) (ayP..tB) .
ABC ABC
(27.3.9)
We can write the product of bilinears on the righthand side as the sum
of two terms
with
XABC = *L (..tA(1 + Y5)YP..tC) (ay P(1 + Y5)..tB) ,
YABC =}L (..tA(1 + Y5)YP..tC) (ay P(1 + Y5)..tB) .
By using standard Fierz identities and the anticommutativity of the spin or
fields, we have
(..tA(1 + Y5)YP..tB) (a(1 + Y5)YP..tC) = (..tA(1 + Y5)YP..tC) (a(1 + Y5)y P..tB) ,
(..tA(1 + Y5)YP..tB) (a(1 + Y5)YP..tC) = (..tc(1 + Y5)YP..tB) (a(1 + Y5)yP..tA) .
(To derive the first of these relations, we note that [(1 +Y5)Yp]ay [(1 +Y5)Y P]op
may be thought of as the rx/3 matrix element of a matrix depending on
15 and Y, and may therefore be expanded in a linear combination of l,.p,
Y~p, [y P, y"],.p, (Y5Y P),.p, and (Y5),.p, Because of the factors (1 + Y5), the only
term in the expansion is proportional to [(1 +Y5)Y P],.p, Lorentz invariance
and the presence of the other 1 + Y5 factor tell us that this expansion takes
the form
[(1 + Y5)Yp]ay [(1 + Y5)Y P]op = k[(1 + Y5)Yp],.p [(1 + Y5)Y P]oy .
To determine the proportionality constant k, we may contract both sides
with (Yv)y,. and find k = 1. The minus sign is cancelled by a minus sign
arising from the anticommutation of ..tc and a. The other Fierz identity
is proved in the same way, except that we also need to use the symmetry
property (26.A.7) for Majorana bilinears.) Hence XABC is symmetric under
interchange of B and C, while YABC is symmetric under interchange of A
and B. Since CABC is totally antisymmetric, both XABC and YABC make a
vanishing contribution to the sum in Eq. (27.3.9), leaving us t52,uv = 0,
so that Eq. (27.3.1) gives a supersymmetric action, as was to be shown.
We can understand why Eq. (27.3.1) gives a supersymmetric action by
identifying the superfield that has f Apv, ..tA, and D A as component fields.
Recall that under a generalized gauge transformation, the vector superfield
130 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
VA(X,O) has the transformation property (27.1.12):
exp (2~>A VA(X'O) +exp (i~>AnA(X'O)
x exp (2~?A VA(X,O) exp (+i~>An~(X'O) ,(27.3.10)
where nA(x,O) is a general leftchiral superfield. This is not a gauge
covariant transformation rule, because n~ =1= nA. To eliminate the factor
involving n~, we note that nAis a rightchiral superfield, so that ~LanA =
0, and therefore
exp (2~>A VA(X,O) ~L"exp (+2~>A VA(X,O)
+ exp (i~>AnA(X'O) exp (2~>A VA(X,O)
x ~La[ exp (+2~>A VA (X, 0) exp (+i~>AnA(X'O) ]. (27.3.11)
This is still not gaugecovariant, because the leftsuperderivative ~L" acts
on exp(+i2.: AtAn A(X,O as well as on exp (+22.:A tA VA(X,O). This is
eliminated if we follow the lead of the Abelian theory discussed in the
previous section, and define a spinor superfield
2 I>AWALa(X, 0) == LEfJY~RfJ~RY [exp (2L:>A VA(X,O)
A fJy A
X ~La exp ( +2 ~>A VA (X, 0) ] . (27.3.12)
Because the product of any three ~RS vanishes, WAL" is leftchiral
(27.3.13)
and because ~RfJ~Ry~LanA oc ~RonA = 0, WAL" is gaugecovariant in
the sense that, for a generalized gauge transformation,
L tA WAL,,(X, 0) + ~xp ( i L tAnA(X, 0) L tA WALa(X, 0)
A A A
X exp (+iLtAnA(X,O) . (27.3.14)
A
To calculate the spinor superfield at a point xfJ = XfJ, we can again
adopt a version of WessZumino gauge in which V A(X) = 0, and after a
27.3 GaugeInvariant Action for General Gauge Superfields 131
straightforward calculation find that in this gauge
WAL(X,O) = A.AL(X+) + 1y''y"OL (Op VAv (X+)  Ov VAP(X+)
+(OrEOL) ~A.RA(X+)  iOLD A(X+) .
Since WAL is gaugecovariant, at a general point in a general gauge it
must have the value
WAL(x,O) = A.AL(X+)+ ~yPyVOL fApv(X+) + (OrEOL )PA.RA(X+)iOLDA(X+).
(27.3.15)
From this, we can construct a Lorentz and gaugeinvariant ~term
bilinear in W
[LEIXpWALIXWALP]jO = L [ (A.A ~(IYs)A.A)  ~fAPvf~v
AIXP A
(27.3.16)
Just as in the previous section, the gaugeinvariant Lagrangian (27.3.1) is
obtained from the real part of this Fterm:
(27.3.17)
What about the imaginary part? This is given by
 Im[LEIXPWALlXWALP]jO = iL (A.A PYSA.A) + ~EpVPtT Lfrf~tT.
A~ A A
(27.3.18)
Eq. (26.A.7) and the anti symmetry of tlb.e structure constants show that
(A.A PYSA.A) = !Op(A.AyPYSA.A), so the first term is a total derivative, while
Eq. (23.5.4) tells us that the second term is a total derivative also. In
Abelian gauge theories, this means that a term like (27.3.18) would have
no effect. But as discussed in Sections 23.5 and 23.6, in nonAbelian gauge
thc~ories the existence of instanton solutions allows the density (27.3.18)
to have a nonvanishing integral over spacetime. We therefore must allow
for the possibility of a new term in the Lagrangian density
2
g0 ] ,
!i'{) = 16 2 Im [L EIXPWALIX WALP (27.3.19)
n AIXP jO
where 0 is a new real parameter, and g is a gauge coupling, which can
be conveniently defined for a simple gauge group so that if tA, tB, and
tc are in the 'standard' SU(2) subalgebra of the gauge algebra used in
calculating instanton effects, we have CABC = g EABC. With this definition
132 27 Super symmetric Gauge Theories
of the gauge coupling, Eq. (23.5.20) gives for simple gauge groups
J ctx EJ.lvpu L f~v f~u =
A
64n 2 v /g2 , (27.3.20)
where v = 0, +1, +2, ... is an integer, the winding number, which char
acterizes the topological class of the gauge field configuration. Thus for
instantons of winding number v, the Lagrangian density 20 contributes
a phase to path integrals, given by
[exp (i Jctx 20) L = exp(iv8), (27.3.21)
so the effects of 20 are periodic in 8, with period 2n.
It is often convenient to absorb a factor g into the gauge field, so that
the structure constants do not depend on g, and instead the Lagrangian
density for the gauge field is multiplied by an overall factor l/g2. In
this notation, the complete Lagrangian density for the gauge field may be
written in terms of the rescaled gauge fields and structure constants as
2gallge + 20 = Re[81: .
1tI
L EI1.(J WALI1.WAL(J] ff' ,
AI1.(J
(27.3.22)
where 1: is the complex coupling parameter
4ni 8
1:=+. (27.3.23)
g2 2n
According to Eq. (23.5.19), the contribution of instantons of winding
number v to path integrals is suppressed by a factor exp(8n2Ivl/g2),
which together with the factor (27.3.21) yields an overall factor
. 8 8n21v l] {eXP(2niV1:) v> 0 (27.3.24)
exp [IV  g2 = exp(2niv1:*) v <0 .
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Cbiral Superfields
We will now put together the pieces assembled in the previous three
sections, to construct the most general renormalizable action for chiral su~
perfields interacting with general gauge fields. Adding the terms (27.1.27),
(27.2.7), and (27.3.1) and the superpotential terms in Eq. (26.4.5) gives the
Lagrangian density
2 = ~ [<I>t exp (2~?AVA) <l>L  ~Re ~ (W.ILdVilL)ff'
g28
2
16n
LIm ( W.ILEWAL )
A ff'
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superjields 133
=  L(DA~(DP(fn  ~ L (1pnyP(Dp1p)n) + Lff~~n
n n n
Re
"
~
2
8 f(4)) (T) + 2Re ~ 8f(4))
84>n 84>m 1pnLE1pmL 84>n ffn
2.J2Im L(tA)nm (1pnLA.A )4>m + 2.J2Im L(tA)mn (1pnRA.A )4>:'
Anm Anm
 L 4>~(tA)nm4>mD A  L ;AD A + ~ DAD A L
Anm A A
2
41 "L.,fApvfApv  21 L.,
" (A.A(PA)A
 ,) + 64g e2 Epvpu "L.,fApv fApu . (27.4.1)
A A n A
Here f(4)) is the superpotential, a gaugeinvariant complex function of 4>n
(but not of 4>~) which the condition of renormalizability requires to be a
cubic polynomial; the ;A are constants which gauge invariance requires to
vanish except where tA is a U(I) generator; the gaugecovariant derivatives
are
Dp1pL = 8plpL  iL tA YAp 1pL , (27.4.2)
A
Dp4> =8p4>  iL tA YAp
A
4> , (27.4.3)
(DpA.)A = 8pA.A + L CABC VBpA.C , (27.4.4)
BC
and f Apv is the gaugecovariant gauge fieldstrength tensor
f Apv = 8p VAv  8v YAp +L CABC VBp VCv . (27.4.5)
BC
The auxiliary fields enter quadratically, with fieldindependent constants
as the coefficients of the secondorder term, so they can be eliminated by
setting them equal to the values at which the Lagrangian density is
stationary :
ffn = (8f(4/84>n) , (27.4.6)
DA = ;A + L 4>~(tA)nm4>m . (27.4.7)
nm
134 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
Using these back in Eq. (27.4.1), the Lagrangian density becomes
2 =  L(Dp4~ (DP4n
n
(27.4.8)
Lorentz invariance requires the fields 1pnL, A.A, and I Apv to have vanish
ing vacuum expectation values, while the treevalue vacuum expectation
values of the 4>n are at the minimum of the potential
V(4))=L
01(4))
04>
2+2L
1 ( *
;A+L4>n(tA)nm4>m
)2 (27.4.9)
n n A nm
This potential is positive, so if there is a set of field values at which V(4))
vanishes, then this is automatically also a minimum of the potential. For
V(4)) to vanish at some field value 4>n = 4>no, it is necessary and sufficient
that
ff nO =_[OI(4))]* =0 (27.4.10)
o4>n 4>=</>0
and
(27.4.11)
nm
This in turn is the necessary and sufficient condition for supersymmetry
not to be spontaneously broken, since Eq. (26.3.15) gives ((j1pnL)vAC =
Ji(ff n)VAC (1.L, and Eq. (26.2.16) gives ((jA.A)VAC = i(D A)VAC "15(1..
It is worth stressing here that spontaneous symmetry breaking is more
difficult for supersymroetry than for other symmetries. For most symme
tries of the action there will be field configurations at which the sym
metry is unbroken and the potential is stationary, but the symmetry will
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 135
nevertheless be spontaneously broken if none of these configurations are
minima of the potential. In contrast, any supersymmetric field configura
tion gives the potential a value of zero, which is necessarily lower than
the value of the potential for any nonsupersymmetric configuration, so
the existence of any supersymmetric field configuration insures that super
symmetry is unbroken. As we will see in Section 27.6, this conclusion goes
beyond the tree approximation used in this section; it is unaffected by
corrections of any finite order in perturbation theory.
It may appear that Eqs. (27.4.10) and (27.4.11) impose too many con
ditions on the scalar fields to expect a solution, without some finetuning
of the superpotential. However, for a gauge group of dimensionality D,
the superpotential I(</ is subject to the D constraints
(27.4.12)
for all A and all </>. Hence if </> has N independent components, then the
number of independent conditions (27.4.10) is N  D, while the number of
conditions (27.4.11) is D, so there are just N conditions altogether. With
the number of conditions equal to the number of free variables, it is likely
to find solutions for generic superpotentials. In fact, it is more usual to
find solutions than not. For instance, for chiral scalar superfields in a
nontrivial representation of a semisimple gauge group we have ;A = 0,
while I(</ can have no terms linear in the </>n, so both Eqs. (27.4.10)
and (27.4.11) are satisfied for </>nO = O. There may be other solutions
of Eqs. (27.4.10) and (27.4.11) which break the gauge symmetries, but in
such a theory supersymmetry cannot be broken, at least not in the tree
approximation, and, as we shall see in Section 27.6, not in any order of
perturbation theory.
More generally, it is easy to see that, even if the gauge group has U(I)
factors and even if the superpotential involves gaugeinvariant superfields,
if there exists a set of scalar field values </>nO that satisfy Eq. (27.4.10), then
there is another that satisfies both Eq. (27.4.10) and Eq. (27.4.11), provided
only that the FayetIliopoulos constants ;A all vanish. To show this, we
note that since the superpotential I(</ does not involve </>., it is invariant
not only under ordinary gauge transformations </> ~ exp(i EA AAtA)</>
with AA arbitrary real numbers, but also under transformations with AA
arbitrary complex numbers. Under all these transformations the 1Fterms
in Eq. (27.4.10) transform linearly, so if </>0 satisfies Eq. (27.4.10), then so
does </>A = exp(i EA AAtA)</>O. On the other hand, the scalar product [</> t </>]
is not invariant under transformations with AA complex, but [</>A t </>A]
does remain real and positive for complex AA, so it is bounded below,
and therefore has a minumum. For ;A = 0, the condition that [</>A t </>A] be
136 27 Super symmetric Gauge Theories
stationary at this minimum is just that <pA should satisfy Eq. (27.4.11). We
see then that in the absence of FayetIlioupoulos Dterms, the question of
whether supersymmetry is unbroken in gauge theories is entirely a matter
of whether the superpotential allows solutions of Eq. (27.4.10). The same
result applies even in nonrenormalizable theories. 3
Now let us assume that there is a set of values <PlIO at which V(<po) = 0,
so that supersymmetry is unbroken. The spin 0 degrees of freedom are
described by a shifted field
<Pn = <Pn  <PlIO . (27.4.13)
There is then a crossterm between <P and the gauge fields, arising from
the first term in Eq. (27.4.1):
22)m (Op<Pn(tA<Po)~)V~,
nA
As shown in Section 21.1, it is always possible to eliminate this term by
adopting a 'unitarity gauge,' in which <Pn satisfies a constraint that makes
this term vanish:
L)m(<pn(tA<PO)~) =0. (27.4.14)
n
This will have the effect of eliminating the Goldstone bosons associated
with broken gauge symmetries.
We shall now work out the masses of the particles of spin 0, spin
1/2, and spin 1 that arise in this theory if supersymmetry is unbroken,
taking into account the possibility that the gauge symmetries may be
spontaneously broken.
Spin 0
Because ol(<p)/o<pn and ;A + Enm<P~ (tA)nm <Pm must both vanish at <Pn =
=
<PnO, the terms in V(<p) of second order in <Pn <Pn  <PlIO and/or <p~ are of
the form
Vqllad(<P) = L("/{* .,/{)nm<P~<Pm + L (tA<PO) JtA<PO): <P~<Pm
nm Anm
+ ~ LA (tA<PO): (tA<PO n<Pm + ~ L (tA<PO) n(tA<POL<p~<p~ ,
nm Anm
(27.4.15)
where.,/{ is the complex symmetric matrix (26.4.11):
.,/{ = ( 021(<p) )
nm  o<pno<pm </>=</>o
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 137
r
This can be written as
Vquad = ~ [ ; . MS [ ;. ] , (27.4.16)
where MS is the block matrix
MS= [
"". "" + EA(tA4>O)(tA4>O)t EA(tA4>O)(tA4>O)T 1
EA(tA4>O)*(tA4>O)t """". + EA(tA4>O)*(tA4>O)T
(27.4.17)
Now we must look for the eigenvalues of this masssquared matrix.
Differentiating Eq. (27.4.12) with respect to 4>n gives
2
8 f(4)) ( ) 8f (4))( )
~ 84>n 84>m tA4> m + ~ 84>m tA mn = 0 . (27.4.18)
But as we have seen, 8f(4))/84>m vanishes at 4> = 4>0, so by setting 4> at
this value in Eq. (27.4.18), we find
L ""nm (tA4>O)m = 0 . (27.4.19)
m
It follows that
MS [ tt:!:r ] = ~ (4)~[tAtB + tBtA] 4>0 ) [ +t~!:r ]
But the vanishing of D A at 4> = 4>0 and the global gauge invariance of ~A
tell us that
(4)~[tA' tB]4>O) = i L CABC (4)btc4>o) = i( 4>b4>o) L CABC~C = O.
C C
(27.4.20)
The matrix (27.4.17) therefore has a pair of eigenvectors for each gauge
symmetry
EB CB tB4>O ] (27.4.21)
u= [ EB CB (tB4>or '
for which
MSu = J1.2U , MSv = 0 , (27.4.22)
where J1.2 and CA are any real solutions of the eigenvalue problem'
L (4)MtA' tB}4>O)CB = J1.2 CA , (27.4.23)
B
The presence of a factor 1/2 in Eq. (21.1.17) which does not appear in Eq. (27.4.23) is
due to a difference in the way that the scalar fields are normalized.
138 27 Super symmetric Gauge Theories
with the exception that if the eigenvalue Jl2 vanishes then EB cBtB<PO = 0,
so that the eigenvectors u and v are absent. The massless particles associ
ated with the v eigenvectors are Goldstone bosons, which are eliminated
from the physical spectrum by the unitarity gauge condition (27.4.14). In
addition to these mass eigenstates, there is another set that are orthogonal
to all the us and vs and that therefore take the form
(27.4.24)
where
(27.4.25)
n
Eq. (27.4.19) shows that the space of (s satisfying Eq. (27.4.25) is invariant
under multiplication with the Hermitian matrix .,/It.,/l, so it is spanned
by the eigenvectors of this matrix, satisfying
.,/It .,/I ( = m2 ( (27.4.26)
with m2 a set of real positive (or zero) eigenvalues. Eq. (27.4.26) and its
complex conjugate together with Eq. (27.4.25) show that w are eigenvec
tors of M5 with eigenvalues m2 :
M5W+ = m2 w . (27.4.27)
We thus have two selfchargeconjugate spinless bosons of each mass m
satisfying Eq. (27.4.27), and one selfchargeconjugate spinless boson of
each nonzero mass Jl satisfying Eq. (27.4.23).
Spin 1/2
The fermion masses arise from the nonderivative terms in Eq. (27.4.8)
that are of second order in the fermion fields 1pn and ..1. A :
21/2 =  ~L .,/Inm(1pJLE1pmL)  i.fiL(tA<PO)~ (..1.LE1pmL) + H.c.
nm Am
(27.4.28)
We saw in Section 26.4 that if the fermion mass term in the Lagrangian
for a column X of Maj6rana spinor fields is put in the form
21/2 = ~ (XIEMXL) + H.c., (27.4.29)
then the fermion squared masses are the eigenvalues of the Hermitian
matrix Mt M. Eq. (27.4.28) gives the elements of the matrix M here as
Mnm = .,/Inm , MnA = MAn = i.fi(tA<PO)~ , MAB = 0, (27.4.30)
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 139
for which, using Eqs. (27.4.19) and (27.4.20),
(Mt M)nm = (.At .A)nm + 22)tA4>oMtA4>O):' ,
A
(Mt M)nA = (Mt M)An = 0, (27.4.31)
(Mt M)AB = 2(4)btBtA4>O) = (4)b{tB, tA}4>O) .
The eigenvectors of the matrix (27.4.30) are of three types. First are those
of the form
z=[~], (27.4.32)
with eigenvalues m2 , where (n and m2 are any eigenvectors and corre
sponding eigenvalues of .At.A. Next are those of the form
(27.4.33)
with eigenvalues Jl2, where CB and Jl2 are any eigenvectors and eigenvalues
of the matrix (4)b{tB, tA}4>O). Finally, there are those of the form
h = [ 2:B cgtB4>O ] , (27.4.34)
with eigenvalues Jl2, where CB and Jl2 are again any eigenvectors and
eigenvalues of the matrix (4)b{tB, tA}4>O). The only exception is that the
eigenvectors C of this matrix with eigenvalue zero have 2:A cAtA4>O = 0,
corresponding to unbroken symmetries, so that in this case the vector
(27.4.34) vanishes and we have only the eigenvector (27.4.33). Thus there
is one Majorana fermion of each mass m satisfying Eq. (27.4.26), two
Majorana fermions of each nonzero mass Jl satisfying Eq. (27.4.22), and
one Majorana fermion of zero mass for each unbroken gauge symmetry.
Spin 1
The mass terms in the Lagrangian for the gauge fields arise from the part
of the first term in Eq. (27.4.1) that is of second order in the gauge field
P.
VA'
2v =  l)tA4>o)~(tB4>o)n VAp VG . (27.4.35)
nAB
Since the fields V Ap are real, their masssquared matrix is the matrix in
Eq. (27.4.23):
(27.4.36)
140 27 Super symmetric Gauge Theories
There is one spin 1 particle of mass J1. for each eigenvalue J1.2 of the matrix
(27.4.36).
Putting this all together, we see that for each eigenvalue m2 of the
matrix ""* "" there are two selfchargeconjugate spinless particles and one
Majorana fermion of mass m; for each nonzero eigenvalue of the matrix
J1.~B there are one selfchargeconjugate spinless boson, two Majorana
fermions, and one selfchargeconjugate spin 1 boson of mass J1.; and for
each zero eigenvalue of this matrix there is one Majorana fermion and
one selfchargeconjugate spin 1 boson of zero mass. It is not surprising
that the particle multiplets for each zero or nonzero mass are just the
same as we found by direct use of the supersymmetry algebra in Sections
25.4 and 25.5. What is a bit surprising is that the masses of the gauge
and chiral particles are unaffected by each other. The masses m that are
given by eigenvalues of (""* "")nm and the particles with these masses are
just what they would be in a theory of chiral superfields without gauge
superfields, and the masses J1. that are given by eigenvalues of J1.~B and
the particles with these masses are just what they would be in a theory of
gauge superfields with no chiral superfields.
For future use in Section 27.9 we will now apply the method described in
Section 26.7 to construct the supersymmetry current for the supersymmet
ric gauge Lagrangian (27.4.1). In the gauge used earlier, an infinitesimal
supersymmetry transformation changes VA, . 1. a , and D A by the amounts
(27.3.4){27.3.6). Adding the Noether supersymmetry current given by
Eq. (26.7.2) for these fields to the Noether current for <Pn, lpn, and $'n
already given in Eq. (26.7.8), with derivatives replaced by gaugeinvariant
derivatives, gives the total Noether supersymmetry current:
NfJ =
A
!
L f~v yv..1. A  L f Apu [yP, yU]yfJ..1.A 
A
~ iL
A
D A y5yfJ..1.A
+ Jz~ [2(DfJ<p)~lpnL+2(DfJ<P)nlpnR+(P\P)nyfJlpnR
+( p<p)~ yfJlpnL  ff n yfJlpnR  ff~ yfJ1pnL] . (27.4.37)
This is not the supersymmetry current, because the Lagrangian density is
not invariant under supersymmetry; instead, its changc~ is the derivative
(27.4.38)
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 141
where
KfJ = ~ i I:>PUfJVfAPuYVYS..1.A + ~ 2)y P,y u]yfJ..1. AfAPu + ~iLDA'}'SyfJ..1.A
A A A
fJ
 i L(tA)nmYSy ..1.A4>~4>m
Anm
+ }z ~;>fJ [  (P4n 1fJnR  (P4~ 1/'nL + ~~ 1pnL + ~n 1fJnR
8f(4) (8 f (4)] (27.4.39)
+2 ( 84>n 1fJnL + 2 84>n 1fJnR
The first two terms are derived using the identity (27.2.5). Using the same
identity again with Eq. (26.7.4) gives the total supersymmetry current:
SfJ = NfJ +KfJ
=  ~ LfAPu[y P,y ]yfJ..1. A  i L(tA)nmY5'}'fJ..1.A4>~4>m
u
A Anm
+ ~ ~[(P4n yfJ1fJnR + (P4>)n yfJ1pnL
8f (4) fJ (8 f (4) fJ (27.4.40)
Y 1fJnL + 2 84>n
]
+2 ( 84>n Y 1fJnR .
***
In Section 26.8 we considered a class of supersymmetric theories with
a superpotential f(<1 that has an arbitrary dependence on a set of left
chiral scalar superfields <1>n but not their derivatives, and with a Kahler
potential K(<1>,<1>) that has an arbitrary dependence on the <1>n and <1>~,
but not their derivatives. We can extend the same considerations to
gauge theories, again with the dependence of the Lagrangian on the chiral
superfields limited only by supersymmetry, but without introducing new
superderivatives or spacetime derivatives. The renormalizable Lagrangian
density is then replaced with
2 = 21 [K( <1>, <1>t exp( 2 L tAVA)]
A D
+ 2Re [f(<1] ff'
21Re L [hAB(<1(W.1,eWBL)] , (27.4.41)
AB ff'
The easiest way to calculate the change in the term [~t exp( 2 EA tA VA)~lD is to
calculate the ..1.component of ~t exp( 2 EA tA VA)~ and use Eq. (26.217). In this way
of doing the calculation, the important term on the second line of the righthand side
of Eq. (27.4.39) arises from the ..1.component of exp( 2 EA tA VA)'
142 27 Super symmetric Gauge Theories
where hAB(<I is a new function of the <l>n, but not of the <I>~ or derivatives.
The chiral gauge and scalar superfields are given by the expansions
(26.3.21) and (27.3.15):
WAdx,O) = . 1. Adx+) + ~ yPyVO L f Apv(X+) + (OIEOL) />..1.AR(X+)
iOLD A(X+) ,
<l>n(x,O) = 4>n(x+)  viz (OIElpnL(X+) + ~n(X+)(OIEOL) ,
where ~ is the shifted coordinate (26.3.23). The terms of second order in
OL (and independent of OR) in EAB hAB(<I>)(WILEWBL) are then
 [L:hAB(<I(WILEWBL)]
AB or
T
( OLEOL 111
) "( T
..1.ALEABL
) [1"f;;;: (
2
T )
2
8 hAB(4)) "0;;
8hAB(4))]
lpnLElpmL 84>n 84>m  ~~n 84>n
+(OIEOL) ~ hAB(4)) [  (..1.A />(1 YS)..1.B)  ~fAPvf~v
+ !EpVPtTf~vf~tT + DADB ]
+v1zL: 8h;;(4)) (OIElpnL) [(..1.1LEyPy VOL)fAPV + 2i(..1.1LEOL)] ,
ABn n
with all fields now understood to be evaluated at xP rather than~. (The
first and second terms on the righthand side are taken from Eqs. (26.4.4)
and (27.3.16), respectively.) Also, by writing OLa.OL(3 as ~E,,(3(OlEOL), the
third term on the righthand side can also be expressed as proportional
to (OlEOL):
(OIElpnL) [( lpBYPyv OL)fApv  2i(lpBOL)] =
~ (OlEOL) [( lpBYPyv lpnL)  2i( lpBlpnL)D A]
The ~term is the coefficient of (OlEOL), so
27.4 Renormalizable Gauge Theories with Chiral Superfields 143
+ LhAB(4)) [ (AA P(IY5)AB)  ~fAl'vf~v + ~el'vPO"f~vf~O"
AB
+DADB]
J2 "~ 8h84>  1jJBYl'y v)
1jJnL f AI'V + 2i (1jJB1jJnL )]
AB
+2 ( 4 [( DA
ABn n
The other terms in Eq. (27.4.41) are just given by the gaugeinvariant
version of the Lagrangian density (26.8.6). Putting this together gives the
Lagrangian density
One interesting feature of this result is the appearance of a gaugino mass
in theories with 4>ndependent functions hAB(4)), when supersymmetry is
broken by a nonvanishing value of !F n. This mechanism is used to
144 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
generate gaugino masses in some theories of gravitationally mediated
supersymmetry breaking, discussed in Section 31.7.
27.5 Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree Approximation
Resumed
We saw in the previous section that if the FayetIliopoulos constants ~A all
vanish and if there exists a solution of the equations 8f(4))/84>n = 0, then
there is also some solution of these equations where the Dcomponents
of the gauge supedields all vanish, so that supersymmetry is unbroken. It
follows that there are only two (nonexclusive) ways that supersymmetry
can be spontaneously broken in the tree approximation in renormalizable
theories of gauge and chiral supedields: the superpotential f(4)) may be
arranged so that there are no solutions of all the equations 8f( 4/84>n = 0,
or for gauge groups with U(I) factors there may be FayetIliopoulos terms
in the action.
We have already seen in Section 26.5 how it can happen that there
might not be any value of 4> for which 8f(4))/84>n = O. No change in that
discussion is needed when the chiral supedields interact with gauge fields,
so let's turn to the other possibility: spontaneous supersymmetry breaking
produced by FayetIliopoulos terms. Since this can only arise for gauge
groups with U(I) factors, the simplest case is a theory with a single U(I)
gauge group. As discussed in Section 22.4, to avoid U(I)U(I)U(I) and
U(I)gravitongraviton anomalies it is necessary that the sum of the U(I)
quantum numbers of allleftchiral supedields and the sum of their cubes
should vanish. We will consider the simplest possibility: two leftchiral
supedields <1>+, with U(I) quantum numbers +e. (This is a supersymmetric
version of quantum electrodynamics, with the spinor components 1pL
and 1p+L of the two supedields providing the lefthanded parts of the
electron field and of its charge conjugate.) The most general U(I)invariant
superpotential in a renormalizable theory is just f(<I = m<l>+<I>_. The
scalar potential (27.4.9) for the scalar components 4> of these superfields
is then
V(4)+,4>) = m214>+12 +m214>_12 + (; + ~14>+12  e214>_12)2. (27.5.1)
Unless the FayetIliopoulos constant; vanishes, it is evidently not possible
to find a supersymmetric vacuum with V = O. For; > m2 /2e 2 or
; < m2 /2e 2 the potential (27.5.1) has a minimum with either 4>+ = 0
and 14>_12 = (2e 2;  m2)/2e4 or 4> = 0 and 14>+12 = (~;  m2)/2e4 ,
so the U(I) gauge symmetry is broken along with supersymmetry. For
1;1 < m2 /2e2 the minimum of the potential is at 4>+ = 4> = 0, so
27.5 Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree Approximation Resumed 145
here the gauge symmetry is unbroken. Thf:re is in general no necessary
connection between the possible breakdown of supersymmetry and of
gauge symmetries.
Whether supersymmetry is spontaneously broken by the FayetIlio
poulos mechanism discussed here or by the O'Raifeartaigh mechanism of
Section 26.5 or by some combination of the two, supersymmetry leaves a
remnant in the pattern of treeapproximation masses. Inspection of the
Lagrangian (27.4.8) for a general renormalizable supersymmetric theory
of gauge and chiral superfields shows that the spontaneous breakdown
of supersymmetry in this theory produces the following corrections to the
masses calculated in Section 27.4.
Spin 0 Masses
If the ~terms ~n = (8f(4/84>n)" do not vanish at the minimum
4>0 of the potential, then the terms in the potential of second order in
=
<fJn 4>n  4>no have additional terms beyond those listed in Eq. (27.4.15):
Vquad(<fJ) = L(.,I{ .,I{)nm<fJ:<fJm + L (tA4>O) n(tA4>O): <fJ:<fJm
nm Anm
I", I",
+ 2 ~ % nm<fJn<fJm + 2 ~ % nm<fJn<fJ n
nm nm
+L DAO(tA)nm<fJ~<fJm , (27.5.2)
Anm
where .,I{ is again the complex symmetric matrix (26.4.11):
2
.,I{ = ( 8 f(4)) )
nm  84>n8 4>m </>=</>o '
% nm is a new ingredient
83f(4)) )
% nm = L ~lO ( 84> 84>m84>(
( n </>=</>o
' (27.5.3)
and :?0 and DAO are again the ~ terms and Dterms of the chiral scalar
and gauge superfields at the minimum of the potential:
:?nO = _ [8 f (4))] DAO = ;A + L 4>:0 (tA)nm 4>mO .
o4>n </>=</>0' nm
146 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
If we write the quadratic part (27.5.2) of the potential in the form (27.4.16):
Vquad = ~ [ ;. r MJ [ ;. ] ,
then, instead of Eq. (27.4.17), we now have the scalar mass matrix
~
2 _ [ ""*"" + d+ EADAotA f!4 + %* 1,
f!4* + % """"* + d* + EA DAo t1
(27.5.4)
where
d ='2:(tA4>O)(tA4>O)t ,
A
f!4 == '2:(tA4>O)(tA4>O)T .
A
Spin 1/2 Masses
The fermion mass matrix M here is given again by Eq. (27.4.30):
Mnm = ""nm, MnA = MAn = iJi(tA4>O)~, MAB = O.
However, now instead of Eq. (27.4.19), the gauge invariance condition
(27.4.18) yields
(27.5.5)
m m
Thus the Hermitian positive matrix whose eigenvalues are the squared
masses of the fermions is given by
(Mt M)nm = (""t"")nm + 2 '2:(tA4>O)n(tA4>O):' ,
A
(27.5.6)
(Mt M)An = (Mt M)~ = iJi '2: ff" mO(tA)mn .
m
Spin 1 Masses
The squared masses of the vector bosons are again given by the eigenvalues
of the matrix (27.4.36):
(J.l2)AB = (4)~, {tB, tA}4>O) . (27.5.7)
With the exception of the Dterms in Eq. (27.5.4), all of the changes in
the masssquared matrices are in their offdiagonal components. Therefore
27.5 Supersymmetry Breaking in the Tree Approximation Resumed 147
Eqs. (27.5.4), (27.5.6), and (27.5.7) yield particularly simple results for the
traces of these matrices: for spin 0
Tr MJ = 2Tr(.,H*.,H) + Tr J1.2 + 2 LDAoTrtA, (27.5.8)
A
and for spin 1/2
(27.5.9)
Since the trace is the sum of the eigenvalues, we obtain from this a mass
sum rule:
L mass 2  2 L mass 2 + 3 L mass 2 = 2 LDAoTrtA. (27.5.10)
spin 0 spin 1/2 spin 1 A
The trace of tA automatically vanishes unless tA is a U(l) generator, and,
as mentioned in Section 22.4, the trace must also vanish (when taken over
all lefthanded fermions) for U(l) gauge generators to avoid gravitational
contributions to an anomaly that would violate conservation of the U(l)
current. Thus (27.5.10) leads to the simpler result4
2
L mass 2  2 L mass +3 L mass2 = 0 . (27.5.11)
spin 0 spin 1/2 spin I
Of course, the unbroken conservation of charge, color, and baryon and
lepton numbers prevents the mass matrices from having elements linking
particles with different values of these quantum numbers, so all these
results hold separately for each set of conserved quantum numbers.
The sum rule (27.5.11) is often quoted as providing evidence against
models in which supersymmetry is spontaneously broken in the tree ap
proximation within the minimum supersymmetric extension of the stan
dard model. We will discuss this along with other arguments in Section
28.3.
As already observed in Section 26.5 (and discussed in greater generality
in Sections 29.1 and 29.2), the spontaneous breakdown of supersymmetry
necessarily entails the existence of a massless fermion, the goldstino. For
renormalizable gauge theories in the tree approximation, the goldstino
field g appears as a term in the spinor components 1jJn and AA of the chiral
and gauge superfields, with coefficients given by
(27.5.12)
where the dots denote terms involving spinor fields of definite nonzero
mass. To check this we have to confirm that (iJ2!F nO, DAo) is an eigenvec
tor of the fermion masssquared matrix Mt M with eigenvalue zero. For
this purpose we will need to use the condition that the potential (27.4.9)
148 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
is stationary at <P = <Po:
8V
0= 8A. ~.,/{nmffmo
=  '" + '"
~DAO(<PotA)n.
t (27.5.13)
'l'n </>=</>0 m A
We also need the gauge invariance condition (27.4.12), which at <P = <Po
reads
(27.5.14)
n
Combining Eqs. (27.5.13) and (27.5.14) with Eqs. (27.5.5) and (27.5.6) then
yields
i.J2L:(MtM)nmffmO = i.J2L:DA(tAff~)n =  L:(MtM)nADAO
m A A
(27.5.15)
and
i.J2L:(MtM)Amffmo = 2L:ffnO(tA)nmffmO =  L:(MtM)ABDBO.
m nm B
(27.5.16)
That is,
(27.5.17)
as was to be shown.
27.6 Perturbative NonRenormalization Theorems
From the beginning, several of the ultraviolet divergences in ordinary
renormalizable quantum field theories were found to be absent in the
supersymmetric versions of these theories. With the development in 1975
of supergraph techniques, in which all particles in each supermultiplet are
considered together, it became possible to show that some radiative correc
tions are not only finite, but are absent altogether in perturbation theory. 5
Supergraphs will be described in detail in Chapter 30, but as it happens
they are not needed to prove the most important nonrenormalization the
orems. This section will give a version of a method developed by Seiberg6
in 1993, which showed how the nonrenormalization theorems may be
easily obtained from simple considerations of symmetry and anallyticity.
Consider a general renormalizable supersymmetric gauge theory with
a number of leftchiral superfields <l>n and/or gauge superfields VA. As
mentioned in Section 27.3, if we remove the factor g in the tA and CABC
and include it instead in the gauge superfields, then the Lagrangian density
27.6 Perturbative NonRenormalization Theorems 149
will be of the form
! = [<I>t e
v
<I>]D + 2Re [f(<Il~ + 2~2Re [~elXpWAIXL WAPL1~,
(27.6.1)
where the superpotential f(<I is a gaugeinvariant cubic polynomial in
the leftchiral superfields. (We are ignoring a possible Oterm, which has
no effect in perturbation theory.)
Suppose we impose an ultraviolet cutoff 2 on the momenta circulat
ing in loop graphs. As discussed in Section 12.4, we can find a local
'Wilsonian' effective Lagrangian density !). that, with this cutoff, gives
precisely the same results as the original Lagrangian density for Smatrix
elements of processes at momenta below 2. The effective Lagrangian
density has masses and coupling parameters that now depend on .A., and
usually there will be an infinite number of coupling terms in the effective
Lagrangian density, all possible terms allowed by the symmetries of the
theory. But things are much simpler in supersymmetric theories. The
nonrenormalization theorems tell us that, as long as the cutoff preserves
supersymmetry and gauge invariance, to all orders in perturbation theory
the effective Lagrangian will have the structure
!). = [d).(<I>,<I>t, v,g&"')]D +2Re [f(<Il~
+~Re
2g).
[I>IXP
AIXP
WAIXL WAPL] ,
:F
(27.6.2)
where d). is a general Lorentz and gaugeinvariant function; 'g&""
denotes terms involving superderivatives or spacetime derivatives of the
preceding arguments; and g). is the oneloop effective gauge coupling,
given by the same formula as the oneloop renormalized gauge coupling
constant
gi2 = constant  2b In 2 , (27.6.3)
where b is the coefficient of g3 in the GellMannLow function {3(g),
discussed in Chapter 18. This is for a simple gauge group, with a single
gauge coupling, but the extension to a direct product of simple and U(I)
gauge groups is trivial. Note in particular that the effective superpotential
is not only finite in the limit 2 + 00, but at least in perturbation theory it
contains no terms beyond those in the original superpotential, and there
is no change in the coefficients of the terms it does contain.
To prove this theorem, we shall interpret this theory as a special case
of one with two additional external gaugeinvariant leftchiral superfields
150 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
X and Y, with Lagrangian density
:# = ~ [<I>t e v <I>]D + 2Re [Y f(<Il~ + ~Re [X L Ecxp WAaL WAPL]F .
Acxp
(27.6.4)
This Lagrangian density becomes equal to the original one when the scalar
components x and y of X and Yare given the values x = 1/g 2 and y = 1,
and the spinor and auxiliary components of X and Yare set equal to zero.
Since supersymmetry and gauge invariance are assumed to be preserved
in the cutoff procedure, the effective Lagrangian density in the presence
of these external superfields must be the sum of the Dterm of a general
superfield and the real part of the ~ term of a leftchiral superfield:
:1 = [d'\(<I>,<I>t, V,x,xt, Y, yt'~"')]D +2Re [gj,\(<I>, WL,X, Y)]F'
(27.6.5)
with d,\ and gj,\ both gaugeinvariant functions of the displayed argu
ments. We do not include any superderivatives or spacetime derivatives in
the ~term because, as in Section 26.3, terms involving derivatives of any
of the leftchiral superfields or their adjoints may be rewritten as contri
butions to [d,\]D. (It is true that Eq. (27.3.12) gives W L itself in terms of
two ~RS acting on a superfield exp(2V)~Lexp(2V), but this superfield
is not gaugeinvariant, and we are requiring that d,\ be gaugeinvariant.)
The dependence of gj,\ on X and Y is severely limited by two additional
symmetries of the action obtained from the Lagrangian density (27.6.4).
(Both of these symmetries are broken by nonperturbative effects, which
will be considered in Chapter 29.) The first symmetry is a perturbative
U(l) Rsymmetry, of the sort discussed in Section 26.3, for which OL and
OR are given the R values +1 and 1, the superfields <1>, V, and X are
Rneutral, and Y has the R value +2. (Recall that f F is the coefficient
of Or in f, so in order for f F to have the R value 0, f must have the
R value 2.) Because W L is given by two ~ RS and one ~ L acting on
Rneutral superfields, it has the R value +1. Now, R invariance requires
gj,\, like the superpotential, to have the R value +2. It cannot depend
on any superfields with negative R values, such as adjoints of leftchiral
superfields, because it is holomorphic, so the terms in gj,\ can only be of
first order in Y or of second order in W L, with coefficients depending
only on the Rneutral superfields <I> and/or X:
gj,\(<I>, WL,X, Y) = Y h(<I>, X) + L Ecxp WAcxLWBPL hUB (<I>, X). (27.6.6)
cxpAB
(Lorentz invariance requires the spinor indices on the W LS to be contracted
with Ecxp.) The other symmetry is translation of X by an imaginary
numerical constant, X + X +i;, with; real. This changes the Lagrangian
27.6 Perturbative NonRenormalization Theorems 151
density (27.6.4) by an amount proportional to 1m EAa.p WAa.LWAPL, which
as we saw in Section 27.3 is a spacetime derivative, and therefore can
have no effect in perturbation theory. This translation symmetry prevents
X from appearing anywhere in the effective Lagrangian density (27.6.5)
except where it appears in the original Lagrangian density (27.6.4). We
therefore conclude that /;. is independent of X, while hUB consists of a
<I>independent term proportional to XOAB, plus a term that is independent
of X. That is,
gj,\(<I>, WL,X, y) = Y /;.(<1 + 2: Ea.p WAa.LWBPL [C,\OABX + tUB(<I] ,
a.PAB
(27.6.7)
where c,\ is a real cutoffdependent constant.
The point of introducing the external auxiliary supedields X and Y is
that, by giving them suitable values, we can make use of weakcoupling
approximations to determine the coefficients in Eq. (27.6.7). If we set the
spinor and auxiliary components of X and Y equal to zero, and take their
scalar components x and y to approach infinity and zero, respectively,
then the gauge coupling constant vanishes as 1/ji, and all Yukawa and
scalar couplings derived from the superpotential vanish as y. In this limit,
the only graph that contributes to the term in (27.6.7) proportional to Y
has a single vertex arising from the term 2 Re [Y f(<Il.~ in Eq. (27.6.4), so
/;.(<1 = f(<I . (27.6.8)
Also, with Y = 0 there is a conservation law which requires every term
in2'1 to have equal numbers of <l>s and <l>ts" so since <l>t cannot occur in
tUB, neither can <1>. Gauge invariance then requires the constant tUB to
be proportional to 0AB for a simple group:
(27.6.9)
Now, since gauge propagators go as l/x while pure gauge interactions
go as x and scalar propagators and interactions are xindependent, with
y = 0 the number of powers of x in a diagram with Vw pure gauge boson
vertices, 1W internal gauge boson lines, and any number of scalargauge
boson vertices and scalar propagators is
N x = Vw 1w (27.6.10)
The number of loops is given by
L = 1w +I~  Vw  V<I> + 1, (27.6.11)
where 1<1> is the number of internal <I> lines and V<I> is the number of cl>V
interaction vertices. All the <1> V vertices have two <I> lines attached, so
with no external <I> lines 1<1> and V<I> are equal, and therefore cancel in
152 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
Eq. (27.6.11), so that Eq. (27.6.10) may be written
N x = lL. (27.6.12)
Thus the coefficient c,\ of X in Eq. (27.6.7) is correctly given by the tree
approximation and is therefore what it was in the original Lagrangian,
simply c,\ = 1, while the coefficient L,\ of the X independent term is given
by oneloop diagrams only. Putting this all together, we have
2'1 = [d,\(<J>,<J>t, V,x,xt, y, yt,g&"')]D +2Re [Yf(<Jl~
+~Re [(x +L'\) L:EIXPWAIXLWAPL] , (27.6.13)
AlXp :F
where L,\ is the oneloop contribution. Setting Y = 1 and X = l/g2 then
gives Eq. (27.6.2), with gi 2 = g2 + L,\. As shown in Section 18.3, the
leading order contribution to J...dg,\/dJ... is the same function of g,\ whatever
renormalization scheme is used to define this coupling, so to oneloop
order we must have
(27.6.14)
where b is the same coefficient of g3 as in the renormalization group
equation of GellMann and Low. The solution is Eq. (27.6.3), completing
the proof.
In theories with a U(I) gauge superfield VI, the Lagrangian may contain
a FayetIliopoulos term (27.2.7):
2'PI =; [VI]D . (27.6.15)
It is easy to see that the coefficient ; of such a term is not renormalized. 7
If the corresponding coefficient ~,\ in the Wilsonian Lagrangian density
did depend on the gauge couplings or the couplings in the superpotential,
then when we replace the original Lagrangian (27.6.1) with a Lagrangian
(27.6.4) involving the external superfields X and Y, this term in the
Wilsonian Lagrangian would be required by supersymmetry to take the
form
(27.6.16)
with ;,\ a function with a liontrivial dependence on X and/or Y and/or
their adjoints. But such a term would not be gaugeinvariant, because,
according to Eq. (27.2.18), a gauge transformation shifts VI by a chiral
superfield i(Q  Q*)/2, and although the Dterm of a chiral superfield
vanishes, the product of i(Q  Q*)/2 and ;,\ is not chiral for general gauge
transformations if ;,\ has any dependence on other superfields. There
actually are diagrams that make contributions to ;,\ that are independent
27.6 Perturbative NonRenormalization Theorems 153
. ~ > ...
I
'" ,\
~   '\ I
I
".... ~ ~ "
Figure 27.1. A oneloop diagram that could be quadratically divergent in theories
with supersymmetry broken by trilinear couplings among scalar fields and their
adjoints. The lines all represent complex scalar fields.
of all coupling constants. For the Lagrangian (27.6.1) there are no factors
of the gauge coupling g at vertices at which the gauge superfield interacts
with chiral matter, but instead a factor g2 for each gauge propagator, so
a graph with no internal gauge lines and no selfcouplings of the crural
superfield will have no dependence on coupling constants. The only such
graphs that contribute to ;,\ are those in which a single external gauge
line is attached to a chiralloop. (See Figure 27.1.) The contribution of all
such graphs is proportional to the sum of the gauge couplings of all chiral
superfields  that is, to the trace of the U(I) generator. But as discussed
in Section 22.4, this trace must vanish (if the U(I) symmetry is unbroken)
in order to avoid gravitational anomalies that violate the conservation of
the U(I) current.
The most important application of these theorems is a corollary, which
tells us that if there is no FayetIliopoulos term and if the superpotential
f(<I allows solutions of the equations 8f(<p )/8<pn = 0, then supersymmetry
is not broken in any finite order of perturbation theory.
To test this we must examine Lorentzinvariant field configurations,
in which the <l>n have only constant scalar components <Pn and constant
auxiliary components fFn, while (in WessZumino gauge) the coefficients
VA of the gauge generators tA in the matrix gauge superfield V have only
auxiliary components DA. Supersymmetry is unbroken if there are values
of <Pn for which 5t,\ has no terms of first order in fF n or DA, in which case
there is sure to be an equilibrium solution with fF n = DA = O. (In Section
29.2 we will see that this is the sufficient as well as the necessary condition
for supersymmetry Ito be unbroken.) In the absence of FayetIliopoulos
terms, this will be the case if for all A
'" 8K,\(<p, <P*)(t) A.* = 0 (27.6.17)
~ 8A.* A mn'l'm
nm 'l'n
154 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
and for all n
8f(</
8</>n
=
'
(27.6.18)
where the effective Kahler potential K;.(</>, </>0) is
K;.(</>,</>*) = .91;.(</>,</>*,0,0"'), (27.6.19)
with .91;.(</>,</>*,0,0"') obtained from .91;. by setting the gauge superfield
and all superderivatives equal to zero. (With superderivatives required
to vanish by Lorentz invariance, the only dependence of .91;. on V is a
factor exp(V) following every factor <r>t.) We now use a trick that we
have already employed in Section 27.4. If there is any solution </>(0) of
Eq. (27.6.18), then the gauge symmetry tells us that there is a continuum
of such solutions, with </>n replaced with
</>n(Z) = [exp(iLtAZA)]nm</>~)' (27.6.20)
A
where (since f depends only on </>, not </>*) the ZA are an arbitrary set of
complex parameters. If K;.(</>,</>*) has a stationary point anywhere on the
surface </> = </>(z), then at that point
= ' " 8K;.(</>,</>*)
~
nrnA
8A.
'l'n
A. '" 8K;.(</>,</>*)(
(tA)nm'l'm OZA  ~
nmA
8</>0
n
A.* < (2 62
tA)mn'l'm UZA . 7.. 1)
Since this must be satisfied for all infinitesimal complex OZA, the coefficients
of both OZA and oZA must both vanish, and therefore Eq. (27.6.17) as
well as Eq. (27.6.18) is satisfied at this point. Thus the existence of a
stationary point of K;.(</>, </>0) on the surface </> = </>(z) would imply that
supersymmetry is unbroken to all orders of perturbation theory. The
zerothorder Kahler potential (</>t </ is bounded below and goes to infinity
as </> + 00, so it certainly has a minimum on the surface </> = </>(z), where
of course it is stationary. If there were no flat directions in which K;. is
constant at this minimum then any sufficiently small perturbation to the
Kahler potential might shift the minimum, but would not destroy it. At
the minimum of the Kahler potential on the surface </> = </>(z) there are
flat directions: ordinary global gauge transformations o</> = iLA oZAtA</>
with ZA real. But these. are also flat directions for the perturbation
K;.(</>,</>*)  (</>t</, so there is still a local minimum of K;. on the surface
</> = </>(z) for any perturbation in at least a finite range, and thus to all
orders in whatever couplings appear in K;.(</>, </>*). As we have seen, this
is a set of scalar field values at which fF n = and D A = 0 for all n and
A, which means that supersymmetry is unbroken.
***
27.7 Soft Supersymmetry Breaking 155
These results may be extended to nonrenormalizable theories. 3 In such
theories the first term [<I>t e v <l>lD in Eq. (27.6.1) is replaced with the
Dterm of an arbitrary real gaugeinvariant scalar function of <l>t, <1>, V,
and their superderivatives and spacetime derivatives, while the second and
third terms in Eq. (27.6.1) are replaced with the "term of an arbitrary
globally gaugeinvariant scalar function f( <1>, W) of <l>n and W",. It has been
shown that, to all orders of perturbation theory, the function /;.(<1>, W)
appearing in the "term of the Wilsonian Lagrangian is the same as
f(<I>, W), except for the oneloop renormalization of the term quadratic in
W.
27.7 Soft Supersymmetry Breaking'
We will see in the next chapter that, even if supersymmetry is an exact
symmetry of the action, the spontaneous bI1eakdown of supersymmetry
at very high energy can produce superrenonnalizable terms that violate
supersymmetry conservation in the effective action that describes physics
at lower energies. These superrenormalizable terms may explain the lack
of supersymmetry observed in phenomena at accessible energies. In this
section we will consider the radiative corrections that can be produced by
such supersymmetrybreaking superrenormalizable terms, in part to see
whether this provides a criterion for including or rejecting such terms in
supersymmetric versions of the standard model.
The sign of supersymmetry breaking is the appearance of expectation
values of Dterms of general superfields or "terms of chiral superfields.
Any operator e(!J in the Lagrangian density that breaks supersymmetry
can be written in a supersymmetric form, as aDterm
e(!J = [Z S]D' (27.7.1)
where S is a nonchiral superfield that has (!J as its Cterm, and Z is
a nonchiral external superfield whose only nonvanishing component is
[ZlD = e. Some but not all operators e(!J that break supersymmetry can
also be written as "terms,
e(!J = [ao]" , (27.7.2)
or their adjoints, where 0 is the leftchiral superfield whose "term is
(!J and a is an external leftchiral superfield whose only nonvanishing
component is [al" = e. We can count the order in e in which a given
This section lies somewhat out of the book's main line of development and may be
omitted in a first reading.
156 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
correction to the effective Lagrangian will occur by counting the powers
of Z or Q needed to construct this correction in a supersymmetric way.
We will find interesting limitations on the radiative corrections that can
be produced by those interactions that can be written in the form (27.7.2)
as well as (27.7.1).
According to the results of the previous section, there are no radiative
corrections to ffterms, so all supersymmetrybreaking radiative correc
tions to the Wilsonian Lagrangian density must take the form of Dterms.
This theorem does not prevent any given operator from appearing in the
Wilsonian Lagrangian density, because even if an operator el12' cannot
be expressed in the form [Z AlD, where A is the general superfield whose
Cterm is 112', yet r?112' can be expressed in the form
(27.7.3)
But not all operators can be produced by radiative corrections of first
order in Q or Q*. In particular, a function only of the 4>term of a
leftchiral superfield <1>, but not of 4>*, cannot be written as the Dterm
of a superfield linear in Q. (Note that [Qh(<IlD is a derivative, while
[Q*h(<IlD = 2[<I>lj08h(4))184> is not a function of 4> alone.) We conclude
then that the supersymmetrybreaking terms in the Wilsonian Lagrangian
that depend on 4> alone cannot be produced by radiative corrections that are
of first order in supersymmetrybreaking interactions of the form (27.7.2).
This result is significant because the most divergent radiative corrections
are those that are of lowest order in superrenormalizable couplings. To
be more specific, the coefficient of an interaction of dimensionality !!)
has dimensionality (in powers of energy) 4  E'fi, so dimensional analysis
indicates that the contribution of a set of interactions of dimensionality
dt. d2, etc. to the coefficient of an interaction of dimensionality d can
contain the ultraviolet cutoff to at most a power
p = 4  d  (4  dt)  (4  d2) '" (27.7.4)
and is therefore finite if p < O. (This argument ignores possible ultraviolet
divergences in subintegrations; for a thorough treatment of this topic, see
Reference 8.) Superrenormalizable interactions are 'soft,' in the sense that
they reduce the degree of divergence of the graphs in which they appear.
In particular, in a renormaliZable theory where all interactions have d; < 4,
and the strictly renormalizable interactions with d; = 4 are supersymmet
ric, the contribution of one or more superrenormalizable interactions to
the coefficient of an interaction with d = 4 will always have p < 0, so even
if they are not supersymmetric the superrenormalizable interactions will
not produce supersymmetryviolating ultravioletdivergent corrections to
the coefficients of the supersymmetric d = 4 interactions.
27.8 GaugeInvariant Supersymmetry Transformations 157
On the other hand, in such a theory there may be divergent radiative
corrections to the superrenormalizable interactions themselves. 9 The most
worrisome are quadratic (or higher) divergences, which if cut off at some
high energy scale Mx may require a finetuning of the bare coupling
constants to preserve supersymmetry as a good approximate symmetry
at energies below Mx. According to Eq. (27.7.4), in renormalizable
theories where all interactions with di = 4 are supersymmetric, radiative
corrections can produce quadratic or more highly divergent (p > 2)
supersymmetryviolating operators of dimensionality d only if they involve
insertion of a superrenormaIizable supersymmetryviolating interaction of
dimensionality d 1 > 2 + d. This allows either d = 0 and dl > 2, which
arises only when we calculate the cosmological constant, or d = 1 and
dl = 3, which arises only when we calculate the 'tadpole' graphs in
which a scalar field line disappears into the vacuum. The cosmological
constant raises finetuning problems for all known theories lO and will
not be considered further here. The tadpole graphs represent operators
linear in <p or <p" and, as we have seen, can not be produced to first
order in supersymmetryviolating interactions that can be put in the
form (27.7.2). Such superrenormalizable interactions are therefore 'soft'
in the sense that they do not induce quadratic or higher divergences.
Along with the superrenormalizable interactions with d < 2, including
arbitrary quadratic polynomials in <p and <p", the supersymmetrybreaking
interactions that are soft in this sense include terms of third order in the
<p, which can be expressed as <p3 = [Q<J>3]jO, and likewise terms of third
order in the <p", and also d = 3 gaugino mass terms, which can be written
as [Q e",p W", Wp]jO, but not terms like <p2<p" or <p<p2", which in general can
produce quadratically divergent tadpole graphs. 9
Nevertheless, tadpoles can only arise for scalar fields that are neutral
with respect to all exact symmetries. In theories without such neutral
scalars, like the supersymmetric standard model discussed in the next
chapter, all superrenorma1izable intera.ctions may be considered to be
soft.
27.8 Another Approach: GaugeInvariant Supersymmetry
Transformations"
It is somewhat disturbing that the supersymmetry transformation rules dis
cussed so far involve ordinary spacetime derivatives, not gaugeinvariant
This section lies somewhat out of the book's main line of development and may be
omitted in a first reading.
158 27 Supel'symmetric Gauge Theories
derivatives. For instance, in a U(I) gauge theory, the transformation of the
component fields of a chiral scalar superfield is given by Eqs. (26.3.15)
(26.3.17) as
OVlL = Ji8 pqJ"yi' (XR </> + .J7ff (XL ,
o'= Ji((XLVlL)' (27.8.1)
O</> = Ji( (XRVlL) .
One might have thought that in the transformation of a chiral super
field that carries U(I) charge q, the ordinary spacetime derivatives in
Eq. (27.8.1) should be replaced with gaugecovariant derivatives, given in
terms of the U(I) gauge field Vp by
(27.8.2)
With such gaugeinvariant supersymmetry transformations of the chiral
superfields, one would still attempt to formulate supersymmetry transfor
mations of the gauge supermultiplet that involve only the physical and
auxiliary fields Vp, 1, and D:
JVp=(~p1),
J1= iDY5(X + ~ [8 pr , yp] (X , (27.8.3)
JD = i(ElY5 1) ,
in which ordinary spacetime derivatives appear because the gauge super
field carries no U(I) charge.
This doesn't work. The algebra of these transformations does not close:
the commutator of two of the modified supersymmetry transformations
is not a linear combination of bosonic symmetry transformations, such as
spacetime translations and gauge transformations. It follows that it is not
possible to construct a Lagrangian for the chiral and gauge superfields that
would be invariant under these modified supersymmetry transformations,
because if there were such a Lagrangian then it would have to be also
invariant under the commutators of these transformations, so that these
commutators would have to be bosonic symmetries of the Lagrangian.
In 1973 de Wit and Freedmanll showed that the supersymmetry algebra
could be made to close by modifying the supersymmetry transformation
properties of the chiral superfields not only by changing ordinary deriva
tives to gaugeinvariant derivatives, but by also adding an extra term in
the transformation of the ffcomponent, so that for U(I) gauge theories
27.8 GaugeInvariant Supersymmetry Transformations 159
the modified supersymmetry transformation rules read
J"PL ./iDI'<P yl' IXR <P + ./iff IXL ,
=
Jff = ./i(IXL />"PL)  2 i q <P (lXLiR) , (27.8.4)
J<p = ./i(IXR"PL) .
With this change, they were also able to construct a Lagrangian that is
invariant under the transformations (27.8.3H27.8.4) and that turned out
to be just the one we have found in Sections 27.1 and 27.2.
There is nothing wrong with continuing to use the conventional transfor
mation rules (27.8.1), so we do not need the de WitFreedman formalism
to deal with supersymmetric gauge theories. Nevertheless this formalism
is of some interest, because in supergravity theories the analog of the
conventional formalism is very cumbersome. As described in Chapter 31,
the formalism that has been chiefly used to derive physically interesting
results in supergravity theories follows an approach like that of de Wit and
Freedman, with supersymmetry transformation rules involving covariant
derivatives in place of ordinary derivatives, rather than an approach based
on conventional supersymmetry transformations like those ofEq. (27.8.1).
It is therefore of some interest to understand the relation between the de
WitFreedman formalism and the conventional approach in the relatively
simple context of U(I) gauge theory, and in particular to explain the
origin of the extra term in the transformation rule for ff.
In writing supersymmetry transformations (27.8.3) that did not involve
the components C, M, N, or OJ of the gauge superfield V, de Wit and
Freedman were implicitly adopting the WessZumino gauge discussed in
Section 27.1. But the choice of WessZumino gauge is not invariant under
either the conventional supersymmetry transformations (26.2. 11 H26.2. 17)
or the extended gauge transformations (27.1.17), so once we adopt this
gauge both symmetries are lost. We can, however, define a combined
transformation, acting on fields in WessZumino gauge, which consists of
a conventional supersymmetry transformation followed by an extended
gauge transformation that takes us back to WessZumino gauge. This is
the de WitFreedman transformation J ...
To construct the de WitFreedman transformations in this way, note
that for a gauge superfield that satisfies the WessZumino gauge conditions
.. This was not shown explicitly by de Wit and Freedman. But. in fact. although the
point of their paper was to emphasize that the details of the transformations (27.8.3)
and (27.8.4) could be inferred from the requirement of a closed supersymmetry algebra
(also for nonAbelian gauge theories), they remarked that they had actually found
these transformations by identifying the fermiollic transformations that survive in
WessZumino gauge.
160 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
c= M= N = OJ = 0, the transformation rules (26.2.11)(26.2.14) give
(27.8.5)
According to Eqs. (27.1.17), we can get back to WessZumino gauge by
performing an infinitesimal extended gauge transformation (27.1.13):
v + V + ~ [Q  Q*] , (27.8.6)
where Q is a leftchiral superfield with components
</ll = 0, vii = .fi r (XR, gll = (12(1 Y5)).) . (27.8.7)
According to Eq. (27.1.11), this extended gauge transformation induces
on a chiral superfield of charge q the transformation
0'<1> = i q Q <I> (27.8.8)
Using the multiplication rules (26.3.27H26.3.29), the transformation of
the components of <I> is
O'1pL = i.fiq<p r(XR ,
0' $' = 2iq<jJ ( (XLA.R)  i.fiq ((XL r 1pL) , (27.8.9)
0' <jJ = O.
Adding this to Eq. (27.8.1) and comparing with Eq. (27.8.4) shows that
the de WitFreedman transformation is indeed the combination of a con
ventional supersymmetry transformation and the corresponding extended
gauge transformation (27.8.8):
J<I> = 0<1> + 0'<1> . (27.8.10)
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry*
Theories with unbroken extended supersymmetry are not considered to
be good candidates for realistic extensions of the standard model, because
of the nonchirality of particle multiplets discussed in Section 25.4. Nev
ertheless gauge theories with .extended supersymmetry are worth some
consideration here because they have provided paradigms for the use of
powerful mathematical methods to solve dynamical problems.
There are a number of special formalisms that have been proposed
to construct Lagrangians with N = 2 extended supersymmetry,12 but
This section lies somewhat out of the book's main line of development and may be
omitted in a first reading.
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 161
fortunately we can get by with the tools already at hand. Any theory with
N = 2 supersymmetry also has N = 1 supersymmetry, so its Lagrangian
must be a special case of the Lagrangians already considered in this
chapter. To construct a Lagrangian with N = 2 supersymmetry for some
set of the N = 2 supermultiplets of particles constructed in Sections 25.4
and 25.5, we need only write down the most general Lagrangian with
N = 1 supersymmetry whose N = 1 supermultiplets contain physical
fields for the particles in the N = 2 supermultiplets, and then impose a
discrete Rsymmetry on the Lagrangian: a symmetry that acts differently
on different components of N = 2 supermultiplets. The Lagrangian
density will then be invariant under a second supersymmetry, whose
supermultiplets are given by acting on the supermultiplets of ordinary
N = 1 supersymmetry with the R symmetry.
It will be convenient to choose the discrete Rtransformation so that
(27.9.1 )
If the central charge were zero then the supersymmetry algebra would be
invariant under an SU(2) Rsymmetry group, which has the transforma
tion (27.9.1) as one finite element exp(in'l:2/2), but symmetry under the
discrete symmetry is sufficient for our purposes, so we do not need to
assume a zero central charge. In fact, it will tum out that the Lagrangians
we construct by this method will have an SU(2) Rsymmetry, not just
symmetry under the discrete transformation (27.9.1).
Let us first consider the renormalizable theory of the gauge bosons
of a general gauge group, together with the superpartners required by
N = 2 extended supersymmetry. We saw in Section 25.4 that in N = 2
global supersymmetry theories a massless gauge boson can only belong
to a multiplet also containing a pair of massless fermions of each helicity
+ 1/2 that transform as a doublet under the SU(2) Rsymmetry and a pair
of S U(2)singlet spinless bosons. Since N = 2 supersymmetry includes
N = 1 supersymmetry, the renormalizable Lagrangian for this theory
must be a special case of the general renormalizable Lagrangian density
(27.4.1). One feature of this special case is that since the gauge boson
belongs to the adjoint representation of the gauge group, so must also the
fermions and scalar field. To furnish N = 2 supermultiplelts of fields with
the correct particle content, we must have one N = 1 chiral superfield <I>A
with component fields <PA, lpA, ff A (with lpA Majorana and <PA and ffA
both complex) for each N = 1 gauge multiplet V~, A.A, D A We impose a
discrete Rsymmetry under the transformation
(27.9.2)
(with all other fields invariant) because this is the effect of the transforma
tion (27.9.1). Since a nontrivial superpotential would give lpA interactions
162 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
or mass terms that are absent for A.A, the superpotential must vanish. The
Lagrangian (27.4.1) therefore takes the special form
2' =  L(DIl<p)~ (DIl<p)A  ~ L (1J'A (fJ1J')A) + L ~~ ~A
A A A
 2.j2Re L CABC (A.~L 1J'CL) <P ~
ABC
+i L CABC<p~<pcDA  L~ADA + ~LDADA
nc A A
41 '"'
L..JfAllvfAIlV  21 '"'
L..J (rA (fJ A.)
)A + 64
g2 (J '"' fllv fPlI
2 CIlVPlI L..J A A '
A A n A
(27.9.3)
where
(D Il1J')A = 81l1J'A +L CABcVBIl1J'C, (27.9.4)
BC
(DIlA.)A = 81l A.A + L CABC VBIlA.C, (27.9.5)
BC
(DIl<P)A = 81l <PA + L CABC VBIl<PC , (27.9.6)
BC
and
fAllv = 81l VAV  8v VAil +L CABCVBIlVCV . (27.9.7)
BC
(Recall that in the adjoint representation (tA)BC = iCABC, where CABC
is the real structure constant, defined as usual in this book to include
factors of gauge couplings, and taken in a basis in which it is totally
antisymmetric.) The Lagrangian density (27.9.3) has N = 1 supersymmetry
with multiplets <PA, 1J'A, ~A and Vi, A.A, DA, because it is a special case of
Eq. (27.4.1), and it has an SU(2) symmetry relating 1J'A and A.A, including
invariance under the finite SU(2) transformation (27.9.2), so it also has
a second independent N = 1 supersymmetry with multiplets <PA, A.A, ~ A
and Vi, 1J'A, DA. It therefore satisfies the conditions imposed by N = 2
supersymmetry.
We can eliminate the auxiliary fields by setting them equal to the values
at which the Lagrangian density (27.9.3) is stationary:
DA = iL CABC<P~<PC. (27.9.8)
,
BC
(We are now assuming that the FayetIliopoulos constants ~A all vanish.)
Inserting these values back in Eq. (27.9.3) gives an equivalent Lagrangian
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 163
density
2' =  L(DI'4~ (DI'4A  ~ L (1pA (P1p)A)
A A
+.fi L CABC (1pB
ABC
C~Y5) lA) 4>c
M,",
y2 L..J CABC (lA
 (1 +Y5)
2 1pc)4>B
.  '
V(4), 4> )
ABC
1 '"' 1 '"' (  '"' I'V plI
I'V
4L..JfAl'vfA 2L..J lA(Pl)A ) +64
g2 (J2 CI'VPlIL..Jf
A fA ,
A A n A
(27.9.9)
where the potential is
V(4), 4>.) =  ~ LA [L CABC
BC
4>~4>c]
2 L [L CABC Re 4>B 1m 4>c] 2
A BC
2 =
(27.9.10)
This potential has a minimum value of zero, which is reached not only
for 4>A = 0 but also for any set of 4>s for which 'LBC CABC 4>~4>c = 0 for
all A or, in other words, for which
[t Re 4>, t 1m 4>] = 0 , where t v == L tBvB . (27.9.11)
B
That is, the minimum of the potential is reached for those scalar fields for
which all generators t Re 4> and t 1m 4> belong to a Cartan subalgebra of
the full gauge algebra, all of whose generators commute with one another.
Though all such values of 4> give zero potential, and hence unbroken
N = 2 supersymmetry, they are not physically equivalent, as shown for
instance by the different masses they give the gauge bosons associated
with the broken gauge symmetries.
One remarkable feature of extended supersymmetry is that the central
charges of the supersymmetry algebra in any state can be calculated in
terms of 'charges' in that state to which bosonic fields are coupled.13 The
easiest way to do this calculation is to use the transformation properties
under ordinary N = 1 supersymmetry of the extended supersymmetry
currents S!'(x) with r = 2, 3, ... , N to calculate the anticommutators
{Qla, S:p(x)}. We can then calculate the central charges from the anti
commutators
(27.9.12)
It turns out that the integrand on the righthand side is a derivative with
164 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
respect to space coordinates, but its integral does not vanish if the states
have fields that do not vanish rapidly as x + 00.
To see how this works in detail, let's consider the case of N = 2
supersymmetry with an S U(2) gauge symmetry and a single N = 2 gauge
supermultiplet, with no additional matter supermultiplets. The Lagrangian
here is given by Eq. (27.9.3), with A, B, and C running over the values 1,
2,3, and
~A = 0. (27.9.13)
(The coupling constant here is denoted e because this is the charge with
which the massless gauge field of the unbroken U(1) gauge symmetry
interacts.) The usual N = 1 supersymmetry current (distinguished now
with a subscript 1) is given by Eq. (27.4.40) as
Sf = ~ L fAp" [yP, y"hl' A.A  e L eABC Y5yl'A.A <P~ <Pc
A ABC
+~ ~ [(P<P)A yl'1pAR + (P<P*)A YI'1pAL] . (27.9.14)
We can calculate the second supersymmetry current by subjecting Sf to
the finite SU(2) Rsymmetry used above, which simply amounts to making
the replacements 1pA + A.A, A.A + 1pA' This gives
Sf = ! L f Ap" [yP, y"]yl'1pA + e L eABC ysYI'1p A <P ~ <Pc
A ABC
+~ ~ [(P<P)A yl' A.AR + (P<P*)A yl' A.AL] . (27.9.15)
It will be enough for our purposes (and somewhat easier) to calculate
only the change in the righthanded part of this current under an N = 1
supersymmetry transformation. After setting the auxiliary fields equal to
their equilibrium values
:FA =0, DA = ie L eABC<P~<PC ,
BC
we find
oSfR = f LfAp,,[YP, y"hl'(P<P)AIXR
A
f
.Ji e L eABCyl'(P<P)AIXR<P~<Pc  f Ap,,(P<P)AYI'[yP, Y"]IXR
ABC
.Ji e L eABC<P ~<pc(P<p )AyI'IXR + ... ,
ABC
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 165
where the dots denote terms bilinear in fermion fields, which do not con
cern us here because we are interested in effects of long range boson fields.
We can combine terms by using the Dirac anticommutation relations and
the identity
[yP, yU] [yl', yV] + [yl', yV] [yP, yU] = 8'1I'P'1 vU + 8'1ul''1Pv + 8 i cl'vpaYs
and find
OSiR = 2!i'Lf~V(Dv<P)A(XR  i!i'L cI'VpufApu(Dv<P)A(XR
A A
2!i e 'L cABC<P'B<PC (DI'<P)A(XR + ....
ABC
In order to write this as a derivative, we need to use the YangMills field
equations given by Eqs. (15.3.6), (15.3.7), and (15.3.9):
Dvf~v = J~ = e'L CABC(DI'<p)'B<Pc  <p'B(DI'<pk) ,
BC
cI'Vpu(DvjPU)A = O.
These allow us to write OSiR as a total derivative
oSiR = DvXI'V (XR , (27.9.16)
where
XI'V = 2!i'Lf~v <PA  i!i'L cl'Vpu fApu<PA + ... , (27.9.17)
A A
with the dots again indicating irrelevant terms involving fermion fields.
Eq. (26.1.18) allows us to write Eq. (27.9.16) as an anticommutation
relation
(27.9.18)
Since XI'V is a gaugeinvariant quantity, its gaugecovariant derivative
is the same as its ordinary derivative. Also, XI'" is antisymmetric, so
DvXo v = 8iXOI. From Eqs. (27.9.12) and (27.9.18), we have at last
{ QRa, QRP} = i [c (1
~ Ys ) ] ap J dS j XO
i
, (27.9.19)
with the integral taken over a large closed surface enclosing the system
in question, with surface area differential dS taken normal to the surface.
Comparing this with Eq. (25.2.38) gives the central charge
Z 12 = i J dS I XOI (27.9.20)
166 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
If we choose a gauge in which <PA (almost everywhere) has only the
constant nonvanishing component <P3 = v, then
LJ~i<pA = vE i , ~ LeOiPlIfAPU<PA = vB i , (27.9.21)
A A
where E and B are the electric and magnetic fields associated with the
unbroken U(I) subgroup of the SU(2) gauge group. Therefore the central
charge (27.9.20) here is
Z12 = 2.fiv [iq  JI] , (27.9.22)
where q and JI are the electric charge and magnetic monopole moment,
defined by
(27.9.23)
As discussed in Section 23.3, this theory, with S U(2) gauge symmetry
spontaneously broken by the expectation value of an S U (2) triplet of
scalars, is one in which magnetic monopoles actually do occur.
The application of the results of Section 27.4 to the Lagrangian density
(27.9.3) shows that, after the spontaneous breaking of the SU(2) gauge
symmetry, this theory will contain elementary particles of charge +e, zero
magnetic monopole moment, and treeapproximation mass M = .fi Ie vi
Specifically, for each sign of the charge there is one such particle of spin
1, two of them with spin 1/2, and one with spin O. It is a striking
consequence of the results obtained here that the mass value Jile vi is
exact. being unaffected by either radiative corrections or nonperturbative
effects. provided that the quantity v is defined by Eq. (27.9.22) for the
central charge. 13
To see this, note that the massive oneparticle states for each sign of
the charge are 'short' N = 2 supermultiplets, which, as shown at the end
of Section 25.5, have masses that saturate the lower bound (25.5.24);
M = IZ12I/2. (27.9.24)
Even if we did not trust the tree approximation to give us the precise
value of the particle masses, we would not expect corrections to this
approximation to tum short I;Ilultiplets into the full multiplets, with many
more states, that could have larger masses, so we can be confident that
Eq. (27.9.24) is exactly valid. For particles with electric charge q = +e and
zero magnetic monopole moment, Eq. (27.9.20) gives Z 12 = +2 .fi i v e, so
Eq. (27.9.24) tells us that their masses are
M = .file vi (27.9.25)
This is the result found in the tree approximation, but now we see that it
is exact.
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 167
The semiclassical calculations described in Section 23.3 show that
electrically neutral magnetic monopoles in this theory have monopole
strengths
J{ = 4nv ,
(27.9.26)
e
with v the winding number, a positive or negative integer. The formula
(27.9.22) for the central charge together with the inequality (25.5.24) thus
give a lower bound on the monopole masses
M
> 4nJilvvi (27.9.27)
 lei .
Interestingly, this is the same as the Bogomol'nyi lower bound 14 on
monopole energies derived in Section 23.3. t In fact, the monopole solution
for v = 1 that was described in Section 23.3 saturates this bound. More
generally, the 'dyons' of this theory,15 particles with both charge and
magnetic moment, have masses given by16
(27.9.28)
which again is the minimum value allowed by Eqs. (25.5.24) and (27.9.20).
Indeed, all of the known particles in this theory have masses given in the
semiclassical limit by Eq. (27.9.28).17
Returning now to general N = 2 gauge theories, we may also include
additional 'matter' fields in the Lagrangian. For simplicity, we will re
strict ourselves to 'short' massive hypermultiplets (with central charge ;Z
saturating the inequality (25.5.24)), each consisting of a single fermion of
spin 1/2 and an S U(2) doublet of spin 0 particles, together with distinct
antiparticles. This is the same spin content as is given under N = 1 super
symmetry by pairs of leftchiral scalar superfields ~ and 1ft;, together
with their rightchiral adjoints, with the complex scalar field components
<p~ and <p~ and their adjoints forming pairs of S U (2) doublets, and the
spinor fields all S U(2) singlets. (We are using primes and double primes
to distinguish these superfields and their components from <I>A and its
components.) If some of these hypermultiplets Iftn and 1ft; are nonneutral
.. Note that the magnetic moment J( defined by Eq. (27.9.23) is related to the magnetic
moment g defined in Section 23.3 by J( = 4ng.
t The canonically normalized field with a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value is
,fiRe</J3 (for rc~al v), so the quantity (</J) appearing in the Bogomol'nyi inequality
(23.3.19) is ,fiv.
168 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
under the gauge group, then a superpotential is allowed, of the form: tt
/(<1>,<1>',<1>") = ! 2)SA)nm<l>'n<l>'~<I>A +~ LJlnm<l>'n<l>'~ (27.9.29)
2 Anm nm
To the Lagrangian density (27.9.3) we then must add a Lagrangian density
for these hypermultiplets, given by the first eight terms on the righthand
side of Eq. (27.4.1), and find a total Lagrangian density
2' =  L(D!l<p')~(D!l<P')n  L(D!l<p")~(D!l<p")n  L(D!l<p)~ (D!l<p)A
n n A
 ~ L ( lp~(plp')n)  ~ L ( lp~(plp")n)
n n
 ~L (lpA (Plp)A)  ~L (lA (Pl)A)
A A
+L fJ'~. fJ'~ + L fJ'~. fJ'~ + L fJ'~ fJ' A
n n A
Re L(SA)nm<PA (lp~lelp~L)  2.j2Re L CABC (l}Lf"1pCL) <p~
Anm ABC
Re L(SA)nm<p~(lp~lelpAL)  Re L(SA)nm<p~(lp~lelpAL)
Anm Anm
+2.j2Im L(t'A)mn(lp~ldAL)<p~ +2.j2Im L(t'~)mn(lp~IdAL)<P~
Anm Anm
+Re L(SA)nm<PA<P~fJ'~ + Re L(SA)nm<PA<P~fJ'~
Anm Anm
+ Re L(SA)nm<P~<P~fJ' A
Anm
+ Re L Jlnm<P~fJ'~ + Re L Jlnm<P~fJ'~  Re L Jlnm ( lp~l elp~L)
Anm Anm nm
tt There still cannot be any terms in the superpotential that are of second or higher order
in the ct>A for the same reason as before: such terms would lead to scalar couplings
or masses for the lpA, with no "orresponding couplings or masses for their SU(2)
partners ,lA' Also, there cannot be any term that is trilinear in the ct>~ and/ or ct>~,
because then the term in Eq. (27.4.1) involving the product of fermion bilinears with
second derivatives of the superpotential would lead to a coupling of the SU(2)singlet
fermions to SU(2) doublet fields tP~ or tP~. Thus the only trilinear interaction terms
in the superpotential must involve one factor ofct>A and two factors ofct>'n and/or ct>':.
There cannot be any trilinear terms involving a ct> A and two ct>~s or two ct>': s, because
that would give the SU(2) singlet auxiliary fields :FA an interaction with SU(2)triplet
products tP'.tP'm or tP~tP~, and there cannot be any bilinear terms involving two ct>~s
or two ct>'~s, because that would yield SU(2)triplet mass terms (lp~TElp:') or (lp~TElp~).
The only remaining allowed bilinear or trilinear terms are of the form (27.9.29).
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 169
 2)t~)nm4>~ 4>~DA  2)t~)nm4>~ 4>~DA +i L CABC 4>~4>CDA
Anm Anm ABC
 L~ADA+!LDADA
A 2 A
1 '"' f IlV g2 (J '"' fllv plI
 4 ~ AllvfA + 64n2ellVPlI ~ A fA ' (27.9.30)
where the (t'A)nm and (t'l)nm are the matrices (including coupling constant
factors) representing the gauge group on the leftchiral scalar superfields
~ and <I>~, respectively. The Yukawa couplings between feunions and
scalars have a discrete Rsymmetry under the transformation
A.."
o/n ~
_A..'
o/n , 4>nI + 4>nII , (27.9.31)
provided that
(27.9.32)
(Note in particular that Eq. (27.9.32) requires the representations of the
gauge group furnished by cv,. and <I>~ to be complex conjugates.) This is
also a symmetry of all the other terms in the Lagrangian density (27.9.30),
except for those involving the auxiliary fields.
It is not possible to extend the symmetry under the transformation
(27.9.31) to the auxiliary fields, but the symmetry appears after the auxil
iary fields are eliminated.+ After setting DA , 30~, and 30~ equal to values
at which the Lagrangian density is stationary, and combining D and
3Oterms, the Lagrangian density (with SA and t'l given by Eq. (27.9.32),
and ~A taken to vanish) takes the form
2' =  L(DIl4>I)~(DIl4>')n  L(DIl4>")~(DIl4>")n  L(DIl4~ (DIl4A
n n A
~ L (lp~(plpl)n)  ~ L (lp~(plp")n)
n , n
~ L (lpA (Plp)A)  ~L (lA (Pl)A)
A A
2~Im L(t'A)mn4>A(lplelp~)  2~Re L CABC (l~LelpCL)4>~
Anm ~C
*After elimination of the auxiliary fields, the resulting action is invariant under the
original N = 2 supersymmetry transformation only 'onshell'  that is, only up to
terms that vanish when the fields satisfy the interacting field equations. This doesn't
hurt, because there still are two conserved supersymmetry currents whose integrated
timecomponents satisfy the N = 2 supersymmetry anticommutation relations when
the fields of which they are composed are required to satisfy the field equations of
the Heisenberg picture. 'Offshell' formulations of N = 2 supersymmetry exist, but are
subject to various complications. 18
170 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
 2/iIm L(t'A)mn4>~(1p~IE1pAL)  2 /iIm L(t'A)mn4>~ (1p~IC1pAL)
Anm Anm
+2/iIm L(t'A)mn (1p~ldAL )4>~  2/iIm L(t'A)nm(1p~IdAL )4>~'
Anm Anm
1 '"' !'V g2(J C PlI
'"' !'vf
4 L..JfA!'vfA
A
+ 64 11:
2 !'VPlI L..JfA A
A
 L {t'A' t'B}mn4>A4>'B(4>~4>~' + 4>~' 4>~)
ABnm
L(t~)nm4>~4>~
nm
nm nm
(27.9.33)
nm nm
The last five lines on the righthand side come from the terms in
Eq. (27.9.30) involving auxiliary fields, and now these too are invariant
under the discrete transformation (27.9.31), provided that
(27.9.34)
We can now go a step further and consider the case of N = 4 extended
global supersymmetry. (As remarked in Section 25.4, N = 3 supersym
metry is the same as N = 4 supersymmetry.) The only massless multiplets
of N = 4 supersymmetry that do not contain gravitons or gravitinos
consist of a single particle of helicity 1, an S U (4) quartet of particles of
helicity 1/2, and an S U(4) sextet of particles of helicity 0, together with
their CPTconjugates of opposite helicity. There is one such supermul
tiplet for each generator tA of the gauge group. These particles can be
grouped into supermultiplets of N = 2 supersymmetry: for each tA there
is one gauge supermultiplet consisting of one particle of helicity 1, two
particles of helicity +1/2,and one particle of helicity 0, together with
their CPT conjugates of opposite helicity, plus two hypermultiplets, each
consisting of one particle of each helicity +1/2 and two particles of helic
ity 0. The N = 2 gauge superfield consists of an N = 1 gauge superfield
VA and a leftchiral scalar superfield <l>A and its complex conjugate, while
the two N = 2 hypermultiplets consist of two additionalleftchiral scalar
superfields <l>'A and <I>'~ and their complex conjugates.
Since N = 4 supersymmetry includes N = 2 supersymmetry, the
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 171
Lagrangian density after elimination of the auxiliary fields of N = 1
supersymmetry18 must be a special case of Eq. (27.9.33), but with the
labels n, m, etc. running over the indices A, B, C, etc. of the adjoint
representation. Also, the coefficient J1.nm in the superpotential (27.9.29)
must varush here, because otherwise Eq. (27.9.33) would contain terms
quadratic in the fermion fields 1Jl~ and 1Jl~, with no counterpart for their
N = 4 superpartners A.A and 1JlA. Also setting (t'A)BC equal to the gener
ators i CABC in the adjoint representation, we find that the Lagrangian
density must take the form
2' =  2)DI"</>')~(DI"</>')A  2:)DI"</>")~(DI"</>")A  2)DI"</~ (DI"</A
A A A
~ L (1Jl~(P1Jl')A))  ~ L (1JlA(P1Jl")A))
A A
!2 LA (1JlA (P1Jl)A) !2 LA (A.A (PA.)A)
(27.9.35)
where the potential is
~ L CABCCADE</>~</>C</>D</>E + 2 L : [ CABC</>~</>~ (27.9.36)
ABCDE A BC
With no further constraints needed, this Lagrangian has an SU(4) R
symmetry, which implies that it is invariant under N = 4 supersymmetry.
To see this, we need to use the Jacobi identity to write the crossterm in
172 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
the second line of the righthand side of Eq. (27.9.36) in the form
L CABcCADE<PB<P~<PI;"<P~ =  L CABCCADE<pB<pD<pr<p~
ABCDE ABCDE
 L CABCCADE<pB<p~<pr<p~,
ABCDE
which allows us to write the potential (27.9.36) in a form symmetric among
the scalars and their adjoints
2 2 2
V = L L CABC<P~<P~ +L L CABC<p~<pr +L L CABC<PB<P~
A BC A BC A BC
2 2
+ L LCABC<PB<Pr + L LCABC<PB<P~
A BC A BC
2 2
+ '""'
L..J '""' ,,,
L..J CABC<PB<PC + 21 '""'
L..J '""' ' ""
L..J CABC<PB'I'C
A BC A BC
2 2
+ 21 '""'
L..J '""' " ",,,
L..J CABC<PB'I'C + 21 '""'
L..J '""' '"
L..J CABC'I'B<PC (27.9.37)
A BC A BC
Now to make the SU(4) symmetry apparent, we introduce an S U(4)
notation for the fields. We assemble the lefthanded fermion fields into an
S U(4) vector:
1plAL =1pAL , 1p2AL =A.AL , 1p3AL == 1p~L ' 1p4AL =1p~L' (27.9.38)
In order for the fermion kinematic terms in the Lagrangian density to be
SU(4)invariant, we then must assemble the righthanded fermion fields
into a contragredient vector:
1/!3 
"rAR = "rAR,
",' 1/!4 
"rAR = "rAR'
"," (27.9.39)
The Majorana condition on the fermion fields then takes the S U(4)
invariant form
(27.9.40)
with indices i, j, etc. running over the values 1, 2, 3, 4. In order for the
Yukawa couplings between the fermion and scalar fields to be SU(4)
invariant, we must give the scalars the transformation properties of an
antisymmetric S U(4) tensor
",12 _ ",.
'l'A = 'l'A'
",13 = ",,,
'l'A  'l'A,
",14
'l'A 
= _ 'l'A'
""
(27.9.41)
23 _ '. ",24 = _ ",n. ",34 _ '"
<PA = <PA' 'l'A  'l'A' 'l'A = 'l'A,
27.9 Gauge Theories with Extended Supersymmetry 173
which also obeys an S U(4)invariant reality condition
(4>1i') = 21 L, Cijkl 4>klA . (27.9.42)
kl
The whole Lagrangian density (27.9.35) can then be written in the mani
festly S U (4 )invariant form
2' = ~ L,(DIl4>ij)A(DIl4>ij)~
2 Aij
 ~ L, (1p~Lc(P1pk)A) + ~ L, (1p~1e(P1pidA)
Ai Ai
.fiRe L, CABc4>Y(1pJn C1pjCL)  V
ABCij
1 '"' f fllv
 4 LJ Allv A
A
+ 64g2n(J2 cIlVptI '"' fllv fPlI
LJ A A '
A
(27.9.43)
where the potential is
2
1 '"'
.. kl
V=.L, LJ CABC4>'k4>c (27.9.44)
8 Aijkl BC
The potential has a minimum value zero, so that supersymmetry is not
broken .~ this theory. The minimum is reached when the generators
'LA tA4>~ all commute with one another.
For zero theta angle, the gauge theories with a simple gauge group
and either N = 2 or N = 4 supersymmetry have just a single coupling
constant, the gauge coupling constant g. Since these theories have N = 1
supersymmetry, they share the property discussed in Section 27.6, that
the only infinity in higher orders of perturbation theory is in a oneloop
correction to this coupling.:tf The function P(g) in the renormalization
group equation p.dg/dJ1. = P(g) is then given to all orders of perturbation
theory by the oneloop formula (18.7.2), with a suitable correction for the
presence of scalar fields:
(27.9.45)
t1 The trilinear term in the superpotential (27.9.29) is proportional to the gauge coupling,
and is therefore renormalized, despite the norenormalization theorem of Section 27.6.
This is because here we are renormalizing the leftchiral scalar superfields ct> A, ct>'., and
ct>;. as well as the gauge superfield VA so as to keep them canonically normalized. The
bilinear term in Eq. (27.9.29) is renormalized for the same reason.
174 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
where
L CABCCABD = g2C lo CD ,
AB
[Tr(tctD)] Majorana fermion.
= g2C{OCD , (27.9.46)
[Tr(tctD)] complex scalars = lqOCD .
In general theories with N = 2 supersymmetry we have two Majorana
fermions A.A and lpA in the adjoint representation and H pairs of Ma
jorana fermions lp~ and lp~ whose left and righthanded parts are in
representations with generators either t'A or t'AT, so
C{ = 2CI + 2HCL (27.9.47)
where q is defined by
(27.9.48)
Also, we have one complex scalar <pAin the adjoint representation and H
pairs of complex scalars <p~ and <p~ in representations with generators t'A
or t'AT, so
q = C1 +2HC~. (27.9.49)
The beta function (27.9.45) is therefore
g2
fJ(g) =  8n 2 ( C1  H q) . (27.9.50)
The case of N = 4 supersymmetry is just the special case with H = 1 pairs
of N = 2 hypermultiplets in the adjoint representation, with q = CI, so
in this case the beta function vanishes. This is therefore a finite theory,
with no renormalizations at all.1 9
Gauge theories with N = 4 supersymmetry have another remarkable
property, known as duality. This was first conjectured by Montonen
and Olive l ? for purely bosonic theories in which a simple gauge group
is spontaneously broken to a U(1) electromagnetic gauge group. They
noticed that semiclassical calculations (of the sort described in Section
23.3) give the mass of particles with charge q = ne and magnetic monopole
moment J{ = 4nm/e (with nand m integers of any sign) as
M = y h2 v ( ne + e
4nim) , (27.9.51 )
which is invariant under the transformations
m + n, n + m, e ++ 4n/e. (27.9.52)
Problems 175
On this basis, they suggested that the theory with a weak gauge coupling
e is fully equivalent to one with a strong gauge coupling 4n/e. Neither
the purely bosonic theory nor the simplest versions of the N = 1 and
N = 2 extended supersymmetry theories really have this property;2 for
one thing, the massive charged elementary vector bosons of the broken
gauge symmetries have spin 1, while all of the monopoles and dyons have
spins 1/2 or O. (We will see in Section 29.5 that N = 2 theories do have a
duality property of a more subtle sort.) But for N = 4 supersymmetry the
monopole states form multiplets with one particle of spin 1, four particles
of spin 1/2, and two particles of spin 0, just like the elementary particles. 20
Evidence has accumulated21 that N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theories are
indeed invariant under the interchange of electric and magnetic quantum
numbers and of e with 4n/e. The equivalence of theories with large and
small coupling constants has become an increasingly important theme in
string theory, but this is beyond the scope of this book.
Problems
1. To second order in gauge coupling constants, calculate the compo
nents of the superfields fr4 that are needed to put the gauge superfield
VA in WessZumino gauge by the transformation (27.1.12).
2. Show that the most general chiral spinor superfield W", satisfying the
condition (27.2.20) has components!JlV satisfying the homogeneous
Maxwell equations eJlVP1I8p!Jlv = O. What conditions on the other
components of W", are imposed by Eq. (27.2.20)?
3. Consider a general renormalizable N = 1 supersymmetric gauge
theory with an S U(2) gauge group and a single chiral superfield
belonging to the 3vector representation of S U(2). What is the most
general superpotential for this theory? Construct the Lagrangian
density of the whole theory explicitly. Eliminate the auxiliary fields.
Show that supersymmetry is not broken in this theory. What are the
masses of the particles of this theory?
4. Express the gaugino and chiral fermion fields in the supersymmetric
version of quantum electrodynamics described in Section 27.5 in
terms of the goldstino field and other spinor fields of definite mass.
5. Consider the renormalizable N = 2 supersymmetric theory with an
S U(3) gauge symmetry and no hypermultiplets. What are the values
of the scalar fields for which the potential vanishes? What are the
massless gauge fields for nonzero values of these scalars? Calculate
176 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
the central charge in terms of the quantities to which these ma.ssless
gauge fields are coupled.
References
1. Supersymmetry was applied first to Abelian gauge theories without
using the superfield formalism by J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys.
B78, 1 (1974). It was then extended to nonAbelian gauge theories
by S. Ferrara and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B79, 413 (1974); A. Salam
and J. Strathdee, Phys. Lett. SIB, 353 (1974). These references are
reprinted in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed. (North HollandjWorld
Scientific, Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987).
2. P. Fayet and J. lliopoulos, Phys. Lett. SIB, 461 (1974). This reference
is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
3. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. SO, 3702 (1998).
4. S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, and F. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. D20, 403
(1979). This article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1. Special
cases of this sum rule had bf:en given by P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 84B,
416 (1979).
5. M. T. Grisaru, W. Siegel, and M. Rocek, Nucl. Phys. BIS9, 429
(1979).
6. N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B318, 469 (1993).
7. This was first proved in the supergraph formalism by W. Fischler,
H. P. Nilles, J. Polchinski, S. Raby, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. Lett.
47, 757 (1981). The proof presented here was given by M. Dine, in
Fields, Strings, and Duality: T AS] 96, C. Efthimiou and B. Greene,
eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997); S. Weinberg, Ref. 3.
8. A detailed proof of the statement that superrenormalizable terms
that violate some global symmetry do not introduce infinite sym
metry breaking radiative corrections to the coefficients of renormal
izable interactions is given by K. Symanzik, in Cargese Lectures
in Physics, Vol. 5, D. Bessis, ed. (Gordon and Breach, New York,
1972). This is discussed briefly in the footnote on p. 507 of Volume
1.
9. L. Girardello and M. T. Grisaru, Nucl. Phys. B194, 65 (1982),
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1; K. Harada and N. Sakai, Prob.
Theor. Phys. 67, 67 (1982).
10. For a review, see S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 123 (1989).
References 177
11. B. de Wit and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D12, 2286 (1975). This
article is reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
12. The first examples of gauge theories with N = 2 extended super
symmetry were given by P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. BI13, 135 (1976);
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1. The approach presented here is
similar to that of Fayet. A superfield formalism was subsequently
given by R. Grimm, M. Sohnius, and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. BI13,
77 (1977). Gauge theories with N = 2 and N = 4 supersymmetry in
four spacetime dimensions were constructed by dimensional reduc
tion of higher<iimensional theories with simple supersymmetry by
L. Brink, J. H. Schwarz, and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. BI13, 77 (1977);
M. F. Sohnius, K. S. Stelle, and P. C. West, Nucl. Phys. BI13, 127
(1980). For other approaches, see M. F. Sohnius, Nucl. Phys. B138,
109 (1979); A. Halperin, E. A. Ivanov, and V. 1. Ogievetsky, Prima
JETP 33, 176 (1981); P. Breitenlohner and M. F. Sohnius, Nucl.
Phys. B178, 151 (1981); P. Howe, K. S. Stelle, and P. K. Townsend,
Nucl. Phys. B214. 519 (1983).
13. E. Witten and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. 78B, 97 (1978). Also see H.
Osborn, Phys. Lett. 83B, 321 (1979).
14. E. B. Bogomol'nyi, Sov: J. Nucl. Phys. 24, 449 (1976).
15. D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. 176, 1480, 1489 (1968); J. Schwinger, Phys.
Rev. 144, 1087 (1966); 173, 1536 (1968); B. Julia and A. Zee, Phys.
Rev. Dll, 2227 (1974); F. A. Bais and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev.
D13, 819 (1975). (The last article was incorrectly attributed to Julia
and Zee in Chapter 23 of the first printings of Volume II.)
16. M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3S. 760
(1975); E. B. Bogomol'ny~ Ref. 14; S. Coleman, S. Parke, A. Neveu,
and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. DIS, 544 (1977).
17. This was noted by C. Montonen and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. 72B,
117 (1977). The absence of oneloop corrections to the masses was
shown by A. D'Adda, R. Horsley, and P. Di Vecchia, Phys. Lett.
76B, 298 (1978).
18. Obstacles to formulating theories with auxiliary fields for N = 4
supersymmetry have been analyzed by W. Siegel and M. Roeek,
Phys. Lett. 10SB, 275 (1981).
19. The finiteness of the N = 4 theory was shown by M. F. Sohnius and
P. C. West, Nucl. Phys. Bl00, 245 (1981); S. Mandelstam, Nucl. Phys.
B213" 149 (1983); L. Brink, O. Lindgren, and B. E. W. Nilsson,Nucl.
Phys. B212, 401 (1983); Phys. Lett. 123B, 328 (1983). The proof of
finiteness was extended to nonperturbative effects by N. Seiberg,
178 27 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
Phys. Lett. B206, 75 (1988). Also see S. Kovacs, hepth/9902047, to
be published.
20. H. Osborn, Ref. 13.
21. A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B329, 217 (1994); C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl.
Phys. B 431, 3 (1994); L. Girardello, A. Giveon, M. Porrati, and A.
Zaffaroni, Phys. Lett. B334, 331 (1994).
28
Supersymmetric Versions
of the Standard Model
Physical phenomena at energies accessible in today's accelerator labora
tories are accurately described by the standard model, the renorma1izable
theory of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, governed by the gauge group
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I), described in Sections 18.7 and 21.3. The standard
model is today usuallyl understood as a lowenergy approximation to
some asyetunknown fundamental theory in which gravitation appears
unified with the strong and electroweak forces at an energy somewhere
in the range of 1016 to 1018 GeY. This raises the hierarchy problem: what
accounts for the enormous ratio of this fundamental energy scale and the
energy scale,::,; 300 GeV that characterizes the standard model?
The strongest theoretical motivation for supersymmetry is that it offers
a hope of solving the hierarchy problem. Quarks, leptons, and gauge
bosons are required by the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) gauge symmetry to
appear with zero masses in the Lagrangian of the standard model, so that
the physical masses of these particles are proportional to the electroweak
breaking scale, which in turn is proportional to the mass of the scalar
fields responsible for the electroweak symmetry breakdown. The crux of
the hierarchy problem 1a is that the scalar fields, unlike the fermion and
gauge boson fields, are not protected from acquiring large bare masses
by any symmetry of the standard model, so it is difficult to see why their
masses, and hence all other masses, are not in the neighborhood of 1016
to 1018 GeY.
It has been hoped that this problem could be solved by embedding the
standard model in a supersymmetric theory. If the scalar fields appear
in supermultiplets along with fermions in a chiral representation of some
gauge group, then supersymmetry would require vanishing bare masses
for the scalars as well as the fermions. All the masses of the standard
model would then be tied to the energy scale at which supersymmetry
is broken. The hope of a solution of the hierarchy problem along these
lines has been the single strongest motivation for trying to incorporate
supersymmetry in a realistic theory.
179
180 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
Unfortunately, none of the new particles required by supersymmetric
theories have been detected, and no entirely satisfactory supersymmetric
version of the standard model has emerged so far. This chapter will
describe the attempts that have been made in this direction.
28.1 Superfields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws
In this section we shall attempt to decide at least tentatively what ingre
dients should appear in a supersymmetric version of the standard model.
None of the quark and lepton fields of the standard model belong to the
adjoint representation of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) gauge group, so they
cannot be the superpartners of known gauge bosons and must therefore
be included in chiral scalar superfields. We will define Ui, Di, Vi, Di, N;,
E i , and Ei as the leftchiral superfields whose 1JJL components are the left
handed fields of the quarks of charge 2e/3 and e/3, of the antiquarks
of charge 2e/3 and +e/3, of the leptons of charge 0 and e, and of the
antileptons of charge +e, respectively, with i a generation label running
over values 1, 2, and 3. (For instance, the spinor components of Ul, U2,
and U3 are the lefthanded fields of the U, c, and t quarks, respectively.)
Of these superfields, Ui and Di form S U(2) doublets, Ni and Ei also form
SU(2) doublets, and the others are SU(2) singlets. The quark superfields
form SU(3) triplets and the antiquark superfields form SU(3) antitriplets,
with color indices suppressed, and the leptons and antilepton superfields
are SU(3) singlets. As mentioned earlier, the particles described by the
scalar components of these superfields are known as squarks, antisquarks,
sleptons, and antisleptons. There are also the gauginos, the spin 1/2
superpartners of the gauge bosons of SU(3), SU(2), and U(I), respectively
known as the gluino, wino, and bino.
We must also add some mechanism that produces a spontaneous break
down of SU(2) x U(I) and gives mass to all the quarks and leptons as well
as to the W and Zoo The simplest possibility is to suppose the existence
As discussed in Section 28.3, the energy scale that characterizes supersymmetry break
ing is expected to be considerably higher than the "" 300 Ge V that characterizes
the breaking of SU(2) x U(l), so there is a substantial range of energies in which
supersymmetry but not SU(2) x U(l) may be considered to be broken. In this range,
the gauginos have masses that are governed by SU(2) x U(l) symmetry, so the neutral
electroweak gauginos of definite mass are superpartners of the S U (2) triplet WO and
the SU(2) singlet B, known as the neutral wino and the bino, rather than superpartners
of the ZO and the photon. When SU(2) x U(l) breaking is taken into account there
is a small mixing of the neutral wino and bino.
2B.1 Superfields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws 181
of just two more SU(2) doublets of leftchiral superfields:
(28.1.1)
which appear in the Lagrangian density in linear combinations of the
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)invariant 9"terms:
[(DiH~  UiH} )Dj] j> , [( EiH?  NiH} )Ej]j> , (28.1.2)
and
(28.1.3)
with obvious contractions of color indices. According to Eq. (26.4.24), a
nonvanishing expectation value of the scalar component of H~ gives mass
to the charged leptons and charge e/3 quarks, while a nonvanishing
expectation value of the scalar component of Hg gives mass to the charge
+2e/3 quarks. These expectation values of course also give mass to the
W and ZO vector bosons and, since the HI and H2 are SU(2) doublets,
we automatically get the same successful results for these masses as found
in Section 21.3. Note that supersymmetry does not allow the complex
conjugates of the HI and H2 leftchiral superfields to appear in the
superpotential, so a vacuum expectation value of the scalar component
of H~ cannot give masses to the charge +2e/3 quarks, and a vacuum
expectation value of the scalar component of Hg cannot give mass to the
charge e/3 quarks or the charged leptons, which is why both HI and H2
are needed to give masses to all the quarks and leptons.
Of course, there might be more than one of the HI and/or H2 dou
blets. Their numbers are partly constrained by the condition of anomaly
cancellation. We saw in Section 22.4 that the gauge symmetries of the
nonsupersymmetric standard model are anomalyfree, as they must be
for quantum mechanical consistency, but now there are additional spinor
fields in the Lagrangian. The gaugino fields don't create any problems,
because their lefthanded components belong to the adjoint representation
of the gauge group, which is real for all gauge groups. The only problem
can arise from the higgsinos  the spin 1/2 components of the superfields
(H? , HI) and (Hi, Hg). The spinor components of each (H? ' HI) dou
blet of superfields produces an SU(2)SU(2)U(1) anomaly proportional
to :L t5Y = ( tg)2( tg') +(  tg)2( tg') = !g2g" while the spinor components
of each (Hi, Hg) doublet of superfields produces an SU(2)SU(2)U(1)
anomaly proportional to :L t5Y = ( tg)2(  tg') + ( !gh tg') =  tg 2g'.
The cancellation of anomalies thus requires an equal number of (H~ , HI)
and (Hi, Hg) doublets. In this case, all anomalies cancel, including the
U(1)3 and U(l)gravitongraviton anomalies. The next section will give
an argument that there is in fact just one of each type of doublet.
182 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
In a theory constructed along these lines, we have to give up one of the
attractive features of the nonsupersymmetric standard model, that is, that
it automatically excludes any renormalizable interactions that violate the
conservation of baryon or lepton number. There are several renorma1izable
supersymmetric SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I)invariant $i"terms that could be
included in the Lagrangian density that would violate baryon and/or
lepton number conservation without violating the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I)
gauge symmetries:
[( DN.
IJ
 UoEo)Dk]
IJ fF' (28.1.4)
and also
(28.1.5)
with the three suppressed color indices in Eq. (28.1.5) understood to be
contracted with an antisymmetric esymbol to give a color singlet. With
all of these interactions present, there would be no clever way to assign
baryon and lepton numbers to the squarks and sleptons that would avoid
an unsuppressed violation of baryon and lepton number conservation. For
instance, the exchange of the scalar boson of the D superfield between
vertices for interactions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5) would lead to the process
uLdRuR + eR, observed for instance as p + nO + e+, at a catastrophic rate
that is only suppressed by factors of coupling constants. To avoid this,
it is necessary to make an independent assumption that would rule out
some or all of the interactions (28.1.4)(28.1.5).
Note that it is not necessary to rule out all of the interactions (28.1.4)
and (28.1.5). For instance, suppose that we assume only that baryon
number is conserved, with conventional baryon number assignments: the
Ui and Di leftchiral superfields are assigned baryon number +1/3; the
Vi and Di are assigned baryon number 1/3; and the Li, E i, HI, and
H2 all are assigned baryon number O. This would allow the interactions
(28.1.4) while forbidding the interactions (28.1.5). Despite appearances,
the interactions (28.1.4) alone do not violate the conservation of lepton
number, provided the scalar components of the superfields are assigned
appropriate lepton numbers. This can be done by assigning lepton number
o to the Ni and Ei superfielas, lepton number 1 to the Ui, Di, Vi, and
Di superfields, lepton number 2 to the Ei superfields, lepton number 0
to the HI and H2 superfields, and lepton numbers 1 and +1 to (1 and
(IN, respectively. (Recall that such symmetries, under which () transforms
nontrivially, are known as Rsymmetries.) Then all quarks and leptons
have conventional lepton numbers: the fermion components ViL and eiL,
which are the coefficients of (}L in Ni and E i, have the lepton numbers
0+ 1 = +1; the fermion components eiR of the Ei superfields have lepton
2B.1 Superjields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws 183
numbers 2+ 1 = 1, and the quarks and antiquarks have lepton numbers
1 + 1 = 0. The higgsinos (the fermion components of HI and H2) have
lepton numbers 0+ 1 = + 1. On the other hand, the scalar components of
the superfields have the same lepton numbers as the superfields themselves,
which are unconventional. Further, the "term of a leftchiral superfield is
the coefficient of oi, so the interactions in Eq. (28.1.4) have lepton numbers

1 +0 1 +2 = and 0+02 +2 = 0; the HI interactions (28.1.2) have

lepton number 1 + 1 + 2 = and +
and the H2 interaction (28.1.3) has lepton number 1 + 
2 + 2 = 0, respectively;
1 + 2 = 0;
so none of these interactions violate the conservation of lepton number.
Also, the scalar components of HI and H2 have lepton number 0, so
their vacuum expectation values also do not violate the conservation of
lepton number. With this assignment of lepton numbers, lepton number
conservation rules out any renormalizable interactions that would violate
baryon number conservation: the interaction (28.1.5) has lepton number
111 + 2 = 1, and so is forbidden.
The interactions (28.1.4) would allow an alternative mechanism for
breaking SU(2) x U(I) and giving mass to the charged leptons and charge
e/3 quarks: the scalar components of the neutrino superfields N j might
have nonvanishing vacuum expectation values. (With the lepton number
assignments of the previous paragraph this expectation value would not
violate lepton number conservation, because these scalar components have
the lepton number of the Nj superfields, which is zero.) But we cannot
rely on this mechanism to let us do without the HI superfields altogether,
because we still need the H2 interactions (28.1.3) to give mass to the charge
+2e/3 quarks and, as we have seen, the cancellation of anomalies requires
equal numbers of HI and H2 superfields.
It is usually assumed instead that some symmetries forbid both interac
tions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5). Obviously, these symmetries could be baryon
and lepton number conservation, with conventional assignments of these
numbers: Ui, Dj having baryon number B = 1/3 and lepton number
L = 0, OJ and Di having baryon number B = 1/3 and lepton number
0, Nj and Ej having lepton number L = +1 and baryon number 0, Ei
having lepton number 1 and baryon number 0, and H~, HI and Hi, Hg
and OL and OR all having baryon and lepton numbers 0. The same results
apply if we only assume the conservation of certain linear combinations of
baryon and lepton number, such as the anomalyfree combination B  L
discussed in Section 22.4.
There are widespread doubts about whether it is possible to have exact
continuous global symmetries, because in string theory the existence of
any exact continuous symmetry would imply the existence of a massless
spin 1 particle coupled to the symmetry current, so that the symmetry
would have to be local, not globa1.Ib But the interactions (28.1.4) and
184 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
(28.1.5) may also be banned by assuming a discrete global symmetry,
known as the conservation of R parity.2 The R parity is defined to be +1
for quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and Higgs scalars, and 1 for their
superpartners. This R parity is equal to
llR = (It (_1)3(BL) , (28.1.6)
where (It is the fermion parity, which is +1 for all bosons and 1
for all fermions. Fermion parity is the same sign as is produced by a
2n rotation, and is therefore always conserved, so if B  L is conserved
then so is R parity:" It is possible that R parity may be conserved
even if B  L is not, but in fact the interactions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5) are
forbidden by R parity conservation, so as far as renormalizable interactions
are concerned R parity conservation implies the conservation of both
baryon and lepton number. This is not true of the nonrenormalizable
supersymmetric interactions that are presumably produced by physical
processes at very high energies. The baryon and leptonnonconserving
processes produced by such interactions are discussed in Section 28.7.
All of the new 'sparticles' (squarks, sleptons, gauginos, and higgsinos)
that are required by supersymmetry theories have negative R parity, so
if R parity is exact and unbroken then the lightest of the new particles
required by supersymmetry must be absolutely stable. All of the other new
particles will then undergo a chain of decays, ultimately yielding ordinary
particles and the lightest new particle. Much of the phenomenology of
various supersymmetry models is governed by the choice of which of the
new particles is the lightest.
With supersymmetry and either R parity or B  L conserved, the most
general renormalizable Lagrangian for the superfields discussed above
consists of the usual gaugeinvariant kinematic part for the chiral super
fields, given by a sum of terms of the form (<I>" exp(  V)<ID for each of the
quark, lepton, and Higgs chiral superfields, plus the usual gaugeinvariant
kinematic term for the gauge superfields, given by a sum of terms of the
form eap(WaWp)j> for each of the SU(3), SU(2), and U(I) field strength
superfields, plus the supersy.r;nmetric Yukawa couplings, given by a lin
ear combination of the interactions (28.1.2), (28.1.3), and a new Si"term
.. The value of (1 )3(BL) is 1 for quark and lepton superfields and +1 for all other
superfields, so the conservation of R parity is equivalent to invariance under a
transformation in which all quark and lepton superfields change sign with no change
in other superfields. This invariance principle was introduced in Reference 3 in order
to rule out the interactions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5).
28.1 Superfields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws 185
coupling HI and H2:
(28.1.7)
As we will see in Section 28.3, more terms will have to be added to the
Lagrangian in order to account for supersymmetry breaking.
The coefficient J1. in Eq. (28.1.7) has the dimensions of mass, and is
the only dimensional parameter that enters in the supersymmetric version
of the standard model Lagrangian. It is somewhat disappointing to find
that this term is still allowed, because it revives the hierarchy problem:
why is J1. not of order 1016 to 1018 GeV? The J1.term in Eq. (28.1.7)
can be avoided if we assume that lepton number is conserved, with the
unconventional lepton number assignments discussed above that would
allow the interactions (28.1.4) but not the interactions (28.1.5). In this
case, the Wterm carries lepton number +2 and is therefore also forbid
den. This term can also be forbidden if we assume a U(l) 'PecceiQuinn
symmetry,'4 for which the superfields HI and H2 carry equal quantum
numbers, say +1, while (h and (lR are neutral. The interactions (28.1.2)
and (28.1.3) which give mass to the quarks and leptons are then allowed if,
for instance, we give PecceiQuinn quantum numbers 1 to the leftchiral
superfields of antisquarks and antis leptons while the leftchiral superfields
of squarks and sleptons are taken to be neutral. This choice then also
forbids the dangerous interactions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5). Unfortunately, as
we will see in Section 28.4, the wterm in Eq. (28.1.7) seems to be needed
for phenomenological reasons. The theories of gravitymediated super
symmetry breaking discussed in Section 31.7 provide a natural mechanism
for producing a Wterm of an acceptable magnitude.
We can obtain a crude upper bound on the masses of the new parti
cles by assuming that supersymmetry does solve the hierarchy problem
discussed at the beginning of this chapter. In accord with the theorem
of Section 27.6, if supersymmetry were unbroken the contribution to the
mass of the scalar component of HI or H2 from oneloop diagrams with
an intermediate quark, lepton, W or Z loop would be cancelled by the
corresponding oneloop diagram with an intermediate squark, slepton,
wino, or bino. Therefore with supersymmetry broken the contribution
t5m~ of such diagrams to the squared masses of the HI and H2 scalars is
a sum of terms of order (';j8n;2)dm;, where 'S is the Yukawa or gauge
coupling of the Higgs scalar to supermultiplet s, and dm; is the mass
squared splitting within the supermultiplet To avoid having to finetune
186 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
these corrections, we need bmit not much larger than the coefficient of
order (300 Gey)2 of the term in the standard model Lagrangian density
that gives the observed SU(2) x U(1) breaking in the tree approximation,
so we will assume that bmit < (1 Tey)2. For instance, the top quark and
squark have couplings to H2 of order unity, so we expect that the splittings
ilm2 should be less than about 8n 2 Te y2, and hence the masses of the top
squarks should be less than about 10 TeY. We will see in Section 28.4 that
the rates of flavorchanging processes can be brought within experimental
upper bounds by taking the masses of the squarks to be nearly equal, in
which case this can be taken as a rough upper limit on the masses of all
the squarks. (However it is possible that the rates of these processes may
be suppressed instead by very large masses of the first two generations of
squarks, while the mass of the top squark is below the 10 TeY naturalness
bound.4a ) The limits set by this sort of argument on the masses of other
particles with R = 1 are somewhat weaker, but at least in the popular
class of models discussed in Section 28.6, none of the masses of these
particles are expected to be much greater than the squark masses, so 10
Te Y can be taken as an upper bound on all of them. On the other hand,
the fact that none of these particles have been observed only indicates
that their masses are probably greater than about 100 GeY, so there is an
ample mass range in which they may yet be found.
***
If R parity conservation or some other conservation law makes the
lightest of the new particles predicted by supersymmetry stable, then some
of these particles may be left from the early universe. The number density
of these relics can be estimated using techniques that were originally
applied to the cosmic density of massive neutrinos. 4b To give one example
of this sort of calculation, we shall show that for a broad range of plausible
masses, the new stable particle of supersymmetry theories cannot be a
charged and uncolored particle, like a charged slepton, wino, or higgsino. 4c
Once the cosmic temperature T (in energy units, with the Boltzmann
constant set equal to unity) drops below the mass m of any stable charged
untrapped particle, their number nR3 in a volume R3 that expands with
the universe is decreased by annihilation at a rate per particle equal to
VCTn, where VCT is the mean value of the product of the relative velocity
and the annihilation crosssection. That is,
d(nR3) _ 2R3
dt = VCTn ,
so that
1 (1)
nR3 =
nR3 0 +
1t
to
VCT
R3 dt , (28.1.8)
28.1 Superjields, Anomalies, and Conservation Laws 187
where 0 labels the epoch at which T ~ m The annihilation process
is exothermic, so vu approaches a constant for v < 1. Also, in a
radiationdominated phase of the cosmic expansion R ex t I/2 , so the
integral converges, and gives
(n~3 ) (n~3 ) + vu 10 RJ (t~:O)3/2
00
HOO = 0
= (n~3 ) 0 + 2~to . (28.1.9)
The density nB of baryon number (baryons minus antibaryons) goes as
R3, so this can be rewritten as a formula for the present ratio of new
particles to baryons:
I
(n/nB)oo = [(nB/n)o+2vunBotor . (28.1.10)
We expect that the ratio (n/nB)o at the time that T drops to a value ~ m
is roughly of order unity, and since in any realistic theory the present ratio
(n/nB)oo must be much less than unity, we can neglect the first term in the
denominator on the righthand side of Eq. (28.1.10), and write instead
(28.1.11)
The precise value of vu depends on the particle spin and its interactions;
keeping track only of factors of 2n, the particle mass m, and the electric
charge, we can estimate it generally to be of order
4
VlT~ e .IV ~ 103 .IV (28.1.12)
2nm2 m2 '
where .IV is the number of charged particle spin states with mass less than
m, into which this particle may annihilate. Also, the age of the universe
at a temperature To ~ m is to ~ m4 /mpL, where mpL ~ 10 18 GeV, and the
density of baryon number is about 109 times the photon number density,
which is of order T 3, so that nBO ~ 1O 9m3 . Putting this together, we find
the present ratio of the new charged particles to baryons:
. (/ ) ~ 1012 m _ 106 m(GeV) (28.1.13)
n nB 00 
mpLJ.JF  iF
J'
These new charged particles would experience the same condensations into
galaxies, stars, and planets as ordinary baryons, so this would be the ratio
observed today on earth. But experiments4d that apply mass spectroscopy
to samples of water that have been strongly enriched in heavy waterlike
molecules by electrolysis have set limits of about 1O21 nB on the number
density of new charged particles with 6 GeV < m < 330 GeV in terrestrial
matter. Thus, even if .IV is as large as 1000, these measurements decisively
rule out the existence of any new charged untrapped particles in this
188 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
mass range in the numbers that would have been left over from the early
umverse.
On the other hand, neutral untrapped particles would be left in inter
galactic space. Such particles might well provide the 'missing mass,' that
seems to be necessary to account for the gravitational field that governs
the motion of galaxies in clusters of galaxies. One of these possible neutral
particles is the gravitino, whose cosmological abundance is discussed in
Section 28.3. Ellis et al.4c have extended cosmological considerations to
all the new particles required by supersymmetry.
28.2 Supersymmetry and StrongElectroweak Unification
We shall have to defer a detailed assessment of supersymmetric models
of particle physics until we are ready to consider how supersymmetry is
broken. In this section we will consider the quantitative application of
supersymmetry in one context in which the mechanism for the breakdown
of supersymmetry is relatively unimportant, and in which supersymmetry
has scored what so far is its greatest empirical success.
If the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) gauge group of the strong and e1ectroweak
interactions is embedded in a simple group G that has the known quarks
and leptons (plus perhaps some S U(3) x SU(2) x U(I)neutral fermions) as
a representation, then, as described in Section 21.5, at energies at or above
the scale Mx at which G is spontaneously broken, the SU(3) xSU(2) x U(I)
coupling constants will be related by
g; = =;
g2
5 ,2
at energies > Mx . (28.2.1 )
At energies far below Mx, these couplings are seriously affected by renor
malization corrections. If measured at a scale J1. < Mx, the couplings
will have values g;(J1.), g2(J1.), g'\J1.), governed by oneloop renormalization
group equations
J1. ~g(J1.) = P2(g(J1.)), J1. ~gs(J1.) = P3(gs(J1.)) ,
. (28.2.2)
with initial conditions at Mx satisfying Eq. (28.2.1). In the original use 5
of these renormalization group equations, discussed in Section 21.5, the
beta functions were calculated in oneloop order to be
 5ng g,3
P1  361t2 ' (28.2.3)
_ g3
P2  41t2
(11 n
"6 + 3
g)
' (28.2.4)
28.2 Supersymmetry and StrongElectroweak Unification 189
(28.2.5)
where ng is the number of generations of quarks and leptons and the
relatively small contributions of scalar fields are here neglected. Since Mx
will tum out to be many orders of magnitude larger than the energies
accessible with today's accelerators, it seems reasonable to suppose that
supersymmetry is unbroken over most of the range below Mx, in which
case all of the new fields discussed in the previous section need to be
included in calculations of the beta functions in Eq. (28.2.1). These
new fields introduce three major changes in the calculations of the beta
functions:
1. For every gauge boson, there is a Majorana gaugino with the same
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) quantum numbers. Eq. (17.5.41) shows that the
ratio of the contribution to the beta function for any gauge coupling of
a Dirac fermion that furnishes a contribution of the gauge group with
generators tA to the contribution of the corresponding gauge boson is
4C2/11Ct. where according to Eqs. (17.5.33) and (17.5.34) the ratio of
Cl and C2 is given by:
L CCABCDBA = (Ct/C2)Tr(tctD) . (28.2.6)
AB
For the adjoint representation, (tc}AB = i CABC, so C1 = C2, and so a
Dirac fermion in the adjoint representation makes a contribution that is
4/11 that of the gauge bosons. But the gauginos are Majorana fermions,
so their contribution is 2/11 that of the gauge boson. Thus the term
11/6 and 11/4 in Eqs. (28.2.4) and (28.2.5) are reduced by a factor 9/11
to 9/6 and 9/4, respectively.
2. For every lefthanded quark, lepton, antiquark, or antilepton field, there
is a complex scalar field with the same SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) quantum
numbers. Following the same method as in Section 17.5, it is not hard
to calculate that the contribution of a complex scalar field belonging to a
representation of a gauge group with generators tA to the beta function
for the gauge coupling gi is
gr C2i
[fh(gi)]scalar = 481t2 ' (28.2.7)
where Tr(tAtB) = grC2ibAB. This is 1/4 the contribution of a Dirac spinor
j~eld in the same representation, given by Eq. (18.7.2), and hence 1/2
Ithe contribution of each lefthanded spin or field (including the complex
conjugates of the righthanded components of the Dirac fields). Thus the
coefficients of ng in Eqs. (28.2.3H28.2.5) should be increased by a factor
3/2.
190 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
3. The decrease by a factor 9/11 of the negative gauge boson terms in the
beta function and the increase by a factor 3/2 of the positive squark and
slepton terms both lead to a general decrease in the rate at which the three
gauge coupling constants diverge below Mx from the ratios (28.2.1). This
will increase Our estimate of Mx, but, as we shall see, in itself it would have
no affect on the prediction of the electroweak mixing parameter sin2 e. But
these changes do enhance the relative contribution of the Higgs scalars,
which was neglected in Eqs. (28.2.3)(28.2.5), and which is now also
accompanied with the larger contribution of the accompanying higgsinos.
With ns of the superfie1ds (Hr , HI) or (Hi, Hg) discussed in the previous
section, the constant e2i in Eq. (28.2.7) is [(1/2)2 + (1/2)2]ns = ns/2 for
SU(2), and is 2n s(+1/2)2 = ns/2 for U(I). According to Eq. (28.2.7), the
scalar components of these superfields make a contribution to PI equal
to nsg,3/961t 2 and a contribution to P2 also equal to nsg3/961t 2. As we
have seen, the Majorana higgsinos contribute twice as much to the beta
functions as complex scalars with the same quantum numbers, so the
superfields (Hr, HI) or (Hi, Hg) make a total contribution to PI and
P2 that is 3/2 the contribution of the Higgs scalars, and hence equal to
nsg,3/32n2 and nsg3/321t 2, respectively.
Making an these changes in the beta functions, we now have
g,3 (5n g ns) (28.2.8)
PI = 41t2 6 + 8" '
P2 = 41t2
(9
g3 ng ns)
"6 + 2 + 8" ' (28.2.9)
P3 =
g; (9 n
41t2 "4 + 2 .
g)
(28.2.10)
The solutions of the renormalization group equations (28.2.2) are then
21 =
21 + _1_2 (5n6 g + ns) In (Mx) ' (28.2.11)
g' (Il) g' (Mx) 21t 8 Il
g2~1l) = g2(~X) + 2~2 ( ~ + i + ~) In (~x) , (28.2.12)
1
2()
gs Il
=
21
gs(Mx)
, + _12
21t
(_24 + n2
g) In (Mx) .
Il
(28.2.13)
It is convenient to take Il mz, so that SU(2) x U(I) can be regarded
=
as unbroken over almost all of the range of energies in which we use
the formulas (28.2.11)(28.2.13). Using Eq. (28.2.1), the difference between
Eqs. (28.2.12) and (28:.2.13) gives
(28.2.14)
28.2 Supersymmetry and StrongElectroweak Unification 191
Table 28.1. Values of the electroweak mixing parameter sin2 8 and unification
mass Mx given by Eqs. (28.2.17) and (28.218), as functions of the number ns of
leftchiral sUperfield doublets (H? , HI> or (Hi ' H~).
Mx (GeV).
o 0.203 8.7 X 10 17
2 0.231 2.2 X 1016
4 0.253 1.1 X 10 15
while the difference between Eq. (28.2.12) and 3/5 of Eq. (28.2.11) gives
2
1 ) _
g (mz
2
3
5g' (mz)
= _1_ ( _ 3
2 I
21t \ 2
+ ns)
20
In (Mx)
mz
. (28.2.15)
Eq. (21.3.19) allows us to express the electroweak couplings in terms of
the electroweak mixing angle e and the positron charge e:
g(mz) = e(mz)/ sin e , g'(mz) = e(mz)/cose. (28.2.16)
We can then solve for the unknowns In(Mx/mz) and sin2 e in terms of
input parameters e(mz) and gs(mz):
sin2 e = 18 + 3ns + (e2(mz)/ g;(mz ))(60  2ns) (28.2.17)
108 + 6n s '
In (Mx)
mz
= (
2
81t )
e2(mz)
(1  2
(8e (mz )/3g;(mz )))
18 + ns
(28.2.18)
For ns = 0 Eq. (28.2.17) gives the same result (21.5.15) for sin2 e as was
originally calculated (ignoring the small contribution of Higgs scalars)
in nonsupersymmetric theories, but the value (28.2.18) of In(Mx/mz) is
larger than the original result (21.5.16) by a factor 11/9, which as we have
seen arises from gaugino contributions to the beta functions.
Using the same input parameters e2(mz)/41t = (128)1, g;(mz)/41t =
0.118, mz = 91.19 GeV as in Section 21.5 now gives the numerical results
shown in Table 28.1. As discussed in the previous section, the necessity of
cancelling anomalies in the electroweak currents requires equal numbers
of (H?, HI) and (Hi, Hg) doublets, so we consider only even values of
the number ns of these superfields.
Remarkably, the value ns = 2 for the simplest plausible theory yields a
value6 sin2 e = 0.231 which is in perfect agreement with the experimentally
192 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
observed value, sin2 8 = 0.23. The value of Mx is 20 times greater?
than calculated in this way in nonsupersymmetric theories, leading to a
decrease by a factor 204 in the rate for proton decay processes like p +
1t+e+, thus removing a conflict with the experimental nonobservation of
such processes. (Proton decay is discussed in more detail in Section 28.7.)
This increase in the value of Mx brings it closer to the energy scale,::,; 1018
GeV at which gravitation has the same strength as other interactions. It
may be that this remaining gap may be filled by a change in gravitational
interactions at very high energiesJa
A value ns = 4 would give a value for sin2 8 in serious disagreement
with experiment, and a value of Mx low enough to revive the conflict
with expectations for proton decay. This makes a strong case for having
just one of each superfield (H? ' HI) and (Hi ' H~).
Unlike the calculated values of sin2 8 and Mx, the calculated value of
the common gauge coupling (28.2.1) at Mx does depend on the number
of generations as well as the number of scalar doublets. With ng = 3 and
ns = 2 and our previous input parameters, Eq. (28.2.13) gives
g2(Mx) g;(Mx) 1
~=..:.  =  . (28.2.19)
41t 41t 17.5
28.3 Where is Supersymmetry Broken?
Supersymmetry if valid at all is certainly not apparent in the menu of
known particles, so any consideration of the implications of supersym
metry at ordinary energies requires us to make some assumption about
the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking. It would be simplest to sup
pose that supersymmetry is broken like SU(2) x U(I), by effects occurring
in the tree approximation of the supersymmetric standard model. This
possibility may be definitely ruled out.
One argument against a treeapproximation breakdown of supersym
metry is based on the mass sum rule (27.5.11), which holds separately
for each value of the unbroken conserved quantities color and electric
charge. In the colortriplet sector with electric charge e/3 the only
known fermions are the d, s, and b quarks, for which
~+ m; + m~ : : : (5 GeVl. (28.3.1)
According to the sum rule, if there are no other fermions with this color
and charge, then the sum of all squared masses for bosons (counting
each spin state separately) with the same color and charge must equal
about 2(5 GeV)2. In particular, each of the squarks with this color
and charge must have a mass no greater than 7 GeY. The existence of
28.3 Where is Supersymmetry Broken? 193
such light squarks is definitely ruled out experimentally; they would have
shown up, for instance, as a contribution to the rate for electronpositron
annihilation into hadrons at energies where this process has been studied
very thoroughly.
This argument could be invalidated if there were a heavy fourth gen
eration of quarks. There is another argument, due to Dimopoulos and
Georgi,3 which would apply however many heavy quarks there are and
which yields an even stronger upper bound on the mass of the lightest
squark. The unbroken conservation of charge and color tells us that the
only nonzero D Aoterms in the supersymmetric standard model are for
the generators y of U(1) and t3 of SU(2), which we shall call Dl and D2,
respectively. The values of these generators are y = g' /6 and t3 = +g/2
for the lefthanded quarks of charge 2e/3; y = g'/6 and t3 = g/2
for the lefthanded quarks of charge e/3; y = 2g'/3 and t3 = 0 for the
righthanded quarks of charge 2e/3; and y = g' /3 and t3 = 0 for the
righthanded quarks of charge e/3. Also, the squark fields are color
triplets, and therefore cannot have vacuum expectation values. According
to Eq. (27.5.4), the masssquared matrix of the charge 2e/3 colortriplet
(not antitriplet) squarks is
.,//"u.,// u  g'DI/6 + gD2/2
M5u= [
$'"
u 1, (28.3.2)
$'u "//u"//"u +2g'Dl/3
while the masssquared matrix of the charge e/3 colortriplet squarks is
M5D =
.,//~.,// D  g'Dl /6  gD2/2 $'~ 1 (28.3.3)
[
$'D .,// D"//~  g'Dl/3
Also, Eq. (27.5.6) gives the masssquared matrices of the quarks of charge
2e/3 and e/3 here as just .,//"u"//u and "//~"//D' respectively, with no
mixing with the gauginos.
Now let Vu and Vd be the normalized eigenvectors of the quark mass
squared matrices "//"u"// u and .,//~.,// D corresponding to the quarks u and
d of lowest mass, and consider the expectation values of the corresponding
squark masssquared matrices
[V~0]t Mou [0]
v~
2
=
2
mu +
2g'Dl
3 ' (28.3.4)
[vd0]t MOD2 [0]
Vd 2
= md 
g'Dl
3 . (28.3.5)
These expectation values are weighted averages of the squared masses of
the squarks of charge 2e/3 and e/3, respectively, so at least one squark
of charge 2e/3 must have a squared mass less than + 2g'DI/3, and m;
194 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
at least one squark of charge e/3 must have a squared mass less than
m~  g'Dt/3. Thus, depending on the sign of Dl, there must be either a
squark of charge 2e/3 lighter than the u quark, or a squark of charge e/3
lighter than the d quark.
Needless to say, the existence of a charged colortriplet scalar this light
would radically change stronginteraction phenomenology. Like the u and
d quarks, this colored scalar would appear as an ingredient of hadrons
with a 'constituent' mass of a few hundred Me V, which is certainly not
seen. Since this scalar is electrically charged, it would also be created in
pairs in e+ e annihilation at energies above a few hundred MeV, making
a contribution to the annihilation crosssection that would destroy the
excellent agreement between theory and experiment for this crosssection.
Even worse, since the u and d quarks are so light, and Dl is expected to be
of the order of the supersymmetrybreaking scale, Eqs. (28.3.4) and (28.3.5)
indicate that one of the squarks would have a negative squared mass,
meaning that this squark field would have to develop a nonvanishing
expectation value, breaking both color and charge conservation. We are
forced to reject the simple picture of supersymmetry broken spontaneously
in the tree approximation in a supersymmetric version of the standard
model.
One way out of this conclusion would be to add another U(1) gauge
superfield to the theory. If all the quark superfields carry the same value g
of this new U(1) generator, then the corresponding Dterm D would make
an additive contribution gD to the righthand sides of both Eqs. (28.3.4)
and (28.3.5). If this term were sufficiently large, then it could give a
large positive value to all of the squark squared masses, avoiding all thc~
problems mentioned above. But there is no sign of such a new neutral
gauge boson at accessible energies, and in any case we would still have an
upper bound of 7 GeV on the masses of all the squarks of charge e/3.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that we have to look for the break
ing of supersymmetry elsewhere than in the tree approximation of the
supersymmetric standard model. If supersymmetry were broken in this
approximation, then the characteristic mass that sets the scale of super
symmetry breaking would be some mass parameter in the Lagrangian,
which would in tum set the scale of all other masses in the standard
model. We would then still 'be confronted with the hierarchy problem:
why is this mass scale so much less than 10 16_10 18 GeV?
There is one known way to explain such large mass ratios. If supersym
metry is not spontaneously broken in the tree approximation in whatever
field theory unifies all the interactions at some high mass scale Mx, then as
shown in Section 27.6, it will not be broken in any order of perturbation
theory. But it can be broken by nonperturbative effects. In particular,
if there is some gauge field with an asymptotically free gauge coupling
28.3 Where is Supersymmetry Broken? 195
C(J1.) at renormaIization scale J1., and if C2(J1.)/81t2 is substantially less than
unity for J1.'::'; Mx, then as discussed in Section 18.3, this gauge interaction
will become strong at an energy of order Ms = Mx exp( 81t 2b /C2(Mx)),
where b is a number of order unity. It is not necessary for .;2(Mx )/81t2
to be very small in order to have Ms many orders of magnitude less than
Mx. We will see in Section 29.4 that supersymmetry can indeed be broken
in just this way, by a gauge coupling that has become strong at some
energy Ms ~ Mx. Indeed, this is just what happens to chiral symmetry in
quantum chromodynamics; there is no mystery why the proton mass (or
at least its main part, due to the dynamical breakdown of chiral symmetry,
and not to the tiny masses of the u and d quarks) is so much smaller
than the unification scale Mx. Alternatively, the forces that are strong
at energy Ms may produce a potential for scalar fields, whose vacuum
expectation value then breaks supersymmetry.
There are no signs of any new strong interaction of the known quarks
and leptons, so we have to assume that the observed particles of the
standard model are neutral with respect to tbe strong force that breaks
supersymmetry. Supersymmetry breaking therefore occurs in a 'hidden
sector' of particles that do feel this new strong force. The remaining ques
tion, then, is what is the mechanism by which supersymmetry breaking in
this hidden sector is communicated to the known particles of the standard
model? As we shall see, most of our expectations for the phenomenologi
cal implications of supersymmetry depend on the answer to this question,
rather than on the details of the breakdown of supersymmetry itself.
Of course, the mechanism for communicating supersymmetry breaking
to observed particles must be some sort of interaction that is felt by these
particles. There are two leading candidates. One mechanism is provided by
the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) gauge interactions themselves, to be discussed
in Section 28.6. The other is gravitation, or rather the auxiliary fields that
are superpartners of the gravitational field, to be discussed in Sections
31.4 and 31.7.
Without going into details here, we can make a crude estimate of
the supersymmetrybreaking scale Ms for these two possibilities. For
gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking, we expect that the mass split
ting between the observed quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons and their
superpartners would be of order g; /161t 2 or g/2/161t2 or g2/161t2 (where
gs, g, and g' are the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) gauge couplings), depending
on which quantum numbers are carried by the supermultiplet in question.
(This guess is verified in Section 28.6.) Hence if the squarks, sleptons,
and gauginos have masses in the range of 100 GeV to 10 TeV, as argued
at the end of Section 28.1, then the supersymmetrybreaking scale Ms
would be higher by two or three orders of magnitude  say, of order 100
TeY. On the other hand, if it is gravitation that serves as the mediator of
196 28 Super symmetric Standard Models
supersymmetry breaking, then on dimensional grounds we would expect
the mass splittings Am between the observed particles and their super
partners to be of order .jGM~, or perhaps of order GM. (Results of
both sorts will be encountered in models described in Section 31.7.) If the
squarks, sleptons, and gauginos have masses in the range of 100 GeV to
10 TeV, then Ms would be of order 1011 GeV for Am ,::,; .jGM~, or 1013
GeV for Am,::,; GM.
The large difference in estimates of the supersymmetrybreaking scale
Ms for gauge and gravitationmediated supersymmetry breaking makes
an important difference in particle phenomenology and cosmology. As
already mentioned several times, supersymmetry dictates that the graviton
must have a partner of spin 3/2, the gravitino. When supersymmetry is
spontaneously broken at a scale Ms, the gravitino acquires a mass mg of
order .jGM~. (A precise formula will be given in Section 31.3.) For gauge
mediated supersymmetry breaking, this is very small; if Ms ,::,; 100 TeV
then mg ,::,; 1 eV, so the gravitino would be by far the lightest of the new
particles required by supersymmetry  that is, the lightest particle with
negative R parity (28.1.6). On the other hand, for gravitationally mediated
supersymmetry breaking the gravitino mass is just of the same order of
magnitude .jGM~ as the mass splitting between known particles and their
superpartners, so the gravitino would have roughly the same mass as the
squarks, sleptons, and gauginos. The gravitino then might or might not
be the lightest particle with negative R parity, but its interactions with
known particles and their superpartners in this case are of gravitational
strength, so that gravitinos would play no direct role in experiments on
elementary particles.
***
There are limits on the number of gravitinos that could survive from the
big bang, which set useful constraints on the scale Ms of supersymmetry
breaking. At some point in the distant past the temperature Twas
presumably high enough so that even purely gravitational interactions
would have kept gravitinos in thermal equilibrium with other particles,
in which case the number density of gravitinos would have been of the
order of T3, roughly the same as the number density of photons. (We
are using units in which the' Boltzmann constant kB as well as Ii and c
are equal to unity.) If gravitinos do not annihilate or decay, then the
expansion of the universe will lower their number density in the same
way as the number density of photons, so even after the gravitinos go
out of equilibrium they would be present in numbers comparable to those
of photons. More precisely, since the photons but not the gravitinos are
heated by the annihilation of other particles, the number density ngO of
gravitinos at present would be one or two orders of magnitude less than
28.3 Where is Supersymmetry Broken? 197
the number density nyo of photons in the cosmic microwave radiation
background. In order for the mass density mgngO of the gravitinos not to
exceed the upper bound on the cosmic mass density set by the observed
value of the Hubble constant, mg would have to be less8 than about 1
keY. As we have seen, this limit is well satisfied in theories of gauge
mediated supersymmetry breaking, where the gravitino is too light for
cosmic gravitinos to contribute appreciably to the mass density of the
universe. Since some of the fields that break supersymmetry in these
theories must interact at least indirectly with the known quark, lepton,
and gauge fields in order for the known particles to show the effects of
supersymmetry breaking, the interactions of the gravitino with the known
particles and their superpartners are suppressed only by powers of gauge
and Yukawa coupling constants, so all the superpartners of the quarks,
leptons, and gauge bosons would decay quickly into these known particles
and gravitinos. Thus these particles also do not provide candidates in
these models for the 'missing mass' sought by cosmologists. (It is possible
that conservation laws could keep some particles of the supersymmetry
breaking sector stable, in which case they could conceivably serve as the
missing mass.)
On the other hand, for supersymmetry breaking that is gravitationally
mediated, gravitinos are heavy enough to be unstable (though gravitino
annihilation is still negligible), so the above limit need not apply.9 We will
see in Section 31.3 that the coupling of the gravitino to other fields is
proportional to .[G, so on dimensional grounds the decay rate r g of a
gravitino at rest is roughly of the order of Gmi. This is to be compared
with the rate of expansion of the universe, which at temperature T is of
order .JGT4. (We are here ignoring factors of order 10100, including
those involving nongravitational coupling constants and the number of
particle species.) When the cosmic temperature drops to the value T,::,; mg
at which gravitinos become nonrelativistic, the ratio of their decay rate
to the expansion rate is of order .[Gmg = mg/mplanck ~ 1, so gravitino
decay becomes significant only after this time, when the gravitinos are
highly nonrelativistic. As we have seen, their number density will be of
order T 3, so their energy density will then be of order mg T 3, which is
greater than the energy density of order T4 of the photons and other
particles in thermal equilibrium at temperature T, and therefore makes
the dominant contribution to the cosmic gravitational field that governs
the rate of expansion of the universe. The expansion rate under these
J
conditions is therefore of order Gmg T3, and gravitino decay becomes
significant when this equals the gravitino decay rate of order Gmi, and
therefore at a temperature
T.g ~

G1/ 3mg
5/ 3
.
198 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
As we have seen, if these gravitinos did not decay before the present then
their mass had better be less than 1 keV, but they can lead to cosmological
difficulties even if they did decay before now. Mter they decay, their energy
must go into the energy of photons and other relativistic particles, so the
temperature T~ after decay is related to the temperature Tg calculated
above by the energy conservation condition mg Ti :::,; T~4, and hence
3 2
Tg'  G1/ 4 mg/ '
In particular, since Tg ~ mg, we have T~ ~ Tg. If Tg were less than
the temperature Tn ~ 0.1 MeV at which cosmological nucleosynthesis
can occur, then gravitinos would still be abundant before nucleosynthesis,
giving a higher energy density and hence a faster expansion, so that there
would be less time for free neutrons to decay before being incorporated
into complex nuclei, and hence more helium would be produced when
nucleosynthesis occurs. Also, the ratio of the photon and baryon densi
ties would have been subsequently increased by gravitino decay, so this
ratio at the time of nucleosynthesis would have been considerably less
than is usually estimated from the present cosmic microwave background
temperature, and so nuclear reactions would have incorporated neutrons
more completely into helium, and less deuterium would be left today.
The present agreement between theory and observation for the cosmic
helium and deuterium abundances would thus be destroyed. This problem
is avoided if Tg > 0.1 MeV, but it can also be avoided under the much
weaker condition that T~ > 0.4 MeV, because then after the gravitinos
decay the temperature would have been high enough to break up the
excess helium and give cosmological nucleosynthesis a fresh start as the
universe recools. This condition requires that mg > 10 TeV, which is just
barely consistent with the upper bound derived in Section 28.1 on the
masses of the superpartners of the known quarks, leptons, and gauge
bosons, which for gravitationally mediated supersymmetry breaking are
of order mg. This limit on mg corresponds to a supersymmetrybreaking
scale Ms > 1011 GeV for mg :::,; .JGM~ or Ms > 1013 GeV for mg :::,; GM.
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
In the previous section we identified two different ways that th<: breakdown
of supersymmetry at a high energy scale Ms could be communicated to
the known quarks and leptons: through gauge or gravitational superfields.
The supersymmetrybreaking terms in the resulting lowenergy effective
Lagrangian will then be suppressed by powers of gauge couplings or the
Newton constant. Most of these terms will therefore be rather small,
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 199
with the exception that, along with factors of gauge couplings or the
Newton constant, on dimensional grounds the mass terms and other
superrenormalizable terms in the effective Lagrangian will be proportional
to one or more factors of the supersymmetrybreaking scale Ms, which
is quite large compared with known particle masses. We can conclude
then that, to a fair approximation for gaugemediated supersymmetry
breaking and a very good approximation for gravitationally mediated
supersymmetry breaking, the main effect of supersymmetry breaking will
be in the superrenormalizable terms of the effective Lagrangian of the
supersymmetric standard model. This version of the standard model, 10
which is supersymmetric except for superrenormalizable terms, is usually
known as the minimal supersymmetric standard model.
With R parity or B  L conserved, the most general superrenormalizable
Lagrangian density allowed by SU(3) xSU(2)x U(1) gauge symmetry takes
the form
""' 2L(!l'i!l'j
 ~ Mij t )  "~ Mij 2E(t)
tfi tfj
ij ij
 (A.3 mgJuino A.3)  (A.2 mwino A.2)  (A.I mbino A.l)
 ""' D D(fliT eYfl )
~Aijhij 
f!)j ~Aijhij
""' E E( !l'iT eYfI )tfj

ij ij
 LAg hg (flJ eYf2)tiitj  L c8 h8 (flJ Yf;)~j
ij ij
 L Ci~ h5(!l'J Yf;)Sj  L cS hg (flJ Yfi)tiitj
ij ij
BJ.l(YfIeYfl) +H.c. (28.4.1)
Script letters are used here to denote the scalar components of left
chiral superfields. Sums over SU(2) and color indices are understood, as
necessary for invariance under SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), with e the usual
antisymmetric 2 x 2 matrix iU2. All coefficients may be complex, and the
gaugino masses may involve terms proportional to the )'5 as well as the
unit matrix.
We follow the custom here of writing the coefficients of the terms
involving scalar fields but not their adjoints as equal to the coefficients of
the corresponding supersymmetric 9" terms in Eq. (28.1.7) times factors
A8, A5, Ag, and B. This is motivated by the consideration that the
smallness of the Yukawa couplings of the light quarks in Eq. (28.1.7)
reflects a number of approximate chiral symmetries that if extended to the
200 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
whole supermultiplet would also make the corresponding trilinear terms
in Eq. (28.4.1) small, while the appearance of the Wterm in Eq. (28.1.7)
violates a possible PecceiQuinn4 symmetry that if approximately valid
would make both J1. and BJ1. small. Similar considerations suggest the form
in which we write the coefficients of the terms that involve both scalars
and their complex conjugates. Also, in Section 31.4 we will describe
contributions to Ah and BJ1. that really are proportional to hand J1.,
respectively. However, here we are leaving it an open question whether
the Ah, Ch, and BJ1. coefficients in Eq. (28.4.1) are necessarily small when
the corresponding hand J1. coefficients in Eq. (28.1.7) are small.
The Chterms in Eq. (28.4.1) have generally been omitted in discussions
of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. This is partly because, as
discussed in Section 27.7, terms like these that involve the Q>components
of leftchiral scalar superfields and also their complex conjugates can
potentially produce quadratic divergences and thereby raise finetuning
problems. But we saw in Section 27.7 that the quadratic divergences occur
only in 'tadpole' graphs in which a scalar field line disappears into the
vacuum, and in the minimum supersymmetric standard model there are no
scalars that are neutral under all gauge symmetries, and hence no scalar
tadpoles. The Chterms are absent in the theories of gravitationally medi
ated supersymmetry breaking discussed in Section 31.6, and small in the
theories of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking described in Section
28.6, but there is no reason to suppose that this will always be the case.
Even though they are not supersymmetric, superrenormalizable in
teractions like those in Eq. (28.4.1) are shown in Section 27.7 to not
produce supersymmetryviolating ultravioletdivergent corrections to the
coefficients of the supersymmetric d = 4 interactions. The condition of
supersymmetry that is imposed on the dimensionless couplings of the min
imal supersymmetric standard model therefore does not get in the way of
the cancellation of ultraviolet divergences by renormalization of coupling
constants. It was this property, rather than any theory of supersymmetry
breaking in a high energy hidden sector, that motivated the introduction
of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in Reference 10.
The best reason today for studying the implications of the supersym
metric standard model is that, as already mentioned, theories in which
supersymmetry is spontaneously broken at a high energy scale are natu
rally described by the minimal supersymmetric standard model at much
lower energies. We can explore the phenomenological implications of the
supersymmetric standard model, and be reasonably confident that the re
suits will be relevant whatever detailed model of supersymmetry breaking
and its mediation turns out to be correct.
Even without the Chterms, if all of the other coefficients in the
Lagrangian are constrained only by gauge symmetries and R parity
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 201
conservation, the minimal supersymmetric standard model will contain
over 100 free parameters.u Here 'minimal' means nothing more than that
the theory contains only a minimal menu of superfields. Sometimes the
term 'minimal supersymmetric standard model' is reserved for models
that also satisfy restrictions on the coefficients of the superrenormaliz
able terms, motivated either by some underlying theory or by empirical
constraints. For instance, the minimal supersymmetric standard model is
sometimes optimistically assumed to satisfy the universality conditions
M~Q = M5 D = M5 u = M5 L = MOE = M 2 oij,
mgJuino = mwino = mbino , (28.4.2)
A~ = A5 = Ag = A , Ce = C5 = CH = 0 .
Often these conditions are imposed at the scale Mx :::::: 1016 GeV of
coupling constant unification, with corrections produced only by the
renormalization group flow to lower energies. We will not be making
such assumptions here.
In analyzing the phenomenological implications of the Ininimal super
symmetric standard model, we must deal not only with the search for
new particles, but also with two classes of severe empirical constraint
on processes involving known particles: the experimental upper bounds
on various flavor nonconserving processes, and on various modes of CP
nonconservation.
Flavor Changing Processes
We saw in Section 21.3 that there is an automatic suppression of flavor
changing processes like KOj(o oscillations and KO + J1.+ J1. in the non
supersymmetric standard model. This is due to the feature of this theory,
that it is only the mass splittings of the quarks that prevent them from
being defined so that each flavor is separately conserved, so the amplitude
of these flavorchanging process must be proportional to several factors
of small quark masses. Also, in this theory lepton flavor is automatically
conserved, so that processes like J1. + ey are absolutely forbidden. These
satisfactory results are put at risk by the presence of squarks and sleptons
in supersymmetric extensions of the standard model, because there is in
general no reason to expect that the squark and slepton mass matrices will
be diagonal in the same basis as the quark and lepton mass matrices. This
does not introduce flavor changing in the interaction of these particles
with gauge bosons, which are flavorindependent, but it can produce
flavorchanging transitions in which squarks or sleptons tum into quarks
or leptons with the emission or absorption of gauginos. Of course, there
202 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
dL '1)1 '1)2 '1)3 SL
~
gluino gluino
~
SL '1)1 '1)2 '1) 3 dL
Figure 28.1. A oneloop diagram that can contribute to the AS = 2 effective
interaction (sLyPdL)(dLYpsL) in the supersymmetric standard model. Here solid
lines are quarks; dashed lines are squarks; and combined solid and wavy lines
are gluinos.
is no problem if the squarks and sleptons are degenerate, in which case
their mass matrices are diagonal in any basis.
The most stringent limits on squark mass splittings and/or mixing
angles are set by measurements of KOj(o transitions. 12 These transitions
are produced by operators in the effective lowenergy Lagrangian density
like (sLyl'dd(dLYl'sd, which can be produced by diagrams like Figure
28.1. The superpartners of the quarks dL and SL are in general linear
combinations I:i Vdi~i and I:i Vsi~i of squarks ~i of definite mass, where
Vji is a 3 x 3 unitary matrix, so the two squark propagators in this diagram
contribute a factor
" Vdi Vsi " V d j Vsj
L; k2 + Ml  iE x 7k 2 + My  iE '
where k is the fourmomentum circulating in the loop. Because Vji is
unitary, this vanishes if the three squark masses Mi are all equal. If the
squark square masses differ from some common value M;quark by relatively
small amounts AM1, then this becomes
2
( k 2 + M21
squark
_.)4 (I: VdiVsiAM1)
IE i
The amplitude for dLSL ~ sLdL has dimensionality mass2 , so after
multiplying by the gluino propagators and four factors of the strong
coupling gs, and integrating over k, we must get an amplitude proportional
to
(28.4.3)
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 203
when! M is the larger of Msquark and mgJuino. This may be compared with
the result for this amplitude in the nonsupersymmetric standard model,
which is produced by W exchange, as shown in Figure 28.2. Ignoring the
third generation of quarks, which has only small transition amplitudes to
the first two generations, the amplitudes for d + u, d + c, s + u and
s + c by W emission are, respectively, cos Be,  sin Be, sin Be, and cos Be,
where Be is the Cabibbo angle defined in Section 21.3. Hence in place of
the squark propagators here we have the quark propagators
. (i+mu i+me)
sm Be cos Be k 2 2 .  k2
+ mu  IE + me2  IE. ,
and in place of the strong coupling gs here we have the SU(2) coupling
g. Thus in the nonsupersymmetric standard model the amplitude for
dLSL + sLdL is proportional to
g4 sin2 Be cos 2 Be ( )2
4 me mu , (28.4.4)
mw
with a proportionality coefficient of the same order as that in Eq. (28.4.3).
With a plausible guess on how to calculate the KOj(o transition amplitude
from the amplitude for dLs L + sLd L, the amplitude corresponding to
Figure 28.2 is known to give a result in good agreement with experiment.
(Indeed, Gaillard and Lee!3 used this calculation to predict that me ~ 1.5
GeV, before the c quark was discovered.) It therefore seems reasonable
to require that the squark exchange result (28.4.3) should be less than the
quark exchange result (28.4.4). This yields the condition
v.AMi2
2' 
" g smBe cos Be (me mu)M
~ Vdi si  2 < 2 2' (28.4.5)
i M gs mw
Taking g2j41t = 0.036, g;j41t = 0.118, sinBe = 0.22, mw  80.4 GeV,
me = 1.5 Ge V, and mu < me, we find
".AM'f 3
~ VdiVsi  2 < 1.5 x 10 x (Mj100GeV). (28.4.6)
i M
The squark masses are unlikely to be much less than mgJuino, so we can
conclude that either the squark masses are split by no more than about
one part in 103, or the nondiagonal terms of the mixing matrix Vji are less
than about 103, or the squarks are heavier than about 10 TeV, or we have
some combination of nearly degenerate squarks, nearly zero mixing angles,
and heavy squarks. In itself, this result only constrains the superpartners
!'Ii of the lefthanded quarks of charge ej3, but similar limits on the
masses and mixing angles of the fifii squarks can be obtained by considering
the amplitude for dRSR + sRdR. We can also obtain somewhat weaker
204 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
w w+
Figure 28.2. A oneloop diagram that can contribute to the AS = 2 effective
interaction (sLyPdL)(dLYpsL) in both the supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric
standard models. Here solid lines are quarks and wavy lines are W bosons.
limits on the masses and mixing angles of the OU; squarks by considering
the amplitudes produced by wino exchange rather than gluino exchange.
It should be noted, however, that these arguments put no constraints
on the differences between the masses of squarks of different charge, or
on the differences between the masses of the superpartners fl; and 12; of
lefthanded quarks and antiquarks.
Just as for the squarks, the sleptons of definite mass are expected to
be nondiagonal linear combinations of the superpartners of the leptons.
This leads to the decay process J1. + e + y through diagrams like Figure
28.3. The experimental upper bound 4.9 x 1011 on the branching ratio of
this process then sets a limit of about 103 on the fractional mass splitting
of sleptons of the same charge but different generations for generic mixing
angles, or on the mixing angles for nondegenerate sleptons. 14
Attempts have been made to explain the degeneracy of the squarks
and sleptons in terms of a gauge symmetry connecting the different
generations. l4a In Section 28.6 we will describe an approach to super
symmetry breaking in which this degeneracy appears without needing to
impose such symmetries.
CP violation
The second important class of constraint provided by experimental infor
mation about known particles has to do with CPviolating effects, such
as the electric dipole moments of the neutron and electron. 15 In Section
21.3 we saw that these effects are rather weak in the nonsupersymmetric
standard model with only one scalar doublet, apart from a potential
problem with the parameter () of quantum chromodynamics, discussed in
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 205
bino, winoo
WIno y
~~~~~~
'1I.r.
J'l, . , e
Figure 28.3. Oneloop diagrams for the process Jl.  4 e + y. Here solid lines are
leptons; dashed lines are sleptons; combined solid and wavy lines are gauginos;
and wavy lines are photons.
Section 23.6. This is because all CPviolating phases in the mass matrix
of quarks and leptons and their interaction with gauge bosons could be
absorbed into the definition of the quark and lepton fields if there were
only two generations of quarks and leptons, and although there is a third
generation, its mixing with the first two generations is (for mysterious
reasons) quite weak. (This argument does not apply to processes that
directly involve quarks of the third generation, such as BOBo mixing, to
be measured in the planned 'B factories.') The electric dipole moment of
the neutron in this simple nonsupersymmetric version of the standard
model is consequently expected 16 to be less than about 1030 e cm, well
below the experimental upper bound, 6.3 x 1026 e cm. 16a
In contrast, the over 100 parameters of the minimum supersymmetric
standard model in its most general form involve dozens of CPviolating
relative phases. After integrating out the heavy superpartners of the
known particles, these phases produce a number of CPviolating effec
tive interactions to be added to the Lagrangian of the standard modeL
Those of minimum dimensionality, which on dimensional grounds are
likely to be the most important, include electric dipole moments of the
quarks and leptons,17 similar CPviolating 'chromoelectric' dipole moments
206 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
gluino .t:>d:::o..:~~~
gluino
~~~~~~
ti,']) ti,,])
Figure 28.4. A oneloop diagram for the chromoelectric dipole moment of the u
or d quarks. Here solid lines are quarks; dashed lines are squarks; combined solid
and wavy lines are gluinos; and the wavy line is a gluon. The X represents the
insertion of a bilinear interaction arising from a trilinear scalar field interaction
combined with the spontaneous breakdown of SU(2) x U(l). There are also
diagrams in which the gluon line is attached to one of the internal squark lines
instead of to the gluino line.
contributing to the interactions of gluons with quarks,18 a CPviolating
purely gluonic interaction,19 and a CPviolating interaction of the lightest
Higgs scalar with leptons. 2o
To take one example, consider the quark chromoelectric dipole mo
ments, which in some models make the largest contribution to the electric
dipole moment of the neutron. The CPviolating chromoelectric dipole
moment operator is (QY5[YI' , Yv]Aaq)fr (where q is a u or d colortriplet
quark field, fr
is the SU(3) fieldstrength tensor, and Aa are the 3 x 3
generators of SU(3)). Since 1'5[1'1" Yv] has matrix elements only between
qL and qR or between qR and qL, in order for a oneloop graphs to
contribute to the chromoelectric dipole moment an external lefthanded u
or d quark line must emit an internal gluino line and tum into a "Ii or Pfi
squark line, which next turns into a ~* or ?fi* squark line, and then into a
righthanded u or d quark line by absorbing the internal gluino line, with
the external gluon line attached either to the internal gluino line or to one
of the internal squark lines. (See Figure 28.4.)
To calculate this, we need to know the mixing of the scalar compo
nents "Iii (or Pfii) of the left<;:hiral quark superfields Qi with the complex
conjugates ~j (or ?fij) of the sc.,alar components of the leftchiral anti
quark superfields Uj (or Dj), produced by the spontaneous breakdown of
SU(2) x U(l), and represented by the X in Figure 28.4. Part of this mix
ing arises from a contribution of the supersymrnetric ffterm interaction
(28.1.7) to the last term in Eq. (26.4.7):
fi'll.tt' = I L h~"Iii~f + ~~12 I L h8Pfii~j + ~'~12 .
ij ij
(28.4.7)
28.4 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 207
There is also a contribution from the A and Cterms in Eq. (28.4.1):
5~u =  'Lhf}!Y)i~j[ AB.Jf'? + CB ~*]
ij
 'LhBouitiitj[AB ~ + CH ~*]  H.c. (28.4.8)
ij
Replacing the neutral Higgs scalar fields with their expectation values
gives the quadratic terms
5.2.2 = 2 Re 'LmBouitiitj (J!* cotp + AB + CH cotp)
ij
2Re Lm8!Y)i~j(J!* (tanpr +AB  Ce (tanpr), (28.4.9)
ij
where mB = (~)hB and me = (Jt1.)hB are the mass matrices of the
quarks of charge 2el3 and eI3, and
tanp = (~)/(.Jf'~)* . (28.4.10)
Neglecting Cabibbo mixing, and for definiteness taking the As and Cs
diagonal, Figure 28.4 makes contributions to the chromoelectric dipole
moment of the u and d quarks of the form
3
d~e = 1~~2 1m [mu A~I(mvt, m"" m!~uino)] , (28.4.11)
3
dde
= 1~~21m [mdAdI(m~,m~,m!~uino)] , (28.4.12)
where
A~ == (J!* + Cu)cotP +A u , Ad = (J!*  Cd)(tanpr +Ad, (28.4.13)
and I is a complicated dimensionless function of its arguments arising
from the integration over the virtual fourmomentum. For m.2 ~ m.2 and
the gluino field defined to make mgJuino as well as m.2 real, the function I
takes the form
(28.4.14)
(28.4.15)
The hard part of this sort of calculation always lies in estimating the
contribution of an operator like the chromoelectric dipole interaction
to hadronic matrix elements such as the electric dipole moment of the
neutron. We can anticipate that there will be renormalization group
208 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
corrections required because this operator is to be used at energies of
the order of the neutron mass, rather than the masses of the squarks
and gluino. More important is simply getting dimensional factors and
factors of 4n right. For this purpose, it is usual to use a counting rule22
known as 'naive dimensional analysis.' A connected graph with Vi vertices
of type i and 1 internal lines will have a number L of loops given by
L = 1  Li Vi + 1. If there are Ni lines attached to a vertex of type i and
N external lines of the whole graph, then 21 + N = I:i ViNi, so
N
L=I2+~Vi  i  I . (N.)
,
We expect a factor of order Ij16n 2 for each loop, so the coefficient of
an operator @ in the lowenergy effective Lagrangian with N field factors
will contain an overall factor
(4n)N2 II(4n)(2N;)V; .
i
If the operator @ has dimensionality d and the interactions @i of type i
have dimensionality di, then the coefficient of @ will have dimensionality
4  d  I:;( 4 di), so this coefficient will also have a factor M 4d II; M d;4,
where M is some scale that is typical of hadronic physics, such as the
nucleon mass or the energy 2nF" ~ 1200 MeV, where the lowenergy
expansions discussed in Section 19.5 begin to break down. Finally, the
contribution to the coefficient of @ from some graph will of course be
proportional to the couplings of all the operators @; associated with the
vertices in the graph. These remarks can be conveniently summarized
by defining a 'reduced coupling': the reduced coupling associated with
any operator @i having N; field factors, dimensionality di, and coupling
constant gi is
gFduCed = gi(4nfN ;M~;4 . (28.4.16)
The above estimates suggest the rule of naive dimensional analysis: the
reduced coupling of any operator @ in the effective hadronic Lagrangian is
roughly equal to the product of the reduced couplings of the interactions
that contribute to this effective coupling.
The neutron electric dipole m0ment is the coefficient of an operator with
one photon and two neutron fields and dimensionality 5, so its reduced
coupling is M d~j 4n. Likewise, the quark chromoelectric magnetic moment
has reduced coupling Md~e j4n. In addition to one factor of this reduced
coupling, the reduced coupling of the neutron electric dipole operator
must have a factor of the reduced coupling ej4n of the electromagnetic
coupling and an indeterminate number of factors of the reduced strong
coupling gsj 4n, which at the lowenergy scale M are not very different
28.5 The Sector 0/ Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 209
from unity and will be ignored. Taking the d quark contribution as
representative of the contributions of both u and d quarks, the result then
is that
d~:::,; e::e :::,; e (:~) 3 1m [mdAd ]I(m~,m~,mgJUino). (28.4.17)
Further simplifying by setting mgJuino ~ m~ ~ m~, so that J = 7/18, and
taking g;/4n at the scale of squark and gluino masses to have the same
value 0.12 as at mz, and Imdl :::,; 7 MeV, we have then
Idel
n 
05
xl
023
ecm
IAdl1 sin cpl x (lOGeVf
3 ' (28.4.18)
mgJuino
where cp is the phase of Ad' with the convention that the gluino, quark,
and squark masses are taken real. The contribution of the electric dipole
moment of the quark is somewhat larger, while the contribution of the
purely gluonic CPodd operator is considerably smaller.23
To avoid conflict with the experimental upper bound of 0.97 x 1025 e
em, either the phases associated with CP violation in the supersymmetric
standard model must be less than about 102 , or some of the new particles
of this model must be heavier than about 1 TeY. Similar conclusions have
been reached from calculations of the electric dipole moments of atoms
and molecules. 23 Even more stringent conditions on CPviolating phases
have been derived24 by considering the contribution of Figure 28.1 to
the one precisely measured CPviolating effect, the imaginary part of the
amplitude for KOj(o oscillation.
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number
Despite the large number of parameters of the supersymmetric standard
model, in some contexts it is surprisingly predictive. This is true in
particular when we consider the scalar fields whose vacuum expectation
values spontaneously break the SU(2) x U(l) gauge symmetry. In this
section we will consider these scalars, along with other fields of zero
baryon and lepton number: neutral scalars odd under charge conjugation,
charged scalars, and the fermionic superpartners of these scalars and of
the W+ and Zoo
It is a crucial requirement for supersymmetric versions of the standard
model that they should contain scalar doublet 'Higgs' superfields with the
right mass and interaction parameters to account for the breakdown of the
SU(2) x U(l) gauge group of the electromagnetic and weak interactions.
We saw in Section 28.1 that at least two leftchiral scalar doublets are
needed to give mass to the quarks of both charge 2e/3 and e/3 and
210 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
the charged leptons, while we found in Section 28.2 that two doublets are
just what is needed to bring the SU(3), SU(2), and U(I) gauge couplings
together at some yery high energy. We have therefore assumed that there
are two leftchiral scalar S U(2) doublets
HI =( :! ), H2 = ( ~f ). (28.5.1)
These have SU(2) and U(I) Dterms (27.4.7) given (assuming zero Fayet
Iliopoulos constant ~U(I) by
b =; (1il) +; (1 i 2) , (28.5.2)
g' g'
DY ="2(11)"2(12) , (28.5.3)
where 1,2 are the scalar components of the superfield doublets HI,2
and .rare the Pauli matrices, with ~ = 1. As shown in Eq. (27.4.9), in
renormalizable theories this gives the Dterm contribution to the scalar
field potential
1~2 1 2
VD = 2D + 2Dy
2
= g8 [(1 il) + (1i2) + r g; [(tl)  (12) r
(28.5.4)
This can be put in a more convenient form by using the relation
(28.5.5)
(To prove this, use rotational invariance to show that bijbkt may be
expressed as a linear combination of (i)jt . (i)kj and bitbkj, and calculate
the coefficients by taking traces on the indices i,j and i,t.) In this way,
we may rewrite the Dterm part of the scalar field potential as
(28.5.6)
As mentioned in Section 28.1, there is just one possible renormalizable
term in the superpotential for these two leftchlral doublets, of the form
(28.5.7)
where jJ. is a constant with the dimensions of a mass and e is the anti
symmetric matrix h2. According to Eq. (27.4.9), this gives an additional
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 211
contribution to the scalar field potential
VI' = L 8f(.7eJ,2) 2+ L 8f(}'2) 2
r 8 lr r 82r
= 1~12 [ (; 1) + (!2)] . (28.5.8)
For ~ f 0 the potential VD + VI' evidently has a mlIllIIlum value of
zero, reached at the unique point 1 = 2 = o. With just these
terms in the potential, SU(2) x U(l) as well as supersymmetry is not
spontaneously broken. (The case ~ = 0 is not much better; there is
a continuous infinity of vacuum states with supersymmetry unbroken
and with SU(2) x U(l) broken down to electromagnetic gauge invariance
with all possible strengths, including zero.) This is one more example
of the general difficulty, already seen in Section 28.3, of formulating
realistic theories in which supersymmetry is spontaneously broken within
the standard model.
Under the assumption of the previous section that supersymmetry is
violated in the effective Lagrangian only by superrenormalizable terms,
the most general such supersymmetrybreaking term involving the scalar
doublets is of the form
where mi and m~ are real parameters (not necessarily positive) and B~ is
a parameter of arbitrary phase. We will adjust the overall phase of the
superfields HI and H2 so that B~ is real and positive, and so
Vm = mi (11) + mH!2) + B~Re (Te2) . (28.5.9)
The total scalar potential in the tree approximation is then
V = VD + VI' + Vm
g2 2 g2 + g/2 [ ] 2
="2(12) + 8 (11)(!2)
+(mi + 1~12) (Jt"tl) + (m~ + 1~12) (!2)
+B~Re (TeJt"2) . (28.5.10)
Note in particular that ~2, mi, and ~ only appear in the combinations
mi + 1~12 and ~ + 1~12.
There is one condition on the supersymmetrybreaking parameters mf,
derived from the requirement that the potential should be bounded below.
For scalar fields going to infinity in generic directions, the potential is
212 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
dominated by the quartic terms VD, which are positive. There are special
directions in which VD vanishes: those for which (up to an SU(2) x U(l)
gauge transformation)
with l/J an arbitrary complex quantity. For such directions, V = (211'12 +
ml +mDIl/J12  BJ.tl/J2, so (since BJ.t has been defined to be positive) in order
for this not to go to 00 as l/J + +00, it is necessary that
211'12 + mr + m~ > BJ.t. (28.5.11)
We wish to look for a minimum of the potential at which electromag
netic gauge invariance is not broken, so let us consider the behavior of
the potential as a function of the neutral scalar fields, with the charged
scalar fields set equal to zero. In this case Eq. (28.5.10) gives the potential
of the neutral scalars as
g2 + g/2 [
VN = 8 I'? 12  I'~ 12] 2 + (mr + 11'12) I'? 12
+(m~ + 11'12) 1'~12  BJ.t Re ('?~) . (28.5.12)
To find a stationary point, we expand VN around the constant values
'?= Vi, writing
(28.5.13)
To second order in the CfJi, Eq. (28.5.12) gives
V~ = g2 : gl2 (Iv1I 2 _ IV212) [2Re (v; CfJI  V;CfJ2) + ICfJ1I 2 ICfJ21 2]
2 + 12 2
+g 2 g [Re(v;CfJIV;CfJ2)] +(mr+IJ.tI 2)(2ReV;CfJI+ICfJlI 2)
+(~ + 11'12) (2Rev;CfJ2 + ICfJ212)  BJ.tRe (VICfJ2 +V2CfJI + CfJICfJ2)
+ constant. (28.5.14)
For the Vi to be equilibrium values of the fields, the terms of first order in
the CfJi must vanish
2 + 12 1
2 2
(mr + IJ.tI )v; + g 4 g (I v1I lv212)v;  "2BJ.tV2 = 0, (28.5.15)
2 + 12 1
(m~ + 2
IJ.tI )v; + g 4 g (I v21 2 lvI12)v;  2 BJ.t VI = o. (28.5.16)
Without changing the overall phase of the CfJi, we may adjust their relative
phases so that VI is real. Then Eqs. (28.5.15) and (28.5.16) show that V2 is
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 213
also real, so that these equations become
( ml2+ 11'1 2) VI + g2 +4 gl2 (vI2  v22) vL "2BJ.tV2
1
= 0, (28.5.17)
2 + 12 1
2 2) g
(m2 + II'I V2+ 4 g (2 2)
v2 l v2"2 B J.tVI=0.
v (28.5.18)
These conditions may be used to express the mass parameters in the
potential in terms of the convenient quantities
tan P = V2/VI , (28.5.19)
(28.5.20)
and
(28.5.21)
(The parameter mz is the mass of the Z vector boson. We will soon
see that mA is the mass of one of the physical scalars.) Multiplying
Eqs. (28.5.17) and (28.5.18), respectively, by V2 and VI and taking the sum
and difference gives
BJ.t = m~ sin2p , (28.5.22)
and
ml2 m22 =  (2
mA + mz2) cos 2P , (28.5.23)
which with Eq. (28.5.21) yields
mi+IJ.t1 2 = !m~ Hm~+m~)cos2P, m~+IJ.tI2 = !m~+ Hm~+m~)cos2p.
(28.5.24)
With linear terms cancelling, the quadratic part (28.5.14) of the neutral
scalar potential may then be written
N
Vquad =
g2 +4 gl2 (VI2  V22) [IfPiI
2  IfP21 2] + g2 +2 gl2 [Re (VI fPI  V2fP2 )] 2
+(mi + 11'12) IfPI12 + (~ + 11'12) IfP212  BJ.t Re (fPI fP2) + constant
2
= tm~ cos2P [lfPil2 lfP21 2] + m~ [Re (COSPfPI  sin P<P2)]
+ tm~ (lfPil2 + IfP212)  Hm~ + m~) cos 2P [lfPil2 lfP21 2]
m~ sin 2P Re ( fPI fP2) + constant. (28.5.25)
There is a difference of a factor of2 between the formulas for m~ given by Eqs. (28.5.20)
and (21.3.30), due to the fact that the scalar fields are normalized differently here and
in Section 21.3.
214 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
We see from Eq. (28.5.25) that the real and imaginary parts of the (jJi
are decoupled. (This is because the potential (28.5.12) is invariant under
a charge conjugation or CP transformation (jJi + (jJi) The masssquared
matrix of the imaginary parts of the (jJi is
2 _ ( tm~ (1  cos2P) !m~ sin2p )
M 1m ",  (28.5.26)
!m~ sin2p !m~ (1 + cos 2P)
The determinant vanishes, so one eigenValue is zero, and the other equals
the trace, which is just m~. The zeromass scalar is of course the neutral
Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breakdown of S U(2) x
U(l) to electromagnetic gauge invariance, and as discussed in Chapter 21
it is eliminated by the Higgs mechanism. As promised, mA is the mass of
one of the physical scalars, the nonGoldstone boson with C negative. This
shows that for the field value (jJi = Vi to be at least a local minimum of
the potential, the parameter m~ defined by Eq. (28.5.21) must be positive.
The condition (28.5.11) for good behavior at large field strengths shows
that Eq. (28.5.22) has a solution here for P in the range 0 < P < n12.
In particular, if Bp. = 0 and 0 < P < n12, then Eq. (28.5.22) shows that
mA = O. In this case, the particle A is the Goldstone boson of a U(l)
PecceiQuinn symmetry4 of the potential (28.5.12) under an equal phase
change of .1l1 and Jt'~, which for VI f 0 and V2 f 0 is spontaneously
broken without leaving any combination of this and the electroweak U(l)
symmetry unbroken. This is the original version of the axion,25 which
as we saw in Section 23.6 acquires only a small mass from the Yukawa
interactions of the scalars with the quarks and is experimentally ruled out.
Thus we can conclude that Bp. definitely does not vanish.
The elements of the masssquared matrix for the real scalars are given
by Eq. (28.5.25) as
(Mie",)l1 = !m~(1cos2P) + ~m~(1 +cos2P),
(Mie",h2 = (Mie",hl =  Hm~ + m~) sin2p , (28.5.27)
(Mie",hz = ~m~(1 +cos2P) + ~m~(1cos2P).
Solving the secular equation gives the eigenvalues
m2H = ~[m2 2 ./(m2 +m2 )2_4m2 m2 cos22p]
2 A +mZ + V A Z AZ ' (28.5.28)
m~ = ~[m~ + m~  J(~ +m~)2  4m~m~ cos22p] . (28.5.29)
To calculate the masses of the charged scalars, we evaluate the potential
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 215
V with the neutral scalars set equal to their vacuum expectation values:
.;f'1 = ( ;1 ) , Yf2 = ( ~t ) . (28.5.30)
Using this in Eq. (28.5.10) then gives the quadratic part of the charged
scalar potential
VC g21 (Yf)*
quad = "2 V2 +VIYf+12 g2+g/2( vI2 v22)(1 Yfl12  1Yf21
+2)
1 2 + 4
+(mI + IJ.t1 2)IYf112 + (m~ + IJ.tI 2)IYftI 2 + Bj.tYf1 Yft . (28.5.31)
Using Eqs. (28.5.22) and (28.5.24), this may be written
V.ad = ~(miv +m~)[IYfI12(1 cos2P) + IYftI2(1 +cos2P)
+2 sin 2P Yfl Yft] , (28.5.32)
where mw is the charged gauge boson mass:
miv = ~g2(lvtl2 + IV212) . (28.5.33)
The charged scalar mass matrix is then
MC2 _ 2:1( mw
2 2) ( lcos2P sin2p ) (28.5.34)
+mA sin2p 1 + cos2P .
This has determinant zero, so it has one eigenvalue equal to zero and the
other eigenvalue equal to the trace
2 2 2 (28.5.35)
me =mW+mA
The zeromass charged scalar is of course the other Goldstone boson
associated with the spontaneous breakdown of SU(2) x U(I), and like
the neutral Goldstone boson found earlier it is eliminated by the Higgs
mechanism.
Even without knowing the parameters rnA and p, these results tell us
a lot about the relative magnitudes of the scalar boson masses. We can
rewrite Eqs. (28.5.28) and (28.5.29) in the form
m'iI = ~ [m~ + m~ + /(m~  m~)2 + 4m~m~ sin2 2p], (28.5.36)
m~ = ~ [m~ + m~  /(m~  m~)2 + 4m~m~ sin2 2p]. (28.5.37)
We! see that the heavier neutral scalar mass mH is larger than the larger
of mz and mA, while the lighter neutral scalar mass mh is smaller than the
smaller of mz and mAo If the large ratio of top to bottom quark masses
is due to a large ratio V2/VI = tan p of scalar field vacuum expectation
values, rather than a large ratio of Yukawa couplings, then we expect
216 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
P to be near n12, in which case these inequalities become approximate
equalities. Further, Eq. (28.5.35) shows that the charged scalar mass is
greater than both mA and mw.
These results are quantitatively modified by various radiative corrections
within the standard model (as opposed to radiative effects that produce
the input parameters mr in theories of gaugemediated supersymmetry
breaking). The most important corrections arise from the presence in the
scalar potential Y of terms arising from graphs consisting of a single loop
of top or bottom quarks interacting any number of times with external
scalar field lines. This is because the top and bottom quarks have by
far the strongest couplings to Yf 2 and Yf I, respectively. (It is prudent
to include bottom as well as top quark loops here because, as mentioned
above, the larger mass of the top quark may be due to a large ratio v2lvI,
rather than to a large ratio of Yukawa couplings, but even in this case we
will see that the dominant corrections are due to top quark loops.)
Let us first consider the neutral scalars, at least one of which would
be lighter than the Z boson in the absence of radiative corrections. The
effect of these top and bottom loops is to contribute a term of form
Ut(I~12) + Ub(IYf?1 2) to yN. We will absorb any terms in Ub or Ut that
are linear in IYf?12  V[ or IYf~12  v~ into the input parameters m[ and
m~, so that
UI,(V[) = U:(v~) = 0 . (28.5.38)
Our earlier results (28.5.24) and (28.5.22) for m[ + 11'1 2, m~ + 11'12 and BJ.t
are then unchanged. Also, the mass matrix for the Codd neutral scalars
is still given by Eq. (28.5.26). On the other hand, the elements of the
masssquared matrix for the Ceven neutral scalars are now given by
(Mie",)l1 = !m~(1 cos2P) + !~(1 + cos2P) + L\b ,
(Mie",h2 = (Mie",hl =  Hm~ + m~) sin 2P , (28.5.39)
(Mie",hz= !m~(1+cos2P)+ !m~(1cos2P)+L\t,
where
(28.5.40)
The solutions of the secular equation are then
m1 = ~ [m~ + m~ + L\t + L\b
+ ((m~m~)cos2P+L\tL\b)2 +(m~+m~)2sin22p ,
(28.5.41)
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 217
mh2 = 2:1 [2
mA + mZ2 + L\t + L\b
((m~  m~)cos2P +L\t  L\b)2 + (m~ +m~)2 sin2 2P
(28.5.42)
In considering searches for these particles, it is important to note that the
light Higgs mass mh increases as the unknown mass mA increases, reaching
a finite upper bound for mA + 00
mh < mh(mA + 00) = m~ cos2 2P + L\t sin 2 P + L\b cos2 P . (28.5.43)
To calculate L\b and L\r, we recall from Section 16.2 that the potentials
Ub and U t are given by
(28.5.44)
(28.5.45)
where At = mr/v2 and Ab = mb/vl are the Yukawa couplings of the top and
bottom quarks; M st and Msb are the masses of the stop and sbottom (the
scalar superpartners of the top and bottom quarks); these masses and the
terms 3/2 inside the square brackets are chosen to satisfy the condition
that super symmetrybreaking corrections due to stop and sbottom loops
would cancel the corrections due to top and bottom loops if the masses
were equal; and the 'linear terms' are linear in 1~12 or 1.ni1 2, with
coefficients adjusted to satisfy Eq. (28.5.38). (The factor 3 takes account
of the three quark colors.) Then Eq. (28.5.40) gives
L\b = ~IAbI4v2In
4n 2 1
(Abvr)
M2
= 3.jimtGp
2n 2 cos2 p
In (Ml)
m2'
(28.5.46)
sb b
L\ =_~1'1421 (AtV~)=3.jim:GPI
4 2 tV2 n M2 2'2 n
(Mit)
2 ' (28.5.47)
t
n 11.
st 2n sm p mt
whe:re Gp = 1.17 X 105 GeV 2 is the Fe:rmi coupling constant, given by
Eq. (21.3.34) as Gp = g2/4.jimiv. Taking mb = 4.3 GeV, mt = 180 GeV,
M st ~ Msb ~ 1 TeV, and mz = 91.2 GeV gives L\b ~ 1.1 X 106 m~/ cos 2 p
and L\t ~ 1.1 m~ / sin2 p. We see that even if tan p is as large as mr/mb, the
topquark correction L\t will still be much larger than L\b.
218 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
The effect of L\t is to increase both mH and mho Taking this and other
radiative corrections into account,26 for tanp > 10 the upper bound
(28.5.43) on the lightest neutral scalar mass is raised by radiative correc
tions from just below mz to between 100 GeV and 110 GeV for stop
masses between 300 Ge V and 1 Te V. For comparison, an experimental
lower bound27 of 62.5 Ge V on mh, mH, and mA is set by the absence of an
hA or H A final state in e+ e collisions at 130 to 172 Ge V. Also, calcula
tions of radiative corrections involving Higgs scalars are consistent with
precision measurements of electroweak phenomena for mh in the range27a
of 27 to 140 GeV.
Radiative corrections are less important for the charged scalars. Since
the attachment of charged scalar lines allows transitions between top and
bottom quarks, the correction to the scalar field potential here takes a
more general form, constrained by SU(2) x U(l) to be
L\V = U(Jtl?t'2, tl, 11, t2, te2). (28.5.48)
(Quark loops do not actually produce any dependence on te2.) Every
appearance of a 1 or 2 doublet is accompanied with a factor Ab or At.
respectively, so terms involving 1 will be suppressed, as we have already
seen in calculating the neutral scalar masses. To a good approximation,
then, the correction to the effective potential is of the form
L\ V ~ U(12, 0,0, 0) = U(IV2 + qJ21 2 + 12"1 2 , 0,0,0). (28.5.49)
By going back to the case where the charged fields vanish, we see that the
function U must be just the same as what was earlier called Ut Any temlS
in U of first order in an expansion in powers of IV2 + qJ21 2 + 12"1 2  v~
would simply serve to redefine the constant m~, and are eliminated by the
convention (28.5.38). Terms in U of second order in IV2+qJ212+12"12v~
are genuine radiative corrections, but although they contain terms of
second order in IqJ21 2 which do affect the neutral scalar masses, they
contain no terms of second order in 12"1 2 which could shift the non
Goldstone charged scalar mass. Fortunately, radiative corrections are not
needed to avoid a conflict with experiment, because in the absence of an
upper bound on mA there is no theoretical upper bound on the charged
scalar mass (28.5.35). An experimental lower bound 28 me > 59 GeV is
provided by the nonobservation of the process e+e + +  at 181 to
184 GeV. There is a much more stringent lower bound on me provided by
the rate of the process b + sy (measured in decays like B + K'y), which
can occur by transitions to an intermediate u or c :,tate, with the
photon radiated from the virtual quark or . The presl!nt agreement
between theory and experiment for this process sets a lower bound 29 of
about 150 GeV on me (and higher for tanp < 1). Using Eq. (28.5.35), this
gives an important lower bound mA > 125 GeV.
28.5 The Sector of Zero Baryon and Lepton Number 219
There are two conditions on the masses mr
that must be satisfied
by any model of supersymmetry breaking in order to give a successful
account of electroweak symmetry breaking. One of them is provided by
the requirement that the potential is bounded below, which as we have
seen requires that
211'12 + mi + m~ > BI' .
Since BI' is defined to be positive, this ensures that the Codd neutral
scalar squared mass (28.5.21) is positive. The other condition is provided
by Eqs. (28.5.22) and (28.5.24), which for arbitrary values of p require that
4 (mi + 11'12) (m~ + 11'12) < (Bl'f . (28.5.50)
We can easily see from Eq. (28.5.10) that this condition ensures that the
matrix of second derivatives of the potential has a negative eigenvalue at
1 = 2 = 0, so this SU(2) x U(1)invariant point is one of unstable
equilibrium, and therefore SU(2) x U(1) must be spontaneously broken.
If p is very near n12, then Eq. (28.5.24) tells us that this condition is
satisfied by having mi + 11'12 positive and ~ + 11'12 negative. As we will
see in the next section, the renormalization group flow of the parameters
in the scalar field Lagrangian provides a mechanism for driving ~ + 11'12
negative.
Even with a minimal set of superfields, in supersymmetry theories there
are several pairs of particles with different SU(2) x U(1) transformation
properties, but the same charge, color, and baryon and lepton number,
which become mixed when SU(2) x U(1) is spontaneously broken. We
have already seen an example of this in the previous section, in which we
had to deal with the mixing of the scalar superpartners of the lefthanded
quarks with the complex conjugates of the scalar superpartners of the
lefthanded antiquarks. A similar mixing occurs between the higgsinos
and gauginos, both charged and neutral; the particles of definite mass
are not higgsinos or gauginos, but mixtures known as charginos and
neutralinos. Let us consider the charginos, which provide a useful bound
on 1'. According to Eq. (27.4.8), there are offdiagonal supersymmetric
mass terms in the Lagrangian density
Re [I'(hileht.) + i.j2mwcosp(wzTehiL) + i.j2mw sin p(wtTehiL)] ,
To this, we should add a term for the wino mass generated by gauge
interactions with the super symmetrybreaking sector
mwinoRe (wtTewZ).
The squared chargino masses are then the eigenvalues of the matrix
220 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
..It~..Itc, where
..It ( mwino (28.5.51)
c = i.jimw cos P
These two eigenvalues are
m~argino = ~ [m~o + 2miv + 11'12 ((~o 11'12f + 4mtv cos22P
+4miv(m~o + 11'12  2mwinoRe I' sin2p) ) 1/2] . (28.5.52)
We expect the wino mass "'wino to be much larger than mw. If it is also
much larger than 11'1, then the heavier chargino is mostly a wino, with
mass mwino, while the lightest chargino is mostly a higgsino, with mass
11'1. In any case, 11'1 is greater than the lightest chargino mass, which the
nonappearance of gauginos in e+ e annihilation tells us is greater than
about 60 GeV, and probably greater than mw. The search for neutralinos
in e+ e annihilation has set a lower bound of 27 GeV on the mass of
the lightest neutralino. 29a
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking
In this section we will consider the possibility that the breakdown of super
symmetry is transmitted to the known particles through interactions of the
ordinary SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1). gauge bosons and their superpartners. 30
It is assumed here that supersymmetry is dynamically broken in a sec
tor of supedields, not including the supedields of the observed quarks
and leptons, and that some of the chiral supedields in the symmetry
breaking sector, known. as the messenger superfields, have nonvanishing
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) quantum numbers. In order for the messenger
particles to be able to get large (say, of order 1 TeV) masses without
breaking SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), it is necessary for them to furnish a
real (or pseudoreal) representation of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), which au
tomatically also means that they do not introduce any new anomalies.
Although most treatments of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking in
the literature also make specific assumptions about the interactions of the
messenger supedields with the other supedields responsible for supersym
metry breaking, the most important predictions of this class of theories in
fact do not depend on these assumptions. We shall therefore put off as
suming anything about the interactions of the messenger supedields with
the other superfields of the symmetrybreaking sector. We will, however,
make another assumption about the SU(3) xSU(2)x U(1) properties of the
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking 221
z, c ?', C
Figure 28.5. A diagram of the sort that introduces a breakdown of supersym
metry into the propagator of the gauge superfields. Here wavy lines are any
component fields of the gauge superfields; solid lines are component fields
of the messenger superfields; and dotted lines are component fields of the
SU(3) x 8U(2) x U(l)neutral superfields of the supersymmetrybreaking sector.
messenger supedields, which has a strong phenomenological motivation.
In order for the messenger particles not to interfere with the unification
of couplings discussed in Section 28.2, we assume that they have the same
ratios for the total traces of all squared 8U(3) x SU(2) x U(l) gauge
generators as the ordinary quarks and leptons. This condition will auto
matically be satisfied if the messenger supedields (together perhaps with
some SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)neutral chiral supedields) furnish a complete
representation of some simple group G that contains S U (3) x 8 U (2) x U( 1),
of which the quarks and leptons (again, together perhaps with some
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)neutral chiral supedields) also form a complete
representation. (For instance, these leftchiral supedields might form N
SU(2) singlet SU(3) triplets with charge e/3 and N SU(2) doublet SU(3)
singlets with charges 0 and e, which together form N representations 5
of S U(5), together with an equal number of leftchiral supedields in the
complexconjugate :representations of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l), which form
N representations S.) However, for our present purposes we will neither
need to assume that G is an actual symmetry group of the theory, nor
adopt any particular choice of G or of the representations furnished by
the messenger particles.
This interaction of the messenger supedields both with the other chiral
and/or gauge supedields of the supersymmetrybreaking sector and with
the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(Jl) gauge supedields can be expected to produce
a breakdown of supersymmetry in the propagators of the component
fields of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l) gauge supedields. To lowest order
in the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l) couplings, the leading contribution to the
propagators comes from the diagram shown in Figure 28.5, in which a
pair of gauge, gaugino, or auxiliary Dfield lines is attached to a loop
222 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
of messenger fields, which also may have any number of interactions
with SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I)neutral fields of the supersymmetrybreaking
sector. The supersymmetrybreaking corrections L\ic to the propagators of
the gauge superfields (with i = 1,2,3 for SU(3), SU(2), and U(I), and
c = V, A., D labelling the different components of each gauge superfield)
therefore have the forms
L\3c(q) = (g;/16n2) L T3n IT cn(q) ,
n
(28.6.1 )
n
where n labels the different messenger superfields; fIcn(q) are moreor
less complicated functions of the fourmomentum q; T3n and T2n are the
traces of the squares of any generator of S U(3) and S U(2), respectively, in
the representations furnished by the nth messenger superfield (normalized
so that in the defining representations T3 = T2 = 1/2); and Tin is the
sum of the squares of the electroweak hypercharges of the nth messenger
superfield. One immediate consequence is that the gauginos acquire masses
of the same form:'
(28.6.2)
n
where the Mgn are masses that characterize the different messenger su
perfields. As already mentioned, in order to preserve the unification of
couplings at very high energy we assume that the sums of the Tn have the
same ratios as for the observed quarks and leptons:
(28.6.3)
n n n
The breakdown of supersymmetry in these propagators is then com
municated to the squarks and s~eptons of the supersymmetric stan
dard model through the diagrams shown in Figure 28.6, in which an
Recall that the bino is the superpartner of the U(1) gauge field Bp that appears in
the Lagrangian of the standard model. We are not yet taking SU(2) x U(1) breaking
into account, so the gaugino, squark, and slepton masses calculated. here should be
understood as parameters appearing in the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)iIlvariant effective
Lagrangian of the standard mode.
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking 223
Figure 28.6. Diagrams that communicate supersymmetry breaking to the squarks
and sleptons. Here dashed lines are squarks or sleptons; wavy lines are SU(3) x
8U(2) x U(l) gauge bosons or auxiliary D fields; solid lines are quarks or leptons;
combined solid and wavy lines are SU(3)xSU(2)x U(l) gauginos; and the squares
represent insertions of the supersymmetrybreaking propagator correction shown
in Figure 28.5.
SU(3) x SU(2) X U(l) gauge boson or gaugino or auxiliary D field is
emitted and reabsorbed by the squark or slepton. We are calculating the
effective lowenergy theory in which SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)breaking is not
yet taken into account, so there is no mixing among the SU(3), 8U(2),
and U(l) propagators, and each propagator acts like. a unit matrix on the
gauge indices. Thus the squared mass given to any squark or slepton will
be proportional to a sum over the squares of all the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)
generators (including coupling constants) in the representation furnished
by that squark or slepton. The sums of the squared SU(2) and 8U(3)
generators in the defining representations are
8 2 4 2
L (gsA,,/2 ) = is . 1 ,
,,=1
where (Ja are the Pauli isospin matrices (5.4.18) and A" are the GellMann
matrices (19.7.2). For U(l) the generator is just the weak hypercharge
(21.3.7), including a factor g'. The squared squark and slepton masses
therefore have the forms
M~=2~M;" [34(1:~22)2 T3n+43(1:n2
2)2 T2n+(61) 2( 1~n2
12)2 Tin 1
Mb=2~M;" [:34( 1:~2 2 2( 1~212)2 Tin,
2)2 T3n+(3) 1
Mb = 2
4 ( 2) 2
~ M;" [ 3 l:~2 T3n 1 12) 2 1
+ ( 3) 2( 1~n2 Tin , (28.6.4)
224 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
MI = 2 ~ M;" [
3 ( 2)2
4 1~2 T2n + 1)2
(2 ( 12)2
1~n2 Tin
1,
Mf = 2~M;n (1~~2 r Tin,
where Q, 0, D, L, and E are the scalar superpartners of the lefthanded
quark doublets, the lefthanded antiquarks of charge 2e13 and +eI3, the
lefthanded lepton doublets, and the lefthanded charged antileptons, and
Msn are some new masses that characterize the nth messenger supedields.
(The factor 2 is extracted from M;" for future convenience.) The squark
and slepton masses that are produced in this way are automatically the
same in all three generations, thus avoiding the problem with flavor
changing processes discussed in Section 28.4.
We expect all Mgn and Msn to be :roughly of the same order of magni
tude, so that the gluino and squarks will have comparable masses, while
the wino, bino, and sleptons will be much lighter, with masses suppressed
by squares of electroweak coupling constants.
We can go considerably further than this with some reasonable dynam
ical assumptions. Suppose that the effects of supersymmetry breaking on
the messenger supedields may be modeled by including these supedields
along with a set of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)neutral chiral supedields Sn (not
necessarily all distinct) in a superpotential
f(<I>, <I>,S) = L AnSn <l>n<l>n , (28.6.5)
n
where <l>n and <l>n are leftchiral messenger supedields in complexconjugate
representations of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) and An are a set of coupling
coefficients. (Here and below we suppress the SU(3) x SU(2) indices that
are summed over in calculating scalar products like <l>n<l>n.) The supedields
Sn are supposed to have nonvanishing vacuum expectation values Y'n and
!Fn for their scalar and auxiliary components, respectively. It is the non
zero values of !Fn that in these models introduce supersymmetry breaking
in the masses of the <l>n and <l>n particles. Section 26.4 shows that, with
gauge couplings neglected, the squared masses of the spinor components
of <l>n (and <l>n) are the eigenvalues of the matrix vIt~vIt n, with vltn defined
by Eq. (26.4.11), which gives
~~ _ ( 0 AnY'n )
,/IOn  AnY'n 0 '
so that the messenger fermions have masses IAnY'nl. To lind the mass
terms for the scalar components l/Jn and lPn of the <l>n and 4>n supedields,
we note that integrating out the auxiliary fields of the <l>n and <l>n yields a
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking 225
potential
to which we now must add the contribution of the auxiliary component
of the Sn, given by the second term of Eq. (26.4.4) as:
2Re Ln [Anffn Of(t":'nfI')] = 2Re Ln [ffnAncPnlPn] .
The complex scalar fields of definite mass are then (cPn + eianlPn)/.ft,
where an is the phase of Anffn, with squared masses IAnfl'nl 2 + IAnffnl.
(Note that this pattern, of a pair of complex scalars with squared masses
equidistant above and below a Majorana fermion squared mass, is just
what we would expect from the sum rule (27.5.11).) Since these squared
masses must be positive, it follows that
(28.6.6)
The gaugino masses in models based on Eq. (28.6.5) are given by
diagrams of the form shown in Figure 28.5, but now with just a single
loop, not including what are shown as dotted lines in Figure 28.5. A
detailed calculation gives the coefficients Mgn in Eq. (28.6.2) as 31
(28.6.7)
whe:re
g(x) = 2!2 [(1 +x)ln(1 +x) + (1 x)ln(l x)]
x2 x4 x6
=1++++'" (28.6.8)
6 15 28 .
The masses of the squarks and sleptons are given by the diagrams of Figure
28.6, which now involve just two loops. Another detailed calculation gives
the mass parameters M;n in Eq. (28.6.4) as 31
2
M2 _ Iffnl f ( Iffnl ) (28.6.9)
sn  1fI'~1 IAnllfl'nl 2 '
where
f(x) = 1:zx [In(1 +x) 2Liz C~J +~Liz (1 ~J] + x .x
1 2 11 4 319 6
= 1 + 36 x  450 x  11760x + ... , (28.6.10)
226 28 Super symmetric Standard Models
with Liz the dilogarithm
LI2
. (x )= lox In(lt)dt. (28.6.11)
o t
In particular, if (as is usually assumed) the various Sn are all the same,
and if Iffl ~ IAnlW'I2 for all n, then f and g in Eqs. (28.6.9) and (28.6.7)
may be set equal to 1, so that
Mgn = Msn = Iffl/W'I =M. (28.6.12)
Using Eq. (28.6.3), we can express the gaugino masses (28.6.2) as
2
mwino = (g2/16n )TM,
2
mbino = (5/3)(g'2 /16n )T M , (28.6.13)
mgluino = (g;/16n2)TM ,
while the squared squark and slepton masses (28.6.4) become
(28.6.14)
There is no special reason to expect that Iffl ~ IAng>12, but this assump
tion is not actually very restrictive, because Eq. (28.6.6) already requires
that Iffl < IAnIW'I2, and it turns out that the functions f(x) and g(x) do
not differ much from unity for x < 1 unless x is very close to 1.
The extreme simplicity of the results (28.6.13) and (28.6.14) has been
explained by Giudice and Rattazzi 32 by using Seiberg's arguments of
holomorphy,33 described in Section 27.6. Suppose we introduce a super
potential for the messenger supedields like (28.6.5), but with a single
external singlet supedield S:
f(S, eJ) = S L An eJ)ncf)n (28.6.15)
n
28.6 Gauge Mediation of 8upersymmetry Breaking 227
Among othe:r effects the kinematic te:rm for the gauge supedield V; (with
i = 3,2, 1 for 8U(3), 8U(2), and U(l in the Wilsonian effective La
grangian at a reno:rmalization scale Ii will now take the fo:rm
!i'gauge,p=Re [~Ni(8'Ii)L(WiI.aea{lWiL{I)1
,a{l F
' (28.6.16)
with some functions Ni(8, Ii) replacing the factors 1/2g1(1i) in Eq. (27.3.22).
(The 9te:rm is dropped here because it has no effect in perturbation theory.
A sum is implied over indices on WiI.a that label different members of
the adjoint representations of 8 U(3) and 8 U(2), which are not explicitly
shown.) The gauge coupling constant is now given by setting the supedield
8 equal to the expectation value Y' of its scalar component
(28.6.17)
Also, recalling that WiLa = AiLa + 0(9) and using Eq. (27.2.11), the te:rms
in the Lagrangian density (28.6.16) of second order in the gaugino fields
are, up to derivative te:rms,
2 L Re [Ni(Y', Ii) (2iR ~AiR) + [Ni(8,Ii)]F( Ah.eA.iL)]
i
This gives the gaugino masses
mgi(li) = [~i~;)]; = gl(li) I[Ni(8, Ii)]FI (28.6.18)
Now let us consider the behavior of Ni(Y',Ii) as a function of a real positive
Y', with the phases of the messenger supedields adjusted so that all An
are real and positive. Suppose we fix the values of the gauge couplings
gi(li) at some scale Ii = K above all the messenger particle masses. Taking
account of the change in the constants bi in the reno:rmalization group
equations /ldgi(Ii)/dli = bigr as Ii passes through the various messenger
masses, the solution of this equation when Ii is below all the messenger
particle masses takes the fo:rm
1 =
gl(li)
1 _ 2b(O) In
gl(K) I
(Ml)
K
_2b!1) In (M2)
I Ml _ ... _ 2b!N) In (~)
'MN '
where we label the messenger particles so that their masses Mn = AnY'
satisfy
Ml > M2 > .,. > MN,
and b~n) is calculated taking account only of particles with masses less
than Mn. Since all Mn are proportional to Y', we see that Nj(Y',Ii) has the
228 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
!I' dependence
Ni(!I',/i) = _bfessenger In !I' + !I'independent terms, (28.6.19)
where bfessenger = blO)  bIN) is the contribution to bi of all the messenger
superfields. According to Eq. (27.9.45) (with Cn = 0 and cb
= Cf2 =
Ln Tin), this is
.
br:'essenger = _1_ " T (28.6.20)
J 16n 2 ~ In'
Since Ni(S,/i) is required by supersymmetry to be a holomorphic function
of S, we see that
1
Ni(S,/i) =  6 2
1 n
I: Tin In S + Sindependent terms.
n
(28.6.21)
Expanding around S = !I', to first order in !F we have [In !I']F = !F /!I'
and so Eq. (28.6.18) gives the gaugino masses
gr(/i)" !F
mgi(/i) = 16n2 ~ Tin !I' . (28.6.22)
Using Eq. (28.6.3), we see that this is the same as our previous :result
(28.6.13). Eq. (28.6.14) for the squark and slepton masses was obtained by
Giudice and Rattazzi in a similar way, by studying the kinematic terms
for the quark and lepton superfields instead of the gauge superfields.
Incidentally, Eqs. (28.6.13) and (28.6.14) could be obtained (in general
with different values of M in Eq. (28.6.13) and Eq. (28.6.14 without a
specific dynamical assumption like Eq. (28.6.5), if we supposed that the
supersymmetrybreaking sector respected invariance under some grand
unified group G that had both the known quarks and leptons and the
messenger fields as complete representations. In this case the coefficients
Mgn and Msn in Eqs. (28.6.2) and (28.6.4) would have values Mg(d) and
Ms(d), respectively, that depend only on the irreducible representation d
of G to which the nth messenger fields belong. The sums of Tin over n
belonging to any irreducible representation d of G have the same ratios
as the sums in Eq. (28.6.3), so LnEd Tin = k j T(d), where k3 = k2 = I,
kl = 5/3, and therefore
L TinMgn = L Mg(d) L Tin = k/Mg ,
n d nEd
where Mg = Ld Mg(d)T(d). Likewise
L TinM;" = L M;(d) L Tin = kiM; ,
n d nEd
28.6 Gauge Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking 229
where M; = Ld M;(d)T(d). Eqs. (28.6.2) and (28.6.4) would then yield
Eqs. (28.6.13) and (28.6.14), except with Mg in place of T M and M; in
place of 2 T M2. But the assumption that Mgn and Msn respect invariance
under G is implausible if the messenger mass scale is far below the grand
unified scale, since whatever we assume about a grand unified gauge
group, the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I) gauge interactions would make coupling
constants like A.n run differently for <l>n with different SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I)
quantum numbers in the same representation of the grand unified group.
These results are subject to various radiative corrections, of which the
most important is that we must use values of gs, g, and g' renormalized at
a scale comparable to the mass being calculated. Indeed, the gaugino mass
ratios given in Eq. (28.6.13) could also be derived under quite different
assumptions: that all gaugino masses are equal at the grand unification
scale where the coupling constants are related by g; = g2 = 5g '2 /3 and
become diffe:rent at lower energies as described by the renormalization
group equations.
For an illustrative example of numerical results, suppose that the mes
senger supedields fOrin an SU(2) singlet SU(3) triplet with charge e/3
and an 8U(2) doublet SU(3) singlet with charges 0 and e, together
with leftchiral supedields in the complexconjugate representations of
SU(3) x 8U(2) x U(I). Then, as already mentioned, Eq. (28.6.3) is satisfied
with T = 2 x 1/2 = 1, so by using the correct values of the gauge cou
plings, the masses of the squarks, gluino, L sleptons, wino, E sleptons, and
bino are calculated to be in the ratios 34 11.6 :: 7.0 :: 2.5 :: 2 :: 1.1 :: 1.0.
In larger representations of G we could have T ~ 1, in which case the
gluino would be the heaviest of these particles, and the sleptons the lightest
ones.
There are also radiative corrections aside from the running of the gauge
couplings. According to one calculation,34 in the model with an SU(2)
singlet SU(3) triplet with charge e/3 and an SU(2) doublet SU(3) singlet
with cha:rges 0 and e, together with leftchiral supedields in the complex
conjugate :representations of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(I), radiative corrections
give the ratios of the masses of the squarks, gluino, L sleptons, wino, E
sleptons, and bino as 9.3 :: 6.4 :: 2.6 :: 1.9 :: 1.35 :: 1.0.
As we saw in the previous section, the wino and bino may mix with
the charged and neutral higgsinos, so the wino and bino masses that
have been calculated here must be regarded as inputs to a calculation of
physical masses of mixtures known as charginos and neutralinos, rather
than physical masses themselves.
Now we shall consider the masses of the Higgs scalars in these models.
If we were to consider only the twoloop diagrams by which these scalars
get masses through gauge interactions with the supersymmetrybreakiog
sector, then since (apart from signs) they have the same SU(3) x SU(2) x
230 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
U(l) quantum numbers as the lefthanded lepton doublets, their masses
would be given by a formula like the fourth of Eqs. (28.6.4)
[mil21oop = [~l21oop = ME
~ ~M~ [H 1~')' T,. + (D' (1~:')' T.j' (28.6.23)
If this were the whole story, then it would be impossible to meet the
condition for SU(2) x U(l) breaking found in the previous section that
(unless tanp is very close to unity) one of mi + 1111 2 and m~ + 1111 2 must
be negative. Fortunately, the large masses of the top quark and squark
produce a negative contribution to m~ that leads naturally to a sponta
neous breakdown of electroweak symmetry. The couplings of the Higgs
doublets to the thirdgeneration quark superfields are described by the
superpotential
(28.6.24)
where Q is the SU(2) quark doublet leftchiral superfield (T, B), while T
and B are the leftchiral superfields of the lefthanded top and bottom
antiquarks, and At and Ab are the Yukawa couplings, related to the t and
b quark masses by mt = AtV2 and ~ = AbVl. The last term of Eq. (26.4.7)
then gives the terms in the potential involving an interaction between the
squark fields and Higgs fields as
Vsq H = IAbJf1"~ + AtJf~g12 + IAbJf?~ + AtJfi ffl2
+IAbI21Jf?BIJ  Jf1" ffl + IAtl21JfiBIJ  ~ff12 , (28.6.25)
where script letters denote the scalar field components of superfields. The
squark loop contributions to the potential of Jf 1 and Jf 2 are then
V;JuarklooP = 3([/[/) [2IAbI2(JfIJfl) +2IAtI2(Jf!Jf2)], (28.6.26)
where ([/[/0) is the vacuum expectation value of the product of any
one of the squark fields and its complex conjugate at the same spacetime
point. (In taking this to be the same for all squark types, we are here
using Eq. (28.6.4), which tells us that the squark masses MQ do not vary
much among ff, BIJ, ff, and ~ squarks. The factor 3 in Eq. (28.6.26) takes
account of the three colors of each squark type.) The vacuum expectation
value ([/[/0) is given in lowest order by
([/[/0) = ([/(X) [/o(X))VAC = ( 1)4
2n
.
J p2
d4
+MQIE
~ .. (28.6.27)
28.6 Gauge Mediation of 8upersymmetry Breaking 231
This of course is divergent, but the contribution to supersymmetry
breaking coefficients would be cancelled by quark loops if the squarks
had the zero bare mass of the quarks, so the effect of quark loops is to
subtract from (28.6.27) the same expression with MQ replaced with zero,
which with a Wick rotation becomes
We have inserted an ultraviolet cutoff at the messenger mass M, because
at momenta above M the squark mass must be replaced with a momentum
dependent mass, which goes to the supersymmetric value zero at very high
momenta. Making this substitution in Eq. (28.6.26) gives a net contribution
to the potential due to squark and quark loops:
P
(Vm)3100 = ~:~ In (~i) 2
[2I AbI (JftJfl) +2IAtI2(JfiJf2)] .
(28.6.28)
(This is a threeloop contribution, because the squared squark masses are
given by twoloop diagrams. There are also terms in the potential that are
quadratic in both the Higgs and squark supedields, arising from products
of the Higgs and squark terms in the squares of the 8U(2) x U(l) gauge
field Dcomponents. These do not make a threeloop contribution to the
Higgs masses because the sum of each 8U(2) x U(l) quantum number of
the squarks vanishes, so that their contributions to the 8U(2) x U(l) gauge
field Dcomponents have zero vacuum expectation value.) Comparing Eq.
(28.6.28) with Eq. (28.5.9) and adding the twoloop contribution (28.6.23)
to the masses, we see then that
(28.6.29)
(28.6.30)
Using Eq. (28.6.14) and IAtl = mr/v2 = mt(2JiGF)1/2jsinp, we may write
232 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
(28.6.30) as
2 [3 ( g2 ) 2 5 (gt2 ) 2
~::= 2TM 4 16n 2 + 12 16n2
_ .jiGFm; ( g; 2)
n 2 sin2 13 16n
\n (8T(g;J16n
3 ) ]
2) ' (28.6.31 )
For T = 1, g;/4n = 0.118, g2/4n = 0.0340, gt2/4n = 0.0101, and mt = 180
GeV, this is
2 '" M2
1112 L
[1 _sm3.06]
'213' (28.6.32)
which is negative for all values of 13, thus providing a natural mechanism
for the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak gauge symmetry. Also,
MI = (0.91 x 1O4)M2/8n2. Unless tan 13 is huge, we have IAbl ~ IAtl, so
Eq. (28.6.27) gives
m21'" M2L' (28.6.33)
The aspect of electroweak phenomenology for which the predictions of
gaugemediated supersymmetry models are most uncertain and unsatis
factory has to do with the parameter Ii in the supersymmetrypreserving
term 1i[(HleH2)]j> and the related supersymmetrybreaking term Bli in
the Lagrangian density. These are related because the interactions of
the Higgs supedields with the gauge, lepton, and quark supedields are
invariant under a symmetry
HI + eiq> HI , H2 + eiq>H2 ,
Q + eiq>Q , Vi + Vi, (28.6.34)
l> + l> , f) + f) ,
which in the absence of a superpotential term Ii(H[ eH2) would forbid
radiative corrections from producing a term Bli Re ('[ e'2) in the scalar
field po ten tial.
It is not possible for Bli to vanish because then Eq. (28.5.22) and the
fact that (as we have seen) mA =1= 0 would imply that sin 213 = 0, or in other
words either VI = 0 or V2 = 0, which would imply that either all the charge
e/3 quarks and charged leptons are massless or all the charge +2e/3
quarks are massless. (If B Ii = 0 and Ii = 0 then this problem persists to all
orders, because the appearance of nonzero vacuum expectation values for
both VI and V2 would imply that symmetry under any combination of the
transformation (28.6.34) and electroweak U(I) gauge transformations is
spontaneously broken, so the Codd neutral scalar would be a Goldstone
boson with mA = 0.) It is natural to try to account for a nonzero value
28.6 Gauge Mediation of 8upersymmetry Breaking 233
of B Ii as a radiative correction in a theory in which symmetry under the
transformation (28.6.34) is explicitly broken by a supersymmetric term
1i[(H! eH2)]j> in the Lagrangian density. This gives a very small value
of Bli at the messenger scale,34 although renormalization group effects
greatly increase Bli at lower energies. According to Eq. (28.5.22), a
relatively small Bli would fit well with the idea that the large mass of
the top quark arises from a large value of tan p. In any case, as already
mentioned, the experimental lower bound on the chargino mass tells us
that llil is at least about 60 GeV.
The trouble is that the appearance of a nonzero value of Ii resurrects
the hierarchy problem that supersymmetry was supposed to solve: instead
of asking why the Higgs mass terms in the Lagrangian density are so
much smaller than the Planck mass or the mass at which gauge couplings
are unified, we now have to ask why Ii is this small?
The hierarchy problem would be put to rest if the Higgs superfields
interact with the supersymmetrybreaking sector in such a way that a
term 1i[(H!eH2)]j> is forbidden by some symmetry, but appears when that
symmetry is spontaneously broken. A massless Goldstone boson may be
avoided if the symmetry is discrete rather than continuous. The simplest
possibility is simply to extend the symmetry transformation (28.6.34) to
include a transformation
which would allow a term in the superpotential of the form
X8('Te'2) .
We can avoid a continuous symmetry by also including a term 8 3 in the
superpotential, so that the Lagrangian is invariant only under transforma
tions with cp a multiple of 2n /3, which is still enough to forbid a nonzero
bare value of JL In this case the appearance of nonzero vacuum values
Y' and ff for the scalar and auxiliary components of 8 yields
BIi=IXffl, 1i=IXY'I.
This would result in B having a very large lXIindependent value M, given
by (28.6.12), which is greater by a factor of order (g;/16n)1 == 100 than
the squark or gluino masses. But then, since Eqs. (28.6.32) and (28.6.33)
give mi + ~ < 0, the stability condition (28.5.11) would require that
llil > M /2, and hence Eq. (28.5.22) would require that mA is also much
greater than the squark and slepton masses. This is ruled out by the
relation (28.5.23) and the estimates (28.6.33) and (28.6.32) of mi and ~
unless tan 13 is very close to unity.
We will see in Section 31.6 that theories of gravitymediated super
symmetry breaking naturally yield acceptable values of Bli and JL Such
234 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
theories are characterized by a very high energy scale of supersymmetry
breaking, in various versions of order either 1011 GeV or 1013 Gey. There
have been several suggestions35 on ways to obtain acceptable values of
Bli and Ii in theories in which supersymmetry is broken at relatively low
energy, such as theories of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking, but
none of them is particularly compelling. Also, since we do not know
where Ii comes from, we do not have any reason to suppose that it is
real, so theories of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking are at risk of
yielding too much CP violation, just as in the more general framework of
Section 28.4.
Like the scalar squared masses mi and m~, the parameters Aij and
Cij in Eq. (28.4.1) are given by twoloop diagrams. However, they have
the dimensions of mass rather than mass squared, and they are much less
than the scalar and gaugino masses, so they make a relatively unimportant
contribution to supersymmetry breaking.
As in any model with supersymmetry broken at energies much less
than 1010 GeV, the lightest Rodd particle in all models based on gauge
mediated supersymmetry breaking is the gravitino. As we will see in
Section 31.3, the gravitino mass is of the order of .jG times the squared
energy F characteristic of supersymmetry breaking, defined so that the
vacuum energy is F 2 /2. Where supersymmetry is broken by the fF
terms ff nO of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(l)neutral chiral supedields Sn, we
have F2 = :En Iffn012. If there are no large dimensionless quantities in
the Lagrangian for the Sn, then squark masses in this model are of the
order of g; JF / 16n2 ~ 102 JF, so in order for this to be less than the
4
naturalness bound of 10 GeV, we must have JF < 106 GeV, which gives
a gravitino mass less than 1 keY. Gravitational couplings are so weak at
accessible energies that it is only the helicity +1/2 states of the gravitino
that can actually be produced, and these behave just like goldstino states.
As shown by Eq. (27.5.12), in the models discussed here the goldstino
field appears with coefficient i.J2ffn in the fermionic component lPn of
Sn. Goldstinos are emitted in the decay of the Rodd sparticles into the
corresponding Reven particles of the standard model through radiative
corrections, with goldstinos emerging from vertices connecting internal
lPn and f/ n lines. According to Eq. (29.2.10), the goldstino etnission
amplitudes are inversely proportional to F, which makes these decays
comparatively slow, although perhaps fast enough to be observed.
Because the decay of Rodd particles into goldstinos is slow, it is
phenomenologically important in these models to identify the nextto
lightest Rodd particle, into which all the heavier Rodd particles will decay
before it in turn decays into a goldstino. As we have seen, the nextto
lightest Rodd particle is usually a slepton, wino, or bino. (It is possible in
models with a messeng1er supedield having the same SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)
28.7 Baryon and Lepton NonConservation 235
quantum numbers as the Higgs doublets that the mixing between these
superfields would lower the mass of the doublet messengers so much that
the lightest Rodd particle would be the gluino. 35a ) Detailed calculations
including the effects of SU(2) x U(1) breaking indicate that here is a large
region of parameter space in which the nexttolightest Rodd particle is
one of the two tau sleptons. 35b
28.7 Baryon and Lepton NonConservation
The extra particles in supersymmetric models provide several new mech
anisms for baryon and lepton nonconservation. We saw in Section 28.1
that there are various baryon and leptonnumber nonconserving super
symmetric operators (28.1.2) and (28.1.3) of dimensionality four that can
be included in a renormalizable SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)invariant theory
and that would lead to processes like proton decay at a catastrophic
rate. These terms can be excluded from the Lagrangian by imposing
R parity conservation (or, equivalently, invariance under a change of
sign of all quark and lepton chiral superfields) but this does not exclude
various SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)invariant but baryon and leptonnumber
nonconserving operators of dimensionality d > 4. As discussed in Sec
tion 21.3, if there is an underlying mechanism for baryon and lepton
nonconservation characterized by some high mass scale M, then these
operators will appear in the effective Lagrangian of the standard model
with coefficients proportional to M4d. With only the fields of the non
supersymmetric standard model, operators that can violate baryon con
servation have a minimum dimensionality six,36 and thus give baryon
nonconserving amplitudes proportional to M 2 . The new fields required
by supersymmetry lead to two important changes in estimates of baryon
nonconserving processes like proton and bound neutron decay. As we
saw in Section 28.2, the change in the renormalization group equations
gives larger estimates of M, which decreases the effect of the dimension
six operators. At the same time, these new fields allow the construction of
new operators of dimensionality five, which give baryon nonconserving
amplitudes proportional to M i and are therefore likely to make the
dominant contribution to proton and bound neutron decay.37
The supersymmetric operators of dimensionality five that can be formed
out of chiral superfields (gemerically called <1 are of the forms (<1><l><lD
and (<1><l><l><1", and their complex conjugates. (We do not consider
operators that include derivatives or gauge fields, because they do not
offer any additional possibility of baryon or lepton nonconservation.) In
the notation of Section 28.1, the S U(3) x SU(2) x U(1)invariant operators
236 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models


Figure 28.7. A diagram that can produce a fourfermion interaction among
quarks and/or leptons that violates baryon and lepton number conservation.
Here solid lines are quarks and/or leptons; dashed lines are squarks and/or
sleptons; the combined solid and wavy line is a gaugino; and the dot is a vertex
arising directly from the $'term interactions (28.7.3).
of dimensionality five that also conserve R parity are
(LLH2 H2)' , (28.7.1)
(LEHiJD, (QDHiJD, (QUHj)D, (QQUD)" (QULE)" (28.7.2)
and
(28.7.3)
with obvious contraction of indices as dictated by SU(3) and SU(2) con
servation. The interaction (28.7.1) is the supersymmetric version of the
dimensionality five operator which would provide small neutrino masses
in some theories. 38 The interactions (28.7.2) only provide small corrections
to processes that already occur in the renormalizable terms of the super
symmetric standard model. It is the interactions (28.7.3) that provide new
mechanisms for baryon as well as lepton nonconservation.
According to Eq. (26.4.4), the quarks and leptons enter in the inter
actions (28.7.3) through terms involving a pair of quark and/or lepton
fields and a pair of squark and/or slepton fields. In order to gener
ate reactions among quarks and leptons alone, it is necessary for the
pair of squarks and/or sleptons to be converted into a pair of quarks
and/or leptons by exchanging a gaugino in the oneloop diagram shown
in Figure 28.7. This will produce effective fourfermion qqqt interac
tions with d = 6 among three quarks and a lepton. The coupling g6
of these interactions will be proportional to the square of the gauge
coupling g or g' or gs of the gaugino, to the supersymmetrybreaking
mass of the gaugino, to the inverse square of the larger of the gaugino
and squark or slepton masses (which is needed to give a coupling of
the right dimensionality), and to a factor of order 1/8n2 from the loop
integration.
2B.7 Baryon and Lepton NonConservation 237
It might be thought that the greater strength of the gluino coupling
would make gluino exchange the dominant contribution to g6. (Indeed, in
gaugemediated supersymmetrybreaking theories, for moderate values of
the trace (28.6.3) and with g ~ g', Eqs. (28.6.13H28.6.14) give
2
mg1uino ''"'"
"'"' msquark '" gs M
'"" 16n 2 . ,
 2
g
mwino ~ mslepton ~ mbino ~ 16n2 M. ,
where M. is a mass characterizing the messenger sector. Therefore in
such theories individual gluino exchange diagrams give contributions
proportional to g; jmgluino, while wino or bino exchange (or, more pre
cisely, chargino or neutralino exchange) makes a contribution propor
tional to g2mwinojm~uark' which is smaller by a factor roughly equal to
mwinog2j~uinog; ~ g4jg:.) However, there is a caO:cellation among the
diagrams for gluino exchange that strongly suppresses their contribution.
This was originally shown using a Fierz identity among fourfermion
operators,39 but the same result can be obtained with no equations at
all. To conserve color, the coefficients of the operators (QQQL)" and
([JUDE)" must be totally antisymmetric in the colors of the three quark
or antiquark superfields, and since these superfields are bosonic, they must
then also be antisymmetric in their flavors as well. Gluino interactions
are flavorindependent, so if we can neglect the flavor dependence of the
squark masses then the coefficients of the fourfermion d = 6 operators
will also be totally antisymmetric in flavor as well as color. Fermi statis
tics then requires the coefficients of these operators to be also totally
antisymmetric in the spin indices of the quark or antiquark fields. But
the three quark or anti quark fields in the d = 6 operators derived by
gaugino exchange from QQQL" or (UUDE)" are all lefthanded and
therefore have only two independent spin indices, so no coefficient can be
antisymrnetric in all three spins. The contribution of gluino exchange to
the d = 15 operators would therefore vanish if the squark masses were all
equal and so this contribution is suppressed by the fractional differences
among the masses of the different squarks. According to Eq. (28.6.4), in
theories of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking the fractional differ
ences between the U and D squark masses are of order g,4 j g:, so gluino
exchange between the antisquarks in the (UUDE)" operator generates a
dimension six fourfermion operator with a coefficient of the same order as
that generated by bino exchange. However, since gluinos conserve flavor
this operator like the (U UDE)" operator must be totally antisymmetric
in antiquark flavors, so that it must involve c or t quarks and therefore
cannot contribute directly to proton or bound neutron decay. On the other
hand, Eq. (28.6.4) indicates that the fractional mass differences among the
238 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
Q quarks of different flavors is much less than of order g4 / g:, so that
gluino exchange between the squarks in the (QQQL),j> operator makes
a contribution to gS that is much smaller than wino or bino exchange.
We conclude that at least in the theories of gaugemediated supersym
metry breaking, gluino exchange makes a smaller contribution to proton
or bound neutron decay than wino or bino exchange. In other models
gluino exchange may make a contribution comparable to that of other
processes. 40
For g ~ g' and fnwino ~ mbino, the contribution of wino or bino exchange
to the dimension six operators is of order
'" g2 gS fnwino
g6 '" 8 2 2 ' (28.7.4)
11: msquark
where gs is a typical value of the couplings of the effective d = 5 interac
tions (28.7.3). Ifthe wino and squark masses have the same ratio (g2 / g;)
as in theories of gaugemediated super symmetry breaking, then this gives
g4 gS
g6 ~ 2 2' (28.7.5)
811: gs msquark
The fourfermion qqqtterms of dimensionality six in the effective La
grangian are the same as those that had been supposed to generate
processes like proton decay in nonsupersymmetric theories. 36 They pro
duce proton and bound neutron decay at a rate which on dimensional
grounds must be of the form .
rN = CN m~ gL (28.7.6)
where CN is a pure number that must be calculated by nonperturbative
calculations in quantum chromodynamics. Much work has gone into these
calculations, with results4I generally in the range CN ~ 3 X 103 O.7.
To estimate gs, we note that it is not possible to produce ~terms like
(28.7.3) that involve only leftchiral superfields by the treeapproximation
exchange of gauge supermultiplets, which always interact with both left
chiral superfields and their rightchiral complex conjugates. Thus the
interactions (28.7.3) arise in the tree approximation only from the ex
change of particles of chiral superfields, and therefore gs is of the order
of g} / M}, where gT is a typical baryon and lepton nonconserving cou
pling of some superheavy leftchiral superfield of mass MT to the quark
and lepton superfields. To produce the interactions (28.7.3), these super
heavy particles must be color triplets or antitriplets, and S U(2) triplets
or singlets. Whatever gauge group unifies the strong and electroweak
interactions presumably dictates some relation between the interactions of
the superheavy color triplet T and the familiar color singlet HI and H2.
Then gT will be of the same order as the Yukawa coupling constants in
28.7 Baryon and Lepton NonConservation 239
the interactions (28.1.2) and (28.1.3) that give mass to the known quarks
and leptons, and which are equal to quark or lepton masses divided by
the vacuum expectation values of order G;I/2 ~ 300 GeV of .tt1 or Jt1.
We therefore take
(28.7.7)
where mf is some typical quark or lepton mass. We have seen that
the dimension five operators are antisymmetric in quark flavors, so as a
compromise between the masses of the s quark and the U or d quarks,
we will take
1
mt
= 30 MeV. Combining Eqs. (28!7.5H28.7.7) and taking
MT = 2 X 10 GeV (as suggested by the results of Section 28.2), eN =
0.003, g; /4n = 0.118, g2/4n = 1/(0.23 x 137), and 1nsquark = 1 TeV, we find
a proton (or bound neutron) lifetime rN I of about 2 x 1031 years. 42 This is
not very different from experimental lower bounds on the partial lifetimes
of what are expected to be the leading modes of proton decay, variously
quoted as ranging from 1031 to 5 X 1032 years. At the time of writing
the most stringent bounds are set by the nonobservation of proton decay
in the large Super Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan:42a the partial
lifetimes for the decays p + e+no and p + vK+ are greater than 2.1 x 1033
years and 5.5 x 1032 years, respectively. There is an uncertainty of a factor
of at least 100 in the above estimate of the theoretical lifetime from the
uncertainty in the squark mass alone, so it is too soon to say that there
is any discrepancy between experiment and theoretical expectations. On
thc~ other hand, super symmetry raises the possibility that baryon non
conservation may be discovered soon.
We can also say a little on general grounds about the expected branching
ratios for various proton and bound neutron decay modes. As we have
mentioned, the dimension five operators (28.7.3) must be totally anti
symmetric in the flavor of the quark superfields, so the only operators
that concern us here are of the forms (UjDjDkNt)', (DjUjUkEt)', and
(DrUjUkEt)', where i,j,k,t are generation indices, and in each case j =1= k.
The exchange of neutral winos or binos then produces d = 6 fourfermion
operators of the forms ujdjdk Vt, djUjUket, and djUjUket, with j =1= k and i
and t arbitrary, while charged wino exchange produces the same four
fermion operators with i =1= j and k and t arbitrary. The only quarks light
enough to be involved in proton decay are u, s, and d; ignoring all the
others and the small mixing angles in the third generation, we have
Ut = u, dt = dcosO e +ssinOe , d2 = dsinOe +scosOe ,
where Oe is the Cabibbo angle, while U2, U3, and d3 can be ignored.
The fourfermion operators that can be produced by wino or bino ex
change and can contribute to proton or bound neutron decay thus are
240 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
u d s Vt cos(2Bc), u d d Vt sin(2Bc), u u s et cos Be, and u u d et sin Be, plus oth
ers with quarks and leptons replaced with antiquarks and antileptons.
All other things being equal, the dominant decay modes are therefore
p + K+v, n + KOv, p + KOe+, and p + KJ1.+, while the rates for the
decay modes p + n+v, n + nOv, p + nOe+, p + nJ1.+, and n + ne+ are
suppressed by factors sin2 Be = 0.05, though also enhanced somewhat by
the greater phase space available.
These considerations do not lead to definite predictions of branching
ratios, because in addition to all the factors mentioned above, the coef
ficients generically called gS of the operators (28.7.3) may have a strong
dependence on the superfield flavors appearing in these operators. To
go further, one needs a specific theory for the generation of the dimen
sion five operators. Most of the authors of Reference 42 concluded on
the basis of a supersymmetric version of SU(5) theories that proton and
bound neutron decay would be dominated by the processes p + K+v
and n + KOv, but for a model based on SO(10) charged lepton modes
can become prominent 43 Also, in some models higgsino exchange can
compete with wino and bino exchange,44 increasing the rate of p + K+v.
It seems a good idea in searches for baryon nonconservation to keep an
open mind as to the decay modes to be expected in proton or bound
neutron decay.
Of course, it is possible that all of these baryon nonconserving processes
are prohibited by some sort of conservation law. As mentioned in Section
28.1, string theory argues against baryon conservation being a fundamental
global continuous symmetry, but the baryon nonconserving operators
(28.7.3) may be forbidden by a 113 multiplicative symmetry known as
baryon parity,4S under which the Q superfield is neutral; the H2 and
[) superfields are multiplied by the phase exp(in/3), and the L, HI. fl,
and it superfields are multiplied by the opposite phase exp( in/3). This
symmetry is designed to allow the fundamental Yukawa couplings (28.1.2)
and (28.1.3) as well as the J1.term (28.5.7) and the lepton nonconserving
terms (28.1.4) and (28.7.1), but it rules out the dimension four baryon non
conserving term (28.1.5) and the dimension five baryon nonconserving
terms (28.7.3). This symmetry is spontaneously broken by the appearance
of vacuum expectation values of.tt1. and Jt1 (and perhaps the sneutrino
fields .), and with no conservation law for R parity, there would be
nothing to keep the lightest supersymmetric particle stable.
Problems
1. Suppose that the interactions (28.1.4) and (28.1.5) were actually
present in the Lagrangian of a super symmetric version of the
References 241
standard model. Make a rough estimate of how heavy the squarks
and sleptons would have to be to avoid a conflict with experimental
bounds on the proton lifetime.
2. Suppose that the typical mass m of the gauginos, higgsinos, squarks
and sleptons is very much larger than mz. Give the renormalization
group equations for the running gauge couplings at energies both
above and below m. Use the results, together with the unification
assumption employed in Section 28.2, to give formulas for sin2 () and
the unification scale M in terms of m, mz, e(mz), gs(mz), and ns.
How large could m be without violating experimental bounds on
sin2 () and M?
3. Give formulas for the couplings of the quarks and leptons to the
lightest CPeven neutral scalar particle in the minimum supersym
metric standard model in terms of the parameters mA, mz, 13, GF,
and the quark and lepton masses.
4. Use holomorphy arguments to derive the oneloop formula for the
gluino mass in a theory of gaugemediated supersymmetry breaking,
in which the messenger superfields <l>n and <1>n get their masses
from a term :En A.nSn(<1>n<l>n) in the superpotential, in terms of the
expectation values [/' nand 1Fn of the cp and 1Fcomponents of the
singlet superfields Sn, in the limit where I"nl ~ lA. nIWnI 2 .
5. Taking account of the possibility of a small flavor dependence
of squark masses, estimate the gluino exchange contribution to
baryon and lepton nonconserving fourfermion interactions among
the quarks and leptons. Set an upper bound on these contributions,
using the bound on squark mass splittings from the rate of KO + ~
converSIOn.
References
1. We will not consider here the possibility of unification at much
lower energies raised by I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B246, 377
(1990); 1. Lykken, Phys. Rev. D54, 3693 (1996), and revived by
N. ArkaniHamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. Lett.
B429, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. ArkaniHamed, S. Dimopoulos,
and G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. ,lett. B436, 257 (1998).
1a. S. Weinberg, in Proceedings of the XVII International Conference
on High Energy Physics, London, 1974, J. R. Smith, ed. (Rutherford
Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, England, 1974); S. Weinberg, Phys.
242 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
Rev. D13, 974 (1976); E. Gildener and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.
D13, 3333 (1976).
lb. T. Banks and L. Dixon, Nucl. Phys. B307, 93 (1988). For a detailed
treatment, see J. Polchinski, String Theory (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1998): Chapter 18.
2. Additive Rconservation laws were introduced by A. Salam and J.
Strathdee, Nucl. Phys. B87, 85 (1975); P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B90,
104 (1975), reprinted in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed., (North Hol
land/World Scientific, Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987). The R parity
can be defined in terms of an R quantum number as exp(inR),
and may be conserved multiplicatively even if R is not conserved
additively; see G. Farrar and P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 76B, 575 (1978);
P. Fayet, in Unification of the Fundamental Particle Interactions, S.
Ferrara, J. Ellis, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, eds. (Plenum, New
York, 1980); S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett.
112B, 133 (1982); G. Farrar and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D27, 1731
(1983), reprinted in Supersymmetry.
3. S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B193, 150 (1981),
reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 2.
4. R. D. Peccei and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977); Phys.
Rev. D16, 1791 (1977).
4a. S. Dim0poulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B357, 573 (1995); A.
Pomerol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B466, 3 (1996); G. Dvali
and A. Pomerol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3728 (1996); Nucl. Phys. B522,
3 (1998); A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys.
Lett. B388, 588 (1996); R. N. Mohapatra and A. Riotto, Phys.
Rev. D55, 1 (1997); R.1. Zhang, Phys. Lett. 8402, 101 (1997);
HP. Nilles and N. Polonsky, Phys. Lett. B412, 69 (1997); D. E.
Kaplan, F. Lepeintre, A. Masiero, A. E. Nelson, and A. Riotto,
hepph/9806430, to be published; 1. Hisano, K. Kurosawa, and Y.
Nomura, Phys. Lett. B445, 316 (1999). This pattern of masses can
arise naturally from radiative corrections; see 1. L. Feng, C. Kolda,
and N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B546, 3 (1999); J. Bagger,1. L. Feng,
and N. Polonsky, heP'"ph/9905292, to be published.
4b. B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165 (1977); D.
A. Dicus, E. W. Kolb, and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 168
(1977).
4c. S. Wolfram, Phys. Lett. 82B, 65 (1979); 1. Ellis, 1. S. Hagelin, D.
V. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B238, 453
( 1984).
4d. P. F. Smith and J. R. J. Bennett, Nucl. Phys. B149, 525 (1979).
References 243
5. H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 451
(1974).
6. S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Ref. 3; 1. Ellis, S. Kelley, and D.
V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B260, 131 (1991); u. Amaldi, W. de
Boer, and H. Furstmann, Phys. Lett. B260, 447 (1991); c. Giunti,
C. W. Kim and U. W. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. 16, 1745 (1991); P.
Langacker and M.X. Luo, Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991). For other
references and more recent analyses of the data, see P. Langacker
and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev. D47, 4028 (1993); D49, 1454 (1994);
L. 1. Hall and U. Sarid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2673 (1993).
7. S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D24, 1681
(1981), reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 2.
7a. P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B460, 506 (1996); ibid. B475,
94 (1996); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B471, 135 (1996); P. HOfava, Phys.
Rev. D54, 7561 (1996).
8. H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223 (1982).
9. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1303 (1983).
10. S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Ref. 3; N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C 11, 153
(1981). For reviews, see H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Re
ports 117, 75 (1985); 1. A. Bagger, in QCD and Beyond: Proceedings
of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle
Physics, University of Colorado, June 1995, D. E. Soper, ed. (World
Scientific;, Singapore, 1996); V. Barger, in Fundamental Particles
and Interactions .. Proceedings of the FCP Workshop on Fundamen
tal Particles and Interactions, Vanderbilt University, May 1997, R.
S. Panvini, T. J. Weiler, eds. (American Institute of Physics, Wood
bury, NY, 1998); 1. F. Gunion, in Quantum Effects in the MSSM
 Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quantum Effects in
the MSSM, Barcelona, September 1997,1. Sola, ed. (World Scientific
Publishing, Singapore, 1998); s. Dawson, in Proceedings of the 1997
Theoretical Advanced Study Institute on Supersymmetry, Supergrav
ity, and Supercolliders, 1. Bagger, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore,
1998); S. P. Martin, in Perspectives on Supersymmetry, G. L. Kane,
ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998); K. R. Dienes and C. Kolda,
in Perspectives on Supersymmetry, ibid.
11. S. Dimopoulos and D. Sutter, Nucl. Phys. B194, 65 (1995); H.
Haber, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 62, 469 (1998).
12. S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Ref. 3; J. Ellis and D. V. Nanopou
los, Phys. Lett. 110B, 44 (1982); J. F. Donoghue, HP. Nilles, and
D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. 128B, 55 (1983). For stronginteraction cor
rections to these calculations, see 1. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev, and
244 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
R.J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B412, 77 (1997). Conditions under which
limits on flavor changing processes do not constrain squark masses
are discussed by R. Barbieri and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. HOB, 211
(1981); Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B309. 337 (1993). For a
detailed review, see F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L.
Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B477, 321 (1996).
13. M. K. Gaillard and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. DI0, 897 (1974).
14. 1. Ellis and D. V. Nanopoulos, Ref 12. Detailed results are given
by F. Gabbiani and A. Masiero, Nucl. Phys. B322, 235 (1989); 1.
S. Hagelin, S. Kelley, and T. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B415, 293 (1994).
The most complete treatment is by D. Sutter, Stanford University
Ph. D. thesis (unpublished) and S. Dimopoulos and D. Sutter, Ref
11.
14a. M. Dine, R. Leigh, and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D48, 4269 (1993).
15. For more recent reviews, see Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, and R. Rattazzi,
in Heavy Flavours II, A. J. Buras and M. Lindner, eds. (World
Scientific, Singapore, 1998); A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, in Per
spectives on Supersymmetry, Ref. 10.
16. 1. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. BI50, 141 (1979); D. V.
Nanopoulos, A. Yildiz, and P. H. Cox, Ann. Phys. (NY.) 127, 126
(1980); M. B. Gavela, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, 1.c.
Raynal, and T. N. Pharo, Phys. Lett. I09B, 215 (1982); B. H. 1.
McKellar, S. R. Choudhury, XG. He, and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett.
B197, 556 (1987).
16a. P. G. Harris et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 904 (1999).
17. 1. Ellis, S. Ferrara, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. H4B, 231
(1982); J. Polchinski and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. 12SB, 393 (1983);
M. Dugan, B. Grinstein, and L. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B255, 413 (1985).
18. R. Arnowitt, J. Lopez, and D. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. D42, 2423
(1990); R. Arnowitt, M. Duff, and K. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D43, 3085
(1991); Y. Kizuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. D45, 1806 (1992).
19. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2333 (1989); D. Dicus, Phys. Rev.
D41, 999 (1990); J. Dai, H. Dykstra, R. G. Leigh, S. Paban, and D.
A. Dicus, Phys. Lett. B237, 216 (1990); E. Braaten, C. S. Li, and
T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1709 (1990); A. De Rujula, M. B.
Gavela, O. Pene, and F. J. Vegas, Phys. Lett. B245, 640 (1990); R.
Arnowitt, M. J. Duff, and K. S. Stelle, Ref 18; T. Ibrahim and P.
Nath, Phys. Lett. 148B, 98 (1998).
20. K. S. Babu, C. Kolda, 1. MarchRussell, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev.
D59, 016004 (1999).
References 245
21. R. Arnowitt, M. 1. Duff, and K. S. Stelle, Ref. 18. In terms of the
functions J 1 and J2 in this reference, the function J here is taken
as 2J1 + ~h, under the assumption that the graphs with the gluon
attached to the squark or gluino lines add constructively.
22. H. Georgi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B276, 241 (1980); A
Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B238, 189 (1984); S. Wein
berg, Ref. 19.
23. W. Fischler, S. Paban, and S. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 289, 373 (1992).
24. J. Ellis and D. V. Nanopoulos, Ref. 12; F. Gabbiani and A Masiero,
Ref. 14; F. Dine, A Kagan, and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B243 250
(1990); F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A Masiero, and L. Silvestrini,
Ref. 12.
25. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978); F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 40, 279 (1978).
26. A Brignole, 1. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B271,
123 (1991); M.Carena, M. Quiros, and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl.
Phys. B461, 407 (1996); S. Heinemayer, W. Hollik, and G. Wei
glein, hepph/9812472, hepph/9903404, hepph/9903504, to be
published. The numerical results for mh cited here are taken from
calculations quoted by S. Dawson, Ref. 10.
27. R. Barate et al. (ALEPH collaboration), Phys. Lett. B412, 173
(1997).
27a. M. Grunewald and D. Karlen, in Proceedings of the XXIX Inter
national Conference on High Energy Nuclear Physics, A Astbury,
D. Axen, and 1. Robinson, eds. (TRIUMF, Vancouver, 1999).
28. R. Barate et al. (ALEPH collaboration), 1999 CERN preprint EP
99011, to be published in Phys. Lett. A lower bound of 54.5 GeV
had been obtained earlier from experiments on e+ e annihilation
at 130 to 172 GeV by P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI collaboration),
Phys. Lett. B420, 140 (1998).
29. A 1. Buras, M. Misiak, M. Miinz. and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phys.
B424, 374 (1994).
29a. R. Barate et al. (ALEPH collaboration), 1999 CERN preprint
EP99014, to be published in Eur. Phys. J.
30. M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. 1B189, 575
(1981); S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B192, 353 (1982);
M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. 110B, 227 (1982); Nucl. Phys.
B204, 346 (1982); c. Nappi and B. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. 113B, 175
(1982); L. AlvarezGaume, M. Claudson, and M. Wise, Nucl. Phys.
246 28 Supersymmetric Standard Models
B207, 96 (1982); S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B219,
479 (1983). This class of models was revived by M. Dine and A E.
Nelson, Phys. Rev. D48, 1277 (1993); D51, 1362 (1995); 1. Bagger,
Ref. 10; M. Dine, A Nelson, and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D51, 1362
(1995); M. Dine, A Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D53,
2658 (1996). For reviews, see C. Kolda, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 62,
266 (1998); G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, hepph/9801271, to be
published in Phys. Rep; S. L. Dubovsky, D. S. Gorbunov, and S.
V. Troitsky, hepph/9905466, to be published. The phenomenology
of these models is described by S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas, and 1.
D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B488, 39 (1997).
31. S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, and A Pomerol, Phys. Lett. 389B,
37 (1997); S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D55, 3177 (1997).
32. G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazi, Nucl. Phys. B511, 25 (1998). This
work has been extended by N. ArkaniHamed, G. F. Giudice, M.
A Luty, and R. Rattazz~ Phys. Rev. D58, 115005 (1998).
33. N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B318, 469 (1993).
34. K. S. Babu, C. Kolda, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3070
( 1996).
35. J. E. Kim and HP. Nilles, Phys. Lett. 138B, 150 (1984); J. Ellis, J.
F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski, and F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev.
D39, 844 (1989); E. 1. Chun,1. E. Kim, and HP. Nilles, Nucl. Phys.
B370, 105 (1992); M. Dine and A E. Nelson, Ref. 30; M. Dine, A
E. Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman, Ref. 30; G. Dvali, G. F. Giudice,
and A Pomerol, Nucl. Phys. B478, 31 (1996); S. Dimopoulos, G.
Dvali, and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Lett. 413B, 336 (1997); HP. Nilles
and N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B484, 33 (1997); G. Cleaver, M.
Cvetic, 1. R. Espinosa, L. Everett, and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev.
D57, 2701 (1998); P. Langacker, N. Polonsky, and 1. Wang, hep
ph/9905252, to be published; 1. E. Kim, hepphj9901204, to be
published.
35a. S. Raby, Phys. Lett. B422, 158 (1998).
35b. D. A Dicus, B. Dutta, and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3055
(1997); Phys. Rev. D56, 5748 (1997).
36. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979); F. Wilczek and A
Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1571 (1979).
37. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D26, 287 (1982); N. Sakai and T. Yanagida,
Nucl. Phys. BI97, 533 (1982). These articles are reprinted in Super
symmetry, Ref. 2.
38. S. Weinberg, Ref. 36.
References 247
39. J. Ellis, 1. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. Tamvakis, Phys.
Lett. 124B, 484 (1983); V. M. Belyaev and M. I. Vysotsky, Phys.
Lett. 127B, 215 (1983).
40. V. Lucas and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D55, 6986 (1997).
41. This estimate is taken from a compilation of nonsuper symmetric
calculations of the total twobody decay proton decay rate in terms
of the superheavy gauge boson masses Mx by P. Langacker, in
Proceedings of the 1983 Annual Meeting of the Division of Particles
and Fields of the American Physical Society (American Institute of
Physics, New York, 1983): 251. To express the result in terms of
g6, I have assumed that, in effect, the coupling g6 that was used
in these calculations was given by g6 = g2(Mx)/Mi, where g(Mx)
has the value appropriate to nonsuper symmetric theories, with
g2(Mx)/4n ~ 1/41.
42. For more detailed (mostly modeldependent) calculations, including
renormalization group corrections to gs, see S. Dimopoulos, S.
Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 112B, 133 (1982); J. Ellis, D.
V. Nanopoulos, and S. Rudaz, Nucl. Phys. B202, 43 (1982); W.
Lang, Nucl. Phys. B203, 277 (1982); J. Ellis, 1. S. Hagelin, D. V.
Nanopoulos, and K. Tamvakis, Ref. 39; V. M. Belyaev and M. I.
Vysotsky, Ref. 39; L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B245,
425 (1984); P. Nath, A H. Chamseddine, and R. Arnowitt, Phys.
Rev. D32, 2385 (1985); 1. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida,
Nucl. Phys. 8402, 46 (1993); V. Lucas and S. Raby, Ref. 40. For
a review, see P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 61, 975
(1997).
42a. M. Takita et al., in Proceedings of the XXIX International Confer
ence on High Energy Nuclear Physics, Ref. 27a.
43. K. S. Babu, 1. C. Pati, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 423B, 337 (1998).
44. V. Lucas and S. Raby, Ref. 40; T. Goto and T. Nihei, Phys. Rev.
D59, 115009 (1999).
45. L. Ibanez and G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B368, 3 (1991).
29
Beyond Perturbation Theory
Most of the implications of supersymmetry discussed so far have been
inferred with the use of perturbation theory. In this chapter we shall
consider some results that apply even when nonperturbative effects are
taken into account.
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking
Supersymmetry is not observed in the spectrum of known particles, so
it must be broken. We saw in the previous chapter that supersymmetry
breaking in the tree approximation of the standard model is experimen
tally ruled out, and that the large disparity between the electroweak
breaking scale and the Planck or grand unification scales suggests that
supersymmetry is likely to be broken when some running gauge coupling
becomes strong. It is therefore essential for us to explore spontaneous
supersymmetry breaking without using perturbation theory.
We saw in Section 26.7 that the supersymmetry of the action implies the
existence of a supersymmetry current SI'(x). This current is a Majorana
spin or in the sense of Eq. (26.A.l):
SI'(x)" = PI'SESI'(X) ; (29.1.1)
it is conserved,
(29.1.2)
and the integral of its time component is the supersymmetry gemerator
(29.1.3)
for which the commutator of i(iXQ) with any operator gives the change
of that operator under a supersymmetry transformation with infinitesimal
Majorana spinor parameter ex.
248
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking 249
The arguments that led to these results relied on the supersymmetry
of the action; nothing depended on whether or not supersymmetry is
spontaneously broken, except perhaps for the assumption that the integral
(29.1.3) exists. In fact this assumption may be violated in theories with
massless fermions, which can have long range effects (or, equivalently,
poles at zero fourmomentum) that would make this integral not converge.
We will see here that such massless fermions are necessary consequences of
supersymmetry breaking. In order to avoid the issue of the convergence of
this integral even in theories with massless fermions, it is very convenient
to work in a space of finite volume V. We can do this while maintaining
translation invariance by imposing periodic boundary conditions; all fields
are assumed to be unaffected by translations of any spatial coordinate Xi
by an amount V 1/3.
The existence of an operator Qa that induces supersymmetric transfor
mations on quantum fields would allow us to derive all the consequences of
supersymmetry, provided that there exists a supersymmetric vacuum state
IVAC) of zero threemomentum from which multiparticle states may be
constructed by acting with field operators. But if IVAC) is supersymmetric
in the sense that QaIVAC) = 0, then it follows from the anticommutation
relation (25.2.36) that this state has zero energy as well as zero momen
tum. Conversely, by taking the vacuum expectation value of the positive
operator (returning for a moment to twocomponent notation) {Qa, Q~},
we see that if the vacuum has zero energy then it must be annihilated
by Qa and Q~, and hence be supersymmetric, while if it is not supersym
metric then its energy must be positivedefinite. The question of whether
supersymmetry is or is not spontaneously broken is thus entirely a question
of whether the vacuum has a positivedefinite or a zero energy.
The same reasoning led Witten to the conclusion that extended super
symmetry with N > 1 twocomponent spinor generators Qar and their
adjoints cannot be spontaneously broken to extended supersymmetry
with fewer generators or to simple supersymmetry, because if anyone of
the generators does not annihilate the vacuum then the vacuum energy
cannot vanish, and it follows from this that none of the generators can
annihilate the vacuum.! Usually the energy of the vacuum state appears
as an illdefined additive constant in the energies of all states, but here this
constant is given a meaning by the appearance of the energymomentum
fourvector in the anticommutation relations of super symmetry. One of
the advantages of working in a finite volume is that it makes it meaningful
to talk about the total energy of the vacuum.
Hughes, Liu, and Polchinski have pointed out that there are theories
that exhibit a sort of partly broken supersymmetry.!a These theories do
not have a super symmetry algebra of the sort described in Chapter 25.
Instead, they have an algebra of currents, based on anticommutation
250 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
relations like Eq. (26.7.45);
J 3
d x {S~",(x), S:p(y)} = 2ic5 rs l'.e ll.(y) + 2il'IICrs ,
where ell is an energymomentum tensor satisfying the conservation
condition 0lle ll = 0, and Crs is a new ingredient, a constant. For N = 1
this constant could be regarded as a term '1 11C in ell., but this is not
possible for extended supersymmetry unless Crs ex c5 rs , which need not be
the case. This algebra is not ruled out by the HaagLopuszanskiSohnius
theorem proved in Section 25.2 because it could not be a symmetry of
the Smatrix. It is true that spontaneously broken symmetries are never
symmetries of the Smatrix, but they are usually assumed to be based
on algebras or superalgebras that could be symmetries of the Smatrix
in some phases of some theories. With Crs not proportional to c5 rs , the
superalgebra of currents is one that could not generate a symmetry of
the Smatrix in any phase of any theory. Here we will only consider
superalgebras of the sort described in Chapter 25, to which Witten's
argument does apply.
Another advantage of working in a finite volume is that all states
become discrete and norm.alizable. An immediate consequence of the
fact that Q", commutes with PII is that any state of nonzero energy is
paired with another state of the same energy and momentum but opposite
statistics. To see this, note that for any threemomentum p we may find a
twocomponent spinor Ua such that :Eab U~t1ab . PUb = 0 and :Ea IUal2 = 1.
(For p in the 3direction, take u =: (1,1)1 J2,. For p in any other direction,
apply to this u the spin 1/2 representation of the rotation that takes
the 3direction into the direction of p.) Then, within the space with
fourmomentum pII, the anticommutation relations (25.2.31) and (25.2.32)
gIve
(29.1.4)
where Q(p) is the Hermitian linear combination of super symmetry gener
ators:
Q(p) . La uaQa + La u:Q: . (29.1.5)
Acting with Q(p) on any normalized state IX) with fourmomentum pII
and pO > 0, we get another normalized state IY) = Q(p)IX)/H with
opposite statistics and the same fourmomentum. Furthermore, IX) is
the only state related to IY) in this way, because if IY) = Q(p)IX)/H
then, according to Eq. (29.1.4), IX) = Q(p)IY)IH. The multiplicity of
supersymmetry generators and of spin states will usually cause these~ pairs
of fermionic and bosonic states to be joined by other pairs, all with the
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking 251
same fourmomentum, but for the moment it is enough to know that all
states of nonzero energy may at least be grouped in these pairs.
When supersymmetry is broken we do not expect states with a definite
number of particles to form supermuItiplets with other states of opposite
statistics and with the same fourmomentum and the same number of
particles. The pairing of states then requires the existence of a massless
fermion, so that an nparticle state can be paired with a state of the
same energy and momentum but opposite statistics, consisting of the
same n particles together with a massless fermion of zero energy and
momentum. This massless fermion is known as a goldstino. To be more
precise, any nparticle state is accompanied with two states of the same
energy and momentum and opposite statistics, containing an additional
zeromomentum goldstino of spin up or down, and with another state
of the same energy and momentum and the same statistics, containing
two additional zeromomentum goldstinos of opposite spin. In particular,
when super symmetry is spontaneously broken the vacuum state has non
zero energy, so it must be paired with a fermionic state of the same energy
and zero momentum; more precisely, the vacuum and the state containing
two zeromomentum goldstinos are paired with the two states of a single
zeromomentum goldstino. It is only when supersymmetry is unbroken
that there is a state of zero energy, the vacuum, that can be unpaired.
The pairing of states of nonzero energy provides a valuable diagnostic
tool that can in some cases tell us that supersymmetry is not spontaneously
broken, even where perturbation theory is not adequate to answer this
question. When all interactions are weak, we can rely on perturbation
theory to give us a qualitative picture of the spectrum. If it turns out that
in the tree approximation there are n vacuum states with zero energy, and
no massless fermions, then we can be confident that for weak coupling
there are no zeroenergy fermionic states with which we could pair the n
vacuum states, so these unpaired states would have to have precisely zero
energy. Then, as we increase the strength of the couplings or vary the
parameters of the theory in any other way, states may move from positive
to zero energy or viceversa, but they will generally not suddenly appear
or disappear. (There is an exception for changes in the parameters that
change the asymptotic behavior of the Lagrangian for large fields; as we
will shortly see, this can produce or destroy states.) Because each state of
nonzero energy is always paired with another of opposite statistics, they
can only make the transition from zero to nonzero energy or viceversa in
such pairs, so the number of bosonic zeroenergy states minus the number
of fermionic zeroenergy states does not change as the parameters of the
theory are varied, as long as the largefield behavior of the Lagrangian is
not changed. This difference is known as the Witten index. 2 Formally, this
index is Tr (_I)F, where F is the fermion number; the pairing of states
252 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
discussed earlier insures that this trace can receive no contribution from
states of nonzero energy. If the Witten index is nonzero then there must
be some states of zero energy, and so supersymmetry cannot be broken. In
particular, in a theory where the tree approximation gives n zeroenergy
vacuum states and no zeroenergy fermions, the Witten index is n for weak
coupling, where the tree approximation can be trusted to give a qualitative
picture of the spectrum, and the index remains equal to n as the strength
of the coupling is increased, so we can be certain that higherorder effects
or even nonperturbative effects do not break supersyrometry.
As an example of the use of the Witten index, consider the WessZumino
theory of a single chiral superfield with a cubic polynomial superpotential
of the form (26.4.16):
J(cjJ) = !m2cjJ2 + !gcjJ3 ,
where cjJ is the complex scalar field component of the superfield. We saw
in Section 26.4 that this model does not exhibit supersymmetry breaking
in the tree approximation, but what about higher orders of perturbation
theory, and what about nonperturbative effects? Perturbation theory
gives a good approximation to the energy spectrum when m is large and
zero energy, corresponding to the solutions cjJ =
g is small; it tells us that in this case there are two bosonic states near
and cjJ = 2m2j g of
the equation oJ(cjJ)jocjJ = 0, and no fermionic states near zero energy;
the lowestenergy fermionic state is a zeromomentum onefermion state
of energy near Iml. In typical scalar field theories we would not expect
the two bosonic states to have precisely zero energy; even though each
has zero energy in the tree approximation, higherorder effects (including
tunneling through the barrier between cjJ = and cjJ = 2m2j g) would be
expected to mix them and shift their energies away from zero. (It is only
in the limit of infinite volume that this barrier becomes impassable.) But
in supersymmetric theories these states must have precisely zero energy,
because there is no lowenergy fermion state with which they could be
paired. Thus for m large and g small the Witten index is 2 Because
the Witten index is invariant under changes in the parameters of the
theory, the Witten index remains equal to 2 even when g is large, where
perturbation theory breaks down, and even when m vanishes, where the
two potential wells merge. (It is not easy to calculate the Witten index
directly in this case, because of the presence in the tree approximation of
massless bosons as well as massless fermions.) Since the Witten index is
not zero, supersymmetry remains strictly unbroken in the WessZumino
model, whatever the values of its parameters.
The same arguments can generally be used in theories with several
chiral scalar superfields to show that the Witten index is positive, and that
supersymmetry is therefore not spontaneously broken. The O'Raifeartaigh
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking 253
models discussed in Section 26.5 are an exception, because there are fiat
directions in which the potential remains constant as the fields go to
infinity, rather than growing as some power of the fields. These models
provide a good illustration of the fact that although the Witten index
must be zero for supersymmetry to be broken, a zero Witten index does
not necessarily imply that supersymmetry is broken. For instance, if we
write the superpotential used as an illustration in Section 26.5 in terms of
canonically normalized superfields, then it takes the form
f(X, Yl, Y2) = mY1(X  a) + gY2 X2 ,
with arbitrary parameters m, g, and a. The potential is then
U(x, Yl, Y2) = Igl 21xl4 + Iml21x  al 2+ ImYI + 2gXY21 2 ,
with lowercase letters denoting the scalar components of the leftchiral
superfields. For m and a nonzero and g small, perturbation theory gives
a good estimate of the spectrum, and tells us that there is a minimum of
the potential near x = a  21g121al 4 /1ml2 with mY1 + 2XY2 = 0, at which
the vacuum energy is approximately equal to Igafl2V. Since this energy
appears as an additive constant in all states, there are no zeroenergy
states, and the Witten index vanishes. The matrix .,(/ of second derivatives
of the superpotential (with rows and columns labelled in the order x, Yl,
Y2) is here
2gY2 m 2gX)
.,(/= mOO .
( 2gx 0 0
This has an eigenvector (0, 2gx, m) with eigenvalue zero, so there is a
massless fermion here; this is the goldstino associated with the breaking of
supersymmetry. The fermionic state degenerate with the vacuum consists
of a single goldstino of zero energy and momentum. (Once again, there
are two vacuumenergy fermionic states, with opposite orientations for
the goldstino spin, and two vacuumenergy bosonic states: the vacuum,
and a state containing two goldstinos with opposite spin.) Now, as a + 0
supersymmetry may become unbroken (and we shall see later that it does),
but the Witten index must remain 0; in this case the massless fermion is
no longer a goldstino, but continuity demands that its mass remains zero,
so it remains paired with the vacuum state. This of course is a general
feature of theories in which supersymmetry is restored at isolated values
of the parameters; continuity demands that the massless fermion that
plays the role of the goldstino when supersymmetry is broken remains
massless (though no longer a goldstino) at the value of the parameters
where supersymmetry is restored, so that the vacuum remains paired with
the massless fermion state, and the Witten index remains zero.
254 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
This model provides a good illustration of why we had to qualify
the statement that the Witten index does not change when we vary
the parameters of a supersymmetric theory, with the proviso that the
parameters must not be changed in such a way as to alter the asymptotic
behavior of the Lagrangian density for large fields. Suppose we unflatten
the fiat direction in this model by adding a small term to the superpotential,
so that it now reads
where e is a small mass parameter. Now there are two solutions of the
conditions for supersymmetry to be preserved:
0= oj =~=~
ox oYt 0Y2 .
At these solutions, x is at one of the roots of the quadratic equation
2g2x2 + m(x a) = 0, while Yl and Y2 are of order lie: yt = m(x  a) Ie
and Y2 = _gx2I e. We see that the reason that the Witten index can
change from to 2 when we turn on the small parameter e is that two
new minima of the potential come in from infinite field values.
In deciding whether or not supersymmetry is broken in theories with a
vanishing Witten index, it is often useful to use conservation laws to limit
the pairings that may occur, and to define a new sort of index. If K is a
quantum operator that commutes with the supersymmetry generators Qa
(and hence c;tlso with the Hamiltonian), then all states of nonzero energy
that have a definite value for K are paired with states of opposite statistics
and the same energy and momentum and the same value of K. Also, not
only is the Witten index Tr(l)F independent of the parameters of the
theory (as long as they are not varied in a way that varies the large
field asymptotic behavior of the Lagrangian)  so also is the weighted
Witten index, given by Trg(K)(l)F, where g(K) is an arbitrary function
of the conserved quantity. To use the conservation law in this way,
it is not necessary that it be unbroken when the volume V becomes
infinite; it is only necessary that K commute with the supersymmetry
generators.
In diagnosing the possibilities of supersymmetry breaking, it is some
times helpful to work wiith a linear combination of weighted Witten indices
for a number of different conserved quantities. In particular, consider the
quantity
WG = LTr{h(l)F} , (29.1.6)
heG
29.1 General Aspects of Supersymmetry Breaking 255
with the sum running over all elements of some symmetry group G. (For
compact continuous groups, this sum should be interpreted as an integral
over the group volume, with a suitable invariant measure.) Within any
irreducible representation other than the identity, the 'characters' Tr h add
up to zero when summed over a finite or compact group, so
(29.1.7)
where N(f) is the number of times that the identity representation of G
appears among states with fermion number f. In other words, WG is just
the Witten index, but evaluated using only Ginvariant states. As long as
G is conserved, W G remains independent of the parameters of the theory,
and if nonzero indicates that supersymmetry is unbroken.
Conservation laws will be used in this way in Section 29.4 to study the
spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry in gauge theories, but a simpler
(though academic) example is provided by the O'Raifeartaighstyle model
discussed earlier, only now with the parameter a set equal to zero. The
superpotential here is
(29.1.8)
yielding a treeapproximation potential
(29.1.9)
We know that the Witten index vanishes here, because we have seen that
it vanished for a 1= 0, but is supersymmetry broken? With a = 0, there
are now field values with x = Yl = where the potential vanishes in
the tree approximation, but how can we tell whether effects of higher
order in g or even nonperturbative effects give the corresponding states a
small energy? To answer this, we note that this superpotential (and hence
the Lagrangian density) is invariant under a discrete symmetry K, under
which the superfields are transformed by
KXK 1 = iX , KY2K1 = Y2 . (29.1.10)
(Note that this symmetry is violated by the term maYl in the original
superpotential, so none of the results obtained using K will apply to
that superpotential.) Since the potential vanishes for x = Yl = and Y2
arbitrary, for small g we may use perturbation theory to tell us that for
each Y2 there is a bosonic vacuum state near zero energy. For Y2 = this
vacuum is even under K. For any nonzero value of IY21 we can take linear
combinations of the two zeroenergy states with Y2 = +IY21, of which one
256 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
will be even under K and the other odd. As we have seen, there is also
a massless fermion here, the fermionic component of Y2, but this fermion
is odd under K, so it cannot be paired with the even vacuum states. The
only other fermions in the theory have treeapproximation masses Iml, so
for small g they can't be paired with the even vacuum states either. We
conclude then that for small g the even vacuum states must have precisely
zero energy, and supersymmetry is unbroken. It is not easy to calculate
the weighted Witten index here, because there are an infinite number of
bosonic zeroenergy states that are even under K, consisting of either
zero or two Y2fermions with zero momentum plus any even number of
zeromomentum Y2 bosons, but it is clear that TrK(_)F > 0, and since
this is independent of g (as long as g 1= 0), supersymmetry cannot be
broken for any finite g.
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules
We now turn to sum rules that yield exact quantitative relations between
the vacuum energy and parameters describing the strength of supersym
metry breaking.
Let us again start by assuming that the world is placed in a box of
volume V, with periodic boundary conditions to preserve translation in
variance. The vacuum expectation value of the anticommutation relations
(25.2.36) may then be expressed as a sum over discrete states IX, Box):
L.: (VACIQaIX, Box)(VACIQplx, BOX)'
x
+ L.: (VAcIQitlx, BOx) (VACI Q:lx, BOX)*
x
(29.2.1)
with the label 'Box' indicating that the states are normalized to have
Kronecker deltas rather than delta functions as their scalar products.
Setting fJ = ex, summing over ex and using Eq. (25.2.37) gives
2
L.: (VACIQaIX,Box) = 4 (VAClpOIVAC) . (29.2.2)
X,a
Because Qa commutes with the fourmomentum, it is only states with zero
threemomentum and the same energy as the vacuum that can contribute
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 257
to this sum. To find the volume dependence of the matrix elements
that do contribute in Eq. (29.2.2), we note that a boxnormalized state
IX, Box) containing Nx particles is related according to Eq. (3.4.3) to the
corresponding continuumnormalized state IX) by
(29.2.3)
For states with Px = 0, the spatial integral of the supersymmetry current
timecomponent s2 gives another factor of V, so we conclude that for
boxnormalized states with Px = 0
(29.2.4)
Since invariance under 2nrotations does not allow X to be a zeroparticle
state, the dominant terms in Eq. (29.2.2) when V + 00 will be those from
oneparticle states. In this limit, Eq. (29.2.2) becomes
(2n)3 L (0)1 (VAcIS2(0)lx) 12 = 4 PVAC , (29.2.5)
X,a
where PVAC is the vacuum energy density
(29.2.6)
and the superscript (0) indicates that the. sum in Eq. (29.2.5) runs only
over oneparticle states with zero fourmomentum. These of course are
the two helicity states of the goldstino.
We see again from Eq. (29.2.5) that if the vacuum energy density
does not vanish then the vacuum is not invariant under supersymmetry
transformations, but is rather transformed into onegoldstino states. Con
versely, Eq. (29.2.2) shows that if the vacuum is not invariant under
supersymmetry then according to Eq. (29.2.2) its energy in a finite box
cannot vanish, although it is conceivable that supersymmetry transforma
tions might take the vacuum only into muItiparticle states, in which case
the vacuum energy density would vanish in the limit of large volume.
To evaluate the onegoldstino contribution in Eq. (29.2.5), we use
Lorentz invariance to write the matrix element of the supersymmetry cur
rent between the vacuum and a onegoldstino state Ip, (1), with momentum
258 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
p and helicity .,1., in the form"
(VACISI'(O)lp,.,1.) = (2n)3/2 [ C~ 1'5) (1'1' F + ipl'F')
+ C~ 1'5) (1'1' F" + ipl' F'") ] u(p,.,1.) , (29.2.7)
where u(p,.,1.) are the coefficient functions for a massless Dirac field intro
duced in Section 5.5, and F and F' are unknown constants. The matrix
element (29.2.7) satisfies a conservation condition PI'(VAC ISI'(O) Ip, .,1.) = 0
because u(p,.,1.) satisfies the momentumspace Dirac equation (5.5.42) for
zero mass, and pi' is on the lightcone. The sum over helicities gives
:E u(p,.,1.) u(p,.,1.) = i P/2po .
).
(The Dirac spinor u(p,.,1.) for a massless particle of momentum p and spin
.,1. is not well defined for p + 0, but there is no problem if we regard the
sum over X in Eq. (29.2.5) as a sum over helicities for a small momentum
p of fixed direction.) After a straightforward calculation, we then have
4
PvAC
= T
r
{(F 1 +
2
1'5 + F" 1 1'5)
2
 j p{J ( O)t (F* 1 +2 1'5 + F 1 1'5)}
l' 2 o l' p 2'
and therefore
PvAC = 11 2/2 . (29.2.8)
An alternative proof of this formula will be given at the end of this section.
, Lorentz invariance alone would yield this formula with independent coefficients FL,
F~ and FR, F~ for the matrices proportional to (1 + 15)/2 and (1  15)/2. respectively.
It is CPT invariance that imposes the relations FR = Fi. and F~ = F'~. To see this, we
must use the CPTtransformation properties of the supersymmetry current
CPT SP(x)(CPT)l = 15SP( x)' = peS P( x)
(see Section 5.8) and of the oneparticle states
CPTlp, A) = x.lp, A)
with X. a phase factor that depends on how we define the relative phases of the helicity
states. We also need the reality properties of the coefficient functions u(p, A). These are
related to those of the oneparticle states by the definition
(VACi1J'REN(X)lp,A) = (21t)"J/2 exp(ip' x) u(p, A),
where 1J'REN(X) is a renormalized Majorana field, with CPTtransformation property
CPT 1J'REN(X) (CPT)l = Y51J'REN( x)' = Pe 1J'REN(X) .
which yields u(p, A) = xi Peu'(p, A). Putting this together with the CPTtrans
formation properties of the supersymmetry current and oneparticle states yields the
relations FR = Fi. and F~ = F'~.
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 259
The parameter F plays much the same role in the interactions of soft
goldstinos as does the parameter F1< (introduced in Section 19.4) in the
interactions of soft pions. The matrix element of the supersymmetry
current between any two states X and Y may be split into terms that
have a onegoldstino pole at pll = 0 in the momentum transfer p = PXPY
and terms that do not have this pole
(XISIl(O)IY) = { C~ 1'5) [1'1l F + ipll F'] + C~ 1'5) [1'llr + ipll F'] }
x ( ;/) M(X + Y + g) + (XISIl(O)IY)no pole, (29.2.9)
where uM(X + Y + g) is the amplitude for emitting a goldstino with
fourmomentum p and Dirac wave function u, and the subscript 'no pole'
denotes the terms in the matrix element that do not have the onegoldstino
pole in the fourmomentum p. The conservation of the current Sil tells
us that this vanishes if contracted with Pll' so in the limit pIl + 0 the
goldstino emission amplitude is
M(X + Y + g) + i { (1 ;;5) + (1;;";5) }Pll (XISIl(O) IY)no pole.
(29.2.10)
There is another sum rule that provides an alternative proof of the
existence of goldstinos when supersymmetry is spontaneously broken, and
that also relates the parameter f and the vacuum energy density to the
Dterms and ~terms that characterize the strength of supersymmetry
breaking. (This use of a sum rule is analogous to the second proof in
Section 19.2 of the existence of Goldstone bosons when ordinary symme
tries are spontaneously broken.) To derive this sum rule, we will now give
up the device of a finite volume, and instead avoid the question of the
convergence of the integral (29.1.3) by working with a local consequence
of the supersymmetry of the action
[(SO(x,t)cx) , x(y,t)] = [(iXSO(X,t)) , x(y,t)] = ic5 3 (x y) c5 x(x,t) + ". ,
(29.2.11)
The amplitude (XISP(O)IY)no pole may have poles that go as lip' k as pP + 0; they
would not arise from the goldstino propagator, which is explicitly excluded in this
matrix element, but rather from other particle propagators produced by the insertion
of the supersymmetry current in extemallines of momentum k of the process X + Y.
In the limit pP + 0, the contribution of these poles in Eq. (29.2.10) would dominate the
amplitudes for emission or absorption of soft goldstinos. But for such poles to arise,
the goldstino would have to be emitted in a transition between a pair of degenerate
particles of opposite statistics, which are not likely to appear in theories in which
supersymmetry is spontaneously broken. The interactions of soft goldstinos differ in
this respect from the interactions of soft pions, photons, or gravitons.
260 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
where x(x) is an arbitrary fermionic or bosonic field, c5X(x) is the change
in X(x) induced by the supersymmetry transformation with infinitesimal
parameter ex that leaves the action invariant, and the dots denote terms
involving derivatives of c5 3 (x  y). Let us consider the vacuum expectation
value of the anticommutator of an arbitrary lefthanded spinor field
1I'LCx) with the covariant conjugate SIl(y) of the supersymmetry current.
By summing over a complete set IX) of intermediate states (including
integration over particle momenta), this vacuum expectation value may
be put in the form
(VACI {1I'L<x(x), S$(y) }IVAC) = J tJ4p eip(Xy) [~.B(p) + ~.B(p)] ,
(29.2.12)
where
~.B(P) == :Ec5 4 (p  px)(VACI1I'L<x(0) Ix) (xIS$(O)IVAC), (29.2.13)
x
(;~.B(p) = :E c5 \p  px)(VACIS$(O)lx) (xI1l'L<x(0)IVAC). (29.2.14)
x
Lorentz invariance requires that the matrices GIl(p) and (;1l(P) must take
the forms:
GIl(p) = (}(po) (1 ~ 1'5) [1'Il G _p2)+ ppIlG(2)( l )
(l)(
+pJld 3)(l)+ hIlG(4)(_p2)] (29.2.15)
and
(;Il(p) = (}(po) C~1'5) [1'Il(;(1)(_p2)+ ppll(;(2)(l)
+pJl(;(3)(_p2)+ hll(;(4)(_p2)] . (29.2.16)
The righthand sides of Eqs.(29.2.15) and (29.2.16) are unaffected if we
replace _p2 with m2, multiply by a factor c5(p2 + m2), and integrate over
m2 In this way, Eq. (29.2.12) becomes
(2n)3 (VACI {1I'LCx) , SIl(Y)}IVAC) = C~1'5) 1 00
2 2
dm [1'll d1 )(m )
 olld2)(m2)_ ii)IlG(3)(m2)  i 1'IlG(4)(m2)] L4(x  y,m)
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 261
+ C~ 1'5) 10 00
dm2 [1'I'G(1)(m 2)  oI'G(2)(m2)  iiJl'G(3)(m2)
i 1'I'G(4)(m2)] d+(y  x, m) , (29.2.17)
where d+(x,m) is the standard function
d+(x, m) =(2n)3 J~p 8(po) ~(p2 + m2) exp(ip' x) . (29.2.18)
Causality requires that the anticommutator on the lefthand side of
Eq. (29.2.17) should vanish for spacelike separations x  y. For such
separations, d+(x  y, m) is an even function of x  y, so Eq. (29.2.17)
vanishes for all spacelike separations if and only if
G(1)(m2) = _G(1)(m2) , G(2)(m2) = _G(2)(m2) ,
(29.2.19)
G(3)(m2) = +G(3)(m2) , G(4)(m2) = +G(4)(m2) ,
so that for general x  y, Eq. (29.2.17) now reads
00
(2n)3 (VACI {1I'dx) ,SI'(y)} IVAC) = 10 dm2 [G(1)(m 2)1'1'  G(2)(m2) ol'
_iG(3)(m2)ol' _ iG(4)(m2) 1'I'] d(x  y, m) (1 ~ 1'5) , (29.2.20)
where, as usual,
d(x  y,m) = ~(x  y,m)  d+(y x,m). (29.2.21)
We next impose the supersymmetry current conservation condition (29.1.2),
which (because Od = m2 d) yields
G(1)(m2) = m2a(2)(m2) , m2G(3)(m2) = _m2G(4)(m 2) . (29.2.22)
Finally, we must relate these spectral functions to the breaking of super
symmetry. Recall that for xO = yO,
d(x  y,O,m) = 0, A(x  y,O,m) = _i~3(x  y).
Setting xO = yO = t and p. = in Eq. (29.2.20) thus yields
(VACI{ 1I'dx, t), SO(y, t) }IVAC) = (2n)3~\x  y) C~ 1'5)
00
X 10 dm [G(3)(m2) + a(4)(m )] .
2 2 (29.2.23)
Contracting on the right with an infinitesimal Majorana fermionic super
symmetry transformation parameter ex and using Eq. (29.2.11) then gives
i(~1I'L )VAC = (2n)3 C~ 1'5) ex loOO dm2 [G(3)(m 2) + G(4)(m2)] . (29.2.24)
262 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
But Eq. (29.2.22) shows that the integrand of the integral over m2 in
Eq. (29.2.24) vanishes, except perhaps at m2 = 0, so we can conclude that
G(3)(m2) + a(4)(m2) = c5(m2)~ , (29.2.25)
with a constant coefficient ~ given by
i(c5tpL)
VAC
= (2n)3~(XL . (29.2.26)
As we saw in Sections 26.4 and 27.4, a breakdown of supersymmetry is
signaled by the appearance of vacuum expectation values of the changes
c5tp under supersymmetry transformations of one or more spin or fields tp.
Eqs. (29.2.25) and (29.2.26) show that for any such spinor field, the spectral
function G(3)(m2) + G(4)(m2) has a delta function singularity at m2 = 0,
which could only arise from the appearance of a massless oneparticle
state Ig) in the sums over states in Eqs. (29.2.13) and/or (29.2.14). For
the matrix elements (VACltplg) or (gltpIVAC) not to vanish, this massless
particle must have spin 1/2. This is the goldstino.
Now let's calculate the contribution of a onegoldstino state Ip,.,1.) with
momentum p and helicity .,1. to the spectral functions G(i)(m2 ). Lorentz
invariance tells us that the matrix element of a general fermion field (not
just the renormalized goldstino field) in Eq. (29.2.13) takes the form t
(VACltp(O)lp,.,1.) = (2n\3/ 2 [N C ~ 1'5) + N* C ~ 1'5)]
u(p,.,1.),
(29.2.27)
where N is a constant, characterizing the particular fermion field. Also,
the delta function in Eq. (29.2.13) is
c5 4(p _ pg) = 2pc5(p2)(J(po )c5\p _ pg) .
Together with Eq. (29.2.7), this yields
[~Jl(p)L = (2~)3 C~1'5)8(PO)c5(P2)P[1'JlF+ipl'FI],
with the subscript 1 indicating the onegoldstino contribution. Comparing
this with Eq. (29.2.15) shows that
[a(2)(m2 )L = i(2n)3NF!c5(m2) , [a(4)(m2 )L = (2n)3NFc5(m2) ,
(29.2.28)
t Again, Lorentz invariance would allow independent coefficients NL and NR for (1 +)15)
and (1)15), respectively. Using the CPT transformation of the oneparticle state and the
reality property of the coefficient functions diiscussed in the first footnote of this section,
and the CPT transformation of a general fe:nnion field, CPT1p(X)(CPT)l = pe1p(x),
we find that N L = N~.
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 263
Thus Eqs. (29.2.25) and (29.2.26) yield
i(~tpL) VAC = NFrxL (29.2.29)
Evidently if the change in any fermion field under a supersymmetry
transformation has a nonzero vacuum expectation value then the N
factor for that field cannot vanish, so there must be a onegoldstino state
that contributes to these spectral functions.
To be a little more specific, recall that the fermionic components tpLn of
a leftchiral scalar superfield <l>Ln obey the supersymmetry transformation
rule (26.3.15):
(29.2.30)
while Eq. (27.3.5) gives the supersymmetry transformation of the gaugino
fields as
(29.2.31)
Hence the N factors in the matrix elements of the tpn and A.A between the
vacuum and a onegoldstino state are given by
Nn = iF 1.j2($'n)VAC'
1
NA = F (DA)VAC. (29.2.32)
Let us see how the results (29.2.32) arise in the tree approximation. For
a renormalizable theory of gauge and chiral superfields, Eq. (27.4.30) gives
the lefthanded part of the fermion mass matrix as
Mnm = ( iPf(c/J) )
oc/Jnoc/Jm <p=<po'
(29.2.33)
MnA = MAn = i.j2(tAc/JO): ' MAB =0.
The vacuum fields c/JnO are at a minimum of the potential given by
Eq. (27.4.9), so
o=(o:~c/J) =:E MnmffmO+:E(c/J6tA )nDAO' (29.2.34)
nOm A
where the $'s and Ds are given by Eqs. (27.4.6) and (27.4.7)
nm
and the subscript 0 indicates that we are to set c/Jn = c/JnO Furthermore,
the gauge invariance of the superpotential requires that
(29.2.35)
264 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
for all values of cp. Therefore the lefthanded quark mass matrix M has
an eigenvector v with Mv = 0, where
vn = .j2:J' nO , (29.2.36)
Thus in the tree approximation, if we expand the lefthanded fermion fields
in renormalized fields for particles of definite mass, then the coefficients
of the gra vitino field in tp Ln and in A.AL are proportional to .j2:J'nO and
iDAO, respectively, in agreement with Eq. (29.2.32).
If we normalize the spinor fields tpLn and A.A so that the matrix con
necting these fields to the renormalized fields of particles of definite mass
is unitary, then
:E INn 12 +:E INAI2 = 1, (29.2.37)
n A
so Eq. (29.2.32) gives the nonperturbative result
(29.2.38)
The result (29.2.38) for 11 2 allows us to express the vacuum expectation
density (29.2.8) in terms of the vacuum expectation values of auxiliary
fields
(29.2.39)
This is the nonperturbative generalization of the zerothorder result
(27.4.9). It confirms a result used in Section 27.6, that the conditions
(:J' n) = (D A) = are sufficient as well as necessary for supersymmetry to
be unbroken.
***
It is instructive to see how Eq. (29.2.8) can be derived without the device
of a finite volume. For this purpose, consider the vacuum expectation value
of the anticommutator of two' supersymmetry currents. By using Lorentz
invariance and the vanishing of anticommutators at spacelike separations
in the same way as in the previous section, we find
(VACI {SII(X) , SV (y)} IVAC) = i J dm2 [H(1)(m 2)1' II ov + H(2)(m2)l' voll
+H(3)(m2) OIlOV + H(4)(m2) 1fIlV + H(5)(m2)e'v,\p o,\l'p] d(x _ y,m2)
+ ... (29.2.40)
29.2 Supersymmetry Current Sum Rules 265
where
J 4
dX c5 (p  PX)(VAC IS,f(O) Ix) (xISp(O)IVAC) = H(I)(_p2)yllpV
+ H(2)( _p2)y"pIl_ H(3)(_p2) ppllpv + H(4)( _p2) p1fIlV
+H(5)(_p2)eIlV ).Pp).yp + ... , (29.2.41)
and the dots in Eqs. (29.2.40) and (29.2.41) denote a linear combination
of the other independent Dirac covariant matrices 1, "15, Y5Ya, and ["la, yd,
which will not concern us here. The Majorana nature of the currents
together with Eq. (26.A.20) tell us that the spectral functions H(i) are all
real, and the conservation of the supersymmetry currents dictate that
H(I)(m2) = H(2)(m2) = ml. H(3)(m2)  H(4)(m2) , (29.2.42)
and
(29.2.43)
Setting p. = v = 0 and xO = yO in Eq. (29.2.40), integrating over x, and
using Eq. (29.2.42) then gives
(VACI{ Q, SO(O) }IVAC) = (2n)3 pJ 2
dm2 [H(I)(m ) + H(2)(m2)
+m2 H(3)(m2) + H(4)(m2)] + '" = (2n)3 pJ dm2 H(I)(m2) + .... (29.2.44)
To evaluate this anticommutator, we first write it as
(29.2.45)
where TIlV(X) is some tensor operator and the dots again denote some lin
ear combination of the other independent Dirac covariants. The Majorana
character of Q and Sil tells us that TIlV(X) is Hermitian; the conservation
of the supersymmetry current tells us that it is conserved, in the sense that
Ov Tllv = 0, (29.2.46)
and the anticommutation relation (25.2.36) tells us that
J d 3x Tllo(x) = pll . (29.2.47)
These properties allow us to identify TIlV as the energymomentum tensor.
It is not in general equal to the symmetric energymomentum tensor @IlV
discussed in Section 7.4, but Eq. (29.2.47) shows that the energy density TOO
can differ from @oo only by spatial derivative terms that cannot contribute
in states of zero "threlemomentum, so the vacuum energy density is given
by
(29.2.48)
266 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
Thus Eqs. (29.2.44) and (29.2.45) yield
2PYAC = (2n)3 J dm2 H(1)(m2) . (29.2.49)
But Eq. (29.2.43) tells us that H(1)(m2) vanishes except perhaps at m2 = 0,
so
(29.2.50)
Thus we see again that a nonvanishing vacuum energy density entails
the existence of a massless fermion, the goldstino. Using Eq. (29.2.7),
a straightforward calculation of the onegoldstino contribution to the
spectral functions yields
H(1)(m2) = (2n)3c5(m2) 11 2 (29.2.51)
Comparing this with Eq. (29.2.50) gives our previous result (29.2.8) for
the vacuum energy density.
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential
We saw in Section 27.6 that the superpotential in general supersymmetric
theories of gauge and chiral superfields is not renormalized to any finite
order of perturbation theory, so that if supersymmetry is not broken in
the tree approximation then it can only be broken by nonperturbative
corrections to the Wilsonian effective Lagrangian. We now take up a
general analysis of these corrections. These were thoroughly studied in a
series of papers by Affieck, Davis, Dine, and Seiberg in the early 1980s,3
with special attention to the case of supersymmetric versions of quantum
chromodynamics with arbitrary numbers of colors and flavors. Here we
will present a somewhat simplified analysis of general supersymmetric
gauge theories, based on the more recent holomorphy arguments of
Seiberg4 already used in Section 27.7.
To study nonperturbative effects, we shall here again consider a general
renormalizable supersymmetric theory, but now including a possible {}
term in the Lagrangian density
If ~ [<oj e v <ojD + 2Re [r(<o)j" + Re [8:; f.; '.pW.<.L W
.... LL '
(29.3.1 )
where the superpotential f(ID) is a gaugeinvariant cubic polynomial in
the leftchiral superfields and t is the parameter (27.3.23):
4ni {}
t = 2 +  . (29.3.2)
g 2n
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 267
As in Section 27.6, we introduce a pair of gaugeinvariant leftchiral
external superfields, now called Y and T, and replace the Lagrangian
density with
Sf' ~ [oOt ,v .olD +2Re [Yf(.o)l" +Re [8~; ~'''WAoL W....LL
(29.3.3)
This becomes the same as (29.3.1) when we set the spinor and auxiliary
components of Y and T equal to zero, and take their scalar components
as y = 1 and t = t, respectively. Nonperturbative effects will in general
invalidate both of the two symmetries on which the analysis of Section
27.6 was based. The translation operation, which in our present notation
is T T + ~ with real ~, is not a symmetry because EA eJlvp(Jf~v f~(J can
jo
have a nonvanishing integral over spacetime. The original R invariance
(with T and Y having R values 0 and +2) is not a symmetry because
the anomaly discussed in Chapter 22 gives the Rcurrent a nonvanishing
divergence. With (1 and OR having R = +1 and R = 1, respectively, and
VA and <l>n Rneutral, the fermion fields .,tAL and tpnL have R = +1 and
R = 1, respectively, so Eq. (22.2.26) here gives
oJlJ~ =  32~2 ( Cl  C2) ~ e Jlvp(Jf~v f~(J , (29.3.4)
where Cl and C2 are the constants defined in Eqs. (17.5.33) and (17.5.34):
L:CACDCBCD = Cl ~AB, Tr{tAtB} = C2~AB, (29.3.5)
CD
with the trace taken over all species ofleftchiral superfield: For instance,
in the generalized supersymmetric version of quantum chromodynamics
studied in Reference 3, with gauge group SU(Nc) and Nf pairs of left
chiral quark superfields Qn and Qn in the defining representation and its
complex conjugate, these constants have values given by Eq. (17.5.35)
(with nf = 2Nf) as
Although T translation and R invariance are invalidated by non
perturbative effects, there is a remaining symmetry which is almost as
A factor 32 instead of 16 appears in the denominator in Eq. (29.3.4) because gauginos
do not have distinct antiparticles, and we are now counting antiparticles separately
from particles in taking the trace in Eq. (29.3.5). Also, we are now adopting the
convention, described at the end of Section 27.3, of inclnding a gange coupling factor
in the gauge fields and not in structure constants and the matrix generators tAo The
gauge generators are thus normalized so that for tA, tB, and tc in the standard S U(2)
subalgebra of the gauge algebra, the structure constant is CABC = "ABC
268 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
powerful. Consider a general R transformation
(1 l>
~i
e'I'(1, el) l> el), VA + VA, Y l> e2'l'I'y , (29.3.6)
with arbitrary real cp. This leaves the T independent terms of the La
grangian density (29.3.3) invariant, but according to Eq. (29.3.4), quantum
effects violate this symmetry, just as if there were a term 112 in the
Lagrangian density with a transformation
112 l> 112  32~2 ( C!  C2) ~ c Jlvpaf~v f~(f cp
Recalling Eq. (27.3.18), this is cancelled if we give T a transformation
T l> T + (CI  C2)cp/n. (29.3.7)
Because WAaL has R = 2, the whole theory including nonperturbative ef
fects is invariant under the combined transformations (29.3.6) and (29.3.7).
In particular, the superfield exp (2inT), which for T = t is periodic in (J,
has R = 2(C!  C2).
We again introduce an ultraviolet cutoff, and consider the effective
'Wilsonian' Lagrangian
2#A = [.91 J el)t V"
,(el) L T "
Tt Y
",
yt !?) ...)] D
+2 Re [8T . L cap WALa WALP + BIJ,\(el), WL, T, y)] ,(29.3.8)
nl Aap :F
with .91,\ and BIJ,\ both gaugeinvariant functions of the displayed argu
ments. The term proportional to T has been separated from the function
BIJ,\ in order that the translation (29.3.7) of T should continue to cancel the
anomaly in the R transformation (29.3.6). Invariance under the combined
transformation (29.3.6), (29.3.7) then tells us that terms in the function
BIJ,\ must be proportional to powers of exp (2in T), which have definite R
values.
Furthermore, it is only positive powers of exp (2inT) that may appear in
BIJ,\. According to Eq. (27.3.24), it is only instantons with positive winding
number v > 0 that can make contributions to the effective Lagrangian
that are holomorphic in T rather than T*, and these give rise to factors
exp (2inv T). More generally, for T = t any power exp (2ian T) will depend
on the gauge coupling through a factor exp(8n 2 a/g 2 ), so that a must
be positive in order for nonperturbative effects to be suppressed for
small g. In consequence, nonperturbative effects enter in through 21
operators exp(2inaT) that have positivedefinite, zero, or negativedefinite
values of R, depending on whether Cl > C2, C! = C2, or C! < C2.
(In the generalized supersymmetric version of quantum chromodynamics
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 269
described above, this corresponds to Nc > Nf, Nc = Nt, and Nc < Nt,
respectively.) We shall now consider each of these cases.
Here the powers exp (2ianT) with a > 0 have positivedefinite values of R,
given by Eq. (29.3.7) as R = 2(Cl  C2)a. Lorentz invariance tells us that
if any term in f!4;. contains a factor WAcxL, then it must contain at least two
of them, so the only ways to construct terms in f!4;. with R = 2 is to have
two W s and no dependence on Y or T, or one Y and no dependence on
W or T, or one factor of exp(2inT /(CI  C2 and no dependence on W
or Y:
f!4;. = Y 1;.(<1 + L: Cap WAaL WBPB t AAB(<I + exp (C2i:~ ) v;.(<I
apAB 1 2
.
(29.3.9)
Because 1;.(<1 does not depend on Y or T, it can only be the tree
approximation superpotential
(29.3.10)
just as in perturbation theory. Likewise, because t AAB(<I does not depend
on Y or T it must have equal numbers of <l>s and <l>ts, so since it does
not depend on <l>t it cannot depend on <I> either. Gauge invariance then
requires (for a simple gauge group) that t).AB(<I is proportional to ~AB,
and since it does not depend on T or Y, the powercounting argument
of Section 27.6 shows that the coefficient of ~AB can only be the oneloop
contribution to the running inversesquare Wilsonian gauge coupling.
To be more explicit about the running gauge coupling, recall that in
nonsupersymmetric gauge theories with fermions, Eq. (18.7.2) gives the
oneloop renormalization group equation as
dg;. 3
ldf = bg;. , (29.3.11)
with
b = __1_2 (~Cl  ~C2) (29.3.12)
4n 12 6 '
with the coefficient of C2 taken as 1/6 rather than 1/3 because we
are now counting the leftchiral states of antifermions separately from the
leftchiral states of particles. As we have seen in Section 28.2, the effect of
gauginos is to multiply the Clterm by a factor 9/11, while the effect of
the scalar components of the leftchiral superfields (such as squarks and
sleptons) is to multiply the C2term by a factor 3/2, so in supersymmetric
270 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
theories Eq. (29.3.l2) becomes instead
1
b = 16n 2 (3Cl  C2) . (29.3.13 )
The solution of Eq. (29.3.l1) for the running gauge coupling is then
2 2 3Cl  C2 ( A. )
g,\ = g + Sn 2 In K ' (29.3.14)
where K is an ultraviolet cutoff, introduced to give meaning to the
otherwise ultravioletdivergent bare gauge coupling g.
To summarize the results so far, setting T = f and Y = 1, the Wilsonian
effective Lagrangian for Cl > C2 takes the form
!'i = [d'\(<I>,<I>t, V,f,f*,2}"')]D +2Re [Sf,\. :L>:apWAaLWAPL]
7tI Aap :F
+2 Re [f(<I]:F + exp (C~i:f~J [v,\(<I]:F , (29.3.l5)
where
4ni ()
f,\ = +.
gI 2n (29.3.16)
We have been able to replace f with f,\ in the exponential in the last
term in Eq. (29.3.15), because the difference is a constant times In A., which
yields a power of A. that can be absorbed into the definition of v,\.
Nonperturbative effects have now been isolated in the last term in
Eq. (29.3.l5). This term can be generated by instantons of winding
number v > if Cl  C2 = 1/v. (In general Cl  C2 is a rational number.
For the generalized supersymmetric version of quantum chromodynamics,
Cl  C2 = Nc  Nt is an integer, so the condition Cl  C2 = 1/v requires
that Nc = Nt  1, and then only v = 1 instantons contribute. Detailed
calculations5 in this model show that instantons actually do make such
contributions.) Whether or not it is instantons that generate the non
perturbative contribution v,\(<I, we can determine its form by considering
the nonanomalous symmetries of the theory. Since this function is
independent of Y, it can be. evaluated as if Y = 0, so it shares all the
nonanomalous symmetries of the first term in Eq. (29.3.1). These include
the gauge symmetry itself and a global symmetry under TIdSU(n(d,
where d labels the different irreducible representations of the gauge group
furnished by the leftchiral superfields, and ned) is the number of times
representation d occurs. (For iltlstance, in generalized supersymmetric
quantum chromodynamics d takes two values, labelling the Nc and Nc
representations of SU(Nc), and n(Nc) = n(Nc) = Nj.) Let us label the
<l>s as <I>~f, where a is a gauge index, and i is a 'flavor' index, labelling
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 271
the n(d) different <l>s that transform under the gauge group according to
the representation d. The only way to construct a function of the <l>s
that is invariant under the global symmetry group TIdSU(n(d is as a
product of <l>s, with the ned) flavor indices contracted for each d with
the antisymmetric SU(n(d tensor eil.i.(d)' and with the gauge indices
contracted with constant tensors of the gauge group. (For instance,
for generalized supersymmetric quantum chromodynamics, v,\ must be a
function of the sole invariant
D =Detij L:
a
QaiQaj ,
which is nonzero only for Nc > Nt.)
In addition to the anomalyfree SU(n(d flavor symmetries, there is also
a Ud(l) symmetry for each of the irreducible representations d furnished
by the <l>s, with all <I>~~ for a given d undergoing the transformation
(29.3.17)
This symmetry is anomalous, with the effects of the anomaly the same as
if the Lagrangian underwent the change
" n(d)C2d " JlV pa .
.p jo .p  ~ 32 2 ~ eJlvpajA j A ({Jd, (29.3.18)
dnA
where C2d is the contribution to C2 of anyone leftchiral scalar superfield
belonging to the irreducible representation d of the gauge group. The
symmetry is restored if we give T the transformation property
(29.3.19)
Since v,\(<I is accompanied in Eq. (29.3.9) by a factor exp(2inT I( Cl C2,
which undergoes the transformation
2inT )
exp ( C1  C2
jo II exp (+2in(d)C2d({Jd)
C C
(2inT)
exp C C '
(29320)
. .
d
1 2 1 2
we conclude that for each representation d of the gauge group furnished
by the leftchiral scalars, v,\(<I must be a homogeneous function of the
<I>~~) of negative order 2n(d)C2dI(CI  C2). (For instance, in generalized
supersymmetric quantum chromodynamics we have two irreducible repre
sentations of SU(Nc), the defining and antidefining representations, each
with ned) = Nt and C2d = 1/2, so v,\ is a homogeneous function of order
Nt I(Nc  Nt) in the Q belonging to the defining representation and of
the same order in the Qbelonging to the antidefining representation. Thus
it must be proportional to D 1/(Nc Nj), where D is the determinant intro
duced earlier.) In general C2 = Ed n(d)C2d, so v,\(<I is a homogeneous
function of all the <l>s, of order 2C2/(CI  C2).
272 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
This result satisfies an important consistency check. Recall from Section
27.4 that any superpotential has dimensionality +3 (counting powers of
mass, with 1i = c = 1), while the scalar superfields <I> like ordinary scalar
fields have dimensionality +1, so the <I>dependent part of v,\ must appear
with a coefficient of dimensionality
3+ 2C2 _ 3Cl  C2
Cl  C2 Cl  C2 .
This coefficient does not depend on the gauge coupling or on any of the
couplings or masses in the superpotential, and because we have replaced
the bare coupling g with g,\ in the second term of Eq. (29.3.11) it cannot
depend on the ultraviolet cutoff K used to define g either, so it can only
depend on A.. Therefore
v,\(<I = A.(3C1C2 )/(C1C2 )H(<I, (29.3.21)
where H(<I is a homogeneous function of order 2n(d)Cu/(Cl  C2) in
the <l>s that belong to each representation d of the gauge group and is
independent of any parameters of the theory. We can rewrite Eq. (29.3.14)
in the form
.3CIC2 (A.) ()
t,\ = I 2n In A + 2n ' (29.3.22)
where A is an energy parameter that characterizes the running gauge
coupling, like the A ~ 200 MeV of quantum chromodynamics. Thus the
last term in Eq. (29.3.15) is
exp ( 2int,\ ) v,\(<I = exp ( i() ) A(3CI C2)/(CIC2) H(<I .
Cl  C2 Cl C2
(29.3.23)
The whole effective superpotential. including the nonperturbative contribu
tion (29.3.23). is therefore independent of the floating cutoff A..
The function H(<I is homogeneous and of negative order in <1>, so in
the absence of a bare superpotential the potential is positivedefinite at
finite values of the scalar fields and vanishes only at infinite field values.
In such a theory, there is no stable vacuum state, and the question of
supersymmetry breaking is moot. The vacuum may be stabilized by adding
a suitable bare superpotential. For instance, in generalized supersymmetric
quantum chromodynamics with Nt < Nc the only renormalizable bare
superpotential is a sum of mass terms
f(Q, Q) = L mijQai Qaj . (29.3.24)
ija
To seek a supersymmetric vacuum state, we need first of all to find what
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 273
scalar components qaj and qaj satisfy Eq. (27.4.11), which here reads
L q~(tA)abqbi  L q:i(tA)abqbi = 0 , (29.3.25)
.abi abi
for all generators tA of SU(Nc). The gauge interactions (but not the
superpotential) are invariant under simultaneous SU(Nc) transformations
on the color indices a of both qai and qai; underindependent SU(Nf) and
SU(Nf) transformations on the flavor indices i of qai and qai' respectively,
and under a U(l) transformation of both qaj and qai by opposite phases.
Using these symmetries, it is possible to put the general solution of these
conditions in the form
(29.3.26)
where the Ui are complex numbers with the same phase. (Here is the
proof. The SU(Nc) generators tA span the space of all traceless Hermitian
matrices, so Eq. (29.3.25) is equivalent to the requirement that
(29.3.27)
for some constant k. By a combined color and flavor transformation
q + UqV with U and V unitary and unimodular, we can put the matrix
q in the diagonal form (29.3.26), and by a unimodular change of phase of
the diagonal elements we can arrange that they all have the same phase.
Then Eq. (29.3.27) becomes
~_ ._ .= { (u~ k)<5ab
7 qalqbl k<5ab
The conditions for a > Nf show that k < O. If k were nonzero, then the
qaj would furnish Nc nonzero orthogonal vectors with Nf components,
which is impossible for Nf < N c, so k = O. We can then put the qaj in the
diagonal form (29.3.26) by a series of uniitary flavor transformations: first
rotate qlj into the Idirection; then keeping the Idirection fixed, rotate
in the space perpendicular to this direction to put q2i in the 2direction;
and so on; and then perform a unimodular phase transformation so that
all diagonal elements have the same phase. Eq. (29.3.27) then shows that
the absolute values of the diagonal elements of qai and qai are equal, and
by a nonanomalous opposite phase change of qai and qai we can arrange
that their common phases are equal, as was to be proved.)
The function H in Eq. (29.3.23) is here
~
H(q, q) = J [ Detij ~ qaiqaj
] 1/(NeNf)
=J
[
II Ui ] 2/(NeNf)
, (29.3.28)
a i
274 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
where J is a purely numerical constant. (Detailed calculations show that
J = 2 for Nf = 2 and Ne = 3.) Adding the terms (29.3.23) and (29.3.24),
the complete effective superpotential is now
]2/(NeNj)
_
ftotal(q,q) =.Yt
[
II Uj + "L.. mjUj2 , (29.3.29)
i i
where
.v _ d P if) ) A(3Ne Nj )/(Ne Nj )
(29.3.30)
Jt = J ex ( Ne  Nf
and the mj are the diagonal elements of the mass matrix that results
when the original mass matrix is sUbjected to the SU(Nf) x SU(Nf)
transformation used to put the scalars in the form (29.3.26). The condition
(27.4.10), that ftotal(q,q) should be stationary, has the solution
2 _ 1 ( .Yt ) INt/Ne ( ) l/Ne
Uf  
mj Ne Nf
II mj
j
(29.3.31 )
Because we have put the scalar fields in a basis in which the Uj have a
common phase, the mi must also have a common phase in this basis.
But the common phase of the uf is not unique  the liNe powers
in Eq. (29.3.31) tell us that the solution is undetermined by a factor
exp(2innl Nc), with n an integer ranging from 0 to Ne  1. (The two
signs of Uj for a given Uf are physically equivalent, because the whole
theory is invariant under a nonanomalous symmetry with qai + ej"qai
and qai + ei"qai.) The fact that there are Ne physically inequivalent
solutions will tum up again in our discussion of the Witten index in the
next section.
This case is of some interest because, as we saw in Eq. (27.9.3), the
simplest N = 2 supersymmetric YangMills theory, when written in terms
of N = 1 superfields, contains_a single leftchiral superfield in the adjoint
representation, for which" of course C2 = CI.
For C2 = CI the function exp(2in T) has R = 0, so that its appearance
in .pi is not restricted by R invariance. The general form of the F term
Note that here C2 refers to the representation of the gauge group furnished by the
chiral superfields, so it is the same as the quantity q in Section 27.9, which refers to
the representation furnished by complex scalars, but half of C{, which refers to the
representation furnished by all spinor fields, including the gauginos.
29.3 NonPerturbative Corrections to the Superpotential 275
in .!l'~ is given here by Eq. (29.3.9), but with the last term absent:
f!4;. = Y 1;.(<1>, exp(2inT +L Cap WAaL WBPB t AAB(<I>, exp(2in T .
apAB
(29.3.32)
Because I;. may depend on T, we cannot now conclude that it is equal
to the bare superpotential, but only that it depends linearly on whatever
coupling coefficients and masses appear linearly in the bare superpoten
tial. In particular, if there is no superpotential to begin with, then none is
generated by nonperturbative effects.
To go further, we need to make use of the anomalous chiral symmetry
under a U(l) transformation of all the <l>n. In order for the whole theory
to be invariant under this symmetry, it is necessary to introduce a separate
extemalleftchiral superfield Yr for the terms in the bare superpotential
of order r in the <l>n. Then the theory is invariant under the combined
transformations
T + T + C2({J/n , (29.3.33)
This symmetry tells us that a term in f!4;. that is of order.IVr in the coeffi
cients of the term in the superpotential of order r in <I> and proportional
to exp(2ainT) must be of an order .IVw in <1>, given by
(29.3.34)
The coefficients tAAB of the terms in f!4;. that are quadratic in W
are shown in Eq. (29.3.32) to be independent of the parameters in the
superpotential for Cl = C2, so in this case Eq. (29.3.34) becomes
.IVw = 2C2a . (29.3.35)
Thus there can be no terms in t AAB of positive order in the <l>r, and any
term in t AAB that is independent of the <l>r must be independent of T.
Thes(: <I>independent terms in t AAB are therefore again just the oneloop
contribution to the running coupling parameter t;..
The effective superpotential is shown by Eq. (29.3.32) to be linear in the
parameters in the superpotential, so all of its terms have just one .lVr = 1
and the others zero. For such a term Eq. (29.3.34) gives
.IVw = r  2C2a . (29.3.36)
A term in the effective superpotential with .IVw powers of <I> can therefore
only arise from terms in the bare superpotential with r > .IVw powers
of <1>. The terms with r = .IVw have a = 0, so they are given by the
tree approximation as just the bare superpotential. The only other terms
are nonperturbative corrections with r > .IVw. Such a nonperturbative
276 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
term, of a given order in the <l>s, can only arise from terms in the bare
superpotential of higher order in the <l>s.
Here the R value 2(Cl  C2) of exp(2inT) is negative, so positive powers
of exp(2inT) can compensate for the positive R values of Y and W,., and
f!4;. may therefore contain terms of arbitrary order in Y and W,.. Using
the chiral symmetry condition (29.3.34) and the R invariance condition
2 = .IV w + 2 L.lVr  2a(C2  Cd , (29.3.37)
r
we can, however, set limits on the structure of terms of a given order .IVw
in the <l>s. Eqs. (29.3.34) and (29.3.37) have a trivial solution with .lVr = 1
for r = .IVw, .IV r = 0 for other values of r, and a = .IV w = 0; this solution
just represents the presence in f!4;. of the original bare superpotential, with
no radiative corrections. If there is no superpotential to begin with,
then .lVr = 0 for all r, so Eq. (29.3.35) does not allow any terms in the
Wilsonian Lagrangian with .IV w = 0, and so no superpotential can be
generated. (In the supersymmetric version of quantum chromodynamics
this conclusion is usually derived by noting that there is no possible term in
the superpotential that would be consistent with all symmetries, but as we
have now seen, the conclusion is much more general.) For renormalizable
asymptotically free theories there is a useful limit on the structure of <1>
independent terms in f!4;.. The condition of renormalizability tells us that
.lVr = 0 for r > 3, so by subtracting 2/3 of Eq. (29.3.34) from Eq. (29.3.37)
we find
(29.3.38)
Asymptotic freedom requires that 3Cl > C2, so for .IVw = 0 (or .IVw > 0)
each term on the righthand side is positive. It follows that we can have
no <I>independent terms of higher than second order in W, and these
terms are also independent of T, so they again represent the oneloop
contribution to the running coupling parameter f;.. But for CI < C2 there
is no general prohibition against terms of second or higher order in W
and negative order in <1>.
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories
We now tum to a question of great physical interest: in what gauge
theories is supersymmetry spontaneously broken?
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 277
Let us start with an Abelian gauge theory, the supersymmetric version of
quantum electrodynamics described in Section 27.5. This is a U(l) gauge
theory with two crural superfields <I> carrying U(l) quantum numbers
+e, and superpotential f(<I = m<l>+<I>_. We saw in Section 27.5 that
supersymmetry is broken in the tree approximation if we include a Fayet
Iliopoulos term ~[V1D in the Lagrangian density, so the Witten index is
zero for ~ =1= 0 and small e, and hence also for all values of e and ~,
including ~ = O. Is supersymmetry unbroken for ~ = O? It is unbroken in
the tree approximation, but how can we tell if higherorder corrections or
nonperturbative effects give the vacuum a finite energy in this case?
To answer this we shall use a symmetry principle of the theory for
~ = 0, in the way that was described in general terms in Section 29.1. The
symmetry here is charge conjugation: the whole Lagrangian density is
invariant under the charge conjugation transformation of the chiral and
gauge superfields:
C<I>C I = <1>+, CVC 1 = V. (29.4.1)
There is a massless fermion in the tree approximation, the photino, but if
we take the vacuum to be even under C then the onephotino state is odd
under C, so these states are not related to each other by multiplication with
the supersymmetry generator. The chiral fermion here has mass m in the
tree approximation, so for small e it is not paired with the vacuum either.
With no fermionic state available to pair with, the vacuum state must
have strictly zero energy, at least for e small enough so that perturbation
theory gives a good qualitative picture of the spectrum. As we saw in
Section 29.1, the zero energy of the vacuum implies that supersymmetry
is not broken. Likewise, the photino must be strictly massless, since it has
no bosonic state with whi<:h to pair.
Now, what about values of e that are so large that perturbation theory
cannot be trusted at all? The Witten index itself is no help here, because
it vanishes. Instead, let us consider the weighted Witten index, TrC(ll.
We have seen that for small e and ~ = 0 the vacuum has zero energy, and
there are also two zeroenergy states containing a zeromomentum photino
of spin up or down, and a bosonic zeroenergy state containing two zero
momentum photinos of opposite spin. The vacuum makes a contribution
+1 to TrC(ll; the two onephotino states make a contribution +2
(because both C and (ll are 1); and the twophotino state makes a
contribution +1, giving a weighted Witten index TrC(ll = 4. This is
independent of the value of e, so even for strong couplings the weighted
Witten index is 4, and so supersymmetry is not broken.
There is a complication here.2 In counting zeromomentum states in the
tree approximation, we have not considered the zeromomentum compo
nents of the gauge field VJI(x). A constant term in Vo(x) is no problem,
278 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
because it can be removed by a gauge transformation
VJI(x) + VJI(x) + oJlA(x) , (29.4.2)
with gauge parameter A(x) proportional to xo. On the other hand, we
cannot simply remove a constant term in V, (x), because this would require
a gauge transformation with A(x) proportional to Xi, which would conflict
with the assumed periodicity of the fields under translations by the box
dimension L = V l / 3 . In the particular model under consideration here all
fields have charges +e or zero, so this periodicity is preserved if we limit
ourselves to a lattice of gauge transformations with
2n" . (29.4.3)
A(x) =  L..tix',
eL i
where ti are three positive or negative integers. Therefore although we
cannot remove the zeromomentum components of Vi (x) by a gauge
transformation, we can freely shift them by amounts 2nti/eL. The tree
approximation Lagrangian (not Lagrangian density) for the xiindependent
part of VJI in a gauge with Vo = 0 is simply _}L3 :Li(OOVi)2, so the
Hamiltonian is +}L3 :Li(ni)2, where ni is the canonical conjugate to Vi:
ni = L300 Vi. The wave function 'I'(V) for this field is then just like that
of a free particle of unit mass in three dimensions, in a box of linear
dimensions 2n/eL with periodic boundary conditions. The wave functions
of definite energy are proportional to exp(ik V), with energy k 2 /2L3, and
ki = eLti , with ti integers. There is a unique zeroenergy state of this field,
with ki = 0 and with a normalized wave function equal to the constant
(eL/2n )3 / 2. Because this state is unique, our counting of zeroenergy states
is unaffected by the gauge degree of freedom, and the weighted Witten
index is indeed 4.
Now let us consider the theory of a simple nonAbelian gauge superfield,
without chiral superfields. Witten's 1982 paperZ on the Witten index
presented an argument that for such theories this index is r+1 (or possibly
r 1), where r is the rank of the gauge group, the maximum number of
commuting generators. In 1997 he found a correction to this calculation,6
with the result that for the classical unitary, orthogonal, and symplectic
groups the index is a Casimir invariant Cl, which for the unitary and
symplectic groups is indeed equal to r + 1, but for the orthogonal groups
O(N) with N > 7 and the exceptional groups takes a different value. In
general, this Casimir invariant is defined by Eq. (17.5.33):
L CACDCBCD = g2ClbAB , (29.4.4)
CD
where g is a coupling constant, whose definition can be made unambiguous
by specifying that when the generators tA, tB, and tc are restricted to the
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 279
three generators of the 'standard' S U(2) subalgebra that was used in the
calculation of instanton effects in Section 23.5, the structure constant is
simply gABC. For the classical groups, we have
SU(N)
SO(N) for N> 3 (29.4.5)
USp(2N)
For SU(N) the rank is r = N  1, while for' USp(2N) it is r = N, so in
both cases r + 1 = Cl. But SO(N) with N > 6 has rank r = (N 1)/2 =
(Cl + 1)/2 for N odd and r = N /2 = (Cl +2)/2 for N even, and the index
is Cl, not r + 1. Of course, this does not affect the main conclusion that,
since the Witten index is not zero, supersymmetry is not spontaneously
broken. Kac and Smilga showed in 1999 that the index is also equal to
Cl for exceptional groups.? We shall calculate the Witten index here only
for SU(N) and USp(2N) supersymmetric gauge theories with no chiral
superfields, but in the course of this calculation we will also see why the
orthogonal and exceptional groups present special difficulties.
The general strategy of this calculation is the same as for the Abelian
theories considered previously. We first examine the states of zero energy,
to see if there are any that cannot be paired by action of the supersymmetry
generator. If there are, then as long as the coupling is weak enough so that
the tree approximation gives a good qualitative picture of the spectrum,
we know that these unpaired states really have precisely zero energy.
We can then find some nonzero weighted Witten index, which will be
constant even for stronger couplings, and conclude that supersymmetry is
not broken for any coupling strength.
There is another complication here, that did not enter in the earlier
example of an Abelian theory with charged chiral superfields. As usually
formulated, general renormalizable theories of gauge bosons and gauginos
with no chiral superfields do not contain any dimensionless parameters at
all, so that there is no coupling parameter that can be adjusted to make the
couplings weak. Instead we have a running coupling constant, depending
on the ratio of the energy to a characteristic energy scale A, like the scale
A ~ 200 MeV for quantum chromodynamics discussed in Section 18.7.
For nonAbelian theories the gauge coupling constant becomes strong at
energies below A, however weak it may be at higher energies. But here
we are working in a box of volume L 3, which provides an infrared cutoff
at an energy ~ I/L, that is normally lacking in theories with unbroken
gauge symmetries. When we speak of a weakly coupled gauge theory,
it should be understood that we mean one with a coupling that is small
down to energies of order 1/ L. In this case, it is essential to be able to
argue that supersymmetry is broken for strong as well as weak couplings,
280 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
in order to be able to draw any conclusions at all about the realistic limit
of infinite volume.
We will work in temporal gauge, where v1
= O. The Lagrangian density
(27.3.1) is then
!l' = i Lf~ij  ! L(00VAi)2  ! L (lAU')A)A) + ! LD~, (29.4.6)
Aij A A . A
where, in temporal gauge,
fAij = Oi VAj  OjVAi + L CABC VBiVCj, (29.4.7)
BC
(DiA)A = OiAA + L CABC VBiAC , (29.4.8)
BC
(29.4.9)
(As usual, the gauge coupling constant or constants are included as factors
in the structure constants CABC.) Without chiral superfields, there is no
other dependence on the auxiliary field DA; since it enters quadratically,
it may be put equal to the value at which the Lagrangian is stationary,
DA = 0, and ignored from now on. Retaining only the xindependent
modes, the effective Lagrangian becomes
~ L(00VAi)2
2
J 3 1
d x!l' = L3 [ 4 L (LCABC VBiVCj) 
Aij BC Ai
~ L CABc(lAYiVBiAC)  !L1AyOOoAA]. (29.4.10)
ABCi A
The Hamiltonian is then
1 L3 2 L3
H = 20 L1t~i+4 L (LCABCVBiVCj) +2" L CABc(lAYiVBiAC) '
Ai Aij BC ABCi
(29.4.11)
where 1tAi = L3 00 VAi is the canonical conjugate to VAi.
The gauge field configurations with zero energy in the tree approxima
tion are those for which :LBC CABC VBi VCj = 0 for all A, i, and j. This
condition is always satisfied if VBi vanishes for all i except where tB is
in a Cartan sub algebra of the gauge Lie algebra. For the unitary and
A Cartan subalgebra is any subalgebra spanned by rindependent generators td that
commute with one another, that is, for which CAdlM vanishes for all tA when td and
tIM are in the Cartan subalgebra, where r is the rank, the maximum number of such
generators. For instance, for the SU(3) symmetry of strong interactions discussed in
Section 19.7, the rank is r = 2, and the Cartan subalgebra can be taken to consist
of the third component of isospin t3 and the hypercharge t8, which act on the light
quarks with the commuting matrices denoted ).3 and ).8 in Eq. (19.7.2).
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 281
symplectic groups and their direct products this is the only way that it
can be satisfied. The same is true for the orthogonal gauge algebras O(N)
with N < 6, which are all equivalent to symplectic and/or unitary Lie
algebras (see the Appendix to Chapter 15), but not for orthogonal gauge
algebras O(N) with N > 7, which is why Witten's original calculation
needed correction for this case.
In the rest of this calculation we will only consider gauge algebras like
the symplectic and unitary algebras for which the condition of zero energy
in the tree approximation does require the VBi to vanish for all i except
where tB is in a Cartan subalgebra of the gauge Lie algebra. With all
VAi = 0 except for the V.si'i for which td is in the Cartan subalgebra, the
zeroenergy modes of the fermion field are those also with AA = 0, except
for the Ad for which td is in the Cartan sub algebra.
Now we must count these states. The eigenvalues of the td in any
representation of a semisimple Lie algebra are quantized, so by gauge
transformations all values of the nonzero gauge fields Vdi are equivalent
to values in a finite box with periodic boundary conditions. The quanti
zation of these modes is just like that carried out for the gauge field in
the U(I) model considered above, so the zeroenergy state of these fields
is again unique, with a constant wave function in the box.
The multiplicity of states with zero energy in the tree approximation
comes entirely from the fermion degrees of freedom. It is convenient
to use a twocomponent notation, in which instead of a fourcomponent
Majorana field Ad IX for each generator of the Cartan subalgebra, we
have two lefthanded fields AdLa with a = +1/2, and their righthanded
Hermitian adjoints A;" La' These gaugino fields satisfy the canonical
anticommutation relations
{Ad La, A~ Lb} = bd{!lbab
and
{ Ad La, A{!I Lb} = {A;" La' A~ Lb } = 0 .
By operating on an arbitrary state vector with as many factors of Ad La as
necessary, we can construct a state vector 10) which is annihilated by all
Ad La. The general zeroenergy state vector is then a linear combination
of products of the A;" La acting on 10).
To see which of these states may be paired with each other by the action
of the supersymmetry generator, we must take account of a symmetry of
the theory. The zeroenergy condition, that the gauge and gaugino fields
lie only in directions corresponding to the Cartan subalgebra, is invariant
under the subgroup of the original gauge group consisting of elements h
that leaves this subalgebra invariant, that is, for which h1tdh is a linear
combination of the t{!l. These form a finite group, known as the Weyl
282 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
group. For instance, in the defining representation of SU(N) the Weyl
group consists of permutations of the N coordinate axes, together with
multiplication by a phase needed to make the transformations unimodular.
These can be represented by products of the finite gauge transformations
W(i,j) = exp(i1tu(ij)j2) = iu(ij) with i =1= j that permute the ith and
jth coordinate axes, where u(ij) is the U(N) generator with [u(ijWi =
[u(ij)]ii = 1, and with all other elements zero. These transformations
induce orthogonal transformations in the space spanned by the diagonal
traceless Hermitian matrices td that generate the Cartan subalgebra in
the adjoint representation. For instance, for the group SU(2) we can take
the Cartan sub algebra to consist of just t3, and the Weyl group then
consists of the unit element and a single nontrivial gauge transformation
W(1,2) = iu(1,2) = iUI, for which WIt3W = t3. For SU(3) the
Cartan subalgebra has the two generators A3 and AS, and the Weyl group
consists of the six gauge transformations 1, W(1,2), W(2,3), W(1,3),
W (1,2) W (2,3), and W (2,3) W (1,2), which generate rotations by multiples
of 60 in the space spanned by t3 and ts.
Assuming the vacuum to be invariant under the Weyl group, it can
be paired by action of the supersymmetry generators only with other
states that are invariant under the Weyl group'" This mayor may not
include the previously constructed zeroenergy state 10). The condition
that the state 10) be annihilated by all Ad La is obviously invariant under
the Weyl group, so if it is unique this state must furnish a onedimensional
representation of the Weyl group. The Weyl group always acts on the
generators of the Cartan subalgebra by orthogonal transformations, so
there are two such representations: the invariant representation, in which
each Weyl transformation is represented by unity, and the pseudoinvariant
representation, in which each Weyl transformation is represented by the
determinant of its action on the generators of the Cartan subalgebra.
Let us first consider the case where 10) is invariant under the Weyl group.
Obviously no linear combination of the onefermion states A:' LaIO) can
be invariant under the Weyl group. There is just one Weylinvariant linear
combination of the twofermion states; it is of the form UIO), where
U =L eabA:'LaA:'Lb' (29.4.12)
abd
(The spin indices a and b are contracted with the antisymmetric tensor eab
defined by Eq. (25.2.9), because the anticommutation relations make the
.. Witten remarked that physical states are necessarily Weylinvariant, but we will
not need to go into this here, because the Weyl invariance of the vacuum and of
the supersymmetry generators means that only Weylinvariant states are relevant to
spontaneous supersymmetry breaking.
29.4 Supersyrnmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 283
product A:' La A:' Lb anti symmetric in a and h.) There are various Weyl
invariant linear combinations of products of three or more generators of
the Cartan subalgebra, but the anticommutation of the A:' La makes all of
them vanisht except for powers of U. Also, in the product of more than
r of the Us some of the A:' La would have to appear twice, so if+! = O.
We conclude then that the Weylinvariant states are limited to the r + 1
states
10), UIO), U 2 10) , ... ,UrIO) . (29.4.13)
These are all bosonic states, and there are no fermionic states with zero
energy in the tree approximation with which they could be paired, so for
sufficiently weak coupling these states must have precisely zero energy, and
supersymmetry is unbroken. Also, the Weylinvariant Witten index here is
r + 1, and this is independent of the coupling strength, so supersymmetry
is not spontaneously broken whatever the strength of the gauge coupling.
In the case where the state 10) is pseudoinvariant, the only Weyl
invariant states are of the form
L
.s;I,!II, ...
ed.~... A:' La A~Lb" '10) , (29.4.14)
t To see this for S U(N). note that each generator t", of its Cartan subalgebra may
be written as a linear combination t", = 2:1 C",; T; of generators T; of the Cartan
sub algebra of U(N). with the only nonzero element of each T; being (Ti)l; = 1 (with
indices not summed). In order for the t", to be traceless. we must have 2:; C"'I = O.
Since the fields .l..:" La transform under the Weyl group like the t",. it follows that for
a function 2:",,,... d",.,. .. .l.;" La.l.a,Lb to be Weylinvariant, the coefficients d",.,. .. must
take the form
d",.,. .. = L C",. C"j Dlt
ij"
wh,:re the Dir are invariant tensors, in the sense that for any vectors UI. vi> etc.
the function D(u,v, .. ) =: 2:ij... D ij... U. Vj is invariant under permutations of the
coordinate axes. The most general such function is a linear combination of products
of the function
S(x. Y. z... ) = L XiYi Z ,'
with arguments x. Y. z. '" taken as various subsets of the u. v. etc. But because
2:i C"'I = O. in our case the sum of the components of each vector vanishes. so D(u) =
S(u) = 0; D(u.v) is proportional to S(u.v); D(u.v.w) is proportional to S(u,v.w);
D(u.v.w.x) is a linear combination of S(u,v. w. x). S(u.v)S(w.x), S(u,w)S(v,x). and
S(u. x)S(v. w); and so on. The important point is that, even though the function
D( u. v... ) may not be symmetric in its arguments (because different products of Ss
may appear with different coefficients). the functions S(u,v .. ) are symmetric. In our
case. the vectors are the anticommuting quantities u(a)1 = 2:",.l.;" L,.C"'io for which the
only nonvanishing S function is S(u(1/2),u(1/2)). With a suitable normalization of
the generators. this is the operator U.
284 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
where Cd. {!I is the totally antisymmetric tensor of rank r. This is
completely symmetric among the a, b, . .., so each state is characterized by
the number of these indices that are +1/2 rather than 1/2, a number
that can take any value from 0 to r, so the number of independent states
is r + 1. Depending on whether r is even or odd, these states are either all
bosonic or all fermionic, so the Witten index here is +(r + 1), and again
supersymmetry is not spontaneously broken.
There is an interesting relation between the value of the Witten index
obtained here and ideas of how certain global symmetries become broken.
The Lagrangian for a supersymmetric gauge theory is invariant under the
transformations of a global U(I) 'Rsymmetry,' which change the left and
righthanded parts of the gaugino fields by opposite phases:
(29.4.15)
with ep an arbitrary real constant phase. The conservation of the current
J~ associated with this symmetry is violated by an anomaly
al'J~ = 32 2 L CACD CBCD f~V f~u CI'VPU ,
1
 (29.4.16)
n ABCD
where as usual cl'VPU is the totally antisymmetric quantity with c0123 = 1.
(This is obtained from Eq. (22.2.24) by taking the gauge group generators
tA as (tA)BC = iCABC, because the gauginos are in the adjoint represen
tation of the gauge group. and by multiplying the anomaly with a factor
1/2, because the gauginos do not have distinct antiparticles.) With the
definition of the gauge coupling specified above, Eq. (23.5.20) gives the
integral of the product of field strengths in the anomaly as
Cwpu J
tfx Lf~vf~u =
A
64n 2v/g 2 , (29.4.17)
where the 'winding number' v is an integer characterizing the topological
class to which the gauge field belongs. Putting together Eqs. (29.4.4),
(29.4.16), and (29.4.17), we see that an instanton of winding number v
=
induces a change in R J d3 X Jg given by
6.R = J tfx al'J~ = 2VCl . (29.4.18)
That is, the effective action contains terms O:Aab AA L aAA Lbeabf1 and its
integer powers that, instead of being invariant under the Rsymmetry
transformations (29.4.15), are transformed by integer powers of the phase
exp(2iepCt}. Thus instantons invalidate invariance under the general U(I)
Rtransformation (29.4.15), reducing it to the group Z2C1 of transforma
tions (29.4.15) with ep an integer multiple of n/Cl. We might expect
that the growth of the gauge coupling at low energy would lead (as in
29.4 Supersymmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories 285
quantum chromodynamics) to the appearance of vacuum expectation val
ues for gaugino bilinears, which would mean that the discrete symmetry
group Z2CI is spontaneously broken to its Z2 subgroup, generated by a
simple sign change of the gaugino multiplet. Then there would be CI
zeroenergy states In), given by acting on anyone vacuum state IX) with
the elements exp(imrRjCl) of Z2Cl' with n running only over the values
0, 1, ... , Cl  1 because we treat as equivalent any pair of states that
differ only by action of the generator exp(inR) of Z2. Since IX) can only
be a linear combination of states with even values of R, we can form
Cl states with all values ~ = 0, 2, ... , 2CI  2 of R by taking the linear
combinations
~ exp C~~) In).
In particular, for SU(N) and USp(2N) these states are the same as the
Weylinvariant states encountered in the calculation of the Witten index
in the case where the state 10) is Rinvariant, and Weylinvariant rather
than pseudoinvariant. The operator U defined by Eq. (29.4.12) has R = 2,
so there are r + 1 = CI states UnIO) with R = 2n running from zero to
2r = 2CI  2. More generally, the presence of CI zeroenergy states with
the same statistics helps to explain why the Witten index is equal to +CI
for the exceptional and orthogonal as well as the unitary and sympleCtic
groups.
The fact that the Witten index is nonvanishing for all pure gauge
supersymmetric theories means that to find examples of spontaneous
supersymmetry breaking we must add chiral superfields to the theory.
It does not help to add massive chiral superfields to the theory, since
for weak coupling the introduction of massive fields does not change
the menu of zeroenergy states. We have already seen an example of
this: the work of AfHeck, Dine, and Seiberg reviewed in Section 29.3
showed that an SU(Nc) gauge theory with Nt < Nc leftchiral superfields
Qai in the defining representation of S U(Nc) and an equal number of
leftchiral superfields QaJ in the complex conjugate representation, with
a mass term L,aij mijQaiQaj, has Nc zeroenergy bosonic states and no
zeroenergy fermionic states. (This is one case where the Witten index is
not left unchanged when a mass term vanishes, because this mass term
is the term in the superpotential of highest order in the superfields, so
that a vanishing mass changes the behavior of the superpotential for large
superfields. In fact, Eq. (29.3.31) shows that as the masses go to zero the
scalar field values in the state of zero energy go to infinity.)
On the other hand, there is no difficulty in finding theories with left
chiral superfields subject to a symmetry that keeps them massless, in
which supersymmetry is dynamically broken. For instance, consider an
286 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
SU(Nc) gauge theory with Nf leftchiral superfields Qai and Nf leftchiral
superfields Qai again in the Nc and Nc representations of the gauge group,
but now also with Nf leftchiral superfields Li that are neutral under the
gauge group SU(Nc). Assume a global (or weakly coupled local) SU(Nf)
symmetry, acting on the 'flavor' i indices of the Qs and the Ls but not
the Qs, which among other things forbids a mass term linking the Qs and
Qs. We take Qai and Li in the representations Nf and Nf of SU(Nf),
respectively, while the Qs are taken to be SU(Nf) singlets. The only
renormalizable superpotential is then of the form
f(Q, Q, L) = L, ~jQajQaiLi' (29.4.19)
ija
where the ~j are a set of coupling constants, which by an SU(Nf)
rotation may be chosen to have only one nonvanishing component, say
the one with j = Nj. which can also be chosen to be positive. (This is a
generalization of a model treated by Affleck, Dine, and Seiberg,8 in which
they took Nc = 3 and Nf = 2.) The gaugeneutral superfields Li have no
effect on the nonperturbative terms in the effective superpotential, so we
can use the result of Section 29.3, that for Nc > Nf the gauge interactions
yield a total effective superpotential
_ ~  [~_ ]l/(Nc Nt )
ftotal( Q, Q, L) = ~ ~jQajQaiLi +.Yt" Detij ~ QajQai ,
~ a
. (29.4.20)
with .Yt" a constant. In order for supersymmetry to be unbroken it is
necessary (though not sufficient) that the scalar components qaj. qaj' and
ti of the chiral superfields satisfy the condition oftotal(q, q,t)/ati = 0, so
that, for all i,
L,~lqajqai = O. (29.4.21)
ja
But this tells us that the matrix :La qajqai has a zero eigenvalue, and there
fore has zero determinant, so this is a singular point of the superpotential
(29.4.20), at which it is impossible for aftotal/aqai or aftotal/aqaj to vanish.
Supersymmetry is therefore necessarily broken in this class of models.
For instance, Affleck, Dine, and Seiberg8 found the nonvanishing scalar
components qaj, qaj' and ti of the superfields cI>ai, cI>ai, Li at the minimum
of the potential in their model with Nc = 3 and Nf = 2 to be at the values
qll = qll = 1.286 (.Yt" /2~)1/7 ,
q22 = q22 =: 1.249 (.Yt" /2~)1!7 , (29.4.22)
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 287
..
where the vacuum energy density is
PVAC = 3.593 (16~lO / Jt'"4)l/7 . (29.4.23)
Also, Jt'" = 2A 7 for 8 = O.
The fact that supersymmetry is spontaneously broken in this case en
courages us to think that it will be broken by strong gauge forces in a wide
range of asymptotically free gauge theories, and thus lends legitimacy to
the speculations about supersymmetry breaking in Section 28.3.
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution
It often happens that the treeapproximation potential in a supersymmetric
theory will take the value zero for a continuous range of scalar field values.
(For one example, see Eq. (29.1.9).) In this case the theory has a number
of scalar excitations with zero mass in the tree approximation, which
since supersymmetry is unbroken must be accompanied with suitable
fermionic superpartners. At low energies the theory will then be described
by a family of supersymmetric effective Lagrangians, whose members are
parameterized by one or more moduli, the scalar expectation values in the
underlying theory. Quantum effects in the underlying theory can modify
the dependence of the effective Lagrangian on these moduli, and even
alter the topology of the space of moduli. 9
In one of the most striking accomplishments of the 1990s in super
symmetry theory, Seiberg and Witten lO were able to calculate the exact
dependence of the lowenergy effective Lagrangian on a modular param
eter in gauge theories with N = 2 supersymmetry. The ideas behind this
calculation can be made apparent by running through only the simplest
special case, that of an SU(2) gauge theory with N = 2 supersymmetry
and no additional matter hypermuitiplets.
We saw in Section 27.9 that the Lagrangian density for this theory is
given after elimination of the auxiliary fields by
!l' = \ [ 
e
~)DI'4J)~
A
(DI'4J)A 
1
2 L (tpA (Ptp)A)
A
2 .fiRe L eABC (A.:hetpCL) 4J~  ~ LfAl'vf~V
ABC A
This section lies somewhat out of the book's main line of development and may be
omitted in a first reading.
288 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
where A, B, and C now run over the values 1, 2, and 3. We have now
rescaled all the fields by multiplying each of them by a factor e, so that e
does not appear in the covariant derivatives:
(DI''P)A = 01''PA + LCABCVBI''PC, (29.5.2)
BC
(DW~')A = 0I'AA +L CABC VBI'AC, (29.5.3)
BC
(DI'CP)A = 0I'CPA + L CABC VBI'CPc , (29.5.4)
BC
IAl'v = 01' VAv  Ov VAl' +L cABC VBI' VCv , (29.5.5)
BC
and the potential is
V(cp, cpO) [L CABC RecpB 1m CPc] 2
= 2 L (29.5.6)
A BC
This potential takes the value zero for a family of scalar field expectation
values, which (up to a gauge transformation) may be parameterized as
CP1 = CP2 = 0 , (29.5.7)
with a a complex parameter, known as the vacuum modulus. This vacuum
expectation value gives masses 21al to the vector fields V11' and V21" the
gauginos A1 and A2, the chiral fermions 'P1 and 'P2, and the scalars CP1 and
CP2, leaving V31" A3, 'P3, and CP3 = a all massless.
Taking account only of these zeromass modes (and dropping the sub
script 3), the tree approximation gives the effective lowenergy theory as
simply the freefield theory with Lagrangian density
!l'eff = :2 [(Ol'a)O (ol'a)  ~ ('P(~'P)
 !/l'v!"V  ~(A(/)A.)] + :'n2cl'vpuII'VIPU, (29.5.8)
with Il'v = 01' Vv  Ov VI'" Indeed, any renormalizable theory of a single
gauge boson and its gaugeneutral N = 2 superpartners must be a free
field theory, because N = 2 supersymmetry does not allow a superpotential
for this theory.
29.5 The Seiberg Witten Solution 289
But this is not the whole story. In integrating out the massive degrees of
freedom in this theory, quantum corrections produce nonrenormalizable
interaction terms in the lowenergy effective field theory. We can classify
the interactions and Feynman diagrams containing them that predominate
at low energy by the same sort of counting of powers of energy that
we used in dealing with lowmomentum pions and nucleons in Section
19.5. When we use the effective Lagrangian perturbatively to calculate
lowenergy scattering amplitudes, the number v of powers of energy
contributed by a connected graph with L loops, If external fermion lines,
Ib internal boson (a or VI') lines, Ia internal auxiliary field lines, and Vi
vertices of each type i, is
v = 4L + L Vidi  2Ib If, (29.5.9)
where di is the number of derivatives in the interaction of type i. (Internal
auxiliary field lines do not contribute in Eq. (29.5.9) because their propa
gators are independent of momentum.) These quantities are subject to the
topological relations
(29.5.10)
and
2Ib+Eb = L Vibi , 2If+Ef = L VI/i, 2Ia+Ea = L Vial, (29.5.11)
i i i
where Eb, Ef, and Ea are the numbers of external boson, fermion, and
auxiliary field lines, and bi, Ii, and ai are the numbers of boson, fermion,
and auxiliary fields in interactions of type i. We can therefore write the
number of powers of energy as
v= L Vi (di + UI + a;  2) + 2L  Ef  2Ea + 2. (29.5.12)
I
According to Eqs. (26.8.4) and (27.4.42), both the Dterm of a function
of leftchiral scalar N = 1 superfields and their adjoints and the ~term
of a pair of N = 1 gauge superfields W/X times an arbitrary function of
N = 1 leftchiral scalar superfields have di + UI + a; = 2, while adding any
additional W/X factors or superderivatives ~a. would give di+ Ui+ai > 2, so
in our case supersymmetry rules out any interactions with di+ UI+a; less
than 2. The dominant contribution to lowenergy scattering amplitudes is
thus given by the tree approximation (L = 0), calculated with an effective
Lagrangian containing only terms with dl + !h + a; = 2, which takes the
general form discussed in Section 27.4:
(29.5.13)
290 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
Eq. (27.4.42) then gives the Lagrangian in terms of component fields as
!l' = 02K(a, aO) [_
oa oao
!2 (tp ~tp) + WI 2 _ aI' aOl'ao]
03 K (a,a*)(_ )
 Re { 02a oao tptp L $'
*} 
1
2 Re
{03K(a,~O)(_1' )o}
02a oao tpy Ystp I'a
1 04K(a,aO) (_ ) (_ )
+ 4 02a 02a* tptpL tptpR
+ ! Re { (llL) (tptpL) d2:a~a)}  ~Re { (llL )$'d~~a)}
+ Re { T(a) [  ~ (:I ~(1  YS)A)  ~fl'vfl'V
+81lc
.
l'vPu
fWfPu +21 D2] }
+ f'Re {d~~a) [(Ayl'y"tpL)fl'v + 2i(:ItpL)D]} . (29.5.14)
In order to implement N = 2 supersymmetry, we now want to impose
invariance under the discrete Rsymmetry transformation (27.9.2):
A+tp, (29.5.15)
with a and VI' unchanged. The condition that the coefficients of (tp ~tp)
and (:I ~A) should be equal is
02K(a,a*) = R T( ) (29.5.16)
""
uaua* ea.
The righthand side is the sum of a function of a and a function of a*, so
04Kj02a0 2a* = 0, and therefore the term quartic in tp, which would have
had no counterpart for A, is absent. By an integration by parts, the term
!Re{T(a)(:I ,lJySA)} may be replaced with ~Re{(:IyI'Y5A)0I'T(a)}. The
condition that the coefficients of (tp)'I'Ystp) and (:IyI'YSA) should be equal is
then satisfied if
1 1 03K
4 A!' T = 2 02aoa* 0l'a,
which is also an automatic consequence of Eq. (29.5.16). According to
Eq. (26.A.7), the terms proportional to fl'v(:I[yl', yVltp) and fw(:I[yl', yVl ystp)
are automatically invariant under the transformation (29.5.15), as are also
the terms proportional to (lld(tptpd and its adjoint. On the other hand,
the invariance of the terms proportional to (Atp)D and (:IYstp)D requires
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 291
that we extend the transformation (29.5.15) so that
D +  D, (29.5.17)
which also leaves the term !D2
invariant. Finally, Eq. (29.5.16) tells us that
the coefficients of (tptpL}9" and (llL}9' are equal, so the transformation
(29.5.15) must also be extended so that
(29.5.18)
which also leaves the term 19'1 2 invariant. We conclude then that the con
dition (29.5.16) ensures that the whole action derived from Eq. (29.5.14)
is invariant under the combined transformation (29.5.15), (29.5.17), and
(29.5.18). Since the Lagrangian is invariant under N = 1 supersymmetry
with a leftchiral scalar supermultiplet (a, tp, 9') and a gauge supermul
tiplet (VI" A, D), it is also invariant under a second supersymmetry with
a leftchiral scalar supermultiplet (a, A., 9'*) and a gauge supermultiplet
(VI" tp, D). Eq. (29.5.16) is therefore enough to ensure that the action
obtained from Eq. (29.5.13) or (29.5.14) is invariant (without imposing the
field equations) under N = 2 supersymmetry.
The general solution of Eq. (29.5.16) can be expressed as"
T( a)  41 . dh(a) K(
{a*h(a)}
4n '
')=1 (29.5.19)
nl d a ' a,a m
with h a function of a alone. In terms of h, the Lagrangian density
(29.5.14) now reads
2= 4~lm{ [~:] [ ~(tp ~(IY5)tp)  ~(A~(1Y5)A)
1=1 2
" "I' *
Ul'au a +.T + 21 D2  4IfI'V fl'v + 811c
. l'vpu fI'VfPU]}
2
[d h] [ 
+4n1 Im { da 2  ) 9' + 2.ji i (AtpL ) D
21 ( tptpL )9'.  21 (ML
f (Ayl'yVUtpL )fl'v] }
+ l~n 1m { d::\a) (ML) (tptpL) } (29.5.20)
This is invariant under an SU(2) Rsymmetry, under which (tp, A) trans
forms as a doublet and (1m 9', Re 9', D /.ji) as a triplet. The discrete
The factor 1/41li is included in order to simplify the duality transformation introduced
below. Seiberg and Witten introduced a function F(a) (not related to the auxiliary
field F), known as the prepotential, for which h(a) = W(a)/da.
292 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
transformation (29.5.15), (29.5.17), and (29.5.18) is a finite element of this
8U(2) group: a rotation of n radians around the 2axis.
Comparing Eqs. (29.5.8) and (29.5.20), we see that in the tree approxi
mation
4ni 8]
h(a)tree = [ e2 + 2n a. (29.5.21)
The achievement of Seiberg and Witten was to calculate h(a) exactly.
The first step in this calculation is to recognize that there are various
linear transformations on a and dh(a)/da that give physically equivalent
theories. This is because of a remarkable property of the lowenergy
effective theory, related to the duality property discussed briefly in Section
27.9. To demonstrate this property, let us return to the Lagrangian density
(29.5.13) expressed in terms of N = 1 superfields, now using the relations
(29.5.19) required by N = 2 supersymmetry
2eff = 8~Im [cI>*h(cI]D  8~Im [h'(cI (wleWL)]~ . (29.5.22)
In path integrals the spinor fieldstrength superfield WL is constrained
by the supersymmetric extension (27.2.20) of the homogeneous Maxwell
equations:
Re(~IeWL) =0. (29.5.23)
This is usually imposed by requiring that W L take the form (27.2.15)
(29.5.24)
where V is an unrestricted real superfield. Instead, we can implement
the condition (29.5.23) by introducing a Lagrange multiplier term in the
action
(29.5.25)
where V is an unrestricted real superfield. (The numerical factor 1/8n
serves to fix the normalization of V in a way we shall find convenient
later.) Then in path integrals we can integrate over both V and W L ,
with no restrictions on either except that V is a real superfield and WL
is a lefthanded spinor superfield satisfying the leftchirality condition
~R<xWLP = O. Integrating by parts in superspace allows us to write the
new term in the action as
(29.5.26)
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 293
or, using Eq. (26.3.31) and the fact that WL is leftchiral,
!lieff = Re [4~ Jfix [(WleWL)]~] , (29.5.27)
where WL is defined in terms of V by the same relation that previously
gave WL in terms of V:
(29.5.28)
But now we are integrating over WL with no such constraint, with an
action that is quadratic in WL
Jeff + !lieff = 1m J fix [ 8~ h'(eI (WleWL) ~ 4~ (WleWL)]~
+8~lm J fix [eI>'h(eI]D' (29.5.29)
This integration is done by setting WL equal to the value where the action
is stationary in WL:
WL (29.5.30)
WL =  h'(eI
and the whole effective action becomes
Jeff = + 8~ 1m J fix [h,tel (WleWL) t + 8~ J1m fix
(29.5.31)
[eI>' h(eI]D .
Now, if we define a new leftchiral scalar superfield and a new h function
(29.5.32)
then
dh dh _ del> dib _ 1
dib del>   dib del>   , (29.5.33)
so the action (29.5.31) may be written as
Jeff =  8~lm J fix [h'(ib) (wleWL)]~ + 8~lm J
fix [ib*h(ib)]D'
(29.5.34)
From the method by which we have derived it, we know that the theory
based on this effective action is equivalent to the original effective field
theory, so the N = 2 effective field theory with scalar field value a and h
function h(a) is physically equivalent to one with scalar field value t aD ==
t The subscript D stands for 'dual,' and of course has nothing to do with the Dterm of
a superfield.
294 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
h(a) and h jUnction h(aD) = a. This is the version of duality that applies
in the present context.
There is another transformation of the function h(eI that also yields
an equivalent Lagrangian (now with no change in eI> or and canW)
be combined with the transformation (29.5.32) to give a larger group of
duality transformations. Suppose we shift h(eI by a linear term with a
real coefficient:
h(eI + h(eI + bel>, (29.5.35)
where b is a real constant. Then the first term in the effective Lagrangian
density (29.5.22) is shifted by bIm{[eI>eI>lD}/8n, which vanishes since the
Dterm of eI>.eI> is real. The change in the effective Lagrangian density
(29.5.22) is therefore given by the shift in the second term
ft'eff + ft'eff  :nIm [(WleWL)]~ , (29.5.36)
or, according to Eq. (27.2.13),
ft'eff + ft'eff 
b
8n [i (1 ~Y5A.) + ~eI'VPU f!'V/pu] (29.5.37)
The first term in the brackets on the righthand side is a spacetime
derivative, and therefore does not affect the effective action. The sec
ond term in the brackets can also be written as a spacetime derivative
(1/2)o!'(e!'v puAv/pu) wherever f!'v can be written as o!,Av ovAl" However,
as discussed in Section 23.3, the gauge transformation that we used to put
CPA in the 3direction must be singular somewhere, so we cannot write f!'v
everywhere in terms of a single AI" In consequence, physical quantities
can be affected by a term in the action of the form
8
 64n 2
Jd4 x e!'vpuf!'v f pU' (29.5.38)
In particular, Witten ll has shown that, in the theory of magnetic mono
poles described in Section 23.3, the electric charge of a magnetic monopole
with minimum monopole moment in the presence of such a term is e8/2n.
But, as mentioned in Section 27.9, in this theory there are also dyons,
particles with both magnetic monopole moments and charges given by
any integer multiple of e, so the whole pattern of monopole and dyon
charges is periodic in 8 with period 2n. In fact, all physical quantities have
this periodicity, because the 8 of the lowenergy effective theory is inherited
from the 8 appearing in the Lagrangian density (29.5.1) of the underlying
theory (note Eq. (29.5.21, and we have seen in Section 23.5 that all
physical quantities are periodic in this 8. According to Eq. (29.5.37), the
transformation (29.5.35) changes 8 by 2nb, and therefore with b equal to
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 295
an arbitrary positive or negative integer it yields an equivalent effective
action.
This sort of transformation is closely related to an exact invariance
of the underlying theory. The Lagrangian (29.5.1) is invariant under a
continuous Rsymmetry, under which
8L + exp(ia)8L , WAL + exp(ia)WAL' eI> A + exp(2ia)eI>A. (29.5.39)
This symmetry is broken by an anomaly: both AAL and tpAL have R
quantum numbers +1, and of course AAR and tp AR have R quantum
numbers 1, so according to Eqs. (23.5.21) and (23.5.23), the measure in
the integral over fermion fields changes under the transformation (29.5.39)
by a factor exp(2iaNv), where v is an integer, the winding number of the
vector field configuration, and N is defined by
1
Tr (tAtB) = 2NbAB .
(The factor exp(2iaNv) is the same as given in Section 23.5, even though
here we have two fields tp A and AA in the same representation of the gauge
group, because these are Majorana fields, in contrast with the Dirac
fields used in Section 23.5.) The generators here are (tA)BC = icABC, so
N = 4, and therefore the measure remains invariant when exp(8ia) = 1.
In other words, the continuous Rsymmetry is broken by instantons to a
Zs subgroup, generated by the transformation
tpAL ~ JitpAL, AAL + JiAAL' CPA + icpA. (29.5.40)
This symmetry then must carry over to the effective lowenergy theory.
However, it does not tell us that the effective Lagrangian (29.5.20) is
invariant under the discrete transformation (29.5.40), which would require
that ih(ia) = h(a) for all a. This condition is satisfied by the tree
approximation (29.5.21), but (as we will see) it is violated even in one
loop order. The Zs Rsymmetry is realized in the effective theory by the
condition that the effective theory with h function ih(ia) is equivalent
to one with h function h(a). That is, ih(ia) must be related to h(a) by
some combination of the transformations (29.5.32) and (29.5.35), with b
an in tt:g er.
We have seen that the physical significance of the theory is left UD
changt:d by two sorts of transformation: the transformation eI> + ci> = h(eI
and h(eI + h(ci = eI>, which can be written as
(29.5.41)
and the transformations h(eI + h(eI + bel>, eI> + eI>, which can be written
296 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
as
(29.5.42)
where b is an arbitrary integer. By combining these transformations, we
can make generalized duality transformations
(29.5.43)
where n, m, k, and I are any integers satisfying the condition that the
matrix in Eq. (29.5.43) should, like those in Eqs. (29.5.41) and (~9.5.42),
have unit determinant:
nlmk = 1. (29.5.44)
These transformations therefore form the group 8 L(2, Z).
The physical significance of the duality transformation can be brought
forward by considering the central charge of the N = 2 supersymmetry
algebra. As shown in Section 25.5, the eigenvalue Z 12 of this central charge
in anyoneparticle state sets a lower bound M > IZ12I/2 on the mass
of the state, a bound that is reached for particles that belong to 'short'
supermultiplets. We saw in Section 27.9 that Z12 is given in the underlying
8U(2) gauge theory with N = 2 supersymmetry by Eq. (27.9.22):
Z12 = 2Jiv [iq .A] ,
where q and .A are the charge and magnetic moment of the particle, and v
is the vacuum expectation value of the conventionally normalized neutral
scalar field. In the notation used in the present section, we have absorbed
a factor e into the normalization of the field a, so here we have
Z12 = 2Jia [iq  J(]je . (29.5.45)
This theory contains particles like the massive elementary scalars, spinors,
and vector bosons, which have charge e and zero magnetic monopole
moment, so such particles are eigenstates of Z12 with eigenvalue
charged elementary  2 M2'
Z 12  yJt.la. (29.5.46)
As we have seen, the theory with scalar fidd a and h function h(a) is
equivalent to one with scalar field na + mh(a) and h function k a + I h(a).
Therefore for all integers n and m the theory with scalar field a and h
function h(a) must also contain a particle that looks like a massive particle
of charge e and zero magnetic moment in the version of the theory with
scalar field na + mh(a) and h function ka + Ih(a), and that therefore has a
central charge
(29.5.47)
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 297
Comparing this with Eq. (29.5.45), we see that, in the version of this
theory with scalar field a and h function h(a), this particle appears as one
with a charge q and a magnetic monopole moment J( given by
qje = n + mRe [h(a)ja] , .A je = mlm [h(a)ja] . (29.5.48)
This is a dyon, with both charge and magnetic monopole moment. Note
that the formula (29.5.48) for the charge of this particle bears out Witten's
earlier result about the charge of magnetic monopoles: adding a term ba
to the function h(a) changes the charge of a monopole with m = 1 by an
amount be = e6.8 j2n.
Using the treeapproximation result (29.5.21) for h(a) in Eq. (29.5.48)
shows that in this approximation the magnetic monopole moments in
this theory are multiples of a value 4n j e. This is the same as the mag
netic monopole moment derived in Section 23.3 (recall that the magnetic
monopole moment g used there is .A j 4n), but this is a semiclassical re
sult, subject to quantum corrections. Note that the duality transformation
(29.5.41) with n = 0 and m = 1 takes an elementary particle with charge e
and magnetic monopole moment zero into a nonelementary particle with
magnetic monopole moment 1m [h(a)ja], which in the tree approximation
is 4nje.
The beta function for the electric charge in the underlying N = 2
supersymmetric SU(2) gauge theory is given perturbatively by the one
loop result Eq. (27.9.50), with the first Casimir invariant taken now as
C1 = 2e and the number of hypermultiplets set at H = 0:
e3
Pperturbative(e) =  4n 2 . (29.5.49)
We here take a as the renormalization scale, so the running charge e(a)
satisfies
(29.5.50)
Using the perturbation theory formula (29.5.49), this gives
2
(a)
1 In A
[e2 (a)]perturbative = 2n ' (29.5.51)
where A is an integration constant. In the formalism we are adopting
here, with a factor e absorbed into the definition of the gauge field, the
quantity e2 (a) appears as the coefficient h'(a)j4ni of the term  Uwfllv
in the lowenergy effective Lagrangian (29.5.20), so the function h(a) is
298 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
given in perturbation theory bytt
[h(a)]perturbative = ~i [a In (~)  a] = 4nia [[e2(a)]perturbatiVe  2~2 ]
(29.5.52)
This is a good approxirnation* for sufficiently large values of lal, where
Eq. (29.5.51) gives a small value of e(a). In this case, Eq. (29.5.48) gives
the magnetic monopole moment of monopoles and dyons as
.,({perturbative/ e= 4nma [[e2(a)]perturbative  2~2] , (29.5.53)
where m is an arbitrary integer. Note that this is not the same as would be
found by simply replacing e with the running charge e(a) on the righthand
side of the semiclassical formula .,({/ e = 4nm/ e2
For sufficiently large values of lal, Eq. (29.5.52) also satisfies a necessary
consistency condition: the coefficient Imh'(a)/4n of the kinematic terms
 Hv; ~1p),  Hl ~A.), 0lla 011 a and  VJIVfllv must be positive. The same
condition tells us also that Eq. (29.5.52) cannot be a good approximation
for all values of a, because it gives a negative value for 1m h'(a) for lal
sufficiently small.
Eq. (29.5.52) shows that if a is carried counterclockwise around a circle
with a large value of lal, where perturbation theory is valid, then h(a) is
shifted by 4a. This tells us that h(a) must have one or more singularities
at finite values of a.
We can easily rule out the possibility that h(a) has just one singularity,
because this would make it impossible to satisfy the condition that h'(a)
should have a positive imaginary part for all nonsingular values of a,
which as we have seen is necessary for the positivity of the coefficients
of the kinematic terms in the effective Lagrangian. A single singularity
would have to be at a = 0, because the ZSsymmetry tells us that if h(a) is
singular at a then it is also singular at ia. The function h(a)hperturbative(a)
would then be analytic except at infinity and perhaps at a = 0, but this
function vanishes as lal + 00, and in particular does not change when
carried around a circle at large a, so it could at most be a polynomial
in 1/a, with no constant term. If the polynomial does not vanish, then
h'(a) goes as some negative power of a as a + 0, which would not
tt The additive constant needed in integrating h'(a) has no effect on the lowenergy
effective action derived from Eq. (29.5.22), because [cf>'lD is a derivative. This constant
can be fixed by reference to the Zssymmetry discussed earlier. Eq. (29.5.52) satisfies
ih(ia) = h(a) 1, which is a special case with b = 1 of the transformations (29.5.35)
that leave the physical significance of the theory unchanged. This would not be the
case if we had added a constant to Eq. (29.5.52).
* There are nonperturbative contributions 12 to p(e), arising from instantons, but these
vanish rapidly for e + O.
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 299
have a positive imaginary part, while if the polynomial did vanish then
h'(a) would be equal to h'perturbative(a), which also does not have positive
imaginary part for a + O.
In studying the singularity structure of h(a), it is helpful to keep track of
duality by treating a and aD = h(a) in the same way, expressing them both
as functions of some complex variable u. Seiberg and Witten took u to
be the expectation value of the gaugeinvariant quantity! 2:A fjJ AfjJ A. This
changes sign under the Zs transformations fjJ A + +ifjJ A, and of course
under this transformation a = fjJ3 + +ia, so
a( u) = +i a(u) . (29.5.54)
The sign here has no physical significance because a and a are related
by a finite SU(2) gauge transformation. (Where necessary it can be made
definite by adopting the convention that the upper and lower signs apply
if Reu > 0 or Reu < 0, respectively.) We can trust perturbation theory
for large values of lal, so for lui + 00
a+J2ij, .
aD +
(2U) 
ni [ J2ij In A2 2J2ij ]. (29.5.55)
Note that when u is taken counterclockwise around a circle at a fixed large
value of lui, the logarithm In(2uj A2) is shifted by 2in, while J2ij changes
sign, so the changes in a and aD are given by a monodromy matrix:
(29.5.56)
The functions a(u) and aD(u) must therefore have two or more singu
larities at finite values Un of u, such that the combined effect of going
counterclockwise around each singularity is the same as (29.5.56).
Let us consider the possibility that there are just two singularities. (This
was shown to be the case in the second SeibergWitten paper of Reference
10.) Under the Zssymmetry that takes aA + iaA we have u + u, so
the 8ingularities must be at a pair of u values uo and uo. Going from
a nonsingular base point P in the u plane counterclockwise around the
singularity at +uo all the way back to P should yield an equivalent theory.
Therefore it must take the form of a duality transformation, in general
depending on P, in which the vector (a, aD) is multiplied with an SL(2,Z)
monodromy matrix M, as in Eq. (29.5.43). The counterclockwise contour
around the circle with fixed large u can be deformed into a contour that
starts at P and goes counterclockwise back to P around uo and then
counterclockwise back to P around +uo. (See Figure 29.1.) Since this
deformation cannot change the integral, the product of the monodromy
matrices in this order (reading from right to left) must be t:qual to the
300 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
uo
Figure 29.1. Deformation of a contour that circles the complex u plane counter
clockwise at large lui into a contour that starts at a base point P, circles the
singularity at u = U() counterclockwise back to P, and then circles the singularity
at u = +U() counterclockwise back to P.
matrix in Eq. (29.5.56):
M+M = Moo = (;1 ~1)' (29.5.57)
Singularities occur when a and aD take values at which some particle
has zero mass. For instance, the singularity at a = 0 in the perturbative
formula (29.5.52) for h(a) occurs because this is the value of a at which
elementary charged particles become massless in perturbation theory. We
have already ruled out the possibility of a single singularity at a = 0, so
the singularities at +uo must arise from the vanishing of the mass of some
other particles.
The most striking part of the SeibergWitten calculation was their
realization that these particles are among the nonelementary magnetic
monopoles or dyons found in the underlying S U (2) supersymmetric theory.
Semiclassical calculations of the sort done in Section 23.3 show that the
stable monopoles and dyons have magnetic quantum number m = +1 and
any integer electric quantum number n, and belong to hypermuitiplets,
each consisting of a pair of Majorana spinors and a pair of complex
scalars. These are 'short' multiplets, with a mass given by the BPS value,
which according to Eqs. (27.9.24) and (29.5.47) is
M = IZ12l/2 = ,Ji INa + h(a) I ' (29.5.58)
where N = +n. The easiest way to calculate what happens when this mass
goes to zero is to consider the more familiar problem of what happens
when the mass of a hypermultiplet of ordinary charged particles goes to
zero, and then use duality to switch to the case of a light monopole. The
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 301
beta function for the U(I) gauge coupling is given here by Eq. (27.9.45)
with Cl = 0, C{ = q = 2, so
e3
p(e) = + 81t 2 .
The solution of the renormalization group equation is then
e2(a) = __I_In ( a )
. constant'
41t2
As we saw in deriving Eq. (29.5.52), this gives
hl(a)=41tie2(a)=~ln( a )
1t constant
Because this gives a value of e2(a) that is positive and small for a + 0, this
would be a reliable result if the theory really contained a hypermultiplet of
ordinary charged particles whose mass goes to zero in this limit. Instead,
we are assuming that there is a hypermultiplet of monopoles or dyons
whose mass goes to zero; to deal with this case, we can apply the duality
transformation (29.5.43) that takes a into Na + h(a)
(29.5.59)
We conclude that when u approaches a point uo where a. = Na+h(a) + 0,
we have
A
dh(a.) + _ ~ In ( a. ) (29.5.60)
da. 1t constant
or, in other words,
da
 ,      + + 1ti In (h(a) + Na) (29.5.61)
d (h(a) + Na) constant'
The solution is
a(u) = ao + 1ti ( h(u) + Na(u) ) In (h(U) +AoNa(u) ' (29.5.62)
where ao and Ao are integration constants. We are also assuming that
h + Na + for u ~ uo, so we can write the leading term as
h(u) + Na(u) + co(u  uo) . (29.5.63)
Thus Eq. (29.5.62) has the leading term
ico (co(UUO)
a(u) + ao + n(u  uo)ln Ao (29.5.64)
When we take u counterclockwise a:ll the way around a circle surround
ing UO there is no change in h(a) + Na, but a is shifted by 2(h(a) + Na),
302 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
so the monodromy matrix for this singularity is
12N 2 ) (29.5.65)
( 2N2 1 +2N
M+ =
Likewise, if the singularity at uo is associated with the vanishing mass
of a monopole or dyon with magnetic quantum number +'1 (the prime
distinguishing this sign from that for uo) and electric quantum number n,
then at this singularity h(u) + N' a(u) + 0, and
a+~+ !(h(U)+N'a(U)ln(h(U)~'a(u) , (29.5.66)
where N' = +'n and aO and AQ are new integration constants. The leading
terms are
h(u) + N'a(u) + c~(u + uo) , (29.5.67)
, ido(
a+ao+u+uo )1n (do(U + uo) (29.5.68)
1t AQ
The monodromy matrix for this singularity is
12N' 2 )
(29.5.69)
M_ = ( 2N,2 1 +2N'
It is straightforward then to see that the condition (29.5.57) on these
matrices is satisfied if and only if
N' = N 1 . (29.5.70)
It makes no difference what value we take for N, because we can shift it
by an even integer 2M by going around the circle at infinity M times, and
we can shift it by unity by reflecting u ..... u. Seiberg and Witten chose
to take N = 0, so that N' = 1. Then for u + uo
h(u) + co(u  uo), (29.5.71)
a(u) +
ico  uo) In (U Aouo) '
ao + ;(u (29.5.72)
and for u + uo
h(u)  a(u) + do(u + uo) , (29.5.73)
a(u) + ~ + ;(u
ic'O + uo)ln (u+uo)
AQ (29.5.74)
We now impose the unbroken Zgsymmetry condition (29.5.54). We can
calculate a(u) for u + uo by writing it as ia( u) and using Eq. (29.5.72).
29.5 The SeibergWitten Solution 303
Then for u + U()
( ) +
au . + Co In (Co(U + U())
lao (29.5.75)
n Ao
Comparing this with Eq. (29.5.74), we see that c'o = i Co, so Eq. (29.5.73)
becomes, for u + U(),
h(u)  a(u) + i Co (u + uo) . (29.5.76)
The field a is defined to include a factor of the gauge coupling e, which
can be given any value by an appropriate choice of the renormalization
point at which e is evaluated. Seiberg and Witten chose to define the
scale of a and u (keeping u = a2 /2 at infinity) so that U() = 1; that is,
the singularities are at u = +1. With this convention, they obtained the
solutions (defined in the complex plane cut from 1 to +1)
asw(u) = .jill dx { 
f 3x, (29.5.77)
n 1 1  x2
hsw(u) = i.ji1" dx ~x
2 (29.5.78)
n 1 xI
The mathematical methods originally used to obtain these results are
beyond the scope of this book, but fortunately it is not difficult after the
fact to check that they are correct.
First, we can check that asw(u) and hsw(u) have a singular behavior
near u = +1 of the same form (29.5.71), (29.5.72), (29.5.75), and (29.5.76)
as the true solution. For u + 1, Eq. (29.5.77) gives
asw(u) + .ji
n
11
1
dx +:
.jx + 1
u 1
2n
11
1
dx
~1 x)(u  x)
=
4
+ ul In ( ul )
In 2n 3 + u  2.ji.jl +u
+ _4 _ u 1 In (4(u _ 1) . (29.5.79)
In 2n
Also, Eq. (29.5.78) gives
u
hsw () +
j1"
d
x
nIX 
JU x
1=
i (u 1)
2 . (29.5.80)
Eqs. (29.5.79) and (29.5.80) agree with our previous results (29.5.71) and
(29.5.72), with Co = i and ao = 4/ In. Eq. (29.5.77) satisfies the Zs
reflection property (29.5.54), so asw(u) automatically has the behavior
(29.5.75) for u + 1, and (with due regard to the signs of square roots
dictated by the cut from u = 1 to u = +1) it follows directly from
304 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
Eqs. (29.5.77) and (29.5.78) that hsw(u)  asw(u) is proportional to u + 1
for u near 1.
Now since asw(u) and hsw(u) have the same singularity structure: at
u + +1 as a(u) and h(u), they have the same monodromy (Eqs. (29.5.59)
and (29.5.69) with N = 0 and N' = 1): as u circles the point +1, we
have
( ~: ) + (~1 ~1) ( ::: ) , (29.5.81)
while as u circles the point 1,
asw )
( hsw
+ (32 2)
1
( asw
hsw
) (29.5.82)
Let us now consider the quantity
f(u) = a(u)hsw(u)  asw(u)h(u) . (29.5.83)
This is an S L(2, Z) invariant, so it has trivial monodromy: it returns to
the same value when u circles either +1 or 1. The only finite singularities
in a(u), h(u), asw(u), or hsw(u) are the logarithmic singularities at +1, but
since f(u) has trivial monodromy it does not have these singularities, and
it is therefore analytic at all finite points.
To evaluate the entire function f(u), let's first check that the leading
terms in the asymptotic behavior of the functions asw(u) and hsw(u) are
the same as those of a(u) and h(u), respectively. For u + 00, Eq. (29.5.77)
gIves
asw(u) + 
J2Ull dx =
Fe
y2u, (29.5.84)
n 1 J1  x 2
while Eq. (29.5.78) gives
u
hsw () + iJ2U
n
1" 1
dx
Jx2  1
i,Ji
+ 
n
yU /';1 nu. (29.5.85)
This is the same as the leading behavior (29.5.55) of a(u) and h(u).
This in itself only shows that f(u)ju In u + 0 for u + 00. But note that
the reflection symmetry (29.5.54) for a(u) and its counterpart for asw(u)
tell us that the nexttoIeading terms in both functions are of order .jUju2
Also, the nexttoIeading terms in h(u) and hsw(u) are of order .jU. It
follows that we can calculate the leading term in the asymptotic behavior
of f(u) by setting a(u) = asw(u) = J2U, so that f(u) = O(u) for u + 00.
Since f(u) is an entire function, this means that f(u) is linear in u. But
f(u) vanishes at u = +1, where h(u) and hsw(u) are O(u 1), and f(u) also
vanishes at u = 1, where a(u)  h(u) and asw(u)  hsw(u) are O(u 1),
Problems 305
so it must vanish everywhere. We conclude then that
asw(u) = hsw(u) = (u).
(29.5.86)
a(u) h(u) g
Now we must consider the properties of the function g(u). Because hsw(u)
and h(u) are analytic at all finite points except u = 1, and asw(u)hsw(u)
and a(u)  h(u) are analytic at all finite points except u = +1, it follows
that g(u) (which can also be written as [asw(u)  hsw(u)]j[a(u)  h(u)]) is
analytic everywhere. (There are no zeroes of a(u) or h(u) at u f +1, let
alone zeroes of both, because a zero of a(u) or h(u) would be associated
with a point where a charged particle or monopole mass vanishes, which
has been assumed to be not the case for any u f +1.) Also, the fact that
the leading terms in the asymptotic behavior for u + 00 of the functions
asw(u) and hsw(u) are the same as those of a(u) and h(u), respectively,
means that g(u) + 1 for u + 00. It follows then that the entire function
g(u) must equal unity for all u, and therefore
a(u) = asw(u) , h(u) = hsw(u) , (29.5.87)
as was to be shown.
Problems
1. What is the Witten index of the model in Problem 4 of Chapter 26 for
a f O? For a = O? Can supersymmetry be broken by higherorder
effects in this model for a = O? Explain.
2. Consider the renormalizable supersymmetric theory with SO(Nc)
gauge symmetry and Nt leftchiral scalar superfields cI>n in the N
vector representation. What can you say about the structure of
the nonperturbative Wilsonian Lagrangian density when the bare
superpotential vanishes? What if there is a bare superpotential
2:n cI>ncI>n ?
3. In the theory with Lagrangian density (29.5.22), what is the relation
between the component fields of the spiuor field strength superfield
W<x and its dual W<x?
References
1. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B185, 513 (1981). This article is reprinted
in Supersymmetry, S. Ferrara, ed. (North Holland/World Scientific,
Amsterdam/Singapore, 1987).
306 29 Beyond Perturbation Theory
1a. J. Hughes and J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B278, 147 (1986); J. Hughes,
J. Liu, and J. Polchinski, Phys. Lett. B ISO, 370 (1986); J. Bagger
and A. Galperin, Phys. Lett. B336, 25 (1994); Phys. Rev. D55, 1091
(1997); Phys. Lett. B412, 296 (1997); L. Antoniadis, H. Partouche,
and T. R Taylor, Phys. Lett. B372, 83 (1996); S. Ferrara, L. Gi
rardello, and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B376, 275 (1996).
2. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B202, 253 (1982). This article is reprinted in
Supersymmetry, Ref. 1.
3. A. C. Davis, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. 125B, 487 (1983);
r. Affieck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1026 (1983);
Phys. Lett. 137B, 187 (1984), reprinted in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1;
Nucl. Phys. B241, 493 (1984); Nucl. Phys. B52, 1677 (1984); Phys.
Lett. 140B, 59 (1984).
4. N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B318, 469 (1993).
5. V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. r. Vainshtein, and V. r. Zakharov,
Nucl. Phys. B229, 381 (1983); Nucl. Phys. B260, 157 (1985); G. C.
Rossi and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. 138B, 195 (1984), reprinted
in Supersymmetry, Ref. 1; S. F. Cordes, Nucl. Phys. B273, 629
(1986). For a review, see M. A. Shifman and A. r. Vainshtein,
hepth/9902018, to be published.
6. E. Witten, J. High Energy Phys. 9802, 006 (1998).
7. V. G. Kac and A. V. Smilga, hepth/9902029, to be published.
8. r. Affieck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B256, 557 (1985).
9. N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D49, 6857 (1994).
10. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B426, 19 (1994); erratum,
Nucl. Phys. B43O, 485 (1994). The extension to an N = 2 theory
with matter hypermultiplets is given by N. Seiberg and E. Witten,
Nucl. Phys. B431, 484 (1994). For a review, see: K. Intrilligator and
N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 45BC, 1 (1996); also published
in Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology, Trieste,
1995, E. Gava, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997), and in QCD
and Beyond: Proceedings of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute
in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder Colorado, 1995, D. E. Soper,
ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996).
11. E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 86B, 283 (1979).
12. N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B206, 75 (1988).
30
Supergrapbs
The introduction of Feynman graphs in the late 1940s provided the
enormous advantage of preserving manifest Lorentz invariance at every
stage of perturbative calculations. For this purpose it was necessary that
the exchange of all spin states of any virtual particle should be described
by a single propagator. Fortunately, it has become possible to go a step
further, and develop a supergraph formalism, in which supersymmetry as
well as Lorentz invariance is kept manifest at every stage.! To do so, it
is necessary to describe the exchange of all the particles described by a
given superfield by a single superpropagator.
There is a problem here in that the leftchiral superfie1ds cI> over which
we integrate are subject to a differential constraint, ~RcI> = O. This is
analogous to the problem in electrodynamics that the fieldstrength tensor
is subject to a differential constraint, the homogeneous Maxwell equation.
In electrodynamics this problem is dealt with by expressing the field
strength tensor in terms of a vector potential, and doing path integrals
over the vector potential instead of the field strength tensor. In much the
same way, here we will impose the leftchiral constraint by expressing left
chiral superfields in terms of potential superfields, over which we integrate
in path integrals. In this formalism we encounter problems like those
produced by gauge invariance in electrodynamics, and deal with them in
much the same way.
The most important result to COme out of the supergraph formalism
was the nonrenormalization theorem for the superpotential.2 We have
already proved this theorem in Section 27.6, using a much easier indirect
technique developed by Seiberg, which can be extended also to describe
nonperturbative effects. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how these
surprising cancellations of renormalization effects occur in actual pertur
bative calculations.
307
308 30 Supergraphs
30.1 Potential Superfields
Consider a theory of leftchiral superfields cI>n(x, fJ) and their complex
conjugates, but for simplicity without gauge superfields. All of the vacuum
expectation values of timeordered products of component fields may be
calculated from vacuum expectation values of the timeordered products
of these superfields. We might try to calculate these from the pathintegral
formula
( T {<I>., (xh Ih). <1>., (x,. 8,)... } ) ~J [!! 1
d<I>.(x, 8) oxp (if [<1>1)
X cI>nt(xt.fJd cI> n2(X2,fJ2) ... , (30.1.1)
where J [cI>] is the action
J[cI>] = ~J d"x[:EcI>~(X,fJ)cI>n(X,fJ)]D +2Re d"x[f(cIl~
n
J (30.1.2)
(The factor 1/2 is introduced in the first term, as in Eq. (26.4.3), to give
the component fields of cI> a conventional normalization.) But we cannot
simply read off the supergraph Feynman rules from Eq. (30.1.1), because
the functional integral over the superfields cI>n must be constrained to
satisfy the leftchiral condition ~RcI>n = O.
This is analogous to a similar problem in electrodynamics. As discussed
in Section 12.3, at energies below the electron mass the interactions of soft
photons with each other are described by an effective action of the form:
But we cannot read off the Feynman rules from this formula without
taking into account the fact that the path integral is constrained by the
homogeneous Maxwell equations
o,..fvp + ovfp,.. + opf,... = 0.
As everyone knows, we deal with this constraint by introducing a four
vector potential A,.., with f,... = o,..A v  OvA,.., so that the constraint is
automatically satisfied, and integrate over A,..(x), not f,...(x).
In the same way, we may adopt a trick already used in Section 26.6
to derive the field equations for superfields, and introduce a nonchiral
potential superfield Sn(x, fJ), with
(30.1.3)
30.1 Potential Superfields 309
where
~~ = L Ea,/3~Ra,~R/3 ' (30.1.4)
a,/3
so that cI>n automatically satisfies the leftchiral constraint, ~Ra.cI>n = O. In
place of Eq. (30.1.1), we then have the pathintegral formula
(30.1.5)
In expressing the action (30.1.2) in terms of Sn, we may recall that the
Dterm of a superderivative does not contribute to the action, so we may
shift the operator (~kr = ~i acting on S:
in the first term of Eq. (30.1.2)
to act instead on Sn, which gives
I[~~Sl = ~ Jfix [~S:~i~~SnL + 2Re Jfix [f(~~S)L.. (30.1.6)
The ~k operator in anyone of the factors ~kS in .my term in f(~~S)
may be taken to act on the whole term, since ~R gives zero when acting
on any other factor of ~~S in that term. In this way, we may write
(30.1.7)
where 1(S) is obtained from f(~kS) by omitting anyone operator ~k in
each term. For instance, for a single type of superfield, if f(cI = I:r crcI>',
then
1(s) = L CrS (~~S)'l .
r
Using Eqs. (30.1.6), (30.1.7), and (26.3.31), we may put the whole action
in the form of aDterm
I[~~Sl = ~ J fix L
n
[S:~i~~Sn]D +2Re Jfix [1(S)]D (30.1.8)
Eq. (26.6.5) shows that this may also be written as a superspace integral:
I[~~Sl = ~ J Jfix fie Ls:~i~~Sn 
n
Re J J
fix fie 1(s).
(30.1.9)
This is the action we will use in the pathintegral derivation of the
supergraph formalism.
310 30 Supergraphs
30.2 Superpropagators
Usually the propagator can be obtained directly from the part of the
action of second order in the fields. If we write this quadratic part for
a complex field <Pi (where i is a compound index including spacetime
coordinates as well as spin and species labels) in the form
Iquad[<pl =  LDij<pi<pj, (30.2.1)
ij
with Dij Hermitian, then as explained in Section 9.4 the propagator is
simply A = D 1. The problem with this arises when the quadratic part of
the action is invariant under a (linearized) gauge transformation
<Pi + <Pi + ~i , (30.2.2)
for some class of 'vectors' ~. In this case we have
LDij~j =0, (30.2.3)
and we clearly cannot invert the 'matrix' Dij. In electrodynamics the
problem arises because the Lagrangian density is invariant under a gauge
transformation AI' + AI' + 01'A. We have this problem here too: since the
action is actually a functional of ~~Sn and not of Sn itself, it is invariant
under the transformation
(30.2.4)
for any superfields X n
In the electrodynamics of charged particles the problems introduced by
gauge in variance are typically handled by choosing a gauge, for instance
by the FaddeevPopovde Witt method described in Section 15.5. But the
problems raised here by invariance under the transformation (30.2.2) are
much more like the problems of the effective field theory of photons at
energies below the threshold for producing charged particles, where the
theory is gaugeinvariant simply because the action only involves gauge
invariant fields. In such theories there is a simpler option. In addition to
the eigenvector ~i of Dij with eigenvalue zero (taken for simplicity to be
in a unique direction) we can find a set of orthonormal eigenvectors Uvi
with eigenvalues dv f 0:
L Dij U vj = d v Uvi , L U:i Uv'i = b vv' , L U:i ~i = O. (30.2..5)
j i
We can introduce a new set of integration variables <pI and <p~:
<Pi = <pI ~i + L <p~ Uvi (30.2.6)
v
30.2 Superpropagators 311
The sort of integral encountered in Feynman diagram calculations of
quantum expectation values may then be written
J[I,Id<Pid<Pi] exp{ilquad[<p]}<Pa<Pi, =/ Jd<p'd<p"
xJ[1) d<p~ d<P~'] {i~dvl<P~12} [<p'~a + ~<p~uva]
exp
x [<P'~b + ~<p~UVbr (30.2.7)
where / is the Jacobian of the transformation (30.2.6). The integral over
<p' and <P" is of course ill defined, because they do not appear in the
argument of the exponential. But this doesn't matter if the action only
involves gaugeinvariant fields, because then <Pa, <Pb, etc. will be contracted
with 'currents' J a, h, etc. for which
(30.2.8)
a
We may thus write Eq. (30.2.7) as
J[I,I d<Pi d<Pi] exp{iIquad [<p ]}<Pa ... <pi, ... = ~ J[1) d<p~d<p~ 0]
xex p { i~dvl<P~12} [~<p~uva] ... [~<p~UVbr
+ ~terms, (30.2.9)
where '~terms' denotes terms proportional to one or more factors of ~a,
~b, etc., which vanish when contracted with Js satisfying Eq. (30.2.8), and
~ is the infinite constant / J d<p'. The integral over the <p~ then gives
J[J.Id<Pid<Pi] exp{ilquad[<P]}<Pa<Pi,
,
oc ?:
pautngs
[iAab] ...
+ ~terms , (30.2.10)
where the sum over pairings is over all ways of pairing indices on the <ps
with indices on the <ps, and Aab is the propagator
o
A = va
""' U uvb (30.2.11)
Uab ~ d .
v v
Instead of actually evaluating the sum (30.2.11), we can use its defining
property that
(30.2.12)
c v
312 30 Supergraphs
with n the projection operator on the space orthogonal to ~:
n2 = n , n~ = 0. (30.2.13)
The solution of Eq. (30.2.12) is unique only up to ~terms, but these do
not matter if the fields <Pi appear in the action only in gaugeinvariant
combinations.
For instance, in electrodynamics, we can write the kinematic part of the
action as
Iquad[A] =  !J I'x f",v!"'v = +~ J 4
d x A"'( Db;  o",ov)Av .
The differential operator Db; + OV 0", is not invertible, because it has a
zero eigenvalue with eigenvectors of the form ~'" = 0"'A, The projection
matrix onto the space orthogonal to these vectors is
n/(x,y) = [b/  0",oVD 1]b 4 (x  y),
where D 1b 4 (x  y) is any solution of the equation D[D1b4 (x  y)] =
b 4 (x  y). The defining equation for the propagator is
(Db~ + o",oA)A/(x,y) = n/(x,y) ,
with the solution
A/(x, y) = b; AF(X  y) + o",ov terms,
where AF(X  y) is the usual Feynman propagator (6.2.16), satisfying
DAF(x  y) = b 4 (x  y). (The factor 1/2 in the action does not appear
in the defining equation for the propagator here because A", is a real
field. The origin of the ie in the denominator of the Fourier integral in
Eq. (6.2.16) is explained in the pathintegral formalism in Section 9.2.)
Inspection of the first term in Eq. (30.1.9) shows that the defining
equation for the superpropagator of the potential superfields is
!~i ~~ A~(x, ();x, ()') = &'b 4 (x  x')b 4 ()  ()')b nm , (30.2.14)
where &' is a superspace differential operator satisfying the conditions for
a projection operator
&'~R = 0, (30.2.15)
and b4 ()  ()') is the fermionic delta function introduced in Eq. (26.6.8).
The solution is
(30.2.16)
(It is obvious that &'~R = O. To check that &,2 = &', we need to
use (26.6.12), which shows that ~~~i~~ = 16D~~.) The solution of
30.3 Calculations with Supergraphs 313
Eq. (30.2.14) is
AS (x (J. x' (J') 1 b4 (x  x')b 4 (J  (J')b
= __
nm'" 40 nm
1
= 4 AF(X  x')b 4 (J  (J')b nm + ~Rterms .
(30.2.17)
This is the superpropagator for a line created by a potential superfield
S;'(x', (J') and destroyed by a potential superfield Sn(x, (J), which we must
use in evaluating supergraphs for the action (30.1.9). To make contact
with ordinary propagators, it is also of some interest to consider the
superpropagator of the line created by a leftchiral superfield cI>;'(x', (J')
and destroyed by a leftchiral superfield cI>n(x, (J). These chiral superfields
are obtained by operating on Sn(x, (J) with ~~ and on S;'(x', (J') with
~'~ = ~i, so the propagator for the leftchiral superfields is
0
A:"(x, (J; x', (J') = !~~EliAF(X  x') b4 (J  (J') bnm . (30.2.18)
4
For instance, the term in the superpropagator of zeroth order in (J and
(J' is
< " ] 1( a
[ Anm(x,(J;x,(J) 8=8'=0= 4 a(JR
)2( a(}'L
a )2 AF(Xx)b
, 4(J (J' )bnm .
(30.2.19)
To evaluate this, we recall Eq. (26.6.8) for the fermionic delta function:
b4 (J  (J') = ! ((JL  (JjJTc(JL  (JjJ) ((JR  (J'R)Tc(JR  (J'R)) ,
from which we find (ajO(JR)2(ajO(JjJ 2b4 (J(J') = 4. Eq. (30.2.19) therefore
yields
[A:"(x, (J; x', (J')] 8=9'=0 = AF(x  x') bnm , (30.2.20)
which is just the usual propagator for the scalar components of the
superfield
30.3 Calculations with Supergraphs
We now consider how to use the results of the previous sections to calcu
late the quantum effective action r[S, SO] for a set of classical potential
superfields Sn(x, (J) and their adjoints. Following the prescription discussed
in Section 16.1, this may be defined in terms of a sum over all connected
onepartic1eirreducible supergraphs, consisting of vertices to which are at
tached directed internal and external lines. For each extemalline of type n
314 30 Supergraphs
ending or beginning in a vertex labelled x, (J, we include a cnumber factor
Sn(x, (J) or S;(x, (J), respectively (but no propagator). A vertex labelled x, (J
with N incoming or N outgoing lines labelled nl, n2, ... , nN yields a factor
equal to i times the coefficient of the S1S2 " . SN term in the superpotential
J(S) or times the complex conjugate of this coefficient, respectively. An
internal line of any type coming out of a vertex labelled x, (J and going into
a vertex labelled x', (J' yields a propagator factor, given by Eqs. (30.2.10)
and (30.2.17) as
(30.3.1)
In addition, as shown by Eq. (30.1.7), a superderivative ~~ acts on the
propagators or external line Sfactors of all but one of the internal or
external lines coming into any vertex, and a superderivative ~i acts on the
propagators or externalline S factors of all but one of the lines coming
out of any vertex. The product of these factors must be integrated over
all xs and (Js; the quantum effective action is the sum of these integrals
for all oneparticleirreducible graphs.
By integrating by parts in superspace, the ~i and/or ~~ operators
accompanying anyone propagator (say, one that connects vertices labelled
x, (J and X, (J') may be moved to other propagators or external line factors.
This leaves the factor contributed by this internal line proportional to a
factor b4 (J(J'). Integrating over ()' then eliminates this delta function, and
lets us replace (J' with (J everywhere else. (In cases where several internal
lines connect the same pair of vertices, we need to use the property of
fermionic delta functions that [b 4 (J  (}')]2 = 0.) Continuing in this way,
we wind up with a single fourdimensional (J integral, with all ~s acting
on the external line factors Sn and S;.. That is, though not usually local
in spatial coordinates, r[S, S] is local in the fermionic coordinates.
The structure of this functional is governed by its invariance under
the 'gauge' transformations (30.2.4). This tells us that every one of the
external line factors Sn or S; must be acted on by an operator ~~ or
~i. respectively, with two possible exceptions. The exceptions are that
a term with only incoming or only outgoing external lines, in which all
but one of the external line factors Sn or S; are acted on by ~~ or ~i.
respectively, and by no other superderivatives, is still invariant under the
transformation (30.2.4), even though it cannot be expressed as a four
dimensional (Jintegral of a functional only of the <l>n and/or <I>~ alone.
This is because the change in such an amplitude under this transformation
could only come from the change in the external line factor Sn or S; that is
not acted on by an operator ~~ or ~i. and this change is eliminated if we
use integration by parts to move one of the other ~~ or ~i operators to
act on it. As we saw in Section 30.1, such a term in r[S,S'] is the 'term
30.3 Calculations with Supergraphs 315
of a functional of the <l>n or of the <I>~, and thus makes a correction to the
superpotential or to its complex conjugate. Aside from these exceptions,
every term in qs, SOl may be written as a fourdimensional 8integral of
a functional only of the <l>n and/or <I>~, and therefore makes a correction
to the Dterm part of the effective' action.
Also note that a term in the quantum effective action in which all but one
of the external line factors Sn or S; is acted on by ~~ or ~i, respectively,
and also by additional ~~ or ~i operators (such as in combinations like
~~~i~~Sn or ~i~~~iS;) may also be written by integration by parts
as a term in which one of the extra ~~ or ~i acts on the previously
undifferentiated external line Sn or S; factor. Such a term may therefore
be expressed as a fourdimensional 8integral of a functional only of the
<l>n and/or <I>~, and therefore just makes another correction to the Dterm
part of the action. The only terms in qs,S*] that cannot be written in
this way are those that have E incoming external lines and only E  1
operators ~~ operating on the Sn external line factors, or E* incoming
external lines and only E*  1 operators ~i operating on the S; external
line factors. We can therefore tell whether a supergraph can make a
contribution to the superpotential or its adjoint by simply counting the
number of ~~ or ~i operators contributed by the supergraph to the
corresponding term in qs, SO].
Let us count these superderivatives. Consider a connected graph with:
Vn vertices with n lines coming in; V; vertices with n lines going out; I
internal lines; E external incoming lines; and E* external outgoing lines.
These numbers are related by
1+ E* = 'L:>V;. (30.3.2)
n
The total numbers of ~~ and ~i operators are then
NR =L Vn(n  1) = 1+ E  V = L + V* + E  1 , (30.3.3)
n
and
NL =L V;(n 1) = 1+ E*  V* = L + V + E* 1, (30.3.4)
n
where V is the total number of vertices with incoming lines;
= 2:n Vn
V* = 2:n V; is the total number of vertices with outgoing lines; and
L = I  V  V* + 1 is the number of loops. We see that a graph with any
loops will have NR > E and NL > E*, so that there are at least enough
~~ operators to convert all Sn into cI>n = ~~Sn and its derivatives, and
enough ~i operators to convert all S; into cI>~ = ~iS; and its derivatives.
Any graph with loops thus yields only a contribution to the fourdimensional
316 30 Supergraphs
fJintegral  in other words the Dterm  of a functional of the leftchiral
superfields cI>n and their adjoints.
The only way to obtain a contribution to an IF term or its adjoint is
to have just NR = E 1 operators ~~ or just NL = E* 1 operators ~i,
respectively. According to Eqs. (30.3.3) and (30.3.4), such a graph would
have L = 0 and V* = 0 or V = 0, respectively. In other words, since we
are considering only oneparticleirreducible graphs, we can only get an
IF term from a graph with a single vertex with incoming lines, and we can
only get its adjoint from a graph with a single vertex with outgoing lines.
This contribution is nothing but the integrated IFterm of the original
superpotential, or its adjoint. Thus we see again that there is no finite or
infinite renormalization of IF terms to any order of perturbation theory.
Problems
1. Use Eq. (30.2.18) to calculate the propagators of the spinor and
auxiliary components of a chiral superfield.
2. Consider a supersymmetric theory of a single leftchiral superfield
cI>, with Lagrangian density
fL' = ~ [cI>* cI>] D + 2Re (g [cI>31~ ) ,
with g an arbitrary complex constant. Use the supergraph formalism
to calculate the oneloop contribution to the quantum effective action.
Express the answer as an integral over coordinates and over a single
Grassman coordinate fJ.
3. What is the superpropagator for a gauge superfield V(x, fJ) in a
supersymmetric Abelian gauge theory with kinematic term (27.3.17)?
References
1. A. Salam and J. Strathdee; Phys. Rev. DU, 1521 (1975); Nucl. Phys.
B86, 142 (1975); D. M. Capper, Nuovo Cimento 25A, 259 (1975);
R. Delbourgo, Nuovo Cimento 25A, 646 (1975); D. M. Capper and
G. Leibrandt, Nucl. Phys. B85,492 (1975); F. Krause, M. Scheunert,
J. Honerkamp, and M. Schlindwein, Phys. Lett. 53B, 60 (1974); K.
Fujikawa and W. Lang, Nucl. Phys. B88, 61 (1975); J. Honerkamp,
M. Schlindwein, F. Krause, and M. Scheunert, Nucl. Phys. B95, 397
(1975); S. Ferrara and o. Piguet, Nucl. Phys. B93, 261 (1975); R.
References 317
Delbourgo, J. Phys. G1, 800 (1975). This formalism was extended to
supergravity by W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. 84B, 197 (1979).
2. M. T. Grisaru, W. Siegel, and M. Rocek, Nucl. Phys. B159, 429 (1979).
31
Supergravity
Gravity exists, so if there is any truth to supersymmetry then any realistic
supersymmetry theory must eventually be enlarged to a supersymmetric
theory of matter and gravitation, known as supergravity. Supersymmetry
without supergravity is not an option, though it may be a good approxi
mation at energies far below the Planck scale.
There are two leading approaches to the construction of the theory
of supergravity. First, supergravity can be presented as a theory of
curved superspace. 1 This approach is analogous to the development of
supersymmetric gauge theories in Sections 27.127.3; the gravitational
field appears as a component of a superfield with unphysical as well as
physical components, like the unphysical C, M, N, and OJ components
of the gauge superfield V. The task of deriving the full nonlinear
supergravity theory in this way is forbiddingly complicated, and so far
has not been freed of steps that are apparently arbitrary. At one point or
another in the derivation, it has been necessary simply to state that some
set of constraints on the graviton superfield are the proper ones to adopt.
Here we will follow a second approach that is less elegant but more
transparent. 2 In our discussion here, we begin in Sections 31.131.5 with
the case where the gravitational field is weak,3 analyzing supergravity by
the same flatspace superfield methods that we used in Chapters 26 and 27
to study ordinary supersymmetry theories. In this way we can identify the
physical components of the gravitational superfield (including auxiliary
fields analogous to the Dcomponent of the gauge superfield V.) The weak
field approximation will allow us to obtain some of the most important
consequences of supergravity theory, including the general formula for the
gravitino mass in Section 31.3 and the results for gaugino masses and the
A and B parameters given by anomalymediated supersymmetry breaking
in Section 31.4.
In Section 31.6 we add terms of higher order in G to the supersym
metry transformation rules for the physical fields and to the Lagrangian
that describes their interactions, subject to the condition that the super
symmetry transformations and general coordinate transformations form
318
31.1 The Metric Superfield 319
a closed algebra, and that the Lagrangian is invariant under these trans
formations. This approach is in some